6. When the ordainers, or the common estimation of the church, do take the repetition of the words and action for a re-ordination, though the receiver so intend it not, yet it may become unlawful to him by this accident, because he scandalizeth and hardeneth the erroneous, by doing or receiving that which is interpretative re-ordination.
7. Especially when the ordainers shall require this repetition on notoriously wicked grounds, and so put that sense on the action by their own doctrines and demands: as for instance,
(1.) If heretics should (as the Arians) say that we are no ministers, because we are not of their heresy, or ordained by such as they.
(2.) If the pope or any proud papal usurpers shall say, You are no ministers of Christ, except we ordain you; and so do it to establish a traitorous, usurped regiment in the church; it is not lawful to serve such a usurpation. As if cardinals or archbishops should say, None are true ministers but those that we ordain; or councils or synods of bishops or presbyters should say, None are true ministers but those that we ordain; or if one presbyter or one bishop without authority would thus make himself master of the rest, or of other churches, and say, You are no ministers unless I ordain you; we may not promote such tyranny and usurpation.
(3.) If magistrates would usurp the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical ordination, and say that none but they have power to ordain, we may not encourage such pretences by repetition of the words and action.
(4.) If they would make something necessary to ordination which is not, as if it were a false oath, or false subscription or profession, or some unlawful ceremony, (as if it were anointing, wearing horns, or any the like,) and say, You are no ministers without these, and therefore you must be re-ordained to receive them.
(5.) Yea, if they declare our former ministry causelessly to be null, and say, You are no ministers till you are ordained again, and so publicly put this sense upon our action, that we take it as re-ordination; all these accidents make the repetition of the words and actions to be unlawful, unless when greater accidents notoriously preponderate.
_Quest._ But if such church tyrants should have so great power, as that without their repetition of ordination on those terms, the ministry might not be exercised, is it lawful so to take it in a case of such necessity?
_Answ._ 1. Every seeming necessity to you, is not a necessity to the church. 2. Either you may publicly declare a contrary sense in your receiving their new orders or not.
1. If you may not as publicly declare that you renounce not your former ministry and dedication to God in that office, as the ordainers declare their sense of the nullity of it, so that your open declaration may free you from the guilt of seeming consent, I conceive it is a sinful compliance with their sin. 2. Yea, if you may so declare it, yet if there be no necessity of your ministerial liberty in that place, I think you may not take it on such terms. As, (1.) If there be worthy men enough to supply the church's wants there without you. (2.) And if you may serve God successfully in a persecuted state, though to the suffering of your flesh. (3.) Or if your imprisonment for preaching be like to be as serviceable to the church and gospel as your continued preaching on those scandalous terms. (4.) Or if you may remove and preach in another country.
8. When any such case doth fall out, in which the repetition of the outward action and words is lawful, it is not lawful to mix any false and scandalous expressions: as if we were required to say falsely, I accept this ordination as confessing myself no minister of Christ till now: or any such like.
9. In a word, a peaceable christian may do much as to the mere outward action and submission, for obedience, peace, order, or satisfaction to his own or other men's consciences. But, (1.) He may do nothing for good ends which is false and injurious to the church.[264] (2.) And he may not do that which otherwise were lawful, when it is for evil ends, or tendeth to more hurt than good; as to promote heresy, or church tyranny and usurpation, whether in pope, prelates, presbyters, or people.
[264] 1 Thess. v. 22; Gal. ii. 4, 5, 14.
Quest. XXII. _How many ordainers are necessary to the validity of ordination by God's institution? whether one or more?_
My question is not of the ancient canons, or any human laws or customs, for those are easily known; but of divine right. Now either God hath determined the case as to the number of ordainers necessary, or not. If not, either he hath given the church some general rule to determine it by, or not. If not, then the number is not any part of the divine order or law; and then, if we suppose that he hath determined the case as to the ordaining office and not to the number, then it will follow that one may serve. The truth I think may be thus explained.