A Second Discourse About Re-Ordination, Discourse · Section 2
SECTION II.
THere are two things in generall any one may ſee, upon which the ſtreſſe of what this Adverſary hath, doth lye. The one is a ſuppoſition, which hath prepoſſeſſed the thoughts of moſt concerning the nature or end of Ordination; The other is the form the Biſhop uſes, ſuppoſed agreeable hereunto, and inconſiſtent to our caſe. To begin with the firſt, which hath coſt me ſome words already, and requires many more. Ordination (let us know) may be taken more comprehenſively, as it comprizes election foregoing, ſo it is Acts 14.23. & Tit. 1.5. where thoſe two words in the Greek text, I count equivalent, and well rendred in the old tranſlation, VVhen they had ordained them Elders by election: Or elſe it is taken ſtrictly and properly for the Rite it ſelf diſtinguiſht from Election. So is it, Act. 6.6. Act. 13 3. 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. which places I think are all we have expreſſe upon this matter. In the laſt ſenſe, it concernes my diſcourſe, and it is the ſolemn invocation of Gods grace or bleſſing upon a perſon in the work of the Miniſtery by the way of Approbation, Declaration or Confirmation, of our Vocation; as I have been diſcourſing before, and in my firſt papers. I know it ſtands the Church of Rome upon, to ſpeak higher then thus. Ordo eſt ſacrum quoddam quo ſpiritualis poteſtas traditur ordinato & officium, ſayes the Maſter of their Schools, Lib. 4. Diſt. 24. and 'tis no wonder if his Scholars that follow, turn this into Sacramentum quo character indelebilis in anima imprimitur: I ſee alſo ſome of the eminent Sons of our own Church, for her forme ſake, derived from thence, cannot leave the like conceptions. But I ſuppoſe if our forreign Proteſtant Divines be generally lookt over, we ſhall find that definition, Ordinatio est vocationis confirmatio, moſt current; which Dr. Baldwin hath taken up as common with them, in his Caſes. When Calvin, and our Divines that follow him, ſpeak of the Sacraments as Symbolls of grace, they underſtand it not as ſigns conferring grace, but as ſigns of grace conferred, Rom 4.11. and define them the confirmations of our grace. Now what they take from the Sacraments, they are not like to give to Orders. Ordo (ſayes Bullinger in his Decads) eſt Symbolum delegati muneris: The Symboll of Gods grace, ſayes Calvin in his Comments and Inſtitutes. There muſt be this grace or gift then, this munus delegatum, (to wit a deo) before, or the Rite cannot (according to their Doctrine) be the Symboll of it; and this is ſo, for a man is tryed, and the Miniſterial grace found in him, and then does the Church uſe this Rite as a ſign, token, ſymboll, by way of teſtimony, or ratification of it. Vocatio debet habere publicum eccleſiae teſtimonium, & ritus ordinationis nibil aliud eſt quam talis publica teſtificatio, ſayes Chemnitius. De Eccleſ. Electioni ſaepe addi ſolet publica quaedam per preces & manuum impoſitionem inauguratio, & velut in ipſius muneris administrationem miſsio, quae confirmatio dici ſolet. Arminius Diſp. priv. theſ. 59. Ordinandi poteſtas ſeu in miniſterio confirmandi The Leyden Divines. Praeſentatio & confirmatio. Muſculus. Miniſtrorum approbatio. Eraſmus Sarcerius. Conſecratio & in muneris poſſeſsionem immiſsio. Wendiline. Perſonae examinatae ad functionem obcundam introductio & confirmatio Polanus (Syntag. l. 7. c. 10.) Wollebius.
