A Peaceable Enquiry INTO THAT Novel Controversy ABOUT Reordination. WITH Certain close, but candid Animadversions upon an ingenious Tract for the lawfulness of Reordination;  
Written by the Learned and Reverend Mr. J. HUMPHREY.  
By R. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ephes. 4 15. 
London, Printed, 1661.   

The Prefatory Epistle to the Reader.  
Candid Reader,  
SO I call you, because I would have you, for so I need you; knowing much that I know but little, even so much, that consciousness of imbecility had almost stupefied conscience of duty; and had those more ancient, more literate, more judicious Classical Divines been but half so forward to vindicate their ordinations, as they were to engage young Scholars to accept them, I should have been a Reader ●wt●h you, whilst such had been our Writers: Though in other points they have done worthily, yet shall I praise them in this? I praise them not; they have been almost wholly silent; and therefore lest the truth should suffer, I have exposed these rude lines unto public censure: yet not Dictator-like dogmatically determining, but Learner-like, humbly yet closely enquiring: and hence it is, that you may observe so many Interrogations, and other expressions, which you may understand interrogatively: yet this proceeds not from the clearness of my knowledge of unanswerable doubts, but from unanswerable doubts of the clearness of my knowledge: and where you find the most determinative expressions, they are sometimes to be understood de posse & non de esse; and where they are to be understood de esse, either in general commendations, discommendations, or otherwise, you may do me right to distinguish both persons, times, and places: more especially let not any construction be be put upon any expression, contrary to the Author's intention, that may produce the least disloyal reflection upon the Kings most excellent Majesty's Person or Authority, whom I love and honour, fear and obey, pray and praise the Almighty for: Neither let there be thought that here is the least unworthy aspersion cast upon the right reverend Bishops (for so I dare style them) whom I honour for their Learning and Gravity, Loyalty and Authority: Nor any Citations, Interrogations or Animadversions, from or upon any book whatsoever, be pressed with such an unnecessary construction as is unwarrantable, or unworthy a Christian man. And though Mr. John Humphrey be the very first in the Christian Church (that ever I heard or read of) that wrote a whole Tract for Reclination: yet the reverend Author being learned and moderate, the Tract ingenious and peaceable, I should account it disingenuity to be abhorred, to deal disingeniously in the least with such a person: and though we are so unhappy as to differ, not only about this point of Reordination, but also about that other of general Admission; yet these making no breach in the foundations of Christianity, shall make no breach, on my part, in the bonds of fraternal charity: Nay this I hope, that peaceable humble spirits will promote charity by the candid management of their differences, whilst proud and peevish spirits waste theirs about the very punctilios of their unities. A judicious pious person without passion or faction, a Christian Catholic without a party, is a Phoenix no less excellent than rare: Many have taught this way, but few have trod it, and fewer will there be, when the necessary Evangelical terms of peace shall be slighted, and new unnecessary additionals shall be advanced. But yet if any shall break peace with me, as an impossibility, or illegality on their false terms, yet I will keep peace with them, if possible, on better terms. And verily what I have here written, was not to kindle contentions, but to allay them; and he that will not believe me, let him for his satisfaction but read Ecclesiastical History, where to his grief he may observe what dividing, scandalising contentions have risen about Ordinations; for the preventing whereof in the Church of England, I have here produced an expedient in order to accommodation, hearty imploring the Throne of Grace, that our Protestant Bishops may never join with the Popish Idolatrous Prelates, in decrying the Reformers and Reformation, the reformed Churches, Ministry and Administrations; 
1 King. 22.24.  Nor like Zedechias quarrel with Micha thus. By what way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee? 
Mat. 13.55, 56.  Nor like the Pharisees, who said of Christ, Is not this the Carpenter's Son?— Whence then hath this man all these things? Nor as the high Priest to the Apostles, By what authority do ye these things? I find a notable Instance in Petilian, 
Acts 4 7.  who pleaded the cause of the Donatists in the Council at Carthage against Saint Augustine, who pleaded the cause of the Catholics; and having nothing as it were, to say against Saint Augustine, he falls a quarrelling about his ordination, Tu quis es? Filius Ceciliani, an non? 
Collat. Carth. tert. art. 227, etc.  Unde coepisti, quem habes patrem? Unde tua progenies, ubi tuum caput? Si non habes, ergo, haereticus etc. Even so our reverend Prelatists have nothing against me, and such as I, who were neither fighters nor fomenters in the late unhappy wars, neither perjured, nor apostatical, by breaking either Oath of Supremacy, Allegiance, or Canonical obedience, or contradicting our subscription, having never been exercised with them, by reason of our minority; We are no Covenanters, no Engagers, no Abjurers of the Royal Family; and if others were engaged in rebellion, in schism, or the like, we will not own them, nor justify them therein, if we know it. We abhor the murder of the late King, the violations of the late Parliament, the late Usurpations, the uncharitable oppression of several learned and pious Prelatists, and those rebellious rise and mutinies since his Majesty's return; We now make it our business to preach up peace and purity, truth and loyalty, and waving contentions, we labour for moderation, and condoling the suppression of an honest party, we would gladly rejoice in an accommodation; fearing not only the entangling impositions, but also the dividing separation. Oh I wish again and again, that they had never questioned our ordination; for sure I am, it hath exceedingly hindered an accommodation of the old differences, and promoted also new dissensions. But for the removing this mountain out of our way to the Land of Peace, I shall out of my penury offer this Manual of instruments, prepared, first for my private use, wherein you have, after the Question propounded, 

1. Certain distinctions, in order to explication.  
2. Certain propositions for the stating of the Question.  
3. Certain argumentative Interrogations for further deliberation.  
4. Certain Solutions of Mr. J. Humfreys Arguments for better satisfaction.  
5. Certain concessions in order to an accommodation.  
6. Certain Considerations humbly offered to the Imposers of Reordination, to persuade to moderation.   By which I hope to manifest to the world, that we are not averse to peace, but passionately desirous of it; not only ready to accept, but ready to offer the most condiscending terms of agreement; and more hot yet in the pursuit of peace shall we be, when we can see the practice of profaneness suppressed, and the power and practice of holiness advanced, with the least considerable encouraging condescension in lower, uninstituted, unnecessary things. But if there be no condescension, no abatement, but rather swell higher and higher, than would I weep and wish with Jeremiah, Oh that I had in the wilderness a dwelling place! Then will this old Question come in fashion again, and deserve a debate: Whether a Minister be bound to preach the Gospel, when discharged or silenced by the Bishops? I think it is not to be doubted, if able, pious, painful Preachers should succeed us, and so the Church be little or no loser, but we shall be the more glad, and the more at ease. But if our Successors be insufficient or scandalous, to the hazarding of immortal souls, what shall we do then? Not preach up rebellion, or faction, or the like; there is no Question; but the Question is, Whether we should not preach the essential Doctrines of Christianity, as that there is a God, a Saviour, a Heaven, a Hell, etc. with the necessary practices of faith, repentance and good works? And though we cannot do it in one Church, whether we should not do it in another? And if we cannot in any public place, whether we should not privately from house to house? The Reasons which speak at present against our ease, are these. 

1. Is not our office for the exercise? and therefore is not the office in vain if not exercised? Frustra est potentia quae non reducitur in actum.  
2. Have we not promised before God and the Congregation, when we were ordained, that we would (through grace) continue in this work to the end, notwithwithstanding the discouragements we might meet with in this world?  
3. Did not the true Prophets go on to prophesy, and that in public, even when they were prohibited?  
4. Was not this Ministry instituted in times of greatest discouragement? and the first Ministers sent forth as sheep among wolves, with warning to provide for tribulations, and yet no dispensation granted more than to fly from one City to another?  
5. Did not the Apostles go on to preach the Gospel, though prohibited, imprisoned, scourged, stoned, and many murdered & martyred? It's like these kn●w of no Quietus est from Christ Jesus in this world.  
6. Did not the Martyrs and Confessors in the three first Centuries preach in houses, in wildernesses, and caves of the earth, when in danger every day of their lives?  
7. Are we not bound to preach the Gospel, be instant in season and out of season? And how can we be faithful if we neglect it?  
8. Is there not a Woe to us if we preach not the Gospel?  
9 Have we not multitudes of poor, blind, naked, starved souls, which are likely to be lost for ever, if we help them not? And are not these moving objects of charity unto us, as well as such have been unto others?  
10. Would not seducers shame our silence by their boldness? Our forbearance by their continuance? Much more might be added, but this may suffice to be propounded to provoke to further consideration.   I know the devil, the flesh, and carnal friends will stupefy many a conscience which they cannot satisfy: But oh that men were wise, to be quiet with nothing, but what will bear them out at the dreadful day approaching, when we must all account for our stewardship, when we may be no longer Stewards. Oh let us all be faithful to God, whatever it cost us, and Heaven will shortly make amends for all.   

THE QUESTION Whether a Presbyter ordained by the Presbytery, may lawfully be reordained by a Diocesan Bishop?  

