THE QUESTION OF Re-ordination, Whether, and how, a Minister Ordained by the Presbytery, may take Ordination also by the Bishop?  
By John Humphrey, Minist.  
Published for the sake of the many concerned, and perplexed about it at this Season, without strife, for the promotion only of the holy Gospel, and Peace.  Rom. 15.2. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
London, Printed for Tho. Williams at the Bible in Little Britain without Aldersgate, 1661.   

Ad Lectorem.  
THis Discourse was written at first in six or seven Letters, or more, to an intimate friend, according to the date, scattered with other matters. Those Papers were since returned to the Author to peruse, set together, and amplify upon further deliberation. You have them therefore in this form, the Superscription changed from one to many, and the Letters from many as it were to one, and divided into so many Sections. If the former lead on to the latter, and the latter (taking more line) bring perspicuity and fullness to the former, and the whole tend to let satisfaction upon the mind, as it is like best to take it in, I am bid to tell you, the Author is not farther solicitous of the method, which is intended not be Polemical for dispute; but Medicinal for the conscience.  
Typographus.   

To my Reverend, Pious, and Worthy Brethren in the Ministry, who have been Ordained in these Times only by the Presbytery; Grace, Truth and Peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, with the freedom of the Gospel. Feb. 1660.  
WHereas it seems to me a thing reasonable, for a man to give an account of his actions, which may be else an occasion of stumbling to others: I have thought good to write some lines about that Business, which hath a various acceptation, among the concerned at this season; to wit, the legal Establishment (so I will call it) according to the Book of Orders, of my former Ministry and Ordination long since had, by the Presbytery.  
Before I go further, I must confess I have not known, or noted yet, any Book Pro or Con about this Subject (nor would I, till I had scanned over my own thoughts) to make use of, so much as to give me either reason for it, objection against it, or notion about it, unless obiter on other matters; so that the path is to me quite untrod: Only, I must needs say, since I have done this thing, I find it hath pleased God, to exercise my spirit with many perplexities about it; so that I am even forced to find out such a course as this, to rid my mind, and give vent to them. Truly, me thinks, from the beginning, I have been apt to look upon the matter itself as nothing; yet hath it driven me many times upon my knees, with thoughts in the reflection, If it be so, why am I thus? And I do not see, what is the end the Lord hath with me therein, unless it be, that these throws as it were of mine, are only for the delivery of something, for one or other of my brethren's satisfaction.  
As for the repeating, or doubling Ordination itself, I do thus judge of it. There are some things, which Divines do condemn indefinitely as evil, when being barely considered, they sway more this way, and have a likelihood rather thereof then good, yet in their nature, are indifferent, (that is, indifferentia ad unum, not ad utrum libet, as they speak) so that, right circumstances being put, they may be done. I take this matter in hand to be such, which though it be odd and uncouth in its first and naked consideration, yet, as the case complexedly now stands, I put it in the number of such things, as Magna utilitas (to wit, publica) facit honestum; that is, the necessity of convenience renders tolerable for the time.  
To take liberty as to the ingenuous, This Re-ordination may be considered, methinks, Notionally, or Morally: There is Moral, and Notional good, if I may so speak: Moral good, is, a conformity to the rule of life, which God hath given us in his Word, or planted in our hearts: Notional good, is a conformity in things to their being, (or nature) as we apprehend them (or in men's apprehensions.) So you must give me leave to express it. Re-ordination now, Notionally, I suspect is not good; Morally, I judge it, as I have sa●● 〈◊〉 indifferent (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) good, ●or bad, though unequally, as it is used. Suppose a thing born with redundant parts; Here is an odd thing in Nature, Naturae erratum: yet as it is God's creature, and ordered by Providence; it is good, and allowed of her in the world: Re-ordination, let me say, is, Ordination redundant, (an Erratum perhaps as to its common notion, or a mis-shape in our apprehension) yet if it comes to be ordered by man, to Moral advantage, and the Honour of God (as to the peace and freedom of the Gospel) the thing is not to be made away, but to be allowed in the Church, as Nature does of such things as these, when yet she likes them not. Notional good, as natural, must give place to Moral good, without question.  
Indeed to dead truly herein, I must distinguish (I think) between the part of those that require this, and those that submit to it. I dare not justify our Church-Rulers in their imposing hereof, notwithstanding its near concernment to them (Quid enim facit, exceptâ ordinatione, Episcopus, quod Presbyter non facit? says Jerome, and some others) because it is manifestly scandalous to the Reformed Churches abroad, and it is supposed they might remedy it if they would. They know best their own justifications, Let the fault (if there be any), on God's name, lie where it is: But as for the part of the Submitter, who for the sake of his Ministry, and present service of the Church, does only yield himself to obedience and quiet, I do humbly hope the matter is not such, as that he should charge himself with any great hurt in it. Although in immediate positive acts of Divine Worship, nothing be warrantable without command, yet in matters only of Order, it is enough to make things lawful (as I suppose) that they are required of our Superiors, and no where prohibited in the Word of God. Quod neque contra fidem, neque contra bonos mores injungitur, indifferentèr est habendum, &, pro corum inter quos vivitur, societate, servandum est. Aug. ad Jan. Ep. 118.  
When Paul circumcised Timothy, and purified himself with the Jews in the Temple, these were things I count indefinitely unlawful, yet commendable in that case. I do choose to stand on this ground; yet may we draw nearer on probability. It may be conjectured, and cannot be denied as certain, (for very good Divines say it) but that Paul was confirmed in his calling to the Ministry by Ananias, (Act. 9 with Act. 22.) which is Ordination; and likewise Barnabas by the Church at Jerusalem, that sent him to Antioch, (Act. 11.22.) when yet they are both separated after (Act. 13.) by the Holy Ghost, and laying on of hands, unto that farther work they are called to in Sel●u●ia, and Cyprus. How is it like that so famous a Minister as Barnabas, should be wholly without Ordination before, unless Ordination be not so necessary a thing to the Ministry, as we make it? And for the other instance of Paul, there is more in it: I will not draw out the strength of it, till I come to the chief knot. By the way only, It is a conceit (I must confess) is got in me from this Text, that if a Minister have a call (with a good conscience) to a new place, or new work, though it be not necessary, it is lawful for him to have a particular Ordination to the same; and I think that the hands of a grave Bishop, and good men, laid on him afresh, with their Fasting and Solemn Prayers for God's blessing upon him in it, were like to do him no harm.  
But to come to the bottom, To judge aright of Re-ordination, we must first consider what is Ordination. Ordinatio (say Protestant Divines) is vocationis confirmatio. The Leyden Divines, drop this definition. Ordinandi potestas, seu in Ministerio confirmandi, etc. Disp. 42. Thes. 37. Ordinatio (says Amesius) nihil aliud est quam solennis declaratio, ut coronatio Regis, aut inauguratio Magistratûs. De consc. l. 4. c. 25. Some of our eminent Divines being consulted, do say, (I am told) Ordination is nothing but Approbation, a public approving a man as fit to be a Minister; I would express it thus, A solemn allowance of his Call. I take these apprehensions in effect to be the same; If they differ, I rather choose the first, both as most comprehensive of the other, and also as most received; insomuch as Wollebius going about to define Ordination, gives it no other name: Confirmatio (says he) est personae electae introductio, in quâ, publicis precibus praemissis, Ecclesiae comendatur, eique vocatio, impositis manibus confirmatur. From which hint I will recall that place which is to be more than once made use of, as the clearest Text we have about this solemnity, to wit, the instance of Paul and Barnabas, who being at Antioch, and called by the Holy Ghost to their work, St. Luke tells us, Certain Teachers who were there, prayed and fasted, and laid their hands on them (that is, ordained them) and sent them away; and then in the two next Chapters going on, and declaring their journeys and acts, when they had done thus (says he) they returned to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God, for the work which they fulfilled, in which words he does plainly seem to describe that matter, in the former narration. Ordination then is, out of doubt, (whatsoever it be besides) a solemn recommending (the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, traditi) or committing of a person to the grace of God, for the work unto which he is called. Unto this, let me yet add the forecited Doctor Ames again more at large. Vocationis essentia est in electione Ecclesiae & acceptatione electi. Adjunctum consequens & consummans est Ordinatio, quae nihil aliud est quam solennis quaedam introductio Ministri jam electi in ipsius functionis liberam functionem. Medul. Theol. l. 1. c. 39 One thing only I must not let pass, as some light in the way here, and to our business; that when such Divines as these, do say, that Ordination is nothing else, but a Declaration, Approbation, or Confirmation of our Calling: Do you understand, it not directly of our call by man, (where lies alone, I think, the shortness of their sight) but of our call by God, and then it is exceeding well. You will, somewhere, when I shall speak of this farther after, see the clearness and consequence hereof. Now those men who have imbibed such a notion only of Ordination, as thus defined, will I suppose soon conclude that a double Approbation, Declaration, or Confirmation of the same Ministry is no such matter but the lawfulness of it may be resolved when but once the Expedience is clear.  
I deny not but there is more in Ordination then this, which creates the difficulty, to wit, that it it gives the ministerial function; yet will I not concede it, but suppose it, and go on (though we have a clear instance flat against it, (in Paul) when again we come to it,) upon that supposition; It suffices us if in re-ordination there be no more, and so much; for it is about that, our question lies. And I know, it is the general sentiments of men's spirits must taste the thing at last, and determine it for us, whether good or bad (which will therefore be proper for a Convocation) some receiving it in their first conceptions as a second baptism, others only, as another marrying when the first is good before in the sight of God, but questionable in Law, and made sure. And so I remember a worthy Doctor I spoke with occasionally about it, did express it by Usury, which in the common opinion is evil as to those that require it, but not unlawful, as to those that upon their necessity do give it. In adiaphoris (says Gerson) superioris judicio maxime credendum, quoniam ille vice Dei tibi dicet, quid expedit et quid decet. De. Relig. perf. part, 3.  

