A Second Discourse About Re-Ordination, Discourse · Section 6
SECTION VI.
IN my ſecond Section, After other Propoſitions for the deciding this matter, I diſtinguiſh between what Ordin…tion is required for the ſetting apart a man to the Office of a Miniſter in the ſight of God (Let me adde, and give him the Right of reception according to Scripture with men) and what is requiſite to the actual making him received as a Miniſter, and give him authority or full repute to exerciſe that office in the Church or place where he ſhall be called; or more ſhor…, between the Miniſtry, and uſe of that Miniſtry in the Engliſh Church: Ordination now I ſaid by Presbytery only ſuffic…s to the one, b…t re-ordination by the Biſhop is required to the other. I will illuſtrate it by an inſtance, Even as the annointing of David by Samuel in the Houſe of Jeſſe was ſufficien… to ſet him apart to be the Lords annointed, or to make him King before God, yet muſt he be annointed or inaugurated again in Hebron, to declare him King, and give him, acceptation with the People: 1 Sam. 16.11. with 2 Sam. 2.4.
Let me note here, when I ſay Ordination does ſet a man apart for the Miniſtry, I mean not ſo as that it gives it him. I cannot but conceive that a mans Inward call muſt needs give him his Miniſtry, the jns or faculty, before God, as his Outward gives it him before men, that is, cauſes it to be received by them; and that there is conſequently an Internal ſeparation, when a man upon acknowledgement to God of his gifts, does ſeriouſly dedicate himſelf to this ſervice before him, as an Outward and ſolemn by Ordination; which whether it be Presbyterial of Epiſcopal it is all alike as to what the word requires, but is not accepted alike in our preſent Church, which ſtands upon her proper form and mode of Government.
I will enlarge a little here. There is a Fundamental right as Presbyterians ſay, and I believe, in every Miniſter to Ordain others, according to that rule, which is dignified by a great Pen, Ordinis eſt conferre ordines. Nevertheleſs when the Church came to ſee it good, for the avoiding of faction, and keeping peace, to give a preheminence to the Biſhop above the Presbyter, there is no reaſon, but the Presbyter, upon conſent, might as to the actual exerciſe hereof, de jure ſuo cedere, ſo as to Ordain none without the Biſhop, which comming more and more into debate, it is no wonder if you begin at the ſecond Canon of the Apoſtles, and goe over all the Councils and Fathers, and find this ſtill the allowed prerogative of the Biſhop to have the power of Ordination, according to that which is ſo well known of Caſſander. Convenit inter omnes on Apoſtolorum aetate inter Epiſcopos & Presbyteros nullum diſcrimen fuiſſe, ſed postmodum Schiſmatis evitandi cauſâ, Epiſcopum Presbyteris fuiſſe praepoſitum, cut chirotonia, id eſt ordinandi poteſtas conceſſa eſt. Now foraſmuch as the authority of Councils, or Fathers, is received or not received of particular Churches, according to their proper concernments and complexion; As Presbytery hath ſerved her ſelf of the Scripture, to the neglect hereof, It cannot be expected but Epiſcopacy ſhould ſerve her turn likewiſe of Antiquity; which being added to preſent power, muſt needs diſcountenance other Orders, and if they come once not to be received and owned, the ground is laid for their refreſhment or iteration.
I remember in the Council of N…ce we have this Canon, Can. 17. Si quis auſus fuerit aliquem qui ad alterum pertinet ordinare in ſua eccleſia cum non habeat conſenſum Epiſcopi ipſius, à quo receſſit Clericus, irrita erit hujuſmodiordinatio. Let me ask here any Divine, Presbyterian or Epiſcopal, Suppoſe a man ordained by another Biſhop than his own, and without his leave, is that man truly ordained or no? There are none in our dayes will deny it, and yet according to theſe Canons ſuch a mans Ordination was null, and conſequently if he would enjoy the uſe of his Miniſtry under his Biſhop he muſt be re-ordained. Now let any learned man tell me how ſuch Miniſters in this caſe could ſubmit to that Canon in thoſe dayes (which no doubt but moſt did ſubmit to, ſeeing that Council was ſo authentique in the word) and then will our caſe be alſo opened and juſtified to my hands. In ſhort, it is ſufficient for the Church to receive a man as a Miniſter, that is Ordained only by the Presbytery, as of old by any Biſhop as their own, according to Scripture, which knows no difference between Biſhop and Biſhop, or Biſhop and Presbyter in this caſe, but it would and will not ſerve according to Eccleſiaſtical conſtitution.
