The Diatribe Proved to be Paradiatribe, Part 3

The Diatribe Proved to be Paradiatribe · Part 3

p. 1AN ANSWER TO THE TRACT bearing Title, The judgement of the Reformed Churches, and Proteſtant Divines, concerning Ordination, Laying on of bands in Ordination of Miniſters, &c.

The words of the Treatiſe are here ſet down, without adding, altering, or abridgement.

ORdination is taken comm…nly for an act of Miniſters or Elders, after Examination and Election.

The ANSWER.

1. IN the common acception of the word. Ordination includes Examination, and Impoſition of hands; and is not a ſingle act, but a complicate. So as all is to be taken in, which belongs to the Ordainers for the ſolemn **Solenne eſt quod ſolet fieri.conſtituting or ſetting apart, and making of him to be a Miniſter who was none before. Ordinatio Apoſtolica triplici actione conſtabat: Primus act…s erat praparatorius, ſcil. jejunium: p. 2Secundus, preces; Tertius, manuum impoſitio. Nico. Hunnius, Demonſtratione Miniſt. Lutheran. p. 271.

2. Whether the words Miniſters or Elders be to be taken here disjunctively or exegetically, is uncertain, becauſe they are ſometimes taken for the ſame, and ſometimes for ſeverall ſorts of Church-officers. That Miniſters alone may Ordain without other Elders, when the Presbyterie is not integrated, is a received opinion; but how Elders who are no Miniſters may act in Ordaining, is diſputable.

3. As for Election and Examination, whether you ſuppoſe them here as the acts of Miniſters or Elders, or of the people antecedently, I know not, nor what kind of election you mean; for there are divers kinds:

1. By way of deſire, with ſubmiſſion or reference.

2. By way of acceptance, or acquieſcence.

3. By way of choice, out of many to pitch on one.

4. By way of creation, which is by chooſing to make one what he was not before.

Ordination ſuppoſes no Election, on the peoples part, but that which is by way of deſire with ſubmiſſion, and reference. This may precede the act of Ordaining, but is not ſimply neceſſary in all caſes. Election by way of creation is included in Ordination, and is not far from the formall reaſon of it. That Miniſters and Elders may ordain none, de jure, in any ſtate of the Church, or in any caſe but thoſe whom the People Vide Concil. Laodic…num, can. 5. The ſubſtance and eſſence of Ordination conſiſteth in the appointing of ſuch for the holy Miniſtry by perſons in office. Ruth. Due right of Presbyteries, p. 186. …. diſt.have firſt choſen, will not eaſily be proved.**It is not of the ſubſtance of the calling to bee choſen by voices of the people. Dr. Fulke on Act. 14. 23.Acts 14:23

4. Whereas you ſpeak of Ordination commonly ſo called, you name neither Church nor Divine who ſtate it as you do here, and I think you can name none. Be it an act of Miniſters or Elders after Examination and Election, there muſt be ſomething added to make it a definition or deſcription. In ſtead of the quid rei, you give us only the qu…d…. If your proofs have no more ſtrength, then your exp…ation hath clearneſſe and fulneſſe, you may ſtill conceale your …a…e, and that will be your beſt advantage.

In that ſence Ordination is not eſſentiall to the Calling of Minister.

p. 3Anſ. 1. This implies there is a Scripture-ſenſe wherein Ordination is eſſentiall to the Calling of a Miniſter; or elſe you oppoſe it in all ſences, and then what needs thoſe words [in that ſence]? If there be a ſence wherein you, with the Reformed Churches and Proteſtant Divines, do grant it, why is that concealed?

2. If your Theſis had been intirely expreſſed it would run thus. Ordination as it is commonly taken for an act of Miniſters or Elders after Examination and Election, is not eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter. Put then what's the meaning of it? That no act of Miniſters and Elders about the calling of a Miniſter is eſſentiall thereunto, or none but Examination and Election? I ſuppoſe it is not your ſence, that Examination and Election by Miniſters or Elders is eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter, and tha… theſe together are commonly called Ordination. That no act of Miniſters or Elders whatſoever is eſſentiall to a Miniſters calling, will not be found to be the judgement of the Reformed Churches and Proteſtant Divines, and that without limitation and reſtriction, which Formadat eſſe. Materia eſt part quid ditatis.yet in your Title you pretend unto.

3. The word eſſentiall may prove a blind to ſome readers, being a term of art which learned ones agree not about. That forme gives being, and yet matter is part of the quiddity, as alſo Quod eſſentiā am rei non conſtituit, ſine eo eſſentia rei ſalva eſſe poteſt. Propria adjuncta non conſtituunt eſſentirei. Ergo ſine iis eſſentia rei ſalva eſſe poteſt, & …x conſequenti n…n debent vocari eſſentialia Heiz. Nullus Philoſophorum in …oto orbe terrar…i dabit tibi Majorem. Rod. Goclen. ad Piſc…. Piſcator in Theſibus, p. 604.the diſtinction of eſſentiall into, 1. antecedent, 2. conſtituent, and 3. conſequent, is common in the Schooles: yet in a learned company I have heard it to be, by one of them, little leſſe then hiſſed at. One Heizo propounding this argument againſt Piſcator.—The eſſence of a thing may be without that which doth not conſtitute it, Proper adjuncts do not constitute the eſſence, Therefore the eſſence may be without them, and conſequently they are not to be called eſſentiall. Rodolphus Goclenius Profeſſor at Marpurg, anſwers for Piſc. No Philoſopher in all the world will grant the Major. So as if Ordination were not conſtitutive, yet if it did neceſſarily follow upon that act which doth, as ſuppoſe Election by Miniſters or Elders with the conſent of the Church, it might be called eſſentiall.

p. 4What think you of this, Whether Ordination be not at' * Zanc. makes Election and Ordination parts of Calling So Ames If parts, then eſſential, or integrall.leaſt an integrall part of a Miniſters calling? and whether ſome integrall parts be not eſſentiall to an integrall whole? and Ordination ſuch a part of Calling?

4. In plain words, I ſuppoſe this to be your meaning: No man who deſires to be a Miniſter, needs be Ordained; and if he be, he is not thereby made a Miniſter. And this you aſſert without any diſtinction of time or ſtate of the Church, or of Calling, whether it be mediate or immediate, ordinary, extraordinary, or mixt. You might as well ſay, Mariage, as an act of Miniſters or Magiſtrates, after the conſent of the parties, is not eſſentiall to the calling of man and wife, none need to be ſo married, and if they be, they are not thereby made man and wife. Wiſe men would ſoon perceive that your word eſſentiall would not be a ſufficient ſalvo againſt the danger of ſuch a poſition; families are likely to be deſtroyed by it notwithſtanding. He that ſayes no act of Miniſters or Elders is eſſentiall to a Miniſters call, will ſay as much with fairer pretence of Magiſtrates; and then either nothing is eſſentiall, or ſomething to be done by the people, or ſomething immediately on Gods part: what followes upon this, but either Eraſtianiſme, that there is no Church-power or Order; Browniſme, that all power is in the body of the people; or Enthuſiaſme, that every man is to act [in ſacris] as he is led by inſpiration, without reſpect to politie.

If this be your judgement, yet methinks it ſounds not like the judgement of the Reformed Churches and Proteſtant Divines. Papiſts uſe to impoſe ſuch a ſence upon them, and they uſe to diſclaim it. Yet I do not wonder that you are thus bold with them, ſeeing you begin with Firſt, Second, and Third, &c. which muſt be underſtood either of Scripture or Reaſon, or both, as if right reaſon, and that Spirit which leadeth into all truth, were fully on your ſide in this cauſe, whereas I fear they are not.

5. As to your poſition in your own terms, Ordination is not eſsentiall to the calling of a Miniſter; the Reader (who is to judge betwixt us both) muſt obſerve this myſterie. Ordination is taken two wayes in the Reformed Churches among Proteſtant Divines.

p. 51. Firſt and moſt frequ…ntly for the rite of impoſing hands, which is the laſt act whereby a Miniſters calling is conſummated. This (becauſe they call it a rite) they do not count eſſentiall, that is, alw…yes and in all caſes abſolutely neceſſary (eſpecially as appropriated unto Biſhops, diſtinct from Presbyters jure divino) but they hold it to be lawfull and more or leſſe neceſſary in a ſetled and well-ordered Church.

2. Ordination ſignifies that act wherein and whereby Church-governours do in the name and ſtead of Chriſt ſet apart one to be a Miniſter, and by ſuch ſeparation make him one, with Prayer, Faſting, and either with or without Impoſition of hands. Here they diſtinguiſh of the time and ſtate of the Church; and though (in my obſervation) the terme [eſſentiall] be uſed ſparingly, yet the neceſſity of this thing in the ſubſtance of it, in a mediate calling, and regular ſtate of the Church, is every where aſſerted.**Nemo ad ordinariam in Eccleſia functionem admitti debeat niſi legitime vocatus, eoque legitime electus & ordinatus. Zanch. in 4 praec.

You in all your Exercitation confound thoſe things; and whereas your Poſition, as you ſtate it and explain it in the beginning, runs upon this latter ſence, thoſe Authors which you cite ſpeak of the former only. So as if your ſenſe, and the Reformed Churches be cleerly held forth, you and they will be found oppoſites.

Nothing to be done by Miniſters or Elders at any time, or in any ſtate of the Church, or in any caſe which may befall a Miniſter in his calling, is eſſentiall thereunto. That's your ſenſe.

Unto the ordinary mediate calling of a Miniſter in the regular ſtate and condition of the Church, it is neceſſary or eſſentiall that thoſe who are already Miniſters do try, examine, approve, and actually ſet apart thoſe who are to ſucceed them in the ſame kind of Calling; and this uſes to be by prayer, faſting, and impoſition of hands.

This latter I believe will appear to be the judgement of the Reformed Churches and their Miniſters, at leaſt wiſe for any thing that you have yet produced unto the contrary; which what it is, comes now to be conſidered.

p. 61. Arg. Treat. p. 5.

The word To ordain, Tit. 1. 5. foreign, even when it is uſed concerning Officers, ſignifies to fixe, ſettle, eſtabliſh one who was in office before, as appears by Pſal. 2. 6. where the Septuagint uſe the ſame word Paul doth to Titus, foreign.

Anſ. In this paragraph you ſeem to imagine this argument. If Ordination be eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter, then, Titus 1. 5. compared with Act. 14. 23. muſt prove it to be ſo, becauſe in thoſe places we read of ſome who were made Miniſters by Ordination only, and have little elſe to guide us in things of this kind but examples. Hereupon you ſet your ſelf by way of undermining to make a ſhew that no ſuch propoſition can be gathered out of thoſe Texts, and inſtead of laying down your grounds directly for your own poſition, you give us in an oblique inſinuation that the contrary cannot be proved. And though it might ſuffice to ſay that the places inſtanced in bear not the whole ſtreſſe of the affirmative againſt your theſis, and if the whole of your implied aſſumption was granted, yet the conſequence remains unproved; yea, ſuppoſe all were true which is contained in your own expreſſe aſſertion, that the word To ordain, Tit. 1. 5. ſignifies to fixe, ſettle, &c. It follows not, therefore Ordination is not eſſentiall: becauſe though it have ſuch a ſignification in ſome places, in Titus it may have another. Yet I ſhall anſwer more particularly,

1. Here is no proof that foreign in Titus 1. 5. muſt have the ſame ſenſe and ſignification with foreign in Pſal. 2. 6.

2. The Hebrew of the Pſalm ſhould rather be conſulted with then the Septuagint, a corrupt tranſlation; Eſpecially becauſe it renders that paſſively (contrary to all other Greek **foreign. Aq. & 5 Ed. foreign. Sym. foreign. ſexta ed.Tranſlators) as ſpoken by David or Chriſt, which ſhould be active as ſpoken by God. The word is foreign that is, I have annointed or powred out. ordained, authoriſed *. The tranſlation of the Seventy cannot be retained, but force muſt be offered unto the Hebrew text in three places, as Rivet and others upon the Pſalm obſerve **Ainſw. on the place.. foreign. Que verba retineri non poſsunt quin vis flat Ebraico textus p. 7tribus in locis. & foreign …ſakti, legatur foreign niſakti, in Niphal. & pro foreign malki, regem meum foreign malko rex ejus. & pro foreign kodeſhi ſanctū men̄. foreign kodſho. Rivetus. Muſculus, beſides the ſame obſervation with Rivet obſerves further againſt the Greek tranſlator, Et adjecit quod in textu non eſt foreign, i. e. in eo.—Chaldaus Paraphraſtes Ebraicam veritatem retinuit.

3. As for the Hebrew word, it may relate to Gods decree. Yet have I ſee my King upon my holy hill of Sion, that is, my eternall decree and purpoſe. Which is the more probable becauſe of that which followes in the next verſe. I will declare the decree, &c. In Prov. 8. 23. where we have the phraſe uſed paſſively, * I was ſet up from everlaſting, from the beginning or ever the earth was; it cannot be underſtood foreignotherwiſe then of Chriſts eternall generation, or that decree of God whereby he was aſſigned to his Incarnation and Offices. In neither way it will agree to your ſenſe of of fixing, ſetling, or eſtabliſhing one who was in office before.

4. There is a vaſt difference between ſetling (per foreign) by way of might, and (per foreign) by way of authority. God might ſet a King in Sion (eſpecially as you underſtand it) by force; but Titus could ſet Elders from city to city no otherwiſe then by the peaceable exerciſe of ſpirituall power: And therefore there's the leſſe likelihood that we ſhould have recourſe to the 2. Pſalme, to underſtand that phraſe in Titus. And if you will needs compare them, ſome authoritative act muſt needs be underſtood in both places; and all power of making Miniſters did not belong unto thoſe in Crete among themſelves, but unto Titus, as one ſent unto them to ſet others over them. For in both places, not ſimply fixing, ſetling and eſtabliſhing, but ſuch a fixing, &c. as is by vertue of power and authority ſo to do, muſt needs be underſtood.

But you adde,

Now if you underſtand the Pſalm of David in the type, he was a King many years before he took in the hill and fort of Zion, 2 Sam. 5. 5, 6. Or if you underſtand it of the Apoſtles preaching up Chriſt, as the Apoſtles do the Pſalm, Act. 4. 25. &c. Chriſt received all power at his aſcenſion, and did but p. 8ſettle his Kingdome by their. Preaching, the Apoſtles were but witneſſes of Chriſts glory, and in being ſo did foreign foreign.

Anſw. 1. Its well you put an [if] concerning the Pſalm as to be underſtood of David in the type, becauſe its noted that almoſt all the Orthodox Fathers doe underſtand all things in this Pſalme, ſimply and immediately of Patres Orthodoxi fero omnes de Chriſto ſimpliciter & immediate accipiunt, & interpretantur quaecunquein hoc Pſalmo d…c…ntur. Rivetus in arg. & partitione Pſal. 1 Sam 16 13. 2 Sam. 2. 4. c. 5. 1. & 3. 8.1 Sam 16:132 Sam 2:4Chriſt.

2. It may be queſtioned whether that act of Davids taking in the Hill of Zion be here directly pointed at, becauſe we reade of his annointing by Samuel at Bethlehem, and at Hebron twice, * but never of any annointing at the Hill or Fort of Sion, and therefore have no ground for the Hebrew phraſe here uſed in the ſtrict and proper acception of it.

3. How the Apoſtles underſtand the Pſalme, and this paſſage of it appeares by thoſe words Act. 4. 27. Againſt thy holy Child Jeſus whom thou haſt annointed **foreign. Chryſ. in Pſal. 3.Ps 3both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Iſrael were gathered together. Here foreign in the Greek anſwers to Naſakti in the Hebrew, and both together imply, that God had mad Chriſt Jeſus whom the Jewes crucified, both Lord and Chriſt, Acts 2. 36.

4. As for the Apoſtles, that they may be ſaid foreign, to ſettle his Kingdome by their preaching, we find no ſuch phraſe in Scripture, you doe but dreame in …ſing of it; and though its true they were witneſſes of Chriſts glory, yet its alſo true they were more the… witneſſes: as you uſe the word in way of Diminution, but to …, ſettle, and eſtabliſh Chriſt upon his Throne either by preaching, witneſſing or other way is no where aſcribed unto them.

Thus you proceed.

And however the word foreign may be taken ſometimes, yet Titus 1. 5. it cannot be taken for making him an Elder who was none before. For what is injoyned there is to be done by Titus onelyonly, or by Titus joyning with other Miniſters. For the text ſaith, I have left [thee] to ordaine. But neither did the Apoſtles, much leſſe might other Miniſters make a Miniſter by a ſole act of their own.