There is one proof which I will note, inſtead of many; It is known that the common thoughts of the learned, whether ancient or modern upon Acts 13. are that Paul and Barnabas were there ordained to their apoſtleſhip: ſo Chryſoſtom, ſo Dr. Hammond on the place. Now Pauls apoſtleſhip was certainly given him immediately by Chriſt, Ordination then (if this be ordination according to the full ſtream) is not, muſt not, cannot be this Collation of the power it ſelf, but this teſtification before the Church, whereof we are ſpeaking, or a confirmation. Melius eſt (ſayes that learned Profeſſor of Wittenberg at firſt mentioned) vocare ordinationem ſolennem ritum quo teſtificatur de legitima vocatione doniſque neceſſariis. In the Harmony of Confeſſions, It is taught that ſuch be choſen who have gifts, and are of a Hameleſs life &c. above all that they be proved whether they be ſuch, and ſo afterwards prayers and faſtings being made, they may be confirmed or approved of the Elders by the laying on of hands. The Bohemian Confeſſion. So the Helvetian yet more full, but I ſhall have occaſion to cite that more to my need ſomewhere hereafter, Manus impoſitiones verba ſunt myſtica quibus confirmatur ad opus Electus, ſayes St. Ambroſe upon 1 Tim 4. and thus is it called Oratio & benedictio among the antients. If I were near ſome good Library I might perhaps turn over a ſcore of Common places and Compends of Proteſtant Divinity to prove this further; but I doe ſee half a dozen more before my eyes, and brought to my hands without labour; Hunnius, Ameſius, Crocius, Junius, Tarnovius, Voetius, Lutherans and Calviniſts, who expreſs Ordination accordingly, Declaratio ſolennis, Conſtitutionis testificatio, miſsio ſolennis in poſſeſsionem, manifeſtatio, promulgatio coram Eccleſiae, as Dr. Seaman hath them in his book of Ordination, and tells us They are to be understood of the rite of Ordination, to wit, as I intend it, diſtinguiſht from election, and in that ſenſe may be admitted, and ſo is it rightly compared (he acknowledges) by our Proteſtants to Coronation, p. 16. Now then, as there may be reaſon of State ſometimes for a double inauguration of the Magiſtrate; So may there be (if I may ſo ſpeak) reaſon of Church, for re-ordination of the Miniſter; and ſo long as both agree in their nature, the one may be (I ſuppoſe) a good argument for the other. There is a learned but too vehement adverſary I ſee upon this ſubject, that does mention Olivers double inveſtiture, before a Lord Mayor, and before a parliament, as Protector; but he might have made mention of other examples, that would have reliſhed better. Our Engliſh of old did feel of what advantage it was againſt them to the affairs of France, that Charles the 7th was crowned more then once. Yet will not I reſt here; for we have ſacred inſtances in Scripture even of the moſt famous of all the Kings of the Jewes, who were annointed from the Lord by the hand of Prophets and Prieſts, and yet inaugurated again after before the face of all Iſrael. And if what the forequoted judicious Doctor intimates to us (pag. 15.) bee good, that annointing to Kings amongſt the Jewes was in ſome ſenſe eſsential to their calling, this one compariſon alone, I judge, muſt needs ſtrike a great ſtroak to the determining this matter.
It is true that the Papiſts and Schoolmen and ſome Antients, who make Orders to be a Sacrament, and a means of conferring the Holy Ghoſt, may look on it, as injurious to the Rite it ſelf (as doth appear by a ſentence of Auſtin and Cyprian this Author quotes) to repeat the ſame; but our Proteſtants, and eſpecially the more learned Rabbies of them (who tell us that this impoſition of Hands was doubtleſſe taken up from the cuſtome of the Jews (ſome add in their Synagogues) in ordaining their Elders, and not from the ſacred mouth and command of Chriſt as Baptiſme was) are not and need not be ſo ſtrait laced in this matter. It is true alſo, that ſome of our own grave Divines are willing to put as high an honour as they can on this Ordinance; Mr. Hocker who ſtrives to do ſo, Ec. Pol. p. 410, 411, 412, 413. hath theſe words. What Angel in Heaven could have ſaid to man as our Lord did to Peter, Feed my ſheep, Preach, Baptize, Do this, whoſoever ſins you retain are retained? O wretched blindneſſe if we admire not ſo great power; more, if we conſider it aright, and notwithſtanding imagine any but God can bestow it! The learned Grotius De Imp. Sum. Pot. circa ſac. c. 10. will have theſe two things accurately diſtinguiſhed, Ipſa facultas, or jus, praedicandi, Sacramenta et claves adminiſtrandi, and applicatio hujus facultatis ad certam perſonam; the one he