A Second Discourse About Re-Ordination, Discourse · Section 11
SECTION XI.
AFter the finiſhing this ſecond Diſcourſe upon this Subject, there is a third Book come out againſt me on the ſame, entituled, A peaceable enquiry about Re-ordination, under an unknown Name, like the former. I wiſh rather an acquaintance with the Author, to embrace him in my love, than to ſcratch him with my Pen; whom I receive as another perſon of learning, induſtry, candour, and worth. I am now from my Study and Bookes, and cannot beſtow that time and examination upon his labours as they require; I ſhall ſit down only as it were, and looking over his leaves, point out the anſwers to what concerns me in it, which I have given already to the former Author.
His Book hath ſix Chapters. In the firſt (p. 1. ad 5.) he premiſes twenty Diſtinctions which may paſs. In his ſecond, he l…ies down as many Propoſitions, (p. 6. ad. 20.) whereof three only require my animadverſion.
Prop. 5. He cites learned Authors on both ſides, ſome deſining Ordination only to be a publick approbation and confirmation, and others a proteſtative miſſion, or collation of Office-power, and then tells us, we may call it either of theſe, provided, we will acknowledge it to have the force of a Condition, or cauſa ſine quâ non of that power. Unto which I have this to ſay, that if this perſon had beſtowed as many thoughts to compound theſe two Opinions, and ſhew us how they may ſtand together, as he hath ſhewed kindneſs in granting both of them to us, he might bo…h have ſaved himſelf ſome labour, and made us more beholding to him. See ante, p. 16. where you have this ſame thing pre-conceived by my ſelf. There is his 14th. diſtinction therefore he hath laid down, as idle, and without uſe in him, that may take its place here, to wit, This Miniſterial power may be conſidered in foro Dei (or conſcientiae) and in foro huma…o. They are his own terms, if he had but been ſo happy alſo to apply them. See ante, Sect. 3. p. 30. In the firſt conſideration (I have ſaid there) a man hath this power, and muſt have it before Orders, and ſo his firſt Argument (p. 11, 12.) from the Coronation of a King, and Elected Magiſtrate, will make for us, and ſhew him how Inveſtiture follows the Office, and not gives it. In the ſecond conſideration, we will acknowledge it, that ordinarily extra caſum neceſſitatis, it come by Orders, and ſo his next two Arguments, (p. 13.) are anſwered, to wit, It is not enough that a man is qualified and deſires the Office; But being Ordained, he becomes a M…iſter as he was not before. In this ſenſe, be it granted him, that Orders is a Condition, as he would have it, which being put, Office power does follow, and being denyed, is ſuſpenced, to wit, coram hominibus, as to the Church. And ſo that queſtion which he asks, Are all Prophets, are all Teachers? is ſo far from poſing of us, that we ſhall not need to anſwer him only, And have all gifts? although while the Apoſtle (1 Cor. 12. with Ro. 12.) makes the Gifts and Office to be Comm…nſura…e, that w…re enough; But we can ſay farther, when a man hath the Gift and ſpiritual Power from God, yet hath he not his right of Reception before Men, till his Orders. It is Orders, I will account my ſelf, gives a perſon his Church-Authority, and transferts him ab eſſe Laico, ab eſſe Clericale, (if you will) in her Court. And this I hope does cut thoſe in the hamm quite, that will be running before they be ſent, to wit, before they be ſent by the Church. And yet while in foro Dei, a man hath his Gifts and Office, and ſo is a Miniſter before, in that reſpect, this Gentleman I hope will ſtand to his word, that there is not then, ſo much intrinſecal to the Ordinance, which may hinder its repetition. I pray let us ſu…poſe a pious, laborious, worthy Miniſter, that hath exerciſed the Miniſtry many years upon approbation only of an Aſſembly; I might inſtance in Mr. Bruce, (ante, p. 71.) or in one perhaps of eminent note for this particular, at home, not Ordained Presbyter till the Biſhops now came in; Let me ask any ſober-ſpirited man hereupon, whether ſuch a ones Miniſterial Acts for ten, a dozen years, or more paſt, were all ipſo facto, null and void? and whether he believe really, that ſuch a man could have no ſpiritual power derived to him from Chriſt, for that ſervice, whereby there are ſo many probably have been edified? What maps heart could ſerve him to ſay this? The direct clear contrary vo…e wh…r… unto, in Mr. Bruce his caſe, you have had before, and for my part, if I could once believe ſo, I might at next turn believe alſo, that the hands of a Biſhop alone, laid on a mans head, ſhall ſetch dow the Holy Ghoſt (or this ſpiritual effect) upon him ſtreight, when the hands and prayers of twenty Presbyters can do nothing▪ After which, I were fitted to believe even what you would have next. And yet ſhall we leave open a gapp here, as may let in conſuon into the Miniſtry? No, there is a middle and right way to be taken, and that is (as I judge) what I have propoſed in this Diſtinction thus applied, which I therefore humbly offer to the ſober in heart to conſider of, and as for his other Arguments that follow, (p. 14.) out of the London Divines, they are anſwered, ante Sect. 5. p. 48. to 51.
