Letter to a Friend on Valid Ordination, Appendix

Letter to a Friend on Valid Ordination · Appendix

p. 64An Appendix.

VVHilſt I was waiting for a fit Meſſenger to ſend you theſe Papers, ſomthing fell out which is like to multiply your trouble, viz. Mr. Humf. Book of Re-ordination came to my hands, wherein he diſputes, Whether a Miniſter ordained by the Presbytery may take Ordination alſo by the Biſhop? and determines the queſtion affir. I was the more deſirous to read over his Book, becauſe I find him in the very 2^d Pag. intimating, That ſince he had ſuffered himſelf to be re-ordained, it hath pleaſed God to exerciſe his Spirit with many perplexities, and that he doth not ſee what end the Lord had with him in his thoughts and workings of that nature, unleſs it be that theſe throws, as it were, of his be for the delivery of ſomthing for one or other of his Brethrens ſatisfaction. M. Humf. being a Scholar, and having ſought God often upon his knees for direction, it would be ſomwhat unchriſtian to adhere to my former determination without ſo much as conſidering what he had written and printed againſt it. And if I know any thing of my ſelf, I am able to ſay, that I come to the examination of his Papers without the leaſt prejudice againſt his Perſon or againſt his Tenent. Nay I can ſafely ſay, that I am hugely deſirous to be his Proſelyte. But the eminent Mirandula hath taught me that which I alſo experimentally find, nemo credit aliquid verum praeciſe quiavult credere illud eſſe verum, non eſt enim in potentia hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui ſuo verum, quando ipſe voluerit. Though I would fain think it lawful to be re-ordained, yet unleſs my Arguments to prove it unlawful, be anſwered, I ſhall never be able to change my mind.

This Learned Presbyter, p. 3. plainly tels us, that repeating or doubling of Ordination is odd and uncouth in its firſt and naked conſideration. And p. 5. foreign, he affirms, that he dare not juſtifie our Church-Rulers in the impoſing of it. (by the way he may do well to conſider, whether his over-haſty ſubmitting to re-ordination be not a virtual, at leaſt interpretative juſtification of thoſe that require it.) But he faith alſo, that he puts it in the number of ſuch things as the neceſſity of convenience renders tolerable for the time, p. 5. Notionally he ſuſpects it is not good, but morally p. 65he judgeth it an indifferent foreign, good or bad, though unequally, as it is uſed. I will not now enter into the diſpute about things indifferent, but will rather then quarrel, grant this reverent Author, and Dr. Sanderſon, that as there are indifferentia ad utrumlibet, ſo there are indifferentia ad unum too, that is, things which though they be neither univerſally good, nor abſolutely evil, yet being barely conſidered, ſway more or leſs rather the one way then the other. There are ſome things which of themſelves do notably and eminently incline unto evil rather then unto good; ſo that if the Queſtion were barely propounded to me, whether they be evil, I could not be blamed if I did indefinitely anſwer, they are evil, which things yet in ſome caſes and circumſtances may be lawful. But for the preſent I muſt deny to this judicious Brother, that the Re-ordination he perſwades us to is ſuch a thing; as yet I think there is a moral evil in it, and not only a notional, phantaſtical or imaginary evil.

Here we might cloſe and joyn iſſue, but becauſe he tells us that in his firſt Paper he only made ſcattered efferts, and that he would more roundly and freely lay down his Opinion with a larger compaſs in the whole matter, ſect. 2. we will attend his motion thither. His four firſt Propoſitions I aſſent unto. In his fifth, p. 18. he diſtinguiſheth between what Ordination is required to the ſetting apart a man to the Office of a Miniſter in the ſight of God, and what is requiſite to the making him received as a Miniſter among men, and give him Authority or full repute to exerciſe that Office in the Church or place where he ſhall be called.

He believes that Ordination by Presbyters ſufficing but a little while ago to both, ſufficeth ſtill to the former, but ſeeing Ordination by a Biſhop is neceſſary to the latter, he thinks his being ordained by the Presbytery hinders not, but he may be again ordained by the Biſhop, becauſe he ſeeks not to be ordained by him to make him a Miniſter again, but to have authority to uſe his Miniſtry, and be received as ſuch in Foro Eccleſiae Anglicanae.

