Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Appendix · Section 1 · Letter 2

Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times · Appendix · Section 1 · Letter 2

p. 21Mr. Baxter's Reply to Mr. Johnson, against the absolute Necessity of Ordination, and of an uninterrupted Succession thereof from the Apostles, to the Being of the Ministerial Office.

Brother,

I Return you this Answer to yours, but on this Condition, that before you make any Reply to it, you perform the other Parts of your undertaken Task, or at least, the two last; for I think it a far safer way in such Cases as this, to argue a non facto ad non institutum (the Church hath not had such an uninterrupted Succession: Ergo, God hath not made it absolutely necessary) than from a supposed Institution to an answerable Event (God hath made it absolutely necessary: Ergo, the Church hath enjoined it); because it is incomparably more easy to discern the Matter of such publick Fact, than to discern the meaning of those Texts which will be alledged by each Party in these controverted circumstantial Points: And you know we must argue a notiore ad m…us notam, and not contrarily. I could wish the Question had been exactly stated by joint Consent, to avoid tedious Explications and Excursions. We must first distinguish the Succession of Office, and Succession of Ordination to that Office: Our Question is not directly of the former, p. 22for even the Usurper succeedeth in the Office as a Usurper, and it is part of our Controversy, whether the later (Succession of Ordination) be of flat Necessity to the former (Succession in Office). It being then the Necessity of an uninterrupted Succession of Ordination that we enquire after, it must be known what we mean by Ordination. foreign, the Word commonly used is but Constituo: Ordination in General then is any Constitution of a Man in the Office of the Ministry. Here we must distinguish between the Constitution it self, and the Modum Constituendi: It's one thing to ask whether Ordination be necessary; and another, whether Imposition of Hands, or present Fasting and Prayer be necessary; yea, or the Presence of the Person Ordaining; seeing a Man may be Ordained, Constituted or authorised, per literas absentis, and not only per manus vel verba praesentis, whether this Mode be as meet as any, we now question not. Also its one thing to ask whether God's Ordination be necessary, and another, whether Man's be necessary. Also it is one thing to enquire of the Necessity of the Fact of Ordaining; and another, of the Necessity of a just Authority in the Ordainer to do it; where it will be needful to consider what is of Necessity to the Constitution of such Authority, and what destroys it: Before all which it would be necessary to know what the Ordainer's Work is, and to what and how far his Power extends: But this I am not now to meddle in. That a Divine Ordination is of Necessity, to the Ligitimation of our Calling in foro Dei, I grant; as also, in foro Conscientiae Ministrantis. That authoritative Ordination of Men, is necessary Ordinis Gratiâ, when it may be obtained, and where God's Providence doth not make it naturally, or morally impossible, I also grant. That Imposition of Hands with solemn Prayer, is the most convenient manner, and necessary for the Ordainer to use, Necessitate Praecepti & Medii ad bene esse Ordinationis, I also grant. That the Power of Ordaining is ordinarily only in the Hands of Christ's Ecclesiastical Ministers, I acknowledge (whether Bishops or Presbyters we now question not) and that it is not divolved to any others, but in Case of Necessity. The Things then that I deny are, that Imposition of Hands, or present Prayer, or the Presence of the Ordainer are of Necessity to our Office. That the true, just Authority of an Ecclesiastical Ordainer is of Necessity to the being of our Office: And consequently, that an uninterrupted Succession of Just, Authoritative, Ecclesiastical Ordination from the Apostles, is of absolute necessity to the being of our Calling. Nay, that any Authoritative Human Ordination at all, besides the Peoples meer Consent is of such absolute, indispensable Necessity ad esse Officii; all this I deny. And my Opinion is, that in Case of a failing of all Ecclesiastical Authoritative Ordination, the Magistrates Ordination may suffice ad esse Officii: And in case both fail, the Peoples meer Acceptance, Consent, or Election may suffice; supposing the Person meetly qualified. And whether you will call this act of the People a Constitution, or Ordination, or not, I am indifferent. Certainly foreign oft signifies the Constituting, which is not an Act of Government, or superior Authority. But no Term hath so much need of Explication as the Word (Office) or (Ministry) which is the Terminus of Ordination. An Office is a stated Power or Authority, or Faculty with Duty of doing certain Works to certain Ends. The Ministerial Office of a Presbyter, is to be differenced ab objecto & a fine. The Authority and the Duty in a lawful Officer go together: Such a one only is in sensu primario & proprio an Officer: But he that is a Usurper, or hath no lawful Call, may yet both 1. Have all the Duty of that Office lying upon him, and by his own Intrusion oblige himself to the Performance, and yet want the true Authority for performing it, seeing he came in without God's Call, and there is no Power but of God. 2. And he may have the Name of an Officer, though given him but analogically, or in sensu secundario & ecclesiastico. 3. And the Church may owe him that Respect and Observance due to a lawful Officer (the Reason is, because it is one thing to know who is a truly lawful Officer; as in Matter of Membership, I am bound to use many as true Christians, even all that have the Profession of such) who yet are not such: So am I bound to take all those for lawful Officers that have the external Tokens of such, seeing we cannot know any further; though they be not such indeed). 4. And all that Man's Ministerial Actions are valid to the Church that doth her Duty in observing him, and yet they are all null or unlawful, and flat Sins to the Performer. The Reason of the later is, both because no Mna can lawfully do that which he hath no Authority given him for, and because nemini ex proprio crimine debetur beneficium; and Ergo, his Usurpation cannot secure him. The Reason of the former is, because Duty and Benefit go together, and therefore the Church that performeth but her Duty in taking those to be truly called Pastors that seem so to be, p. 23having those Tokens which she is bound to judge by as probable, must needs have the Benefit of his Ministry in their way of Duty; for God requireth no Duty in vain: As also because nemini debetur p…na ex aliena culpa, qua talis est. Now whether we shall dispute de necessitate ordinationis ad officium verum & legitimum proprie & primario sic dictum, & in foro Dei? Or only as ad Officium analogicum secundario & minus proprie in foro tantum ecclesiae sic dictum? is to be considered. How far your Sense will concur I know not, but in respect of both these do I hold my former Negations. Yet further, before I either answer your Arguments, or determine of the Sense of our Question, it is very necessary that the end of our Enquiry be understood, which in order must go before the means. I take it for granted, that you do not dispute this question as necessary to be determined in order to our Association, before you can join with the present Ministry: Or yet as necessary to the Determination of that further Question, whether those are true Ministers that are not Ordained by Bishops? and those true Organized Churches that have only such Ministers? for if I thought this were your end, … would dispute many other Questions first, before we came to this; and try first whether you could prove that the Presbyterian Churches cannot produce a Succession of true Ordination, on the same Grounds as the Episcopal for the main. But I suppose your Ends are some other, and in special those mentioned in your Paper: I conjecture that I shall nearest approach your Sense, if I state the Question thus; Whether an Ordination by Ecclesiastical Men, having just Authority thereto, be in all Times and Cases since the Apostles of absolute Necessity to the very being of the Ministerial Office, both coram Deo, & coram Ecclesiâ? and consequently an uninterrupted Succession of such Ordination be of the same Necessity? For if I should put the Question about Imposition of Hands, or de modo aliquo ordinandi, I know not but I might miss of your Sense on one Side; and on the other, if I should extend it to all Ordination, whether by Magistrates or others.

Ad 1^um. Your First Argument I suppose should be formed thus: That which the English Bishops thought necessary to prove against the Papists, that is necessary to be proved against them: But the English Bishops thought it necessary against the Papists to prove the Non-interruption of their Succession in just Ordination: Ergo, Resp. 1. Concedo totum: It was necessary to prove it against the Papists arguing ad Hominem, because it is the way of fuller Conviction and Satisfaction when a Man can confute an Adversary on his own Grounds. It will much shorten the Dispute when we shew them, that though we should grant the Necessity of such Succession, yet we need not grant the Nullity of our Calling. 2. I deny that the English Bishops much less the Church of England did ever judge it necessary any farther than ad Hominem: 1. Because it is apparent that they do ordinarily in their Writings speak against the Papists supposed Necessity of Ordination, as I instanced out of some of them in my Book. It is known to be a Point wherein the Protestants have commonly opposed the Papists. 2. It is known to be but the later declining Generation of Bishops, such at Montague, Laud, and their Confederates, most in King Charles his Days, very few in King Iames's, and scarce any at all in Queen Elizabeth's, that do join with the Papists in pleading the Necessity of Succession: Even such Men as were as zealous against Queen Elizabeth's Episcopal Protestants, as against the Papists, at least many of them. 3. The rest do expresly mention Succession, and confute the F…ble of the Nag's-Head Ordination in Cheapside, to prove the Papists Slanderers: So much to your Minor. 3. If that will not serve, I deny your Major: All is not necessary that they thought necessary: Protestants pretend not to Infallability in Controversals. Many more, perhaps ten to one at least, of the English Clergy held it not necessary, unless as aforesaid.