Let us now ſee what my Oppoſer ſayes here, and it is the ſame only he hath every where. If the Presbyterial ordination leave a man not capable of having any thing conferr'd on him but only the free uſe of his Miniſtry in the Engliſh Church, why will he ſubmit to ſuch a form as was purpoſely inſtituted to conferr the very Miniſtry it ſelf? why are ſuch prayers put up to God as ſuppoſe him to be no Miniſter? This is anſwered already, and we ſee the foreign the ſame ſtill.
There is no form to be conceived ſuch, as to confer the Miniſtry it ſelf unto any, or to put up Prayers, that a man may be made a Miniſter, as he conjectures and ſpeaks, p. 68. I doe therefore produce him the very words of this form, to ſerve my turn. Take thou authority to preach the Word, and miniſter the Sacraments where thou ſhalt be appointed; which are ſo apt as if they w…re ſtudied to ordain a man, not to the Office, but to the Work only of his place: Hereunto he candidly gainſays nothing, only tells us there are more words uſed than theſe, to wit, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, whoſe ſins yee remit, &c. unto which words in particular, and the form in general, I have ſpoken at large at firſt: What I muſt ſay over again to anſwer him as I go along, is; Our Ordainers muſt not be look'd upon according to this Author, as Creators of the Miniſterial power, which is given alone by Jeſus Chriſt, but as the ſignifiers and approvers of his Will and Grant. There is indeed one grand Warrant (I muſt ſay) Commiſſion or Charter from Chriſt in general, empowring them who are qualified, as his word deſcribes, to be his Miniſters. The Ordainers now are to enquire whether a perſon have theſe qualifications, that is, as it were, whether he be in the Commiſſion, and then if he be found there, what they doe beſides, is but the declaring this, by the ſolemnity. The Commiſſion then or Miniſtry it ſelf is from our Lord, and Orders doe but give the ſame its free paſſage in the Church where a man is. Now this paſſage is hindred by the change of the times, and therefore, the Right Reverend (as he ſpeaks) is troubled to remove this hindrance, and ſo, not to doe only what is already done. He is troubl…d, not to make a man again a Miniſter of Chriſt, but a Canonical Miniſter (if you will) of our Church, that is, to make him paſſe for ſuch according to their Lawes and Canons, when elſe he cannot paſs, and therefore is this alſo done by that form ſo preſcribed, the words whereof, which ſtick, we are to conceive with all forms of Orders elſe muſt be interpreted only, as I have ſaid, to be declarative, not operative of our power, by way of inveſtiture, poſſeſſion, or ſolemnization. Even as it is in the inauguration of Princes, which as I have but now inſtanced in David above, and Solomon before, may be valid at firſt, and yet done over again, to eſtabliſh them more formally or legally amongſt their people.
I will take a little liberty here of more words. Ordination I count is the confirmation, declaration, and ſolemn allowance of a mans Miniſtry by our chief Paſtors and Rulers, that may give us the value and recep…ion as Miniſters to all intents in the Church, particularly for the execution of our charge where we are. Now there being none according to the form of our Engliſh Church and Nation, of authority to doe this but the Biſhops, though our former Orders have been ſufficient hitherto, and are yet good as to our Right, yet growing inſufficient (through this change) or enervate as to the effect, the renewal of them according to the preſent Polity (unleſs there be ſome myſterious danger in ſubmitting at all hereto) does become expedient to us, and obliging; and obliging (without ſome other greater reaſon) becauſe expedient to us, for the ſake of the Goſpel.