For my part, I readily acknowledge, that he who is already a Miniſter, may betake himſelf to a Biſhop, or to any one elſe whom the Magiſtrate ſhall appoint, to procure a Licenſe to exerciſe his Miniſtry quietly; but the queſtion is, Whether when I am p. 66made a Miniſter, I may go and take another Ordination, and that the very Ordination which the Church uſeth, when thoſe who before were no Miniſters are made Miniſters. I encline to the Negative this Learned Caſuiſt to the Affirmative.

In which Opinion he ſaith, p. 19. he is a little juſtified, becauſe when he was ordained by the Presbytery, the very words uſed at the point were, Whom by the laying on of hands, we ſet apart to the Office of the Miniſtry; and in the Ordination by the Biſhop, they are, Take Authority to preach the Word and miniſter the Sacraments in the Congregation where thou ſhalt be appointed, that is, in thy place. Sure this can but a little juſtifie him in his Opinion; for the words by him mentioned, are not all the words that were uſed in his Ordination by the Biſhop: 'Twas then alſo ſaid, Receive thou the Holy Ghoſt; whoſe ſins thou remitteſt, they ſhall be remitted, and whoſe thou retaineſt, they ſhall be retained: and ſeveral Prayers were uſed, that did evidently imply him to be no Miniſter before.

He ſaith in the ſame place, that the words uſed in Epiſcopal Ordination, do confer the Miniſterial power to the un-ordained, but that hinders not, but rather argues, if they confer that, & the other too, they may doubtleſs, (and actually do) conferre one (and can but the one only) to ſuch as are in his caſe. All this ſure makes much againſt him; for if the Presbyterial Ordination leave him not capable of having any thing conferred upon him but only the free uſe of his Miniſtry in the Engliſh Church, why will he ſubmit to ſuch a Form of Ordination, as was purpoſely inſtituted to confer the very Miniſtry it ſelf? Why is the Right Reverend troubled to do that which is already done? Why are ſuch Prayers put up to God as manifeſtly ſuppoſe me to be no Miniſter, when as I all the while ſuppoſe my ſelf to be a Miniſter? Let Mr. Humfrey but procure us to be ordained in ſuch away, as ſhall only licenſe us to exerciſe that Miniſterial Authority we already have, and to be prayed for with ſuch a Form of Prayer, whoſe tendency ſhall only be to implore a Bleſſing upon us in the uſe of that Sacerdotal Function we have already received, and then he need not doubt, but we ſhall moſt readily and thankfully accept of it. But till this be done, let him not blame us, if we keep our ground, and chuſe rather to loſe the exerciſe of our Miniſtry for a ſeaſon (which yet is an affliction heavier then p. 67the Sands of the Sea) then to take gradum Simeonis (that I may allude to the Form of the Oath by which we are ſworn when we are made Maſters of Arts in the Univerſity.) Either I am miſtaken, or I have already ſuggeſted that which will help you to ſolve all Mr. Humfreys Arguments by which he laboureth to juſtified his ſubmiſſion to a Second Ordination.

Let's try: p. 21. He querieth: What evil is there more in re-ordination, then in ſecond Marrying? If it be required of me, why may I not be ordained twice as well as once, and thrice as well as twice, if there be ſtill reaſon ſufficient? Anſw. No Queſtion if there be reaſon ſufficient, a man may be ordained every hour of the day; but there cannot be reaſon ſufficient for ordaining either a third or a ſecond time to the ſame Office, becauſe the end of Ordination is attained by one Adminiſtration of it, and the Church of Chriſt may do nothing in vain. As for the Inſtance of ſecond marrying, by it is either underſtood marrying of a ſecond wife, when the firſt is dead, and if ſo, 'tis ſtrangely impertinent: Or elſe a ſecond ſolemnization of the former Marriage; and then I ſay that no wiſe man that hath already been married in a lawful way, will, or ought to ſubmit to ſuch a Form of Marriage as ſuppoſeth him all the time before, to have had no right to his wife: 'Tis one thing to go to a Juſtice or to a Biſhop, and to get an Inſtrument under his hand, to ſecure a mans ſelf, Wife and Children from moleſtation, another thing to go to the Congregation and be married with all the Prayers and religious ſolemnities appointed in the Common-Prayer-Book. I do not think, that Mr. Humfrey can produce any one inſtance of a perſon forced to a ſecond Marriage, that had been before validly married, though not according to the Canons in force. I deſire Mr. H. whom I look upon as a ſerious perſon, that he would one time in his Study read over the Form of Marriage, and try whether it would not go much againſt the hair to uſe it to two perſons, who for many years had lived in Matrimony, and begotten Children.