Ad 2^um. Your second Argument hath all the Strength in it, or rather shew of Strength … first we must needs distinguish of your Terms (Mediately and Immediately). A Constitution may be said to be from Christ mediately, either in Respect to a mediating Person, or to some mediating Sign only. Also it may be said to be mediante persona; 1. when the Person is the cause total… subordinata constituendi, as having himself received the Power from God, and being as from himself to convey it unto Man. 2. Or when the Person is but Causa per accidens. 3. Or when he is only Causa sive qua non, vel quatenus impedementa …emovit, vel quatenus ejus Actiones sunt conditiones necessarie. And so I answer, 1. Immediately in the first absolute Sense & excludendo person… & res, no Man ever had any Right communicated, or Duty imposed on him by God, unless perhaps the immediate Impress, or supernatural Revelation of the Holy Ghost to some Peophet or Apostle might be said to do this. Moses himself had the Ten Commandments written in Stone, which p. 24were signa mediantia. Those that heard God speak (if any immediately without Angelical Interposition) did receive God's Commands mediante verborum signo. So did the Apostles that which they had from the Mouth of Christ. 2. God is so absolutely the Fountain of all Power, that no Man can either have or give any Power, but derivatively from him, and by his Commission: Man being no farther the Efficient of Power, than he is so constituted of God; the general way of his giving it, must be by the Signification of God's Will; and so far as that can be sufficiently discovered, there needs no more to the Conveyance of Power. Whether Men be properly efficient Causes of Church Power at all, is a very hard Question, especially as to those over whom they have no superior governing Power. As Spalatensis hath taken great pains to prove that Kings or other Sovereigns of the Common-wealth have their Commission and Power immediately from God, though the People sometimes may choose the Man (for the Power was not given to the People first, and then they give it the King: but God lets them name the Man, on whom he will immediately confer it) so possibly may it be in Ordination of Church-Officers. Three ways do Men mediate in the Nomination of the Person; 1. When they have Authority of Regiment over others, and explenitudine potestatis do convey efficiently to inferior Officers the Power that these have. Thus doth the supream Rector of the Commonwealth to his Officers; and Ergo, they are caled the Kings Officers, and he hath the choice of the very Species, as well as of the individual Officers. Now this way of mediating is not always, if at all necessary or possible in the Church; for the Papists themselves confess, that the Pope is Ordained or authorized without this way of Efficiency: for none have a Papal Power to convey to him; His Ordination cannot be Actus Superioris. And the Council of Trent could not agree whether it were not the Case of all Bishops to hold their Office immediately from Christ, though under the Pope, or whether they had their Power immediately from the Pope as the prime Seat on Earth, of all Church Power who is to convey their Parts to others. How the Spanish Bishops held up their Cause is known: And it was the old Doctrine of the Church, that all Bishops were equal, and had no Power one over another, but all held their Power directly from Christ, as Cyprian told them in the Council of Carthage. Add to this, that the true old Apostolical Episcopacy was in each particular Church, and not over many Churches together (I speak of fixed Bishops) till the matter becoming too big to be capable of the old Form, Corruptio unius fuit generatio alterius: and they that upon the increase of Christians, should have helpt the Swarm into a new Hive, did, through natural Ambition of ruling over many, retaine divers Churches under their Charge, and then ceased to be of the Primitive sort of Bishops: Non eadem fuit res, non munus idem; etiamsi idem nomen retinerent. So that truly our Parish Ministers, who are sole or chief Pastors of that Church are the old sort of Bishops; for as Ambrose, and after him, Grotius argues, qui ante se alterum non habebat, Episcopus er at: That is, in eadem Ecclesia qui superiorem non habet). So that not only all Diocesan Bishops, but also all Parochial Bishops are Ordained per pares, and so not by a governing Communication of Power; which is that second way of Ordination, when men that are of equal Authority have the Nomination of the Person. Now whether or no he that ordaineth an Inferior as a Deacon, or any other, do convey Authority by a proper Efficiency, as having that first in himself which he doth Convey; yet in the Ordination of Equals, it seems not to be so, for they have no Government over the particular Persons whom they Ordain, or Churches to whom they Ordain them; nor could they themselves exercise that governing Power over that other Congregation, which they appoint another to; so that they seem to be but Causae Morales, or sine quibus non, as he that sets the Wood to the Fire is of its burning, or as he that openeth you the Door is of your bringing any thing into the House: So that if you will call the Ordainer of an Inferior causam equivocam, and the Ordainer of an Equal, causam univocam, yet it is but as they morally and improperly cause. The Third way of Mediating in the Nomination of the Person, is by the meer Election of Inferiors, as the Apostles did bid the Church of Hierusalem choose out seven Men whom they might constitute Deacons. I have been tedious, perhaps, without need on this; but the Summ is this, that a subordinate efficient Cause is no necessary Medium for the conveyance of Power, if at all, yet not always (I mean a Person) but the Mediatio Signi Voluntatis Divinae, may oft serve without any more; or plainly in serveral Cases, mediatio legis cum personae qualificatione may suffice, sine mediatione judicis. But to come closer, where you say (the written Word is no fit Medium) I answer, 1. The written Word in case of a failing of Ordainers is a sufficient mediate Instrument; but p. 25though in suo genere it be sufficient, yet other things must concur in their kind also, viz. For the Qualification of the Subject; whereof one is the effect of Nature, Art, and Grace, that is Abilities; another of the Spirit, that is Willingness, which may also be moved by other Causes; and the third of Providence, viz. Opportunity. 2. Magistrates Constitution in the said Case of Ministerial failing, is a further Medium distinct from Scripture. So that if Ministers fail, Magistrates are the Judges; if both fail, the People have sine regemine judicium discretionis: Their Judgment of Discretion hath a sufficient Object and Discovery of God…s efficient Constitution. 1. In the Law, which is then the instrumental Efficient. 2. In the Persons Abilities. 3. His Willingness. 4. The Peoples own Willingness. 5. Opportunity. You add (the giving of Authority which we talk of is an Action terminated upon an Individuum in this Age: But the Scripture meddles not with any of the Individuums of these Times: Ergo) I suppose by (meddles not with) you mean (terminateth it not on). The Minor, which you knew I would deny, you prove thus (if it do, either quoad nomen, or quoad adjunctum aliud incommunicabile, or per descriptionem) I answer, per descriptionem ab adjunctis, but it is not always necessary that that they be incommunicable, at least most of them; for God may possibly propound to the People more than one or two that may seem fit, and leave them to choose, and so their Choice shall be the thing that makes the difference, and God thereupon convey the Power. You add (if the Word do it by description, it must be by some such Form of Words; They that are thus and thus qualified may be Ministers of the Word: But there is no such Form: Ergo) I answer, I suppose that by (Form) you mean, quoad sensum, and not quoad verba. And then I say, there is such a Sentence in the Law as this, If by (thus and thus Qualified) you include all the Signs that were before expressed. And because we are now at the Quick, I will not put you off with the bare part of a Respondent, but give you the Reasons of my denying your Minor. I first suppose it granted, that God hath in his Law determined 1. De genere, that there shall be Ministers. 2. De specie, that there shall be such sorts of Ministers in his Church, and that not only quoad nomen, but quoad defiuitionem, & differentiam constitutivam, that is the Nature of their Work and Power, the Object about which, and the end to which it is to be employed. 3. That the Persons are described from their necessary Qualifications, who shall be Subjects of this Form, 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. and in other Places. 4. That all that is now left to be done is but to judge and determine of the particular Person, who is most capable of this Form, and so far to be the Medium of his receiving the Power. 5. That this Judging and Determination must be per signa, from the Persons Qualifications, agreeing to the Rule. 6. That God hath made Ecelesiastical Officers the ordinary authoritative Judges of this Question, Who is the qualified Person? Thus much I conjecture that we are agreed in; so that the Form in the Law is not only, [They that Preach the Word, shall be thus and thus qualified,] but [Men thus and thus qualified shall be appointed to Preach the Word:] Now that which I am to prove is, that the first part of the Constitution remains in force (that there shall be Ministers thus qualified) though the other Part, concerning the way of their Ordination may cease: and that Magistrates Designation, or Peoples Election upon the discerning of the Qualifications is a sufficient Nomination of the Person: and so God doth by his Law convey the Power as truly to the Person thus Nominated, as he doth to the Person Nominated by a Bishop ordinarily: The same Law being God's only Instrument of this Conveyance, whoever nominates. To this end I shall lay down divers Arguments, and though I conclude not still the same thing, you shall see that all doth, ad eundem scopum collimare; and that either the Obligation to regular ministerial Ordination may cease, or that all ways cease not when that ceaseth, or that the other ways are sufficient for Nomination of the individual Person, and so of preserving the Existence of the Species, for these three are the things to be proved.

1. Cessante materia cessat obligatio, sed hic vel cessat vel cessare potest materia: Ergo, The Major is past question: The Minor is proved, 1. From the Silence of Scripture; God hath no where obliged himself to give all Churches the Opportunity of regular Ministerial Ordination. 2. From undeniable Experience of many Places that could not have Regular Ordination, not only through the Imperfection of their own Understandings, not able after utmost Industry, to know which was the regular Way, (for that I stick not on) but also the moral or natural Impossibility of the thing; some living where they could have no Ordination, but upon sinful Terms, as by wicked Oaths or Professions; as it is throughout the Romish Church, and, Ergo, There is a moral Impossibility; for trupe & inhonestum est impossibile, p. 26saith the Law. Some being cast in most remote parts of the World, where no Ministers are, and many where no Bishops are, nor can be had in any competent time, and uncertain, whether at all. And the Possibility of such a thing is evident in Nature, though it never had been till this Day.