attributes wholly to Chriſt, the other onelyonly he allowes to Ordination. The eminent Voetius De deſp. cauſ. Pap. lib. 2. ſect. 2. c. 20. is proving that ſolemnizatio, ſeu conſecratio, ſeu ordinatio, ſeu investitura (foreign vocant patres groeci) illa externa quam nos confirmationem dicimus, does not tribuere miniſterium, or is not ejus fundamentum. I note the words in the expreſſion, as well as the poſition of greater concernment to us. Honeſt Mr. Perkins upon Gal. 1.1. does ſpeak here as truly, fully, and well methinks to my mind as any mortall man can. I gather from hence (ſaies he) that the right to call belongs to God; the Father thruſts forth Labourers into his Vineyard; the Son gives Paſtors and Teachers; the Holy Ghost makes Overſeers. It may be objected that the Church hath Authority to call and ordain Miniſters. I anſwer, that the Churches Authority is no more but a Miniſtery or ſervice, whereby it doth teſtify, declare, and approve whom God hath called. Whoſe doctrine that is, that Orders do Imprint a Character thoſe that read the Councill of Treat may know; That ſome of the eminent Papiſts do underſtand by this ind lible Character, nothing but ſpi…itualis poteſtas, thoſe that reade Bellarmine and Lombards definition before, may know; unto what parties then conſequently theſe two opinions, on one ſide, that Ordination does give the Spiritual power, and on the other, that it is the Confirmation of our Call, do appertain, may be known without a Monitor alſo. There is five Diſputations about Church Government of Mr. Baxters, the ſecond whereof, as ſoon as the Book came to my hand, did put me methinks out of countenance, to ſee when I had been beating long about ſomething, with what fullneſſe and perſpicuity h… hath gone before me. Let me ſet down a few paſſages. The Ordainers (p. 146.) do not give the power, as from themſelves to others, nor doth it paſſe through their hands. It is the ſtanding act of Chriſt in his Law that giveth the power immediately. The ordinary judgement I think of Divines is, that the Miniſterial Authority is from Chriſt, but mediately, But this acute and known Divine ſayes immedi…tely: He explains it p. 147. As in the making of Bayliffs for our Corporations, either the people, or the Burgeſſes have the power of chooſing, and the Steward or Recorder of ſwearing him, and performing the Ceremonies; and yet none of theſe conferre the power, which he receives from the Prince alone, by the Charter of the Cities or Towns, as his Inſtrument. So is it in the Ordaining of Miniſters: The People may chooſe, and the Paſtors may inveſt, but it is God only by the Goſpell Charter that conferrs the power from himſelf. You will ſay, though we have a Charter, a man is not a Magiſtrate till choſen, nor compleated till ſworn, therefore it is mediately. I anſwer, true, it is mediately, or through the means of the people and Steward doing that which is their part, which is only deſigning the perſon, but not mediately through them as deriving the power, (which they have not themſelves) that is, if you will, it is through them, putting the condition according to the Charter, for the Charter requires this, that a man be choſen, and ſworn, but the condition being put, the power flowes immediately from the charter itſelf: Why ſo here; The power is immediately (ſayes he, p. 234.) from Chriſt, and men do but open the door, or determine of the perſon that ſhall from Chriſt receive the power, and then put him ſolemnly into poſſeſsion.
This is what is clear and well, but there is a little more needfull to make it full. Although in this buſineſſe of the Magiſtrate which is Civil, where the authority is of man, and the officers, officers of men, it is enough to look no further then men, and an outward court onelyonly; yet in the buſineſſe of the Miniſtry, where the authority is ſpiritual, and the officers appointed, the officers immediately of Jeſus Chriſt and not of man, we are to look further unto God and his inward court alſo, and account that a man hath, and muſt have, his authority firſt in his ſight, before he hath it in mans, and conſequently what is done in mans court is by the way of Miniſtry ſignifying his will, for the declaration or confirmation thereof with us; to wit, The right, faculty, authority, or commiſſion which a man hath coram Deo and the court of his own conſcience, as being truly called of God, is allowed or approved by this publick teſtimony of the Church, ſo that he is received, reckoned, or numbred (as it is ſaid of Matthias) amongſt the Miniſters of Chriſt, which is the very direct and proper effect of this external act of inveſtiture and ſolemnization.