He proceeds in his Queries: May not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy be repeated, and yet Gods Name not taken in vain? Is it enough to make our Liturgy unlawful, becauſe we have in one Service the Lords Prayer twice over?

Anſw. Some would ſay that the Engliſh Liturgy is never a p. 68whit the better for appointing the Lords Prayer to be twice uſed in one Service; they think it looks ſomwhat too like that vain Battology condemned by our Saviour. But I for my part think not that it is ſimply unlawful to uſe the Lords Prayers twice in one Service; but how it will be hence inferred, that therefore it is not unlawful to repeat Ordination, I am not ſo quick-ſighted as to perceive: The things we pray for in the Lords Prayer are things which ſome of the congregation have not at all, which every one had need to have renewed, hence it is we uſe it often and if wee uſe it with faith and affection we have hope our uſing of it will not be in vaine, but as he that is in the ſtate of Juſtification & is perſwaded that he is in it, ſhould ſin if he ſhould pray to be put into it: ſo I think that he who is already by ordination made a Miniſter, ſhould ſin if he ſhould again pray to be made a Miniſter, or ſubmit to any other Divine Ordinance, the end whereof is to make a man a Miniſter.

[ I read of one Baptiſm in Scripture and a ſtreſs is laid upon it, but I read not ſo of one Ordination: where there is no Law to the contrary, where I pray lies the Tranſgreſſion? ] Juſt thus I have heard that one who is lately ſent into another world, argued in the Pulpit, that he read of Unity, but never of Uniformity, Ergo, &c. But doth it indeed follow, that Ordination may be repeated, becauſe we do not find thoſe words, one Ordination in Scripture: Why, if we had read of one Ordination, Ordination might have been repeated notwithſtanding: For it is not therefore unlawful. To repeat Baptiſm (though upon other accounts the repetition of it be ſinful) becauſe it is ſaid one Baptiſm; for the unity there ſpoken of is not numerical, but ſpecifical. One is as much as common to all; non reſpicitur (ſaith Voſſius, in his Theſis de Anabaptiſ.) unitas uſurpationis, ſed unitas partium ſubſtantialium, aquae…ſc. & verbi. But as I ſay, that Ordination might have been iterable, though we had read of one Ordination, ſo I ſay, that though we read no ſuch words as one Ordination, it may be uniterable, and that it is ſo, will appear, by the Arguments uſed in the Letter, and others ſuggeſted to Mr. H. if his Anſwers to them, or to any one of them prove unſatisfactory.

The firſt Argument he brings againſt himſelf, is that of ſcandal, which he thus propounds, p. 24, 25. Many Brethren do p. 69think it unlawful to be ordained again, and by ſeeing ſuch an one as Mr. H. re-ordained, will be imboldned to do ſo likewiſe; which if they do, whilſt they believe (or doubt) it to be unlawful, they periſh; and when we ſin againſt the Brethren, and wound their weak Conſcience, we ſin againſt Chriſt. To this he anſwereth, That if a man who is ſatisfied of a thing as indifferent and lawful, muſt yet forbear, upon the account that by his example, others may be emboldened to the ſame, who having not that knowledge, do judge it unlawful, and ſo ſin if they do it; then is the way of poor Chriſtians (the Lord knows) very ſtraight; and that he is through Grace ſomthing enlightned to judge, that a man may ſomtimes do much good in leading an example to the doubtful, when a thing is becoming neceſſary, p. 26.

This Argument is none of mine, & therefore it need not much trouble me what becomes of it; nevertheleſs I think not meet to paſs it over without acquainting you a little with my thoughts concerning it.

1. Methinks that of Mr. Rutherford, in his Treatiſe of Scandal, p. 53, 54. hath a great deal in it, viz. We read not of ſcandals culpable in Gods Word, but there be ſome moral Reaſons in them. If there were no probable reaſon to imagine there were ſin in re-ordination, I could not be under obligation to abſtain from it, for fear of offending my Brother: therefore do I not forbear to turn up the hour-glaſs, or to wear a Gown when I preach, becauſe there is not any apparent moral reaſon why either the one or the other ſhould ſcandalize, both the Glaſs and the Gown being of meer civil uſe, and having no moral influence in my preaching: For I uſe and may uſe my Glaſs and my Gown in reading an humanity or Philoſophy-Lecture to Freſh men.