CHAP. I.  
Wherein are premised certain distinctions in order to the explication of the Question.  
1. WE must distinguish betwixt Political Ministers, or Ministers of State, and Ecclesiastical Ministers.  
2. There are some that distinguish Ecclesiastical Ministers into Preaching Presbyters, Ruling Presbyters and Deacons.  
3. There are that distinquish preaching Presbyters into Presbyteri primi & secundarii, or majores & minores; or Presbyters, ruling over Presbyters, i. e. Diocesan Bishops, and subject Presbyters.  
4. Let us distinguish betwixt Presbyters duly qualified, and unqualified Presbyters.  
5. Ordination may be considered either 

1. As its a Magisterial Sovereign act of Christ Jesus, consisting in the Institution of the office of a Presbyter, determining the work and end, describing the person, qualifying by his holy Spirit, and obliging in case of need to undertake the office, as also in giving authority to his Ministers to try men's abilities, and invest the qualified with this power; and to his Vicegerents the Magistrates, commission to protect and encourage; and to his people a liberty to choose such to watch over their particular Congregations; or  
2. As its a Ministerial act.    
6. In the Ministerial act, we distinguish betwixt 

1. The act of the Magistrate allowing ordinations within his jurisdictions, as also allowing, commanding, protecting and encouraging the faithful exercise of the Ministerial function.  
2. The act of the people electing such a person to be their Minister.  
3. And the acts of the Ordainers, which are probation, approbation, benediction, imposition of hands, and investiture; though these five are not all essential to ordination, yet they seem to be all integral parts thereof.    
7. We must distinguish an ordination to the office of the Ministry in the Catholic Church, and a separation to the work of the Ministry in a particular Church.  
8. We should distinguish the usage of the word, Presbytery, either for the College of Presbyters, or (as in some Ecclesiastical Writers) for the office of a Prebyter.  
9 We distinguish a College of truly ordained Presbyters, from a College of unordained pretended Presbyters.  
10. We distinguish betwixt heretical, schismatical, scandalous Presbyters, and orthodox, peaceable and blameless Presbyters.  
11. We distinguish betwixt Presbyters ordination in schismatical necessitous times, and Presbyters schismatical ordination: or betwixt Presbyters ordination in a collapsed Church, and Presbyters ordination in a Church constituted, and otherwise constitute by Diocesans.  
12. We distinguish betwixt the regularity of an ordination and the validity; as also betwixt the irregularity and in validity; and the same either according to God's Laws, or man's Laws, which some call lawful and legal.  
13. We also distinguish the lawfulness of imposing re-ordination, from the lawfulness of submitting thereto when imposed.  
14. We may distinguish the lawfulness of accepting in foro Dei, in foro conscientiae, & in foro humano.  
15. We distinguish the lawfulness of accepting without any necessity, and under a necessity; and the kinds and degrees of necessity should be considered.  
16. We distinguish a proper Reordination (if such a thing can be in the world) from a confirmation.  
17. Some distinguish betwixt a Reordination absolute, and a Reordination hypothetical.  
18. Some distinguish a Reordination accumulative, and a Reordination destructive, i. e. of the former ordination.  
19 Some distinguish betwixt Apostolical and Apostatical Bishops.  
20. We must distinguish betwixt a Re-ordination wherein nothing is doubtful but the reiteration itself, and a Reordination wherein the annexed concomitants may be as doubtful as the repetition of the act; or betwixt Reordination in thesi & in hypothesi: or in actu signato & actu exercito.   

CHAP. II.  
Containing certain Propositions, whereof many are presupposed in the Question, and granted, though not by all men, yet mostly by the persons that are chief concerned in the Question.  
Prop. 1. IT is presupposed that Jesus Christ being Lord over all, hath instituted and ordained the office of a Presbyter, determined his work, described his qualifications, impowered certain persons to set some apart to this office, etc. for the converting of sinners, and the edifying of his body Mystical.  
Prop. 2. It's to be understood that the Presbyter is not a mere political Minister, but an Evangelical Presbyter (for so you must give me leave to call him) nor a mere Ruling, but a Preaching Presbyter, yet not one that rules over Presbyters; neither is it to our purpose to inquire whether there be any such Ruling Elders or Diocesans by divine institution, or not.  
Prop. 3. It is to be presupposed that Jesus Christ by his Spirit doth qualify certain persons, and incline to undertake, and enable to discharge this Ministry; and that the person in the Question is such a one, and that his former ordination was not vacated through the want of any necessary qualifications.  
Prop. 4. It is presupposed that no man takes this honour to himself, but that persons qualified are to be solemnly set apart, or ordained to this office; and that the person in the Question doth ipso facto acknowledge as much; or else to what purpose doth he trouble himself about Reordination?  
Prop. 5. It is to be understood that this Ministerial ordination is the solemn investing of a person qualified with Ministerial power, after and with examination, approbation, benediction and imposition of hands, and that the person in the Question hath received so much from the Presbytery; and that the fault lies not in the defect of any of these acts. Here (I confess) is something more doubtful, as whether the Presbyters ordination be an ordination? but this I leave to others who have spent more paper upon this Question, then upon the other of Reordination: as also it seems doubtful to some, whether ordination be an investiture with Ministerial power? This more directly lying in my way, I shall endeavour to remove, before I step one foot further. I find some that would make Ordination but a confirmation or testification of our Ministerial Call. Thus that learned Casuist Baldwin, 
C. C. p. 1032.1033.  Ordinatio nihil est aliud quam publica & solennis legitimae vocation is confirmatio, ut constet omnibus personam hanc non sibi ipsi rapuisse munus Ecclesiasticum, etc.— melius est vocare ordinationem solennem ritum quo testificatur de legitima vocatione ordinandi, donisque necessari is, etc. it's well known that Ames, Hooker, and several of the Congregational brethren, place the essence of the Ministerial Call in election, and make ordination but adjunctum consequens. Now I acknowledge, if ordination should suppose a man to be a Minister already, and to be itself but a mere solemnity, as the coronation of an hereditary Prince; then there is not so much intrinsecal to that ordinance, which may hinder its repetition: but let us not so slight ordination before we hear what others say. 
Sum. in supplem. ad 3. part. p. 41. in Sentent. Comment. 1.4. p. 14. De Effect. sacr. l. 2. c 19 De Min. Eccl. p. 182. De Min. Evan. p. 166.186. Miscel. Quest. p. 34.  Ordo signaculum quoddam Ecclesiae est quo spiritual is potest as traditur ordinato, saith P. Lombard, justified herein by Aquin as. So saith that other learned Schoolman Estius, Ordo Sacramentum est novae legis à Christo inst●tutum, quo potest as spiritual is traditur, etc. So Bellarmine, In sacramento ordinis adscribitur in numerum Ducum & Praepositorum hujus militiae, & accipit potestatem distribuendi aliis bona Domini, etc. Gerard saith, Effectus ordinationis proprius est collatio potestatis docendi, & sacramenta administrandi; ad illum ordinatio per se dirigitur, eundemque perpetno & infallibiliter consequitur. M. Antonius de dom. l. 2. de Repub. Eccles. 6.3. Sect. 24. etc. calls ordination Missio potestativa; which the London Ministers and Gelaspy do well approve. The Confession of Wirtembergh seems to hold forth the same doctrine; we cannot see (say they) what use there is of those kind of men in the Church which are ordained for this purpose, that they may have authority to sacrifice for the quick and dead: Therefore it is evident, 
Harm of Confess. p. 266.  that except a Priest be ordained in the Church to the Ministry of Preaching, he cannot rightly take unto him neither the name of a Priest, nor the name of a Bishop. Mr. Firmin citing Gerard's description of ordination before mentioned, adds thus much more, with whom agree the stream of Divines, and the practice of the Churches in New England. Which story of New England I confess I should hardly believe, 
Schism p. 83.  did not a New England man tell it.  
Lo here you see are two sorts of Divines; and what shall we do with them? We will resolve to reverence them both, but pin our faith on the sleeves of neither. I proceed therefore to inquire into the nature of ordination: And here I grant, what indeed cannot be denied. 

1. That Jesus is the principal Constituent of the Ministerial power or office, and he is most properly the Ordainer, and his Act is most properly ordination.  
2. That the Gospel-Charter is the Instrument to convey this power.  
3. That a person qualified with essential qualifications at least, is the only Recipient of this power.  
4. And may I not add That ordination is such an ingredient (call it by what name you will) that where it is rightly put, there is Ministerial power conveyed; and where it is not put, there is not, there cannot be regularly any conveyance?   So that you may call ordination either a solemn-publick Approbation, Confirmation, Testification, or allowance, with some; or a potestative Mission, solemn Investiture, Collation, the essence of the external Call (which external and internal Call I understand much like to their external and internal Covenant) with others; or what else you think fit; and I shall not quarrel with you about words, provided it be acknowledged that it hath the force of a condition, or causa sine qua non. And though I might, with some, challenge more, as due to ordination, yet I choose rather to content myself with thus much, least catching at a shadow (with the Animal in the Fable) I should lose the substance. And if I can but prove that ordination is thus much, i. e. that which being rightly put, office-power will follow; and that which being denied, the conveyance of power (according to the order of the Charter) is suspended, this will be sufficient to my purpose.  
1. I will argue à pari; because that will lustrate as well as confirm: In the constituting of a King in a Kingdom elective (for ●n hereditary Kingdom, & the Coronation of such a King will not reach our case, the Ministerial power not being hereditary) ●ve consider, 