SECT. II.  
HAving in my first paper made these scattered efforts already, I shall now more roundly and freely lay you down my opinion, with a larger compass upon the whole matter in five or six propositions. For the doing whereof [waving in the way that touchy objection of the Covenant, which for my oaths sake at my Degrees in the university I never took, and if it were to do again could not take] I need not any elaborate disquisition, which neither the nature of a letter, or my time, or my present stock can allow; but I shall set my thoughts down faithfully as they fall into my pen, travailing only with words, (as already I have done) to deliver my mind, and not with the licking of the expression.  
1. I doubt not of Presbyterial ordination, but that those men who have been ordained without a Bishop, have done, and do well, but according to their office and duty, in administering the word and sacraments as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. I can as well doubt, whether my people before me are men or living creatures, and not wheels or some things moved only by weights and engines; as I can doubt of this. The judgement of Bishop Usher, Downam, Carleton, Archdeacon Mason, Field of the Church. Lib. 3. c. 39 and the practice of the Reformed Churches, is known in the case.  
2. It appears in the time of the Apostles, that a Presbyter and a Bishop was all one by these Texts. Tit. 1.5. with 7. Acts 20.17. with 28. Phil. 1.1. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. This, Doctor Hammond thought safest to own. The Bishops succeeded the Apostles, and consequently while there was Apostles there was no Bishops. I speak here but after the excellent judgement of our late King. The Churches than had recourse unto them (as might be proved by their sending still to Paul about their affairs, in many places) which makes, and answers I think for Episcopacy; They had then no Bishops indeed, because the Apostles and Evangelists filled up the use of them. Whether the ministers at first were all Presbyters, and for avoiding of schism and faction, they chose out one to be Bishop (as Jerome:) Or whether at first they were all Bishops and as their Territories increased, and the people came in, they ordained Presbyters under them, I leave to the several palates of the judicious. This I take to be certain: while the work was not divided, they must needs be both but the same office, unto which either name was common; but when the work was divided, than they distinguished the names and kept them up accordingly. See the Right Honourable Sir William Morice his most candid, clear, and impartial judgement upon the whole matter of Presbytery and Episcopacy, and both compared, in his excellently learned book the second Edition in Folio from p. 146 to 169.  
3. Whensoever the distinction arose, I believe, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are not different orders of the Ministry, as a Priest and a Deacon is; but only the one is the same office with the other in a different degree of eminency. See the 42 quest. in Bishop Davenants determinations. The Apostle in his first Epistle says, Timothy was ordained with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery: In the second, by the laying on of his hands; You may gather from hence that Paul must needs be then one of the Presbytery, and ordained as one of them (the agent must act quá tale to the production of the effect; I speak this ad hominem) and consequently that Presbyterial ordination and Episcopal is the same; So that the old rule alone Magis & minus non variant speciem does satisfy me here; though I forget not (if I could believe the Apostle indeed to be so critical) an acute annotation of my own grave and learned Bishop (in his discourse with me) upon the two Prepositions, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one place imports authority, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assistance only in the other. And yet, what if there be here itself some double kind of Ordination, which for aught any one can be sure of, was so: though you and I put not our belief to it.  
4. Whereas a most Reverend, late, and moderate Prelate is noted to have stated the matter thus, that Presbyterial Ordination is valid, but Schismatical: Let it be understood only, where the Episcopal government is in force; If a man should, now Episcopacy is up, go to be ordained only by Presbyters; no doubt but this, in every true Episcopal Judgement, is Schism: but, when the Bishops were down here, and in the reformed Churches, where there are no Bishops, it is rather questionable, to my thinking, whether it were not tumultuousness of spirit, not to be contented with the Ordination which is going, and present necessity puts upon him. Si Orthodoxi Presbyteri, ne pereat Ecclesia, alios Presbyteros cogantur Ordinare; Ego non ausim hujusmodi Ordinationes pronunciare irritas, says Davenant, before quoted. See the second part of Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, where Ordination by Presbyters is justified at large, and more large than I need here mention.  
5. I will distinguish then between what Ordination is required to the setting a part a man to the Office of a Minister in the sight of God, and what is requisite to the making him received as a Minister among men, and give him authority (or full repute) to execute that Office in the Church or place where he shall be called: I believe (as before) that Ordination by the Presbytery only (sufficing but a little while ago to both) suffices still to the former, (supposing Ordination goes so far). But we all begin to know also, that Ordination now by a Bishop, is necessary to the latter; and, consequently, though I have been ordained before by the Presbytery, this hinders not, but I may be ordained again by the Bishop, because I seek not to be ordained by him to make me a Minister again, which I am in foro Dei already, but to have Authority (as to men) to use my Ministry, and be received as such (which I cannot else) in foro Ecclesiae Anglicanae. And this, me thinks, I am a little justified in, that when I was ordained by the Presbytery, the very words used at the point, (to my best memory) were, Whom by the laying on of hands, we set a part for the Office of the Ministry, and in the Ordination by the Bishop, they are, Take authority to Preach the Word and Minister the Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be appointed, that is, in thy place. Not, but those words do confer both of these (supposing what is supposed) to the unordained before; yet does not that hinder, but rather argue, If they do confer both to others, they may doubtless (and actually do) confer one (and can but the one only) to such as are in my case: In short, there is my Ministry, and the use of my Ministry in the English Church: My first Ordination (as we suppose) hath given me the one, yet is the latter, not superfluous, because it conduces (and that legally or regularly) to the other. I mean clearly, as to authority, freedom at least, and reception in the same.  
6. Whereas the Scripture is clear about subjection to Superiors, Civil and Ecclesiastical; Obey those that are over you in the Lord. Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for conscience sake: I do question, whether every man that yields to Episcopacy in his judgement (if but only as not repugnant to the Word of God, and humane Institution) is not obliged hereunto, if it may be had on this account, without reclaiming, or prejudice to his former Ministry. I say not barely, that it appears a thing lawful, while we see how it may done, but being stood upon, a due, to be done; and if any thing be amiss, it is in them that exact it, and not in us that cannot help it. For what is Re-ordination in this case, but a submission to the order of that Church-Polity, which is again set over us? And what evil is there more in it, than a second marrying (as before) or confirming (with a new) my former title to my living? If it be required of me, Why may I not be ordained twice as well as once, and thrice as well as twice, if there be still reason sufficient for it? May not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy be repeated, and yet Gods Name not be taken in vain by it? Is it enough to make our Liturgy unlawful, because we have, in one Service, the Lords Prayer twice over? I confess, I read indeed of one Baptism in Scripture, and a stress is laid upon it, but I read not so of one Ordination. Where there is no law to the contrary; where I pray lies the transgression? It is true, there may be found in some ancient Canons something against this perhaps, where they had not the like reason. Si quis Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus secundam ab aliquo Ordinationem susceperit, deponitor, tam ipse quàm qui ipsum ordinavit, say the Apocryphal Canons of the Apostles. Can. 67. Where this very distinction thus made of the Clergy, does witness them (this one of them, at least) to be of aftertimes, and so forged, as Rivet notes it. I know also the Trent Doctors, out of the Schoolmen, do tell me (with an Anathema) that there is an indelible character imprinted by three of their Sacraments (whereof this is one) for which cause, they cannot be iterated: but I know not, that any of them can tell, what this character is, or where, or how it is impressed, or show it me in the Bible, or in the Fathers, or that the Protestants do make any thing at all of it. Synops. pur. Theol. Disp, 43. Thes. 36. Let my fear, O Lord, be taught me by thy Precepts, and neither by man's mere notions, nor Tradition. Quod Baptismus non sit iterandus (says Chemnitius in his Examen de Charactere) de re magná agitur. Pactum gratiae in illo Deus nobiscune iniit.— Illud verò (says he, blaming the Trent determination) quod Baptismi proprium est, ut scilicet non iteretur, ad suos Ordines transtulerunt. You may see easily through this little cranny, the true light of this Great Man's free thoughts. Will you be pleased therefore to hear an honest, learned and impartial Doctor, speaking his mind out full for him. Dr. Baldwin, Professor of Wittenberg. De casibus conscientiae, putting this very case, Whether a man ordained by the Papists, may be ordained again by us, and maintaining, that there is no necessity of it, does yet clearly deliver here, his thoughts in this matter. Quod si quis existimat se tranquilliùs suo in nostris Ecclesiis Officio, perfungi posse, si etiam nostris ritibus ad Sacrosanctum Ministerium utatur, nihil obstat, quin Ordinationem à nostris accipere possit: non enim eadem est ratio Ordinationis, quae Baptismi, qui iterari non potest; Hoc enim Sacramentum est Ecclesiae, illa autem externus tantum ritus. Lib. 4. c. 6. cas. 6.   

SECT. III.  
I Have done now with my Essay as to the Question. I come to the Scruples and Objections that have run into my Soul like water. I shall endeavour through Divine Assistance, to lave them out as well as I can, by Confession, or Solution.  
