A Second Discourse About Re-Ordination, Discourse · Section 3
SECTION III.
FOr the ſecond generall: The Form which the Biſhop uſes, I will confeſſe it freely, to be ſo compiled to the ordinary conception of Orders, as is moſt proper for ſuch as are made ex non Ministris Miniſtri, (as he ſpeaks) yet let not my tender Brethren be troubled at this, ſeeing that hinders not but it may ſerve too, for thoſe that are only declared to be Ministri, and confirmed, or regularly, legally, canonically made what they were truly in the ſighs of God before; It is the offence of mens minds makes this ſo grievous. There is no Ordination indeed is any more then a Declaration and Allowance before the Church of a mans call from God, and let a man read the Forme quite over, one may rather wonder at it, as a happineſſe there is no more incongruity to our caſe, then complain there is ſo much, as if it were compiled with ſome tender regard hereto, that if any were ordained before (as beyond Sea) otherwiſe, they might not ſcruple for all that (if they thought good) to ſubmit to it. The words Ordered, and Admined, is the worſt this ſober man himſelf can pick out, which when I ſee in the inſtruments of our Orders, as it were purpoſely interpreted for us, ſecundum ritus Eccleſiae Anglicanae admiſſimus & Legitimè & Canonicè ordinavimus, I cannot but conclude what I have ſaid, and ſay that it is well this form indeed is no worſe, (I mean more improper) ſeeing as yet we have no other. And if there ſhall come any future change hereof, I muſt fore note that that can neither be objected or pleaded as to me in the matter.
In this whole Forme there are theſe things. The Exhortations, and Prayers; The Ceremonies; The Deaconſhip; The Queſtions and Reſponſes between Biſhop and Miniſter; and after all (though that be beyond my Queſtion) the inſtrument of our Orders.
For the firſt: There are ſeverall perſons to be Ordained together, it may be twenty or thirty, (there was thereabouts Ordained with me) The Exhortations now and Prayers are delivered at once indefinitely; and that alone I hope does take away all ſcruple quite in that whole matter; for the caſe is the ſame as in our Sermons and Prayers in the Congregation, which will not I ſuppoſe be refuſed, becauſe ſome one or other expreſſion therein, is not apt and adaequate to the caſe of every individuall perſon. Nevertheleſſe upon a view of the whole I find not one petition or direction that may not be uſed in our caſe, let it have its grains of allowance and fair interpretation; and as for what this Author ſuggeſts as if we prayed to be made Ministers, or to receive the Miniſterial power (which we have and are already) he may as well ſay, we are exhorted to be made ſo, and receive the ſame, equally with as much ſenſe and truth in it. No there are prayers for Gods gilts and grace and aſſiſtance of his ſpirit to ou… Miniſtry, w…ich I hope might be put up for the Ordainers themſelves; and we are exhorted to our duty accordingly, but the Biſhop prayes not, that by his act the power may be given, which he holds no doubt to flow indiſpenſibly thereupon; not through his prayer (which is for things contingent) but Chriſts inſtitution. Effectus ordinationis proprius eſt collatio poteſtatis, ad illum per ſe dirigitur, eundem que (ſay ſuch) perpetuo et infallibiliter conſequitur.
For the ſecond the Ceremonies, ſuch as the delivery of the Bible and the like I know no exception by any: onelyonly if the meet repetition of impoſition of hands be impleaded, then hath my kind Adverſary to anſwer for the ſame as well as I, who is ſo farr from diſallowing a ſecond laying on of hands that he may be, Godfather to it himſelf, while in that diſtinction of foreign ordinativa et optativa (from Mr. Vines) he hath chriſtined the thing with the right name; and if he can come off from Auſtine, (as he quotes him) and other antients for this, who look on this foreign it ſelf to be ſacramental, and ſo not to be iterated, I hope I ſhall not be concluded ab authoritate bumanâ neither in the ſame matter.
