Foure Propositions: Whereof three are proved by the Holy Scriptures, and attested unto by the Reformed Churches, in their Confessions of Faith, and Books of Discipline; the fourth is a just Consequence from the rest. Very necessary for all men to consider of in this juncture of time, especially for those who have sworne to Reform according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best Reformed CHƲRCHES.

A brief Answer to the Pretences of Edmond Chillenden, for the law­fulnesse of Preaching without ORDINATION.

CHILLENDEN, Pag. 5.

‘ ELdad and Medad prophecied in the camp. Moses said, would God that all the Lords people were Prophets.’

Numb. 11. from 26. to 30.

Ans. It is one thing, to Prophecie; another, to Preach, Prophets and Preachers are not convertible, termes: because there are Preachers, who are no Prophets. God hath set some in the Church; first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers. 1 Cor. 12. 28. How shall they be distinguished, if they be the same? Yet those that can prove themselves to be Prophets, shall have liberty (for me) to Preach without Ordination, and that not only in the Camp, but elswhere.

‘ Pag. 8.] Jehosaphat sent to his Princes to Teach in the Cities of Judah; and they taught in Judah, and had the book of the Law of the Lord with them, and went about through all the cities of Judah. 1 Chron. 17. 7, 8, 9.’

Ans. Remember, none went to any city of their own head, but those whom Jehosaphat the supreme Magistrate [Page] sent. What Jehosaphat sent you, and such as you are? Here's no mention of Preaching. If Teaching and Preaching be alwayes all one; then do our Judges (though not Ordained) Preach at every Assize. In this sense, that of the Princes teaching, v. 7. is most properly to be understood. And that in the 9. verse, They taught in Judah, refers to the Priests and Levites spoken of in the 8. verse. It remains on your part to prove, that the Princes preached sermon-wise, or in the same manner and kind as the Priests and Levites did. However, here were none joyned with them but the Princes, 'twas Jeroboam only that made Priests of the lowest of the people: Whosoever would, he consecrated him. But mark what follows. —And this thing became sin unto the house of Jero­boam, even to cut it off and to destroy it from off the face of the earth. 1 King. 13. 33, 34.

‘Out of the New Testament, the instances of the Scribes, Pharisees, and Lawyers are brought; and with them are joyned the examples of Christ, Paul and Barnabas, pag. 9.’

Ans. The liberty given in the Jewish Synagogues, is no more a president for Christian Churches then their exercise of power. It would anger you, if any should say; They whipt and scourged in their synagogues such Teachers as they did not like: and therefore so should we do now. If none might preach among us unordained, but upon such tearms, and the standing Officers of our Congregations be the Judg­es; perhaps you might have occasion to complain with St. Paul, Of the Jewes five times received I forty stripes save one, Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned. 2 Cor. 11. 24, 25.

‘ A certain Jew named Apollos borne at Ale [...]dria; an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus &c. Act. 18. from 24. to the end.’

Ans. This (as the former) is but an instance of the liberty given by the Jewes, or taken where as yet there was no Church in being. Take in all the commendations of the man, and in a like juncture of time others of like abilities may do the like: And yet this concession will nothing avail to prove the sense of your Position.

[Page] ‘To that (pag. 12.) of the dispersed Disciples, out of Act. 8. 1, 4. compared with Act. 11. 9, 20, 24.’

I answ. In such a condition of the Church as that was, (these cases being much alike; no Order established, and Order dissolved) I should not oppose that able men should teach in love, as they are able, though out of Office. But under this pretence to plead for like liberty to every one that will assume it, in all places, and in all conditions of the Church; is as if one should argue thus: —When there was no King in Israel, every one did that which was right in his own eyes: Therefore it is the liberty of the Subject for every one to do what they please, although they have a King.

‘ Pag. 15. The next Scripture that offers it self to be looked upon in this particular of Preaching without Ordination, is in 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. As every one hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold graces of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God, &c.’

Ans. Every one is to use his gift with respect to the gift it self, and to his place and calling, and no otherwise: pri­vate persons, in a private way; and publike officers, publikely. And be a mans gift never so small, yet he must use it. For these words contain a precept. Not that every man is bound to be a Preacher, by this Text: but he that is a Preacher by office, is bound to preach with all his might. Compare this Text with Rom. 12. from the beginning of the 3. verse, to the end of the 8. it may help to understand it. But you will never prove, That both together, or either apart, [...]o binde every Christian to preach publikely, as he conceives himself to be able, though he be no Officer. I say, to binde: for the Apo­stle spea [...] [...]ot of a liberty which we may use or disuse; but of a duty which we must performe. The duty of Preaching lies upon none but upon those that are Called. The ordi­nary regular way of Calling is by Ordination.