Prop. 8. and Prop. 15. Methinks, although it be true that the Biſhop in his account does Ordain a man again to the Office, and will look on it as a proper Ordination, the man himſelf yet, may take it, having I will ſuppoſe, a call to a new place, as an Ordination to a particular work, or otherwiſe, as a regular confirmation only of his former Miniſtry, and ſo declare it reſolutely when he does it. Why may he not blend in practice, what this man diſtinguiſhes in notion? And as for the Form only, which is but mans compoſure, what if it be a little miſ-uſed, ſo long as it will ſerve that turn in ſome ſort we take it for, though it were framed indeed at firſt for another? Even as a Key we know ſometimes will ſerve to open… two or three Locks, when it was at firſt hammer'd out for one of them only.
His next Chapter contains twenty argumentative interrogations, unto which I will ſay in general, If the Office-power a Miniſter hath given him, coram Eccleſia by Orders, which is I count in it ſelf, nothing elſe but the repute of us as Miniſters, or reception in that relation, as we ſtand in before toward God, being called of him, be to be put in the predicament of Relation, that one axiome only, M…ltiplicatis terminis, multiplicantur relationes, may ſerve to un-wind this Author out of many of thoſe intricacies he hath thought good to twiſt himſelf in, in this third Chapter, See ante, p. 17. In particular I anſwer.
To the firſt, The caſe is the ſame as in the repetition of the Oath of Allegiance, to the Magiſtrate. Ante, p. 57. The ſwearing is ſpecifically the ſame, to wit, the matter of the ſame Precept, and the repetition which makes it differ numerically only, is the command of our Superiours. Add to this that inſtance, 2. Ch. 30.23. Say the ſame of it, and apply it to Orders.
To the Second, It is anſwered at large; A…te, Sec. 4. p. 36. &c.
To his Third, and Fifth, I would ask whether Joſephs being Chriſts reputed Father, was a Relation? If it were, I ſhould anſwer what is hinted before: But to chooſe what I think, Ordination (I will ſay) adds no new being, nor begets any new Relation, but declares or teſtifies that to the Church which is already. As when a Couple have mutually given their conſent, the conjugal Relation ariſes from thence before God, and if they be married after, both by the Magiſtrate, and Miniſter, it is but the ſame thing new declared, and that is all. And thus I remember among the Arguments Voetius uſes to prove, that Ordinatio non eſt Fundamentum Miniſterii, he produces this for one, Conjugii Fundamentum eſt mutuus conſenſus non vero externa ſolemnizatio which he confirms out of the Lawyers.
To his Fourth, between, See Ante, p. 90.
To his Sixth, Chriſt, I conceive, exerts not any Act in Ordination, as to collation of power (whatever he do as to his Grace or Spirit) but the Charter of his Goſpel only, or Inſtitution, is his ſtanding Act, and the Church declares a man in Office according to the ſame.
To his Seventh, Re-ordination is an injury indeed on the part of thoſe that require it to the nullifying our former Miniſtry, but not, I hope, on the part of thoſe that ſubmit to it only for the uſe of that Miniſtry they cannot enjoy otherwiſe. Neceſſity excuſes by the verdict of this mans own twelfth Propoſition.
To the Eight, We muſt conceive no otherwiſe of this inveſtiture with Miniſterial power in Orders, than of the inveſtiture with Regal in the In…uguration of Princes, the repetition whereof (inſtanced by me in Scripture) does I hope, anſwer this Interrogation.