Anſw. How the word may be taken ſometimes is not p. 9much materiall; the ordina… acception is chiefly to be looked at. For that muſt take place in Titus, unleſſe ſome reaſon from the text it ſelf, or from the nature of the things there ſpoken of, can be given to the contrary. If all the places in the New Teſtament of this kind, where it is uſed, be enquired into, it will be found to ſignifie either the making of him an officer who was none before, or to give him a greater power then he had at firſt. For inſtance, Mat. 24. 45. Who is then a faithfull and wiſe ſervant, whom his Lord hath made ruler (foreign) over his houſhold to give them meat in due ſeaſon? Luk. 12. 14. Man, who made me (foreign) a Judge or divider over you? Act. 7. 10. Pharaoh made him (ſpeaking of Joſeph) governour over Egypt and all his houſe, foreign.

For the ſecond ſenſe, ſee Mat. 24. 47. Verily I ſay to you he ſhall make him ruler (foreign) over all his goods. Mat. 25. 21. I will make thee ruler (foreign) over many things. The like in Luk. 12. 42. 44. When Deacons were firſt to be conſtituted in the Church of Jeruſalem, the Apoſtle ſpeaks thus unto the multitude, Look you out among you ſeven men of honeſt report, full of the Holy Ghoſt and wiſdome, (foreign) whom we may appoint over this buſines. **Act. 6. 3.Acts 6:3To produce like places out of the Septuagint, is as needleſſe as it would be endleſſe; or out of the firſt and moſt ancient of the Greek **Vide Concil. Nicenum can. 4 Ancyranum can. 10. & 18. Antiochenum can. 23. Laodicenum c. 11. & 16. Sardicenſe can. 4. & 6.Councels. One place out of Clemens his Epiſtle to the Corinthians (which is of great repute among the learned) may give ſome light unto the text in hand, ſpeaking of the Apoſtles and of their preaching in countries and cities, he ſaith foreign, they made the firſt fruits of them that believe Biſhops and Deacons, (not by popular election, but by vertue of the ſpirit of diſcerning, foreign) **Clemens in epiſt. ad Corinth p. 54 & 55.. What they did themſelves in this kind, they did alſo appoint to be done by Evangeliſts as they ſaw occaſion.

But you ſay [however the word may be taken ſometime, yet Titus 1. 5. it cannot be taken for making him an Elder who was none before. And your reaſon is, becauſe what is enjoyned there is to be done by Titus only, or by Titus joyning with other Miniſters.

p. 10Anſ. Be it granted that Titus only was to ordain, what need then that other Miniſters ſhould joyne with him? And if other Miniſters were to joyne, yet that cannot be proved from the ſignification of the word (foreign) there uſed. Something was peculiarly enjoyned him, for wherefore elſe receives he a commiſſion and commandement from Saint Paul? foreign as I have appointed thee. That which followes [that the Apoſtles, much leſſe other Miniſters, might not make a Miniſter by a ſole act of their owne] is a meere petitio principii.

Your [as for example] is no proofe. Was Titus a Miniſter to Crete when he came thither, or was he not? if he was, ſhew us whoſe act concurred with Saint Paul's, and whoſe authority he took in to ſettle him there as a Miniſter to them.

Thus you go on [as for example, Acts 14. 23. foreign foreign, &c. the word tranſlated they ordained in the plurall number, may be referred to the people as well as to Paul and Barnabas.

Anſw. The word foreign in the one place doth no more referre to the people then the other word foreign. When the people are ſpoken of it refers to them, but Paul and Barnabas only are here diſtinguiſhed from the people.

To that which followes

[For it is ſuch a word as properly belongs to the people as well as their Rulers, when they gave their votes, and never to the Rulers without the people.]

Anſw. The truth is it belongs properly either to Rulers or people to gether, or a part as there is occaſion. Your [never to the Rulers without the People] is too confident an aſſertion, if ſo be (de facto) no inſtance could be given to the contrary: yet (de jure) no reaſon is produced why it might not. foreign (as Suidas hath it) ſignifies both Plebiſcitum, a Law made by the people; and foreign which is the ordinary word uſed in Demoſthenes and in the Attick laws for (Senatus conſultum) a Law made by the Senate. As when the people make a Law, they are ſaid foreign: ſo may the Rulers p. 11in like manner in thoſe Lawes which are made by themſelves alone. What think you of this paſſage in Julius Pollux? foreign **Julius Pollux l. 8. c. 9. § 1.The Theſmothetae doe privarely preſcribe when judgement is to be given, and promulge publique accuſations and ſuffrages to the people. Whoſe ſuffrages were theſe, if not the Rulers?

And of that in Demosth. (Phil. 1.) cited by Hen. Steph. whom you quote ſo often foreign. and of making an Officer foreign.

But you ſay [the cuſtome was among the Graecians in their foreign or lawfull meetings, that the people joyned Votes with the Rulers, and the Rulers with the people, before any act was accounted legall. Yea it may be rather referred to the people, than to them, for the people ſometimes voted alone, but the Ruler did never.

Anſw. For this (I think) you cite Budaeus and Henry Stephen, but at large; go and conſult them once againe; you wrong thoſe learned men while you would have us to beleeve that they were as ignorant of the Greek ſtory as your ſelfe, or that this is to be found in them which is not. For what you here aſſert, were it true of ſome particular Common-wealth in Greece at ſom… time, yet it is far from truth concerning all the Grecians generally. The Rulers in Athens often met apart and voted apart; nothing was, or might bee brought into their foreign but what the Rulers had firſt conſulted and concluded. **Sam. Petitus in comment. ad leges Atticas, l…b. 2. de legibus titulo 1. p. 116.A Law made by the Senate alone ſtood good for a yeere before the people were conſulted with about it. And this was one of Solons Lawes, ſine Senatus praejudicio populus nullâ de re rogator. Let the people be conſulted with in nothing which the Senate have not predetermined. * There were a ſort of Rulers among them who voted things amongſt themſelves foreign before the Senate and the Common Hall. **idem p. 123.See more to the clearing of this in Henri Steph. Tom. 4. p. 429. G. But imagine all was as you ſay of the cuſtome among the Graecians p. 12in their (foreign) lawfull civill meetings, what is that to binde Chriſtians in their Churches? Paul ſaith we have no ſuch Cuſtome nor the Churches of God. Tis not ſaid, nor the 1 Cor. 11. 16.1 Cor 11:16Churches of Greece as meaning civill Aſſemblies. You muſt firſt prove that the government of the Church is Democraticall, and that every ſingle Congregation among us is to have the ſame power which a Common-Hall had among them, and that our manner of proceeding is to be regulated by theirs; before you argue from the one to the other. But to go on:

[And in this ſenſe (ſay you) it is to be taken by the Reverend Engl. Pop. cer. p. 166.Divine of Scotland; his words are, [But it is objected that Luke ſaith not of the whole Church, but of Paul and Barnabas, that they made them by voices Elders in every city. Anſ. But how can we imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went to ſuffrages? Election by moſt voices or the lifting up of the hand in token of a ſuffrage, had place only among a multitude aſſembled together. Wherefore we ſay with Junius, that foreign is both a common and particular action, whereby a man chooſeth by his own ſuffrage in particular, and likewiſe with others in common, one; ſo that in one and the ſame action we cannot divide thoſe things which are ſo joyned together.]

Anſ. The ſenſe you mean, as I ſuppoſe, is this. Paul and Barnabas as Rulers, together with the People who had intereſt of authority in this buſines, by joint ſuffrage or election made Elders, not Paul and Barnabas alone. This you call the ſenſe of a reverend Divine of Scotland; in other paſſages you cite the ſame book as ſpeaking the ſenſe of that Church.

1. Though I reverence the Church and the Divine thereof, yet I cannot but remember Amicus Plato, &c. though Junius be heretaken in, yet all will not help to prove that foreign doth neceſſarily refer in this place to any other than to Paul and Barnabas. It ſufficeth againſt the Papiſts, that the people are not excluded by the Word; but how it ſhall be proved that they are included by vertue of it, I ſee not. The note of Grotius upon the place is worth obſerving. Sol… quid…m foreign ſumi de quavis electione et i…m quae ab … vel pancis fit.

p. 132. And be it granted that Paul and Barnabas made Elders with the conſent of the people, as it is by Grotius himſelf and Proteſtants generally, (their conſent is one thing, and by their authority another) that muſt be granted not from the meaning of foreign, but from analogy of the act of making Miniſters with that of chooſing Matthias, Act. 1. or Deacons Act. 6. or from ſome other ground.

3. Neither need it ſeem ſtrange that a thing ſhould go to ſuffrage between two, if we conſider what we read of Barnabas and Paul in the caſe of John Mark▪ Act. 15. 37, 38. and what is the meaning of the word foreign, which refers to God alone, Act. 10. 42.

4. When Junius ſaith that foreign is both a common and particular action, his meaning cannot be that there muſt be many of divers ſorts, people as well as rulers, or elſe there is no foreign. And granting, as he doth, that it may ſignifie a particular action, it cannot be from the word proved that more joyn in the action then are ſaid to joyn. Beſides, where two alone do joyn, there is actus communis & particularis ſimul. And as to the Text in …and, only Paul and Barnabas are here expreſſed to be thoſe who gave ſuffrage. And when two are ſaid foreign, its not neceſſary to underſtand twenty or two hundred. Two Conſuls may be ſaid truly foreign both by a common and a particular act, when they joyn in any buſines belonging to them as Conſuls, though the whole Senatus Populúſque Romanus do not Vote with them. Thoſe Divines among us Proteſtants (as Calvin and Ames **Calvin inſtit. l. 4. c. 3. §. 15. Nempe ſic Romani hiſtorici non rarò loquntur conſulem qui comitia habuerit creaſſe novos magiſtratus non aliam ob cauſam niſi quia ſuffragia receperit & populum moderatus ſit in eligendo. * Ameſius Bellarm. enerv. 10. 2. l. 3. c. 2. §. 31. foreign is dicitur qui prae…ſt foreign quo ſenſu tribuitur presbyteri… primariis vel epiſcopis aliquā do apud Euſeb.) who anſwer the Papiſts that Paul and Barnabas are ſaid to ordain, becauſe they gave direction and had precedence in this buſineſſe, do thereby acknowledge that the action is here expreſly aſcribed to them alone.

To that which follows, [But if the word [they ordained] be referred to Paul and Barnabas, and ſignifie to create or make an Officer who was nons before; yet the power whereby this creation is wrought is not their own only; for foreign is creare per ſuffragia, as H. Stephen renders it, which is as much as to ſay they did it not only vertually in the power of others, but they did it by others.]

p. 14Anſ. The word foreign ſignifies ſometimes ſimply to chooſe, with lifting up of hands or without, ſo as there be ſome outward expreſſion of the inward conſent of the mind it ſufficeth; and ſometimes by chooſing to create. But how will you prove that it ſignifies mixtly to create per ſuffragium proprium & alienum, or non per proprium ſed per alienum, as you here ſuppoſe, or that the plurall ſuffragia hath any weight to imply a multitude in the Latine tongue? They who gave their own ſuffrage, and by giving it created and made or choſ… Miniſters, they had the power. Thus did Paul and Barnabas, they made Presbyters by ſuffrage; that muſt be underſtood of their own ſuffrage: Not they by the people, but they, that is Paul and Barnabas, for them, that is for the people to their uſe and benefit. That the people did it in Paul and Barnabas by acquieſcing in their vote, will not be denied; but that the people did it by them, as if the power were the peoples, and not the Apoſtles unleſſe by delegation from the people, is not yet, nor can be proved from the word as here uſed. In the cloſe of this Paragraph, as your reaſoning is weak, ſo your expreſſions are confuſed: if the anſwer fall ſhort, thank your ſelf. Your ſecond argument to prove that Ordination is not eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter, begins thus:

2. The end and ſcope of Ordination is but to ſolemnize, The ſecond Argument.inaugurate, or publiſh the Calling of a Miniſter. It is to a Minister as Coronation is to a King, it makes him not a King, but declares him and ſets him forth with glory. Theſe are the very expreſſions and ſimilitudes of Proteſtant writers both Lutherans and Calviniſts in this matter. Sicut non coronatio facit regem, ſed electio.] Aegyd. Hun. ad artic. Arturi, contra aſſert. 6. Ames. Bellarmini enerv. tom. 2. p. 76. idem. Caſ. conſ. l. 4. c. 25. ſect. 28. Boet. diſp. cauſa papatus, l. 2. c. 20. p. 264. Majorem differentiam comminiſci non poteſt inter duo illa (elect. & ordinat.) quam inter conſtitutionem & commiſſionem principis nudè ſpectatam, & inter eandem commiſſionem erbitrariis quibuſdam ſymbolis, ſceptro, coronâ, &c. inſignitam, id. p. 267. Your margin, Aegid. Hun. ad artic. Arturi contra aſſert. 6. declaratio ſolennis. Ames. caſ. p. 15conſ. l. 4. c. 25. ſ. 28. conſtitutionis teſtificatio. Croci Antiſoci diſp 24. ſ. 3. miſſio ſolennis in poſſeſſionem honoris. Jun. teſtimonium vocati publicum. T…nob. de miniſt. l. 1. c. 25. Conſecratio, & manifeſtatio, declaratio, promulgatio, ſignificatio coram eccleſia, ſolennis teſtificatio. Voet. deſp. cauſa Papat. l. 2. ſ. 2. c. 20.

Anſ. 1. If there were no other uſe of Ordination, then there is of Coronation to a King, it might ſuffice in ſome ſenſe to prove it eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter. If coronation among Kings in our time be of like uſe to them as anointing was to Kings among the Jews, or as impoſition of hands was unto the Elders and unto Joſhua in ſucceſſion unto Moſes.Joſh. 27. 18.

2. Coronation is not of the like nature in all times and places, nor in all mens judgements, who write of Politicks. And though for the moſt part it ſuppoſe ſome precedent act whereby a King receives title; yet ſuch weight is laid on this ſolemnity even among thoſe who inherit by ſucceſſion, that he who is a King thinks himſelf not rightly ſetled till he hath been crowned, and from the time of crowning the time of reigning uſes to be accounted in the Empire.**Althus: polit. c. 19. num. 95.

3. It is not ſimply right that makes a man to be a King, but the ſolemn declaration of that right in a forenſick way (which uſes to be done by proclamation) and ſome acknowledgement of the right demanded, and that's by coronation. All theſe in the ſubſtance of the things muſt concurre and may be ſaid to be eſſentiall, becauſe though the outward ſign be juris poſitivi, yet the thing ſignified is juris naturalis. Apply this to the calling of a Miniſter, and ſee what follows. The conſent of thoſe who have power to make him a Miniſter who otherwiſe is none, is ſubſtantially neceſſary. Among thoſe who have that power, I hope the Miniſters and Elders as ſuch, ſhall be allowed their ſhare. And that manner of declaring conſent, which is approveable by the fundamentall laws of the kingdom of Chriſt, is alſo neceſſary; the one antecedently, the other conſequently. Let Ordination be in as much requeſt among us for making Miniſters, as Coronation is for our Kings, and it ſhall ſuffice: for then, as we have no p. 16Kings but ſuch as are crowned, ſo we ſhall have no Miniſters but thoſe who are ordained. Remember that you are now ſpeaking of Ordination as it is an act of Miniſters and Elders, wherein they are to conſent for making of a Miniſter. And if their conſent as ſuch, h. e. as Miniſters and Elders, be eſſentiall, though the manner of Declaring it were arbitrary, yet that will ſuffice to prove Ordination in ſome ſenſe eſſentiall.

4. As for the Proteſtant writers, when they compare Ordination to Coronation; though it might ſuffice to ſay Compariſons prove nothing, (Theologica ſymbolica non eſt argumentativa) yet I anſwer further, They thereby underſtand for the moſt part the rite of Ordination, or the act of Impoſition of hands as diſtinguiſhed from the foregoing conſent of the Miniſters and Elders; and in that ſenſe it may be admitted that Ordination is declaratio ſolennis, aut conſtitutionis teſtificatio, miſſio ſolennis in poſſeſſionem honoris, and ſuch like. And this will be no advantage to you, or prejudice to us. You are now to ſpeak of Ordination as diſtinguiſhed from Impoſition of hands, (for that follows afterward to be conſidered) but how the Proteſtant writers underſtand it when they compare it to Coronation, is another thing. To the teſtimonies which are cited by you, I ſhall ſpeak more particularly in the cloſe.

Whereas you ſay that [theſe expreſſions and ſimilitudes are agreeable to Scripture; for, Act. 13. Paul and Barnabas are ſaid to be ſeparated to the work by prayer and faſting and laying on of hands, but both of them were Miniſters before, as appears Act. 12. ult.