1. The sundamental constitution of their Kingdom, which instrumentally institutes the office of a King there, ●etermines his power, and work, describes he person capable, and also empowers some persons (it may be Princes, Peers, or People) to discern, elect, enthronize, and crown upon a vacancy a certain person to ●e their King.  
2. We suppose several per●ons that are duly qualified, ready to accept ●nd consent to be made their King: Yet  
3. there is not one of them made King e●●omine, because qualified, without the probation, approbation, and constitution of the Judges; but any one of them, being elected and constituted by the Electors and Judges, ●s King presently: Even so, etc.   Take another Instance; in the authorising a chief Officer in one of our Corporations; we suppose that the King's Majesty is the principal Efficient subtercelestial cause of their authority; likewise their Charter is the instrumental cause, and qualified persons, according to the directions in the Chart●● are the capable Subjects of this authori●● and the Burgomasters, Freemen, or the li●● are appointed, by this their Charter, to el●● and constitute this their head Officer (w●●ther Mayor, Bailiff, or Warden, matt●● not.) Now notwithstanding the King's thority derived in general, their Char●●● deriving, a person duly qualified ready accept the office, yet notwithstanding is n●● this person a Mayor, Bailiff, or Ward● except they that are appointed, ordain h●● to be so, nor until they have ordained h●● to be so; but when their act is past, then there authority derived from the King, the Charter, which invests him with th● office-power. Or as in the University, t●● Statutes authorise a person so and so a● complished to challenge? the degree of Doctor or Master; yet notwithstanding t●●● person is not Doctor nor Master till he ha● his grace in the Convocation, but then 〈◊〉 is: Who is so dull as to be unable to ma●● application? By all which it appears, th● Ordainers are necessary occasions, if n● constituent causes (viz. in genere instr●menti, in specie called Ministerial causes) this Officer qua Officer.  
2. I argue, if ordination be but a me●solemnity, to which the conveyance of ●●wer to a particular person is antecedent, then is a person qualified, if consenting, made a Minister before ordination; ●●a than are all persons Ministers, being qualified and desiring the office, and having ●●portunity of exercising. Might not such Doctrine reduced into practice occasion at Question of Saint Paul, 
1 Cor. 12.29.  Are all Apo●les? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? ●●●c.  
3. If ordination convey not the power, ●en a person ordained is really no more a ●inister than he was before, though he may ●em somewhat more to the world; but if ●●e should seem to be more a Minister be●●re ordination then after (as he might to me of the separation) then to what purpose should he be ordained?  
4. Why would the Holy Ghost (think ●ou) choose to use such expressions as do ●●ully set forth a proper investiture, if no ●uch thing were intended? The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●sed for ordination (Acts 6.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom we may constitute ●ver this business. And Titus 1.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and ordain Elders in every City) is the very ●me word that is used for the most proper investiture with office-power. 
Acts 7.10.  When seph was by Pharach put into his office 〈◊〉 Holy Ghost expresseth it thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and likew●●● in that Parable, Luke 12.44. and ma●● such like places.  
5. Why should not our Minister's lo●● upon their ordination as conferring the office, as well as Aaron; and especially 〈◊〉 Successors theirs? 2 Chron. 29.11. Heb● 5.1, 4, 5.  
6. It ordination be a potestative mis●●on, than it invests; but so it is general concluded from Rom. 10.15.  
7. If ordination do not invest, how w●● the gift, i. e. the office given Timothy, wi●●● the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery? 1 Tim. 4.14. or by the laying on 〈◊〉 Paul's hands? 2 Tim. 1.6. if that pla●● be understood of ordination, as some woul● have it.  
8. How can ordination be said to be th● committing or entrusting (as 2 Tim. 2.2. of faithful persons with the Gospel 〈◊〉 preach it, if it convey no power?  
Much more I perceive by the rising o●● my own thoughts, may be said to prove thi● part of the Proposition, that ordination i●● an investiture with power: but methinks have made too low an halt at the threshold already, and therefore I proceed to the Proposition.  
Prop. 6. It is supposed that this work of ordination, is committed to certain persons ordained themselves to the same office at least; and that the person in the Question was ordained (as you must give me leave to call it) to the office of a Presbyter by the Presbytery, or Presbyters validly ordained themselves; and that our Question now is not about the Ordainers own ordination to be Presbyters, or the Magistrate's allowance of such ordinations, at least a postfacte, or the people's consent to such Ministers.  
Prop. 7. Let us suppose that the Presbyters ordaining were neither heretical, schismatical, nor scandalous, though possibly they ordained in heretical, schismatical, and scandalous times, but were orthodox, peaceable and pious (as many of them may rationally be judged to be) or at least that they were not such as by their personal miscarriages to null their acts; and this we may well suppose, because it is known, that Protestants and Papists do generally agree, that ordinations made by Heretics, and Schismatics, are not, to nomine, null and void.  
Prop. 8. It is supposed that the former ordination received, was an ordination to the office in the Catholic Church; and likewise that the latter ordination imposed is to the same office in the Catholic Church; and that the Question is not now about any particular inferior separation to a particular work, or exercise of an office.  
Prop. 9 It may be supposed, that the person formerly ordained by the Presbytery, either knew not in those cloudy times where to find a Diocesan, or knowing, durst not use him for fear of the Usurpers; or desiring ordination from him, he durst not grant it; and so he looked upon himself as lying under a necessity to receive Presbyterial ordination.  
Prop. 10. It is supposed that the person ordained in this case of necessity, is satisfied as to the validity of such ordination, though not possibly as to the regularity, and that he dare not now disown it, nor his former acts done by virtue of it; and therefore I may spare that great pains that some have taken for the proof of the validity of Presbyterian ordination.  
Prop. 11. It is supposed, that if the former ordination were valid in the judgement of the person in the Question, than the denial thereof, and the imposing another ordination, must needs seem very unlawful in his judgement.  
Prop. 12. It is supposed that the Question about the lawfulness of Reordination is not to be measured by the laws of men, but by the Laws of God.  
Prop. 13. It is supposed that some things may be submitted to in a case of necessity, which without that necessity may not; and as the person in the Question would have the necessity of his quondam acceptance of Presbyterian Ordination considered by his Censors; so undoubtedly that person himself should consider the necessity of others in their present submission to Prelatical reordination; which necessity (to speak ingenuously) will excuse à tanto, if not à toto.  
Prop. 14. It is supposed, that some Superiors deny the former ordination, and forbidden the further exercising of, or at least deny encouragement to such persons as have that ordination only; and this is that which gives life to this Question, which might otherwise have slept in oblivion.  
Prop. 15, It is supposed that a Confirmation of former ordination will not satisfy Superiors, nor any thing else besides a proper ordination by a Diocesan; this evidently appears, in that the Bishop useth the same Questions, Forms, and Ceremonies in the reordaining of one that was ordained before, as he useth in the ordaining of one never yet ordained.  
Prop. 16. It is supposed that the imposed reordination, though it may be called an hypothetical reordination, yet it is absolute in the judgement of the Imposers, yea and absolute in the form of administration (for aught I hear) by the Reordainers.  
Prop. 17. It is supposed, that though the Receivers of reordination may fancy it to be only accumulative (if there can be such a thing) yet it is plainly destructive of their former ordination in the judgement of the Reordainers; and whether it be so in itself, is hereafter to be considered.  
Prop. 18. It is supposed that this Question is not concerning reordination by Bishops in thesi, but in hypothesi, not Metaphysical Bishops of our own fancying, but such as are now in England, be they better, be they worse.  
Prop. 19 It is supposed, that in reordination there is more to be considered then the bare reiteration of Orders, even many numerical Forms, Expressions, Injunctions, and Ceremonies, which if unlawful, will prohibit submission, though reordination in astracto should be lawful.  
Prop. 20. It is supposed, that the person in the Question, lying under a double dedication unto God, one in baptism or sanctification, the other in ordination; as also under strong convictions of the excellency of the Church's peace, and the necessity of active obedience to the lawful Magistrate in things lawful; and the hottest affections to immortal souls, multitudes whereof are in mortal danger of being discouraged, scattered, corrupted, and starved (when all that were presbyterially ordained are removed) through blind, idle, scandalous, or superstitious Guides succeeding, will therefore do the utmost that he can lawfully to obtain his liberty, and enjoy his opportunities to endeavour the salvation of poor souls, the answering his own obligations, the promoting the Church's peace, and ultimately the glory of the Lord Redeemer. And yet we may suppose that the person in the Question doth well understand, that we may not do evil that good may come thereon, and is likewise well resolved to suffer rather than to sin, and to leave his work (which he cannot do) to the Almighty himself, rather than to go out of his way, and incur his dreadful displeasure in the pretended performance of it.   

CHAP. III.  
Containing the main Proposition.— That it seems unlawful for a Presbyter ordained by the Presbyters, to admit a reordination by Diocesan Bishops. With certain Interrogations in order to a Determination.  
1. WHether is reordination an Ordinance of Christ, or not? If you say, an Ordinance; then I ask, where hath Christ instituted reordination in his holy Gospel? Either let divine institution be produced, or else we can never believe it to be an Ordinance of Christ Jesus; but who can find either Precept or Precedent in the whole Bible? I scarcely know any one that ever so much as pretended to it till now of late; and what is now said, shall hereafter (Deo volente) be considered: But if you say that reordination is no Ordinance of Christ. 