To the Ninth, and Tenth, The Deaconſhip as well as the Prieſthood in our Caſe is taken only we know by way of Form for the Canonical Stamp upon our former Miniſtry, and let a man lock to it only that he avoid lying in his own Anſwers, and I do judge, ſuppoſing him at preſent diſpoſed, and under the need of it, that it is to be born by him, when he cannot help it, as a Chriſtian bears affronts and indignities for the ſake of the Goſpel.
To the Eleventh, Neceſſity that knows no Law is not bounded by Number.
To the Twelfth, Our people are to be taught by us, to believe (as we do) that our former Orders are valid, which prevents theſe ſcruples.
To the Thirteenth, and Fourteenth, The arguing is pertinent, as to our Rulers, if they will pleaſe to hearken to it, but the Caſe of Impoſition, is not the ſame with the Submiſſion.
To the Fifteenth, This is prevented by the explication of our account of, and ſenſe about our re-ordaining.
To the Sixteenth, what ſhould hinder, but a man may pray in Faith for Gods Grace or Bleſſing upon his Office or Work more than once?
To the Seventeenth, I had thought to have found ſomething againſt Prelacy in the Abſtract, as Anti C…riſtian, akinn to the Papal Hierarchy, or the like, and ſo dangerous to be medled with at all, or to be come near in the leaſt, but when that which is objected is perſonal only, I pray Quorſumhaec? The validity of Orders, I hope, as of Baptiſm, depends not on the goodneſs of the Prieſt. Luther, and others of our firſt Reformers, never took any other than the Romiſh Orders.
To the Eighteenth, If Re-ordination be but proved in theſi, it is fair for me, for I will confeſs, that as it is cloathed with all its circumſtances in hypotheſi it is very hard to be digeſted, and this good man methinks ſhould not go to make it harder, while he ſits down ſo induſtriouſly, as it were, to prick thorns into his Brethrens hearts, that are herein too tender and bleed already, There are 27 Particulars raked up out of the words of the Biſhop, or Arch-deacon, as incongruous in the Form, which let them look to that ſpeak them: For my part, I care not to have it ſaid, in regard of the change of the Churches Court from Pre…bytery to Epiſcopacy, that I am new Order'd, or Admitted, any more than for a M…. or Arts in one Univerſity to be admi…d Mr. alſo in the other. There are 20 other Particulars therefore he adds, which come more cloſe, whereof though ſome are much ſtrained, and ſome concern thoſe that come to be Ordained at firſt, as the Re-ordained, which is pi…ty; Yet do I aſſent to him ſo far, that whatever words or engagements a man utters for himſelf, he hath need to be very tender of them, inſomuch that I my ſelf find ſome kind of guilt reflected on me, methinks (I crave mercy) in one paſſage I thought not on in the leaſt before, to wit, the firſt Queſtion in the Deaconſhip is, Do you think you are moved by the Holy Ghoſt to take upon you this Office and Miniſtration? I took this Curſo…ily as no more than, Do you think you have Gods Call to the Miniſtry? And the Anſwer being ſo gentle, I think ſo, it paſſed with me without more thought: A man may (I think) ſay he is moved by the Holy Ghoſt to his duty, and while he ſubmits to this Form only, for the confirming his Miniſtry, I cannot deny but this may be ſaid; yet let the words be ſtrictly taken (as this man does urge them) of that Work and Office of the Deaconſhip, as diſtinct from the Prieſthood, if I were put upon it now, I could hardly ſay it again without ſome explication. It muſt be conceived therefore, when the Biſhop diſpenſes with the Canons, as to the Ordaining a man Deacon and Presbyter in one day, there is no expreſſion neceſſary there to, but he may diſpenſe with likewiſe; And conſequently, let every man be ſure to crave his liberty accordingly, as to the variation of any ſuch expreſſion, which is againſt his Conſcience, and that is the proper, clear, and full remedy in this matter. If poſſibly one Biſhop ſhould deny a man ſo poor a thing as this (which I conceive none will) let him go to another.
To the Nineteenth, I conſent with full conviction, that it is wholſome and prudent adviſe, for a man that goes about this buſineſs, to conſider firſt with himſelf well, how far his Conſcience will go, and whether he can thereby attain his end by it, to wit, as the getting into, ſo the keeping his Miniſtry got, which if he can, with a ſatisfied heart, by a full conformity, or His Majeſties gracious indulgence either, it is well, I ſhall be glad (however it be with my ſelf) if my labour be not in vain in the Lord unto any.