Anſ. This text Act. 13. compared with Act. 12. makes nothing for proving the former expreſsion and ſimilitudes, but it makes much againſt the ſcope of your argument; becauſe if Paul and Barnabas were Miniſters before by a call from God without election, and yet the Lord would have them to be ordained, it makes much for the neceſsity of Ordination where it may be had. The holy Ghoſt ſaid Separa… me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereto I have called them. [I have called them] why might not that ſuffice? but that p. 17the Lord would teach us by this extraordinary act and diſpenſation **Quod ſi hoc factum fuit in eo qui immediaté fuit vocatus quanto magis id facere decet in vocationibus mediatis. quae ſunt verba D. Chemnitii, par. 3. l. de eccleſia c. 4. p 333. apud. Gerh. l. com. de min. eccl. c. 3 ſ. 2of his Spirit to make more account of Ordination than of Election, or at leaſt more then you would have us. He ſaith no more but [Separate them for the work] they underſtand his meaning to be [Ordain them:] And therefore when they had faſted and prayed, they (that is the Prophets and Teachers of Antioch) laid their hands on them. No man therefore in an ordinary way, is to be accounted ſeparate to the work of the Miniſtery, untill with faſting and prayer he hath hands laid on him. But of this more hereafter.

5. Should I ſay no more, I think I fall not ſhort of a ſufficient anſwer to this Argument. Yet becauſe herein you make the faireſt ſhew, and ſeem to have the Lutherans and Cavliniſts all on your ſide, and make many particular citations; therefore I ſhall the rather inlarge my ſelf a little in **Nos verò legitimam vocationem nominamus eam quae▪ ſit collect is ſuffragiis totius eccleſiae nullo ordine excluſo: ita tamen ut certa perſona à doctorib…s ec…leſi… examinata ſiſtatur magistratui & popule, à qu… publicè audita communibus omnium ordinum ſuffragiis eligitur, vel juſt is allegat is rationibu… rejicitur. Fred. Baldvinus de artic. S…lcadicis, diſpur. 17. theſi 16. Sequitur ſecundum Ministrorum requiſitum Ordo ſeu ordinatio, quâ perſon a legitimè electa & vocata per alium eccleſiae praesbyterum coram totâ eccleſia, Apoſtolico ritu nimirum manuum impoſitione, aliisque precibus inauguratur, & hac ceremonia quaſi à reliquo caetu ſeparatur, & ſancto miniſterio mancipitur. Id. theſi 46. Eccleſia conſtat tribus ordinibus, Sacro, Politico, Plebeio, omnes in vocationem alicujus conſentire debent ſi vocatio eſt legitima. Ad ſacrum ordinem pertinent Miniſtri eccleſiae, quorum eſt examinare doctrinam & mores vocandi, perſonam que idoneam & eccleſiae utilem ligere. Idde. caſ. conſ. l. 4. c. 4. caſu 3. of Ordinationhe he ſpeaks thus. Citra neceſſitatis caſum & ſi haberi poſſit nequaquam eſt omittenda, propter evitand… novitatis ſcandalum. Semper. e. in eccleſia Apoſtolica uſitata fuit, ubi vocati ad miniſterium verbi per foreign presbyterii in officio ſuo confirmati ſunt. & cap. 6. caſu 1. Presbyterii nomine intelliguntur non tantum Miniſtri verbi, ſedetiam illi qui ab eccleſia ad functiones eccleſiaſticas conſtituendas ſunt deputati, quos Seniores praepoſitos & conſiliarios eccleſia, adeo que ſenatum eccleſiaſticum appellam…s. Atque his quidem presbyter is primas partes in electione & vocatione Miniſtrorum conc…denda… eſſe, nemo ſanus ut opin…r negabit. AEgidius Hunnius. Dan. Arculariu…. Jo. Wilke…mannus, &c. Propoſitionum com. 2. diſp. 22. theſe 83 & 84. vide plura apud Ba…thaſ. M…zerum in exegeſi Auguſtian… confeſſionis, ad Ar. 4. num. 4, 5, 6, & 8. Chemnitium … exam. conc. Trid. De ſ…cra…. ordinis, ad can. 8. Nic. Hunnium indemonſ. Min. Lutheran…, per totum.matter of teſtimony, and deſire that theſe few things may be obſerved.

1. The generall opinion of the Lutherans about the regular and orderly Calling of a Miniſter, is, That the three Orders, Claſſes, or Eſtates, (all theſe words are uſed by them) that p. 18is, Magiſtrates, Miniſters, and People, by a ſeverall intereſt of Suffrage, are to concur, together, or apart, to the calling of a Miniſter. And herein they make an act of Miniſters and Elders, as ſuch, to be neceſſary, yea the moſt neceſſary, proper and eſſentiall thing. And this ſuppoſed as antecedent, they uſe to ſay Ordination is the declaration of a Call, and compare it with Coronation, or the ſolemnization of Mariage. And though they hold Ordination to be but a declaration of the Calling, yet they hold it more or leſſe neceſſary, and to be the peculiar act of Miniſters and Elders.

Gerhard one of the moſt eminent among them, to juſtifie the Calling of Miniſters (in eccleſiis quas vocant evangelicis) uſeth this argument againſt Bellarmine. Vocatio mediata legitima juxta divinam inſtitutionem & Apoſtolorum praxin fieri debet à tota eccleſia & omnibus tribus illius ordinibus. Noſtrorum vocatio fit à tota eccleſia & omnibus tribus illius or dinibus. Ergo. A lawfull mediate Calling according to Divine inſtitution and the Apoſtles practice, muſt be made by the whole Church and all the three Orders thereof. The call of our Miniſters is made by the whole Church, and all the three Orders thereof. Therefore it is lawfull according to Divine inſtitution, and Apoſtolicall practice. The minor, ſaith he, is manifeſt out of the cuſtome uſed in our Churches **Ad exemplum enim eccleſiae Apostolicae & primitivae, homines idon…is & neceſſariis donis à Deo inſtructi, ab ordinariis Presbyteris, Magiſtratu conſtituente, & Populo ſuffragante poſt legitimam vocation in per impoſitionem manuum, & preces ordinatium, & hac ratione cultu… divino conſecrantur Loquimur dejure & ordinarid reguld in conſtitionibus noſtris eccleſioſticip praeſcr…p…â. …. Gerh. l. com. to. 6. deminiſt eccleſiaſt. c. 3. §. 9. p. 157. Nos ordinationis ritum nequaequam omittendum, ſed extra neceſſitatis caſumin conſtitutione miniſterii eccleſia lici ſemper adbidendum eſſe ditimus. Idem quo ſupra §. 12.. So as in their judgements an act of Miniſters and Elders is of divine inſtitution in the calling of a Miniſter.

Yet a little more cleerly and fully concerning the intereſt of Miniſters about the calling of a Miniſter. **v. Nic. Hun. in Dem. Min. Lutherani, p. 199. multis ex cauſis miniſtris nau ſabem ſuſfragiunt, ſed primum ac praecip. ſuſſragium meriti…ſimeconceditur. 1. Hoc poſtulat praecep…um Apoſtolicum, 2 Tim. 2. 2. Tit. 1. 5. 2. Aptitudo cligendi. 3. ipſius offici… ratio. 4 ratio pro animabus reddenda. 5. exemplū Apoſtoli, Act. 1. Act 6. 2, 3. 6. piae & orthodoxae antiquitatis exempl….2 Tim 2:2Titus 1:5Titus 1:2Acts 1Acts 6:2Acts 6:3Acts 6:6The ſame Gerhard enquiring to whom the right and power of Calling doth belong, gives this anſwer. [Whereas in the Church there be three diſtinct ſtates or orders, the Eccleſiaſticall, Politicall, and Oeconomicall; or Presbyterie, Magiſtrate, and People, of all which as of ſo many members the Church p. 19conſiſteth; Therefore no ſtate of the Church is ſimply to be excluded, but their parts and offices muſt be left to every one of them in the mediate calling of Miniſters. And 1. (ſaith he) that Biſhops and Presbyters (underſtand by both names one thing) muſt be uſed when the Miniſtery is to be commended to any one, is manifeſt (ex mandato Apoſtolico) by the Apoſtolike commandement and the approved examples of Scripture, Act. 14. 23. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. Tit. 1. 5. Comming afterwards to ſpeak more particularly (quid cuivis ſtatui propriè tribuendum ſit) what is properly to be given to every ſeverall ſtate; that no confuſion may ariſe, and one ſtate may not take to it ſelf that which is peculiar to another; after other things premiſed, he makes this diſtribution of their parts:

Presbyterio competit exame…, ordinatio & inauguratio: To the Presbyterie belongs examination, ordination, inauguration. Magiſtratui Chriſtiano nominatio, praeſentatio, confirmatio: To the Chriſtian Magiſtrate nomination, preſentation, confirmation. Populo conſenſus, ſuffragium, approbatio, vel etiani pro ratione circumſtantiarum poſtulatio: To the People conſent, ſuffrage, approving, or as circumſtances may require, poſtulation. Id. loco & cap. citatis ſec. 3. num. 85. p. 93. & num. 86. p. 95. **vid. ead. apud cund. Auguſtana confeſſion is par. 2. cap. 1.Now Sir I beſeech you recollect your ſelf, and tell whether in the judgement of the Lutherans, Miniſters and Elders, as ſuch, have not an intereſt in the calling of a Miniſter; or why the Peoples act ſhould be eſſentiall, and not the Miniſters, by vertue of any ground which they build upon; and where you find in them Ordination and Impoſition of hands ſo diſtinguiſhed as they are here by you.

2. The Calviniſts do for the moſt part agree with the Hanc (viz. electionem ſeu deſignationem Miniſtri) dicimus non ad ſolom ſupremum Magiſtratum pertinere, us Gretius & alii judicarunt, nec. etiam ad ſolam eccleſiam Excluſo magiſtratu ut alii volunt, imprimis Anabaptistae & Papiſtae: ſed dicimus ad totam Eccleſiam hanc electionem certo reſpectu pertinere, ordine tamen debito obſervato ut praecant Eccleſiae praefecti adſentiatur populus, quisque ſuo ordine. Ant. Wallaeus locis com. parte 2. de functionibus eccleſiaſticis edit. priore in 4. p. 907. Pertinet autem electio & deſignatio ipſa ad totam Eccleſiam in quâ ſit: ſed diverſ… ratione—Peſsime quoque hallucinantur qui non diſtinguunt quae ſunt Presbyterii, quae aut…m Plebis in electionibus iſtis partes; ſed quod eſt illius, iſtitribuunt, indicentes in eccleſiam Dei magnam omnino confuſionem. Praesbyterorum eſt, perſonam quae idonea ad munus vacuum videri poteſt, inquirere ex totepopulo, cam que deſignareoculis & de ea inter ſeſe agere & conferre…raire enim toti Eccleſiae Presbyteri.—Cum autem hoc. primum ſuffragiū ad praesbyteros pertineat non ad univerſam eccleſiam & populū, quemodmodū tamen quidem ſentiu ut & conſentioſe disputant. Ratio eſt. 1. quòd presbyteri & paſtores dicuntur foreign eccleſia Heb. 13. 7. undo ſua voce ſu… que conſilio praeire populo debent. 2. Quòd illi ipſi ſunt eccleſiae ſenatus ad quem prima rerum eccleſiaſticarum deliberatio ac cura pertinet, atque etiam referenda est. 3. Exemplum ipſius primitivae eccleſiae, Apoſtoli enim ipſi primi de diaconis eligen dis deliberant. 4. Ex ipſa loquendi ratione quâ utitur Scriptura Act. 15 v. 22. 16. v. 4. 1 Cor. 16. v. 3. foreign ex qua phraſi luce clarius intelligatur à populo & univerſa eccleſia probari tantum vel improbari quae praesbyteri & ipſi praepoſiti eccleſia ère eccleſia eſſe judicarant atque propoſuerant. 5. Exempla poſterioris eccleſiae, quae tum canonibus ſuis ſanxit, tum etiam uſu ipſo & praxi demonſtravit à plebe tantum eſſenſum requiri, ut quae à presbyterio geſta ſunt justa aliqua ratione plebs vel rata haberet vel irrita faceret. Sed fierit ſummus Magistratus fidelis in cujus territorio aliquis ad dignitatem eccleſiasticam est aſciſcendus, debet cert… ſpecialis istius Magistratus conſenſus praeter eum qui à toto populo praestatur expectari & accedere. Lamb. Danaeus com. in 1. ad Tim. ad cap. 5. v. 22. p. 348, 349, 352, 353, 354. Vide plura in hunc ſenſum apud Bucanum, loc. 42. de Ministerio in reſponſ. ad quaest. 39. & Marcſium in Enchiridio de Minist. potest. & diſcip. eccleſiae, p. 117. theſi 39 inter Canones eccleſiasticas Synodi Dordrac. can 4. Zanch in 4. praec. loc. 4. qu. 2. to. 4. p. 780. & ſequ. Harmo. Synodorum Belgic. cap. 1. art. 4.Heb 13:7Acts 15:22Acts 15:161 Cor 16:3Lutherans touching the intereſt of Magiſtrates, Miniſters and People about the calling of a Miniſter; though in manner of expreſſion there be ſome difference, yet in the ſubſtance of the thing it ſelf there is an harmony. Some ſpeak of Calling, others of Election, both mean the ſame thing; and aſcribe it not to the People alone, as you do with the Libertines, Anabaptiſts, Browniſts and the like, nor to the Magiſtrate alone p. 20as Grotius and the Eraſtians; but principally and primarily to the Ministers and Elders, and reſpectively to the whole Church.

3. None of thoſe writers in particular which you cite either in the body or margin of that paragraph, pag. 7. exclude Miniſters and Elders from ſharing in the power and act whereby a meet perſon is made a Miniſter; but every one of them hath more or leſſe, expreſly, for their intereſt. For the Calviniſts (to giuegive them the firſt place) I ſhall ſpeak of them in order as you rank them. Ames againſt Bellarmine, tom. 2. p. 76. hath nothing at all one way or other, unleſſe the Edition which I follow deceive me. In that of Oxford, 1624. p. 96. I find this. Populus in judicando dirigi poteſt ac ordinarie debet à judicio aliorum paſtorum electionem vel praeeunte vel p. 21comitante. The people may, and ordinarily muſt be directed in judgement by the judgement of other Paſtors either foregoing or accompanying Election. And in his book of Caſes of Conſcience, lib. 4. cap. 25. num. 27. Actus varii ad vocationem pertinentes poſſunt aliis committi, & ex ordine debent à praecipuis eccleſiae membris vel praesbyte…is praeſtari. Cura etiam ut omnia rectè fiant pertinet ad Magistratum. [Divers actions pertaining to the calling of a Miniſter may be committed to ſome, and according to order muſt be performed by the principall Members or Presbyters of the Church: the care alſo that all things be done rightly, belongeth to the Magiſtrate.] Crocius tels us, the conſpiracio of the people muſt not be taken for a lawfull call. Non conſpiratio populi pro perfectè legitimâ vocatione haberi debet. **Anti-Socin. diſp. 24.Of the rite of Ordaining he ſays, Haec eſt conſtitutionis illius teſtificatio, quae exemplo Apoſtolorum docetur licita, neque extra caſum neceſſitatis in Miniſterio conſtituto temerè negligenda.] This is a teſtification of that Election, which is taught to be lawfull by the Apoſtles example, and not to be raſhly neglected in a ſetled Miniſtery, when there is no caſe of neceſſity.] Out of his words I fram this argument. That which is not only lawfull, but ſo neceſſary about the calling of a Miniſter, that it may not be omitted but only in caſe of neceſſity, is more then a bare ſolemnization, inauguration, or publication and little leſſe then eſſentiall: but ſo it is with Ordination in the judgement of Crotius: therfore Crocius makes againſt you, not for you.