For the first, it hath been this: The Apostle limiting the use of our Christian liberty in indifferent things to the rule of charity, instances in meats offered to Idols. The weak Brethren thought in their consciences it unlawful, to eat of such meats; the stronger Christian hereupon is bound to forbear, because they seeing him who had knowledge sit at meat, their consciences would be emboldened to eat likewise, who having not that knowledge, should sin. Apply the case here. Many of my Brethren do think it unlawful (it is likely) to be ordained again; Now they seeing me, though the meanest among them, yet whom they think may have some knowledge, to be re-ordained: Shall they not be emboldened to do so likewise, which if they do, whilst they believe (or doubt) it to be unlawful, they perish. But when you sin against the Brethren, and wound their weak consciences, you sin against Christ. I confess, I do the rather propose this, for the seeking satisfaction, if it can be given me, in regard of the vast range the Case hath, and takes in more especially all Ceremony; I cannot wear a Surplice, nor read Common Prayer, (at this interim) or stand up at the Creed: Nay, I cannot wear my hair long, and a hundred more, certainly, indifferent things; but some do think these in their consciences unlawful; and so, while I embolden them by my pattern to do the same, I occasion their ruin, and incur the hazard of such Texts, Rom. 14, 15, 21. 1 Cor. 10.28. 1 Cor. 8.11, 12. Mat. 18.6, 7.  
I must profess, if this Proposition will arise from any one, or from all these Texts, that a man who is satisfied of a thing as indifferent and lawful, must yet forbear upon the account, that by his example, others may be emboldened to the same, who having not that knowledge, do judge it unlawful, and so sin if they do it; then is the way of poor Christians (the Lord knows) very strait: Nevertheless (besides the learned Hammonds interpretation of that Chapter, 1 Cor. 8. bearing away quite the edge of that place) I am though, through grace, something enlightened to judge, that a man may sometimes do much good in leading an example to the doubtful, when a thing is becoming necessary, as he may do much amiss in things more certainly lawful, that are better spared. As for the Schools definition of Scandal; I say, an indifferent commanded, becomes rectum, which was minùs rectum before; and Scandalum with them is, Dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens alteri occasionem ruinae. I will take up with that here of Mr. Calvin, treating about indifferent things in this case, and mentioning Paul's circumcising Timothy, and yet not Titus, as to the point. Nihil jam (says he) hâc regulâ expeditius, quàm Utendum libertate nostrâ si in proximi nostri aedificationem cedat; sin ita proximo non expediat, eâ tunc abstinendum. Inst. lib. 3. c. 19 §. 12.   

SECT. iv  
THE grand Objection in the second place and chief that I can think of; and which, I am persuaded, if I can satisfy thoroughly, I have done my work; I will lay down as clear as possibly I can frame it: for it hath come in often, and laid long with the dint of it in my thoughts. Ordination is that which according to Divines does give a man the office of the Ministry (they mean, they say, as to the Essence of the outward Call, Jus Divin. Evan. ch. 11.) This is the end they account hereof: Now when a man is a Minister already, there is not this end; If there be not its end, it is to no purpose, an ordinance, or God's name, taken in vain which is against the Third Commandment.  
To this I answer, as clearly, I hope, directly, and fully; and shall enlarge upon it after. There are more ends than one in Ordination, as in Baptism and other Institutions; It is not necessary to the taking or using an ordinance that a man be capable of all its ends (I might add, if need were, nor the grand end) so long as there is some right and sufficient end of the same. Ordination (it is said) does not install a man in his office, but gives a man his commission and authority, that is, it must be meant, does not only do this; for it necessarily does the first, whether it does the last or not. I will suppose then, it does no less. It makes a man a Minister (I say I suppose this, not grant it) and also signifies him to be such before men. It gives the office and also it makes a man to be received as such in the Church where he is sent, which is a matter of great weight and open importance, as I shall say more about it. Now I am fixed here; Though we that are Ministers already, cannot be ordained to the one end, which is supposed the most common (our case being peculiar); yet are we, may we, and, for any thing I know (if required) ought we to be ordained again for the other. The common and general end of Baptism was for remission of sins, yet was Jesus Christ baptised, who was not capable of that end (but some others). The common end of Ordination is for the office (as is supposed); yet if the Bishop shall say here, Why comest thou to be ordained? Thou hast no need that art a Minister already. I will answer him humbly in my Saviour's words, Suffer it so to be now for it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness, It becometh us to conform to the peace unity and government of the Church, as well as State (so far as we can) in the Nation.  
St Paul is made a Minister by Christ himself; Mark the words well, for they are beyond dispute, I have appeared to thee for this purpose to make thee a Minister. And now I send thee to the Gentiles to open their blind eyes, etc. Act. 26.16, 17, 18. And yet is he ordained after by the hands of men, Act. 13.3. Will any man say that the imposition of hands did make him a Minister, or confer his office? That were not only against that text, but such a manifest wrong he will never put up, who in express terms stands upon it, that he was an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Christ Gal. 1.1. which is the truth. 'Tis plain then, that a man who is a Minister already, may be ordained; or that it is not necessary to be ordained only to this end, to have the office conferred on him. And now then my Friend that art in my case, do thou tell the Bishop, thou art a Minister already; Be sure thou dost not renounce thy former ordination, and consequently (as much as in thee lies) all thy ministerial acts passed (together with thy consent to the Reformed Churches) for any thing; If he shall thereupon ask thee, wherefore then wilt thou be ordained? Say, To this end, this very end, St. Paul here was ordained, let it be what it will, it is that alone I come for; which indeed in effect is nothing else but the canonical stamp of allowance, or Establishment of thy former vocation; and as for the bare Ceremonies itself twice using, which alone is left to be excepted at, value it not. Who does not know that imposition of hands with prayer is used for Confirmation, as well as Ordination?  
I will advance here on further; The reason of a precept is to be looked on as the precept; To perform a precept against the reason of it, is to break it; To do according to the reason, though not according to the precept, is to keep it; We have no precept in Scripture for Re-ordination; but we have here, in this instance, the reason of it. Let any one tell me the reason of this imposition of hands upon Paul by Lucius and Niger, who could not be made a Minister by man seeing Christ had appeared to him (as is said) for that purpose before; & I will presume to give the same or the like, for our re-ordination by the Bishop. If you say, Here was a command of the Holy Ghost. It is true: but that takes not away the reason of the rite; the thing must have its due end, and reason, but the rather, for that.  
What then is the reason indeed hereof? Is it for to give the ministerial office and nothing else? Surely if it does that at all (which one may think God alone does by the warrant of his word upon his enabling gift, and the man's Consent); Yet is not this the reason altogether for certain, because here is an instance to the contrary, let any man cavil at it what he can. What is the reason then? Why, really, I think it is this. This solemn rite does give the currant repute, or valuation, to a man of a Minister; so that he who was truly called of God before, is now received as such, by all, as to the exercise of his function with freedom and acceptation; And this is that authority alone I count the Bishop gives (at least as to us) in those words, Take thou authority etc. To wit an authority of esteem in regard of men, who many will not, and many perhaps out of conscience misled, cannot, hold me for a true, or legal Minister otherwise? And hereupon you see, upon what ground it is we go in Re-ordination) and that is no other, than the very reason itself of Ordination; which, believe it, is not a little matter, even no less than that of the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, namely, the very course and glorifying of our Gospel, which ought to be, I think, one of the greatest Concernments to us in the world.  
To be short then, for we are now at the bottom; Forasmuch as our former ordination by the Presbytery though it be good according to God, and consequently such as ought to give us this reputation (or outward authority) as Ministers (which is the reason of ordaining) yet does not do it and reach its end, in our Church, by reason of the times (and perhaps according to the ancient Laws) as they are now changed, and like to stand: I argue, where the reason of the precept is repeated, who can deny, nay who dare refuse, the repetition of the duty?  
And here the prime knot of the whole difficulty is also loosed, which is this. We on one hand dare not but own out former Ordination as valid for our ministerial acts passed: On the other hand, if we own the first as valid, what room can there be for a second? There must be some sense therefore, wherein it is to be conceived not valid, null, or rather (as the case truly is) nullified (as to some considerable intents) or else a second ordination does nothing but what is done, which is absurd. I answer therefore directly. The validity of our former Ordination accipitur dupliciter. This is what is clear, and so may seem easy to you, found; but cost me many thoughts to frame and find. This validity I say, is to be taken either in regard of what it ought to do; or in regard of what it does do, as I have said; It would be fuller, if I could say, In regard of what it ought to do according to the Law of God; and in regard of what it does do, according to the law of our Church or Land: wherein I am not so well-skilled, as to speak surely. In the first regard, (to wit, of what it ought to do) we stand upon it, to be valid or good; we profess that, that alone is such, according to Scripture, as aught to give us the repute and full reception as Ministers, by all persons, and to all intents and purposes whatsoever: But in the second regard, (to wit, of what it does do) we yield it is not valid, we acknowledge it indeed, hereby (not to be so); It does not do this, 'tis true; it is that we perceive, and know, and complain of: what through error in some, and wilfulness and injury in others, they render it to us as null (both as to the main, and special effects) so that it will not any longer serve the turn, or end (through the stream of the times, how happy soever otherwise) to give our Ministry its free course (the marrow of all); and upon that account, are we ordained again. Which being, I say, the reason (or one main reason, at least) of this rite itself, it is substantially satisfactory (and I suspect, also obligatory) for our yielding to the same. And thus do I avoid both the sin on one hand, of disowning our first Orders; and the Soloecism on the other, of doing only what is done in our last. When yet I should have thought this matter might have passed pretty well at first, if it had been but so determined, as to be (if men would) some kind of Soloecism, but no sin.  