2. I do alſo judge that of Gregory de Valentia, to have truth and favour in it; that the Law for the avoyding of the ſcandal of a weak brother, doth not oblige us to forbear any thing, which cannot be forborn ſine maxima aliqua & pene intolerabili difficultate; wherefore if it ſhould come to paſs, that I can neither preach nor have a livelihood unleſs I be re-ordained, I ſhould not ſtick to ſay that I were to ſubmit to re-ordination (ſuppoſing it be lawful) though thereby ſome through their ignorance or weakneſs, ſhould be ſcandalized. I would become any thing to any one, rather then loſe the opportunity of gaining ſouls. But p. 70then firſt Mr. Humf. might do well to conſider, whether this neceſſity be not a neceſſity which he hath brought on himſelf and others. Poſſibly an humble and peaceable, but yet earneſt Perition to the Kings moſt Excellent Majeſty, might have prevented all this neceſſity of re-ordination. 2. He may do well to weigh this, whether he did before he took Orders a ſecond time, endeavour to ſatisfie thoſe Brethren about him that were like to be ſcandalized by that his practiſe: For many things may be lawful…y done after we have given a reaſon, and laboured to prevent ſtumbling, which could not elſe be done without ſin.

He proceeds p. 28. to that which is indeed the main Argument againſt re-ordination; which he thus propounds: Ordination is that which according to Divines, does give a man the Office of the Miniſtry, this is the end they account of Ordination: now when a man is Miniſter already, there is not this end. If there be not its end, it is to no purpoſe, an Ordinance of God taken in vain, which is againſt the Third Commandment. To this he anſwers, p. 29. There are more ends then one in Ordination, as in Baptiſm and other Inſtitutions; it is not neceſſary to the taking or uſing an Ordinance, that a man be capable of all its ends (I might add if need were, nor the grand end) ſo long as there is ſome right and ſufficient end of the ſame. To this, the Reply is not difficult: We eaſily grant, one may take or uſe an Ordinance, who is not capable of all its ends; but then he muſt take it in ſuch a Form of words as is expreſſive only of thoſe ends of which he is capable. I will illuſtrate my ſelf by the Inſtance of Marriage; one end of it is procreation, I queſtion not but he may marry, who in a natural way is not capable of begeting children, elſe muſt I condemn all the Marriages of aged perſons (which I have no warrant to do.) But then this perſons dead body muſt be ſo far conſidered, as that no Prayer be put up of this nature, that God would bleſs him with Iſſue; elſe I tempt God, and pray unto him to work a Miracle: This, the Compoſers of the Engliſh Liturgy thought upon, and therefore appoint the Prayer for Children to be omitted, in caſe there be no natural hopes of Children. In like manner one that is ordained already, and ſo a Miniſter, he may be again ordained in order to the free exerciſe of his Miniſtry, but not ordained with that Ordination, whoſe chief end is to give the very Miniſterial Commiſſion and Authority: He proceeds, p. 30.

p. 71The common and general end of Baptiſm was for Remiſſion of ſins, yet was Jeſus Chriſt baptized, who was not capable of that end, but ſome others. True, our Lord Chriſt was baptized by John, but ſome ſay, that he was not baptized for himſelf; others ſay for himſelf; and theſe latter I judge have the Truth on their ſide: Why might he not uſe the Sacraments as a Profeſſion of the true Religion? as parts and acts of the Inſtituted Worſhip appointed by God? Yea, why might he not uſe them as Seals of the Divine Promiſes made to him as Mediator? Yea, why might he not uſe the Sacraments for the Confirmation of his Faith in theſe Promiſes? But let M. Humf. if he can prove that in the Baptiſme of Chriſt any words were uſed by John expreſſive of ſuch an end as Chriſt was not capable of. Bellarmine ſaith, John uſed no Form of words. Some Fathers, and moſt Schoolmen think that he made uſe of this Form, I baptize thee in the Name of the Meſſiah to come. If that were his Form, no ſober man I trow, will think that he kept that Form when he baptized the Meſſiah himſelf.

Ibid. Paul is made a Miniſter by Chriſt himſelf, Acts 26.16, 17, 18. yet was he ordained after by the hands of men, Acts 13.3. 'Tis plain then, that a man who is a Miniſter already, may be ordained, or that it is not neceſſary to be ordained only to this end, to have the Office conferred on him.