For the Deaconſhip, I have I think ſpoke enough in my firſt ſheets, p. 92, 93. This haply is a thing, may be got to be waved by the Biſhop, if it be deſired, for which I have quoted Aquinas; If not, it is but uſed we know as formality, to any by himſelf, who are ordained Prieſt and Deacon at the ſame time; and though a mans ſpirit may be apt to riſe at ſuch a kind of favour, that we, who are Presbyters before, ſhould be now promoted to the Order of a Deacon (ad ordinem Diaconatus promovimus) yet ſeeing it is but the Canonical ſtamp upon our Miniſtry (and that onelyonly) we come for, which belike is to bee made at the leaning the hand twice upon it, ſo that we muſt be the half firſt, before the whole, and he that wills the end, wills the means; let us but get our hearts ſincere in the thing, that we do this for the Goſpels ſake, and I am perſwaded ſeriouſly (as of ſome other like things) it may be received of the pious and the wiſe, with a ſmile perhaps on the face, rather then with a wrinkle on the conſcience. It is delivered by the antients, and received by the learned, that thoſe Deacon… we read of in the Acts were choſe (at leaſt ſome of them) out of the 70. Chriſt ſent forth to preachs which may therefore be ſome good allay to a mans ſpirit in this auk ward ſubmiſſion. This Gentleman indeed hath an expreſſion (p. 67.) very apt to raiſe indignation, and to that end ingenuouſly uſed, to wit, that be will chooſe rather to loſe the exerciſe of his Miniſtry for a ſeaſon, rather then take gradum Simeonis. He does well to put in the word for a ſeaſon to excuſe it; for ſuppoſe this man under no ſuch Univerſity Oath (as in our caſe we are not, I hope) could he indeed with a good conſcience, give up his Miniſtry, rather then from a Maſter of Arts, become a Batchel our again? Is this a reaſon ſound enough for ſo great a matter, becauſe he will not abaſe himſelf to a lower degree for a moment in the Church, then he is in already? There is certainly no bottom here. This ſober man would not indeed have all his brethren, that are tender herein, to go preſently out of the Vineyard, to accompany him, would he? Suppoſe a Miniſter, nay ſuppoſe twenty that do much good in their place, yet being ſenſible of the burden of their calling, and made more tender by him, ſhall be glad now of his book and example, and ſo ſatisfie their conſciences, to leave their charge, and give off; will this bring any reall pleaſure and ſolid content to this mans heart, and can he comfortably rejoyce in it before the Lord, to hear of it? Alas! that the grand Intereſt of Jeſus Chriſt ſhould lye no more near ſome of the be… of his ſervants, that they ſhould bring it ſo eaſily to the ſtake? Muſt a Chriſtian many times be content to become a fool, what if for once, he ſubmit to be made ſo, for Chriſts ſake? Sir! though you would not undervalue your ſelf for a fellowſhip with Simeon in the Colledg, I hope you will be content to loſe ſome degrees of reputation and eſtate too, to continue with Simeon in the Temple waiting for the conſolation of Iſrael.
For the fourth Queſtion and Reſponſes. This one thing is plain at the firſt ſight. Here is the part of the Biſhop and the part of the Miniſter, and each one is to look to his own part. For the Miniſter, let him be ſerious and carefull of what he ſayes for himſelf, ſo as to be ſure he does not in the leaſt offend his conſcience; which he ſhall not doe if he purpoſes and endeavours to perform what he promiſes; if perhaps his ſoul is tender herein, as to ſome paſſages in regard of the pious ſenſe of his frailty, as when the words run ſtrict, Will you uſe all endeavour to do thus and thus, and the anſwer is, I will do ſo; what if for I will, he ſomewhere ſay I deſire? More particularly, when the duties of the Deacon are propoſed and he conſiders that upon his being Prieſt the proper work of that Office, which is inferiour (and which he would not engage unto) does ceaſe according to the plain Text, Act. 6.3, 4, 5. what if he alter the word ſo, and ſay I will do what concerns me, (or the like) and ſo likewiſe for other expreſſions. No Biſhop (I hope) will find fault with ſuch a matter. For the Ordainer, let him likewiſe conſider well, that what he ſayes and does be according to his own eſtabliſhed judgement; for this rule, I muſt account equitable to both, that neither party are to account themſelves reſponſible to God herein for the parts (words or acts) of the other, but their own. When I joyn with a man in an action (ſaith Mr. Burroughes) I am to look to the action and principle that I go upon, but let him with whom I joyn look to the principle he goes upon. If he will goe on a falſe ground when he may go on a true, let him look to it. Iren. p. 184.