2. Cessante fine cessat Obligatio; sed hic cessat vel cessare potest finis: Ergo, The Minor only is to be proved. The End why I am obliged to seek Ordination rather from an Ecclesiastical Officer, than from a Magistrate, or to take the other forementioned Courses, it is because God hath appointed him, Ordinis gratiâ, as one that ought to be the fittest to do it, least by Mens voluntary Intrusion, or the Constitution of others less able to judge, the Church should be wronged. Now in case the regular Ordainers do prove unsufficient or wicked, these Ends fail, as in the Church of Rome, where none shall be admitted that will not swear to do wickedly, and to false Ways. And in the great Arrian Defection, when scarce Six or Seven Bishops were to be found that did not turn Arrians, among whom, the Bishop of Rome was one that revolted; and they would ordain none but those that would be of their Way, and so would engage Men against Christ. God did not give them Power to destroy the Church, but to preserve Order and propagate it. They can do nothing (by any Power from God) against the Truth, but for the Truth: When Ergo, They will not ordain to the Preservation, but to the apparent Destruction of the Church, we are not obliged to receive their Ordination: And that the failing of regular Ministerial Ordination doth not destroy the Ordination or Law of God de Specie conservandâ, and that it was never the Will of God, that there should be no Ministry at all longer than they might be so regularly Ordained, appears thus; 1. The Office of the Ministry is of standing Necessity to the very Being of a Political Church, whereas the Ecclesiastical Authoritative Ordination is but necessary to the well being and ordering of it. Ergo, the failing of the later causeth not a failing of the former. The Reason of the Consequence may appear in that God hath oft suffered his Church in all Ages, to fall into Disorders and Distempers, when yet he hath preserved the Being. 2. God hath not inseparably tyed a necessary certain End, to one only mutable, uncertain means. But the Office of the Ministry is the necessary, certain End of Regular Ecclesiastical Ordination (viz. by one in Just Power) and this is a mutable, uncertain means: Ergo, God hath not tyed the Office of the Ministry to this alone. The Necessity of the Ministry and the certain Continuance of it to the Church, I suppose, will be granted; even to every Church, while it remains a Church Political. The Uncertainty and Mutability of that means is before proved. 3. God hath not put it into the Power of Bishops (or other Ordainers) to destroy his Church for ever; but if the Ministry were inseparably annexed to their authoritative Ordination, it would be so: Ergo, It is in the Power of their Wills, whether they will ordain any other Bishops to succeed them; which if they should not do, the Succession is interrupted, and the Office must for ever fail: If you say, it is not to be supposed that all will deny to Ordain others. I answer 1. What Promise or Certainty of the contrary? 2. It is not possible their own Judgments may be turned against Bishops, and so renounce that Calling; or may they not turn most of them Heretical, and so will ordain none that will not be so too. As it was actually when the whole World turned Arrian; except six or seven Bishops, there were none left, and a tenth Part, nay the Hundredth part of the Church could not have recourse to six or seven persecuted Bishops, hidden in Wildernesses or Corners, or Fugitives that Men knew not where to find. And that it was then unlawful to have submitted to the Arrians Ordination, on their Terms, I suppose will not be denied. And the few that do not turn Here…icks, may yet clogg their Ordinations with such unlawful Impositions and Engagements as that no Man fearing God may justly submit to them, which is, at best, the Case of all the Romish Church (as is said). So that if all Men else obey God, they must not be Ordained by these Men, and consequently these Men have Power to destroy the Church, which if it were affirmed but of the Churches in one Nation, is not true: No, nor of one Congregation; for the Sense of the Precept for Ordination is this, [That the Churches may be edified and well guided, and my Worship rightly performed, do you ordain Elders, &c.] 4. God hath made it indispensably necessary to his People to the World's End, to assemble in solemn Congregations, and then to perform his publick Worship, viz. In Prayer, Praises, Sacraments, Preaching and Hearing, &c. But without the Ministry this cannot be performed: Ergo, he hath made it indispensably necessary that they have a Ministry: and consequently the failing of Authoritative, Ecclesiastical Ordination doth not destroy the Ministry. Both by necessity of Precept, and of Means, is Publick p. 27Worship necessary to the World's End. Ordinary teaching publickly and being the Mouth of the People in Praising God, and Administring Sacraments, and blessing the People, &c. are Ministerial Actions. Now suppose you come into a Nation or Country where such Ordination fails (as if you had lived in the Reign of the Arrians) durst you absolve all the Churches from all God's Publick Worship? Durst you have said to whole Countries, Never Assemble to Worship God by Solemn Praises; Never baptize any; Never communicate in the Lord's Supper? This were to contradict a Precept in Force, that binds them to do what you forbid them, and it were to destroy their Souls, and bid them forsake God, and quench his Graces: For without God's Publick Ministerial Ordinances, Grace and Christianity it self could not be long continued, at least, ordinarily, and in many. Witness the Unchristianing of the vast Kingdom of Nubia, for want of Ministers. If you would have such to appoint Private Men to do these Things pro tempore, in this Case of Necessity, that is, to grant all; for then the People do make those Private Men Ministers, pro tempore, whether they give them that name or not, for the Office is but Power to do those Works which belong thereto; and if they have Power to do the Work, they have the Office. The like may be said of those Reformed Christians that live under the Romish Power; if they must have no Mini…rs, they must have no Worship or Sacraments, which Ministers are to perform. If they must have Ministers either Romish or Reformed. Not Romish, for they cannot follow them, or join with them, but by known sinning in wicked Engagements and wicked Actions. Not Reformed if there be a Necessity of Authoritative Ordination: For the Romish Bishops (if they have Authority) will not Ordain without forcing Men to open Sin; nor may any Pious Man submit to their Ordinations on their Terms; and many People cannot have Reformed Bishops (no nor Presbyters) to ordain them. 5. The Law of Nature, and the express, unchangable, written Word agreeing thereto, do require Men to do the Offices of Ministers who have a fitness for it, and where there is an undeniable Necessity of their Help. But the failing of Authoritative, Ecclesiastical Ordination will not dispence with the Law of Nature, and the express moral written Law agreeing therewith: Ergo, It will not dispense with such Men for the neglect of such Ministerial Works. I think none will question the Minor. For the Major, understand, that those whom I call fit, are they that have the Qualifications which I mentioned before. Here I take it as undenyable, that Duty and Power to perform it, so go together, that God never calleth Man to Duty but he gives him this sort of Power, that is Authority; for the very Command to do the Work doth give Authority to do it: Man may oblige himself without a Call, and so have no Authority; but whosoever is required of God to do it, hath eo Nomine, Authority to do it. And the Office of the Ministry is but the Duty and Authority of performing the Works of the Ministry. Moreover, the Power is for the Work's sake, and not the Work for the Powers sake as the End: So that if I prove once that the Duty is required of unordained Men, I do thereby prove that the Power is given them. Now that that Duty is required appears thus: The greatest Works of Mercy to Mens Souls, and of glorifying God, are such as Men are obliged to by the Law of Nature, if they have Ability and Opportunity, and there be a Necessity. But the Works of the Ministry are the greatest Works of Mercy to Mens Souls, and Glory to God: Ergo, The Minor is proved by the Parts. The Publick Preaching of the Lord Jesus to a Heathen People, as the Jesuits have long been doing in the Indies, and the Discipling Men to Christ, and baptizing them, is the greatest Work of Mercy imaginable: Whereto add, the teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded; and it makes up the whole absolutely necessary in all its Parts: 1. The Greatness appears, in that Men cannot be saved ordinarily without it: It is to save Men from Everlasting Torments, and help them to Everlasting Glory. 2. It is that which Christ himself did; yea, made his Office to seek and to save that which was lost. 3. It is that which he ordained the Ministry for; yea, giveth us his Gifts for; yea, upholds all things for, and makes other Mercies subordinate to. And that it is as conducible to that Honour that he will have by the Gospel, and Mens Salvation is as clear. For the Major; Note, that I suppose Ability and Opportunity, for else they cannot be obliged. Also I suppose, Necessity, that is, that there be not Ordained Men (Authoritatively) enough, competently to do it. And then that it must be done without such Ordination, rather than not at all, is so plain in the Law of Nature, that it needs no Proof. To do good to our Power, especially in so great Necessities and weighty Cases, is a Principle in Nature, that he who is a Man doth find in himself. A Fortiore, it's proved that in lesser Cases p. 28we are bound to do thus; much more in these so great. If a Man be like to perish through Hunger, or Nakedness, he that is no Taylor must make him Cloaths if he can; and he that is no Baker must make him Bread: Or if a Man come into a Country infected with the Plague, or other Epidemical Disease, which he hath Skill in Curing, he is a Murderer if he will not do it, though he be no Physician, while there is no Physician there that can. Every Man that is able is a lawful Physician in case of desperate Necessity. If these Instances serve not, we may go higher: In case of an unexpected Onslaught of the Enemy when the Commanders are asleep, every Souldier may do his Office: In case a General be slain in the Field, or a Collonel, or a Captain, the next Officer may take his Place; yea, a common Souldier may do it in Necessity: Or if the Commander turn Traytor, the next Officer may take his Place, and command the Souldiers against him. Salus populi suprema lex esto, is God's own Law. And Salus Ecclesiae suprema Lex esto, is no less his, and unchangable, as to all Church-Works (still looking at his Glory herein, as the highest absolutely). He that should say, I would cure these Sick Men, but that I am not in Office a Physician … or I would do this or that Work to save the City, or the Army, but it is not my Office, or I have no Commission, were not excusable: Yet far more than he that would say, I would Preach Christ to these People, and Baptize them, and acquaint them with his Laws, to save them from Damnation, but that I am not Ordained: Durst you warrant that Man from being condemned for his Neglect? Nay, durst you encourage him to neglect it? Nay, durst you adventure to neglect it your self? What should the People in New-England do, if there were not Ministers among the Indians? If there were Protestants cast into China, and had the Opportunity as the Jesuits have, what should they do? To forbear the Ministerial Work till they had a lawful Ordination, were no less than Soul-murder: It would in probability never be had; for if they travail'd for it to those parts of the World where it might be had, there were no great probability of their Return. If you say, they may teach and baptize as private Men: I answer, If they do but what private Men here are allowed do, viz. to Teach but privately and occasionally, it would be still unnatural, bloody Soul-murder: To speak the Doctrine of Redemption to two or three in a House, when they might speak to Multitudes, and to teach now and then occasionally, when they might do it ordinarily, is cruel destroying of the most. And to Baptize is no private Man's Work. If you would have them Teach both publickly and ordinarily, and Baptize, then you would have them be Ministers under the Name of Private Men; yea, to do the Work of Apostles or Evangelists.