To his Twentieth, I acknowledge the ſame as to the main, but crave the Applications of his Thirteenth Diſtinction, and Propoſition.
His Fourth Chapter contains Animadverſſons particularly upon my Tract, which he reduces to Ten Arguments.
Arg. 1. From Pauls uſing Circumciſion, and the Jewiſh Rites, to which he ſpeaks p. 66. and 73. Anſ. I ſee no… well to what end he ſhews his reading here, unleſs to confirm me more herein: It appears by the Authorities and Particulars he recites, that Paul and the Jews uſed thoſe Rites after Chriſts death to another than their proper end; And if he ſo induſtriouſly grant the uſe of thoſe Rites, which were the Ordinances of God, without that end to which they were at firſt appointed by him; Why does he make ſo much ado for us to uſe that Form which is only the Ordinance and Compoſure of men, to another end than that to which it was framed at firſt by them? See Ante, p. 44. And loe here the Apple of that ſtrife (or paring of it) about which they contend.
Arg. 2. From the precedent of Barnabas and Paul, Act. 13. This he ſpeaks to, p. 74. ad 82. Anſ. The firſt inſtance of theſe hath methinks even non-plus'd this man. Orders is with him an Authoritative M…ſſion; Barnabas now is ſent forth Authoratively by the Church at Jeruſalem, yet Ordained here with Paul at Antioch; what ſayes he to this? Why this only, It might be judged an occaſional Embaſſy. But how I pray could he be ſent by them on this Embaſſy without the Office? The exerciſe of Authority ſuppoſes the Existence, ſayes he ſomewhere himſelf. And how could he have the Office according to him unleſs he was Ordained? Here then is a double Ordination by men: for, as for any immediate Ordination of Barnabas from Chriſt before, as of Paul, we read not; And this Perſon does hold, that a men cannot be a Miniſter, or have his Office, but by Orders: And yet does the fellow-inſtance with this take much deeper root in my Soul. Paul we are ſure was call'd and ſent by Chriſt himſelf immediately to the Gentiles, and yet Ordained after with Barnabas. Now if a man may be Ordained by men, who was Ordained before by Chriſt himſelf, how much rather I pray may he be Ordained again, that is Ordained only before by men? And thus doth that which he anſwers to weaken this, add ſtrength to it; which is, A twofold Ordination, one extraordinary, and the other ordinary cannot juſtifie a twofold Ordination that is ordinary. But what is this oppoſing words to real things? It juſtifies it I ſay the rather. The call to the Miniſtry is either Inward, which lies in Gods gifting and inclining a perſon for the Office (as he ſpeaks) or Outward. This call from without, we muſt know is either Extraordinary or Ordinary; which by the way may convince this Author of a farther defect in his apprehenſion, while he would make the Inward call in us, to anſwer that which was Extraodinary then. Well, Paul is called Extraordinarily by Chriſt, at firſt from without, appearing to him on purpoſe that he might ſend him, &c. and yet called again by Orders for all that. Here then is an external call we ſee double. What can he poſſibly ſay to this? Yes, What can he ſay to the bottom of the matter? The reaſon why Divines and he do hold the unlawfulneſs of Re-ordination, is becauſe they conceive a man is made a Miniſter already by his firſt Orders; But he…e we have a Precedent for certain, that one who is a Miniſter already, may be Ordained. Our foot here is upon a Rock. Two thing he hath to anſwer; 1. Some ſay this Ordination was to a higher Office. But who ſaies ſo? When Chriſt had made Paul his Apoſtle, what Office I pray can be given by man after, higher than this? 2. We deny (he adds) this to be a proper Ordi…tion. But though he does ſo, I do believe there is not ſo much as one of the Ancients can be produced to have dreamed of ſuch a denial; and preſuming that there is not 10 to 100 of all Divines elſe, that ever interpreted this place otherwiſe, than of Ordination, I may conclude (I hope) that Orders is and muſt be that, and nothing elſe but that, which is, or may be gathered of it here, rather than to ſay with this perſon, that that which is here, is not to be accounted Ordination. While therefore he endeavours to prove by ſeveral particulars, that theſe perſons were not Ordained here to their Office, let us by Ordaining to the Office, underſtand what ſuch learned men as are of his mind do, that is, Ordained for the conferring of their Office, Ut Epiſcopalem gratiam largiretur; He little thinks how he is plea…ing for me, who do hold this certainly to be true; and conſequently, when Ordination does no more than …hat he allows it here to do, what is the repetition of it, to be ſo pleaded againſt, if occaſion be? Let this Author therefore, that admires that I do not prove this Impoſition of hands to be a proper Ordination, when it is generally received to be no otherwiſe than …o, know, what is more material for him to prove if he can, to wit, that Ordination preciſely taken, as diſtinct from Election, is any thing any where elſe in Scripture, than it is here. If he cannot do this, he may put up, and have done; If he can, yet will it ſerve our turn, ſo that a twofold Ordination however, will be proved to our hands. And here while we are upon this Conſideration, and I my ſelf with theſe Authors, do diſtinguiſh ſome where between Ordaining to the Office and the Work, foreign, as it is here. I muſt offer theſe two or three things by way of Quaere.