1. Do you observe, what everlasting blemish you put upon this solemn business, in acknowledging it to be no divine institution? for than it must needs be but a mere humane invention.  
2. And how you expose it to all that is said by the Nonconformists against superstition?  
3. Do you well consider, that what is reordination to the person in the Question, is one and the same with the ordination of others not ordained before? and so denying that to be an ordinance, do you not deny the other, and so run yourselves upon a rock, that would split both Church and Ministry, and expose yourselves to the lash of all men, except Papists and Brownists?   But if you say, that this Act, in reference to the unordained, is an Ordinance, being ordination; in reference to the ordained is no Ordinance, being reordination: Oh then consider, I beseech you, what sad work you make with Christ's Ordinance; the same Act must be an Ordinance and no Ordinance at your pleasure; the nature, end, and use must all be changed to serve your turn: As if it were like the Chameleon that can change its colour to suit every approaching object. The latter part of this Argument from the abuse the Ordinance is used by that learned Estius. Porro apud veteres (saith he) apertissimè de hoc Sacramento (i e. Ordinis) scripsit Augustinus pluribus locis; 
In senten. Come l. 4. in distinct. 24. p. 14.  unus locus est, l. 2. contra Epist. Parm. c. 13. ubi Sacramentum ordinationis cum Sacramento baptismi ita comparat, ut dicat utrumque & Sacramentum esse, &c quadam consecratione homini dari; illud cum baptizatur, istud cum ordinatur, adeo neutrum repetendum esse, ne Sacramento fiat injuria.  
2. Whether is this second ordination to some end, or to no end? If to no end, than you take an Ordinance of God (if I may so call it) in vain, and so the Name of God in vain, and so you break the third Commandment. If to some end, then either to convey authority, or some other: Not to convey authority, for that is done already, and so you do but actum agere, which is absurd (saith Mr. Humf.) a vain and needless work, say I, and so you still take the Name of God in vain: If to any other end, than it is either instituted by Christ, or not; If not, than you are guilty of abusing and perverting Christ's Ordinance: if so, let the end be named, and the institution produced. What I find said already to this purpose, shall be considered hereafter in due place.  
3. Doth not ordination add a new being to the person ordained? If not, then may the person ordained be said to be no more a Minister then whilst unordained: If so, then after reordination whether shall we admit a consistency of two distinct beings, or a nullity of the one: if a nullity of the one, what is that but to make a nullity of Christ's Ordinance? If two distinct beings, then are there not two Ministers in one person? Which how two moral ministerial beings can exist in one Minister, seems as hard to conceive, as how two natural beings can exist in one person. Let it be considered, whether these spiritual Parents, the Ordainers, can any more generate two spiritual beings of the same kind, in these spiritual Children the ordained, then natural Parents can by two acts generate two natural beings of the same kind in the same child? Whether reordination in morality be not like regeneration in nature.  
4. If we cannot admit a rebaptisation, how shall we admit a reordination? They were no babies that have argued from this Topick. 
l. 2. Cont. Epist. Parm. c. 13.  Thus St. Augustine argued about twelve hundred years ago: Quando ex ipsa parte (saith he) venientes etiam Praep●siti pro bone pacis, correcto schismatis errore, suscepti sunt, etsi visum est opus esse ut eadem officia gererent quae gerebant, non sunt rursus ordinandi, sed sicut baptismus in iis ita mansit ordinatio integra, quia in praecisione fuerat vitium, quod unitatis pace est correctum, non in Sacramentis quae ubicunque sunt, ipsa vera sunt. 
l. 2. Epist. 32.  So Gregory (referente & Estio & Baldvino) Quid dicitis ut is qui ordinatus est, iterum ordinetur? Valde ridiculum est; absit enim a fraternitate vestra sic sapere; sicut enim qui semel baptizatus est, iterum baptizari non debet; ita qui consecratus est semel, in eodem iterum ordine non debet consecrari. 
C. C. p. 10●6.  Yea thus Baldwin himself affirmeth, Si baptismus a Pontificiis, & aliis hareticis, substantiam bujus Sacramenti non convellentibus, acceptus, non est iterandus, multo minus ordinatio, etc.  
Though it is readily acknowledged, that ordination is in strict and proper speech no Sacrament (though many things in lax discourse were formerly, and are still called Sacraments) nor Seal of the Covenant of Grace, as Baptism, being not extended (no not in potentia) to all sincere Covenanters; neither is there any element instituted for an outward sign, etc. yet may we not reckon their agreement in these. As Baptism is a solemn admission into visible Church-priviledges, so is ordination into visible Church-offices; and as the person baptised had a remote right before baptism; so the person ordained being duly qualified, & providentially called; and yet as before baptism the person could not regularly partake of the Lords Supper, present an Infant to baptism, or the like; so before ordination the person qualified cannot regularly baptise, administer the Lords Supper, or the like. Now the Question is; If we cannot admit a new investiture with Church privileges by rebaptisation, how shall we admit a new investiture with Church-power by reordination? What reason can be brought from the nature of an investing solemnity against rebaptisation, which may not be brought against reordination? Yet how few in all the world have ever maintained a rebaptisation of those that were validly baptised before? The very Anabaptists (as we call them) will thus far disown Anabaptism, and say, if Infant's baptism were not void, they durst not baptise them again at age.  
5. Whether doth ordination beget a new relation in a person to the Church, or not? If not, then are you no more a Steward, a Shepherd, a Ruler, a Teacher, af●er ordination, than you were before; for all these are terms of relation, and then you must either acknowledge, that there are no such Teachers or Rulers among the ordained, or else that all are Teachers and Rulers among the inordained, both which are sufficiently distant from truth. But if you acknowledge that ordination doth beget a relation, then how shall that relation be iterated? Undoubtedly betwixt the Relatum & Correlatum there is but one relation upon o●e foundation: As in marriage there can be but one only relation betwixt man and wife upon that account; and therefore it is utterly in vain to repeat marriage; for if you repeat it a thousand times, yet the relation will be but the same, and not one jot the more; the husband is but a husband, and the wife is but a wife, after ten thousand marriages, and so they were after one. Even so will a Minister's relation to the Church be but the same if he should be ordained a thousand times. Learned Hooker argues from this Topick thus, 
Eccles. Pol. l. 5. p. 411.  They which have once received this power, may not think to put it off and on like a cloak, as the weather serveth to take it, reject it, and reassume it as oft as themselves list; of which profane and impious contempt— but let them know, which put their hands to this plough, that once consecrated unto God, they are made his peculiar inheritance for ever; Suspensions may stop, and degradations may utterly out off the use or exercise of power before given, but voluntarily it is not in the power of man to separate and pull asunder what God by his authority coupleth; so that though there may be through misdesere degradation, as there may be just cause of separation after matrimony, yet if (as sometimes it doth) restitution to former dignity, or reconciliation after breach doth happen, neither doth the one nor the other ever iterate the first knot.  
Concerning the iterability of the marriage solemnity, I shall speak in due place.  
6. If ordination be an Act of Christ, how then can we reordain without injury to his Majesty? That ordination is Christ's Act, is plain in the nature of the thing; for the Gospel and the Ordainers are but Instruments in the conveyance of authority, but Jesus Christ himself is the original of all power, and the principal Agent in the Conveyance of power by these Instruments, as hath been already explained, and is by mo●● acknowledged. And if ordination be Christ Act, than he put it forth in the first administration; and if so, then what can a reordination be, but either a most unworthy denial of Christ's former Act, or a presumptuous imposing upon Christ to exert a new Act, without all warrant on our parts; o● else a mocking of Christ, using his Act as n● Act! This very Argument you may fin● used by Estius from a doubtful Cyprian thus Baptismum repeti, inquit, Ecclesiasticae prohibent regulae, 
Insent. Com. l. 4. in didst in. 1. p. 1●.  & semel sanctificatis nulla deinceps manus iterum consecrans praesumit accedere, nemo sacros ordines semel datos iterum renovat— nemo impositioni manuum utministerio derogat sacerdotum, quia contumeliaesset Spiritus Sancti si evacuari posset, quod ille sanctificat, & alia sanctificatione emendaret quod semel ille statuit, & confirmat.  
7. Is not reordination an injury to our incomparable Charter, by which is conveyed from the King of Saints this power and privilege ministerial, to rule in his spiritual Corporation? It is certainly true, that as Christ's Church is a spiritual Corporation under himself the Head, so is his Gospel the Charter thereof, by which Instrument (as 〈◊〉 have said) the King of Kings ordains the Offices, describes the persons ordaining and ordained, and gives power to both to give and receive (in his limited way) authority to execute the same: And further, it is here supposed, that the Officer in the Question is constitute, according to this Charter, in all necessaries. Now to submit to another constitution by those that deny the former, is it nor to desert, yea to infringe and violate our Charter? To exemplify this matter, suppose an Officer in one of our Corporations, constituted according to their Charter, should be disowned for a true Officer, and required to admit a new Constitution, would not the Burgesses and Freemen cry out, that this would be a violation of their Charter? and therefore they will adventure the displeasure of great ones, the trouble and vexation of tedious Lawsuits, the large expense of their treasure, rather than thus to violate their Charter. Now judge whether ours be not a parallel case.  
8. Either you own the latter ordination as a proper ordination, or not as a proper ordination: If as a proper ordination, then do you not, ipso facto, renounce your former ordination? Yea though you should in words protest your owning of your former ordination, yet do not your works in reordination disown it, and give your words the lie? For it seems impossible for two distinct proper investitures to be upon one person, as I suppose I have proved already: and which I further strengthen thus; how can a single person be, subjectum capax, of a twofold ministerial power, when the most excellent person in this world is scarce subjectum capax of one? The whole man is but the subject of one ministerial power; what then is left in that man to be the subject of the other? But it may be, some wide-●●ared brain may fancy, that there is a coallition of these two proper Ordinations, and the relations flowing thence; but if so, I desire to know by what Law that can be, It is well known, that moral beings depend upon some Law; and if there be any Law to unite these two beings (the old man and the young man, the Presbyters and the Prelatist) let it be produced, and I shall the grateful for such a discovery. But on the other hand, if you say the latter is no proper ordination, which yet is a proper ordination in itself, and so commonly used and esteemed, are you not guilty of a mendacium in verbis? Nay more, shall you not, whilst in words you deny the latter ordination, and yet indeed receive it, be guilty of a mendacium in factis? May not, what moderate B●shop Davenant saith against a Protestants being present at the Mass, which yet in words he disclaims, thinking thereby to salve his conscience, be fitly enoogh applied to this case? 
Determ. 7.  Hans pugnam externam (saith the B shop) actionum cum interna mentis sententia foedissimam simulationem dico, & mendacium nihilo tolerabilius quam si quis expressis verbis se Missam Papisticam approbare testaretur; nam ad virtutem veritatis pertinet, ut quis talem se exhibeat per signa exteriora, qualis revera existit. At qui opponitur buic veritati cum aliquis per signa factorum contrar●um ejus significat quod in ment clausum habet, quam simulationem mendacium in factis licet appellare, uti recte Aquinas; qui itaque Pap staru● missas examino aversatur, at que retinet interim externam hanc cum illis particip●tionem, co damnabilius agit, quia quod mendaciter agit, sic agit tamen, ut eum populus veraciter agere existimet. And Baldwin (how much soever any may reckon him a Patron of reordination) speaks of the Popish Ordinations thus, 
C. C. p. 1045.  Hac omnia partim superstistiosa, partim ridicula approbare cogitur is qui a Pontificiis ordinationem petit; quis autem hoc bona cum conscientia facere potest? neque excusat quod talis ordinatio cum protestation● suscipitur, ordinandum nimirum non Pap●sticas traditiones, sed dogmata Scripturae, sacrae consona, nihilominus propositurum esset; nam protestatio haec facto est centraria, quia ipsae ordinatio Patistica est pars doctrinae Papisticae, etc.  
9 Whether it be not, ipso facto, to acknowledge that the person in the Question is no Presbyter, when he shall step back to the Deacons office in order to be a Presbyter? Here it is to be premised, that our reordained Reordainers do make Deaconry a step or degree to Presbytery; and that no man may be ordained a Presbyter that is not first ordained a Deacon; neither is this abated in reordination. See the form of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; where it is declared, that here it must be showed unto the Deacon, that he must continue in that office of a Deacon the space of a whole year at the least (except for reasonable causes it be otherwise seen to his Ordinary) to the intent he may be perfect and expert in the things appertaining to the Ecclesiastical administration, in the executing whereof if he be found faithful and diligent, he may be admitied by his Diocesan to the order of Priesthood. The Canons made in the year 1603. inform us, that the office of a Deacon, 
Can. 28.  being a step or degree to the Ministry, according to the ancient Fathers, and the practice of the Primitive Church, we do ordain and appoint, that hereafter no Bishop shall make any person, of what quality or gifts soever, a Deacon and a Priest both together on one day, but that the order in that behalf prescribed in the book of making and consecrating Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, be strictly observed: Hence it appears, that a Deaconry is a medium to Presbytery; and therefore will not the use of this mean be an acknowledgement that the end is not atrained? For acquisito fine cessant media. Again it is certain, that the office of a Deacon is less than the office of a Presbyter; and will it not thence follow, that he that seeks the less, doth thereby acknowledge that he hath not attained the greater? Because Omne majus continet in se minus.  
10. What is that office (not in name but in deed) that the person in the Question must be ordained unto before he be reordained a Presbyter? either it is the office of a Deacon or not; if you say it is, than 