You have the body of this main Objection; I shall now proceed to the limbs of some farther scruples.  
Object. Ordination is our entrance into the Ministry; How can a man have a double entrance into the same state?  
Answ. Besides that this is taken off, in the reason of the thing (as to its foundation) I return; So is Marriage, an entrance into the conjugal estate. Suppose a couple married only by the Magistrate, and as to some considerable effect, their marriage is in question, Who would doubt, but upon such, or any other serious cause for it, they may be married again by the Book of Common Prayer? And why not upon this very reason? Because, there is nothing else in it, but only, that that Form which is compiled in the Book, for the entering, or (what is the truth) signifying the entrance of two persons into wedlock, is now used, to signify these to be entered, or confirming them legally in that estate, which it will do as well, as enter them at first? Who will say, it is a sin, or transgression, to use it so? A great piece of matter, and mis-usage, is it not? Apply the same here, and if any will condemn us for the like use of the form of ordering Priests, let them include the multitudes, that have been so married in these times, and take heed, they can answer it before the lord Who art thou that judgest thy Brother? Rom. 14.10. Indignum est (says the Father) ut propter ea qua nos Deo, neque digniores neque indigniores possunt facere, alii alios vel condemnemus, vel judicemus.  
Object. Ordination is not a naked sign, only to declare a man a Minister before men; but there is grace implored; we are recommended to God's grace, and we are to suppose grace accompanying of it; Now, Is not the being twice ordained, a kind of offering an indignity to the grace of God?  
Answ. If we look into 1 Cor. 15.10. we have footing for a distinction of Grace; I laboured, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. There is therefore the grace of God in us; or, with us; That grace which is implored, unto which we are committed, and may expect from this solemnity, is, I take it, the grace of God with us, the assistance and blessing of God upon us for our work; which being what we may always pray for, or what is continually vouchsafed; I hope there is no more evil here, than the bidding several times, God speed, or, blessing our friends in the Name of the Lord more than once. It was no ways derogatory to the divinity of Pharaohs first Dream, that it was seconded by another; For that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice, it is, because the thing is established by God. By the way, A second Ordination then, by various persons and rites, destroys not the first, but is an Establishment; the title by which I have chosen to call it.  
Object. But there is a gift given by Ordination, which is in us. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. with 2 Tim. 1.6. And that gift, it is likely, can be received but once.  
Answ. It is probable, that this gift was something extraordinary, and peculiar to Timothy. Because; 1. It was given him by this ceremony (as is thought) according to the miraculous gifts, of those times. 2. He was an extraordinary Officer, an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. or at least, a singular person. 3. It is given him by Oracle. 4. There is no mention of such a gift, in the Ordination of any other. If so, this objection is quite taken off from us: If not, but the Gift is ordinary, it will concern us; And what then is it (let us search) that is conferred by this Rite?  
It is not the grace of God (gratum faciens) or saving grace; for that is not tied to this means. Nor is it the Original talon, Endowment, Parts, or Abilities for the Ministry; for those are tried, and to be found first in the party to be ordained, and therefore not given hereby. Nor should it be the Office itself (one may judge) because 1. What need is there, the word Gift should be taken Metonymically, when it may be taken properly? 2. How can the Office be said, to be stirred up (Stir up the gift that is in thee, says the second Text) which is proper of the grace to discharge it? 3. That which is yet harsher, How can it be said of the Office, The Gift that is in thee? It is proper to say, a man is in his Office; but to say, a man; Office is in him, seems strange. 4. If it be thought, the office must necessarily be conferred by this rite, it is false; in our instance of Paul for certain, and Barnabas likely. Haec manu●m impositto non eò spectabat ut Episcopalem gratiam cis largiretur; sed (docente Scripturâ) ut segregarentur in opus, & commendarentur gratiae Dei, Mason. de Min. Ang. p. 46. If it be thought, it may and does confer it, where it is not before, that shall be still supposed by me, though not granted, nor conceived.  
Suppose it then, seeing it is the most current sense, that by this gift is meant Docendi Officium, as our London Divines, with Anselm, Thomas, Cajetane, Gerson, Bucer; or, what is all one, Authority, Power, and Commission for this Office and work, as our Book of Orders, Take thou authority to Preach the Word, and Minister the Sacraments. Ordo, est Sacrum quoddam, quo spiritualis potestas traditur Ordinato & Officium, says Lombard. Now then, the question will be this only, at the highest, Whether an Authority or Commission to an Office or work, in the nature of the thing, may be renewed and refreshed? And there is one instance alone to this point, may I think, pluck the superstitious doubt up by the root from the heart. It is this; The Apostles beyond question, had Mission, and Commission, and so this gift, (whatsoever it is) from Christ, when he made their Ministers in his life: and yet we find them Commission, or Authority ministerial renewed expressly again after Christ's Resurrection. Joh. 20.21, 22, 23. Which herein hath the more support in it, (modo liceat) that it is the same form which is used to us, without repetition. Mr. Calvin, upon the forecited Text, understands by this Gift only, that, through the Prayers of the Church, Grace (to wit, gratis data) is impetrated on the ordained: and speaking of Timothy, Certum est, & doctrinà (says he) & aliis dotibus priù eum excelluisse. And so, I hope, there is no scruple, how more talents, and a blessing still from God may be repeated and fresh sought. I will lean upon the instance mentioned, and suppose you can hardly raise an Objection,  to the thing, but that may be turned artificially to it.  
It may be said, The Apostles were sent only before to the Jews; now they are sent to the Gentiles, and so there is need of a new Commission (for a new, it seems to be by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 16.19. in the future tense, pointing to the time in John). I return then, There is the office of the Apostleship, and the use of that Office in a farther place, (even unto all Nations). Though they had Commission already belike for the one, this does not hinder, but they may have a new (or renewed) for the other. So state I the Re-ordaineds case: They are Ministers already; but for the use of their Ministry, as to the place, or farther service, whereunto they shall be called, Who shall forbid the like to them? If you scruple here, I have no new work, or new place: Yet you may re-mind our instance of Paul before, who was sent by Christ at first to the Gentiles at large, and yet is ordained again after, and sent to the same.  
Let this dilemma, at least serve thy turn; If thou keepest thy place, and thy conscience here is weak, the Act for Confirmation of Ministers, secures thee upon thy Ordination thou hast: If thou art turned out, or hast a safe Call by Providence to a new place, thou mayst have a peculiar Ordination to that work. See besides the former instance, Act. 11. with Act. 13.2. and assure thyself, it is light when the Sun is up. This were an account upon which the re-ordained haply, and re-ordained both, might be justified. And then, if, besides an Ordination in general, to set apart a man for his Office, there may be a particular, to recommend him to the grace of God for his work in another place, Why may not this be distinguished upon need, as to the same place also? Thou must have, me thinks, but narrow thoughts of the Scripture, and the Author of it, if thou thinkest, that the continuance of thy Ministry, or the Parrhesia only, or full liberty thereof for the Lord, will not bear thee out for such a matter. I choose for ourselves the largest Foundation.  
Before I pass hence, though, I cannot hear but put a difference between the authority which Christ gave his Disciples, whose Prerogative it is, to make his own Officers, and the authority man gives; As when it is said, The Saints shall judge the world; Divines say, that is, by approving (as Assessors) Christ's sentence: So I take it, do men make Ministers, by approving Christ's call. There is then the spiritual inward power and commission for my office toward God. Ordination, I suppose, gives not this character; but it lies plainly, I judge, in these three things, Institution, Ability, and Consent: to wit, Christ hath appointed such an Office to be; furnishes a man with endowments for that Office; and gives him a will, so that he dedicates himself thereupon to that work. Here is Christ's call. And what then doth man, but upon trial, finding this so, he approves, and declares him a Minister, by the solemnity of Ordination, and so adds to him, an authority towards man, he had not before. Let us know then, (and not be in the dark any longer); It is Christ still gives us our Office (thou must hold thy Office from him certainly, if thou art Christ's Minister) and Man gives us repute. Believe it, the Essence of this outward authority, or call, which is all at last, that dare be assumed and ascribed to Orders indeed (if men know once what it is) lies there: Ordination, for certain, is in its nature, a recommending us to the grace of God for our work, Act. 13.2. with chap. 14.26. And why might not any few good Ministers, or private Congregation (which were absurd and insolent) do this; but that this repute or valuation, to all intents, as Ministers, is to be attained by that solemnity?  
And after this, I do begin to be persuaded, That this gift in Timothy, (though there be something else yet hangs in my mind) is indeed, to be understood of his Office, (especially seeing this is the sense, you may think, most opposite to me) which will appear mainly by that Text, 1 Tim. 1.18. This charge I commit to thee son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare. This warfare (compare it with 2 Tim. 2.4.) is his Ministry. Hence I argue, (I can't say surely) what was given Timothy by Prophecy, was his Ministry. But this gift, is that, which was given him by Prophecy. Therefore, this gift is his Ministry. Well now, upon this supposition, you see, how Timothy's Ministry, or Office is given him: The objected Text says expressly, by Prophecy. What that means, the other Text doth illustrate, to wit, by Revelation; no otherwise, then when the Holy Ghost bid, Separate me Paul and Barnabas, in the Acts. If God, then by express call, gives him his Office, when it is added, With the hands of the Presbytery, it can be only as in the parallel instance, by the way of a declarative assent, allowance, or confirmation.  