1. Whether all Ordination by man be not indeed to the Work? Numb. 8.22. Ex. 29.1. Act. 14.26.
2. Whether the diſtinction accordingly (where we are put to the need) be not rather to be made only of the Work, and ſo a man be ſaid Ordained either to the Work in general of the Office, or to the Work of a particular charge?
3. Whereas ſome do diſtinguiſh between the power of Preaching and Adminiſtring the Sacraments, and an outward faculty to exerciſe the ſame (or …o that purpoſe) and do account that Orders give the one, and that after a man muſt have a Licence from the Biſhop for the other; Whether the bottom truth here (the notion being but lick'd aright) be not indeed this; That the Office and Power it ſelf is given only of God, and then that which Man does by approbation of his Call in ſanctifying him by Ceremony to the Work, gives him this authority or faculty before man, as to his work in general, and the Biſhops Licence after, is no more than as Claudius Liſias giving Paul leave to ſpeak in his Province, to wit, the liberty of uſing this Faculty under his Juriſdiction.
Arg. 3. From the moſt genuine End of ſuch ſolemnities as this, and ſo conſequently hereof. This he endeavours to diſprove, p. 88. ad 90. Anſ. As for this end I make of Orders, to wit, to be a publick reſtification or allowace of that Call, and Miniſtry which a man hath from God for his reception and acceptation in the Church, which comes in fine, to no leſs than foreign, is no ſuch ſubtil or crafty device as he imagines, but the moſt honeſt plain truth in the Lord, of this buſineſs, as I judge, and am humbly perſwaded too farther, from him; apprehended by Proteſtants ordinarily, though preſſed to a more clear, or (to ſay rather) full underſtanding thereof by me, than perhaps by others. This appears I account, from the general nature of ſuch Solemnities, and ſo to be argued from its own light, as home est animal, & animal ſubſtantia (yet not without convenient patronage, neither from Scripture, (ante p. 74.) and therefore the Arguments of this Author which he offers only from this particular place of Act. 13. might be waved as to him eaſily, by ſaying that, though this was not the end of that benedictory diſmiſſion there, yet may it be the end always of every proper Ordination. But foraſmuch as I do take that to be Ordination, and for ought I know, ſo full and proper, as proper can be, I ſhall chooſe to conſider a little more, what we find there in that place. In the firſt place, we find manifeſtly a call of the Holy Ghoſt. This call, ſeparate me, I can underſtand no otherwiſe than as I do the Prophecy, that went before on Timothy, to wit, to be by Revelation, to ſome of thoſe Prophets and Teachers, there (for hence it is probable that they are told us to be Prophets, when it had been enough to ſay only they had been Teachers elſe) who being as it is ſaid, in the Church, and Miniſtring to the Lord, we muſt conceive the Body of them met together with them, and when theſe Prophets and Teachers, to whom this was revealed, do in the midſt of the Congregation, thus ſolemnly lay hands on theſe perſons according to the ſpirits bidding of them, what can be more plain in the thing its ſelf, than that this is an open teſtification of that call or publick approbation in the face of that Church, which being the moſt famous than in Chriſtendom, the notice of it, and conſequently eſteem of them accordingly, does neceſſarily follow upon the ſame. And what now are his ſeveral particulars againſt this, if any one were minded to ſet himſelf to anſwer the ſame?