And here I cannot but be ſorry to hear how it hath fared with ſome in our caſe, they have been loath to tell the Biſhop that they were ordained before, and he hath been loath to know it; but if they will be ordained, he will ordain them. This is not fair play: He ſhould enquire whether they were ſo or no, and if they were, let him endeavour to convince them if he can of the nullity of their former Orders, if he cannot, let him hear their reaſon why they ſubmit to be Re-ordained. When this is done, I will ſuppoſe the Biſhop keeps his mind, and ſo tells a man plainly, that for as much as he is his Ordinary, who ought not to allow of any to exerciſe the Miniſtry without Orders, and he for his part does believe in his Conſcience, that all Orders by Presbytery only is null and void, and therefore for the ſatisfaction of him, his Biſhop, and of others, and the preſent Church, he requires this ſame of him. This is plain dealing from him. The Miniſter I will ſuppoſe likewiſe to remain of the ſame mind, and he ſtill declares his former Miniſtry to be valid, yet in regard that he is fully prrſwaded that Re-ordination is no where forbidden by Gods word, and our Rulers are to be obeyed in indifferent things, and this conduces moreover, or is made neceſſary to the exerciſe of his Miniſtry where he is called, he does upon this account yield to the ſame. This is plain alſo. Here is plain dealing on both ſides: Now it was the ſaying of one very grave Biſhop (which I think fit his Brethren ſhould know) in the caſe to one after ſome ſuch kind of debate, whom he ſpake to there about, I will Ordain you in my ſenſe, (ſayes he) and you may be Re-ordained in your own, (or words to that effect) which I mention and offer even for the moſt clear and honeſt determination of this matter, whereas if either ſide do hide, they can hardly come off with this ſoundneſs of mind, and wholeneſs of conſcience.
In a Conferrence (as I have heard) between the Presbyterian and preſent Biſhops, it was propoſed for an Accomodation in this caſe, that an Hypothetical forme might be uſed, Si non ordinatus ſis, &c. I perceive my Author (p. 3.) would hardly have been content with this, If there could be an invincible doubt whether a man were de facto ordained or no, then he could belike approve hereof, and not elſe; but he looks not here half way to the bottom. A man may be ſure he was ordained, and yet be in doubt whether his ordination by Presbytery be valid: But I will ſuppoſe a man aſſured of the one, and fully perſwaded of the other, yet had this Accomodation been good; becauſe this Hypothetical forme, we are to conceive, not directly to regard the Conſcience of the party to be Re-ordained, as in doubt of his former Orders (for then the ſalve would not have reach'd near the ſoar, when there is not one of a hundred doubt of any ſuch thing) but to regard the judgement or opinion of the Presbyterian and Epiſcopalian in generall, and conſequently the judgement of each Biſhop and particular party in the caſe: The one holds Ordination by the Presbytery only, to be null, the other holds it valid; neither ſide are like to be convinced by, or yield to the other, but muſt leave it, who are in the right, to the great Judge: In the mean time, the mutual condeſcention on ſuch a forme by either party, prejudices neither opinion or cauſe, and yet the practiſe of the thing on both i… agreed. From which way then propoſed for a deciſion, I ſhall gather this one thing which is manifeſt, that Re-ordination muſt not be look… on (by thoſe wiſe men that made this propoſition) as a thing unlawfull in it ſelf, but ſuch as might be done, only the inconveniences (that it might not be injurious to our former Orders) be avoided, which when they cannot be by that way which took no effect, I offer it to the conſiderately judicious, whether the ſame thing in the ſubſtance is not done by what I have been laying down, to wit, by the Ordainers and Ordained free Declaration of their conſcience (or account upon which they act) one to another.