I will take an eminent paſſage from Mr Hooker, who muſt be forced to underſtand here with us. The cauſe why we breath not as Chriſt did on them unto whom he imparted power, is for that neither ſpirit nor ſpiritual authority may be thought to proceed from us, which are but delegates or aſsigns to give men poſſeſsion of his graces, Ec. Pol. p. 431. And here then, I ſhall humbly call in my Epiſcopal fathers and brethren, who have been apt to wonder at me in my firſt ſheets, that I ſhould hold that Orders does not give the Miniſterial power, when they may rather wonder at themſelves that they ſhould think it, wheras ſuch a perſon as this, who was as like as any (by the reſt of his diſcourſe) to maintain it if he durſt does diſclaim it, as the doctrine of the Papiſts, by their practiſe (who do breath on the perſon whom they ordain, as Chriſt did) and not as the belief of our Church. And as for the delegation and aſſignment he ſpeaks of, his meaning is expreſſe enough, to be no other then as when a Lord does give or grant an eſtate to a perſon, he ſends his ſervant to uſe thoſe Ceremonies, which are to ſignifie that grant of his, by way of delivery, upon which he is received as the owner and poſſeſſor thereof. I will expreſſe it fully for him with a concluding paſſage from the aforeſaid bright author. Ordination is one means conjunct with others for deſignation of right qualified perſons deſcribed in the Law of Christ for the reception and exerciſe of the Miniſterial office, and the ends of it (beſides taking care the office fail not) are, To judge in all ordinary caſes of the fitneſs of perſons; and, To ſolemnize their admittance, by ſuch an inveſtiture, as when poſſeſsion of a houſe, is given by a miniſterial delivery of a key, or of land by a turf; or as a ſouldier is liſted, a King crowned, Marriage ſolemnized after conſent and title, in order to a more ſolemn obligation and plenary poſſeſsion. Such is Ordination. Mr. Baxter p. 149. When the King ſends over a Lord Lieutenant into Ireland, he hath a power by vertue of that high dignity, of making a Knight; now while he uſes the Ceremonies of dubbing, he uſes them not as the ſignification of his Princes will, but of his own; He acts not here as an Aſsigne, but does it as an act of his own grace. We are not to conceive that God hath given ſuch a power to the dignity of a biſhop, that he may ſo make Miniſters; No, no, their authority (as the ſolid and learned Mr. Perkins before) is but a Miniſtry, wherein therefore, they muſt act from God onelyonly as the approvers, ſignifiers, or publiſhers, of his will, (and all thoſe ceremonyes they uſe, are the ſame externall ſignification thereof) that ſuch a one upon their examination is conſtituted by him according to his word and Charter, to be one of his Miniſters, and that the Church is to receive him accordingly. Now then there muſt be this will firſt, before the ſignification of it, and the will creates the power immediately. The giving the power is one thing, with Mr. Hooker, moſt right, and the external inveſtiture or delivery is another. But you will ſay, When an Eſtate or office is given by a perſon, and the delivery made alſo, how can this be done againe? I anſwer, the office cannot be again given, but the ſignification that it is given, may be again. The Lords will is one, and the ſame, but the ſignification of it by outward ceremonies, may be various or multiplied. The ceremonies of the ſame conſecration Lev. 8.33. are repeated ſeven dayes together. Beſides there is a difference in the point of Delivery. There is a delivery of poſſeſſion in the thing it ſelf; As if I give one a book, and deliver it, and there is a delivery by a ceremony only, as the token of that poſſeſſion: Here now there may ariſe controverſie, whether ſuch a delivery were legal and ſufficient, or the like; and what courſe then can be beſt taken to put all out of doubt, but to have a new delivery which will be without exception. The caſe is ſo with us juſt; There is queſtion whether Presbyters be Ordainers, and it may be queſtion'd haply more to others purpoſe, whether in their Orders there was not a defect of ſome words of formall delivery, as Take thou authority; and if a quiet man then ſhall take the way to make all ſure, there is no need that he ſhould underſtand by thoſe words of the Biſhop, (and the impoſition of his hands) that he does give him the power and office of a Miniſter, which he hath already, but rather that this is not given at all by mortal men, but only is indeed a a ſecond time declared or ſignified before the face of the church as given of God, by theſe external rites of inveſtiture, delivery, or poſſeſſion. I am ſorry to ſee what a thin vail of words only can cloud mans underſtanding. If I ſhould ſay that Orders, is the ſolemn delivery of the Miniſterial authority to a perſon by the Biſhop as a delegate of Jeſus Chriſt, it may be it would be received, and yet when I ſay it is the confirmation of Chriſts call, it is all one, but underſtood with more ſafety; which if it ſhall appear once in its light to my orthodox Adverſary, I ſhall not need to ſay any thing elſe in compariſon, to his ſatisfaction. The whole force of his arguing againſt me in this thing, hee knowes full well, does lye in this ſuppoſal, that Ordination does give the miniſterial power and office, and is to be taken only to that end; Now if the ground does fall from under him here, there is nothing left him hardly to ſtand upon, in the controverſie.
