A Second Discourse About Re-Ordination, Discourse · Section 4
SECTION IV.
HAving demoliſhed theſe two Forts in general which are the ſhelter of my adverſary, there are two arguments only in particular which he offers, the one is, from authority, and the other from the third Commandement.
For authority He firſt quotes the 67. Canon of the apoſtles which I have my ſelf mentioned. Unto which, I ſhall only produce him by way of anſwer, another of the ſame. Presbyter ab uno Epiſcopo ordinetur, Can. 2. Here I muſt put himſelf upon a ſolution if he comes off in another queſtion he handles in his book which concerns others, and he hath done it effectually, by a verdict of a Synod of Rome it ſelf, An. 494. that theſe Canons nullatenus recipit Catholica Eccleſia. He pleads farther, the practiſe of our Engliſh Church, which does not re-ordain a popiſh Miniſter, nor thoſe formerly that were ordained beyond the Seas; unto which he addes the ſtory of Archbiſhop Bancroft (which you may read Spotſwood Hist. of Scot. p. 514.) and alſo that the epiſcopally ordained were not conſtrained by the Gallican and Belgick Churches, to be re-ordained after the mode of their Churches. As to all which, I account it were good for ſome of more skill in the hiſtory of latter times then I, concerning things of this nature to give us a relation of what hath been done in this caſe. There hath been examples no doubt of ſome that have, & ſome that have not been re-ordained. That which I ſay to this argument meerly of practiſe herein, is, that it does truly ſeem very preſſing on the part of our rulers and impoſers, but as for the part of the ſubmitter, I cannot for my part but freely believe, that any, or either of theſe mentioned, might be ordained again if the exerciſe of their Miniſtry depends upon the ſame; and ſo I give in my anſwer. From a non ſolet, to a non licet, is a non ſequitur. And here I will not omit one pertinent relation. A preſent grave Miniſter and of note in Northampton ſhire (I have no commiſſion to print his name) being ordained in the Low Countries came to Biſhop Davenant he told him that they held his ordination valid; nevertheleſſe in regard of his ſetling in the Miniſtry here, he thought it good before they parted, to ordain him again himſelf; giving him liberty in the point of Subſcription, and what Indulgence elſe he deſired I hear not. This inſtance is ſingularly full to my purpoſe, and being in a Biſhop who was ſo eminently a ſolid and pions Doctor, cannot but at the very ſight, remove ſome prejudice as to my opinion, and indeed as I hear, hath prevailed (it may be more then ſuch an argument alone de exemple ought) upon many. Let our Church Rulers be pleaſed but to tread in theſe ſteps, that is, declare our former Miniſtry hitherto to be good, require a new only ad praeſentem ſtatum; by the way of confirmation, vary a few of their expreſſions (where they ſee fit) accordingly, and give a like indulgence as this above, in ſuch circumſtances as they find doe afflict any that are tender in conſcience and then I ſuppoſe both my brethren and I, and they and we, may ſoon come to compoſition in this controverſie.
For the third Commandement, his other Argument, it is the ſame and no other then what I have laid down my ſelf in my firſt ſheets, to wit, the ſecond Objection there, which one would have thought might have ſaved my Opponent his labour, as to the half of his work; for it is this one thing upon the matter is the ſubſtance of his Book, upon my queſtion; wherein, as ſoon as a man hath turn'd over any leaſe that concerns me, he may gueſſe what will be objected againſt me before hand; The form namely, and the Ordinance in vain; that is, more words perhaps, but this Argument ſtill for the main; one light in a ſeveral change; the old Moon and the new Moon, but the ſame.
I muſt confeſſe when the objection at firſt came into my mind in thoſe ſheets (where I fetch what I have only from my own ſpirit as I go along) it did lye ſore upon it a good while, but I muſt needs ſay alſo, that the anſwer there I give to it, was as fully ſatisfactory to me as that was preſſing before, and I did think it would be ſo alſo to others, or elſe thoſe ſheets might hardly have paſſed my hands. It does therefore now ſtand me upon (though I have ſpoke to this there ſo largely already, and have ſome things alſo before which might be ſufficient) to gather up together all the forces that I have had, or further have, to fight as it were at once, neither with ſmall or great in compariſon, ſave with this his King, or maſter-argument he relies upon in this matter.