Anſw. Here is ſomthing ſuppoſed, which cannot be proved: Either,

1. That Paul was before a Miniſter, and not only a Probationer and Candidate to that Office. Now this is denied by very Learned men, and the place Gal. 1.1. reconciled to their Opinion.

2. Or elſe it is ſuppoſed that Paul was now in the 13th. of the Acts made a Miniſter: But this alſo is denied by others.

The circumſtances of the Story make it more probable, that the laying on of hands mentioned, was rather Optative then Ordinative.

Where as therefore we are bid p. 31. tell the Biſhop, if he ſhould ask, wherefore wilt thou be Ordained? that we deſire to be ordained to that end, that very end St. Paul was here ordained to. I ſay, this is very good wholſom Counſel and Advice: But if the Biſhop will not uſe Means proper to that end, if he will, inſtead of giving me the Canonical ſtamp of Allowance, break in pieces my old Seal, and give me another, what muſt I do then? p. 72Why this Ingenuous Author hath found out a Salvo for that, pag. 51, 52. If a man do both clearly and unfaignedly before and after this re-ordination declare himſelf, renouncing of his former Ordination, will not by the Lord, ought not by man, to be laid to his charge, and that upon this evident reaſon, becauſe Expreſſion in this caſe doth give Conſtruction to the action; the denomination muſt be a fortiori, and there can be no doubt to the unbyaſſed, whether a manifeſt Declaration by mouth, or a dumb ſhew or act is the clearer, and ſo the ſtronger ſignification. But poor dull I was wont to think, Proteſtatio non valet contra factum. If I ſhould take the Engagement, and plainly declare both before and after, that I intended not to renounce or to go againſt either Covenant, or Oath of Allegiance, would this juſtifie me in the ſight of God or men? If it would, Monarchs have not ſo faſt hold of their Subjects, as I have alway deemed them to have.

Pag. 42, 43. The Queſtion being only this at the higheſt, whether an Authority or Commiſſion to an Office or Work, in the Nature of the thing may be renewed or refreſhed? There is one Inſtance alone may, I think, pluck the ſuperſtitious doubt up by the root from the heart: The Apoſtles beyond queſtion, had Miſſion and Commiſſion, and ſo the Gift, whatſoever it is, from Chriſt, when he made them Miniſters in his Life, and yet we find their Commiſſion or Authority Miniſterial renewed expreſſely again after Chriſts Reſurrection, John 20.21, 22, 23. Which herein hath the more ſupport in it, that it is the ſame Form which is uſed to us, without repetition.

How different are the apprehenſions of men? That which to him ſeemeth ſtrong enough to pull the ſuperſtitious doubt up by the root, to mee ſeems not to ſhake, or ſo much as touch the root: For it is judged by ſome, that the Commiſſion Mat. 10. was but temporary, and ſo expired upon the return of the Diſciples: But I do not think, that the Presbyters ordained Mr. Humf. to be a Miniſter only till the Reſtitution of the Biſhops. 2. However all grant the Commiſſion then granted, was but partial, ſuch as did not authorize to all Miniſterial Acts, not to adminiſter the Euchariſt, not to abſolve Penitents, not to confirm the Baptized, &c. But the Ordination by Presbyters was full and compleat, 'twas ſo thought by the Ordainers, 'twas ſo p. 73thought by the Ordained, and the people upon this Ordination received men as Miniſters, as compleat Miniſters, receiving all Ordinances from them, as occaſion offered it ſelf, and giving them the double honor, &c. ſo that all that can hence be inferred, is but this, that they who have only been made Deacons, may be made Presbyters, and of that there is no ſcruple made; but hence it follows not, that they who have been made Prieſts, and acted for ſome years as ſuch, may now be made Deacons again, and afterwards be made Prieſts, Quod crat Demonſtrandum.

There's but one thing more in all Mr. Humf. book that can trouble you, and that is about the Argument taken from Baptiſme, which may be put into this Enthymem, Baptiſme may not be repeated, therefore Ordination may not. The conſequent I have proved in my letter, and ſo proved it, as that what Mr. Hum. ſaith againſt it, will not much ſtagger you: he propounds ſomething therefore as to the antecedent, page 85, 86. Not accounting it any abſurdity, that Baptiſme it ſelf ſhould be repeated, which he proves from Acts 19. where ſome ſeem to be baptized, that had been before baptized with John's Baptiſme, whereas John's Baptiſme was one with Chriſts, as to Author, matter, form, end.