For Iunius, he is ſo far from giving nothing but a bare rite about Ordination to the Presbyterie, that he gives all unto it. And though (in ſeverall reſpects and a divers kind) he aſcribes the power of Ordaining, both to Chriſt as the head and Spouſe of his Church, and to the Church as the Body and Bride: yet (in a mediate Calling) both of them in his judgement make over the power unto Miniſters and Elders. Sic totum in ſolidum Ordinatinnis poteſtatem Chriſtus habet, quam cum eccleſia ſua communicat; uterque verò pro ſuo jure, ſponſus inquam, & ſponſa, Preſbyterio tradit Iure Divino. [So as al the power of Ordination in ful belongs to Chriſt, which he communicates with his Church; and both of them, the p. 22Bridegroom and the Bride, according to the right of each, gives it by Divine right unto the Presbyterie. **Junius anim. in Bellar. con. 5 l. 1. c. 3. ar. 16.] And whereas in the Presbyterie, if it be compleat, there be two ſorts of Elders; he diſtinguiſheth after this manner, that it may be known what belongs to each. Actu preſbyterium totum (i. e. ſinguli in corprre presbyterii) poteſtatem ordinandi habet, ritu verò ſoli Preſbyteri paſcentes verbo, i. e. Miniſtri verbi habent ordinandi poteſtatem **Art. 21.. The power of Ordaining, in the act of it, belongs to the whole Presbyterie, (conſiſting of Miniſters and Elders as diſtinguiſhed) but in the rite of it it belongs to the Preachers only.] What can this Act be as thus conſidered apart from the Rite, but ſomething ſubſtantiall to the Calling? the rather becauſe (in the ſame chapter **Art. 3. profectò id legitimū est ut quemadmodum in ministerio abſolutè per epiſcopos; it à in ministerio foreign bujus aut illius eccleſiae per ipſam eccleſiam ordinetur communi eccleſiae nomine.) he makes the act of the Miniſters and Elders to be that whereby a fit perſon is made a Miniſter; and the act of the Church to be that, whereby he is made a Miniſter of this or that particular Church.

As for Voetius, though of all other he ſeem moſt to favour your cauſe, and to aſcribe much to election, and little to Ordination; yet I deſire that this may be ſeriouſly weighed out of him: That he profeſſedly and at large maintains againſt Ianſenius, that the firſt Reformers had an ordinary outward call, not only to the work of reforming, but alſo to the office of being Miniſters. Which cannot poſſibly be maintained on any other principle but this; That as in ſome caſes Election alone ſufficeth (for he ſpeaks but of Caſes) as all that is eſſentiall to a Calling; ſo in their caſe, Ordination alone made them Miniſters, and that way of Calling conteined all that was eſſentiall thereunto. See to this purpoſe, Deſp. cauſa Papatus, lib. …. ſect. 1. à cap. 2. ad ult. & ſec. 2. cap. 1. & ſeq. uſque ad 12.

And whereas he ſayes, Majorem differentiam, &c. None can imagine a greater difference between theſe two, Election and Ordination, then between the Conſtitution and Commiſſion of a Prince conſidered nakedly, and the ſame commiſſion adorned with ſome arbitrary ſymbols, as ſcepter, crown, &c. It may be anſwered, beſides all the premiſes, that Election is that act whereby one is choſen in futurum Preſbyterum, to be made a p. 23Miniſter; and Ordination is that whereby he who is ſo choſen is actually made a Miniſter. And the reaſon is cleer, Becauſe between Election and Ordination ſomething may intervene to make the choiſe null in relation to the end and effect whereunto it is intended, to wit the making of ſuch a perſon to be a Miniſter. The deſigning of a perſon to be made a King, and the act of putting him into the Kingly office, as the choiſe of a meet perſon to be a wife, and that act of mariage whereby ſhe is made a wife (de praeſenti) do very much differ: the laſt is the moſt formall and conſtitutive. And ſo it is between Election and Ordination when they are rightly compared, and ſpecially when Ordination (as in this debate) is taken for the ſubſtantiall act of Miniſters and Elders diſtinct from the rite of Impoſing hands.

Hitherto of thoſe Calviniſts which you cited. Now for the Lutherans, though you ſpeak big, yet you name but two, and the one was cited to your hand in the other, as Hunnius in Turnovius. For the judgement of Turnovius, **Paulus Turnovius de S. ministerio, l. 1. c. 6.he makes Election to be (vocationis initium tantum) only the beginning of a call, and that it differs from Calling it ſelf; which he proves by the inſtance of thoſe two Act. 1. 23. who were both choſen, and yet but one of them was called: and by experience, becauſe many are choſen, and yet upon examination rejected. And relating to the judgement of Danaeus, that the firſt ſuffrage belongs to the Presbyterie, though he grants in matter of fact it is ſometime otherwiſe, yet he ſays it would be (rectiſſimum & juſtiſſimum) the moſt right and juſt way, that no Patron, Magiſtrate, Nobleman, or Ruler, ſhould make any promiſe to any that they ſhould be taken into this Order of the Miniſtery, before he was (ſatis exploratus) ſufficiently tryed both for doctrine, ability to teach, and converſation, by the Preſbyterie, Conſiſtory, or Superintendent and Company of Miniſters. Quòd quoties negligitur, & hic ordo legitimus non ſervatur, toties ju…a eccleſiae violantur, atque utinam ipſa in periculum nunquam praecipitaretur. For Hunnius, I cannot yet meet with that Tract of his which you cite, but you have his judgement out of other writings.

4. The uſe of Ordination (take it how you will in the p. 24ſenſe of Proteſtant writers) is more then to ſolemnize, inaugurate, or publiſh the calling of a Miniſter. And therefore your [but to ſolemnize] is a gloſſe of your own to corrupt the text of thoſe Authors (and others of like kind) whom you have quoted.

Why was not that engliſhed, Miſſio ſolennis in poſſeſſionem honoris, The ſolemn miſſion into the poſſeſsion of honour? Shew us ſome reaſon why a right in the thing ſhould not be eſſentiall as well as a right unto it; or ſome other Scripture way whereby a Miniſter is actually made a Miniſter, and put into the poſſeſſion of Miniſteriall power, beſides that of Ordination. Tarnovius in the book and chap. which you have cited, pag. 267. aſſigns a threefold uſe of it. [1. The perſon choſen is by this ceremony ſeparated from the remaining company of Hearers, and conſecrated unto God as a ſacrifice. 2. He is hereby commended to the Church as the Governour thereof. 3. Bleſſed unto the Miniſtery, and to that end Prayer and Faſting uſe to be joyned.] From the firſt of theſe ariſeth this argument. When a man is ſeparated from the common company and condition of hearers, and conſecrated unto God to do him ſervice in the holy function of the Miniſtery, then he is formally and eſſentially made a Miniſter. But every man is ſo ſeparated and conſecrated in and by his Ordination; therefore in and by Ordination he is formally and eſſentially made a Miniſter.

Chemnitius among other uſes whereunto it ſerves, ſets down this for one, ut eſſet quaſi publica & ſolennis eccleſiae coram deo proteſtatio in electione & vocatione ſervatam eſſe formam & regulam à ſpiritu ſancto praeſcriptam. [That it might be as it were a publique and ſolemn proteſtation of the Church before God, that the forme and rule preſcribed by the holy Ghoſt hath been obſerved in election and calling.] But how can ſuch a proteſtation be thereby made, unleſſe Miniſters be taken into the Election and Calling, not onelyonly to direct and guide the Church in chooſing, but alſo to judge and determine of the validity of their choice; ſeeing the forme and rule preſcribed by the holy Ghoſt in Scripture examples gives no election or power of calling to the people, p. 25but under an overſight and proſtacie. (For as he well obſerves **ad Can. 6, 7, 8.out of the Apoſtles pr…ctice Act. 1. about Mathias, and Act. 6. about the Deacons) Non prorſus ſe abdicant cura vocationis, & vulgi aut multitudinis caecae & confuſae libidini eam permittunt, ſed ſunt quaſi gubernatores & moderatores electionis & vocationis. Proponunt enim doctrinam & regulam quales & quomodo eligere debeant, & electi ſiſtuntur coram Apoſtolis, ut illorum judicio electio probetur an rectè fiat; illi verò orantes impoſitione mannuns electionem approbant. The end of Ordination is therefore (with him) to approve and validate the Peoples choice, which might otherwiſe be accounted null or inſufficient. And in this ſenſe may all thoſe particular expreſſions which you have cited be underſtood; that Ordination is a ſolemne declaration, a teſtification of the Miniſters conſtitution, A publique teſtimony of one called, A conſecration, manifeſtation, declaration, ſignification, and ſolemn teſtification before the Church. All which declaration, teſtification, &c. is to be performed by Miniſters and Elders; not only as Witneſſes, but as Judges in the room and ſtead of God and Chriſt: and without this, the ſufficiency of all that is done by the people may be ſuſpected and queſtioned. And if it be well conſidered that the mediate, as well as immediate Calling of a Miniſter doth properly belong to God alone and to Chriſt as their act; it will plainly appeare, that where ſuch a declaration is wanting (which ſhould be performed by them who in their office act in the name of God and Chriſt) that there that which is moſt proper to an externall and mediate calling from God is wanting. And if it were granted that Ordination in this ſenſe is but to ſolemnize &c. yet it would not follow that it is not eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter, but rather on the contrary that it is: becauſe though it may be admitted that God calls by the Church in chooſing; yet the Peoples proper part is to deſire and accept, or to deſigne the perſon, but with ſubmiſſion to the Miniſters and Elders, who are to judge, detetmine and declare, yea to give, and ſet over, with the Churches conſent and approbation, in the room and ſtead of Chriſt: ſo as when one is to be Ordained, (Commitur illi p. 26nomine ac loco Dei ab Ordinatore cura gregis dominici) The care of the Lords flock is, by him who Ordains, committed * Nic. Hunnius quo ſupr. p. 280.to him that is Ordained, in the name and place of God.

Your third Reaſon:

Then a man is a Miniſter when he hath a calling to the work from God and man: But both theſe he may have without Ordination.

Anſ. That a man is a Miniſter when he hath a calling to the work from God and man, is granted; if you underſtand this Call not of a providentiall permiſſion on Gods part, nor of any undue and irregular choiſe by the people alone; but of Gods calling with approbation, and mans orderly proceeding to make a Miniſter according to the rules of Scripture in that caſe provided. And that both theſe, God and man, may concurre in a calling without Ordination in ſome extraordinary caſes, will not be denyed. That which you ſhould prove, is, that Ordination is eſſentiall neither in eccleſiâ conſtitutâ, nor conſtituendâ But let us ſee what you prove.

A man is called by God, when he is approved to he of eminent gifts, and hath his heart ſtirred up by ſpirituall reſpects to uſe thoſe gifts for publique good.

Anſ. It ſeems by this, that Judas had no call of God to be an Apoſtle, nor the ſons of Ely to be Prieſts; and that an unregenerate perſon cannot be a Miniſter called of God; nor any regenerate perſon, though he have ſufficiencie, unleſſe he be of eminent gifts. But who muſt have the judging of this eminencie, and of the ſpirituall reſpects wherewith the heart is ſtirred up to uſe them for publique good? Is no other judgement to be made uſe of but a mans own? or have the People all power to be ſole Judges in this caſe? Firſt prove that Miniſters and Elders are no competent Judges in this kind, and then you ſhall heare further. But of Mans calling it followes.

p. 27He is called by Man, when the People who are godly, conſulting with the Word of God, and laying aſide all carnall reſpects, chooſe him and give up themſelves unto him.

Anſ. Suppoſe ungodly people chooſe a godly man approved to be of eminent parts; is the choice void, becauſe the chooſers are not godly? Who ſhall be Judge of the peoples godlineſſ? if themſelves alone, then who will be excluded from being of the number of the godly? Every Miniſter lawfully called is ae gift of Chriſt **Eph. 4. 8. 11.Eph 4:8Eph 4:11: therefore people ſhould rather receive Miniſters as from his hands, by the Ordination of other Miniſters and Elders, then give Miniſters unto Chriſt, and unto themſelves. If Miniſters be ſent them and ſet over them in the Lord, they may receive them by acceptance, 2 Cor. 8. 5. ….2 Cor 8:5and give up themſelves unto the Lord, and unto them as his Miniſters, although they do not firſt and formally chooſe them themſelves. Carnall reſpects may ſometimes cauſe godly people to chooſe one rather then another, and (it may be) the more unworthy. True Apoſtles were often deſpiſed, when Falſe teachers and the meſſengers of Satan were welcomed as Angels of light. And therefore the calling of a Miniſter ſhould not be left entirely to peoples election upon pretence of godlineſſe. You know who made this outery, **Numb. 16. 3.Num 16:3All the Congregation is holy, yea every one of them; to ſet up themſelves in ſtead of thoſe who were ſet over them by the Lord himſelf. And we cannot but remember S. Pauls propheſie, which is too much verified in the hiſtory of our times; The time will come when they will not endure ſound doctrine, but after their own luſts they ſhall heap to themſelves 2 Tim. 4. 3.2 Tim 4:3Teachers, having itching eares.

But where is the proof of your Aſſertion? What Scripture have you to ſhew that Peoples choice (their conſent is of another nature) is either only eſſentiall, or otherwiſe eſſentiall unto the calling of a Miniſter in all caſes, then Ordination is? or where are Miniſters and Elders interdicted from acting in the call of others?

Your Minor, That a Miniſter may have a call both from God and man, without Ordination, may be thus inverted. A Miniſter may have a call from God and man without the p. 28Peoples election: for ſo had the Evangeliſts, and ſo may they who are ſent to preach among the Heathens; and they who are firſt Ordained, and after ſent unto a people and accepted of by them as their Miniſters. And therefore popular election is not eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter.

Yet though the Scripture faile, it may be the Proteſtants againſt the Socinians will help you out. Of all others, I fear, thoſe who write againſt Socinians (whoſe cauſe you patronize in this) will hardly ſtand by you to the laſt; And the Socinians themſelves do ſpeak more favourably of Ordination then you have done. Smalcius againſt Frantzius ſpeaking in the name of all the reſt, ſayes thus: Non negamus ex iſta conſuetudine primitivae eccleſiae Apoſtolicae conſequi, illud etiam jure fieri poſſe hodie quod olim fiebat; & ſi eccleſia ſemper incorrupta manſiſſet, non dubitamus quin valde juſtum fuiſſet ut modus iſte ordinandi Miniſtros obſervaretur, quemadmodum etiam nunc ubi conſtituta eſt reſpub. Chriſtiana valdè decorum eſſe arbitramur ut id obſervetur. Sed non hoc potiſſimum quaeritur. Hocenim in quaeſtione eſt, an hujuſmodi conſtitutio ſit prorſus neceſſaria ad conſtituendum verbi Dei miniſtrum **Smalcius in refutatione Theſium Wol. Frantzii diſp 4 pag. 337. Vide plura apud eund. Hom. 4. in 1. Joh. p. 40.. You engage your ſelf upon the ſame point of conteſt with them, but no where grant ſo much as they. To that of Crocius againſt the Socinians, where he makes Calling neceſſary, and not Ordination, this might ſuffice: He ſpeaks not of Ordination as diſtinguiſhed from Impoſition of hands, as you here do, but as convertible therewith; and in Calling does not exclude the Miniſters and Elders from acting, as ſuch, Yet becauſe all that you have here, is a tranſcript out of him, (yet but a part) I have the more diligently peruſed that Author, & find you very injurious in quoting of him by leaveing out theſe two materiall paſſages. One concerning Election: Non enim conſpiratio populi pro perfectè legitimâ vocatione haberi debet, ubi non obſervatur Dei voluntas, ſed temerarius plebis & ſtultus aſſenſus, quem rudiores & indigni praeproperis pranſationibus ferè captant. Wherein he intimates what great abuſe is incident to the choice of the people: for the preventing whereof I conceive no better remedy then Ordination. The other is concerning Ordination, which though p. 29he makes to be but Conſtitutionis teſtiſicatio, (ſpeaking of the rite) yet he ſayes it is not extra caſum neceſſitatis in Miniſterio conſtituto temerè negligenda. In another of his Works he ſpeaks more fully to the ſame point. Ordinatio miniſtrorum per manuum impoſitionem, non quidem abſolutè neceſſaria (that's againſt the Papiſts) non tamen quia apprimè utilis, extra neceſſitatis caſum temere omittenda eſt. (this later part makes againſt the Socinians and your ſelf.)**Lud. Crocius ſyntag. Thcol. l. 4. c. 15. reg. 6.

**Joſ. Stegman Photinianiſmo diſp. 52. qu. 5. An ritus ordinationis futuro Eccleſiae ministro ſit neceſſarius?Joſ. Stegman ſpeaking to the ſame point, expreſſeth himſelf more exactly. [We diſtinguiſh between the neceſſity of Vocation and Ordination: Vocationis neceſſitatem majorem, Ordinationis minorem dicimus.] Both are neceſſary according to his judgement, though not alike neceſſary.—And a little after: Vel ipſo reſpectu manet neceſſaria quod extra caſum neceſſitatis in Miniſterio conſtituto negligi non poteſt. All this he ſaith (de ritu Ordinationis) of the ceremony uſed in Ordaining. What he judgeth of the ſubſtantiall act of Miniſters and Elders, may be eaſily underſtood thereby.