Arg. 4th. and 5th. and 6th. Apari; From Marriage, from the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy, and from the Lords Prayer, whereof he ſpeaks p. 91. ad 95. Anſ. Here I perceive very good confirmation. The formal Contract (ſaies he) which may be, and often is, before the Marriage, gives the relation. Again, The proper end is the ſatisfaction of the world, and therefore if the firſt ſolemnity give not ſatisfaction, a ſecond may be, without profanation. Juſt thus do I conceive of Orders; He hath ſpoken my parallel thoughts for me, as to Re-ordination. So likewiſe, for the other inſtance he is already foreſtalled. See ante p. 56.57.
Arg. 7th. From Chriſts perſonal Baptiſm; This I urged in my Book, thus only, to wit, That an Ordinance may be uſed by a perſon who is not capable of its principal end, becauſe there may be more ends than one of an Ordinance, and he may be capable of ſome other of them, though not that. Now what means here theſe heapings of Commentators and particulars, to ſhew that there was ſome end for which Chriſt ſubmitted to Baptiſm? Who ever was ſo impious to think otherwiſe? That I ſaid, or ſay, is Johns Baptiſm in Scripture, is the Baptiſm of Repentance for remiſſion of ſin; Chriſt is not capable of this end, yet baptized. What is there in theſe three leaves to contradict this, unleſs it be his firſt anſwer only, from A Lapide to wit, Chriſtus quaſi reus & penitens Johanni ſe ſiſt it &c. But will indeed ſuch Doctrine hold that Chriſt Jeſus did repent as well as dye in our behalf? What if I ſhould uſe here thoſe words he hath upon me in the next page, about Re-baptization, Oh how ſtrong was that temptation that trapan'd ſo learned a perſon into Antinomianiſm? But I dare not ſo ludicrouſly alſo add his Prayer.
Arg. 8. p. 101. ad 110. He produces ten interpretations of Act. 19. to wave that ſingle inſtance of Rebaptization. That which I ſhall obſerve here, only is, how hard it is for a man to be well read in Books, and not ſacrifice to them, to the ſpoil of his own judgment, and how the ſtrength of a man is indeed weakneſs. There can be but one true meaning or interpretation of the Text; If any one then of theſe ten be true, the other nine are certainly falſe, and when he propoſes all as probable, it follows neceſſarily, that it muſt be ten to one, whether that he takes be right or no. And as for that he hath choſe, though he may be extolled that he hath ſaid ſo much as to make it ſeem poſſible, yet while it is ſo much ſtrained at the very ſight, it is leſs probable than the laſt, and moſt anciently received of his interpretations. For my part, I hold it baſe, to forſake any truth becauſe humane authority would face us down. There are to me here theſe four things to be held.
1. That theſe perſons were baptized, and re-baptized, as the former Author more judiciouſly (from Voſſius) as leſs nicely, hath acknowledged.
2. That both theſe Baptiſms were in…o Chriſt, and ſo one and the ſame ſo far as I ſay, to wit, as to the Author, matter, form, and main end, and yet not altogether the ſame ſo, but one was John's Baptaſm, and the other Chriſt's, that they might be re-baptized.
3. That the reaſon of the doing muſt be gathered from the Text it ſelf, and that intimateth, that theſe Diſciples underſtood not their former Baptiſm, at leaſt ſo as they ought, either they knew not that they were Baptized into Chriſt at all, or not ſufficiently that Chriſt, into whom they were Baptized, ſeeing they were Baptized into him as to come, when he was dark to the World.
Now Chriſt being come, and fully revealed, the Apoſtles inſtructs them more fully, and explicitely herein, and ſo baptizes them formally, as Diodate ſpeaks, and expreſly in the Name of Chriſt Jeſus. As happily it was upon higher inſtruction, it may be ſaid, into an higher Form, but not into another School, or Church State, and ſo be ſtrong for us, Ante, p. 90. Upon this account it follows, according to what I have ſaid, that though the univerſal judgement of the Church ſtands good againſt Re-baptization now, yet was there a particular Reaſon once in the Church, why a perſon might be re-baptized. And this does ſerve my turn, that there is not that hainous dread in the nature of the thing it ſelf; and yet ſo long as this particular reaſon could not endure any longer than the interval wherein Baptiſm was adminiſtred into Chriſt to come, which is now ceaſed, I am not Trapan'd into Re-baptization, as this man, Non ſatis quidem ingenuo vultu, does ſpeak, but may diſ-approve of the ſame now together with the Catholick Church, as well as any other.