1. Where hath the Scripture made a Deaconry a step to Presbytery?  
2. Where hath Christ given the power of baptising unto Deacons? 
See the book of Consecrat of Bishops, etc.   
3. Where hath Christ separated the power of preaching and the power of baptising?  
4. If our Deacons have a power to preach (as some say) than who hath power to suspend them constantly from the exercise?  
5. Or who can acquit them from the guilt of the constant neglect of their work?  
6. But where hath Christ conveyed the power of preaching unto Deacons?  
7. Where shall we place the boundaries betwixt our Deaconries and Presbyteries? especially where shall we find such boundaries in the Scripture?  
8. How shall the re-ordained Presbyter execute the real office of a Deacon, one part of whose work is certainly to serve tables? 
Acts 6. beg.  for is not that work incompatible with the work of a Presbyter, especially in great places? and was it not judged so by the Apostles?  
9 How shall the Presbyter promise to continue in the office of a Deacon only, as a probationer for the Presbytery?  
10 How can he believe that a Deaconry is a step to Presbytery, when yet he is forced himself, to step from Presbytery to Deaconry? if the motions of our speculations ascend from a Deaconry to Presbytery, how then shall the motions of our practicals descend from a Presbytery to a Deacontie? what cross-graind creatures would this make us? and what contradictory motions would this produce in us? would not such a procedure fit the person in the Question for this Motto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉?    
But if you say, this is not the real office of a Deacon, than 

1. What office is it?  
2. By what authority instituted?  
3. Why is it called the office of a Deacon?  
4. Why are men ordained into it, as the Deacons office?  
5. Why are men engaged to execute it as the Deacons office, & c.?   Let these things be considered, for consideration is the end of their offer, not a positive present determination by the Author.  
11. How many ordinations to the same office may a man submit unto? Take a person that is now re-ordained, he was 

1. Ordained by the Presbytery to be a Presbyter.  
2. He was ordained by the Bishop to be a Deacon.  
3. To be a Presbyter.   So then there is two, if not three ordinations to the same office passed already. And if a man may submit to two ordinations, then why not to twenty? and if to twenty, why not to two hundred, if any supposed necessity shall require it? as once in a discourse a Gentleman of the passive conformable way, being asked, what if the Magistrate should impose as many ceremonies in the worship of God, as ever the Jews had, though not the very same, must we submit to them all? Yes, said be. Suppose he should add as many more as ever the Heathens had, must we submit to them all? yes also. And therefore what think you? will it not be worth while to consider a little, where we shall stop or stay, if once we leave Christ's institutions, Christ's boundaries?  
12. Whether by a reordination we shall not create innumerable scruples in the hearts of the people about the validity of our former consecrations of Sacraments? and therefore if for the satisfaction of a scrupulous Clergy we accept an hypothetical reordination, how shall we avoid the giving an hypothetical rebaptisation for the satisfaction of a scrupulous Laity?  
13. Will not this reordination prove the greatest scandal to the Reformed Churches? will they not sook upon it as disowning their Ordinations, their Ministry, their Sacraments, their Churches, their all? for 

1. Were not their Ministers ordained by the Presbytery as well as ours?  
2. Had not many of them as much liberty, if not more, of attaining Episcopal ordination than ours?  
3. Did not some of them cast off their Bishops? which is the worst that can be said by the Prelatists against ours, and against but a very few of them neither.  
4. Have not several of them declared in their Harmony of Confessions their dislike of Diocesan Bishops, and Lord-Bishops, which is more than many of ours ever did?  
5. Have not several of their Chieftains written so voluminously and learnedly against Diocesans, as few of ours were ever guilty of? how can it therefore be denied but this reordination will sadly wound them through our sides? and shall we make a small matter of so sad a business, as 

1. To cast such a reflection upon such famous and numerous Ministers and Churches?  
2. To make such a wide breach betwixt ourselves and them, sometimes the Dearest friends?  
3. And to make it by backsliding from our former prefessions of liking and loving them?  
4. And hereby weaken the Protestant Interest?  
5. And play the devils and the Jesuits ●ame, whilst they stand laughing on?  
6. And provoke Protestant Princes and Pastors to set themselves against us, and it may be to fight us by carnal and spiritual weapons? if this be a laughing matter, what is lamentable? notooùs is that story, how Doctor Holland (when Doctor of the chair at Oxford) schooled D. Laud, afterward Archbishop of Canterbury, yea and turned him out of the Schools in the face of the University, for denying Bishops and Priests to be one order, and that upon this very account, because it would set us at variance with the Reformed Churches, which have always hitherto continued in amity.      
14. How shall we be faithful sons of the Church of England, if we should disown that ordination which our Reverend Clergy have formerly owned? or own a reordination which they have always disowned? How ambitious soever some of our brethren are to be admired as the constant sons of the Church of England, yet let me tell them, if they have nothing more to argue their constancy, than their disowning an ordination which was always owned, and owning a re-ordination which was always disowned, they may be long enough ere they atrain that honour, except they attain it before they deserve it; likewise had they no more to prove the unfaithfulness of the Presbyterians to the Church of England, then because they will not desert the Church of England in these two material points, they might twist sand long enough before they make ropes. And here let no man buzz into my ear such a Question as this, how can the Church of England be unfaithful to the Church of England? for I hope none will confine the Church of England to a few of her present Doctors, be they never so eminent; neither will they understand by their faithfulness to the Church of England, 
Bishop Jewel Defence of the Apol. part. 2. c. 5. di. 1. p. 120.  a faithfulness to a personal succession of Bishops; for what is that but Popish? but to a Doctrinal succession, for that is Protestant.— And here what need I say much to prove that the Right Reverend Bishops; Doctors and Pastors of our Church have owned Presbyterian ordination as valid? sigh that incomparable Mr. Baxter hath cited Bishop Jewel, Bancroft, Vher, Downame, 
Disput. with Everard. 240. Tries. 541.  Davenant, Alley, Morton, Pilkinton, Prideaux, Overall, Bramhall, Bridges. Bilson, and Andrews, all Bishops, and D. Field, Saravia, powel, Chillingworth, Bernard, Ferne, Steward, Mason, with the Lord Digby, Grotius and Chisenhall, to whom may be added the Revered D. Sanderson, D. Featley, Dr. ●●wnes, and D. Forbess; and especially le●●● the Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's and Clergy of England be forgotten, 
Irenicum.  who in their Book entitled, The institution of a Christian man, subscribed with all their names, and dedicated to K. H. 8. an. 1537. c. of Orders. Nor K. H. 8. himself who in his book styled A necessary erudition for a Christian man, set out by authority of the Stat. of 32. H. 8. c. 26. approved by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
M. P●yns ●ub●sh. Tim. & Tit. p. 71, 72.  with the Nether House of Parliament, published an. 1543. in both which Tracts they resolve, that Bishops and Priests by God's Laws are one and the same, and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to them both. Now judge who are nearest the Church of England, the rigid Prelatist, or the moderate Presbyterian. And that our honoured Fathers were against the reordination of the presbyterially ordained, appears partly from their owning such ordinations as valid; and more fully in their constant admitting such to preferment without any reordination. To instance in that famous story of the three Bishops, whereof B. Andrews was one, that were to consecrate Bishops for Scotland; and the Qu. being moved whether those Scotch Ministers should not be reordained Presbyters before they were consecrated Bishops, and it w●●arried in the Negative, and so they proceeded. Iremember not long since a Reverend Minister and Prebendary told myself, that he having received Presbyterian ordination beyond sea, who when he came over into England, went to a Bishop about his ordination, who refused t● reordain him: the judgement of Wickliff, Hooker, Armachanus, and Mason, shall be given by and by. But if any one would persuade me that the ancient Bishops were for such a reordination, I shall only entreat him to produce a Catalogue of their names, with a citation of their words; for seeing is believing. But I confess I have arrived at such a degree of assurance, that few if any at all of the late Bishops (excepting A. Laud, with two or three of his Proselytes) that ever avowed a reordination of those that were ordained by Presbyters; were those old dead Bishops but alive again, they would quickly (I believe) remove reordinations, and such like altitudes. Nay more yet, I do not believe that A. Laud, B. Montague, or Bishop Hall, though the highest in England that I have read of, did ever maintain that those might lawfully be reordained which were validly ordained before; so than the person in the Question must be satisfied, that his former ordination is void, or else he departs from those three lofty Bishops; but if therein he be satisfied, than he departs from others (in this at least) much more humble. Judge now by this how we can accept a second ordination, and yet be faithful to the Church of England!  
15. Will not this submission to a re-ordination prove a confirmation of some in certain false principles, & an enervation of others in certain true principles, and so prove a lamentable scandal to them both? See the danger of scandalising your brethren, Jer. 23.14. Mat. 18.6, 7. Rom. 14.14. ult. 1 Cor. 10.28, 29, 30, 31, 32. & 1 Cor. 8.9, 10, 11, 12. Now consider whether these be not false principles. That there is an absolute necessity of a regular succession of Bishops and Priests, that Bishops are a distinct order from the Presbyters, jure divino, that the sole power of ordination as well as the exercise of it lies jure divino, wholly in the Diocesan, or that a Diocesan Bishop is ential to ordination. And so where there are no Diocesans, there are no Ministers, no Ordinances, no Churches Organical, no Christians. See now how naturally such a re-ordination tends to the lengthening the cords, and strengthening the stakes of these principles: and likewise how craftily it weakens the hands, and emasculates the hearts of those in England, and other Reformed Churches which maintain the contrary. Little do some think how their re-ordination hath drawn tears from many an eye, and sob● from many a spirit, whom they would not have made sad; and encouraged many young ones to imbibe those principles which otherwise they durst not have tasted; and how it hath been a sport unto some, mocking and scorning at men's fluid vertiginous humours, whilst others have stood trembling to see their dangerous stumbles; and how it hath filled some men with hopes that all would do so, and therefore they need to abate us just nothing: and others with fears, that too many would do so, and therefore they dare trust us with nothing; and just as the unnecessary Imposers, so the Weathercock-turners' do sadly promote the Brownistical separation.  
16. How can the person in the Question pray in faith for a blessing on the second ordination, either before, in, or after the solemnity? for what ground have we to believe that Christ will bless such an odd use, or I fear, abuse of his ordinance, or, if you will, a humane injunction varnished over with specious pretences of Christ's institution? Whether there be any more than a pretence of Christ's institution, try and see. 