It remains yet on your part to prove, that Ordination is never neceſſary to a Calling: your own Witneſſes have aſſerted the contrary; and beſides them the Profeſſors at Leyden, who are as antient as Ames, Crocius, or Voetius, and as well worthy to be reckoned among Proteſtant Divines. They propounding the queſtion, **In Synop. pur. Thcol. inter Coroll. ad disput. 42. An Miniſtri futuri Ordinatio in eccleſia ſemper requiratur? R. Sicut ejus vocationem, ſic ejuſdem Ordinationem in eccleſia jam conſtituta ſemper requiri, adverſus Socinianos affirmamus. For Rivetus (who is one of them) theſe are his words by himſelf, in the name of Proteſtants. Cum Cypriano agnoſcimus, hibere aut tenere eccleſiam nullo modo poſſe, qui ordinatus in occleſia non eſt. Nec nos alios agnoſcimus Paſtores praeter eos qui juxta Apoſtolorum canonesin Actis & Epiſtolis, legitime ſunt Ordinati. Si qui ſunt qui illud munus uſurpant ſiue vocatione Eccleſiae, eos inter vagahundos & circumforaneos rejicimus. Apol. pro verâ pace Eccl. §. 96. p. 180.Whether Ordination be alwayes required? anſwer affirmatively againſt the Socinians, That in a conſtituted Church it is alwayes required.

Your fourth Reaſon:

4. Whatſoever ſubſtantiall act belongs to the making of Quicunque ad docendum idoneus eligitur, &c.a Miniſter, or is ſolemnized in Ordination, the ſame is done in Election.

p. 30Anſ. What you mean by Election here is uncertain, whether an act of choice by the people alone, (as moſt of your expreſſions imply) or an act of the whole Church conſiſting of Miniſters and Elders as one part, and of the People as of another: for ſo it is to be underſtood in Hunnius, whom here you cite in the margin; what think you of this in ſtead of it? Miniſters and Elders alone without People do every ſubſtantiall act which is done in election. They examine and approve his abilities, ſet him apart to the Miniſtry. The people receive him as from God by their hands, and he accepts of the Charge whereunto he is aſſigned by them; therefore Election is not eſſentiall unto the calling of a Miniſter. But perhaps the ſtrength of your Proofs may carry it, though your naked Argument would bluſh to ſee it ſelf. Therefore if this might ſuffice to the whole, yet I ſhall ſay ſomething to the particulars of amplification.

To Election there goes the tryall and approbation of a mans abilities.

Anſ. So there does to Ordination; and whether Miniſters and Elders be not as able at leaſt for this, as the People, let the people judge. In this reſpect therfore Ordination may be as eſſential as Election. **Note.As for your quotations here to the beginning of this 4. reaſon, they are the ſame which you gave us before, p. 7. for the 8. Reaſon, and ſerve only in this place to ſwell the margin for a ſhew; and therefore I paſſe them over and refer the Reader to the anſwer of them in that place where they were firſt alleadged.

In Election the Church giveth up it ſelf to God to take whom he ſhall direct their hearts unto, and in chooſing one well Act. 1. 24.Acts 1:24qualified they chooſe him whom God would have choſen.

Anſ. In Ordination Miniſters and Elders give up themſelves to God to ordain him whom he ſhall direct their hearts unto; and in ordaining one well qualified, they ordain him whom God would have ordained. Where is the ſubſtantiall p. 31difference that Ordination may not be eſſentiall? Yet I pray you remember that which we read Act. 1. 24. ſpeaks of …ods chooſing, not of the peoples. And where all the eleven Apoſtles were chooſers, Miniſters and Elders are virtually a part. There were two nominated at that time, both well qualified, and both referred unto God, and he choſe one. If the people had all power in making Miniſters, why did not they apart from the Apoſtles chooſe one alone, when there was but one to be choſen? but to teach us that to the regular Call of a Miniſter ſomething is neceſſary beſides a meer election by the people.

In their choice they (h. e. the People) eo ipſo ſeparate and ſet him apart to the Miniſter….

Anſ. Thoſe two whom the hundred & twenty preſented Act. 1. 23. foreign, were neither of them eo ipſo ſet apart to the Miniſtry; but after the lot fell upon Mathias, eo ipſo he became an Apoſtle, and was numbred with the eleven. When the holy Ghoſt ſaid, Separate me Paul and Barnabas with faſting and prayer, by Impoſition of hands they were ſeparated, Act. 13. 1, 2, 3. So in Ordination, when a perſon well qualified hath hands laid on him with faſting and prayer, eo ipſo he is ſeparate and ſet apart to the Miniſtry **See the teſtimonies formerly cited, pag. 17.. But where is either precept, example, or grouund of reaſon for people to ſet any man apart by a ſole act of their own, and thereby to make him a Miniſter, when they may have Miniſters and Elders to joyn with them in chooſing, and after to Ordain?

Him (h. e. the Miniſter) they take as from Gods appointment and hand, they offer themſelves to God by him.

Anſ. This is true, when one is Ordained for them, whom they accept of as made their Miniſter by Ordination, and who accepts of them as his cure and charge. But when people chooſe one to be a Miniſter, who neither is Ordained, nor intends to be, they give him to God ſo as they are the Prieſts, and the Miniſter the Sacrifice, and God muſt receive p. 32him as a Miniſter to him from their appointment and hand. The truth is, a Miniſter ſhould be called in ſuch a manner as he may come to the Church from God, and as a gift of Chriſt, yet ſo as it may appear that the Church receives him as ſuch; and therefore as ſome teſtimony of the Churches conſent is neceſſary, ſo much more an Ordination by Miniſters and Elders: for otherwiſe well may Miniſters be looked upon as given by the Church unto God, but it cannot be held out that they are given from God to the Church.

In accepting the choice, the Party choſen undertak…th to be in Gods ſtead to them, and in their ſtead and behalf to God, (for what elſe is it to be a Miniſter?) And all this is done with prayer and mutuall agreement.2 Cor. 5. 20.2 Cor 5:20

Anſ. All this is but a conſequent of Election and Ordination both; no ſubſtantiall act of either, but an effect; The duty of a Miniſter when he hath a call, towards God and the people to whom he is aſſigned, not the formall thing whereby he is made a Miniſter. That a Miniſter is an ambaſſadour for Chriſt, God beſeeches by him, and he in Chriſts ſtead, we learn indeed from 2 Cor. 5. 20. But this makes nothing at all for a call by popular election, becauſe many were true Miniſters (as Prophets and Apoſtles) in all theſe reſpects, who were never choſen by the Church to that end, but by God alone. And what is more improper then for a People to chooſe an Ambaſſador, and one to be in Gods ſtead unto them? As he is to act for them, there is ſome pretence for choice, but no neceſſity; for every High-Prieſt (yea every Prieſt) was taken from among men, and Ordained for men in Heb. 5. 1.Heb 5:1things pertaining to God: and yet none of them was properly choſen by men, but all by God. And as he is to act for God, ſo its neceſſary there ſhould be ſome act whereby Gods ſending of him in his ſtead may appeare. The choice or calling of Ambaſſadors belongs not to them to whom they come as Ambaſſadors, but unto him from whom and in whoſe name they are to act. And becauſe God doth not now adayes make any extraordinary deſignations, either by voyce from p. 33heaven, as at Chriſts aaMat. 3. 17.Matt 3:17baptiſme and transfiguration bbch. 17. 5., or by prophecie, as in the caſe of Timothy cc1 Tim. 4. 14.1 Tim 4:14; or by ſome extraordinary and expreſſe ſignation of his Spirit, as in the caſe of Paul and Barnabas ddAct. 13. 2.Acts 13:2; or by viſion, as in the caſe of Paul at firſt unto Ananias; or by lot, as in the caſe of Matthias: e ch. 9. 15.there remains the only way of Ordination, whereby we come f ch. 1. 26.to know who are ſent of God, and who are not.

Now as where the Church agrees in an act, God will be preſent to confirme that act, Mat. 18. 18, 19. ſo Prayer is alſo a ſeparation of one to the Miniſtery, Act, 13. 2, 3.

Anſ. The word Church is not uſed in either of thoſe verſes which you cite in Matthew; and in the 17. verſe where we find it, it ſignifies a company endowed with power of binding and looſing, and conſequently the Presbyterie, Miniſters and Elders. If they agree to Ordain a Miniſter, their act is valid by vertue of this …ext: And if they ask of God the confirmation or bleſſing of their act, it ſhall be granted them. Agreement muſt here be underſtood not only with reference to the perſons among themſelves, but with reſpect unto the right rule of acting. That people have a power to chooſe themſelves a Miniſter, and by that act of theirs to make him one without Ordination, who otherwiſe is none, even when there is a way open for his Ordination, (for that muſt here be ſuppoſed) remains yet for you to prove. That Prayer alone is a ſeparation of one to the Miniſtery, is but your bare aſſertion: and to cite Act. 13. 2, 3. for the proof of this, is bold preſumption, and abuſe of Scripture. That Deacons were ſeparated with prayer and impoſition of hands without faſting, (for there is no mention of that) we read in Act. 6. 6. And that Paul and Barnabas were ſeparated by prayer, faſting, and impoſition of hands, we read alſo Act. 13. 2, 3. But what's this to prove ſeparation by Prayer only; and that alſo by the people alone, without Miniſters and Elders?

Adde further. Our tranſlators of the Bible take and render foreign to ordain, which ſignifies properly to chooſe: And p. 34where the Scripture ſpeaks expreſly of chooſing, they ſupply the text with the word Ordain.

Anſ. Our tranſlators uſe the word Ordain for the Engliſh of ſeverall words in the Greek: as in the Old Teſtament, for that one Engliſh word Idols, there be many and divers words Elilim. Gillu. lim▪ Tera…him. Baal…m. Tſirim. &c.in the Hebrew. This liberty is neceſſary, and almoſt unavoidable in many places; and the more warrantable, becauſe the Holy Ghoſt ſpeaking in divers places of the ſame thing, does often vary in the manner of expreſſing. And this is to be found not only by comparing thoſe places which are cited out of the Hebrew in the Greek of the New Teſtament, but alſo one place of the Hebrew with another, as Ainſworth often obſerves in his Annotations. That foreign often ſignifies properly to chooſe, in ſome places, is granted; provided that you acknowledge it may ſignifie ſometimes as properly to ordain: for it may indifferently be applied as well to Magiſtrates, when by vote or ſuffrage they conſtitute, which is by way of authority to ordain; as to People, when they elect or chooſe by way of priviledge or of power. Whereas you ſay the Scripture ſpeaks expreſly of chooſing, in Act. 1. 22. and yet the Tranſlators ſupply the text with the word ordain; it is a great injury not only to the Tranſlators, but to the Scripture it ſelf, and to the Holy Ghoſt who is the author of them. The 21. and 22. Verſes being taken in together to make up one entire ſentence, tell us, foreign One muſt be made witneſſe with us of Christs reſurrection. Here the Scripture ſpeaks expreſly of making, not of chooſing; and of one to be made not by the people, but by God. Among thoſe who were preſent, there were not people only, but thoſe who were greater then Miniſters and Elders: and they appointed (foreign) or preſented and nominated two, that God might chooſe one **Non audent unum aliquem certo nomina re, ſed duos in medium producunt & Domin…s ſorte declaret utrum ex iis velit ſuccedere. Calv. inſt. l. 4. c. 3. ſ. 13.. Shew whether of theſe two thou haſt choſen, (foreign) Here indeed the Scripture ſpeaks of Gods chooſing one, and ſuch a kind of chooſing may well be called ordaining, becauſe it is a conſtitutive and conſummating act whereby the people are bound to receive one as ſet over them by God. But in the making of Matthias an Apoſtle, the people had no ſuch power (as in this ſenſe) to p. 35chooſe him: if they had, why were lots uſed? for then they might have pitched on one without uſing ſuch a means of deciſion.

Hen. Stephan calls the act of choice (foreign) creare magiſtratum, the making of an Officer; for it is (as he ſayes) a new-found ſenſe of the word to ſignifie laying on of hands. And if the Apoſtle Luke ſhould uſe it for laying on of hands, Engl. pop. cer. p. 155, 166. Carth. on Act. 14. 23.Acts 14:23it was never uſed ſo before his time by any writer holy or prophane: And unleſſe his purpoſe was to write that which none ſhould read, it muſt needs be that as he wrote, ſo he meant, Election by voyces, (ſayes Cartwright.)

Anſ. Henry Stephan ſayes that foreign ſignifies (a-among other things) creare magiſtratum the making of a Magiſtrate; at cum accuſati…o perſonae, creare. Sic etiam Act. 14. citing the words of the Text; and adds, At vetus interpres, Quum conſtituiſſent. But then he tells you, Sunt tamen qui ad ritum foreign, i. e. impoſitionis manum, id referri putent, quum alioqui novum uſum huic verbo hic tribuere minimè neceſſe videntur. Here you diſcover either negligence or fraud. The ſenſe of the word which he approves in that Text Act. 14 is creating, or conſtituting; others he ſayes underſtand by it impoſition of hands; this he calls a new uſe of the word, and ſayes it may ſeem not neceſſary, yet he does not deny but the word may beare that ſenſe: becauſe he knew well what he had ſaid before, that foreign manum portendo & attollo, manum porrigo; and that in Impoſition of hands there is a lifting up and ſtretching out of the hands; for what is foreign but foreign, as he alſo expreſſes it? The Text ſpeaks of conſtituting; and becauſe in conſtituting Church-officers, impoſition of hands was the rite uſed in the Apoſtles times, therefore it ſhould not ſeem ſo ſtrange a thing to hold, that as the act of Paul and Barnabas in chooſing Presbyters, ſo alſo the conſequent act of impoſing hands ſhould be comprehended under that one word foreign, ſeeing the etymologie of the word agrees to the latter, if the uſe do not. Certain it is that the Greek Fathers and Councels do uſe the word for impoſition of hands moſt frequently, as Bilſon inſtances at large **Of Perp. Government.; which p. 36they would never have done if the nature of the word would Dr. Fulk in locum ſayes, both election by the Church, and Ordination by impoſition of hands of the Apoſtles, are comprehended under that one word.not have borne ſuch a uſe. And it is as certain that many Greek words are uſed in the New Teſtament in ſuch a ſenſe as they are no where elſe to be found: thoſe common words of foreign and foreign are enough to prove it. And if you will needs have foreign to ſignifie nothing but an act of choice or election by voices (as you call it) yet Paul and Barnabas were the chooſers, and this makes nothing for popular election, which you would hauehave to be the unum and unicum neceſſarium in the Calling of a Miniſter; and yet you cannot prove by this word (as there uſed) that the people choſe at all, and much leſſe that they only were the chooſers. Produce if you can but one inſtance out of any Author, wherein the word is uſed in ſuch a ſenſe as you contend for, viz. for ſome to chooſe by other mens voices? Our old Engliſh tranſlation, When they had ordained them Elders by election, doth plainly hold out that two diſtinct acts, ordaining and electing, yet not two diſtinct agents, are included under that one word. Beza upon the place, though he ſayes enough to ſhew that Ordination from Popiſh Biſhops is not neceſſary, yet endeavours not to prove that Impoſition of hands is not included under the Greek word. To ſay that Impoſition of hands is there meant (vi vocis) by the proper ſignification of the word, is indeed abſurd; but to hold it is included (ex natura rei) from the nature of the thing, the making of Church-officers, and the example of the Apoſtles elſwhere upon like occaſions, is no abſurdity. As for Cartwright, though he is a little warmer in many expreſſions then needed, yet in the cloſe he is exceeding wary, and ſayes, They ſpeak untruly which accuſe us (Proteſtants) as if we ſo commended the Churches election, as we ſhut out the Biſhops ordination, which we do not only give unto them, but make them alſo the chief and directors in the Election; underſtanding by Biſhops only ſuch as are mentioned in Scripture, and not humane creatures.

All that followes might be ſpared, but that you have a great mind to let the world know you ſometimes look into a Greek Dictionary: and leſt ſome Readers be beguiled p. 37by your ſhew of Learning; I ſhall therefore omit nothing, eſpecially becauſe you earneſtly call for obſervation.

Yea let it further be obſerved that in Election and Ordination the ſame word is uſed. In Election, Act. 1. 23. Act. 6. 6. foreign. In Ordination it is foreign, the ſame word with the addition of a Prepoſition (foreign) only.