To advance this yet farther: There be ſome learned men do give much here to the Magiſtrate. Grotius (ſaies Mr. Baxter) commendeth the ſaying of Muſculus, that would have no Miniſter queſtion his Call, that being qualified, hath the Chriſtian Magiſtrates Commiſsion. I obſerve Grotius himſelf does allow Confirmation of a Miniſter, diſtinctly to the Magiſtrate; and Dr. Seaman hath quoted Gerrhard to the ſame purpoſe; I might (I think adde ſome…hing out of Peter Martyr, Chemnitius, and moſt others. Now if theſe great men held that Ordination made a Miniſter, the M…giſtrate could have no part aſſigned him at all about that buſineſs; but if Ordination only declares a mans Miniſtry; If it be Chriſt alone gives us our Office, and man only procures us an outward Authority for repute and reception as Miniſters in the Church where we are called (which I take it is true) then as I doe not doubt, but that upon ſuppoſition there were no Miniſters in a place to ordain, the Magiſtrates allowance is good: So do I propoſe it to be conſidered, whether the Magiſtrates appointing who ſhall be Ordainers, Presbyters, or Biſhops, may not ſtill determine the validity by either in the Church where he is S…preme? and conſequently, though our Orders before were of force, now the pleaſure of our Law-givers is otherwiſe, whether we may not be re-ordained upon that accourt? This l…o…er, becauſe there may be ſome conſciences perha…s that can act upon ſuch a ground as this, when they cannot otherwiſe, though I intend to lay no fur…her ſtreſs upon it.
I return then to my Oppoſer, who (p. 67 68.) is hunting ſome of my ex…reſſions, but ſhould do well to take the ſubſtance with them. I am in my laſt Propoſition, there propoſing ſuch Scriptures which concern the fift Commandment, Our Superiours are to be obeyed in all things, 1 Pet 2.13. Col. ….22. This thing is what they require, and impoſe u…on us: and that I take therefore to be a plain ground for our ſubmiſſion. There is a late book of ſome tender and learned Di…ines, concerning the intereſt of words in prayer, who when they have told us, p. 72. that what we call the Church of England, is nothing elſe than a company of men by a Civil Power made Biſhops, and called to adviſe the State in things concerning Religion, do add, p. 73. We again ſay, far be it from us to oppoſe Civil Authority, either exerciſed by Lay-perſons, or Eccleſiaſtical perſons. We further ſ…y, we are bound to obey the Civil magiſtrate in all things; in things lawful actually, in things unlawful by ſuffering. I do note this paſſage as that which may do good to many, and tend to healing, when the reſt of that book may make them but very ſore; to wit, that though they ſhould have received ſuch prejudicate and hard thoughts of the Government by Biſhops, as if they were anti-C…riſtian, againſt their Covenant, or the like, yet may they ſee here, how, or under what notion they may obey them for all that; to wit, as the King is Supreme both in cauſes Eccleſiaſtical and Civil, the Biſhops, I perceive, are taken with them for Magiſtrates appointed under him in the one, as the Judges & Juſtices are in the other, & ſo they allow obedience to them, is to other Superiours, ſo long as they require only things lawful; and that our matter in hand is ſuch, it ſuffices I count) that it is no where forbidden in the light of Nature or Scripture, directly or conſequentially, and therefore it is lawful, for which I have quoted that known Text, Where there is no Law, there is no tranſgreſſion. In his rebus (ſayes Auſtin) de qu bus nihil certi ſtatuit Scriptura, inſtituta majorum pro lege tenenda ſunt. That which can be ſuppoſed to be replied to this, is only, that it is like the Law forbids the repetition of ſuch an Ordinance, and therefore I do clear this by other inſtances.