Before I paſſe, let me here humbly lay down a caution: I would not have any offer to think that I and the forementioned author do go about to make light of Orders, as if when a man hath parts, he may ſtreight goe and be a Preacher of his own head. There are none, I know, that hold Qualification a call, coram eccleſia; I am not a man of that complexion; I am ſo much for a ſolemn allowance of the Church, that I contend it ſhould be twice done, rather then not bee done to purpoſe; God is a God of Order, and hath provided againſt confuſion and intruſion into his Church. I am ready then with that eminent perſon, to account, not only that it is a great ſin to neglect Ordination, where it may be had, and that the Church is to diſown ſuch, and that it is required by Chriſt, and ſo neceſſary, neceſſitate praecepti & medii too ad ordinem, & bene eſſe: but I am willing to go ſo far, that he requires it in his Charter to every Church which is conſtituted, as a part of the condition, which untill it be put, the Authority coram hominibus is ſuſpended. And yet ſo long as being put, it operates only to the power as a condition, doing but its own part; this hinders not but the ſame may be put, and put again, ſo long as it is not omni modo, to the ſame effect; and the nature thereof, or part it does, will bear it. What is that you will ſay? and In what regard poſſible can the effect be any other, and not altogether the ſame? An Anſwer to theſe two Queſtions will unlooſe the knot here of Re-ordination.
For the former: There are three things goes to a Miniſter.
1. The teſtimony of their Conſcience, of their ſincere deſire, not of lucre or honour, but to edifie the Church.
2. A faculty to do that to which they have a deſire and will.
3. The Ordination of the Church, which approves and gives teſtimony of their will and ability.
So Mr. Perkins, in whoſe judgement methinks I rejoyce, to ſee how fully he agrees with me in his Notion of Orders, which yet I muſt confeſſe I took not from him, or any other Book, but from its own light in my firſt ſheets. Now whether this teſtification or approbation of the Church is ſuch a thing, or no, I leave to this fair Adverſary himſelf to judge; and I hope he will ſee, as thoſe abilities, and deſires, the chief part of the condition, Chriſts Charter requires, may and are to be renewed ſtill, or encreaſed, ſo may the approbation of the ſame (ad bene eſſe) be renewed alſo, and our Miniſtry be the better, not as all the worſe for it.