Anſ. That Act. 1. 23. ſpeaks not properly of Election, in your ſenſe, is already proved. Neither is Election to be underſtood by the word foreign in Act. 6. 6. In the 5. verſe it is ſaid of the whole multitude, they choſe Steven &c. foreign. The ſixth verſe ſayes they ſet them, viz. thoſe whom they had choſen, before the Apostles, not over themſelves by way of authority, but before them that they might Ordain them. I wonder at your boldneſſe with the Scripture, and eſpecially at your abuſe of words in the Originall language. The truth is, though the Apoſtles referred the choice of fit perſons to the people, yet as they took unto themſelves to preſcribe the qualifications, and the number of the perſons, wherein they make themſelves Judges of the election, ſo they reſerved unto themſelves the conſtitution and ordination of them, and thereby plainly declare that Election without an Ordination ſuffices not, no not in the caſe of Deacons, and much leſſe of Miniſters of the Word. And in this they ſeem plainly to have an eye (as in all things that belong to the politie of the Church) to the common-wealth of Iſrael, and to Moſes his manner of making officers among the Jews, whereof we read in Deuteronomy. Take (or give) ye wiſe men and underſtanding among your tribes, and I will make them **foreign apud Sept.rulers over you, (ch. 1. 13.) And ye anſwered me and ſaid, The thing which thou haſt ſpoken is good for us to do (v. 14.) ſo I took the chief of your tribes wiſe men and known, and made them **foreign.heads over you. (v. 15.) This gives great light to that in the Acts, if the phraſes be compared. But all this while we have nothing for Election alone, without Ordination. But ſomething we have for Ordination by your own grant, for foreign refers to Ordination. You muſt needs intend this of the phraſe in p. 38Act. 6. 3. and if there it be ſo underſtood, it is the more likely to have the ſame ſenſe in Tit. 1. 5. which you denyed before. Yet you ſeem loth to grant that truth which you dare not deny: and therefore having ſaid that foreign in Act. 1. 23. and Act. 6. 6. is to be underſtood of Election, and foreign (for that you mean out of Act. 6. 3.) of Ordination; yet you go about to prove that the ſimple and compound word have the ſame ſenſe and ſignification, that by this grammaticiſme you may ſeem to gain ſomething. Thus men who are ready to ſink, uſe to catch at any thing, or the ſhadow of a thing. Hitherto we have not found an Election in any ſenſe without an Ordination, as Act. 6. or ſomething more, as an extraordinary deciſion by lots, but it may be we ſhall anon.

And as the tranſlators of the Bible render both words Appoint; foreign They appointed, Act. 1. 23. foreign We will appoint, Act. 6. 3. So the prepoſition foreign doth not alter the ſenſe ſpecifically from the word when it is without it, no not in the matter of making an Officer; for it is all one, foreign, and foreign, as H. Stephen obſerves. In the New Testament foreign ſignifies to place one, and to place one with honour: when the phraſe is, foreign, He ſhall ſet the ſheep on his right hand, Mat. 25. 33. it is an authoritative word, as Rom. 3. 31. foreign, We eſtabliſh the Law. And the Septuagint whom Luke is obſerved to follow moſt, uſe foreign for as much as foreign, 1 Chron. 9. 22. foreign. Theſe did David and Solomon appoint in their ſet office.

Anſ. This great ſhew of ſomething comes to nothing. For, granting that the ſimple and compound word have ſometimes (for alwayes they have not) the ſame ſignification, yet it will not follow that they have the ſame ſenſe in the Texts alleadged, as appears by that which hath been ſaid already. The action of the hundred and twenty in appointing two out of which God was to chooſe one, was not of the ſame nature with Gods appointing one, becauſe neither of the two were made Apoſtles by the former act, but one alone p. 39by the latter. And that of the Multitude in ſetting ſeven men before the Twelve, was not of like nature with the Apoſtles in Ordaining them. Whereas you ſay in the margin, foreign pro foreign apud Euſtath. you abuſe your ſelf and the Reader: becauſe neither the ſimple nor the compound in his ſenſe are to be underſtood as you underſtand them here. And H. Stephan (of whoſe words you pretend not to be ignorant, and are therefore the more inexcuſable) hath it thus: At Euſtathius …ult foreign eſſe pro ſimplici foreign, intelligens ut opinor foreign proſiſte: ſed ita ſumpto, ut quum dicitur ſiſtere curſum. Poſſit tamen aliquis magis etiam proprio verbo utens, illud foreign Euſtathii reddere Appelle *. In the latter of thoſe pages which you cite out of him, viz. p. 1767. he ſayes that Cicero's phraſe, conſtituere regem, is (in Greek) foreign: And in the former of them (viz. p. 1732.) foreign, id eſt quod Cicero conſtituere regem dicir. But what of this, till we know what Cicero means by his conſtituere? Is there therefore no difference between the peoples appointing two, and Gods chooſing one? or did the Multitude and the Apoſtles, both or either, conſtitute (as Kings uſe to be conſtituted) in the ſame ſenſe? Then why ſhould the foregoing act of the people be counted eſſentiall in the Calling of Matthias and the Deacons, rather then the latter act of God alone, or the Twelve? It might ſuffice you to ſay, the act of t…e multitude in ſetting ſeven men before the Apoſtles was eſſentiall, though the act of the Apoſtles in ſetting the ſame ſeven over the multitude was not. But muſt you needs make the act of God in chooſing one of two, to be a meer accident? Take heed. To make the praepoſition foreign a Diminut…ve, is againſt all uſe and reaſon. That foreign ſignifies to place one, and to place one with honour, and is an authoritative word, and as much as foreign, may be granted in ſome texts, though not in theſe; but that will not content you, unleſſe the compound ſignifie leſſe then the ſimple. In good earneſt let us know ſome reaſon why foreign may not ſignifie pr…fic…re (as H. Stephan ſaith it doth in thoſe texts of Matthew and Luke heretofore inſiſted on) and conſequently to place one in honour, by way of authority, p. 40and as much as foreign? Why is the act of the people under authority a ſubſtance, and the act of thoſe who are over them in the Lord a ſhadow? I feare it is not ſo much for the Truths ſake, or for the Peoples good, as for ſome advantage, that you make ſo light account of the Apoſtles and God himſelf. I would willingly allow the people all right, but I dare not ſay that alone which they do is eſſentiall, authoritative, and eſtabliſhing, but nothing elſe. If foreign be an authoritative word in that phraſe, We eſtabliſh the law, where the Apoſtle ſpeaks but of a doctrinall eſtabliſhment; let us know why, when he ſpeaks of politicall acts, and applies the compound to them, that ſhould not alſo be as authoritative, or at leaſt authorittaive?

When you ſay, [the Septuagint whom Luke is obſerved to follow, uſe foreign for as much as foreign, as 1 Chron. 9. 22. foreign, Theſe did David and Solomon appoint in their ſet office.] I hope by this time you ſee the miſtake. The words are, whom David and Samuel the Seer did appoint in their ſet office. And if you mean that the peoples act in Act. 1. 23. and Act. 6. 6. was like unto that of David and Samuel about the porters, you are miſtaken. David and Samuel might be ſaid to ſet, appoint, or ordain, either as the one was a King, and the other a Judge, or as they were both Prophets, but neither of theſe acceptions belong unto the people. Yet there is ſomething in the cloſe wherin perhaps you may ſpeed better then you have done hitherto.

But eſpecially conſider that electing one is taking up an office for him, Act. 1. 20. 22. and he that is elected is ſaid to be numbred amongſt officers, Act. 1. 26. The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbred amongſt the Apoſtles. Numbred foreign communibus ſuffragiis ſeu calculis ad ſcriptus eſt, by common conſent or votes he was put into the number or inrolled amongſt the Apoſtles.

Anſ. That electing one, is taking up an office for him, I underſtand not. But that by Gods election Matthias was made an Apoſtle, as all the reſt by Chriſt, is certain. That p. 41there were two preſented by the people at firſt, and afterward Apostolos ſolus Deus eligit, Eccleſia accipit: Apostoli à Christo ſolo Eccleſiae capite, ac non ab hom…nibus, (ut Paulus ad Galat. 1. 11.) eliguutur. Jun. eccleſiaſt. lib 3. cap. 1.Gal 1:11one accepted of by common conſent in way of obedience to Gods determination, I verily believe. There was no other ſuffrage nor ſecond lot, though the word foreign ſound that way: (for to refer the choice by lot to God, and after to vote whether Gods deciſion ſhould ſtand, were to tempt God.) but an acquieſcence on all parts in his as the laſt reſolve. Calvin ſpeaking to this point, A quibus eligendi ſunt Miniſtri, ſayes, Hujus rei certa regula ex Apoſtolorum inſtitutione peti non poteſt, quae nonnihil habuit à communi reliquorum vocatione diſſimile **Calv. inst. l. 4. c. 3. §. 13.. And that the 120. acted here as a generall Church viſible, not as a ſingle Congregation, is the rather to be believed, becauſe he that was choſen was to be an Apoſtle: and this will make little for the right of Congregations to have all power in electing of their Officers. Yet this example may be of this uſe, to teach us, 1. That the Churches conſent or aſſent is in ſome caſes requiſite unto the call of a Miniſter. 2. That a Miniſters call is not to be left wholly to the Peoples election; for then what need either of a Lot, as here; or of Ordination, as in the caſe of Deacons? And for all that yet appeares in the diſcuſſion of this argument, Ordination may be eſtentiall to the calling of a Miniſter.

Your fifth Argument: pag. 11.

5. Ʋpon whomſoever Ele…tion falleth, Ordination doth neceſſarily, and therefore the Call to the Miniſtery lies principally in Election; as he that i… choſen to be a King, muſt be crowned, therefore his Election gives him the right to rule. That Ordination neceſſarily follows Election, appears Act. 6. 3. where the Apoſtle bids them look out (i. e. chuſe, as is explained ver. 5.) and he would appoint.

Anſ. This Argument falls ſhort in the Concluſion, That therefore Ordination is not eſſentiall. And if Ordination do neceſſarily fall upon whomſoever Election falleth, then is Ordination at leaſt neceſſary after Election. If it be neceſſary, it may not be omitted when it may be had; all that neglect or deſpiſe it are without excuſe, eſpecially when the Magiſtrate p. 42injoyns it agreeably unto the Word. And if it ſhould alwayes follow upon Election, yet you cannot thence conclude that the Call to the Miniſtery lies principally in Election. Marriage is begun by the motion of the man to the woman that he may have her for his wife; and yet mariage it ſelfe lies not principally in that, nor in their mutuall conſent, but in their ſolemn taking one another, and in the ratification thereof by ſuch as are in authority to allow or diſallow of ſuch deſires and purpoſes. In generation nature begins with the preparation of the matter, and after that the forme is educed or introduced, and yet the eſſence or being ariſes from the union of the forme with the matter. That he who is choſen to be a King, muſt be crowned, makes ſtill more for the neceſſity of Ordination; and if his Election gives him the right to rule, yet his Coronation only doth ſolemnly declare to the binding of all his Subjects unto obedience, that his right is acknowledged, and he is actually put into the exerciſe of it. Grant that a Miniſter may not (have jus in re) act as a Miniſter in things of Order and Jurisdiction, till he be Ordained, and our ſtrife will ceaſe. Where you ſay, that Ordination neceſſarily follows Election, appears Act. 6. 3. I fear you mean it backwards, that Election muſt neceſſarily go before Ordination: but then Act. 6. 3. will not prove it, becauſe neither that one example nor any other hold out a full enumeration for all caſes which belong unto the calling of a Miniſter **In hiſt. N. Teſtamenti exempla habemus conſtitutionis mi…i…er…i, & ejuſde… etiam conſervationis, ſed nō …eſtaurationis ejus aut Refor…ationis poſt generalem apoſtaſium. Omnia igitur quae pertinent ad plebem fidelem in tali caſu, non repreſentantur ibi certis exemplis. Ameſ. Bell. Enerv. …. 2. c. 2. n. 6.And if the Apoſtle reſerves (as you grant) [appointing] to himſelf, it thereby appears that ſome act of another nature diſtinct from Election belongs to the calling of a Deacon, which is not in the peoples power: for why ſhould the Apoſtles reſerve that unto themſelves which did belong unto the people?

As to your Margin about this Argument, if I ſhould take no notice of it, either you might think your ſelf neglected, or ſome Reader be ſo weak as to imagine there was ſtrength in the Latine, though the Engliſh prove weak: and therefore I ſhall take that alſo into conſideration. Out of Ames you tell us, **Omnes illi actus qu… pertinent ad Electionem, ut nominatio, praeſentatio examinatio, vel ab Electione pendent, ut O dinatio, inſtitutio, vel immiſſio. Ameſ. caſ. conſc. quo ſupra.All thoſe acts which pertain to Calling, either tend to Election, as Nomination, Preſentation, Examination; p. 43or depend upon Election, as Ordination, Inſtitution, or Immiſſion.

Anſ. Nomination, Preſentation, and Examination, tend equally to Ordination as to Election, and ſome kind both of examination and election belongs properly to the Ordainers, and not unto the People. If Election be taken for the peoples act, Ordination does not depend upon it abſolutely in all caſes, as hath been proved already: but ſuppoſe it did, what hinders but that thoſe things which depend upon Election may be as eſſentiall unto Calling as Election it ſelf? What think you of the act of a Miniſter in accepting of the work and charge unto which he hath been choſen? If that be not eſſentiall, a Miniſter may be compelled and made a Miniſter whether he will or no: If you ſay it is eſſentiall, you grant that ſomething which depends upon Election is eſſentiall; for he cannot properly accept untill he have been choſen firſt. Sometimes there is Miſſion, Inſtitution, Ordination, or ſomething of like nature thereunto, without any Election on their part to whom Miniſters are ſent; as in the caſe of particular Ordination, as Junius diſtinguiſhes of it into univerſall and particular. When Peter and John were ſent unto Samaria, they might preach, baptize, perform any act of Miniſteriall order among the Samaritans reſpectively to their ſtate and condition: an… if they had any Election from the Believers there, it muſt follow after their lawfull calling to the Miniſteriall work in that place, which they brought with them from Jeruſalem, and received not in Samaria, and ſo was not eſſentiall to conſtitute, but accumulative to corroborate their call. When a Miniſtery is firſt ſet up in any place to convert thoſe who are yet uncalled, it comes in after this manner mediately or immediately.

To that of Voetius, though it be more full in his own words then as you contract it, **Relationes in ſubjecto dicuntur exiſtere poſi…o fundamento & term…no. Sed legitima electio est fundamentum Ministerii, & particularis Eccleſia ista vel illa terminus. Voet. ubi ſup. p. 265. Conſecratio est adjunctum Ministerii, atque adjunctum est po…terius ſuo ſubjecto. Id. 18That relations are ſaid to exiſt in their ſubject upon the poſition of their foundation and terme, and that the lawfull election and vote (foreign) of the Church is the foundation of the Miniſtery, and this or that particular Church the terme. as alſo, that Conſecration is but the adjunct of Miniſtery, and the adjunct is after his ſubject. p. 44Yet you ſhall do well to prefer reaſon before teſtimony, and to conſider that the foundation of Calling, is power and authority to ſet one over others in the Lord for the Miniſtery: and the terme may be indefinite or particular, or both, as the good and ſtate of the Church doth require. Election of the people can be nothing elſe but a deſire that ſuch a one may be made a Miniſter, and their Miniſter in particular; and may either go before, or follow Ordination, according to the ſtate of the perſon who is deſired. This deſire of theirs is to be ſubject, as in ſome reſpect to the perſon himſelf, ſo more eſpecially unto them who are to diſcern, judge and determine in the room of Chriſt. The ſentence of ſuch competent Judges is the true foundation of Calling; and the aſſignation of a particular Company to be miniſtred unto (which when they are Saints is to be done with their conſent) is the terme. All this is done in Ordination; and in that regard Ordination rightly ſtated is not an adjunct of Calling (it might be an adjunct, and yet inſeparable) but the forme it ſelf.

That which followes concerns thoſe of Scotland.

And to this agree our Brethren of the Church of Scotland, ſpeaking of Ordination in generall, (though they inſtance it as Eng. pop. cer. pt. 3. c. 8. p. 167to a particular flock) Neither the Patrons preſentation, nor the Clergies nomination, examination, and recommendation, nor the Biſhops laying on of hands and giving of inſtitution, nor all theſe put together, can make up to a man his Calling to be a Paſtor, without the free election of the flock. [Here it might be added, Nor the free election of the People without Ordination.] Again. A man hath from his Election power to be a Paſtor, ſo far as concerns jus ad rem; and Ordination only applyeth him to the actuall exerciſing of his Paſtorall office, which Ordination ought to be given to him onelyonly who is elected, and that becauſe he is elected.