And now, I hope, the vizard of this uncouth thing, Re-ordination, does fall off: For is it indeed so against reason, and all example? Is it such a Goblin, to be re-ordained, think you truly? What if I muster upon you, now at last? The Apostles were re-ordained, Paul re-ordained, Barnabas re-ordained, and perhaps Timothy also. Let not your eyes, I pray, be holden, if it be so in good earnest. Those Divines (say the Provincial Assembly) define Ordination very well, that define it to be, Missio potestativa. You see, I speak not at the lowest. Well then, The Apostles have one Authorative Mission, Mat. 10.7. and they have another also, Matth. 28.19. Joh. 20.21. They are doubly ordained then, and both Ordinations extraordinary. Paul hath Mission Potestative, from Christ, Act. 26. And yet hath an open Ordination also by men, Act. 13. He is re-ordained, and one Ordination is extraordinary, and the other, ordinary. Barnabas hath Mission from the Church of Jerusalem, Act. 11.22. (and authoritative, no doubt) and another also with Paul, by them at Antioch. Here is double Ordination, and both ordinary by men. I may stop here, for I have enough. Who will not be ready to say, Give me but one instance of this thing in Scripture, and I am satisfied? Lo here, is two or three for you: Nihil est tam certum, quàm quod ex dubio certum est. And yet, what if I add? The Bishop hath no new order, or office from a Priest, and yet hath he a new Consecration without scruple. I will fold up this paper then with St. Cyprian. Non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit; sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus priùs fecerit: neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Lib. 2. Caecil. Epist. 3.   

SECT. V  
A Third Objection, is this, To be re-ordained, does seem, virtually to renounce our former Ordination: and for any to do so, (at least, for me; after twelve years Ministeral acts) were, I think, not only a light thing, but a heavy sin: Besides, it seems to be a kind of departure from our station, and leaving the Presbytery, which makes a man look like one of the Lapsi, to some folks thinking.  
For answer to this; I do not know, what others may judge in their consciences; but as for myself, I am humbly persuaded, That so long as a man doth clearly, and unfeignedly, both before and after (unto the concerned) as he hath occasion, declare himself to the contrary, this will not by the Lord, and ought not by Man, to be laid to his charge; and that upon this evident reason: Because, Expression in this case, does give Construction to the Action. The denomination must be à fortiori; and there can be no doubt to the ; Whether a manifest declaration by mouth, or a dumb show, or act, is the clearer (and so the stronger) signification: You may take one full instance, in the matter of the Reubenites, when they erected an Altar, Josh. 22. The body of Israel presently rise up, and look upon this as a renunciation of their Religion: Hereupon, they do but make direct profession, That they had not built this Altar for Sacrifice, but for a witness, and you see presently all are pacified; the Altar stands, and there is no more said against it. Besides, there is this here takes out the coat, that the thing is generally conceived (as if already they knew your mind) to be Necessity, Form, and Establishment only, and no such matter in the least, as Renunciation, intended by it.  
Doubt. What if my Bishop is of opinion, That my former Ordination is null, and Ordains me in his mind only on that account; Will not that opinion of his, render me uncapable to be re-ordained by him?  
Answ. If, notwithstanding his opinion, he gives thee liberty to declare thyself, there is no reason (thy conscience being discharged) for thee, to imagine his opinion should hinder thee herein any more, than the intention of the Priest in the matter of the Sacraments.  
Quest. But what shall I declare? That I come not for a new Ordination, but a legal confirmation of my former?  
Answ. Of your former Call, or Ministry, if you will; The dream itself of Pharaoh, is not said, to be confirmed by a second; but the thing signified, was established by both. For, to be a little accurate here; Though as to others, in sensu vulgari, (and to speak only as a Divine) my former Ordination, may be said hereby, to be confirmed, yet in sensu peculiari, as to the Bishop himself, this opinion of his, makes it not properly a confirmation (Confirmare est rem firmam facere; there must be res, before it be made firm, which he holds null) but his Act (as Lawyers speak) works by way of Estoppel; so that he (nor any of his judgement) shall be able to implead my Ministry for the future: which is all one for the doing, and notrendring the thing vain, as if it were a confirmation in the most proper, and formal sense in the world.  
Nevertheless, as for my Call, or Ministry itself; in the very nature of the thing, it is hereby confirmed, so that, I have thereupon, the free use thereof in our Church, for which I come. Care not thou therefore for words, but declare thy mind plainly, That Presbyterial Ordination is good in the sight of God, as thou believest; that thou hast not acted basely without Orders hitherto; and yet, in regard the times require it, thou submittest for the Gospel sake to these other also, that will pass. This is enough: and then, I must tell thee, that the thing itself is Confirmation. Ordination (I count) is a Confirmation of a man's call from Christ to the Ministry, (which is, his Commission coram Deo) by the solemn God-speed, allowance, or approbation of such who are of authority, to give a man the reputation of a Minister (where lies potestas coram hominibus) to its due intents, in the Church where he is sent. That I think, were a true, and almost full definition. And forasmuch then, in regard of the full current of the times, you see wherein you may look upon your first Orders, though true, to be null in certain respects, without ever the less esteem of them indeed, or injury to them, and with the Presbyterians leave too, I trow; you have clear room and ground for submission to Re-ordination, as in the Paper before.  
And indeed, while thy Bishop, and perhaps many other good men, and, it may be, some of the chief of thy own Parish are of this mind, That while thou hast no other hands laid on thee, than such of thy own degree, thou art not a Minister at all, or such a one as thou oughtest to be; and so perhaps they sorrowfully, but silently get others to do some Ministerial acts for them, and there grows strangeness towards thee, and they grieve for it; besides the like and worse effects: Who does not see here, That this thing is a matter of more consequence, than thou couldst at first think of: and if thereupon, thou yieldest to the remedy, thou dost not go beyond (nor so far as) the Apostles own pattern, who became all things to all men, (as especially in the case of Timothy) even to these ends only, the magnifying his Ministry, and that he might gain some; and who hath also left us a clear precept with his example, Rom. 15.2. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his edification. And here I may propose ex abundanti this farther, Whether an irrefragable argument, may not be drawn from the Apostles use of Circumcision upon any, after the Resurrection of Christ, to prove that an Ordinance may be used, without breach of the third Commandment, or other sin, even then, when it cannot be directed to its principal, no, not its proper end; so long as it will but attain one higher than all, to wit, The promotion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus?  
I will therefore now call the Reubenites instance again to mind, craving leave to make so much use thereof in the close, as humbly likewise (after this) to declare our case. There are many of us, who have been some years' fellow Soldiers with our Brethren; we cannot find it in our hearts, to be lawful, to give ourselves a discharge in this war, which were so pleasing to the flesh, upon a pretence that will not hold with the Lord; and hereupon we have been content to be farther engaged, and submit in this thing. Now the Lord God, the Lord God of Gods knows, we have not done this to erect an Altar against an Altar, one Ordination against another; we have not done it in rebellion, or renuntiation thereunto; but rather for fear of this thing, that in time to come (or that now is) they should say, What have you to do with the Lord God of Israel, or with his Ministry, that are not ordained according to the fashion of the Land? and so they shall make us cease from our service of him; Therefore said we, that it shall be when they should say so to us, that we may say again, Behold the pattern, of your own orders for a witness between us and you, that we have our part also in the Lord, and how much we desire accommodation. And now, I hope, that Phineas himself, the Highpriest, and all our pious and tender Brethren, when they have heard these words, will be pleased, and let us pass with that blessing; This day, we perceive, that God is among us, because you have not committed this trespass against the Lord.  
For the second part of the Objection. It hath pleased God, by his Providence, to call us universally to change, and it is not the interest now of good men to be stiff, and dividing, but to be finding out the most conscionable grounds of compliance, as far as ever they can, with one another. It would have been ingenuous, I think, (for the case of Bancroft, and the Scotch Presbyters is known) if Episcopacy, would by some general act of Confirmation, have waved Ordination past; but, if she deal, me thinks, (against her nature) Pedantically, not generously, not catholicly herein, it will become us yet, (who are the parties thus ordained, and properly concerned) to be fair. We know what is her chief flower; something must be yielded to her, if we would have her part with any thing again; and so long as we may declare our own sense, and escape the sin, we are to compromise the matter for ourselves, by bringing our conscience toward God, and submission to her, unto composition. If a second Ordination, did necessarily, in the fact, imply a renunciation of the first; what a heinous thing had it been for Paul to be ordained after by men, that was made a Minister immediately by Christ? Assure yourself therefore, most firmly from the former Paper, about that matter.  
For my part, I will confess, although I am one that cannot be looked on, as engaged to the Presbytery, any more than to have been ordained by them; yet am I so held under the conviction of the power and life of godliness in some of that sort of men, above many others; that I cannot let Naomi go easily, and much less, part with her with any indignity. When these good men (or party) were high, I could not fall in with them: Now they are down, my spirit, like Ruth, is more ready to cleave to them. Nevertheless, as for their way, and particular government, I cannot choose but retain my freedom, and be apt to understand with those, that give us the greatest latitude unto agreement and concord in the Nation, To which end, that tenant of Whitgift, (Def. Ad. p. 78, 83, 98.) to my thinking, does conduce. It is true, that nothing ought to be tolerated in the Church as necessary to Salvation, or as an Article of Faith, except it be contained in the Word of God. It is true also, That nothing in Ceremonies, Order, Discipline, or Government in the Church, is to be suffered, being against the Word. But that no Ceremony, Order, Discipline, or kind of Government, may be in the Church, except the same be expressed in the Word of God, is an absurdity, and breedeth many inconveniences. For we know, (says Calvin) that every Church hath liberty to ordain, and appoint such a Form of Government as is apt and profitable for it, because the Lord hath therein prescribed no certainty: upon 1 Cor. 11.2. as he quotes him.  