I come now to thoſe words in the forme, which are the chief ſoar, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, Take thou Authority. Theſe words cannot be ſaid to us who have the Miniſterial power and Office already, ſayes my Adverſary, and that indeed is the core that ſlicks in moſt throats. There are ſeverall things therefore I will ſpeak to this, for one thing ſometimes takes with one, and another with others. It it but words however we ſee, is ſtood upon, as for the thing it ſelf it is wonne.
1. Let us know then, this forme Receive the Holy Ghoſt, hath been ever excepted againſt (ſince our Church hath been Proteſtant) by ſome Learned men. Papiſticus quidam ritus ſtultè quidem ab illis, & ſine ullo ſcripturae fundamento inſtitutas, & à diſciplinae noſtrae authoribus non magno primum judicio accipius minore adhuc in Eccleſia retinetur, Eccleſiast diſcip. p. 53. as Hooker quotes it. Our Presbyterians accordingly we know have avoided ſuch kind of words in their Ordination, (which are not expreſly mentioned in any antient Author to be uſed for a thouſand years, ſayes one) ſo that this ſcruple if it be any thing, will lye upon others that are ordained but once, as well as us; and our antient Presbyterians (even the moſt rigid of them) themſelves, if ordained in our Church, muſt come to the bar alſo, who did heretofore ſubmit to the ſame. The reſult whereof then muſt be this, that though the Church perhaps might do well, to examine theſe words, whether better expunged or not, yet if ſhe does retain the ſame, her ſons are to look on their part to be but paſſive herein, and leave the juſtification on her ſcore.
2. Let us take it for moſt juſt and allowable, that theſe words, ſeeing they have been ſo much called in queſtion, be permitted a free interpretation; and as the Biſhop may take his, if we may but have ours, there will be no prejudice at all in them. By the Holy Ghoſt, as Chriſt uſed the words at firſt, Jo. 20: I am perſwaded is meant clearly, the promiſe of the Spirit he had told them of, and what that was is declared fully, Act. 2. at the day of Pentecoſt. I know it is ſaid, that the manner of delivery Receive, does inferre ſomething elſe then that, at preſent conferr'd; but is meerly a handſome gloſſe, which yet ſome anſwer, ſic datus fuit Apoſtolis ſpiritus hoc loco ut aſperſi duntaxat fuerint, nondum plena ejus virtute imbuti. This I will ſay, if we may but be ſo bold to think that the Holy Ghoſt is not given by the Biſhop here, as it was given by Chriſt by his Diſciples, then muſt we have the liberty of our own ſence in the thing; and what then, if by the Holy Ghoſt we underſtand nothing elſe but what is moſt genuine to any indifferent perſon; to wit, his more ſpecial preſence for ſupport and aſſiſtance of us in our Miniſtry; who does not ſee the words to be inoffenſibly competible to our caſe as others? Neque dubitari potest (ſayes Arch-deacon Maſon) quin ſingulari quodam modo, praeſto illis fuerit ipſe Spiritus ſanctus ad illos dirigendos, ſuſtinendos, aſsiſtendos, juxta Chriſti promiſsionem, Ecce ego vobiſcum ſum uſque ad finem ſeculi. Huc ſpectat egregium illud S. Leouis dictum. Qui mihi oneris eſt author, ipſe fiet adminiſtrationis adjutor. De Min. Ang. l. 5. c. 10.