1. In Christ's ordination there is a segregation of person from the world, which supposes hi● in the world (in a sense) before; but tha● supposition cannot be admitted, and consequently there is no segregation in reordination.  
2. Is there not in Christ's ordination special dedication of a person to God▪ which supposes that he was not so dedicate● before: now this cannot be supposed i● reordination.  
3. In Christ's ordination i● there not an investiture with Ecclesiastical power? which supposes a defect of that power before; but not so in reordination.   Where then is the essence of the instituted ordination, or the natural consequent● thereof to be found in this new devised transaction? which must be called a legal establishment, a Canonical confirmation, etc. Upon what foundation therefore shall we build either our faith or hope, that God will own us, or bless us in such a business?  
17. Is it not worth while to consider whether the Reordainers themselves be canonical, or not? not that I intent to slander in the least any of our Right Reverend Bishops; only as I may without just offence, discover in thesi that Bishops have as little regular authority to ordain as the Presbyters themselves. 1. What hath been thought of these Bishops which were never elected by the Presbytery and Laity? Honorius ●he Emperor (as saith Bishop Jewel) writing to Boniface, saith, 
Reply p. 171.  if two Bishops through ambition and contention happen to be chosen, we will that neither of them be allowed as Bishop, but that he only continue in the Apostolical See whom out of the number of the Clergy, godly discretion, and the consent of the whole brotherhood shall choose by a new election. The same Jewel tells us, that Greg. Presb. saith, for that the election and instalment of Greg. Nazian. was past before the Bishops of Egypt and Macedonia came, and so made without their consent, that therefore they utterly refused to allow him, or admit him as Bishop there, not from any dislike of the party, but for that they thought themselves defrauded of their voices.— The Council at Paris thus decrees, 
Con. Par. 〈◊〉. c. 8. Ge●. Bucer. de guber. Eccl. p. 332.  quia aliquibus in rebus consuetudo prisca negligitur, & decreta Canonum violantur, placuit ut juxta antiquam consuetudin●m Canonum decreta serventur; nullus Civibus invitis ordinetur Episcopus, nisi quem populi & Clericorum electio plenissima quaesier it voluntate, non Principis imperio, veque per quamlibet conditionem contra Metropolis voluntatem Episcoporumque Comprovincialium ingeratur, quod si per ordinationem regiam honoris istius cul●● pervadere nimia temeritate aliquis praesumps●rit, à Comprovincialibus loci ipsius Episcop● recipi nullatenus mereatur, quem indebi● assumptum agnoscunt. Siquis de Comprovinci● libus recipere eum contra indicta praesumpser● sit à fratribus omnibus segregatus, & ipsoru● omnium charitate remotus. The Centuriator speak forth antiquity abundantly fo● elections; to instance briefly in Cent. 3. p. 94 Vsitatum in Ecclesiis Orientalibus fuit, ut a● electionem aut ordinationem alicujus Episcopi venirent ex vicinia & plures Presbyteri, 〈◊〉 Episcopi, eique quem dignum eo honore cogu●● vissent, 
Euseb. l. 6. c. 8.  manus imponerent, quemadmodum 〈◊〉 Origenis ordinatione apud Cesaream factum Eundem in ordinandis Presbyteris & Episcopi morem etiam Africanae Ecclesiae observarunt; primum enim si alicui Ecclesiae praeficiendus & ordinandus Episcopus esset, 
Cypr. l. 2. Epist. ad Com.  per literas Provinciis finitimis omnibus significabatur, posted ejusdem provinciae Episcopi proximi quiqu● veniebant, aut quique venire minus possent▪ judicium suum per literas significabant, & deligebatur Episcopus ea plebe, cuju● Episcopus futurus erat, praesente, & access●● manuum impositio; hunc morem Cyprianu● & in sua Ecclesia, & per universas feri provincias observatum tistatur.— Ordinationem Episcoporum aut Ministrorum in Ecclesiis Asiaticis pracedebant suffragia (ut videtur) populi, Magistrautus, 
Cent. 4. C. 6. de ritibus circa ordinat. p. 243.  & aliorum Episcoporum & Presbyterorum, & exemplo probat Basilius Epist. 58. ad Meler. sine justis suffragiis ordinationem in seditionem interdum exiisse. Et Constant. in Epist. ad Nicomedenses hortatur eos, ut sub pulso Eusehio alium ordinent Episcopum, & eleganter inquit, medicina non sera fuerit, si nunc salte● delecto Episcopo fideli & integro respexeritis in Deum, quod impraesentia est potestatis vestrae, & jampridem debuerat judicio vestro esse perfectum— & in Europaeis Ecclesiis ad electionem Episcopi consensus multitudinis accedebat.  
The Fourth Council of Carthage requires to the admission of every Clergy man civium assensum, testimonium, & convenientiam. 
Can. 22. Lo. Com. Tom. 6. Sect. 95, 96.  Gerard citeth for the people's right of Election, Ambr. Chrys●s. Orig. Isidore twelve Popes, and many ancient examples.  
This I suppose may suffice to show that non-elected Bishops are non-canonical; but if any would see more, let them read D. Blondels Apol. p. 379 etc. Gelaspies Miscel. Qu. 8. etc.  
2. What if the Ordainers should at any time prove (quod absit Deus) lazy, incontinent, intemperate, worldly or Symonaic● persons? by what charter doth Christ conve● Episcopal power to those that are notoriously such? or allow them whilst such, to exercis● such authority? and what hath the Church decreed, and the learned determined concerning such? The seventh Canon of th● Apostles, as they are called, determines thus Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus, n●quaquam saeculares curas assumit; sin autem deji●iatur. Et Can. 25. Episcopus, au● Presbyter, aut Diaconus qui in fornication aut perjurio, aut furto captus est, deponatur Can. 42. Episc. Presb. aut Diac. aleae au● ebrietati deserviens, aut desinat, aut ceri● damnetur: & Can. 44. Epise. Presb. au● Diac. issuras à debitoribus exigent, 
Conoll. Nic●n. can. 20.  aut desina● aut certe damnetur.— Likewise in th● great Counc. at Nice, it was determined, Quicunque ex lapsis per ignorantiam su●● ordinati, vel contemptum corum qui eos ordinaverunt, hoc non praejudicat Regulae Ecclesiasticae; cum enim compertum fuerit, deponantur. And Can. 18. deposes those that are guilty of usury and oppression. 
Con. Anc. Can. 210.  The Counc. a● Ancyra decreed, Siquis adulterium commiserit, septem annis in poenitentia completi perfection● reddatur secundum pristinos gradus. The fifteenth Can. of the Counc. of Nice, and the 21. Can. of the Counc. at Antioch disables a Bishop to remove from one City to another. The Centuriators say, Testatur etiam August. quosdam Episcopos rebus saecularibus occupari, 
Cent. Magd. Cent. 5. c. 7. p. 409.  & minus studiose operam sacris literis navare, eoque erroribus indulgere; Idem queritur multos favore vulgi ad sacerdotia venire; & illum qui pecuniâ Episcopatus honorem acquirat, non venire à Deo indicat. Bishop Jewel that mall of the Papists saith; As for the Bishop of Rome— except he minister the Sacraments, instruct the people, warn them, and teach them, we say that he ought not of right once to be called a Bishop, or so much as an Elder; for a Bishop, as saith Saint August. is a name of labour and not of honour; that the man that seeketh to have pre-eminence, and not to profit, may understand himself to be no Bishop— S. Chrysost. saith, Multi sacerdotes, & pauci sacerdotes; multi nomine, pauci op●re. Saint Ambr. saith, Nisi bonum opus amplectaris, Episcopus esse non potes— And Wickliff, Papa vel Praelatus malus & praescitus, est aequivoce Pastor, & vere fur, & latro. Saint Chrysos. Qui ab hominibus ordinatus (and not by God) quantum ad Deum attinet, non est Sacerdos aut Diaconus. Thus far that p●arless Jewel.  
3. What power have heretical, schismatical or notoriously erroneons Bishops? where doth Christ give authority to those that are plainly bend to destroy Christianity, to seduce his people? The Centuriators tell us two or three very pretty stories so much to our purpose that I shall repeat them. 
Cent. 4. p. 244.  Oportebat autem (ut hic obiter moneamus) Episcopum manuum imponentem, non suspecta esse religionis, sed orthodoxum; sie enim Moses Saracenus raptus & ad vicinum Episcopum Lucium Alexandrinum ut ordinaretur adductus, manum ejus quod Arianus esses religionis hostis & persecutor, far noluit, sed deduci se jussit ad exulantes in montanis orthodoxos à quibus manuum impositionem accepit.— Simile exemplum Theod. etiam de Antiochio recitat; is enim Eusebio magn● illi Samosatensium Episcopo successor delectus, cum inter manuum impositionem conversus vidisset Jovianum Pergensem qui brevi te●●pore cum Arrianistis conjunctus fuerat, manum capiti suo imponere, repulit illam, petiitqu●ne interesset numero consecrantium se; quod sufferre manum administram blasphemiae sacr●rum se posse negaret. And that Reverend Doctor Field writes that which may make some men's ears tingle to read; Cyprian (saith he) Cecilius, Posic. and other Bishops writing to the Clergy and people of the Churches of Spain, whereof Basilides and Martialis were Bishops, who fell in time of persecution, denied the faith, and defiled themselves with idolatry, persuade them to separate themselves from those Bishops, assuring them that the people being holy, religious, fearing God, and obeying his Laws, may and aught to separate themselves from impious wicked Bishops, and not to communicate with them in matters of God's service: Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. The same Doctor citys Ocham thus; Si Papa & maxims celebres Episcopi incidan● in haeresin, ad Catholicos devoluta est omnis potestas judicandi.  
So then when God shall punish a people with such Bishops, how Candidates can desire ordination from them, judge you. Though their acts when done, may be valid if the substance of the Ordinance were not neglected, yet that will not justify their sinful bestowances, nor other sinful receptions.  
18. Can you admit reordination in actu signato, yet how can you admit it in actu exercito? Here it is supposed, that reordination in actu exercito, is clothed with many accidents, which (quoad nos) are inseparable: the particulars whereof may be seen in the book of Consecration of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons; a scantling wherefrom I shall propound for consideration, and leave the judicious and conscientious to make the conclusion. 1. How can you persuade yourselves that this second ordination is no proper ordination, no new investiture with office-power? When yet 