Now this deſerves to be well thought on, and ſoundly chewed, before we ſwallow it, leſt while we plead for Re-ordination, we alſo open a wide gap to Anabaptiſme; you muſt therefore know, that the Church of God, the Orthodox part of it, hath alway reputed rebaptization, not only ſuperfluous, but alſo impious: If Cyprian and ſome others, be produced to the contrary, 'tis upon a miſtake; they preſſed that which others thought would be a ſecond baptiſme, not what they thought ſo; for baptiſme by Hereticks, was by them thought no baptiſme; the conſtant judgement of the Fathers, the not repeating of Circumciſion, the no example, the no precept for rebaptization, is ſufficient argument, that it is not the will of God, that baptiſme ſhould be iterated; this will of God is not irrational, nay, it is grounded, ſaith Voſſius, upon reaſon, not unknown to us: Proprius enim baptiſmi finis est ut ſignet & obſignet ſpiritualem Nativitatem noſtram ſive inſitionem in Chriſtum, & receptionem in familiamejus; hoc in altero ſacramento quod eſt S. Caenalocum non habet, quiahaec eſt ſignum & ſigillum non regenerationis ſed nutritionis & alimoniae ſpiritualis, non faederis initi ſed continuati. Nempeut carnalis generatio ſemel fit, ſed p. 74cibum ſaepe neceſſe habemus ſumere ad corpus untriendum, ita ſemel per baptiſmum renaſcimur ſed ſaepe per caenam nutrimur. Of the ſtrength of this reaſon, Sotus it ſeems was ſo confident, that he thought God could not will or inſtitute, that baptiſme ſhould be twice adminiſtred; but in this he goeth a note above Ela. God might have appointed us to be often baptized, but he hath not thought meet to make any ſuch appointment, nor doth the nature of the Sacrament require any iteration: As to the place in the Acts, there are as Voſſius, and before him Chemnitius have obſerved to my hand, no fewere then three opinions about it: i.e. Some building on the particles, foreign and foreign ſay, that thoſe words v. 5. When they heard this, &c. are not the words of Luke, but of Paul, of Paul telling what Johns hearers did, not of Luke telling what was the effect of Pauls ſpeech upon the Diſciples that heard him; if this ſenſe be accepted (and Grotius ſeems to have nothing againſt it, ſave this only, that Marnixius was the firſt Author of it) then there's not here the leaſt appearance of rebaptization: But let us ſuppoſe Marnixius, Beza, Druſius, &c. to be miſtaken in their conjecture; Optatus, whoſe fifth book is wholly againſt repetion of baptiſme, hath given us another account, viz. that before Chriſt had given a Law and Precept about Baptiſme, Johns baptiſme had place, and thoſe who were admitted into the Church by it, never received any other baptiſme, but that theſe Epheſian Diſciples were baptized with Johns baptiſme, after the precept given, and ſo the baptiſme was null. I'le tranſcribe the whole place as I find it, page 88, 89. of the Paris Edition, Ubivenit tempus plenitudinis, certo tempore dedit leges baptiſmatis filius Dei, & dedit viam qua iretur ad regna coelorum dum praecepit dicens, Ite docete omnes gentes baptizantes eas in nomine patris, & filii, & ſpiritus ſancti, ex ea die oportuit fieri quod mandatum eſt, ante tempus noluit emendare quod operatum eſt, ne licentiam rebaptizandi daret quamvis alterum fuerit baptiſma Joannis alterum Chriſti, baptiſma Joannis ante leges plenum eſſe voluit, quod non erat plenum & tamen ſupra memorata milia hominum quia in Deo crediderant, quamvis ignorarent filium Dei & ſpiritum ſanctum, regnum coelorum eis denegari non potuit, inde est vox filii dicentis a diebus Joannis uſ que in hodierum, regnum Dei vim patitur, & qui vim faciunt, diripiunt illud: ideo dixit, vim patitur, quia adhuc baptizabat Joannes, deni que quia alterum tempus erat ante praecepta, p. 75alterum poſt praecepta. Qui poſt praecepta in nominc ſalvatoris baptizati ſunt, in regnum legibus intraverunt; qui ante praecepta ſine lege vim fecerunt. ſed excluſi non ſunt ergo ante praecepta baptiſma foannis, cum eſſet imperfectum pro perfecto judicatum eſt ab…eo cui nem… judicat & quia quaſi limes quidam fixus eſſet juſſionis inter tempora antecedentia & ſequentia cum apud Epheſum baptizarentur aliqui in baptiſmate Joannis poſt praecepta, hos videns B. Paulus interrogavit an acceptiſſont ſpiritum ſanctum, dixerunt illi ſe neſcire, an eſſet ſpiritus ſanctus, & dixit illis ut poſt baptiſma Joannis acciperent ſpiritum ſanctum: Sic enim baptizatierant quemadmodum multi a Joanne fuer ant baptizati. Sed qui ante leges baptizati ſunt, ad indulgentiam pertinuerunt, quia praeſens fuerat, quia indulgentiam daret, & non erant ex toto rei, qui legibus non fuerant occupati. Hi vero, qui apud Epheſium poſt leges, Joannis baptiſmate baptizati fuiſſe leguntur, poſt leges in Sacramento erraverant; quia jam introductum fuerat baptiſma Domini & excluſum fuerat ſervi, & ideo, quia poſt divina mandata, legibus debuerant ire in regnum, non per violentiam, poſt hodiernum jam non licebat quod Heri licuebat, quare nolite vobis blandiri de dicto Apoſtoli Pauli, qui non post perſonam operarii interrogavit, ſed poſt rem cui res non perſona diſplicuit.