To proceed on this subject, I have in my second Paper, and second Proposition, set down certain Texts, which according to St. Jerome, at large on the first of Titus, do plead the identity of a Presbyter and a Bishop, and from him made use of by others. Now I will take a Note or two thereon, which will come in fitly here, as the farthest way perhaps about, but the nearest way home of saying something to purpose in this business.  
The one Note is this; that, As those places on one hand do shake Episcopacy, if pressed strictly, Jure Divino: So do they on the other hand go farther, and take the Lay-Elder clean away; which while some have pressed as strictly in Presbytery, it would not pass. A Presbyter (or Elder) is all one with a Bishop in Scripture: But there was never heard of a Lay-Bishop, (a Lay-Pastor) and consequently, no Lay-Elder; I mean, as to ruling Ecclesiastically in Ecclesiastical affairs; for if there were any, as to deciding of quarrels, to prevent the brethren's going to Law, (according to 1 Cor. 6.) that, I suspect, was all. When there are no qualifications laid down by the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3. where he directs about the making Church officers, but only of the Bishops and Deacons, as it cuts off the Bishop from being a distinct Order from the Presbyter, so does it quite cut away the Lay-Elder.  
For that controverted place therefore, 1 Tim. 5.17. (which as it is urged, in the Divine right of Church government, did hold me under conviction, until this light, of the Presbyter being one with the Bishop, was clearer than it). I will give you my interpretation; And the rather, because neither of the many, which Erastus, Field, Bilson, Downam, Mead, Sutliffe, or others, have invented, to wave that Text against Presbytery, could satisfy me; as perhaps this of mine may not likewise satisfy others. Such as it is however, you shall have it. The Bishop and Elder, I have said, are one office, the one name only signifying Industriam curae pastoralis, the other Sapientiae maturitatem, as Henderson out of Bede: This office is to rule, and preach; Ruling and preaching are the inseparable parts of the same, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. Heb. 13.7. I speak quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whatsoever it be sometimes quoad exercitium. Now there are some, more able for one part of their office, and some more able for the other. Those that are eminent in either, the Apostle would have to be encouraged, or rewarded accordingly. Let them have double honour, that is, Not, as some do fond gloss it, two things, Reverence, and Maintenance; for the next verse to this, tells us what honour he certainly means; such as when otherwhere, he says, Honour widows; that is, Maintenance, or provision for them; and double honour, is, more maintenance than others.  
The Emphasis then for the Interpretation, does lie on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not to be construed barely bené but pulchrè, egregiè, eminentèr, (that is the genuine signification of the word, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉). And this being put in the beginning emphatically, to the first branch, will appear easily to him, that ponders the Greek Text, that it must be understood again in the latter, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scilicet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also. Here then plainly is the meaning. Those Ministers that are more eminent than others, are to have more encouragement, honour or maintenance above others, that is, double honour: whether they are eminent in one part of their Office, or in the other, in ruling, or in preaching, but especially, if they are eminent in preaching.  
The other note I must add in the behalf of Episcopacy: for if I know any thing by my own heart, it does love integrity, which is the speaking, as nothing but what I find in it, so the whole I find there. When I have said above, that, the identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture does shake Episcopacy, if it be held Jure divino, strictly; I must confess also, if it be held so only at large, there does some impressions, ever since my deliberate reading of the Conference at the Isle of Wight, remain upon me for it, By a Jus divinum I understand vulgarly, justum & jussum in the Word of God. It is true, there is no superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter in Scripture, because they were all one then, two words for the same thing; but yet there is a superiority and inferiority in the Scripture among the Ministers in the Church. The Bishop's superiority is not jure divin●; but I say, Superiority is jure divino. The twelve Apostles were above the Seventy. God hath set some in his Church, first, secondarily, thirdly, etc. 1 Cor. 10.28. Now while the Church had her extraordinary Officers, it did suffice, that this superiority and inferiority was terminated, or lodged in those divers orders; but when that which was extraordinary, was done away, and there remained only one Order (the Pastor and Teacher) of the four (Ephes. 4.11.) there was in the Church before; then must the superiority & inferiority of the preaching Ministry, or Priest, quite fall: or else the Authority of the Church must interpose, and make a difference of degree in identity of order; and so the names of Bishop and Presbyter being sit for the turn, were prudently distinguished by pious antiquity, and mad use of for it. For man to create a new officer, or another order in his Lord's house, which himself hath not set there, (1 Cor. 12.28.) cannot, I doubt, be taken well by him. But to put a difference only of degree, or to double the dignity as well as maintenance, (1 Tim. 5.17.) to some above others in the same office, is not like to be at all against his will.  
Now then, if you ask me, Is Episcopacy jure divino, or no? I answer, If you take this largely, it is; because superiority, and inferiority in the Preaching Ministry of the Church, is of Christ, and the Scripture. If you take it strictly, it is not; because the distinction of a Bishop and Presbyter is not of Scripture; but this disparity of degree in the same order, is assumed by man, as consonant to the will of God, in general, and necessary to government. To be more short; Inequality for order's sake in the Ministry, is of divine; the mode, or fashion thereof in Episcopacy, is of Ecclesiastical, institution.  
It appears in the Epistles to Timothy, and Titus, that Paul writes to them after such a rate, that does signify very plainly, an authority in them over the Elders and Deacons in their Churches. How does he tell Timothy of his abiding at Ephesus, to charge some, that they teach no other doctrine? Why does he lay down qualifications of the Pastor and Deacon, what they ought to be, and do? What are the duties of other men to him, but upon this account? Wherefore does he bid him, Rebuke an Elder: And how shall he receive an accusation against him by witness, if he had not an inspection, and power of Jurisdiction, over them? And these things I writ, (says he) that thou mightst know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the Church of God. Again, Do nothing by partiality. Who does not see here, Episcopus pastorum as well as gregis? Who will not confess a pre-eminence of Authority in Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, over the Ministers there, that is not compatible with every common Presbyter? You may believe it the rather, because our Divines at the Conference mentioned, never denied it. That which is answered, is this; That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists: But in the mean time, the thing itself, and matter contended for, is found in Scripture, and granted to be practised by these two men. And what if they had lived and died where Paul left them, in the exercise of this Authority? Had the continuance thereof, changed the nature, and made it evil? Was it lawful for them to exercise such a power and jurisdiction for a year? and had it been unlawful, if they had exercised it ten, or for their lives? If it had not, there is the whole thing which is disputed for, in a fixed Bishop. Here then, I take up, and distinguish; There is the matter itself of Episcopacy, and the form or mode of it. The matter appears to have its warrant in God's Word: The form, which is the breaking a single order (to wit, the order of the Pastor) into two degrees in that order, and, upon the ceasing of the Evangelist, an higher order, the placing his work so far as it is ordinary, and continues necessary to the Church's welfare, upon the superior degree of the Pastor so divided, is indeed of man's authority and contrivance. Let then the Bishop remember, that as he is Pastor, the Ministers also are Pastors by God, whose office as to their own flock, is to rule and to teach, as well as his. Let him beware for his life, he does not un-pastor the lower degree; but think rather, how good is help like to be unto burden and work; And then, forasmuch as the timber of Episcopacy is cut out of Scripture, though the structure itself, and whole rearing of it up be of man, and that varied according to places and times; I see no reason, but the Presbyterian himself may yield to it, with good satisfaction. Will you hear the Learned Fathers own arbitration? Sicut Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine, ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos: ita Episcopi noverint, se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Deminicae veritate, Presbyteris esse majores; & in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Mosen, qui cùm haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel, Septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret.   

SECT. VI  
I Have not digressed, as I may seem, in the preceding Paper; yet shall I return more directly on the point, to that which remains, that is, the fourth and last Objection. I did not think at first of writing half thus much; but lo here, how my ink, like the waters, rise upon me, that there are some few Scruples not yet passed over. And after this, especially my fourth Paper, What is there more in the ransack of my soul, that all the superstition which is there, can rake up farther against this thing? Truly, I find there is something yet methinks sticks, about that gift mentioned with laying on of hands in Timothy, with a passage (put them together) I have met with lately out of St. Gregory. Sicut baptizatus semel, iterum baptizari non debet; ita qui consecratus est semel, in eodem iterum ordine, non debet consecrari. Here is argumentum à Simili. Let my misgiving thoughts for a while work upon it.  
Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation into Christianity: So, haply, Ordination into the Ministry. In Baptism, there is the spiritual grace and outward rite: In Ordination, there is an outward rite, and likely this spiritual gift. To every function, there is a gift apt for the discharge of it, annexed to it, and given (when God please) with it. Why is not Imposition of hands a sign and seal of this gift in the Ministry, as washing with water of grace in baptism? Ceremonia hac est primùm (says Calvin) ex Scripturis sumpta, deinde quam non esse inanem nec supervacuam, sed fidele spiritualis gratiae symbolum, testatur Paulus. Inst. l. 4. c. 19 §. 28. And what if Ordination hereupon be a very perfect Sacrament, as Baptism is? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Chrysostom of Baptism on Heb. 6.6. Adverte quàm illud tremendum sit, & quantum valeant Pontificum impositae manus? says Theophylact of Ordination, on 1 Tim 4.14. In the Council of Nice, the 19th Canon, where I read of Re-ordination, it is in such a case only, that required also rebaptisation; and in Concilio Capuano, vi rebaptizationes, ita re-ordinationes sunt prohibitae, Baron. an. 389. n. 74. quoted by Mason de Min. Ang. p. 170. In short, a man cannot be born twice, or twice regenerate, no more can he be twice baptised, and consequently neither twice ordained. Here is the Herculean pillars, and I guests, the non ultrà of my doubts.  