Certainly the Law of Nature is God's Law, and Evangelical Ceremonies, and points of meer Order do give Place to it, as well as either Mosaical or Secular. God hath as streightly commanded Obedience to Secular Power as to Ecclesiastical: If therefore Matter of Order in Secular Things must stoop to Matters of Substance and Necessity, and the Law of Corporations to the Law of Nature, so it must do here. The Gospel Crosseth not, nor obliterateth Natural Principles: And to love our Neighbours as our self, and do him good, especially to the Everlasting Saving of his Soul, are too deep in Nature to be questioned, or to stoop to a Point of meer Order. If you say, That the same God that requires us to do it, doth require that we do it in his order and way. I answer, No doubt of it; where that Order may be observed: But where it cannot, God's way revealed to Nature is to do it without, as hath been shewed. And Scripture seconds Nature in this; Christ tells us, That this is the second great Commandment, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self, and on this, with the Love of God, hang all the Law and the Prophets. To do good to our utmost Power, is a Charge laid on all, Psal. 34. 14. and 37. 27. Gal. 6. 10. Eccl. 9. 10. As every Man hath received the Gift, so must he as a good Steward of God's manifold Grace administer it, 1 Pet. 4. 10. The Manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal, 1 Cor. 12. 7. All Members of the Body must have the same care one of another, verse 25. And if one Member suffer, the rest must suffer with it, verse 26. and Ergo, do their best to relieve them. Every good Man is a publick Good; & bonum quo communius eo melius. God's Gifts are so many Talents that must be accounted for, Matth. 25. and he that hath best improved them for his Lord, will havè the most comfortable Reckoning. These Generals tying Men to do all the Good they can, doth tye them that have Abilitiès and Opportunities for the Ministry to use them where there is need, and that in Order, as being ordained thereto, where it may be had, and out of Order where it may not, and there is necessity: even as Paul bids Timothy Preach out of Season; you will acknowledge that they that have Abilitiés, where the Church is in necessity, may, and must seek p. 29a right way to use them; and so seeks an Ordination into the Ministry, 1 Tim. …. 1, 2. He that desireth the Office of a Bishop, desireth a good Work. But God, as he gives no Gifts in vain, so he sets Man upon no vain Endeavours. Those therefore that are bound to seek to be Ministers, are not bound to vain Endeavours; and therefore there is a possibility of Succeeding: But there is very oft no possibility of Authoritative Ecclesiastical Ordination: Ergo, There must be a possibility of succeeding some other way; for, nemo tenetur ad impossibile: God's Gifts of Light are not to be put under a Bushel. While I live where my Pains may be spared, and others enough may competently supply my Room, I will do nothing disorderly, nor without Authority from Man, so far as belongs to them to convey it; and if they that have Power silence me, I will be silent. But if I live where there is a visible Necessity of my Labours, I will, by God's Help, rather preach without Authority; yea, though I were silenced, than forbear; as knowing that Men have their Power to Edification, and not to Destruction; and I will rather venture to answer before God to the Charge of doing Good, and saving Souls to Christ without Imposition of Hands, or Human Appointment, than the Charge of hiding my Talent as a slothful, evil Servant, and of letting Men go to Hell, and reject Christ for want of a Commission from Man to hinder them, for I know that He that converteth a Sinner from the Error of his way, hath saved his Soul from death, and covered a multitude of Sins, Iam. 5. 20. 6. Christ himself hath taught us in Scripture so to interrupt his Laws, as that Ceremonials and meer Positives, do give way to natural Morals and Substantials; and that when two Duties come together and cannot both be performed, the greater must be chosen; and therefore it is so in our present Case. 1. Even under the Law this is oft manifested; to instance but in one; Circumcision it self, which was so far necessary as to be called God's Covenant, and he that neglected it was to be cut off from the People, yet in the Wilderness for forty Years together is dispensed with, and gives place to greater natural Duties. 2. Much more under the Gospel, when God placeth less in Externals, as choosing such Worshippers as will worship him in Spirit and in Truth. Christ often healeth on the Sabbath Day, and tells them it is lawful to do Good (viz. necessary Good) on that Day. He tells them that David, when he was Hungry, and they that were with him, did eat the Shew-bread which was not lawful (viz. without such Necessity) for him to eat, but only for the Priests: And that the Priests in the Temple do break the Sabbath, and are blameless, and therefore justifies his Disciples for rubbing the Eares of Corn. If the Prophet Isaiab under the Law could tell them, that This was the Fast which the Lord hath chosen to loose the Bands of Wickedness; to undoe the heavy Burdens, and to let the Oppressed go Free, and to break every Yoke, Is. 58. 6, 7. And the Holy Ghost saith, I will not reprove thee for thy Sacrifices, or thy Burnt Offerings to have been continually before me, Psal. 50. 8. How much more, under the Gospel, would God have Externals and Modals stoop to the Substance? He that tells us there is Joy among the Angels in Heaven over one Sinner that repenteth, would not have that Office that calleth them to Repentance laid by, nor Men forbear the Works of it, for want of a Man rightly ordained himself to say, Goe. There is some great Moment in that Lesson which Christ calls the Pharises so emphatically to learn, Mat. 9. 13. But go ye now, and learn what that meaneth, I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice: Nor is Christ very forward to satisfie their Demand, By what Authority dost thou these things? Mat. 21. 24, 27. Nay he flatly refused. 7. An Ordained Minister may have sufficient cause to give over his Calling, without the Will of the Ordainer, or any in his place; therefore he may have sufficient Cause to assume it, without the Will of an Ordainer. The Antecedent is doubtless; Nay, it may be his Duty to give over; as if the People do generally reject him, or if he be called to an Employment where he may be certainly more serviceable, or is fitter for; or when there are many abler to supply his Place if he remove, &c. For the Consequence, perhaps you will say, It follows not, because all must concur to a Man's Call to the Work: But one thing wanting may call him from it. But I answer, The Strength of the Consequence is here; in that as clear a Call at least is necessary to take a Man off a Course of Duty in so needful an Employment, as to put him on: And therefore let us suppose a Parity in other Respects, and look only at that one Reason, The Good of the Church: It is certain, that if I knew I were a great Wrong to the Church by my Continuance (as by keeping out one far better, or the like) I were bound to give over, though without the Ordainers Consent, or against it, if it cannot be had: Therefore it follows, that if my exercising that Office be undoubtedly Consideratis considerandis to the great Good of the Church, I may do it without an p. 30Ordainer, if Ordination cannot be had: It is the Onus and Labor, that is, the first and chief thing considerable in the Ministry, and the Honos and Power is but in order to that. 8. If Secular Power may be derived from God, at least, so far as to oblige the Subjects to Obedience, and to give them the Benefits of that Power, and this without any regular authoritative Conveyance from Man, then so may Ecclesiastical Power also. But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, The Antecedent is proved. 1. In that Scripture commands us to obey such as the Roman Emperors then were, Rom. 13. who had no such Conveyance. 2. Else it would be hard to know what Power to acknowledge: For what Nation is there where the Line of Succession, as to a lawful Conveyance, hath not been interrupted? William the Conqueror's Title being bad, so must all that hold from him. King Stephen's was worse. The Houses of York and Lancaster had rather neither of them a good Title, than both. What Nation is there that must not acknowledge the Original from the Sword? I shall not need to answer the Arguments drawn from the Peoples Power to convey it, to any that approveth of the Arguments lately used in England against the Parliaments Cause. And I think if it were proved that People have the Power of making a King, it would soon be proved, that that way of Succession hath been oft enough interrupted. And for the Sword of unjust War, if Violence gives right in one case, why not in another? but this will not, I suppose, be owned. Moreover, if an Interruption of the Succession of Legitimate Conveyance of Power, do leave us uncapable of any just Succession hereafter, or any true Power, then either all Commonwealths, or most are dissolved for ever, or ours at least, till God immediately shall choose a new. But that is not true: It being a Conclusion destructive to all Civil Government, and all Obedience of Subjects to the World's End. The Consequence is proved in that there is the same Necessity of uninterrupted Succession in Legitimate Conveyance of Secular Power, as is of the foresaid Conveyance of Ecclesiastical Power; for there is no Power but of God. And therefore I would have you here answer all your own Questions, whether King Charles did receive his Power immediately from God, or mediately: if mediately, then whether by an uninterrupted Succession of Legitimate Conveyance, or by some Scripture Mediation? And how Scripture which meddles not with the individua should confer Power on him as a fit Medium? For my part, I shall answer this as I do the other, I think Providence doth Signare individuum. 9. If undeniable Usurpation did not null the Ministerial Actions of the Priests before Christ's Death, then want of Authoritative Ecclesiastical Ordination in case of Necessity will not null the Actions of Church-Governors now. At verum prius: Ergo, and consequently if their Actions be not null, then their Ordinations are not null. That the Priests then came not in God's way (which was to succeed by Birth from Aaron) but that the Priesthood was usurped by others; yea, commonly bought with Money of the Romans, and became at last but annual, if not two at once, is known beyond doubt. That their Actions were not null, as to others, appears by Christ's teaching Men to submit to them, and make use of them, as he did the Lepers, and by many other Passages. The Reason of the Consequence lyeth in the equal necessity of uninterrupted Succession then and now: Yea, the necessity then was far more apparent, in that God had more clearly fixed it to the Tribe of Levi, and the Line of Aaron, than he hath done now to Ecclesiastical Legitimate Ordination, and because under that Law of Ceremonies (whereof the High-Priesthood was the Topas typifying Christ, &c.) God would not so easily dispense with them as now. 10. When God tyes his People to Duty, there he is, ready to give them the Blessing which is its end, if they obey: But God tyeth his People to submit to the Ministerial Actions of some Usurpers: Ergo, he is ready to give them the Blessings which are the end of those Actions; and consequently they are not null to them; and consequently Ordination is not null to such; which is one Action. The Major is proved before, and indeed needs no Proof. For the Minor, God tyes us to submit to the Ministerial Actions of him that is in sede (at least) if we know him not to be an Usurper; but many may be Usurpers in sede, whom yet we know not to be such (nor can well know:) Yea, many such have been already: Ergo, If the Major be denyed, all peoples Ecclesiastical Obedience is unavoidably overthrown. The Minor is apparent; 1. In that it is not the Peoples Duty so much as narrowly to pry into his Call, whom they find in sede; so as to require Satisfaction as to his Just Ordination, if they find him fit for, and faithful in the Ministerial Work. 2. In that the People cannot know it: There is not one of Ten Thousand in England could know whether their Bishops were truly Consecrated at all, much less; whether justly, much less, whether from an uninterrupted Succession of just p. 31Ordination. No nor do they know whether their Ministers were ever ordained or not: And it hath been known that many have proved Usurpers (especially at Rome) which the Common People could not know; and therefore could not by such Knowledge be disobliged. 11. If the Administrations of all Usurpers were null, (and so the Ordination of such) then innocent Persons and Churches should suffer (yea, Ruine it self) meerly through other Mens Faults. But no Man is to suffer for other Mens Faults meerly: Ergo, The Minor is evident. The Major is as evident; 1. It is none of the Churches Fault, or at least, not of each Member, that a Usurper secretly intrudeth and deceiveth them, pretending right when he hath none. At least it is not always and in all Cases their Fault: And yet that the Church would suffer by it, yea, Ruine it self, is apparent; in that all the Ordination of such Men would be null, and so all their Churches would be no true Organized Political Churches but meer Communities, and all the Baptism and other Administrations of all such Ordained Men would be null. Moreover, it is evidently against common Equity. If the Deputy of Ireland, or the Pro-rex of Naples were dead, and one should so counterfeit the King's Hand and Seal, as that the Nobles and People could not discern it, and should annex this to a Grant for the Place, aud shew it the People, and claim the Power by it: If this Man continue the exercise of this Power for a Year before the King displace him, or the Deceit be discovered, all his Actions must be valid as to the Benefit of the Commonwealth, though they are Treasonable to himself: And he conveys Power from the King to inferior Officers, who yet never received any himself: So is it in this present Case. 12. If the Ordination of Magistrates did serve turn in case of a failing in the regular way before Christ's Incarnation, then it may do so now. But the former is true: Ergo, The Reason of the Consequence is, both that God was as strict in Positives then as now, and that there was as great Necessity then of an uninterrupted Succession for derivation from God, as now there is. Solomon put out Abiathar from being High-Priest, and put Zadock in his stead, 1 King. 2. 27, 35. David and the Captains of the Hosts separated to God's Service those of the Sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Ieduthun, who should prophesie with Harps, &c. 1 Chron. 25. 1, 6. They were for the Service of the House of God, according to the King's Order, so 1 Chron. 16. 4. so did Solomon, 2 Chron. 8. 14, 15. The Magistrates Power in Church Matters was no Ceremony or Temporary Thing. 13. When any Officers of the Temple were discovered to have no just Title, and thereupon were put out; yet none of their Actions while they were in Place, were censured null: Ergo, if now any be discovered to have no just Title, his former Actions are not to be judged null. The Reason of the Consequence lyeth in the Equality of the Case. The Antecedent is proved from Ezra 2. 62. Neb. 7. 64, 65. They sought their Register among those that were reckoned by Genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they as polluted put from the Priest hood. So Neh. 13. 29, 30. And therefore the Ordination done before such Ejection, is not null.