But what need all this. I'le grant theſe Diſciples were before baptized, and now rebaptized, yet hence will not be proved rebaptization, not that rebaptization againſt which I diſpute: I ſay, that a man muſt not be baptized again with the ſame baptiſm; now Johns Baptiſme was not the ſame with Chriſts, not the ſame foreign, not ſo much the ſame, but that there was as much ground to adminiſter Chriſts Baptiſme after Johns, as there was to adminiſter Johns baptiſme after Circumciſion, a Sacrament not ſpecifically different from baptiſme: Of this the learned Voſſius ſpeaks ſuccinctly and clearly, Pro diverſa fidelium aetate potuit ſacramentum initiationis variare, fidelium enim alii rediderunt in Chriſtum venturum, alii in eum qui veniret, & quaſi in via eſset, alii in eum qui jam veniſſet. Primis inſtituta fuit circumciſio, alteris baptiſma Johannis, tertiis baptiſmus Chriſti.

I have done with the main body of Mr. Humfrey's Diatribe, and muſt now conſider of two or three ſtragling arguments, which may ſeem to ſome not altogether to want weight.

Page 56, 57. He propounds a query, Whether an irrefragable argument may not be drawn from the Apoſtles uſe of Circumciſion upon p. 76any after the Reſurrection of Chriſt, to prove, that an Ordinance of God may be uſed, without breach of the third Commandment, or other ſin, even then, when it cannot be directed to its principal, no, not its proper end, ſo long as it will but attain one higher then all, viz. the promotion of the Goſpel of the Lord Jeſus.

Anſw. Certainly no, for Circumciſion after the Reſurrection was no Ordinance, being blotted out by the death of Chriſt, and nailed to his Croſs, 'twas become foreign, rather then foreign: Had Timothy been circumciſed in ſuch a way as were the Jews before the paſſion of the Meſſiah, Chriſt had profited him nothing; Mr. Humf. ſhould have thus propounded his queſtion, Whether from Pauls circumciſing of Timothy an irrefragable argument may not be drawn, to prove, that in order to the propagation of the Goſpel, it is lawful to uſe the outward rite or ceremony of an aboliſhed Jewiſh Ordinance? had he ſo propoſed it, I ſhould not have counted my ſelf obliged to return any other anſwer but this, that the queſtion is no way pertinent to the matter in hand: For

1. Ordination is not an aboliſhed Ordinance.

2. We are not called to the bare rite or ceremony of this Ordinance; the queſtion is not, whether it be lawful to let the Biſhop lay his hand on my head, but whether it be lawful to let him lay his hand on my head, with this form of words, Receive thou the Holy Ghoſt; or with any other form of words, the purport whereof is to confer the Miniſterial power, which I already have.

2. He produceth the authority of Doctor Baldwin, the Profeſſor of Witten. who putting the caſe, whether one ordained by the Papiſts, may be again ordained by us, though he maintains there's no neceſſity why he ſhould ſo be re-ordained, yet thus determines, Quod ſi quis exiſtimat ſe tranquillius ſuo in noſtris Eccleſiis officio perfungi poſſe, ſi etiam noſtris ritibus ad ſacroſanctum Miniſterium utatur, nihil obſtat, quin ordinationem a noſtris accipere poſſit, non enim eadem eſt ratio Ordinationis quae baptiſmi, qui iterari non poteſt. Hoc enim Sacramentum eſt Eccleſiae, illa autem externus tantum ritus. Lib. 4. c. 6. caſ. 6.