For answer whereunto, I shall premise one thing, that the Conscience is solely God's Prerogative; and, as it cannot, so we ought not to suffer it, to be bound by the authority of man (I mean, so far as to make any matter in itself sin) where it is left free by his Word. Let that of St. Jerome, to this purpose, be heeded, Quod de Scriptures authoritatem non habet, eadem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur. This premised, the Solution here, does lie in the rejecting such apprehensions as these, which are too high strained, and not consonant to the received Doctrine of the Protestants, who admit only two Sacraments upon grand reason, and that there cannot therefore be a parity of Ordination with Baptism, as I have framed. To unravel the same then, let me take a little scope. There are three things (say our Divines) must go to a Sacrament; Symbolum externum, divina institutio, and promissio gratiae. For the first, it is manifest in Ordination. For the second, an authentic Divine hath these words: Licèt nullum extet certum praeceptum (which yet in 1 Tim. 5.22. is employed, says Walaeus) de manuum impositione; quia tamen fuisse in perpetuo usu Apostolis videmus, illa tam accurata eorum observatio praecepti vice nobis esse debet. Cal. Inst. l. 4. c. 3. §. 16. For the last, promissio gratiae; we must know there is a double grace. The grace of the Covenant (as I may say) and Ministerial grace, that is, endowment for our office to profit others: When Divines tell us of a promise of grace, which must go with the Precept, to make a Sacrament; we are to take Grace still, in the first sense, the grace of the Gospel: and so, No Ceremony, Rite, or Institution (Apostolical, or otherwise) which is not to be received of Christians pro sigillo justitiae fidei, Rom. 4.11. or pro signo gratiae justificantis, that is, which does not signify, consign, and confer to us remission of sins, and salvation upon our believing, can be no Sacrament, in the strict and right notion of it with us.  
For the gift then given to Timothy, which hath come in play before, upon supposition, his office was thereby meant, (for so the Scripture, Rom. 12.6, 7.) calls Ministry, Teaching, gifts) and waved in the sense, that it must now come in again to be considered here, namely, as it may be taken for grace (gratìs data) or a faculty to discharge his office, and so lies still upon our hands: Let us note, that it is said manifestly to be given by Prophecy. By Prophesy no doubt (compared with 1 Tim. 1.18.) is meant divine revelation; If by this gift then, were meant his office, (as the more judicious still hold) it denotes, that Paul was directed by revelation (as we read the like, Act. 13.1, 2.) to ordain Timothy a Minister. Spiritus Sanctus oraculo Timotheum destinaverat ut in ordinem Pastorum co-optaretur, says Calvin in locum. If by the Gift, is meant Grace, Ministerial Grace, or a special talon for his office, then must it import, that Paul was informed by the Spirit of Prophecy (whether in himself, or others) that such a gift, talon, or doubling his talents, would be bestowed on Timothy from God upon this Ceremony, whereupon he lays his hands on him; And than it does appear, that this Text (or Texts) cannot (no more than that, where Christ breathes on his Disciples) afford us a solid ground, to conclude any promise of grace, or gift (such gift) to be annexed to this rite for any others beside him. I say, if Paul does expect this gift, to be given to Timothy upon this action, from revelation, then cannot we ground upon this, any connexion of this gift to the rite, without the like Prophecy going before on us; or some other Scripture, that holds forth the promise thereof to us in the use of the said Ceremony; which seeing we have not, not can be pretended otherwhere, there is left us the pure institution, without any thing at all in it Sacramental, to scare or terrify us in this matter. Similitudo solvitur (says the School) ostensâ dissimilitudine.  
You may say; In the Sacraments, Grace is supposed, and then the outward rite is the sign and seal of it. When Circumcision is said to be the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham, it is said, Which he had before while uncircumcised. So must this Gift be supposed in the person to be ordained, insomuch, that it is to be tried first, and found in him: and understanding it of the talon itself first given, and not of the improvement, This Imposition of hands is tessera minimè fallax ejus gratiae, and cannot be iterated, because Baptism cannot (which is the argument at first) or for the reason only (whatsoever that is) thereof.  
Answ. Let us know clearly, that the bottom of the absurdity, which is conceived in the iteration itself of Baptism by Schoolmen and Fathers, will be found to lie in an opinion flat contrary hereunto; to wit, that the Sacraments confer grace; and consequently initiating grace (or regenerating grace) which is conferred by Baptism, being not possibly to be conferred any more than once, Baptism can be but once: Whereas those Divines, that after Calvin taking the Sacraments only for Confirmations of our Faith, do make Baptism only to sign, signify, and seal the grace which we have, and not confer it, the absurdity is vanished from hence (and must be found out elsewhere): for there is no absurdity at all, to testify, seal, or signify the same grace more than once. The Lord's Supper does signify, seal, and represent the very same benefits of the Covenant (sealed and signified by Baptism) to the believer twenty times over. Those that were circumcised and baptised in john's and Christ's days, had the same initiatory grace sealed and signified to them twice. If this Imposition then of hands, be only symbolum, or tessera, to signify, testify, or declare such a gift, or faculty in a person (already received), there is no absurdity to declare it, and signify it as often as there is good occasion.  
If indeed, the first talon itself, or original gift adapting us for the office, could be tied to this Rite, as the certain means of conferring it (as they thought of Baptismal Regeneration, that it was still conferred by Baptism, and never without it); then were there that absurdity in Re-ordination, as the Schools conceive in Rebaptisation. But seeing, 

1. There is no such promise as annexes this gift to the rite.  
2. It were miraculous, if so given.  
3. It is against universal experience.  
4. This gift it to be found in the ordained, or else they are not to be admitted.  
5. Timothy no doubt was endowed with ability (and that excellent) before, being trained up from a child to the Scripture.  
6. The grace that is obtained hereby (to wit, precibus Ecclesiae, non virtute Signi) is God's grace with us, or blessing upon our studies and work, and increase of talents (if you will) thereupon, and no otherwise.   In short, seeing this is disproved otherwhere, and from the first reason above, which is more especially of force; I do perceive that, that which hath troubled me as an objection, will turn to advantage, and serve but the fuller to lay open the nature of Ordination, which is further needful.  
The truth is, with much beating hereupon, I do see plainly, This solemnity doth both these things; It signifies this gift, and impetrates a blessing. When a man comes to be ordained, he is to be examined; This Examination (if we know what it is), is, whether he hath this Gift, which is his call from God: When this is found, if you will say this solemnity, is a Sacrament hereof, in a large sense, as a visible public sign or token attesting, signifying and declaring this inward invisible Ministerial grace in the person to the Church, for its proper end; Mentem teneas (with Austin) linguam corrigas, it is but the same our Divines say, Ordination is the confirmation of his Call, or may help us well to understand it.  
There is then a double call. A call from men, and the call of God. A man's call from men, lies in their choice of him for their Minister, or his title to a place. Whilst most have been poring upon this outward call by men, the true notion of Ordination hath been out of sight. Hence Dr. Ames (with others commonly) Episcopalis Ordinatio Ministri sine titulo, est aeque ridicula, ac si quis maritus singeretur esse, absque uxore. But it is a specious mistake. A man may be ordained, I think, to the work, as to a place. Heads, and Fellows of Colleges, cannot but be supposed to be ordained without absurdity. There are Teachers as well as Pastors in the Church. The bottom of the misapprehension then, lies here: when these Divines have said well, That Ordination is this declaration only, or confirmation of a man's call, they dream of this outward call only, this call by men, and so are out. The call of God then, in the next place, does lie no doubt in this Gift, apt to discharge the function; Rom. 12.6, 7. Eph. 4.7, 8, 11. 1 Cor. 12.4, 7. Rom. 15.15. Act. 20.28. Jer. 23.21.) a fitness for the Ministry; when God gives a man endowments, with a heart for this service. This is his Call and Commission from Christ, which, it is his Prerogative too only to give. This now, is tried by the Ordainers, The rule is, Lay hands on no man suddenly. That meddles not, I think, (unless occasionally) with the man's title to his Living, but his qualifications, fitness, abilities, whether he hath this inward call, the commission and talon from our Lord, that we may own him as a fellow servant in this work. When this is found, What is Ordination then really, (as hath been before mentioned), but the declaring or approving of the person accordingly, as indeed so called, endowed, and fit, (or, as indeed, commissioned, from the Master himself) by this solemnity? and so hath he not spiritualem potestatem, his Ministerial power and office (which is derived upon him immediately by virtue of Christ's will declared in his Word, that such as are so qualified, should be Officers to him; or rather, lest we be too nice, by virtue of the full call of the Institution, gift, and his consent together) bestowed on him by the hands of man, (for he is the Ambassador alone of Christ and God, and not of men) but confirmed to him hereby: which it does, 1. In recommending him to God for his grace, wherein we believe it, not to be profanus ritus, or inutile signum, but expect accordingly his blessing both upon our studies and our work. 2. In conciliating to him an authority in regard of men, that his Ministry is received thereupon by all in the Church; wherein (let me say) the essence, or quintessence, of all that which dare be arrogated by mortal man, as what he indeed contributes, or does, to the making of a man Christ's Minister, when it is throughly weighed, will be found to lie at last. And thus hath silver the Tower-stamp, and Dignities are made currant by their proper ceremonies and customs, wherein all concerned may take notice of them.  