He that is ordained (ſayes he) with a valid ordination, ought not to be reordained, becauſe by ſubmitting thereto, he doth take an ordinance of God in vain. This he proves. To take an ordinance for no end, or for no ſuch end as God hath appointed it unto, is to take it in vain. But to be reordained, after preceding valid ordination is to do ſo; becauſe ordination is to ſet us apart to the office of the Miniſtry, and we have the foreign already. This is his marrow, without the exact writing out more of his words, which I hope neither he nor I care to ſtand upon in this diſpute; Unto which I have therefore many things to ſay, for when I have in effect but one thing to ſpeak to, there are many things I muſt needs ſpeak to it.
1. There is a paſſage in an Author whom he otherwhere names with honour (as he is worthy) which I will ſet down in the firſt place, becauſe I cannot chuſe but receive it. We have no ground to think that the Apoſtles had any peculiar command for laying on of hands upon perſons in prayer over them, or ordination of them, but the thing it ſelf being enjoyned, the ſetting ſome apart for attendance on the Churches by them planted, they took up and made uſe of a laudable rite and …auſtom then in uſe upon ſuch occaſions. Mr. Stillingfleet, Iren p. 270. Now though Doctor Seaman, Mr Lyford, and the London Miniſters (to whom my Oppoſer turns us) may have ſpent their pains well to prove that no man may ordinarily enter the Miniſtry without Orders, while as Calvin hath it, illa Apoſtolorum accurata obſervat…o ought to be Praecepti vice to us; Yet is there doubtleſſe ſome difference to be put between ſuch Ordinances, which Chriſt Jeſus our Lord hath left from his own mouth to his Church, as Baptiſme is, and ſuch as the Apoſtles took up themſelves from the preſent Cuſtome of the Jewes, and we follow for their example.
2. I have diſtinguiſht plainly in my Book between our Miniſtry, and the uſe and exerciſe of it, I deny that Ordination is in vain which is not to the foreign or Miniſtry it ſelf, and the reaſon is irrefragable, becauſe a man may be a Miniſter already and yet be ordained, as the caſe was with Paul and Barnabas. Act. 13. which our Author himſelf opens, enlarges and grants, p. 4. I will put this in other words. Ordination is either to the office or to the work; Now I deny our Author his definition, Ordination is the ſetting a man apart to the work and Office of the Miniſtry, (in the ſenſe he underſtands ſeparating a man to his office) for we have but one place only, from which we gather this Genus definitionis, that Orders is a ſeparating or ſetting a man apart, to wit, that in the Acts. Separate me Paul and Barnabas, and there it is manifeſtly to the Work only, and not the Office which they had already, as himſelf, and I argue upon it, and I lay as the ſure foundation of our Caſe. It is true, that the Office (or foreign, if you call that ſo) cannot be renewed or repeated, but the Work may, the Work is. And if this pious man would not diſlike it (as he ſayes P. 4) if our Biſhops when any are removed to a new Charge would call their Presbyters, and commend ſuch to the grace of God for their Work by the impoſition of hands, ſuppoſing that Text Act. 13. (which I mainly rely upon) be warrant ſufficient for the ſame: It is not to be thought but another, who is, I will ſuppoſe juſt ſo much by aſſed towards the other ſide as he is toward his own, or poiſed equally, ſhould think it but a ſmall matter to be content moreover, that they uſe their own form, ſeeing they have yet no other, and our Reverend Epiſcopal men do not we know uſe to do ſuch things as theſe without their Order appointed. Nay if this may be done, as to the Work renewed in another place, why not I pray alſo as to the Work repeated in the ſame? ſuppoſing at leaſt a man ſhall not be permitted to uſe his Miniſtry without it, and otherwiſe I perſwade not the tender to it.