To all which is produced, pag. 18. concerning Prophets and Prophecying and using of gifts, out of 1 Cor. 12 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. 1 Cor. 14. 3, 39. I answer summarily—

[Page] It's granted, That all Orders, Officers, or Members of the Church, above Ministers, may preach as well as they, whether Ordained or Unordained: [...] Apostles, and Evangelists, and Prophets. For Prophets, such as were under the New Testament, they are alwayes placed next unto the Apostles, and before Pastors and Teachers. 1 Cor. 12. 28, 29. Act. 13. 1. yea, before the Evangelists, Eph. 4. 11. In the Primitive times there were many such, yea many in one Church, or at Antioch and Corinth. Whether these were Ordinary, or Extraordi­nary, it is easie to judge by the continuance, or discontinuance of them in the Church in afte [...]-ages, and at present. If there be any so gifted by the Holy Ghost, above Ordained persons, that they are worthy to take place of them and of Evangel­ists; let them by all meanes have the liberty of their gifts, and their proper denomination: I think Ordinary Ministers should give them the right hand both of fellowship & place.

As for any kind of Prophets, or prophecying in the publike Congregations, below Ministers, and their Ministery, there is none to be found in any enumeration of Scripture, either in Rom. 1 [...]. 1 Cor. 12. or Ephes. 4. where we were most like to find it. And therefore it is still with me resolved, that the Prophets and Prophecying which we read of in 1 Cor. 14. was extraordinary. He that believes three kinds of Prophets un­der the New Test. let him distinguish them.

But of these things more pa [...]ticularly and at large, when the Lord gives time and strength.

One writes for Preaching without Ordination; and might upon the same grounds have added, without Election. An­other for Preaching by him wh [...] is not Called to be a Minister. Ordination is thought to be th [...] weaker part; but Calling is the thing struck at. Yet I am not much sollicitous about the necessity of the Calling, that hath a strong promise to support it to the [...]nd of the World, [...] I humbly offer my part, in the Answer following.

AN 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.
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: [Page 2] Secundus, 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.

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.’

[Page 3] Ans. 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.

[Page 4] What 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.

[Page 5] 1. 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.

[Page 6] 1. Arg. Treat. p. 5.

‘The word To ordain, Tit. 1. 5. [...], 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, [...].’

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 [...] in Titus 1. 5. must have the same sense and signification with [...] 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 [...]. Aq. & 5 Ed. [...]. Sym. [...]. sexta ed. Translators) as spoken by David or Christ, which should be active as spoken by God. The word is [...] 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.. [...]. Que verba retineri non possunt quin vis flat Ebraico textus [Page 7] tribus in locis. & [...] [...]sakti, legatur [...] nisakti, in Niphal. & pro [...] malki, regem meum [...] malko rex ejus. & pro [...] kodeshi sanctū men̄. [...] kodsho. Rivetus. Musculus, besides the same observation with Rivet observes further against the Greek translator, Et adjecit quod in textu non est [...], 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 [...] otherwise 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 [...]) by way of might, and (per [...]) 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 [Page 8] settle his Kingdome by their. Preaching, the Apostles were but witnesses of Christs glory, and in being so did [...] [...].’

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. Christ.

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 [...]. Chrys. in Psal. 3. both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together. Here [...] 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 [...], 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 [...] 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 onely, 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 [Page 9] much 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 ( [...]) over his houshold to give them meat in due season? Luk. 12. 14. Man, who made me ( [...]) a Judge or divider over you? Act. 7. 10. Pharaoh made him (speaking of Joseph) governour over Egypt and all his house, [...].

For the second sense, see Mat. 24. 47. Verily I say to you he shall make him ruler ( [...]) over all his goods. Mat. 25. 21. I will make thee ruler ( [...]) 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, ( [...]) whom we may appoint over this busines. Act. 6. 3. To 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 [...], they made the first fruits of them that believe Bishops and Deacons, (not by popular election, but by vertue of the spirit of discerning, [...]) 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.’

[Page 10] Ans. 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 ( [...]) there used. Something was peculiarly enjoyned him, for wherefore else receives he a commission and commandement from Saint Paul? [...] 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. [...] [...], & 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 [...] in the one place doth no more referre to the people then the other word [...]. 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. [...] (as Suidas hath it) signifies both Plebiscitum, a Law made by the people; and [...] 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 [...]: so may the Rulers [Page 11] in like manner in those Lawes which are made by themselves alone. What think you of this passage in Julius Pollux? [...] 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 [...]. and of making an Officer [...].