Arg 9. From Chriſts own Re-ordaining his Apoſtles. To this he ſpeaks p. 111. ad. 115. And this indeed I do ſtand upon, and have there fully already prevented all that I think can be oppoſed; and what he hath elſe may paſs only for illuſtration. I ſuppoſe he himſelf will not expect I ſhould add any more See. p. 76. ad. 80.
Arg. 10. From the double foreign upon Timothy, mentioned in two Texts in the two Epiſtles; Upon which this Author hath ſpoken methinks ſo ſetly, gravely, and deliberatively, that all I can ſay is, that he hath made me to believe ſomething more probable of that which I took before as poſſible only. And as for the two Authorities of mine, he farther quotes here in the end, I have not the Books at hand (where I am) to examine them. This he diſcourſes p. 116. ad. 122. Where he ends his Animadverſions.
After all then, in both theſe Authors, there is the Objection of the Covenant, which though I would fain wave as extrinſical to Re-ordination it ſelf, & for my own part, being not concerned in it, yet does it ſtill recurr to my mind, ſo that I doubt I ſhall hardly be found faithful to my Brethren in the Caſe, if I ſpeak not ſomething at leaſt to that alſo before I leave. Unto this therefore, I tis conſiderable firſt, whether that which is ſaid ordinarily by the Presbyterian, that the Biſhop does not Ordain quâ Prelate, but quâ Presbyter (See 1 Tim. 4.14. expreſs with 2 Tim. 1.6.) or quâ Preſident at moſt of that Presbytery, is not only that which is true, but gives allay alſo, to this matter?. If it does not, or not what is ſufficient, yet taking this in however, let us know next There are ſome things which may be unlawful at one time to do, or to be done, and at another be unlawful to be omitted, and not done. Let me ask a perſon every way elſe diſpoſed, whether he does not think it his duty to follow his Miniſtry, and unlawful for him to forſake the ſame, were it not for this only? If he thinks ſo, it follows, that though, ſo long as he could uſe his Miniſtry without Epiſcopal Orders, he might judge himſelf bound againſt taking of them; Yet now, when without theſe Orders he cannot uſe his Miniſtry (if the times prove indeed ſtill ſo hard) and ſo to refuſe the ſame, is by conſequence, to do that which he judges, as to him, is ſin, to wit, the quitting the Miniſtry he is engaged in; Here if he thinks that he ſtands bound by his Covenant ſtill (ſuppoſing him ſatisfied of Re-ordination otherwiſe, for therefore do I put this Objection laſt when all elſe is done) he makes that ſacred Engagement, intended by him only to Piety, to become to him a Bond of Iniquity; in which caſe, I think all Divines are clear in their Solution. The matter of an Oath no doubt muſt be a thing lawful, if a thing then lawful to be done, or omitted before, become now unlawful, the matter of the Oath does ceaſe, and ceſſante materia ceſſat obligatio. I dare not tender this, but with all due ſerious caution, tenderneſs, and ſubmiſſion. Let the concern'd look more to it.