3. There is more here barely than this. The exerciſe of our Miniſtry is not to be conſidered at large, but reſtrictively, as to our Church. There is our Miniſtry, and uſe of it (I have ſaid in my Book) in our Engliſh Church. It is to the laſt only I count we are re-ordained. To which purpoſe we muſt diſtinguiſh of thoſe words of our Authors [after preceding valid Ordination] Ordination is valid either in fore Scripturarum, which is vera only: Or in foro Epiſcopali ſive praeſentis Eccleſiae, which is legalis, and Canonical alſo. Our preceding Ordination is valid (we believe) in the firſt ſenſe, but in the ſecond ſenſe, our preceding Ordination is not valid, and ſo it is we are re-ordained. I return therefore the Argument; If when a mans former Ordination is valid, he may not, when it is not valid, he may, be re-ordained; but our former Orders are rendred by the change of the preſent times to be invalid, in the ſenſe mentioned, and conſequently in that ſenſe may we take new, and in that ſence the form proper thereunto methinks alſo be born. Our Miniſtry was the ſame Silver under the Presbytery, but the Canonical stamp by the Biſhop, makes it received according to the conſtitution of the preſent Church; Even as the State-money, though current before, muſt ſubmit to be new coyned for all that, or elſe now it will not goe.
4. I ſay farther hereupon, Our taking new Orders is not then the taking an Ordinance to no end, nay it is a taking them to a right end, the very end which by Orders is to be had: Ordination (this Author will ſay) is a ſeparating a Perſon to God. For what now I pray? why for the Work no doubt whereunto he is (or ſhall be) called. So in the Text Act. 13. The uſe then, and exerciſe of the Miniſtry, is the end to which a man is ordained. I will explain it by a clear place, Numb. 8.11. Thou ſhalt offer the Levites before the Lord, compare it with ver. 14. and it is, Thou ſhalt ſeparate them, that is their Conſecration; Well mark then what follows, that they may execute the ſervice of the Lord There is the end. And ſo ver. 15, 22 After that they ſhall go in to do the ſervice of the Tabernacle. Now have ſaid, though a man cannot be Re-ordained to his Miniſtry, (which he hath already) yet may he, to the uſe or exerciſe of it, to wit, t…a…h: may go into the Tabernacle, that he may execute the ſervice of the Lord. You will ſay haply, theſe Levites and the Miniſters are to be conſecrate here to have their right to, or liberty of doing their holy ſervice in reſpect of God, becauſe God requires this before they enter upon their work; but we are ſeparate again now only in reſpect of man, becauſe he requires it, or elſe will not allow this right and liberty to the ſame. I anſwer, this is true, and therefore let the Requirers look to it, when a perſon is conſecrate already to God, and thereupon he expects his ſervice from him, it man will hinder, let him ſee how he can anſwer it; but as for the Submitter, this is manifeſt, that whether he does this in conſcience to Gods command (as he muſt) at firſt, or in obedience to his Superiors, in the doing it again, yet is the end in both the very ſame, and that is only what is moſt juſt and honeſt, that he may execute the ſervice of his God, that he may have the free uſe of his Miniſtry in his place. And whether my Author dare ſay this is to no end, or not to the end proper to it, I leave it to his own breaſt to judge.
5. There is not this one end only in Orders to ſeperate or ſet a man apart for his work, but others alſo, to wit, there is the invocation of Gods bleſſing upon us, aſſiſtance and grace with us in our work, which is ſo certain and plain, that when the Holy Ghoſt had ſaid in one place ſeparate to me, in another he tells us, they were commended to Gods grace. Quid aliud est manuum impoſitio niſi oratio ſuper bominem? ſayes St. Austine, as he is quoted De Baptiſ. contra Don. l. 3. c. 16. Now this end is repetible I hope, and if t…ere was nothing elſe, does alone take off the keeneneſſe of my Oppoſers edge. The Church I think may ſay her Prayers over twice, when Chriſt ſaid the very ſame words thrice, Matth. 26.44. But to ſpeak exactly, and to the touch of the word and truth, the ſeparating a man to God for his work, and ſanctifying him by Prayer, is indeed the very ſame. There is therefore another end, ariſing from the nature of the Solemnity that ſtands me in moſt ſtead: Ordination I have ſaid does not give the jus or ſpiritual power to a Miniſter before God; what then, (it may be demanded) does it give? why truly I have ſaid it, and it is ſo; It does give him his power or authority before men, (that is, his authority comes hereby to be received) it does give him the repure and value of a Miniſter, as to all intents in the Church; And now for as much as a man cannot reape this effect by vertue of his former Orders he already hath, there is (as I have ſaid, and muſt ſay ſtill) the very ſame ground at this ſeaſon for Re-ordination, as for Ordination at firſt. Let my Reader ſee my firſt ſheets from p. 32. to 37. and though this Gentleman hath quite waved all that concerns this, I muſt confeſſe my ſelf, (next to the plain Texts, Act. 13.2. Mat. 28.19.) I place my chieſeſt ſtrength there.