3. To deal faithfully, let us conſider what …hat ſenſe of theſe words is which is or hath been moſt currant with our Biſhops and Church themſelves. The holy Ghoſt eſſentially we know is every where, and ſo not to be given; There muſt then I count be neceſſarily here, a Metonomy efficientis pro effectu. The effects of the holy Ghoſt are various; The effect they would have, is ſuch as they may hold de praeſenti, alwayes, and certainly conferred hereby to make the rite ſignificant to purpoſe. The ordinary effects now for which the Spirit in Scripture is taken, are his graces, or gifts; For his grace, they will not ſay, they do conferr that (I take Grace ſtrictly, for elſe any thing from Gods good will may be called grace;) For Gifts, they are more wiſe too, then to tye them hereto, any more then Grace; There is ſome effect elſe therefore muſt be found out, and that is, power; Receive the holy Ghoſt, with them then, is a power from the holy Ghoſt, and this power ſpecified by the next words, Whoſe ſinnes you forgive, &c. that is a power to forgive ſins. So Hooker p. 412. and Mr. Maſon (thoſe two like famous ſons of our Church) Spiritus ſanctus hoc in loco poteſtatem ſpiritualem denotat quâ peccata remittuntur. And ſo Bellarmine might be added and more ancient authours. And this I hope will help my adverſary to his full weight, if he can but really underſtand with ſuch, and believe that this ſenſe is not ſtrained and forc'd. To this then I have diſtinguiſhed for the purpoſe, between the part of the Biſhop and Miniſter; Theſe words we know are delivered by the Biſhop, and as they belong to his part, let them be put upon his account, and he will juſtifie them in this ſenſe. He beleeves our former ordination to be null, and ſo pronounces them to us, as if we had none of this ſpiritual power derived to us before, and as if he did now give it us hereby. And this we may ſuppoſe too he ſpeaks truly according to his very conſcience. Now if there was required any anſwer here again on our parts directly and clearly acknowledging the ſame, this were a ſcruple indeed to me invincible; but when there is nothing of this nature to be ſaid by us, but the hearing only given to what he ſayes, and the interpretation left free; Let us make the beſt of it, and lay not upon our ſelves what belongs not to our charge. And here that the faith of the Biſhop may be ſtrengthened (while it will ſtand us in ſtead) if he can beleeve ſuch a thing indeed as will juſtifie him in his own ſenſe, the uſing theſe words, to wit, that our former Ordination is null, there is one plea I think of more moment for him then that only which is ordinarily urged, and this author hath confuted, (to wit meerly, that it was not done by a Biſhop) and that is this. It is not only the Biſhops, but the Presbyterians (who are againſt Re-ordaining) do hold that the Miniſterial authority is conferred by Orders; Now in our Orders by Presbyters there was no words at all actually to conveigh this power, as theſe in the Epiſcopal Orders (according to them) do; and conſequently they being deſtitute of their end, even that my Author alſo himſelf accounts the end, and only end therof, they may if they can, think them null on that account. And I do remember I have noted one or two learned Authors ſomewhere pointing at this as a defect, and telling us that the Jewes in the impoſing their hands on their Elders (from whence the apoſtles, it is thought, took the rite up) did uſe ſome words ſtill, particularly to expreſs the authority they did conveigh, intimating as if elſe it were ſcarce an ordination.
4. To follow this, wheras my Oppoſer does not only ſuppoſe, but ſeems to believe, and argue upon it (even altogether) that the Miniſterial power is indeed conveighed hereby, as our Biſhops think themſelves; I will ask him, whether he thinks, if theſe words were not uſed, that power which they impart, were given without them, Yea, or No? If he thinks No, then muſt his Ordination I ſay by Presbytery be null, where no ſuch words of giving authority was uſed at all, and he be re-ordained upon that ſcore: If he thinks Yea, yet holds as he does that Orders give it, Why ſhould a rite ſo material and ſignificant be omitted before, and the defect not be ſupplied by a new ſolemnity, and ſo that at leaſt, in Gregories Decretals take place? In talibus non eſt aliquid iterandum, ſed cautè ſupplendum, quod incautè fuerat praetermiſſum.