In his fifth Chapter he hath liberally propoſed his Conceſſions, which, above all he hath beſides, is worthy to be regarded: He will yield to Examination from 1 Pet. 3.15. To the Biſhops Approbation upon the ſame. To a Licence from Act. 21.37, 39. To a Benediction from Act. 20 32. To Impoſition of hands, as a Sign of conſent, Levit. 24.14. And all this, both upon a mans undertaking a new Charge, and alſo upon the diſſolution of his legal title, in the ſame. Nay let me add his own words in the cloze, There is nothing that I can deviſe about Re…ordination in theſi, the Right Reverend Biſhop can demand, but it ſhall be yielded, except only the formal inveſtiture with Miniſterial Power. Loe here how frankly he deaſs with us! which cannot but bring to mind what the former Author hath yielded alſo before him; who in the fourth page of his Book, will firſt like well of a Confirmation of our firſt Orders, as being not exactly Canonical. And ſecondly, Not diſlike a ſecond Ordination foreign by the Biſhop, upon the remove of a man unto a new Charge: Upon which, if this freſh Author yields a little farther, it is not without the ſame Foundation; For if the Work, and Office (or the Work of the Office in general, and a particular Charge) may be diſtinguiſhed as to a new place; why not alſo as to the old, when it is neceſſity puts them upon the diſtinction, in either? Theſe Conceſſions I take therefore from both, as to the main upon the matter, to be what I have contended for. I deſire none to make uſe of me that have not need of me, as ſuch more particularly have, who enter, or have entred a new place; And when any do it, I humbly lay this charge on them, that they look on this matter no otherwiſe but as a legal eſtabliſhment, or the Canonical Stamp of allowance (as I have expreſſed it) of their former Vocation; which they may pardon the rather, becauſe that Orders it ſelf (as I account) conſidered aright, comes to nothing in the nature of it, otherwiſe than this. And as for this inveſtiture with power as they call it, which does ſo ſtick, As I judge, with both theſe Authors, that it is in this point indeed the ſumm of our diſpute does lye, and the bent of my diſcourſe therefore hath been driven thereat: So am I perſwaded, that what I have ſaid, really, may ſatisfie the unpraeocupated in judgement. And I muſt add, that though there be ſome Circumſtances about the ordering otherwiſe, which have been to me very ſore, and do require care in the prevention, and good ſatisfaction, according to a mans temper before-hand; yet as to this particular meerly, it ſeems to me as I underſtand the ſame (and the words are not our part) to have ſo little hurt in it truly, that of all the reſt I know of to moleſt, I could methinks be ſooneſt ſatisfied in this. And if theſe Authors do indeed ſtick at all the reſt for the ſake of this only, they are huge Conformiſts methinks I may ſay, that ſtick at nothing. However this be, while we ſee how tenderly theſe candid Brethren do offer towards Submiſſion, in point of Conſcience in the thing, there is all the reaſon in the world, that our Church Rulers, who have the ſame thoughts of this inveſtiture as they, ſhould come to compoſition with them. To this effect, this Author does ſpend his ſixth and laſt Chapter, by way of Petition, and pathetical Conſiderations, to perſwade to it, wherein therefore I have nothing to oppoſe, or anſwer, but to joyn heart and ink along with him. In the mean while, winding up the Controverſie (or the Agreement rather) which is between us in this manner.
Re-ordination may be conſidered in the Impoſition, or our Submiſſion. For the Impoſition, we agree, we are ſorry for it, and dare not juſtifie it. For the Submiſſion, it is either voluntary, or meerly in compliance with the Times, which appears injurious to our former Orders, and virtually to juſtifie the impoſing, and ſo we agree likewiſe. I dare not approve this, but ſo far rather, as I have been any wayes culpable, I repent it: Or upon neceſſity, ſo that a man cannot elſe have the uſe of his Miniſtry, and in this Caſe it is, I ſtate Re-ordination. Here th…n finally Reordination is to be conſidered again in Theſi, or Hypotheſi: In theſi my Adverſaries do indeed come up to me (for this only inveſtiture with power, they ſtick at, belongs to the Form, being words, not in the Presbyterian Orders) while thus much is granted, as you ſee before; ſo that I count I have performed the task I at firſt undertook, having put in this Clauſe [Provided a man may crave liberty, if it be clogged in any Circumſtance againſt his Conſcience] in my firſt Sheets. In Hypotheſi, I am willing to come to them, and joyn thus far, that if we take the Form exactly in every Circumſtance, and its appurtinances, it is hard to be ſwallowed, and certainly requires condeſcention, which if it may be obtained in general, in a new mould, it were beſt; if not, every individual perſon muſt conſider well the whole matter for himſelf (which I charge him in the Lord, for the delivery of my own Soul, and his, carefully to do) and then to crave, or take his liberty in thoſe things which are againſt his Conſcience, or elſe forbear. And if any good men ſhall do thus, with comfort to themſelves, and people, ſo that as to the main they are ſatisfied, I ſhall not, I hope, have cauſe to repent of what I have written, nor theſe Brethren of mine, of their kind Conceſſions, for which I thank them, and cannot take my leave of them, without this due commendation. In many things have theſe candid, pious, and worthy Adverſaries done virtuouſly, but in this, they have excelled them all. To wit, that they have freely let ſo much ſhelter ſtand for me, while yet they have been beleaguring of me; I mean in ſuch huge fair Propoſals, towards an accommodation. When thou beſiegeſt a City, thou ſhalt not cut down the Frees that are for meat, by ſmiting thy Axe into them, for thou thy ſelf mayeſt afterwards come to eat of them.