6. Where things are not unlawfull, not forbidden by God, why is it not an end ſufficient for what we do, to obey out Superlors, and that they have their end in it, ſuppoſing them (as in chàrity we are bound) good men, and that they aime at Gods glory in their commands? Nay, why is it not enough to follow prudence, what we judge moſt expedient, to ſtudy peace, to further our own and our neighbours good? Are not theſe honeſt and juſtifiable ends? It is true indeed, if a thing have evil in it, a good end will not juſtifie it, unleſſe that evil does ceaſe to be ſo in the compariſon; but I cannot lightly ſee evil in that thing which is neither againſt the light of nature, or poſitive inſtitution. Let me adde more particularly: In things which are at our Liberty, a man is not to walk only after his own conſcience, but to have reſpect alſo to the conſcience of thoſe with whom he is. Conſcience I ſay, not thy own but of the others, 1 Cor. 10.29. Thou art free for thy own part, as to the uſe of thy Miniſtry upon thy former Orders; but ſome perſons, perhaps thy Friends, perhaps of chief note in the Pariſh, perhaps ſuch as live up according to their knowledge, and indeed fear God, do think in their conſciences that you are not ſuch a Miniſter as you ſhould be, unleſſe you have Orders from the Biſhop, and whilſt their conſciences are ſuch, they ſcruple really, and ſo haply cannot act in Faith, to joyn with you in ſome Ordinances, as the Sicrament, and the like. Here are they diſtreſſed: They may not neglect their duty, and yet if they do it while they doubt it unlawfull to partake from you, they ſin, becauſe it is not in Faith. Now if by thy yielding to this matter, thou canſt bring ſatisfaction to their conſciences, and ſo gain them herein, why is not this end ſuch as is warrantable for thy ſubmiſſion? Nay if thou wilt not doe it, why may they not ſay Now walkeſt thou not charitably that ſeekeſt only thy own and not thy peoples ſatisfaction. Even as I (ſayes the apoſtle) pleaſe all men in all things, not ſeeking my own profit, but the profit of many that they may be ſaved.
7. An Ordinance which is taken the ſecond time for the ſame end it was taken rightly at firſt, is not taken for no end, or for no ſuch end as God hath appointed it unto; for it is taken to the end he hath appointed it. But ſuch is our caſe in Re-ordination; It is taken for a ſolemn allowance or approbation of our Miniſtry, the recommending us to Gods grace for our work, the free paſſage of the Goſpell; And where the ends are repetible (as in preaching, praying, adminiſtring the Sacrament) and made neceſſary to be repeated, the means muſt be repetible, and repeated alſo. I do therefore deny his argument, which is founded ſtill on that only, that the miniſterial power is conferred by orders, and that that is the the only proper end thereof, which is but a ſuppoſition. VVhereas then he askes his friend, whether the foreign the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, was conveighed to him in his firſt Orders, and tells us thereupon, this is ludere cum ſacris, to have the Biſhop and his Chaplains pray that he may now receive that gift; this I take it, is a paſſage too low for this author; for let him ſeriouſly but remind the thing, and it is not like our Church ſhould paſſe ſuch an eſcape as to compile a ſtanding prayer for neceſſary effects, or accounted ſuch; ſhe may ſay in her ordering, modo imperativo, Take, Receive, the Miniſterial power, but ſhe does not pray modo optativo, that it may be given by the ſame.