6. But to ſet us upon our right bottom; when ſome Epiſcopal Divine, do plead Ordination by Presbyters to be null upon that maxim, Nemo dat quod in ſe non habet. Mr. Baxter anſwers, p. 234. It is the firſt error of the adverſary to hold, that this power is given by men as firſt having it themſelves. So p. 147. This falſly ſuppoſeth that the Ordainers are the givers of power, the maſter error in their frame; Chriſt hath it, and Chriſt giveth it: Men give it not, though ſome of them have it; for they have it only to uſe, not to give. Let me ſay the ſame here to my preſent adverſary, and I need ſay no more. If the Miniſterial power be given by Orders, then are Orders of neceſſity to the being of the Miniſtry, but that Orders are not of abſolute neceſſity neceſsitate medii ad eſse ministerii, it is proved by that author (cap. 3.) beyond anſwer, as by Vo…tius, and others. The truth is, there is no Proteſtant Divine I know, but grant in Eccleſiâ constituendâ, or in a caſe of neceſſity a man may be a Miniſter without Orders; and if there were but one inſtance in the world where a mans miniſtry is valid unordained, the power is proved thereby to be immediately from Chriſt, and the eſſe miniſterii not to depend upon ordination. I ſhall content my ſelf with one inſtance, and that is of Barnabas, of whom we read in Acts 11.19. that he was ſent forth by the Church of Jeruſalem, and then is ordained after with Paul at Antioch, Acts 13 2. Now I demand, was Barnabas ordained before, or no? If he was not, then is not the Miniſterial power given by, nor the being of the Miniſtry depend upon, Ordination: If he was, then have we here plain text and example for Re-ordination.
7. To underſtand this clearly, and more fully, though before touched The Miniſterial power muſt be conſidered (as I have intimated) Coram Deo, or Coram Hominibus; when a man hath Gods gifts, and a heart to devote them to the uſe of the Church, it is Chriſts will he ſhould be his Miniſter, and as his will makes it his duty, it muſt give him right and power; now when the man hath this, it is his will moreover that theſe gifts be approved, and power declared, by the Church, that he may be received as his Miniſter or Embaſſador, by men, and thoſe particularly unto whom he is ſent. This is done by this Solemnity, this is one end and proper nature of it; and ſo the authority he had before Coram Deo, is made current Coram Eccleſia, and he reputed and paſſed ſtreight by all amongſt the Order (as we call it) of the Clergy. Underſtand me I pray here: The authority of the Miniſtry Coram Deo, and Coram Hominibus, I count not two authorities, but the ſame, one Spiritual authority, which being derived to a man from the ſtanding act of Chriſts will in his inſtitution, immediately upon his inward call, in the Court of Heaven and his own Conſcience, does not yet paſſe in the Court of the Church, till this call be approved and confirmed by her Paſtors, which ſhe requires for Orders ſake, and calls Ordination. And here now is a firm and true foundation laid againſt that Objection, which is apt to riſe upon us, that if the Miniſterial power flows immediately from Chriſts charter and call, then may any man pretend hereunto, and take upon him to be a Miniſter without Orders, which were to open the door to Fanaticiſm and Confuſion: But God forbid we ſhould not be able to put a bar upon ſuch, which we can clearly maintain; It is this, to wit, that whatſoever a mans call is in the ſight of God, the Church is to take no cognizance of it, untill by ſome of her chief appointed Paſtors to that purpoſe, it be approved, teſtified, and declared by this Solemnity. If a man hath indeed abilities and a heart for Chriſts ſervice, then i… he bound to ſubmit them to tryal, and get them allowed; if he does not, he ſins, and the Church is to take no notice of him till then (1 Tim. 5.22. 