1. They begin with an exhortation, declaring the duty and office of such as come to be admitted Ministers.  
2. It is said the Archdeacon, or his Deputy, shall present such as shall come to the Bishop to be admitted Deacons.  
3. If the Archdeacon tell truth, than he presents these persons present to be admitted Deacons.  
4. If the Bishop tell truth, than the persons presented are to be ordered Deacons, and to be admitted to the same.  
5. The Directory in that book saith, And if any great crime be objected, the Bishop shall surrease from ordering that person.  
6. It is said, the Bishop commending such as are found meet to be ordered, etc.  
7. It is afterward prayed. Mercifully behold these thy servants now called to the like office and administration.  
8. It is further said, that the Oath of the King's Supremacy is to be administered to every of them that are to be ordered.  
9 It is again in the direction said, every one of them that are to be ordered.  
10. The Bishop calls the work you come about, a taking upon you this office and administration.  
11. Accordingly he tells you what appertaineth to the office of a Deacon.  
12. Afterwards the Bishop expressly saith, Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon.  
13. It is Also all that are ordered shall tarry and receive the holy Communion the same day with the Bishop.  
14. Then the Bishop blesseth God for the taking of those servants into the office of Deacons in the Church of God.  
15. The Archdeacon shall present unto the Bishop all that shall receive the order of Priesthood that day.  
16. The Archdeacon saith, Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these persons present to be admitted to the order of Priesthood.  
17. The Bishop saith, Good people, these be they whom we purpose, God willing, to receive this day to the holy office of Priesthood.  
18. If there be any of you which knoweth any impediment or notable crime of any of them, for the which he ought not to be received into this holy Ministry.  
19 The Bishop prays, Mercifully behold these persons, now called to the office of Priesthood.  
20. The Bishop calls it three times, The office to which ye are called, or to the same purpose, in his exhortation.  
21. In the Bishop's first Question, in the name of the Congregation, there are these expressions called— To the ministry of Priesthood.  
22. The Bishop blesseth God for calling those persons to the office and ministry.  
23. Receive the holy Ghost, and take thou authority, etc.  
24. In the Rubric following it is said, If the orders of Deacons and Priests be given both upon one day.  
25. Afterwards the ordering of Priests.  
26. The ordering of Priests again.  
27. The Deacons shall be ordered.   Besides the title of the book, the form of making and consecrating, etc. so that above thirty times in this book is the exercise called the ordering of Priests and Deacons, though not in the same words, yet in others that are tantamount, many whereof seem by no means applicable to a mere legal establishment, or any thing less than a proper investiture with ministerial power; and several of them being in prayers and promises, wherein an equivocation and wresting of words is dangerous, therefore though we should grant (which yet we deny) that ordination may be used to some other end then to invest with power from Christ, yet we can by no means grant that it should be administered by this form, which so plainly expresseth what is not intended, and is wholly silent in that which is only intended. But to proceed to other considerations. 

2. Can you cheerfully sing the Litany with the Congregation, when you are reordained, according as it is appointed?  
3. Can you join in praying the Litany, which hath in it so many stated repetitions, as also stated alterations, the people being one while the public mouth, another while the Minister; and their parts in prayer being so disjoined, that neither the Ministers words, nor the people's words, carry any full sense in themselves, but depend upon supplies from each other? Yea, is there not such an alteration of the speakers in the saying that most compendious concatenated form of our blessed Lords own prescribing?  
4. Can you pray in the Litanies general expressions for all that travel by land and by sea?  
5. Do you well understand the Oath of the King's Sovereignty, appointed to be administered to you, that ye may be able to swear in truth, righteousness, and judgement?  
6. Can you profess before a Congregation, that you trust you are inwardly moved by the holy Ghost, to take upon you the office and ministry of a Deacon, after so long a time as you have been virtually a Deacon already?  
7. Can you solemnly profess, that you think you are truly called to the ministry of the Church, that is, first to be a Deacon, and afterwards a Presbyter, either according to the will of Christ, or the order of this Realm? Where hath Christ or this Realm prescribed such a reordination?  
8. Can you cordially promise that you will gladly and willingly assist the Priest in divine Service in the Congregation where you are placed?  
9 Can you promise reverend obedience to your Ordinary, who is (it is like) but of the same order and the same degree of that order, as instituted by Christ Jesus? yea it may be he is but a lay-person exercising spiritual jurisdiction; and also that you will submit to his godly judgement?  
10. Can you receive a distinct authority to be a Deacon, and a distinct authority to read the Scripture, according to the two distinct acts of investiture?  
11. Can you receive a distinct authority to read the New Testament, without any express delivery of power to read the old Testament, or any mention of it?  
12. Can you comfortably receive the Lord's Supper with them, and according to them? View the form in the Liturgy.  
13. Can you rationally join in the last prayer in the ordering of Deacons, where they pray; that the Deacons may so well use themselves in this inferior office, that they may be found worthy to be called (which must needs imply Hereafter) unto the higher Ministry in this Church? How can you thus pray, that you must exercise the office of a Deacon, by the faithful discharge whereof you may be judged meet to be made a Presbyter, and yet be ordained Deacon and Presbyter both on one day (as some I hear are) wherein you neither have sufficient time for trial, nor the proper judges present?  
14. Can you join in the first prayer in the ordering of Presbyters, Mercifully behold these thy Servants, now called to the office of Priesthood, which seems to imply Not before? And the like in the third prayer after the Litany.  
15. What is that office of Priesthood according to Scripture and the Laws of our Realm? And where are the Ministers of the Gospel called Priests?  
16. If ever you aim at commencing Lord Bishop●, how can you obey that exhortation, wherein is this good Illation following, For this self same cause ye see how ye ought to forsake and set aside (as much as ye may) all worldly cares, and studies— and that ye have clearly determined, by God's grace, to give yourselves wholly to this vocation, whereunto it hath pleased God to call you, so that (as much as lies in you) you apply yourselves wholly to this one thing, and draw all your cares and studies this way, and to this end? And can you promise the same?  
17. Can you promise to administer the discipline of Christ, when yet in the words of investiture there is not any power given expressly of administering discipline? Nay more, are you not by certain Canons restrained from exercising the discipline of Christ, or a great part of it?  
18. Can you promise to administer the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and this Realm hath received them, except you can approve the whole Hierarchy? and whether then?  
19 Can you promise to teach the people committed to your charge, to keep and observe the same; that is, the Doctrine, and Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and this Realm hath received the same, according to the Commands of God?  
20. Doth not that expression, recoive the holy Ghost, seem to imply some extraordinary gift, which the Ordainers can neither believingly beg, nor the ordained believe that they shall receive?   How can that expression imply the office (as some great ones would have it) sigh the authority is delivered expressly in the next words, 
A. Usher in Doctor Bern. book 339. Mr. Hook. Eccics. pol. 412.  Take thou authority to preach, & c.? And especially how can that expression intent the office, when yet it is used in the consecration of Bishops, wherein no new office is bestowed, or received, according to the judgement of multitudes of our late Bishops themselves? Look before you leap.  
19 Whether doth the person in the Question intent to undertake the cure of a particular Church, or not? If not, to what purpose should he be reordained? Or much trouble himself about this Question? If he do, than I ask whether he can perform the conditions necessary to the procurement of Institution and Induction? If he cannot get Institution and Induction, to what purpose is reordination? If he can, then whether is it by the benefit of his Majesty's gracious Indulgence, or by a full conformity? If by the former, let him consider, whether he be like to keep his Benefice on the same terms that he gained it; if he cannot, to what purpose should he trouble himself much to gain that, which if he had he could not keep But if this must be by full conformity, the I only add; 