8. As for the foreign then, he mentions, which is ſpoken of Timothy, there is no man can certainly tell what that Gift is. It may be the miraculous gift of the Holy Ghoſt given in thoſe times, or ſome extraordinary talent at leaſt not given to others. It is not unlikely, methinks, that Timothy might be ſo carefull and attentive upon the ordinary work of his proper charge, that the Apoſtle is fain to put him in mind that he wholly neglect not this. It may be likewiſe ſome further degrees onelyonly, or the encreaſe of the abilities he had, and ſo Calvin hath it, Deum cumulaſſe cum novis donis, vel priora duplicaſſe. Now if either of theſe be the ſenſe, as is moſt obvious, it is nothing for my adverſary. It may be alſo (to ſerve my Oppoſer) docendi of ficium as our London Divines, or the Miniſterial function, as hee ſuppoſes it. Let us ſuppoſe this then with him (at leaſt till wee come to ſee it more unlikely) yet ſo long as it is ſaid directly of Timothy to be in him, or given him, by propheſy, that is, ſo full and expreſſe a ſignification of Gods will (which I have touched in my firſt ſheets) as by Revelation: As the will of the Lord doubtleſſe, and that alone muſt be the fountain of his officers power, and that being ſufficiently ſignified muſt be enough to make a man his Miniſter; the impoſition of hands that is mentioned beſides, can conduce after this, no otherwiſe indoed, but by way of ſolemnization. And ſo Mr. Perkins ſayes of the like caſe, Acts 13. This impoſition was rather a confirmation, then a calling.
9. I remember amongſt more impertinent things, that ſometimes burdened my thoughts againſt Re-ordination, there was that text Deut. 12.32. VVhat thing ſoever I command you, obſerve to do it, thou ſhalt not adde thereto, nor diminiſh from it. Unto which, though I had theſe many reaſonings; That this text ſpeaks of thoſe precepts which were exactly commanded by God, but our matter is a rite taken up by the apoſtles probably of themſelves, as is noted at firſt; That God in Moſes Law ſtood more punctually (we may think) upon the exterual performance then under the Goſpel: That the thing we do meerly as it is, making no more nor leſſe of it, only we uſe it over again, and repetition is not addition, in the ſenſe here at leaſt, where it is oppoſed to diminiſhing; That the Text forbids doing any other thing then the ſame God hath commanded (as not to follow the Heathen in their Rites in the verſes before) but it forbids not, the doing the ſame, upon occaſion; yet did not all this give full contentment to my mind (being weak) untill that inſtance came into it 2 Chron. 30.31. where we have a ſpeciall Ordinance of God, the Feaſt of unleavened bread, which was expreſſely commanded to be kept ſeven dayes, and it is ſaid the whole aſſembly took counſect, and kept other ſeven dayes alſo. Now unleſs we ſhall think that the whole aſſembly underſtood not the meaning of that Text, or elſe did wilfully break it, here is repetition exactly proved no addition to Gods Commandement. This Inſtance therefore I will humbly advance in this place, to the farther lighs and ſatisfaction of our caſe. Here is (we ſee) an appointment of God, one of their three moſt ſolemn Feaſts; They had no precept nor preſident to repeat is; yet does the whole Aſſembly conſult and approve it, and though they did it of their own heads, and meer good wills, and to the ſame end only it was inſtituted, and already performed, yet dare not my Adverſary. I hope, accuſe them in it of taking an Ordinance in vain, or breach of the third Commandement.