Anſ. Upon what ground you intitle that book ſo often cited, to the Brethren, and ſometime to the Church of Scotland generally, I know not, unleſſe it be to de…de the Reader, p. 45or upbraid the Brethren and the Church. Some of them have been long in England as Commiſſioners from that Church; and have not been ſilent where they had occaſion to debate. Beſides, their Works ſpeak for them; as the great paines of Reverend Mr. Rutherford at large to the point in hand **Due right of Presb. from p. 178. to 241.. Before their arrivall here, there was a learned Tract of Patrick Forbes of Corſe, to cleare the Call of Miniſters in the Reformed Churches, and particularly in Scotland, againſt Objections of the Papiſts. As to theſe particular paſſages here cited, you wrong both the Author, the Reader, and the Truth it ſelf, by leaving out all thoſe expreſſions whereby Miniſters and Elders are intereſſed in Election as diſtinguiſhed from Ordination; and by miſapplying thoſe words which you have expreſſed. But whiles (ſaith he) we plead for the Election of People, we adde, 1. Let the Clergy of the adjacent bounds in their Preſbyteriall aſſembly try and judge who are fit for the Miniſtery. 2. Even when it comes to Election, yet (Populus non ſolus judicat, ſed praeeunte & moderante actionem Presbyterio: the words of Junius) Let the Elders of the Congregation, together with ſome of the Clergy concurring with them, moderate the action, and go before the body of the People. Would to God that theſe things were obſerved by all. I adde Amen: for then an act of Miniſters and Elders in judging of the Calling of a particular perſon, would alwayes be found in praxi, and without it all choice by People alone would be counted null and invalid. Whereas you ſay he ſpeaks of Ordination in generall, and yet inſtances it as to a particular Flock, the truth is, he ſpeaks there only of Ordination to a particular flock, and not of Ordination in generall untill he come to the next page. It followeth (ſaith he) to ſpeak of Ordination; pag. 168.wherein with Calvin, Junius, Gerſom, Bucer, and other learned men, we diſtinguiſh between the act of it, and the rite of it. The act of Ordination ſtandoth in the miſſion or deputation of a man to an Eccleſiaſticall function, with power and authority to perform the ſame. Now that Ordination, at thus deſcribed, is eſſentiall to a Calling, he himſelf implies by theſe words, For how ſhall they preach except they be ſent? ſpeaking of ſuch a ſending as he had before ſtated. That Miniſters ſhould not p. 46be obtruded invito populo, againſt the peoples will, is the ſum of all which he pleads for, and will not be gainſaid where the people are Saints and Orthodox: but it will not thence follow that People have a power to make one a Miniſter, excluſo or invito Preſbyterio, without or againſt, or otherwiſe then by a Presbyterie. Suppoſe a man had by Election jus ad rem, power to be a Paſtor, yet he is not therefore or thereby a Paſtor actually; and if Ordination be that which gives jus in re, no man is to act as a Paſtor till he be ordained. And if Election do only deſign a man to be made a Miniſter, and Ordination be that act whereby he is ſo made; I hope it will be plain, that as the introducing of the form is eſſentiall in creating, rather then preparing the matter or maſſe which i… to receive it; ſo Ordination will be found to be eſſentiall rather then Election, though Election may precede in time, and Ordination follow after.

6. A Miniſter may want and be without Ordination in The ſixth Argument.ſome caſes; therefore it is not eſſentiall to his Calling. Thus Gregor. Thaumaturgus was, and others may be in times of perſecution.

Anſ. Here you fight againſt your ſelf, if one word be changed. A Miniſter may want and be without Election in ſome caſes, therefore it is not eſſentiall to his Calling. This is commonly judged to be the caſe of our firſt Reformers, and may be the caſe of others in times of extreme perſecution. You care not to wound your ſelf, ſo as you may ſtrike others. There muſt be a voice from heaven, i. e. a true Miniſtery to bring men out of Babylon **Non pot…i… Eccleſia reſtitui, niſi reſtituto Miniſterio, (de formâ eccleſiae viſibilis loquor) quia non alia ratione qu…m praedicatione Evangelii vel instaurari eccleſta, vel inſtaurata poteſt conſervari. Sadeel de legit. vocatione Min. p. 7. Verum h…c ſummo ſtudic attendi debet, quòd vocationis Miniſtrorum verbi divini neceſſitas, huc uſque adstructa, non ad quod vis tempus, etiam corruptae eccleſiae, atque turbatae ſalſa doctrin… atque immani perſecutione. Nam ubi eccleſia, aut ſalſa doctrinâ turbata, aut perſecutione diſſipata eſt, it aut deſint qui ſinceros verbi divini M…niſtros foreign vocate poſſint & …elint: hac certè rerum neceſſitate extrema concedit Deus, ut quivis qui volunlotis divine gnari ſunt, verbum Dei praedicent, Sacramenta adminiſtrent, collapſam veritatem reſtaurent, & quaevi… munia ſacra citra ordinariam vocationem obeant. foreign. p. 222.(Rev. 18. 4.) but who ſhall either ordain or elect, when Clergy and Laity (I uſe the words only for diſtinction ſake) are equally corrupted. At ſuch a time, where-ever God providentially ſets up a ſtandard, his people may flock unto it; and if they find a burning and a ſhining light, it ſufficeth that they know it is not of men, but from heaven, and that they ought to walk in the light of it.

p. 47But you adde:

This argument Voetius preſſeth larger, and ſheweth (even by confeſſion of Papiſts) that one Elected or choſen may without Ordination do all the Offices of a Miniſter, as Excommunicate, Abſolve: and concludes it is no more to the eſſence of a Miniſter, then bowing of the knee externally is eſſentiall to ptayer to God, or the leading of the Bride and pomp of a wedding day is to Mariage. Deſper. cauſa Papat. 266, 267.

Anſ. 1. Voetius ſpeaks not of Ordination there as an act of Miniſters and Elders diſtinct from the rite of laying on hands. 2. The Papiſts diſtinguiſh between the power of Order and Juriſdiction; though they grant Election gives juriſdiction, yet it is but in ſome caſes; and thoſe things which belong to Order can be done by none but by Ordained perſons, according to their principles. Neither 3. doth Voetius produce any ſuch confeſſion of the Papiſts as you here aſſert he doth, that one elected or choſen may without Ordination do all the offices of a Miniſter. And the inſtances which you give of Excommunication and Abſolution (both of which belong to Juriſdiction) ſhew plainly of what kind of actions the Papiſts are to be underſtood; and ſuch are all thoſe caſes which you find cited in him, and many more of like nature which are more fully inſiſted on by a Pariſian Lawyer to the ſame purpoſe **Johan Dar… is de Hierarch. Eccleſiaſt. p. 10.. 4. But this is eſpecially to be noted, That Voetius thinks Ordination, or (as he there expreſſes himſelf) Coronation or Inveſtiture may be wanting only (aliquo in caſu) in ſome caſe, and inſtances in the time of perſecution, (cum nec plebe nec preſbyteri in unum convenire poſſunt) when neither the People nor Elders c…n meet together. Wherein he ſeems to ſuppoſe it is neceſſary at other times. The reaſons which he gives why it ſhould not be neceſſary in the caſe, p. 48concludes as much againſt the one, as againſt the other. In time of perſecution Miniſters cannot aſſemble to Ordain, nor People (ſaith he) [I adde, to Elect] and therefore that caſe which voyds the one, voyds the other alſo, and more ſtrongly: A few Miniſters may more ſafely meet privately to Ordain, then many people to Elect. The caſe of Greg. Thaumaturgus, if truly ſtated out of Voetius (whence you had it, as all the reſt of this Paragraph) doth much confirm thi…; For as he was not Ordained, ſo neither was he Elected in your ſenſe h. e. choſen by the people; nor ſo much as preſent, neither did he conſent, but was compelled: there went nothing to his Call but an act of the Biſhop (Deo conſecrans eum qui corpore non aderat) Conſecrating him who was not preſent bodily, unto God. And if this be all that is eſſentiall to a Call, a company of Miniſters and Elders may perform it, as well as one Biſhop alone. The ſame Gregory (as you may read elſwhere) being called to Cumas to Ordain a Paſtor for Histor. Pontif. Juriſd. Pariſiis 1624. l 2. c. 1.that Church, the People being divided in their Election, he alone choſe Alexander Carbonarim, & dedit civitati Sacerdatem, nihil moratus conſenſum aut electionem Populi.

The ſeventh Argument:

7. The inconveniences will be very great which follow upon this, That Ordination is eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter: For of neceſſity, for the maintenance of it, it muſt be aſſerted that the Romiſh Prieſts, by whom Ordination comes to us, (And therefore to Beza it was all one to be Ordained by the Ordinary, and to be Conſocrated in Romana Eccleſia, in Ac. 14. 23.) are the Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt; and the Church of Rome wherein they are, the true Church & Spouſe of Chriſt: yea, that there is a perſonall ſucceſſion of Miniſters (uninterrupted by Hereſie, or whatſoever elſe may nullifie a Miniſters Calling) from the Apoſtles times to this preſons, and if there be but one, who when he Ordained was no Miniſter … not Ordained, all that were Ordained by him are no Miniſters, if Ordination be eſſentiall.

p. 49Anſ. Is this the beſt, or the worſt of your Wine, that you have kept it for the laſt? Whatever you intended, your Arguings (like violent motions) grow weaker and weaker neerer the end. If you think there's none like this, as David ſaid of Goliahs ſword, I think your cauſe will utterly periſh, as that Giant did by his own weapon. And though you make a flouriſh with many words, yet this in ſhort is the ſubſtance of your argument. [If Ordination be eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter, then the Church and Miniſtery of Rome are true, and Perſonall ſucceſſion uninterrupted is neceſſary.] 1. I deny the conſequence, and ſhall exp…ct your proof hereafter, for at preſent you do not ſo much as offer any. And why have we nothing of Voetius here? do you not know that he maintains the lawfulneſſe of that Call which Luther and other of the firſt Reformers had in the Church of Rome (for the ſubſtance of the thing) and yet denies that it follows thence that the Church of Rome is a true Church **Lib. 2. ſec. 1. cap. 6. pag. 97.. To cleare the ground of this denyall, I diſtinguiſh between the Church and her externall Politie: That which is eſſentiall to the Churches Being never ceaſes, but that which is eſſentiall to her outward Politie may, becauſe Politie it ſelf is not eſſentiall. The Church, for Being, like Chriſt as God, never dies; but in her externall Order, like Chriſt as man, ſhe dies and riſes again. If this be no good argument: [Election is eſſential, therefore it hath been from the beginning of the world, and ſhall continue to the end, as the Church and Calling have done and ſhall do]—as you know it i… not; then muſt you needs acknowledge your own inconſequence in the former. For every one of your aggravated inconveniences will fall as heavy on the head of Election, as you think they do on Ordination, and beſides them many more. As 1. That there muſt be a true Church before there can be a true Miniſtery, i. e. the effect before the cauſe, and the end attained before the means of attaining are provided. 2. That the government of the Church is purely and ſtrictly Democraticall or popular; for if the People without Miniſters and Elders are ſole Judges of their own Saintſhip, and of fitneſſe for the Miniſtery, and conſequently of ſoundneſſe of Doctrine and p. 50the right way of Worſhip, what can be denied them? 3. That a Miniſters calling, as a Miniſter, extends not beyond the bounds of a ſingle Congregation; or that one Congregation may make a Miniſter to ſerve themſelves or any other. 4. That the providence of God hath failed concerning the eſſentials of Miniſters calling, for many generations every where, becauſe the right of electing Miniſters hath been denied to Chriſtian people.

As to the Inconveniences themſelves, let them be conſidered diſtinctly, and have the patience to heare what the Reformed Churches and Proteſtant Divines do think of them. The firſt inconvenience is:

1. That the Romiſh Prieſts by whom Ordination comes to us are the Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt. To make this the more odi… us; you ſwell it out with a wind… parentheſis, That to Beza it was all one to be Ordained by the Ordinary, and to be Conſecrated in Romana Eccleſia. in Ac. 14. 23.] Herein you wrong him, and abuſe the Reader; for he ſpeaks not of Ordination in your ſenſe, as diſtinguiſhed from Impoſition of hands, neither doth he account it all one to be Ordained by the Ordinary, and to be Conſecrated in the Roman Church; as if every one that is Ordained by a Biſhop in any of the Reformed Churches, were in that reſpect to be looked upon as Conſecrated in the Romane Church: (To ſay nothing of thoſe who are Ordained by Ordinaries in the Greek Church) And this is plain by his own words, ſpeaking of the wo…d foreign. Quidam (ſaith he) hoc referre malunt ad manuum impoſitionem, quae & ipſa fit prorſus neceſſaria, ut hoc praetexti… accepto vocationem noſtram irritam eſſe dicant, quoniam Ordinarii quos vocant nobis manus non impoſuerunt, ſive quòd non ſumus in Romana eccleſia conſtituti. A…d though after he ſhew the invalidity of their Call, ex ipſis Canonibus quos jactant, out of thoſe Canons which they boaſt of; yet he brings not one reaſon to prove that Impoſition of hands is not to be included in the Originall word ſo much inſiſted on. And if the word [Elders] uſed in that Text, be to be taken ſynecdochically for Paſtors, Deacons, and Ruling Elders, as he there expounds it; why may it not as well be ſaid that p. 51foreign, though it ſignif…, chooſing, does alſo include Ordaining? becauſe it appears by Act. 6. that with chooſing, Ordination by Impoſition of hands was alſo uſed.] This by the way to your Parentheſis. To the Inconvenience it ſelf I anſwer:

1. The Ordination of Rom…ſh Prieſts as Prieſts is a meer nullity, becauſe the Prieſthood i… ſelf is ſo: but their Ordination adonus Preſbyterii, to Preach and adminiſter the Sacraments, is of another nature, and therefore theſe muſt not be confounded together; the rather, becauſe in their manner of Ordaining they are really diſtinguiſhed **Vide Pontiſicale Romanum..

2. Though ſome of our Divines deny a lawfull Miniſtery, and Calling thereunto, to be in the Roman Hierarchy, as * Beza and Sadeel; (not as making of it to be ſimply invalid and null, but extreme ſinfull) yet they muſt not be interpreted too rigorouſly, unleſſe we mean to ſet Proteſtants at variance among themſelves to our own prejudice: And that 1. Becauſe the Lutherans do maintain the ordinary Call which Luther had in the Church of Rome, as ſufficient. And, 2. not they only, but divers alſo of the Calviniſts, as Voetius, Forbes, Feſtus, Homius, &c. 3. They who ſay there was ſomet…ing extraordinary in Luthers Calling, do place that extraordinarineſſe rather in his ſpirit, gifts, ſucceſſe, and manner of miniſtery, than in the Call it ſelf, and therefore make his Calling mixt.

3. The moſt judicious and beſt approved amongſt us do hold, That as Baptiſme, ſo Ordination euen in Rome is ſo far forth valid, that upon ſeparation from them, and joyning with us, there needs neither new Baptiſme nor a new Ordination.

4. We all agree that a Call from Rome is not neceſſary at all, againſt the Papiſts, who make the Pope to be the fountain of Order and Juriſdiction.

5. This inconvenience follows not at at all upon the opinion that Ordination is eſſentiall; but upon that miſtake only, that the lawfull way of Calling is one onelyonly in all caſes and conditions of the Church: wherein wheſoever engages either for Election or Ordination, apart, and much more for p. 52both together, will be ſure to plunge himſelf into inextricable labyrinths. I approve our men (ſaith Reverend Forbes) who ſuſtain our ordinary Vocation in common, but who plead ſo for it as a point abſolutely requiſite for approving our cauſe, and in ſuch a caſe of the Church do place all defence therein: in my judgement they do wrongly limit the Holy One of Iſrael, againſt both the priviledge of his power and his uſuall manner of dealing in ſuch caſes. Forbes Defence of the lawfull Calling, ſec. 28. pag. 60.

To your ſecond inconvenience:

That (then) the Church of Rome is a true Church and Spouſe of Chriſt.

I anſwer, 1. It followes not; becauſe in a falſe Church there may be ſomething true. 2. Many Proteſtant Divines are not afraid to grant that in ſome ſenſe it is a true Church, [So at the whole Church was not extinct in Rome, neither did the Miniſtery altogether periſh there.]**—…a ut ſicut non penitus exti…cta ibi ſuit Eccleſia, ſic neque penitus interitrit ibi Mini…terium Zanch. i… 4 pr….

3. This objection is ſo fully anſwered by all our Writers of this ſubject againſt the Papiſts, that it is not worth the while to tranſcribe them. Vide Voetium quo ſupra.

4. Thoſe who are commonly called Browniſts are ſufficiently zealous againſt Rome; and yet even among them the more moderate part, as Johnſon and his followers, do not only grant that the Society commonly called the Church of Rome is a true Church, without all fear of inconvenience, but labour at large to prove it **Chriſtian Plea by Fran. Johnſon. Printed Anno 1617. hom pag. 119. … 215.. The more rigid of them, who deny that which he grants, as Robinſon and Ainſworth, yet acknowledge that in Rome there are ſome true Ordinances, as Baptiſme for inſtance: And in granting the adminiſtration of Baptiſme with thoſe of Rome to be valid, and yet denying the Church to be true, they muſt needs reject your conſequence.