1. Suppoſing, but not granting, that Baldwin is fully for him, yet Gregory, a more Venerable Author, is againſt him: Sicut Baptizatus ſemel, iterum baptizari non debet, ita qui conſecratus eſt ſemel, in eodem iterum ordine non debet conſecrari, Epiſt. lib. 2. Epiſt. 32.

p. 77There is a Tract among the works of St. Cyprian, entituled, De operibus Cardinalibus Chriſti. Pamelius ſaith it is his, or ſome others as ancient as he: Our learned James from a book he met with in All-Souls Library, thinks it was made by Arnoldus Bonavillacenſis, who lived almoſt twelve hundred years after Chriſt, if ſo, however his authority and teſtimony is to be preferred before Baldwins, theſe are his words, De ablutione pedum: Baptiſmum repeti Eccleſiaſticae prohibent regulae, & ſemel ſanctificatis nulla deinceps manus iterum conſecrans praeſumit accedere: Nemo ſacros ordines ſemel datos iterum renovat, nemo ſacro oleo lita iterum linit aut conſecrat, nemo impoſitioni manuum vel Miniſterio derogat ſacerdotum; quia contumelia eſſet ſpiritus ſancti, fi evacuari poſſet quod ille ſanctificat, vel aliena ſanctificatio emendaret, quod ille ſemel ſtatuit & confirmat. Edit. Goular. p. 513.

The Councel alſo of Capua is againſt him, as I find in Spondanus, the Epitomator of Baronius, ad annum 389. If Mr. Humfrey have a man for him, he hath an Army againſt him. But

2. I do not ſee that Baldwin is for him, for he determines not, that a man who is ordained, and judgeth himſelf to be ſo, may take a ſecond Ordination, but only that he who is ordained, and is not ſatisfied in his own mind and conſcience about the validity of his ordination, may be re-ordained, which caſe is heavenly wide from the caſe of Mr. Humfrey, for he thinks that he is ordained, and ſaith, he will tell the Biſhop ſo, yea, and dreadeth not to affirm, that his Dioceſan doth amiſs in calling him to theſe ſecond orders.

Now truly, though I would not altogether baulk a way, becauſe no man did ever walk in it before me, yet I muſt take leave to ſuſpect ſuch a way, and conſider well before I venture into it: The Poet ſaith, Illi robur & aes triplex circa pectus qui fragilem, &c. He was a bold man, that did firſt expoſe himſelf to the Sea in a ſhip; and King James would ſay, that he had a good ſtomack, who firſt eat an oyſter: May not we alſo think, that they, who ever they are, were too hardy, who were the firſt that ſubmitted to re-ordination, which if it be no more, is Ordination redundant, a miſhape in our apprehenſion, page 4.

Page 94. He ſuggeſts, That if he ſhould not be re-ordained, many of his people will not own him, but clamour, they will not receive the Sacraments from him, and perhaps they p. 78will make him Conſtable or Church-Warden?

Conſtable or Church-Warden! that were pity indeed; but yet better be either one or the other, then do that which is ſo deſtructive to communion of Churches, as re-ordination upon examination will appear to be: 'Tis not unlike ſome peeviſh people before this turn, might ſay, that Mr. Humf. was no Miniſter, becauſe not ordained by a Biſhop; but he did not then judge it any part of his duty to be re-ordained, that he might ſtop their mouths, how comes he now to be ſo tender of them: And I doubt ſome of the better ſort of our hearers, ſhould they underſtand that we are ſo light, as to take a non-ſignificant ordination in ſo ſolemn a way as we muſt do, if we come under the Biſhops hands, would be ſo ſcandalized, as ſcarce to account our Miniſtry worth attending on. Upon the whole I ſee not but that they who refuſe Re-ordination, may be reckoned among men of a tender frame, and ſerious ſpirit, and not among ſuch as are of a ſcanty ſoul, and too ſcrupulouſly ſuperſtitious conſcience: The Lord lead you by his Spirit into all truth, and after you have ſuffered for a while make you perfect.

FINIS.

End of the text · Richard Alleine, Letter to a Friend on Valid Ordination (1661)