And that the individual Person to receive this Power, may be determined of in case of necessity, without an Ecclesiastical Authoritative Determination, may further appear thus: 1. If the individual Person may be determined of ordinarily, or sometimes by the Peoples Election to be presented to the Ministers for their Ordination, or Confirmation, then may the individual Person be determined of by the People to be presented to God immediately, for his Ordination, in case there be no Ordainers to be had. But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, the Antecedent is proved, 1. From the Apostles Instruction to the Church of Ierusalem, Act. 6. 3. Choose you, or look you out seven Men of honest Report, full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom, whom we may appoint over this Business. They describe the Men, and leave them to nominate them that were such. And if the Church can do this to present to the Apostles, then it seems they are competent Discerners of Such. If the Apostles had said, (We do appoint and authorize the seven Men whom you shall choose, so that they be such and such Men) the Ordination had been as valid, on Supposition of such an Election, as it was when it followed the Election. And if the Apostles might have so done, no doubt, God may so do by his Law: For he doth the same, viz. describe the Persons, and confer the Power, particularly, and on an Individuum vagum, and sometimes quasi signatum; and if popular Election can make it an Individuum determinatum, then all is done. 2. And the Church hath continued this Custom so far, that Councils decreed Ordinations invalid without Elections of the People; yea, if they were but afrighted and over-awed, and did it not freely. Insomuch that Cyprian faith, Plebs maximam habet, potestatem, vel dignos Sacerdotas elegendi, vel indig nos recusandi: Till the bloody bout in the choice of Damasus, it p. 32is known that the Peoples Election was the principle Determiner of the individual Person, or at least did much in it. For the Consequence, the Reason of it lyes here; in that Scripture may apparently suffice for all, except the Nomination of the Individual, as you seem to intimate in laying the stress of all your Argument upon this, that it meddles with no Individuum of these times. The Law gives Authority to that individual Person that is justly nominated or determined of. But a right qualified Man, chosen only by the People, in case there be no Ordainer, is justly determinated of or nominated: Ergo, The Law gives Authority to such. Where note, that the Law needs no other Condition to the actuating of its Conveyance, but only the Determination of the recipient Person. Then note, that regularly Officers and People are to join in this Determination of the Person: The People sometime being in electing, and the Officers conclusively determine: and sometimes the Officers begin, and the People after consent; but both must concur, and all that both can do is, to determine of the Man, whom, God by his Law shall authorize; though the very determination it self, as by the Officers, is an Act of Authority. Now whenever two Parties are made Con-causes, or are to concur in such Determinations, when one Party faileth, the Power and Duty is solely in the other. At least, it is hence apparent, that there is a possible way left for the determining of Individuums in this Age. 2. If the Law do so far describe the Persons to receive Power, as that a Bishop can nominate the Persons by the Light of that Description, then it doth so far describe the Persons as that others may nominate them by the Light of that Description. But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, The Antecedent you will own; or else farewell all Episcopal Ordination: The Consequence is plain, in that others may be able to see that which a Bishop can see; and in necessity, at least may do it. This therefore wholly answers your Argument against the Law being a sufficient Medium eo nomine, because it meddles not with Individuums; for it meddles with none of the Individuals, which Bishops determine of; and yet it is the Law that conveys the Power when the Bishop hath determined of the Person to receive it (as Spalatensis hath largely proved of Kings). Law is God's Instrument of conveying Right, and imposing Duty; though Men may be the Media Applicationis. The Law is to be conceived as in this Form [I do authorize the Persons that shall be justly determined of according to this Description] And because Ministerial Determinations are the ordinary regular way, with the Peoples Consent, it is, q. d. [Ordinarily, I do authorize the Persons whom Ecclesiastical Power shall determine of, according to this Description]: So that it is God by his Law, that gives the Power: As when a Corporation is to choose their Bailiff or Major; it is the Law or Charter that is the immediate Instrument of effective Conveyance of the Power, though the Choosers are the Media Applicationis; and perhaps some capital Burgesses may have the chief Power in choosing him ordinarily. 3. If the People may per Iudicium Discretionis, discern whether a Bishop have ordained them one agreeable to the Scripture Description, then may they also discern, whether a Man be agreeable to it, though unordained. But the antecedent is true: Ergo, Were not the People to judge of this, then they must receive any Heretick or Infidel without Tryal, if ordained their Bishop. But that is not true. Though the Officers contradict it, yet the People of themselves are bound to reject a Heretick Bishop. 1. It is a general Precept, A Man that is a Heretick avoid; and with such no not to eat. If a Bishop ordain over this Church, a common unreformed Drunkard, Rayler, &c. The Holy Ghost bids us not to eat, i. e. have Communion with him. 2. Cyprian determines it, that Pleb… obsequens praeceptis Dominicis & Deum metuens a Peccatore praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi sacerdotis Sacraficia miscere. 4. If the Case may be so plain, who the Person is that God would have, as that there is no room for a Controversy about it, then it may possibly be determined by the meer Light of the Law, without a Judge. But the Case may be so plain: Ergo, The Antecedent is proved thus: When these things following visibly concur, then the case is so plain: 1. When the Person is visibly qualified, with Abilities, and Piety, and a Righteous Conversation to Men. 2. When he hath a Will to it. 3. When he hath Opportunity, as having Liberty from secular Power, Proximity, a known Language, Vacancy from other Engagements and Employments of more necessity, &c. 4. When the Peoples Hearts are moved towards him. 5. And when there is no Competitor, or none who equalleth him, or not so many but that all may be chosen, when these concur there is no controversy who should be the Man; if you say there may be many such, and who knows then which to choose: I Answer 1. Congregations should have many Pastors p. 33ordinarily: 2. Providence answereth that Objection for me: It is exceeding hard to find half enough that are competent. God hath not given his Church more than they need; but contrarily, there is need of many more than he hath given. It is therefore all Mens Duties, that have Ability and Opportunity, to be Preachers, if they be not taken up with Employments of greater use to the Church, (as Secular Rulers often are) but they must seek an orderly admission, where it is possible, and not be their own Judges of their fitness, where there are other Judges of God's appointment: Christ bids us to pray the Lord of the Harvest, to send forth Labourers into the Harvest, because the Harvest is great, and the Labourers few. It is visibly true, in a great measure, to this day; what we must pray for, that we must endeavour, that the Labourers may in Number be proportioned to the Work; and we are like to have use for that Prayer still. 3. It is not always that there are too many so apparently fit: And therefore at least when it is not so, the determination of the Individual Person is easie. 4. As the Bishops Determination of one among many is valid, so is the Determination of others in case of Necessity. The Law of Nature, and well ordered Common-wealths doth require, that every Ignorant Man that thinks himself Skilful, should not play the Physician, least he kill Men; nor the School-master, least he delude and corrupt them: And therefore, that there should be some able Men appointed to try and judge who are fit, before they are admitted. I think God's Law of Nature requireth this as evidently, as the written Law requireth, that none be Ministers without Ecclesiastical Ordination, or Approbation; and in case there be many of equal fitness, all must be admitted, except they be too many (which is not seen there neither, for Nature multiplieth not the most noble Parts, as it doth the the Fingers, or the Hairs, &c.) And if there be too many, the Judges must Determine who shall be the Man. Yet the same Law of God in nature doth as evidently teach, that if either the Tryers and Judges be all dead or gone, or enviously resolve to approve of none, but such as are Ignorant or Wicked, that would Poyson and Kill the People, it is Lawful and the indispensible. Duty of such as are able, to offer themselves for Practise to the People without the Judges Consent, rather then the Pestilence should sweep them away for want of a Remedy. And there hath scarce yet been sound such an Enemy to Mankind, that would forbid such Men to save Mens Lives, for want of Approbation: Or if there were many at once in an Infected City that were thus able, they would rather let all Practise that have opportunity, or let the People go to whom they please, then to forbid all, under pretence of the difficulty of discerning the fittest. As scarce any thing is more Inhumane against Nature, then to prefer a Commission or other Formality, or point of Order, before Mens Lives and Common Good; (which is finis Reipublicae) so it is yet more Inhumane, as well as Unchristian, and against the evident Law of Nature, and the main scope of Christ's Merciful Doctrine and Example, (who often neglected Formalities to save Mens Lives and Souls, though to the Displeasure of t…t is Pharises) for a Man to prefer a Formality or point of Order, before the Saving …as Mens Souls, and the publick Good and Safety of the Church, but of this before. 5. If in case of the want of a lawful Magistrate, or of such as they may lawfully use for Judgments, the People may determine of an individual Person, whom God shall Authorize, though Scripture Name no Individual of this Age, then they may do so also in regard of the Ministry. But the former is true. Ergo, 1. Else we should have no Magistrates in the World scarce, but by violent instrusion, which is worse than popular Election. 2. 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Paul would have the Corinthians to choose some of the Church of the Saints, to judge between man and man concerning the things of this Life, whereabout they were wont to go to Law before Heathen Judges. This is plainly to the Office of a Magistrate, at least, quoad partem Iudicialem, tho not quoad violentam executionem. They were to choose a wise Man, that should be able to judge between his Brethren, verse 5. The consequence is grounded on this, that the Scripture meddles no more with the Individuals for Magistracy, then for Ministry; nor gives ordinarily the power of choosing Soveraigns to the People in the Common-wealth, then the Power of Ordaining Ministers to the People of a particular Church, and the People may determine of one as well (though not so easily) as of the other; but I spoke somewhat of this also before to another Point. I have transgressed the limits of the part of a Respondent on this point, 1. Because I know it is Light, and not Formality of Proceeding that you expect (though it be formality before Light and Safety that you plead for.) 2. Because I know that the whole stress of your Cause lyeth on this Point; and I doubt not to say, that if I answer you well in this one Argument, which you make p. 34your Second, I easily carry the whole Cause. To what you add concerning Authority, I confess, that it is not the same thing with Fitness, &c. but I say, it may be conveyed sine vicariis Episcopis. 2. I deny that any Church-Guides are in point of Government vicarii Christi. They are nearest it as Nuncii, and so may Beseech and Require in Christ's Name and Stead; but they are no more his vicarii, then the Magistrate is of the Soveraign. They are not Pro-reges; nor do they represent his Person. They have not that Power which they convey to others, first in themselves to convey (at least in ordinando pares) but are only media applicandi legem ad personam.