As the Lord hath his people in Babylon (ſaith Robinſon) his I mean both in reſpect of Election and of perſonall Sanctification: ſo hath he for their ſakes there preſerved (notwithſtanding all the apoſtaſie and confuſion which is found in it) ſundry his holy Truths and Ordinances, amongſt which Baptiſme is one. Robinſ. justificat. of Separat. ed. ult. p. 232.

p. 53If the queſtion he whether Ordination or Impoſition of hands be not another Ordinance reteined in Rome from the beginning; the Reader ſhall do well to weigh what follows here out of Mr. Johnſon, one of no mean account among the Brethren of the Separation.

Whereas one that was Miniſter in the Church of England, was after choſen Teacher to a Separate Congregation without any new Impoſition of hands, he labours for to juſtifie it after this manner, (in his Anſ. to the Letter of H. A. touching the diviſion among themſelves, p. 50. & ſeq.)

The Anabaptiſts holding (ſaith he) that Antichriſt hath utterly deſtroyed all Gods ordinances, ſo as there was not ſo much as true Baptiſme reteined and had among them (h. e. in Rome or England) thereupon they began to baptize themſelves again. Whoſe errors while we confuted, and while ſome of them objected that we ſhould no more retain the Baptiſme then the Miniſtry there received: we had juſt occaſion thereupon to conſider thereof; and ſo weighing with our ſelves that one main and ſpeciall reaſon againſt Rebaptization is, becauſe Baptiſme is an ordinance of God which was had in the Church of Rome before ſhe fell into apoſtaſie, and hath been there continued ever ſince the Apoſtles times (however it be comingled among them with many corruptions and inventions of their own) we began to conſider Whether the like might not be obſerved and ſaid concerning Impoſition of hands; that it was had from the Apoſtles in the Church of Rome before her apoſtaſie, and is there continued to this day, though mixed with many pollutions and deviſes of their own.

And entring into a conſideration thereof, we obſerved—1. That Impoſition of hands is of God, and not an invention of man; not a poſt or threſhold firſt brought by Antichriſt into the temple of God, but had therein afore Antichrist ſate there. 2. That Baptiſme and Impoſition of hands are joyned together among the principles of the foundation ſpoken of Heb. 6. 2. which we thought therefore ſhould in this behalf be well regarded. 3. That Impoſition of hands i… in the Church of Rome ſtill given to the Office of Miniſtery, and in the name of the Lord; as they do alſo ſtill adminiſter Baptiſme. 4. That we found p. 54not either precept, example, or ground in the Scripture binding us to the repetition thereof. 5. That the Prieſts and Levites in Iſrael becomming unclean, when afterward they were cleanſed retained ſtill their places of being Prieſts and Levites: And that the children of the Prieſts and Levites ſucceeding after them, did miniſter without a new Anointing, or new Impoſition of hands: yea that in the caſe of Idolatry, the Levites repenting kept their firſt function, and the Prieſts alſo, being only debarred from the Altar, but ſtill remaining Prieſts, both doing ſuch duties, and enjoying ſuch benefits thereof as the other Iſraelites might not, no nor the Levites but in caſes of neceſſity. Lev. 22. 1, 9. and Ezec. 44. 10, 14. 2 King. 23. 9. with Lev. 21. and 24, 9. Mat. 12. 4, &c.

Other reaſons we conſidered alſo on the other hand, which I need not here mention. But ſeeing we found that it was even from the Apoſtles times in the Church of Rome long before ſhe became apoſtate, as Baptiſme was; and that the repeating of it among us, and not regarding the having of it there, is a means to ſtrengthen the Anabaptiſts in their errors,—We ſtayed our ſelves, and reſted in this that the Church did chuſe.

5. Let it be ſuppoſed that ſome others are of the ſame opinion, as you know there are, whoſe teſtimonies are elſewhere produced by Dr. Hall: What is the inconvenience which you ſo much feare by this conceſſion? That then Separation from the Church of Rome is unlawfull? So Robinſon and John Can imagine. But (if I miſtake you not) you your ſelf and many others in theſe times can tell how to avoyd that, who pretend to acknowledge the Church of England and her Aſſemblies to be true Churches, and yet ſeparate your ſelves from them: and Johnſon in his Plea, p. 118. will help you out, ſo as the inconvenience is not ſo great as you would have us to conceit it.

But you tell us of a third—

That there is a perſonall ſucceſſion of Miniſters (uninterrupted by Hereſie, or whatſoever elſe may nullifie a Miniſters Calling) from the Apoſtles time to this preſent. For if there p. 55be but One who when he was Ordained was no Miniſter, or not Ordained, all that are Ordained by him are no Miniſters, if Ordination be eſſentiall.

To this I anſwer, 1. It cannot be inferred upon the ſuppoſition, unleſſe Ordination were the only eſſentiall way of calling Miniſters at all times, and in all caſes, which needs not be much inſiſted on. 2. Though in fact a perſonall ſucceſſion could not be proved, yet of right and according to precept it might be neceſſary; as in the caſe of Circumciſion among the Jews from Abraham downward among his poſterity, during the force of that Law. 3. That which you ſuppoſe, that Hereſie and ſomething elſe (you ſay not what) may nullifie a Miniſters calling; as you do not prove it, ſo it is not granted neither by all the Papiſts **Nulla laeſionis portio a…ingit …um qui … haereticis jam damnatis ordinatur. Decret. par. 1. diſt. 20 cap. 8.nor by our Proteſtant Writers. Suppoſe the people who chooſe a Miniſter be indeed Hereticall, if you ſay their Calling of him by Election alone is a nullity, as therein you ſhall gratifie the Papiſts who in this reſpect eſpecially except againſt our Calling in England, becauſe our firſt Reformers, though Ordained perſons, were (as they reproach: them) Hereticks: ſo alſo will you wound your beſt friends in the point in hand, the Socinians, 4. More may be ſaid for perſonall ſucceſſion in way of Ordination, to prove it hath been, then you take notice of. See Voetius to that purpoſe **Desp. Cauſa Pap. l. 2. ſect. 1. cap. 2. pag. 65.. And as it was of ſome uſe to the Fathers in the Primitive times, ſo it is no ſmall comfort to the Churches now. We are ſorry for the death of Chriſtian friends, though we believe their reſurrection; and ſhould count it no ſmall part of our miſery, that Succeſſion though now revived in Reformed Churches, yet was ſometime at that paſſe as to need a raiſing up again. 5. Succeſſion of Miniſters is the more to be enquired into, becauſe of that promiſe Mat. 28. 20. I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. As alſo becauſe either Apoſtles, Prophets, and Evangeliſts, or Paſtors and Teachers are alwayes neceſſary for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Miniſtery, for the edifying of the Body of Chriſt. Eph. 4. 11, 12. 6. This alſo is worth obſerving, that the chief Inſtruments of Reformation have been rai…ed out of the number of Ordained perſons p. 56in all places. Yet, 7. there is not a like neceſſity of the way of Calling, as of the Calling it ſelf; becauſe the Scripture examples afford, and the ſtate of the Church requires a greater liberty for the manner of Calling, then for the want of Miniſters. And God in thruſting forth labourers into his harveſt by wayes of providence, with a bleſſing, ſhews plainly that he is free to give as he pleaſe, **Cū Dei judicio ita labefactatur Eccleſia, ut jamjam ruitura videatur, corruptis jam p…orſus ordinariis Miniſtris & Epiſcopis; tum ſolitus est Deus Extra Ordinem never exc…tare Ministros, qui rutatem Eccl ſiam erigant, & Miniſterium ab ordinarits neglectum & corruptuminſtanrent. Zanch. quo ſupr…. Vide Confeſſionem Gallic…m Artic. 31..

8. For matter of ſucceſſion in the way of Ordination. I ſee no need of contending for more then is granted by ſome of the Separation.

[I deny not but confeſſe (ſaith Robinſon **Juſtif. of ſeperation pag. 322. It. page 327. ed. ult.) that the Church of God, and more particularly the Churches of the New Teſtament continuing and abiding in that State, faith, and order, wherein they were ſet, and eſtabliſhed by the Lord in the hands of his Se…vants the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, were to receive their Ministers conſtantly by ſucceſſion after a ſort, namely ſo farre as that all ſucceeding Miniſters were to be Ordained by Miniſters, and not otherwiſe]

Provided that this be added, when Faith and Order are revived, the ſame way of ſucceſſion ought alſo to be revived: becauſe this Order is neceſſary to preſerve that faith which was once delivered to the Saints.

To conclude.

Whatſoever may be ſaid of the calling of our firſt Reformers, in the caſe of immediate ſeparation from Rome, or of others in times of tyranny and perſecution, when there is no place either for an orderly Election, or Ordination, yet you have not brought ſo much as one ſhadow of reaſon, why Ordination ſhould not be neceſſary with us in England, in the way now appointed by Ordinance of Parliament, ſhould all be granted whereby you pretend to prove, That Ordination (as commonly taken) is not eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter.

But as to the regular and ordinary lawfull Calling of a p. 57Miniſter: if precept and examples out of Scripture; the generall practiſe of the Church in all ages from the Primitive downward, with that of the Reformed Churches, ever ſince the foundations of the Second-Temple-myſticall have been laid among them; or arguments drawn out of Scripture and from the judgement of Proteſtant Divines conforme thereunto, will determine any Queſtion: I ſhall preſume (notwithſtanding all you have inſiſted on unto the contrary) That

Ordination, h. e. an act of Miniſters and Elders as ſuch, whereby they IN THE NAME OF CHRIST ſeparate and ſet apart a meet perſon to the Work and office of a Miniſter, is neceſſary, and more or leſſe eſſentiall to his Calling.

For Impoſition of hands, though many things unavoydably, as either You, thoſe Authors which you have cited, or the nature of the thing gave occaſion, have been touched upon about it; yet it followes now more particularly to be conſidered.

Yet ſtay a while.

Upon peruſall of the papers, after the Preſſe had made ſome progreſſe, I take notice of a double overſight, one in my ſelf, another in you, beſides ſome errata's of the Printer. In the tranſcribing of your part, a few things are unwittingly omitted, which ſhould be in the margin: yet for the things themſelves you ſhall find an anſwer. Only one paſſage which is with you, pag. 8. in the body of the Tract, I forgot to ſet down at length; and therefore (though out of place) I ſupply it here, which ſhould have been inſerted pag. 29. before the fourth reaſon.

This (meaning your third) is the reaſon of Crocius in Anti Soc. di…p. 24. ſee 3.defence of the Proteſtants againſt the Socinians. Diſtinguimus inter neceſſitatem Vocationis & Ordinationis, (ſayes he) We diſtinguiſh between the neceſſity of having a Call, and of being Ordained **Illa eſt neceſſaria ratione mandati, haec ratione ordinis & conſ…itutionis Eccleſiaſticae. Illa eſt conſtitutio in officio, quae ſi legitima eſt duo habet. 1. Vt à Dco quis eligatur. 2. Vt per ant…cedentem po…uli conſenſum eligatur. A Deo eligitur cum ipſe donis exorna…, &c.. A Calling is neceſſary by reaſon of Gods command; Ordination is neceſſary in reſpect of order and Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution. The Calling is the Conſtitution of one in Office; which (if it be lawfull) hath two things p. 50in it. 1 That one be choſen of God. 2 That he be choſen by the antecedent conſent of the people. One choſen of God when he is adorned with gifts, &c.

To this, beſides what I have already ſaid (pag. 28. lin. 22. & ſeq.) I ſhall now adde further.

1. That the Socinians inſiſting only upon this queſtion, [Whether a Conſtitution by way of Ordination be altogether neceſſary to the making of a Miniſter?] are not (as you think) to be oppoſed; neither are the Reformed Churches nor Proteſtant Divines of any other judgement then they: and therefore what needs Crocius to defend the Proteſtants againſt them in this point, or profeſſe himſelf Anti-Socinian? unleſſe he will ſay more for Ordination then they have done; which cannot well be, but by holding it to be eſſentiall.

2. It's granted, that there is leſſe neceſſity of Ordination then of Calling; yea, that Ordination is not alwayes alike neceſſary, but according to the ſtate of the Church. And it might be proved, that there is a caſe wherein it is ſo far from being neceſſary, that it is not lawfull: But it will not thence follow, that in no caſe it is eſſentiall.

3. Thoſe Scriptures which prove the lawfulneſſe of it, will prove more: For we cannot argue from the bare example of the Apoſtles—Thus they did, therefore we may do the ſame. Becauſe it follows not in all things. Therefore De Eccl. Pontiſ. Praejud. Diſſer. 6. p. 149.Crocius (in a later Work) flies to 1 Tim. 5. 22. for his ground and proof: and there we have a precept.

4. That Order and Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution which he ſpeaks of, can be underſtood of none other then Apoſtolicall; and thoſe things which the Apoſtles wrote about Order, were commandements, 1 Cor. 14. 37.

5. Whereas he ſayes, A Calling is neceſſary by Gods command; and after ſeems to ſhew what he means by Calling; namely, that the perſon conſtituted be choſen by the antecedent conſent of the People. You know full well, no command of God can be found for this way of Calling, but as it is gathered out of examples by conſequence from Act. 1. p. 51and the 6 chap. And if thoſe examples imply a command for the Peoples Election one way, I would hear ſome ſolid reaſons why the like command is not to be concluded out of examples for Ordination.

6. Whether the antecedent conſent of the People be alwayes neceſſary, is not the point at preſent under debate. But this is his ſenſe: That the power of chooſing is the right of the whole Church, and belong…th not to the People alone, as we commonly underſtand the word: And the antecedent conſent of Miniſters and Elders, is (I'le be bold to ſay it) neceſſary unto a Call. And that granted, ſuffices to the matter of Ordination, as it is here conſidered.

7. To that That one is choſen of God, when he is adorned with gifts. I think you your ſelf make ſome ſcruple of it. When the Miniſters of England have pleaded (among other things) to prove their Calling the gifts which God had given them: Thoſe of the Separation, in their Writings, are wont to tell them, Qualification is no Calling. Neither dare I ſay, Every one that is ſit to be a Miniſter, is called to be one. And in a mediate Calling, the teſtimony of competent Judges concerning Abilities, and the right to exerciſe them, is moſt neceſſary; and that uſeth to be, in the orderly way of Gods preſcribing in the Word, by Ordination.

Now (Sir) give me leave to minde you of an overſight in yourſelf. You told us in your Title-page, of the Judgement of the Reformed Churches, as a diſtinct part from that of Proteſtant Divines. Why are none of their Confeſſions cited, or Books of Diſcipline? Make they for you, or againſt you? If they be on your ſide, would you ſpare to tell us? Suppoſe they were againſt you, yet you might not conceale it, while you pretend to hold it out. As for particular men, their Judgement is not tanti, if it agree not with the Church in generall. He that made the Obſervations on the Harmony of Confeſſions in Engliſh, will help you out a little: but the Confeſſions themſelves are not (as it ſeems) for your turn. As for the Divines which you have cited; of the Lutherans there are but two, Hunnius and Tarnovius; and of the Calviniſts p. 60but three, Ames, Voetius, and Cortiu…. Though each of them be Reverend, yet they are but of yeſterday, either living, or lately dead; too few to make up a full verdict touching the Hiſtoricall part of the point in queſtion. Indeed you have not ſo much as one witneſſe to your Theſis of Ordination as it was ſtated in the beginning. As for the Engliſh Popiſh Ceremonies, whether one alone compoſed that Tract, or many concurred together by their joint endeavours, I know not? I take it for no more then a ſingle, and in many things for a ſingular and ſolitary Teſtimony.

What think you of Proteſtant Eſtates? Is not their Judgement conſiderable? If they do not hold Ordination to be eſſentiall, why have they ever been ſo ſtrict in urging it? You know our Worthies aſſembled in Parliament are under a Solemn Vow and Covenant to reform according to the Word of God, and the Example of the beſt Reformed Churches; and in purſuance thereof they have declared it, as a thing manifeſt by the Word of GOD,**Ordinance of Parliament for Ordination pro tempore.

That no man ought to take upon him the office of a Miniſter, untill he be lawfully Called, and Ordained thereunto. And that the work of Ordination, that is to ſay, An outward ſolemn ſetting apart of perſons for the Office of the Miniſtery in the Church by Preaching Presbyters, is an Ordinance of Chriſt.

This they have ſince atteſted unto in the ſame words in other Ordinances of Theirs, giving power to Ordain unto Claſſicall Presbyteries. And that this ſenſe of Theirs might be better taken notice of, they have further Ordered as here followeth.