For the latter: When I allow thus much to Orders to be a condition, that is cauſa ſine qua non, of our Office-power, I underſtand it (you muſt note it well) to be ſo truly, and only in the Court of the Church. A condition is ſuch a thing you may ſay, as cannot be repeated, for it being put, the effect follows, and when the effect is obtained, the thing can have no longer the nature of a condition. I anſwer then, The Court of the Church, wherein alone I affirm that Orders is this condition, is varied and doubled, and hence it is, that the condition it ſelf alſo is doubled, and the effect flowing from the ſame varied likewiſe. While the court of the Church was Presbyterian, any Orders if Scriptural onelyonly, was the condition; but n…w it is Epiſcopal, no Orders but Canonical alſo is the condition. In both courts then, or either of them, unleſſe a perſon be ordained he is no Miniſter, and ſo the condition requiſite to our authority coram Eccleſia, is the ſame in both, to wit Orders; but as theſe Orders which are the condition are diverſified, and Epiſcopal Ordination diſtinguiſhed from Presbyterian, ſo the condition, I hope, is not the ſame: In like manner the effect which flowes from the condition being put, in either or both theſe courts, is this Church-authority (as I ſpeak) or the receiving us as Miniſters in the court of the Church, and ſo is the ſame, but as theſe courts wherein we are ſo received (and are the termini relationis) are varied and not the ſame, in that regard the effect alſo muſt be diverſified or multiplyed, and ſo not the ſame, though the ſame; which ends the difficulty.
Having laid this caution, there followes an Objection, which as to the main, hath ſometimes been a ſtop upon my mind. I doe conceive that the Ordainers do act from God to the people, and the approving or declaring a mans Miniſtry more then once, drawes happily the ampler reception, and no abſurdity in it: but I may be miſtaken perhaps, and the Ordainers act from the Church or people to God, in preſenting him a ſervant from amongſt them to his houſe; Even as when the Levites were ſeparate to God, Num. 8. it is ſaid, Aaron ſhall offer them before the Lord for an offering of the children of Iſrael, v. 11. And hence are the children of Iſrael themſelves to lay their hands upon them, v. 10. whereby there might be ſignified happily their parting with their right in them, which to do again were a kind of owning their right ſtill, and look like ſacraledge in it. But this conceit I gueſſe is ſome of that cloſe ſuperſtition which is ſtill apt to exerciſe my thoughts in this matter. It is manifeſt, that when God ſaved the firſt-born of the Iſraelites in Egypt, he challenged them to himſelf; the firſt-born of the cattel were to be offer'd in ſacrafice to him, and for the firſt-born of their Sons he accepts the Levites; and hence it is they were the offering of the people, and that they laid their hands on them in offering them, becauſe (I ſay) it was in lieu of their firſt-born, which is all plain in the Text: verſ. 16, 17, 18. Now as for us under the Goſpel, when Jeſus Chriſt the only true firſt-both is offered, there is up ſuch propriety and diſcrimination, and conſequently no offering of the Miniſtry in lieu thereof. Beſides, though the Levites, whoſe office was but a ſervice only, (to help Aaron and his Sons, verſ. 19.) were an offering of the Children of Iſrael, the Prieſts, which was not a bare Service, but a Dignity, were no offering of the people, but taken by God into that honour and office of himſelf. The Subjects of a Prince may preſent him with ſlaves to do his work, but they preſent him not with Embaſſadors (as we are) to be entruſted with the affairs of his Kingdom. It may be yet ſaid, it is true, he that hath this honour, muſt have Gods calling, and conſequently the Ordainers act from God in ordaining him; but there may be a middle way, to wit, that they act not from God to the Church or people, nor from the Church to God, but from God to God, and ſo their whole act be terminated in the ſanctifying or ſeparating a perſon to him, without reference at all otherwiſe, to the Church or people. As for this, though the thing be conſpicuous in its own nature and ſolemnity, let us ſuppoſe (untill it appears farther) it were ſo, and then muſt we take into conſideration what this ſeparating or ſanctifying a man unto God is. Under the Law it is plain there were ſacrafices appointed, and by theſe the Prieſts and Levites were clenſed that they might draw nigh to God; Under the Goſpel there is no Sacrafice, but only there are Prayers, and conſequently the commending a man to the grace of God for his work by Prayer, is all that ſanctification there can be in this matter; and as for the impoſition of Hands it ſelf, it is nothing but the expreſſe deſignation of the perſon upon whoſe head we crave the diſcention of his bleſſing. To which purpoſe Calvin in his inſtitutions tell us, that this rite was taken from Jacobs bleſſing his Grand-children, which was by Prayer, Gen. 48.15, 16. And Grotius is quoted by Mr. Stilling fleet, ſpeaking about the Jews ordaining their Elders, Epi. ad Gal. Tunc orabant ut ſic Dei efficacia eſſet ſuper illum, ſicut manus efficaciae Symbolum ei imponebatur. By this Dei efficacia we muſt not underſtand the authority or power of the Miniſtry, as if in our taking Orders we did pray to God to give us that, as my Antagoniſt thinks ſtrangely often, for Grotius himſelf, in his Book de Imp. before quoted, acurately tells us, that comes not by Orders. Chriſt … procul dubio, is est à quo jus illud praedicandi, ſacrament a exhibendi & clavibus utendi, oritur & vim ſuam accipit: but we muſt underſtand thereby, the ſolemn invocation of the divine preſence and aſſiſtance to be upon or with the perſon upon whom the hands are laid, (to uſe the words of that Learned Author) which may be repeated I hope, if need be, without queſtion. To proceed here while we are upon it.