Ad 3^um. To your Third Argument I answer, Invaders of the Ministerial Office may unjustly take Encouragement hence; but no just Encouragement is given them. The best things are Occasions of encouraging Men in Sin, e. g. God's Mercifulness, Christ's Satisfaction, the Preaching of Free-Grace, &c. To your Question, if this be sufficient, why do we not give them the Right Hand of Fellowship? I answer, They despise or neglect God's Order, and therefore deserve not the Hand of Fellowship. If God bid them (go and work in his Vineyard) but for Order's sake (go in at this Door) he that will not go in at this Door is a disobedient Servant, and not to be owned till he reform. But if God himself do nail up this Door, there needs no express Dispensation for our not going in at it; for nemo tenetur ad impossibile (nisi ipse sit Causa culpabilis impossibilitatis:) Nor is it necessary that it be expressed that (we go in at another Door) for the Command of going to labour in the Vineyard is not abrogated by the locking up of that Door; seeing as it was opened non ut fiat opus directly, sed ut sic fiat; so it is nailed up non ne fiat, sed ne sic fiat; and therefore the Command requires us to go in at another. If by Law every Physician that Practiceth in London, must be approved by the Colledge, he deserves to be punisht, and not taken for a Physician, that will profess and practice it without the Approbation of the Colledge; and every wise Patient will fear least he be Conscious of such Unworthiness, as that he dares not venture a Tryal, or at the best, he is a disobedient Subject. But if the Colledge of Physicians be dead or dissolved, any worthy Man may profess and practice without their Approbation, and as the law of Nature binds him to do Good, so the Obligation that limited him is ipso facto dissolved, cessante materia; where you say that (this extream necessity is their Case). I answer, Nothing more untrue: They slight and despise Ordination; they may be ordained if they would submit themselves to tryal, if they be found fit: But they will not. Their false Imaginations create no necessity; but a necessity of laying them by, and receiving the Truth, which is imposed on them by God; or if they will call it a Necessity that is imposed on them by their Error, it is but a Necessity of not being ordained while they judge it sinful (which yet is none, because they are still bound to lay by that Conceit) but not a Necessity of being Ministers in the mean time without it: Besides that, as it is a Necessity of Suspension … Forbearance, and not of Acting, so it is themselves that are the culpable Cause … it: and exculpa propria nemini debetur commodum. If Vaux think he must blow up the Parliament, and Ravailliack that he must stab a King, doth this necessitate them? Such a Necessity as every wicked Man brings on himself of sinning by a Custom in Sin, which aggravates, and not excuseth his Fault, which is evident when the Case is made plain by God, and only their Negligence, or sinful Prejudice hindereth them from Recovery out of their Error: For the (Grant) that you desire, I say I am loath to yield that Christ hath no known Ministry on Earth, that I may keep out Invaders. To your Case about Apostacy, I answer, There are many other Cases that may necessitate an Entrance into the Ministry without Ordination; besides universal Apostacy. 1. So great an Apostacy as was in the Arrian Prevalency. 2. Such unlawful Ingredients as are in the Romish Ordination. 3. The Death, or the violent Proscription of the Ordainers in one Kingdom. For if all that are found to work in the Vineyard, to exercise the Ministry, must but go to another Land for it, Poverty, Weakness, Magistrates Prohibition may so restrain them, that not one of a Hundred could enter when God doth by the Churches Necessity call to it. Much less could all the World travail for Ordaination to some Corner of the Earth. As for the Churches Officers which you mention, that went along in Reformation, it's true of Presbyters; they were the Leaders; but so few Bishops out of England, that the Reformed Churches were forced to go on, without their Ordination. But to this Day, there is a necessity of Preaching without Ordination, by legitimate Church Guides, in many Parts of the World; and I doubt not, but it is the great Sin of many that it is neglected. I suppose did you consider well but the Sence of the Law Natural, and Supernaturally revealed, you would p. 35not be so inclinable to turn Seeker, nor to expect new Miracles, Apostles, or Revelations upon the Supposition you make; and for all your Words, if it came to the Practice, I do not believe that you have so hard a Heart, so unmerciful a Nature, as to leave this one Nation, much less all the World, to that apparent danger of Everlasting Damnation, and God's publick Worship to be utterly cast out, if I can but prove that the Succession of Legitimate Church Ordination is interrupted.