10. Let us know in the laſt place, that there are many things, eſpecially in matters of Ceremony only, and Order, wherein an Ordinance or Ordinances may be uſed, not only without its principal, but without its proper end, in caſe it be directed to an end of an higher nature and concernment, to the honour of God, and advantage of the Goſpel. Thus are thoſe Synodical Rites preſcribed, Act. 15.29. Thus Paul keeps the Jews Sabbath, Act. 13.14, 42. Thus James and the Elders adviſe Paul to conformity to the Law, Act. 21.20. The great command which lies upon him, is to preach, and further the Goſpel, 1 Cor. 9.16. The Jews are never able to abide him, if he be againſt their Ceremonies; Hence does he therefore take their advice, and purifies himſelf, ſhaves, vows, &c. Samuel is commanded of God to annoint David; He fears if Saul hear of it he will kill him; upon this he pretends a Sacrafice and does it: Here is an Ordinance of God taken up for an end (we ſee) quite extrinſecal to is, yet is it juſtified by God himſelf, upon the account of his own Superior command, 1 Sam, 16. The moſt remarkable inſtance of all, is the Apoſtles circumciſing Timothy. Act. 16.3. where I will ask, to what end did Paul do this? not I hope to the proper end of that rite, for that were deadly, Gal. 5.3. Col. 2.17. but for the winning the Jews, the ſatisfying of them (1 Cor. 9.19, 20.) the ſake of the Goſpel, verſ. 23. And this I do for the Goſpels ſake. We ſee then that an Ordinance may be uſed, and yet not taken in vain, although it be not directed to that end which it is properly appointed to, in the caſe of Superior command, or over-ruling reaſon.
There is ſome anſwer I find eſſayed to this by this Author, p 76. Circumciſion, and theſe Rites, he counts well, are aboliſhed ſince the death of Chriſt, and ſo I take it are called by the Apoſtle Ordinances of men, and Rudiments of the world, becauſe held in uſe by man, when they ceaſed to be the precepts of God. Now if we ſhould queſtion whether an aboliſhed Rite (or conſequently a meer humane Ordinance) might be uſed without its end, only in order to the propagation of the Goſpel, I perceive he would not gain-ſay it. But Ordination (ſayes he) is not an aboliſhed Ordinance, and to take an Ordinance of God which is in force, and make it ſerve another end then that to which it is directed by him, this he thinks (I ſuppoſe) not juſtifiable by Timothies circumciſion. To reply, (beſides what I have inſtanced in Gods advice to Samuel, which cannot therefore be evil) we muſt diſtinguiſh here between the Rite it ſelf of Ordination, and the Forme wherein it is wrapt. For the Rite it ſelf, which is the Ordinance of God, (or rather an Apoſtolical practice we follow for their example) it is directed to its proper end, when we are Ordained twice, as when we are Ordained once, for we have the aſſiſtance of Gods ſpirit implored, or we are commended to the grace of God for our work thereby, as at firſt, and that is the principal end (not to name another) of this Rite, as it was Primitively uſed, if we will take the Holy Ghoſts own thoughts of it, who hath deſcribed the thing clearly but once, and that is thus, Act. 14.26. with Act. 13.2. Yea, let a man only have a call to a new place, and my Adverſary himſelf does fully conſent with me in this. For the Forme then upon which he ſtands; It is true, that upon the common ſuppoſition, there are words that conferre the Miniſterial power, (as he ſpeaks) which cannot be directed to that end in our caſe: But beſides, that this is a miſtake (thoſe words indeed being to be taken only as words of Inveſtiture and Solemnity not efficacy, that is, declaring, not conferring of power) I ſay that the forme, this Forme upon which he ſo beats, is not the Ordinance of God, but is for certain mans compoſure or invention, and ſo a humane Creature, or Ordinance of man; and conſequently though it were granted that an Ordinance of God might not be uſed to any other end, but that to which it is directed by him, yet does our force from theſe inſtances remain, becauſe that a meer humane Ordinance or Rite may, and he dare not gain-ſay it. Theſe Jewiſh Rites when aboliſhed were Ordinances or Commandements of men, Col. 2.20, 22. and they are ſo uſed by the Apoſtles, I will conclude with the mention to my Reader of a convenient Book at this time, to wit, Mr. Sprint his Caſſander Anglicanus, and if he will but apply thoſe Arguments he hath upon this head unto our ſingle caſe, I believe he will hardly eſcape unſatisfied from him, who does labour upon this very account to maintain in general, that it is neceſſary for a Miniſter to conform to the Ceremonies preſcribed in the Church of England, in the caſe of deprivation. And the Watchman ſaid, If ye will enquire, enquire, return, come.