In a form of Church policy preſented in a Convention at Edenbourgh, anno 1560. I read in Spotſwood, p. 156. Other ceremonies then the publick approbation of the people, and the declaration of the chief Miniſter, that the perſon there preſented is appointed to ſerve that Church, we cannot approve, for albeit the Apoſtles uſed impoſition of hands, yet ſeeing the miracle is ceaſed, the uſing the ceremony we judge not to be neceſſary. In another, anno 1578. preſented to the Parliament. Ordination is the ſeparation and ſanctifying of the perſon appointed by God and the Church, after he is well tryed, and found qualified. The ceremonies are Fasting, Prayer, and Impoſition of hands of the Elderſhip, p. 292. This notion of Ordination is that I ſuppoſe is like to paſſe with the Presbyterian, and perhaps one may think though a double approbation or declaration draws in it no abſurdity, yet a Conſecration of a thing or perſon to the Lord more then once, may ſeem hainous. Let us know therefore, that there is really no more in the thing under this conception, then under the other. This Learned man my Adverſary himſelf, does well quote Maſon and another, who holding with him, that the Office of a Biſhop and Presbyter is the ſame, differing only gradu, not ordine; anſwer their new inveſtiture with this, that our Church calls it not an Ordering, but Conſecration, ſo that a double Conſecration in the ſame Office, is not to be accounted belike any matter, they themſelves being judges. The Temple under the Law we find new conſecrated by Hezekiah: The Prieſts at the ſame time do new conſecrate themſelves, 2 Chron. 29.30, 34. In the Goſpel too we read again of Feſtum Encaeniorum, Jo. 10.22. But there is one inſtance alone does ſatisfie me in this thing beyond exception, and that is of Solomon, whom we read not only to be annointed, which is conſecrated, but it is ſaid expreſly, to the Lord (that makes it ſacred) a ſecond time. If there was any native evil or abſurdity in the thing it ſelf, to have a double conſecration or inveſtiture unto the ſame Office or work, how comes this to paſſe, that holy David, and his moſt wiſe Son, with the Fathers and Elders of all Iſrael, ſhould make no ſcruple at all at it? There is this one Text much wanting therefore in my former ſheets, which I now offer further to my caſe, 1 Chron. 29.22. where I note three things.
1. That Ordination makes a man a Miniſter, (I count) as they are ſaid in the words to make Solomon King. We none deny but Orders make a Miniſter, only let it be underſtood from hence, Perfectivè, Complementally, by way of Declaration, or Solemnization.
2. That a double inveſtiture or conſecration to the ſame Office, is expreſly exemplified in Scripture (for which I quote this place) and why it ſhould be more to be Re-ordained, then Re-annointed, no Proteſtant I believe can tell. So that where I have compared Ordaining in my Book ſtill to a double Marrying, I wiſh I had rather put in Annointing, to make the ſimile the more ſure.
3 That it is probable what Mr. Roſſe (Panſ. p. 8.) tell us, that this Zadock was High-prieſt at the end of Sauls reign, but David favouring Abiathar, preferred him, and retained them both, and conſequently that he was annointed the ſecond time Prieſt, as Solomon the ſecond time King. So I cloſe my firſt generall. And they made Solomon King the ſecond time, and annointed him to the Lord to be chief Governour, and Zadock to be Prieſt.