1 Tim. 3.10.) ſo that you may ſee how the actual exerciſe of a mans Miniſtry does depend (even altogether) hereupon, though the power does not, and that Text made good How can they preach except they be ſent, in this ſenſe of the words they are ordinary uſed, whether truly or no, I here ſay not. Let a David be excommunicate for Adultery, he ſhall be held Coram Eccleſia out of the Church, as well as an Ahaz; let a man be truly called, while his calling is not approved by the Church, (which is by Orders) we ſhall not account him a Miniſter any more then he that is not called, and if a man be not called, yet if he be ordained, his Miniſtrations are not to be doubted of as valid to the Church, while he is to repent of his bad Conſcience before God. To give more life to this: As what hath been ſaid may appear from its own light, ſo will it appear more fully from the caſe of neceſſity, wherein the validity of the Miniſtry without Orders is agreed to by all. If the Miniſterial power did not come to a man Coram Deo, ſo that he is a Miniſter in Gods ſight before Orders, then could not neceſſity diſpence with them, becauſe neceſſity falls not upon God, There is no impoſſible with him. But when the authority orders give, is only this authority Coram Hominibus, that is the reception or acceptation thereof with men: (the value or eſteem of us as Miniſters at the Churches bar, in their ſight or account, what we are in Gods before) let a man plead impoſſibility, whether natural (as ſuppoſe him among the Indies) that he cannot be ordained; or moral (ſuppoſe him among the papiſts) that he cannot without ſ…nne againſt his conſcience; this plea, Nemo tenetur ad impoſsibile is good at mans barr, for upon man neceſſity does come, and he is to be diſpenſed with, and his miniſtry therefore to paſſe, which elſe in Eccleſia rectè conſtitutâ were to be quite refuſed for orders ſake. I cannot omit here one ſimile to the ſame point, which is laid down ſtrongly by Grotius, De Imp. p. 270. Potestas maritalis est a Deo; applicatio ejus poteſtatis ad certam perſonam ex conſenſu vonit; quo tamen ipſum Jus non datur. Nam ſi ex conſenſu daretur, poſſet conſenſu etiam diſſolvi matrimonium. For my part I cannot but conceive thus; A man and a woman conſents in their hearts, and privately give the ſame to one another; This contract between themſelves makes them husband and wife before God, and his ſtanding Law conveigheth to the man his power, and obligeth both to their duties: yet are they not to live together before marriage, if it were only for the ſhame, or ſake of the world, beſides that it is their duty hereupon (as matter of publick order) to ſeek the matrimonial inveſtiture which is valid according to the Land: So is it here, when a man having Gods gifts does conſent ſeriouſly between him and his Soul to dedicate them to his ſervice, the ſame ſtanding law or will of his in his word or inſtitution about this matter, does make it his duty and give him power; yet is he not to have the exerciſe of it, before this inveſtiture of Orders, not only becauſe of the baſtardy of the Miniſtry that will elſe follow, when men ſhall be received without tryal and approbation; Nor only becauſe God commands this as his duty, ſo that he ſinnes (if it may be had) to neglect it; but becauſe the Church or People are not to receive or account ſuch as Miniſters, as they will not a couple man and wife, till the Solemnity. Let theſe alſo firſt be proved, then let them uſe the Office. In ſhort (as at firſt) They may be both (I ſuppoſe) held to be coram Deo upon conſent only what they are not coram hominibus before publick confirmation.
8. However we underſtand theſe words, this methinks might give a reaſonable man ſatisfaction, that it fares with us, but as with the Apoſtles themſelves; Chriſt had before given them miniſterial power, for they did preach and baptized while they continued with him, Jo. 4.2. and yet does he uſe this ſame form of words, that ſeems no leſſe than a new Commiſſion. Nay that which is yet more, as Chriſt uſed this form but once, and that at their ſecond miſſion; So is it with us, the Presbyterian uſed it not at firſt, and we have it without repetition.
9. I will ſuppoſe what is ſuppoſed, that Receive the Holy Ghoſt is equivalent with Take thou Authority, and underſtand it of the miniſterial power, and conſequently that there is moreover here a formal delivery of that Authority or Office to a Perſon, ſo that he may be ſaid to be made a Miniſter thereby as he was not (eo modo) before; and yet let us but underſtand alſo this aright as we ought, that it is all done only by way of external inveſtiture or ſolemnization as it is in the inauguration of Princes (who are ſaid to be made Kings when they are Crowned or Annoynted) and there is no hurt at all comes to our Cauſe at laſt; which from thence indeed may have but the more clear demonſtration, how the thing may without any abſurdity in the world be done more than once. This I take to be the common Proteſtant doctrine, and reſt upon it.