Ad 4^um. To your Fourth Argument, I answer, I am as far from believing Imposition of Hands essential to Ordination, as any of the rest. The Bishop that was last save one in this Diocess was so lame of the Gout, that he could not move his Hand to ones Head, and though his Chaplain did his best to help him, yet I could not well tell whether I might call it Imposition of Hands when I saw it: Yet I never heard any on that Ground, suspect a nullity in his Ordination: Nor do I think that a Bishop loseth all his Power of Ordination if he loss his Hands, or the Motion of them. 1. Imposition of Hands was an old Custom in a Superiors Act of Benediction, or setting a part to Office and conveying Power, and not newly instituted by Christ, but continued as a well known Sign, and therefore not of such Necessity as you imagin. 2. The End will shew much the degree of Necessity. If it be evident that the End was but the Solemnizing of the Work by a convenient Ceremony, then it is not essential to Ordination or Authorizing: But, &c. Ergo, 3. God did not lay such a stress on Ceremonies, no not under the Ceremonial Law, no not on the great initiating Sign and Seal of Circumcision, without which, Men were entered, and continued in his Church for Forty Years in the Wilderness. Your Argument is, (Christ hath revealed to his Church that it is his Mind or Will that his Church's Officers be set apart by Imposition of Hands: Ergo, It followeth that Imposition of Hands is necessary and essential to their Seperation). Answ. Negatur sequela: It follows a praecepto, only that it's necessary Necessitate praecepti, and if you will, Necessitate medii, if you speak not of absolute Necessity ad esse Ordinationis, but a lower Necessity, as of a mutable means, and ad bene esse. Do you think this is good arguing? (The Holy Ghost hath revealed it to be the Will of Christ, that a Bishop must be blameless, and having faithful Children, and be not soon angry, Tit. 1. 6, 7. One that ruleth well his own House, having his Children in subjection with all Gravity, 1 Tim. 3. 4, 5, 6. Ergo, It is essential to a Bishop, to have faithful Children to be blameless, not to be soon angry, &c.) O, what an Interruption then is made in the Succession! or is this good arguing? (It is the Will of Christ that a Christian should not speak an Idle Word: Ergo, He that speaks an idle Word is not a Christian). Next you suppose your self questioned (How you know that it was Christ's Mind and Will, that Imposition of Hands should be used in the Ordination of Ministers?) and you confess, 1. That you (have neither express, nor implicite Command for it.) 2. But conclude, that Christ's Mind may be otherwise known; I confess, I like this Passage worse than all the rest of your Writing. 1. I can find both implicite, and in a large sense explicite Commands for it in the Word of God, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Heb. 6. 2. 1 Tim. 4. 14. at least an implicite, that is unquestionably plain. 2. If you had confessed as readily only this, that there was no Word of God implicite, or explicite to prove the Essentiality of Imposition of Hands to Ordination, then I should have believed you: But you will needs do more, and do much to destroy the very Duty of Imposition, while you are pleading it so essential (so unhappy are extream Courses, and so sure a way is overdoing to undoing): Yet with me you give up the Cause of the supposed Essentiality in disclaiming Scripture Precept, implicite. 3. I perceive it is your Judgment that there are Duties essential to Ordination, and consequently without which, in your Judgment, there is no Ministry, and no Church, which have no Command in Scripture, no not so much as implicite: And consequently, that Scripture is not God's only Word for revealing supernaturally, or his sufficient Law for obliging to Duties of universal standing necessity; but he hath another Word called Tradition, which revealeth one part of his Mind as the Scripture doth the other, and another Law obliging as aforesaid. This is the great Master Difference between the Reformed Churches and the Romanists; of which so much is said by Whittaker, Chamier, Baronius, and Multitudes more; that it's meerly vain for me to meddle with it: For I take it for granted, that you would not venture to disclaim the Reformed Churches in this Point, till you had well read the chief of their Writers: That were to venture your Peace and Safety, to save you a Labour: At least, I hope you have read Chillingworth. Yet I must tell you, that some moderate Papists confess, that the written Word containeth all things of absolute necessity to Salvation; but I doubt you do not so; for I think you will say that ordinarily there is p. 36no Salvation without the Church and Ministry, and no Ministry without Ordination, and no Ordination without Imposition of Hands, and no Imposition of Hands by any Scripture Command, so much as implicite. Yea, it seems you take not up this Course on any strongly-apparent Necessity, when such Cases as this will put you on it; and you are so willing to make the Scripture silent, where it speaks plainly, that you may prove a necessity of another Word. I do confess the necessity of Tradition to deliver us safe the Scripture it self, the Cabinet with the Treasure, and the certainty of Tradition in seconding Scripture by handing down to us the Articles of our (C…eed, and Substance of Christianity, in and against which, the Church … in sensu composito, because so erring unchurcheth it: But this will not … necessity of another Law besides the written Law, for it is opus subordina… … not the part of a Law, nor belongs to it's sufficiency to publish, pro… … conserve it self. But it belongs to it's Sufficiency to contain all the standing matter of Duty, in Specie, where the Species is permanently due, and in genere only with Directions for determining of the Species, when the said Species is of uncertain, unconstant, mutable Dueness: He that faith a Duty of so great and standing necessity, is not so much as implicitely commanded in Scripture, doth plainly say, that besides the Scripture, which is insufficient, God hath either another more perfect Law for Supernaturals, or else, another part to add to the Scripture to make it perfect. Your Addition mollifieth the Matter in Terms, but I doubt scarce in Sense, for when you say that (the Texts where Imposition of Hands is spoken of commented upon by the universal Practice of the Church from the first Age, till this wild exorbitant last Century, seems a clear Evidence what the Will of Christ is, &c.) I very much like the Words and Sense which they in propriety express, viz. That in a Matter of Fact, where Scripture is obscure, the Practice of the first, second, or third Centuries may be an excellent Commentary; that is, a help to understand them; much more the Practice of the universal Church in all Ages. But I must tell you, that it is not the Work of a Commentary on the Laws expresly to add such Precepts, about matters of such very great Concernment, as is the very being of the Republick, which are neither expresly, or implicitly in the Law it self, I must judge therefore, that you make the Churches Practice a real Law, though you thought meet to give it but the Title of a Comment. And I scarce approve of your comparative Terms of the Centuries as bad as this is? What! hath this Century, which hath been the only reforming Age, been worse than that before it, whose Corruptions it reformed? and worse than that of which Bellarmine saith, Hoc seculo nullum extitit indoctius vel infoelicius quo qui Mathematicae aut Philosophiae operam dabat, Magus vulgo putabatur: and that of which Espencaeus saith, that Graecè nosce suspectum fuerit, Hebraicum propè Haereticum? What worse than the four or five foregoing Centuries, wherein Murderers, Traytors, common Whoremongers, Sodomites, Hereticks were the pretended Heads of the Church, and grosly ignorant, superstitious and wicked ones were the conspicuous part of the Body. Will you appeal from this Century to those? Did you not even now confess, that (it is admirably worth our Consideration that when God stirred up the drowzy World to depart from Rome's Superstitions and Idolatries, he bowed the Hearts of some of the Church-Officers to go along with them) Rome then was idolatrous. We departed from it, God stirred Men up, and bowed their Hearts thereto: I confess you may say as much for the proving of the Universal Churches Practice, in this Point, as in most, it being of constant and solemn use, and none that I know of, that ever opposed it. But if you hold this universal Practice to be the other part of God's Law, and do lay any thing much on it in other Points, especially in Doctrinals, I would advise you to get better Proof of the Universality than others use to bring, who go that way. As the Romish Church is not the the Universal, nor the Romish and Greek together, so the Opinion of four or five, or more Fathers is no Evidence, of the Judgment of the universal Church: Till they are better agreed with themselves and one another; it is hard taking a view of the Judgment of the Church universal in them, in controverted Points. Till Origen, Tertullian, &c. cease to be accounted Hereticks; till Firmilianus, Cyprian, and the Council of Carthage be better agreed with Stephen Bishop of Rome, till Ruffinus cease to be a Heretick to Hierom, and many the like Discords; it's hard seeing the Face of the Church universal in this Glass. I was but even now reading in Hierom, where he tells Austin, that there were quaedam Haeretica in his Writings against him; when yet to the impartial Reader, the angry Man, that morosus Senex, had the unsounder Cause. As long as the Writings of Clem. Alexandr. Origen, …atianus, pretended Dyonisius, Lactantius, with so many more, do tot erroribus scatere, as long as many Councils have so erred, and Council is a great Council, and some…things p. 37are imposed by them, under the terrible Pennalty of Anathematizing, which Rome it self doth take unlawful to be observed, these are not perfect Indices of the Mind of Christ or the universal Church. Read Baronius himself, Tom. 3. what abundance of Errors in History he chargeth upon Epiphanius and others. I suppose you to have read Daille, and the Lord Digby on this; yet think not that I would detract from the due Estimation of the Fathers, or Councils, or from the necessity of Tradition to the use which I have expressed in the Preface to the Second part of my Book of Rest. But I know not well in the matter of Not-kneeling and Not-fasting on the Lord's Day, Not-reading the Books of Heathens, &c. how a Man should obey both the former Councils, and the present Church of Rome it self; yea, or how in matter of giving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to Insants, and other things the present Church and the former do agree. And I would know, whether it was not the Practice of that which you call the universal Church then, which the following Ages did alter and contradict. But all this part of the Answer is but occasional as to your Amplifications, and not to the matter under debate. I further answer you therefore, that the universal Practice of the Church doth prove no more but that it was done, and therefore by them judged a Duty to be done, and so not to be omitted while they could use it; all which I grant you. I am not one that would have Ordination used without Imposition, but in case of necessity: But it follows not from all this, that it is essential to Ordination; suppose a Church institute a new Ceremony, that every Bishop ordained shall have a Helmet on, to signify that he must fight valiantly as a Captain under Christ, and the Ordainer must lay his Hands on this: If I can prove that it hath been the universal Practice of the Church in nudum apertum caput manus imponere, doth it follow that this is essential, and the contrary null? If you ask, what necessity there can be of Ordination sine manum Impositione? I answer, very great and ordinary: viz. ut absentes ordinentur; for want of which the Church hath suffered, and may suffer very much. When a Man is in remote Parts of the World, and perhaps too scrupelous of playing the Bishop without Ordination, if he must travel over Land and Sea for Ordination, his Life may be gone, or most of it spent, while he is seeking Authority to use it for his Master. If a few only of the Ordainers were left in a Country, or in many Nations, and those imprisoned or forced to hide themselves, they might by an Instrument under their Hands Ordain, when they could not at all, or to one of a hundred by Imposition of Hands. But yet all this is but the least necessary part of my Answer to your Argument. To your Consequence therefore, I answer by denying it: If the Succession be interrupted, what necessity is there that the next must come in without Imposition of Hands, what shew of such a Consequence? May not the illegitimate Ordainer imponere manus? Or may he not himself enter by Imposition of Hands, and yet be illegitimate, and his Calling null? If you think not only Imposition to be essential, but also that nothing else is essential, or that all are true Ministers that are ordained by a lawful Bishop per manum impositionem, then do you egriously tibi ipsi imponere. Suppose a lawful Bishop should ordain a Man into an unlawful Office, as to be the universal Bishop; or should ordain a known Heathen to be a Bishop by Imposition of Hands; were not this null? Yea, and many a lower case (as in case of Symony, &c.) if Councils be of any Authority. Here then the Succession is interrupted, and yet this Man may Ordain others by Imposition of Hands: Suppose in the case of Pope Ione, the Succession interrupted for want of a capable Sex, and yet she might Ordain by Imposition of Hands. Lastly, I answer, This Argument can pretend to prove no more than the former, That Ordination is essential to the Call of the Ministry: Ergo, So far as that is disproved, so far is this. And indeed, it had been stronger arguing a Necessitate Ordinationis ad necessitatem impositionis manuum, than e contra; because all Arguing should be a Notiore: But sure the Necessity of Imposition of Hands is minus notum, then the necessity of Ordination: Many a Thousand will yield that Ordination is essential (I believe) that will not yield it of that Imposition.