I suppose now, this being the whole of Ordination, our scruples may end (and that best) in the nature of the thing only; For who is so dull, that he cannot apply this? Nevertheless, in regard that the comparison with Baptism, is that which hath stuck with the most (and may still perhaps) at the bottom, I shall add one thing more, which will fetch that thorn too, quite out; provided you will pardon me, if the Needle be thrust something nearer than I would else, to the quick, for to do it. Let us turn then to the 19 of the Acts, and we shall find there certain Disciples at Ephesus, who were baptised unto John's Baptism: It is like, that Apollo's living there, a diligent Teacher (and knowing only the baptism of john, Act. 18.24, 25.) had baptised them. Now we are to know, that this baptism having the same Author, Mat. 21.25. Matter, Joh. 1.26. Form, Joh. 1.32, 33.34. Ends, Luk. 3.3. And consigning the same Gospel, Mar. 1.3, 4. was but one with Christ's baptism, Eph. 4.5. Paul therefore catechising them herein, thus instructs them; John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying, unto the people, that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, (says he) on Christ Jesus. It follows, when they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Now the question arises here, who are meant by they in the Text? The people unto whom John spoke, or the persons (the twelve men) to whom Paul speaks? not the first certainly, because then must these words [that is, on Christ Jesus] be John's interpretation, when it is plain, he did not know Christ by his name, when he baptised, until Christ himself came to him, joh. 1.30, 31. Who are they then? Why, the last, no doubt. For John, and his Disciples did baptise into one which should come (as it is said here): but it was the Apostles and Christ's Disciples, that baptised expressly, in the name of Christ Jesus.  
To wave this, some learned men (as Dr. Whitgift) do accept calvin's interpretation, who by baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, would have meant, Baptised with the Holy Ghost. The learned Annotations of the Assembly, seeing this quite incredible, would have invented this other way; but I will set you down Mr. Diodates very faithful Annotation. After Paul had largely instructed them, touching the correspondence of John with Christ, they formally were baptised in the name of Christ; for there was no inconvenience to confirm John's extraordinary baptism, with the ordinary and more express baptism of Christ, seeing God would have them who had received the old seal of the Covenant, namely, Circumcision, to receive the new one of Baptism.  
From this place then, I shall advance this truth, that quite rids the whole doubt, at least as to the heinousness (in hand) of our conceit, in this matter; that, Notwithstanding the universal judgement and currant practise of the Church for single baptism, be not impeached, but stands good in thesi: yet is there, or rather hath there been (for I will speak sure) some particular reason in hypothesi, that even this very Sacrament itself of baptism (from whence all our dread arises) might be twice received, in some case, by the same persons without sin; and that when their first too remains valid, and not to be renounced, or held null, but only some farther end and confirmation, is obtained by the repetition. I shall not need to make application to our case, but I will conclude; If this most solid and judicious Interpreter last quoted, accounts it no inconvenience, to confirm John's baptism by baptising these men again formally (as he speaks) in the Name of Christ: I hope then, there is no sting left us à pari, but we may resolve more freely (whose case at this time is particular) that there is no inconvenience neither (unless perhaps less) for us to confirm our Ordination by Presbytery (or rather, former Ministry) by being formally (as he has it) or Episcopally ordained again to that purpose: So that, as we are verè, rectè, secundùm Scripturas, quoad substautiam already, we may also become legalitèr, ritè, secundùm Canon's, & quoad circumstantias & accidentia, (to wit, secundum consuetudinem nostram & ritus Ecclesiae; Ordained Ministers of our Church in this Nation. In short, if you will, we had before Ordinationem legitimam, and so there needs no other to be required; but having it not legitimè, (or Canonicè,) I think, without laying stress though, on these terms, both for the comparisons sake, as our grounds before) if another be required, a man may without sin submit to it.  
For those worthy Episcopal Divines, that will say, Presbyterial Ordination is vera, but not legalis, non tamen iteranda (as Bishop Carlton) I will understand them, that they account as I do, where there is this, it suffices by the Word of God so as there is no need of other, if men would: But if any will take them so, that in no case there may be no other; Let them take heed, them do not make more sin and law then God hath made.  
When a thing is good in its self, the repetition can be evil only in being superfluous, or more than needs; Now I say, though as to the part of our Rulers, who might take the opinion, that Presbyterial Ordination is valid as former Bishops have done, Re-ordination indeed, is more than needs; (Let them take heed that impose it): Yet, as for our part, when it is plainly stood upon, as it is, it ceases to us, to be more than needs; and then Obedience to Rulers, in things not forbidden by God, is a ground of action. You will say, things indifferent, become prohibited in case of scandal. I answer, there is scandalum datum we know, and scandalum acceptum; Though there be here really (I fear) as to the part of the Requirer, Offence given; yet as to the part of the Submitter (I hope in mercy) it is Offence only taken. I may add more assuredly, we shall indeed give offence, if many of us do otherwise. Cum Romam venio, jejuno Sabbatho; cùm hic sum, non jejuno. Sic etiam tu (says St. Ambrose;) ad quam fortè Ecclesiam veneris, ejus morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo, nec quenquam tibi.   

SECT. VII.  
I Have done, and I hope, you will not think any of these things to be tedious, or out of necessary order; If you do, I remember the Comedian, that there is a negligence sometime to be imitated, rather than an obscure diligence. I must confess, I am tired for once, in digging the metal; whatsoever of it, shall pass the fire when it is tried, may be put into a new mould with less labour, to him that shall have use of it.  
There is one thing only I would propose now at last, as hugely convenient, in my slender opinion, at this season, in regard of the multitudes involved in our case, as also for such as may come over at any time to us from other Churches, that for the removing of offence and scruple altogether, unto the forms of ordering of Deacons and Priests, there were a new added, for the Confirmation by the Bishop, of such of them, who have yet been ordained by Presbyters only, which should be made to run in such a strain; that we may say of it, as Suarez does of the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas. Haec manuum Impositio nobis tantum deprecatoria, non etiam consecratoria videtur.  
Let all things (says the Apostle) be done in decency and order; Now it seems a thing not agreeable to order, that he which is a Priest already, should be forced back and made a Deacon. You may say, If this be a breach of order, how could I submit to it? I answer, if I asked how it can be required, it were more to the purpose. Non oportet ut qui majores ordines susceperunt, minores priùs habuerint; quanquam sic ordinatè ordines conferri statuerit Ecclesia, ut priùs minores deinde majores suscipiantur. Aq. Sup. q. 35.50. It is no question, but a Priest may be a Deacon, because our Church of a Deacon makes a Priest; and I was not ordained a Deacon before. But that which I have to speak hereto, and that satisfiedly, is: Matters of order (I hope) must give place to matters of greater moment; If the Church does stand upon it, it is pro formâ only, and I do but observe order, in breaking it. As for us, let our Rulers look to this, we do but veil our heads to Obedience, to Uniformity, to Peace, to Necessity. What if my Ordinary be of the judgement, that I am no Minister, if ordained only by the Presbytery (as hath been intimated before) which, by the way, if he is, I am convinced, do what I can for all that, it is an error; for, it is one thing, to hold Ordination ought to be by a Bishop, and another, that no Ordination, is good and valid otherwise. Quod fieri non debet itself, factum valet. Yet does sober Davenant quote Athanasius, telling us, that when some in his time were ordained only by Presbyters they judged them in Laicos redire, when yet he has his Ego non ausim (before) in the same determination. And what if accordingly, many of my people will not own me, but clamour; They will not receive the Sacraments from me; I am no Minister, and ought not to preach? Nay, what if myself do question whether I am a Minister of England, though a Minister of Christ, or rather, though verè a Minister, whether I am yet legalitèr so, according to our Church? And what then, if they will make me Churchwarden or Constable? Yea, to speak more gravely, What if they do thus (as before mentioned) some out of Conscience, and others pretend it? Who does not see here, that the stopping the mouths of gainsayers, the cutting off occasion from those that seek it, the satisfying the sober, and letting my Ministry have its free course, is a matter of more consequence than this whole business, that we should scruple so much at it? The Lord still keep in me a tender frame, and serious spirit; but deliver me from a scanty soul, and too scrupulously-superstitious conscience.  
And here, methinks, my heart is enlarged towards many of my pious Brethren, that need relief; and who, I am persuaded, If they did know, (as Christ's speaks) but what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, would not haply condemn the guiltless, that is themselves, that for the continuance, or the establishing their Ministry, do submit to this thing, Re-ordination. Provided still, they may crave remedy, if it be clogged with any circumstance against their conscience; which at present may be attained, I presume, according to his Majesty's Declaration. Then Mattathias and his friends said one to another, If we shall all do as our Brethren, have done, and not defend ourselves upon the Sabbath, then will they come upon us, and take our place; then shall others possess the Sanctuary, and incontinently upon our scruple, rid us from the same.  
Deo Gloria, mihi Condonatio. Feb. 1660. Your unworthy Fellow-servant in the Ministry, J. H.  Neh. 13.21. 
Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy.  
FINIS.