There remains now but one thing more, that after all this may beget ſome ſcruple, and that is, the inſtrument of our Orders There is that of the Deaconſhip, which if one does not like, he may be civil to the Biſhops Officers, and leave. For the other of Presbyter which is needfull for him to have, if it will not ſatisfie him that they are the Biſhops words, not ours, I will ſuppoſe he hath declamed himſelf before, and the inſtrument is in his own hands. I ſhall ſay no more, but for my own part my Orders of Deacon (as quite uſeleſſe otherwiſe) I thought good to cancell, before whom it ſeemed to me fit, in teſtimony of my owning my former Miniſtry; and for thoſe of Presbyter which I keep, if any ſhould chance to ſee them, they may find theſe words, in the backſide, or bottom of them. I was ordained ſo long ſince by a Claſſis of the Presbytery, and doubt not therefore of being a Minister before, yet do theſe Orders make me ſo ſecundum ritus eccleſiae Anglicanae Canonicè & legitime (according to this expreſs tenour) as I was not before, and in that ſenſe only have I ſubmitted to the ſame.
To conclude, If there was another form whereby our Miniſtry might be confirmed, or ſome Biſhops would vary this to ſerve a private turn, then were the Items my Adverſary hath given us ſufficient, to make us to chooſe and ſeek that rather than yield hereunto, for ſo far does his arguing reach, even in full force: but while there is no ſuch thing to be had, it makes it methinks a very high imagination, ever to enter the heart of a ſerious Chriſtian, if he can find it there too, to have his Brethren of the ſame mind with him, to think, that he, and they ſhould be ready to leave their holy Function and Charge (without ſome other conjoyned grand reaſon) rather than to bear with a little unhandſomneſs from our Superiours (for their Conſtitution's ſake) in the impropriety only of a formality which is not neither a matter of worſhip, and ſo as it is ſaid of Dani…l, a matter of our God, but a matter, or ceremony of Order only. We can never indeed be too tender of diſpleaſing the Lord, but let us take heed, we do not diſpleaſe him by our fear that he will be diſpleaſed without reaſon from his Precepts, Iſ. 29.13. Alas! What do we make of God Almighty? I cannot but call to mind a paſſage of Plutarch (De Superstitione) where he is ſaying, that that man is leſſe impious qui opinatur nullos eſſe deos, quam qui tales eſſe credit qual…s ſuperſtitioſus. I had rather (ſayes he) it ſhould be ſaid there is no Plutarch at all, quam hoc dici, eſſe Plutarchum, hominem ad iram pronum vindictae ob leviſſimas cauſas cupidum, ob minima quaeque indignantem. Do we believe God indeed is gracious, kind, and moſt wiſely tender to his Children, and can we think that when he bears with their Infirmities, he will not conſider reaſon, and their neceſſity? The Lord Jeſus we know did expreſly excuſe his Diſciples breach of the Jews Sabbath, and Davids eating the Shewbread, ſo long as there was occaſion. Subſtantial duties muſt overrule Ceremonialls. And if we may gueſſe by this, and Pauls conforming for his Miniſtry's ſake, ſo often to the Jews, there is haply much more may be ſubmitted to, than ſome think in the caſe of ſuperiour reaſon. Let a man tend the main at his heart God hath ſet him upon, and he is not like to be unaccepted in theſe matters. See 1 K. 15.5. 2 Ch. 30.19. Mat. 9.13 Neither are we to conceive under the Goſpel, that the Lord hath injoyned every thing to a pinne as in Moſes Tabernacle. When ſome good men ſhall come to have more noble and evangelical apprehenſions of the Almighty, and have rouled their thoughts but once over the ſeveral formes, rites or modes he hath been a ſerving withal, for theſe ſixteen hundred years all abroad the whole Chriſtian world, they may perhaps be brought to bluſh inwardly at the poorneſſe of ſuch underſtandings, that would narrow the infinite to their complections. He hath ſhewed thee O man what is good, and what doeth the Lord require of thee but to do juſtly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God