The firſt was of Marriage, which hath been ordinarily by the Magiſtrate and the Miniſter both in theſe times. I m… ſe…f have had a comple come to me, after they were long married, and had a child, and I made no queſtion to marry them again, for the ſatisfaction of their conſciences. The like apprehenſions therefore I have perceived in me about this matter. I ſee indeed ſome others are ready to queſtion perhaps, whether ſuch who have done thus, have done lawfully; but why not, I pray, as well as contract themſelves, and give their mutual conſent fi…ſt, and be married after? Such a conſent, de proeſenti, no doubt does pon…re fundamentum relation it, ſo that they are Man and Wife coram Deo thereby; and what does the ſolemnity after but declare them ſo coram hominibus, and give them that account legally in the world: Now if this teſtification be not ſufficient, but men will account them as unmarried, unleſs it be by a Miniſter; nay, ſuppoſe the Laws of any place would not allow it otherwiſe, who would adviſe but they ſhould do it again? Nay, this is not enough; who would adviſe that they rather part quite, leave one another, and be no more Man and Wife, rather than be married again? Such is the caſe and queſtion of ours in hand, for ought I can ſee, and no leſs, in this matter of Re-ordination. For the form he objects: I anſwer, the impropriety of ſome words in ſ…ch a caſe, as to the one, will not argue and infer the ſame, I hope, altogether in the other; whereof it ſuffices that I have ſpoken before already.
A ſecond inſtance I have, is of the Oaths of Alleagiance and Supremacy: Theſe are taken at our Degrees, at our Orders, and upon particular occaſions, as the Law and Magiſtrate requires; and yet cid I never hear any plead againſt this, that it would be taking an Ordinance in vain. Holy Bradford the Martyr tells his Judges, that he had taken the ſame Oath againſt the Pope ſix times: Unto this my Opponent ſayes nothing and indeed no…hing can be ſaid. If that only argument of his varied in words be good, that a man cannot be Ordained twice, becauſe the end of Ordination is attained as one Administration, then a man may not have either of theſe Oaths twice adminiſtred to him, becauſe the end (to wit, the obliging a man to the contents: is attained at once; and ſo the Laws and Magiſtrate that require this on ſundry occaſions, do require the taking Gods Name in vain. Let my Author come off here if he can. The ſwearing by Gods Name we know is a ſolemn Ordinance, & part of Gods Worſhi; Deut. 10.20. and if this may be repeated upon the forms of Courts, be order of the Law, & command of our Superiours; let this be ſatisfaction likewiſe to us, that what is in vain, as to one end is not ſo to another; that what is in vain, in regard of ones ſelf, is not in vain in regard of our obedience, or ſatisfaction of others.
A third inſtance is of the Lords Prayer, which we have appointed in he Liturgy to be twice uſed in one Service. This he dare not condemn ſimply, for if he did there is a Text Mar. 14.39. would juſtifie i…: But he ſayes, In the Lords Prayer there are things which every one had need to have renewed, and hence it is we uſe it often. Why ſo is the Grace and Bleſſing of God with and upon us for our work, which we pray for in our Orders, that which is continually to be renewed, and conſequently, what we may pray for again: and as for our praying to be made Miniſters, it is but a fond imagination.
For what I allege, that the Scripture ſpeaks of one Baptiſm, I would not have this ingenuous Author think I place any argument in it, only ſo far as concerns Authority: He knows (I ſuppoſe) that Divines ordinarily, Ancients and Neotericks, for want of ſome expreſs Text againſt iteration of Baptiſm (though the Unity there be indeed ſpecifical, not numerical) do plead thoſe words One Baptiſm, when yet they have not yet ſo much as this to plead here, One Ordination.
For the conſent of Chemnitius and Doctor Balwin, whom I quote in the cloze of this Section, my Antagoniſt methinks (p. 77.) is hardly fair, or kind to me in it; not fair, becauſe the Doctor does lay down his arguments to prove a mans former Orders valid, ſo that he is not to think him in doubt thereof, which is his anſwer; not kind, becauſe when he accounts the Authorities I have for me to be ſo few (though he conſiders not, I think, our Divines frequent judgement of Ananias impoſition of han is upon Paul in the way) and ſhould therefore methinks at leaſt remember what Solomon bids, Rob not the poor, becauſe he is poor, Pro. 22.22. he cannot yet find in his heart to leave me ſo much as one only; as if, when charity believeth ali things, a denvieth not, he would, with a neglect of Chriſts Precept towards me, fulfill his words by me: And from him that hath not, ſhall be taken away even that which he hath.