So that the common distinguishing of ordination from jurisdiction or government, as if they were _tota specie_ different, is unsound.
IV. Imposition of hands was a sign, (like the kiss of peace, and the anointing of persons, and like our kneeling in prayer, &c.) which having first somewhat in their nature to invite men to the use, was become a common significant sign, of a superior's benediction of an inferior, in those times and countries. And so was here applied ordinarily for its antecedent significancy and aptitude to this use; and was not purposely instituted, nor had its significancy newly given it by institution; and so was not like a sacrament necessarily and perpetually affixed to ordination.
Therefore we must conclude, 1. That imposition of hands in ordination is a decent, apt, significant sign, not to be scrupled by any, nor to be omitted without necessity, as being of Scripture, ancient, and common use.
2. But yet that it is not essential to ordination; which may be valid by any fit designation and separation of the person. And therefore if it be omitted, it nullifieth not the action. And if the ordainers did it by letters to a man a thousand miles off, it would be valid: and some persons of old were ordained when they were absent.
V. I add as to the need of ordination, 1. That without this key, the office and church doors would be cast open, and every heretic or self-conceited person intrude.
2. It is a sign of a proud, unworthy person, that will judge himself fit for so great a work, and intrude upon such a conceit, when he may have the judgment of the pastors, and avoideth it.[263]
3. Those that so do, should no more be taken for ministers by the people, than any should go for christians that are not baptized, or for married persons whose marriage is not solemnized.
[261] Acts xiii. 2; Rom. i. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 15.
[262] Isa. xxxiii. 22; Jam. iv. 12.
[263] Acts xiii. 2; Heb. v. 4, 10.
Quest. XX. _Is ordination necessary to make a man a pastor of a particular church as such? And is he to be made a general minister and a particular church elder or pastor at once, and by one ordination?_
I have proved that a man may be made a minister in general, yea, and sent to exercise it in converting infidels, and baptizing them, before ever he is the pastor of any particular church. To which I add, that in this general ministry, he is a pastor in the universal church, as a licensed physician that hath no hospital or charge, is a physician in the kingdom.
And, 1. As baptism is as such our entrance into the universal church, and not into a particular; so is ordination to a minister an entrance only on the ministry as such.
2. Yet a man may at once be made a minister in general, and the pastor of this or that church in particular: and in kingdoms wholly inchurched and christian, it is usually fittest so to do; lest many being ordained _sine titulo_, idleness and poverty of supernumeraries, should corrupt and dishonour the ministry: which was the cause of the old canons in this case.
3. But when a man is thus called to both at once, it is not all done by ordination as such; but his complicate relation proceedeth from a complication of causes. As he is a minister, it is by ordination. And as he is the pastor of this people, it is by the conjunct causes of appropriation: which are, 1. Necessarily the people's consent. 2. Regularly, the pastor's approbation and recommendation, and reception of the person into their communion. 3. And sometimes the magistrate may do much to oblige the people to consent.
4. But when a man is made a minister in general before, he needeth no proper ordination to fix him in a particular charge; but only an approbation, recommendation, particular investiture, and reception. For else a man must be oft ordained, even as oft as he removeth. But yet imposition of hands may fitly be used in this particular investiture, though it be no proper ordination, that is, no collation of the office of a minister in general, but the fixing of one that was a minister before.
Quest. XXI. _May a man be oft or twice ordained?_
It is supposed, that we play not with an ambiguous word, that we remember what ordination is. And then you will see cause to distinguish, 1. Between entire, true ordination, and the external act, or words, or ceremony only. 2. Between one that was truly ordained before, and one that was not. And so I answer,
1. He that seemed ordained, and indeed was not, is not re-ordained when he is after-ordained.
2. It is needful therefore to know the essentials of ordination, from the integrals and accidentals.
3. He that was truly ordained before, may in some cases receive again the repetition of the bare words and outward ceremonies of ordination (as imposition of hands). Where I will, I. Tell you in what cases. II. Why.