Having done with all that I find in this Paper, I add this cross Argument for the enervating of all (or if you will of your Second, which is all). If your Arguments do tend as well to prove the absolute Necessity of an uninterrupted Succession quoad modum, as to every Mode and Circumstance in Ordination, which the Apostles have required as due, without express Dispensation for Omission, as of legitimate Ecclesiastical Ordination it self; then they are unsound. At verum prius: Ergo, The Antecedent is proved thus: The full Strength of all your Arguments is here. Christ or his Apostles (or the Church since) have mentioned no other way of Conveying Ministerial Power, but by Ordination and Imposition of Hands: p. 38Ergo, There is no other way; and this is necessary ad esse Officii: As strongly may we argue for any Mode or convenient Circumstance so required or used. As Christ or his Apostles mention no way of Ordination or of conveying the Ministerial Power, but with Prayer conjunct, or but with Imposition of Hands on the bare Head, or but in the Syriack, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin Tongues, or but on a Man that is vigilant, sober, and of good Behaviour, &c. Ergo, There is no other way: Ergo, This is of absolute Necessity, ad esse Officii. But this is no good arguing: Ergo, No more is yours. It is as bad as if one had thus argued with the Israelites in the Wilderness. (God hath mentioned no other way of Covenant Engagement, or Church Entrance, but by Circumcision: Ergo, there is no other. Ergo, this is necessary ad esse foederis in Ecclesiae.) They are no good Iuris Consulti Christiani, i. e. Theology that know not that some Cases must be judged, and some Laws interpreted, foreign, which yet is but according to the true Sense of that Law; as Christ taught the Pharises in the Case of David, the Priests, and his Disciples rubbing the Ears of Corn.

I conclude all as I begun, desiring that if this satisfy you not, you would perform the other Parts of your Undertaking, before, or with your Reply to this, and blame not me, who am past all doubt of an Interruption of Succession in a great part of the Churches, especially of the Romish, and uncertain of a Non-interruption in any Church on Earth, and despair of ever being certain, to be as loath to yield that Christ hath no Church Ministry or Ministerial Ordinances, or at least none in so large a part of the professed Church, or that we are uncertain whether he hath any at all; as you are loath to yield to the immediate Authorizing Efficacy of the Law, or to the Sufficiency of the Magistrates, or Peoples Mediation in case of necessity, or to an Occasion of encouraging Usurpers of the Ministry.

Tertullian de Baptismo, Cap. 17.

Superest ad concludendam materiolam de observatione quoque dandi & accipiendi Baptismum commonefacere. Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus: Dehi…c Presbyteri & Diaconi; non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter ecclesiae honorem: quo salvo, salva pax est. Aliquin etiam laicis jus est. Quod enim ex aequo accipitur, ex aequo dari potest, nisi Episcopi jam aut Presbyteri aut Diaconi vocanter, dicentes, Domini sermo non debet abscondi ab ullo. Proinde & baptismus aequè Dei census, ab omnibus exerceri potest: sed quanto majis Laicis disciplina verecundiâ & modestiâ incumbit, qum ea majoribus competat, ne sibi adsumant dicatum Episcopi officium Episcopatus. Aemulatio schismatum matur: Omnia liscere dixit sanctissimus Apostolus, sed non omnia exped…e. Sufficiat scilicet in necessitatibus, ut utaris, sicubi, aut loci, aut temporis, aut personae conditio compellit. Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipitur, quam urget circumstantia periclitantis. Quoniam reus erit perditi hominis si super sederit praestare quod libere potuit. Petulantia autem mulierum quae usurpavit docere, uti que non etiam tingendi jus sibi pariet, &c. Had there been here no mention of the Episcopal Office or of teaching, the Arguments would hold for it a fortiore. Christ hath put Baptizing in the Apostolical commission, appropriating that to them, as much as the rest. Yet whether all this of Tertullian be approvable I now dispute not. But here you see the way of Antiquity, vide Pamelii annotat. in loc. ubi similia citantur … Ambrosi, Clem. Constitut. Hieronymo, Hylario, Isidoro. And it is not only the Papists that are still for Womens baptizing in case of necessity (Pamelius would force … to their Sense, contrary to the whole Scope of his Words) but many other, and that very long ago, and Lay-men were wont to preach in the Church then, how much more (as Aedesius and Frumentius) among Infidels, Concil. Carthag. 4. alias 5. Can. 98. Laicus praesentibus clericis nisi ipsis rogantibus Docere non audiat. Origen did usually expound the Scriptures publickly, before he was ordained, and was encouraged in it by the Bishops themselves, of which Baronius himself speaks in these Words (ad annum Christi 230. pag. 377.) Licet nondum Presbyterii gradu potius, ab Episcopis qui ibi erant, non ad disputandum solum, sed ad Scriptur as etiam apperiendas, magnopere in commani Ecclesiae confessu rogatus est. Quod quidem poterit esse perspicuum ex iis quae Alexander Hierosolymorum Episcopus & Theoctistus Episcopus Caesarre ad demetrium in Origenis defensione sic fere respondebant, Quod autem in litiris adjunxeris, nunquam (antea auditum, neque jam usurpatum ut Laici praesentibus Episcopis disputarent, Scripturas que exponerent; in eo mihi nescio quomodo videris perspicue falla dixisse. Nam ubi idonei & habiles reperiuntur, qui Fratribus in verbo Dei adjumento sint, a sanctis Episcopis rogantur, ut Populum in verbo instituant: sicut Larandis Evelpis a Neone, Ieonii Paulinus a Celso, & apud Synados Theodorus ab Attico, qui omnes beati & pii Fratres erant. At veris…mile est, quamvis nobis obscurum p. 39& mini… cognitum sit illud item in aliis locis fieri) bae illi. And if Lay-Men might expound Scriptures, and teach publickly and ordinarily in the Presence of the Bishop, and baptize in case of necessity (as Tertul.) how much more may they in a case of necessity undertake the Ministerial Office without Legitimate Ecclesiastical Ordination: and if all these Acts of Lay-Men be not null, then the Ordination of a Man not lawfully ordained himself must be valid in case of a greater necessity. This is the confident Opinion of the generality of Protestants. The Lutherans, Helvetians, and many others say, a regular Call is by Magistrates, Ministers and People; yet that it's valid, if one part fail: Lege Forb's Defence of Call. l. 28. pag. 60. voet, desperat caus. pag. 266, 267. Iohan. Dartis dè Hier…rch Eccles. p. 10. To conclude, as it seems Matthias and the other Apostles were ordained without Imposition of Hands, so Gregory Thaumaturgus was ordained by Phaedimus both against his Will, and when he was distant three Days Journey; as Gregory Nysen saith in his Orat. de Vita Thaumat. when Gregory avoided the Hands of the Bishop, he by Prayer and solemn Words sets him a part to the Priesthood, & loco Manus Impositionis Gregorio adhibet Sermonem, Deo Conferens eum qui Corpore coram non adesset, & illam ei Civitatem destinans atque attribuens quam contigerat, &c.) This Nyssen speaks of as true Ordination, and the Form shews that it was a constituting him in that Office, Bishop of Neocaesarea: though Baronius finding this Pinch upon his Cause, would fain persuade us that this could yet be no Ordination till afterwards when he came in and submitted to the Solemnities (Baron. in An. 233. p. 407, 408.) we will not contend about the Word Ordination, but it was an authoritative Consecration to God as a Bishop, and a Constituting him over that Church by Prayer and solemn Words of Consecration. And it seems Apollos, and many others preached in the Apostles Days without Ordination. But our Divines having dealt so much with the Papists on this Subject, I suppose you may see more in their Writings, than you can expect from

Your Brother and Fellow Servant, Rich. Baxter. Sept. 9. 1653