‘ But you say [the custome was among the Graecians in their [...] 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 [...] 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 [...] 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 [Page 12] in their ( [...]) 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. Churches 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 [...] 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 [...] 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 [...] sumi de quavis electione et i [...]m quae ab [...] vel pancis fit.

[Page 13] 2. 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 [...], 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 [...], which refers to God alone, Act. 10. 42.

4. When Junius saith that [...] 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 [...]. 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 [...], its not necessary to understand twenty or two hundred. Two Consuls may be said truly [...] 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. [...] is dici­tur qui prae [...]st [...] 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 [...] 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.]’

[Page 14] Ans. The word [...] 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. [Page 15] cons. 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 [Page 16] Kings 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 [Page 17] the 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. 2 of 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 [...] 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 [Page 18] is, 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 [...]. The 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 [Page 19] consisteth; 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 [...] 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. [...] 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. Lutherans 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 [Page 20] as 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 giue 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 [Page 21] comitante. 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 [Page 22] Bridegroom 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 [...] 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 [Page 23] Minister; 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 [Page 24] sense 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 onely 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, [Page 25] but 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 [Page 26] nomine 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.

[Page 27] ‘ He 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.: 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. [...]. and 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. All 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. Teachers, 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 [Page 28] Peoples 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 [Page 29] he 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.’

[Page 30] Ans. 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. qualified 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 [Page 31] difference 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. [...], 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 [Page 32] him 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.’

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. things 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 [Page 33] heaven, as at Christs Mat. 3. 17. baptisme and transfiguration ch. 17. 5., or by prophecie, as in the case of Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 14.; or by some ex­traordinary and expresse signation of his Spirit, as in the case of Paul and Barnabas Act. 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 [...] to ordain, which signifies properly to choose: And [Page 34] where 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 [...] 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, [...] 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 ( [...]) 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, ( [...]) 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 [Page 35] choose 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 ( [...]) 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. it 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 [...] 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 [...], 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 [...] 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 [...] but [...], 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 [...], 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 [Page 36] they 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 [...] and [...] are enough to prove it. And if you will needs have [...] 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 haue 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 [Page 37] by 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. [...]. In Ordination it is [...], the same word with the addition of a Preposition ( [...]) 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 [...] in Act. 6. 6. In the 5. verse it is said of the whole multitude, they chose Steven &c. [...]. 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 [...] 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 [...]. 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 [...] refers to Ordination. You must needs intend this of the phrase in [Page 38] Act. 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 [...] in Act. 1. 23. and Act. 6. 6. is to be understood of Election, and [...] (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; [...] They appointed, Act. 1. 23. [...] We will appoint, Act. 6. 3. So the preposition [...] 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, [...], and [...], as H. Stephen observes. In the New Testament [...] signifies to place one, and to place one with honour: when the phrase is, [...], He shall set the sheep on his right hand, Mat. 25. 33. it is an authoritative word, as Rom. 3. 31. [...], We establish the Law. And the Septuagint whom Luke is observed to fol­low most, use [...] for as much as [...], 1 Chron. 9. 22. [...]. 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 [Page 39] by 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, [...] pro [...] 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 [...] esse pro simplici [...], intelligens ut opinor [...] prosiste: sed ita sumpto, ut quum dicitur sistere cursum. Possit tamen aliquis magis etiam proprio verbo utens, illud [...] 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) [...]: And in the former of them (viz. p. 1732.) [...], 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 [...] a Diminut [...]ve, is against all use and rea­son. That [...] signifies to place one, and to place one with honour, and is an authoritative word, and as much as [...], 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 [...] 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, [Page 40] and as much as [...]? 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 [...] 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 [...] for as much as [...], as 1 Chron. 9. 22. [...], 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 [...] 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 [Page 41] there 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. one 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 [...] 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 [Page 42] injoyns 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; [Page 43] or 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. 18 That relations are said to exist in their subject upon the position of their foundation and terme, and that the lawfull election and vote ( [...]) 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.’ [Page 44] Yet 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. 167 to 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 onely 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, [Page 45] or 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 [Page 46] be 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 [...] 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. [...]. 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.

[Page 47] But 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, [Page 48] concludes 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.’

[Page 49] Ans. 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 [Page 50] the 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 [...]. 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 [Page 51] [...], 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 onely in all cases and conditions of the Church: wherein whesoever engages either for Election or Ordination, apart, and much more for [Page 52] both 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.’

[Page 53] If 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 [Page 54] not 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 [Page 55] be 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 [Page 56] in 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 [Page 57] Minister: 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 [Page 50] in 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. [Page 51] and 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 [Page 60] but 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.