1. Have you well considere● what that Government is that is held fort in the 39 Art. book of Consecration, L●turgy, and Canons?  
2. Have you w● considered what the Oath of Canonic● obedience is, and to whom?  
3. Have yo● throughly considered the Liturgy?  
4. An● the book of Homilies?  
5. The Canons And  
6. the book of Consecration?   An● have you attained satisfaction by perusing what is said thereupon? Insomuch that yo● can with a clear conscience subscribe, rea● and use them? Have you considered th● natural fruits of growing principles, and ca● you relish them, & c.? Be not rash in you● vows; for rash vows are too often as rashly broken as made; and though the matter may admit no violation, yet the rashness will exact some lamentation.  
20. Is not this reordination, whether hypothetical, or absolute, a mere novelty seldom or never known in the Church o● God this sixteen hundred years? We rea● indeed of great contentions in the Church anciently about ordinations; but were they not generally determined either valid o● invalid? If valid, where shall we find a reordination? If invalid, how could there be a reordination? I suppose I need to say but little more to prove this negative, till some one else shall prove the affirmative. Yet I shall add something towards, not the proof of the negative directly, but of an affirmative, that will infer the negative; viz. reordination decried both by Ancients and Moderns. The 67. Canon of the Apostles (as they are called) runs thus: Si quis Episcopus, out Presbyter, 
In sermone de ablutione pedum. Bellar. de sacram. ordin. l. 6. c. 10. Contra. Epist. Parm. l. 2. c. 13. Can. 38.  aut Diaconus secundam ab aliquo ordinationem susceperit, deponatur tam ipse quam qui ipsum ordinavit. Cyprian, Nemo (inquit) sacros ordines iterum renovat. St. Augustine saith, Cur non potest dari ubi non recte datur, cum possit haberi ubi non recte habetur? Anquid non habere aliud est, aliud non recte habere? Sic & non dare aliud est, aliud non recte dare. Sicut non recte habent qui ab unitate discedunt, sed tamen habent, & ideo redeunti non reditur; sic etiam non recte dat qui ab unitate discedit, sed tamen dat, & ideo quod ab eo accepit redeunti ad unitatem non reiteratur. Other words of the same Father, and the words of Gregory you have before. The third Council at Carthage determines thus: Illud autem suggerimus, mandatam nobis quod etiam in Cappuensi plenaria Synodo videtur statutum, quod non liceat fieri rebaptizationes, & re-ordinationes, vel translationes Episcoporum. This Canon is capable of such a construction as is point-blank against reordination, no● much unlike whereto are the tenth and twentieth Canon of the Chalcedon Council.  
The Council of Trent (if that be worth regard) shall have leave to speak; Siqui● dixerit in tribus Sacramentis, baptismo scilicet, confirmatione, & ordine, non imprimi characterem in anima, hoc est signum quodda● spirituale, & indelebile, unde ea iterari no● possunt, anathema sit.  
Thomas Aquinas hath several flirts at reordination, as this, 
In suplem. ad 3. part. Q. 33. art. 1. and Q. 35. art. 5.  Nullum Sacramental● nec Sacramentum quod habet effectum perp●tuum, debet iterari— respondeo quod non es● de necessitate superiorum ordinum quod aliqu● minores ordines prius habeat, quia potestati● sunt distinctae, & unum quantum est de su● ratione non requirit alium in eodem subjecti● & ideo etiam aliqui in primitiva Ecclesia ordinabantur in Presbyteros, qui minores ordines non susceperant. Et tamen poterant omnia quae inferiores ordines possunt, quia inferior potestas comprehenditur in superior●● virtute; sicut sensus in intellectu, Ducatus i● regno: Sed postea per constitutionem Ecclesia determinatum est quod ad majores se non ingerat, qui prius in minoribus sfficii● se non humiliaverit; & inde est quod qui ordinantur per saltum, secundum Canon's non reordinantur; sed id quod omissum fuerat de praecedentibus ordinibus, eye confertur. The learned Magro affirms, 
In sentent. fol. 39  That Sacramentum ordinis non iteratur circa eandem materiam; And when he had discussed the several reasons of several sorts, some say, the indelible character; some the reverence of the ordinance; some the fixing into a certain state, etc. then he adds his own reason thus: Dico ergo quod causa praedictae (so I suppose it should be printed) non iterationis est quod habent sufficientem efficaciam respectu sui effectus, & hoc est generale omnibus Sacramentis, & ideo nullum est iterabile. He answers, that from the Lords Supper the consecration whereof is not iterable on the same elements; and speaking of the uniterability of baptism, confirmation, and orders, he concludes, Et hoc concedunt omnes.  
Estius that learned Schoolman maintains this Position, Sacramentum ordinis characterem & n●e amitti, n●e repeti posse; 
In Com. didst Inct. 25. l. 4. p. 46. s. 5.  sicut in baptismo consecratur homo religioni, & familiae Christi, in confirmatione autem militiae Christi, item ordinatione consecratur in ministerio Ecclisiastico, sen functione publica 〈◊〉 Ecclesia Christi; ea ●utem consecratio cu● per petuum relinquat effectum, sive absolutu● sive respectivum, quem characterem dicimu● de quo disputatur apud Scholasticos, ea ratio● amitti non potest, & proinde nec iterari, qu● siquis tentaverit, nihil efficit: ac nihilomin● Sacramento cum tali consecratione dato fac● injuriam; deinque probat hoc Ecclesiae consen● sus, quae semel ordinatos nunquam reordinass● legitur, unde merito definitum est hoc dogus primum in Florent. Conc. deinde in Trident.  
Bellarmine affirmeth, Baptismus non pot●● repeti, 
De effect. sacram. l. 2. c. 22.  si fuerit semel rite collatus, & etia● confirmatio & ordo.  
Rivet also saith, His non repugnavit Augustinus, vocavit ordinem Sacraementum, 
In Cathol. orthodox. tom. 2. tract. 3. q. 14. p. 66.  s●● fignificatione laxa; contulit cum baptismo, s●● non aquavit; tantum ostendit convenientia● in eo, quod ordo non repeti debet, quemadmodu● nec baptismus, quodque uterque cum aliq●● consecratione confertur, in his quidem conveni● unt, etc.  
This Proposition following is given in 〈◊〉 the judgement of those eminent Divine● Wickliff and Fitchraphe (alias Armachanus) That one who was but a mere Pries● might ordain another, 
Mr. P●in's unbish. Tim. and Ti●. p. 7.  and that he who wa● ordained only by a single Priest, ought not to doubt of his Presbyter ship, or be ordained again, so as he rightly perform his clerical office, because the ordination comes from God, who supplies all defects. Mr. Baxter saith, 
Disput. about Church-government, p. 189.  you must distinguish betwixt a General ordination to the office of the Ministry, and a special ordination to a particular Church (as licensing a Physician, and settling him over a City or Hospital) the first may be done but once, in case it be truly done.  
The Provincial Assembly at London, 
Jas Divin. Min. Evan. p. 147.  affirm that there is no Scripture to warrant the reiteration of ordination in case of removal (much less without removal) the Apostles went about ordaining Elders in every Church, and Titus was left in Crete to ordain Elders, etc. but there is no mention made of any Commission for reiterated ordination, neither indeed can it be; for ordination being the setting of a man apart to the office of the Ministry, and not only to the exercise of it in such a place; though the local exercise should cease, yet his office remains, and therefore needs not be reiterated; to this truth we have the consent of the universal Church, who do not only not allow, but condemn a second ordination.— If the universal Church be against reordination, what need I more? if I did, I might add both Schoolmen, Commentators, Common-place-men, etc. in abundance, as no doubt our Reordainers will acknowledge. But to prevent over-tediousness I forbear, and pass on to see what is said for reordination.   

CHAP. IU.  
Containing animadversions upon that singular Tract of learned Mr. I. Humphrey, wherein I shall neither unfaithfully conceal, nor scornfully slight the least weighty expression, but shall carefully gather all the arguments scattered in his book and faithfully recits them in his own words, and then add my returns, leaving the censure to the judicious Reader.  
Object. 1. IS drawn from Paul's circumcising of Timothy, and purifying himself in the Temple. 
Acts 16.3.  When Paul circumcised Timothy, 
Act. 21.26.  and purified himself with th● Jews in the Temple, these were things I count indefinitely unlawful, yet commendable in tha● case. I do choose to stand on this ground though we may draw, nearer on probability.  
R. 1. Is not a choice to stand on this ground an interpretative deserting of all plain, proper Scripture-proof, and a depending upon a parallel? which parallel I shall consider.  
2. Were not those actions of Paul exerted in a period of time when the new law against them was not sufficiently promulged? but our reordination is acted sixteen hundred years after the full promulgation of the Gospel. And may it not well be supposed that in that very interim of the ceremonies honourable funeral, a far greater indulgence was permitted then might be permitted afterwards? Let Mr. Calvin that Expositorum facile Princeps, as Grotius once called him, give in his judgement in answer to this objection. 
Com. in Acts 16.3.  Videtur enim res esse lusoria, ubi ab instituto Dei disceditur, atqui circumcisio divinitus tantum ad Christi usque adventum mandata erat.  
Respondeo circumcisionem ita cessasse Christi adventu ut t●men usus non statim plane abolitus fuerat, sed liber maneret donec patefacta clarius luce Evangelii omnes agnoscerent Christum esse finem legis. 
In Act. 16.3.  Piscator unfolding those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith, is't ne repudiaren illum Judaei tanquam incircumcisum, quia nondum intelligebant circumcisionem esse abrogatam.  
Paraeus saith, 
In Gal. 2.3.  Olim temporibus Apostolorum erat (scil. circumcisio) libera, cum legis abrogatio esset in motu; post quam vero abrogatio perfecta & publicata est omnibus circumcisis, 
Paraph. in Acts 16.3.  defiit esse libera. Erasmus saith, Judaei nondum erant palam liberati ab onere legis, quam oportebat paulatim aboleri.  
Sanctius on Acts 16.3. is much to the same purpose.  
Baldvinus saith, 
In Gal. 2.3.  Circumcisio pro triplici statu Ecclesiae tripliciter considerari potest, vel ut necessaria, v●l ut ind●fferens, vel ut noxia; necessaria crat in vet. Test.— indifferens erat sub initium nevi, ubi ad tempus retinebatur donec Synagoga Judaica cum reverentia sepeliretur; noxia vero hodie est post quam Ecclesia novi Test. confirmata est.  
Gelaspy amongst a matter of fourteen differences that he reckons up betwixt the Propish Ceremonies used by the Protestants, 
English Popish cerem. p. 61  and the Jewish ceremonies used by the Apostles, he gives these for the second and tenth; Ours are proved to be in their own nature unlawful, theirs were (during the aforesaid time) indifferent. Ours are urged after the full promulgation of the Gospel, and acknowledgement of Christian liberty, theirs before the same.  
Cornel. a Lap. saith, Legalia erant mortua, 
Acts 16.3.  sed necdum mortifera.  
Luther saith, Postquam enim Christus advenit, legis opera sic abrogavit, ut indifferenter ea haber. possent, non autem amplius cogant.  
3. How is it probable that these actions of Paul were either a proper legal circumcision or purification? For my part I am apt to think, notwithstanding the indulgence in this juncture of time, that Paul did not use any proper, formal, legal circumcision, as binding to keep the Law of Moses, or purification typifying any spiritual washing by the Messiah to come, but only the external actions in some other way; and my reason is this, 
Acts 15: 10.  If Paul had circumcised Timothy, as binding him to keep the Law of Moses, 
Gal. 5.2.  than he had brought him under an unsupportable yoke, and freed him utterly from profiting by Christ Jesus. In like manner, if Paul to foreshow how the Messiah to come should wash them in his blood, did purify himself, than should Christ Jesus profit him nothing, because he, ipso facto, denied him to be the Messiah. But let us hear what better judgements say to this business: Calvin saith, Circumcisio Timothei non fuit Sacramentum quale datum fuèrat Abrahae, & ejus posteris, sed ceremonia media, 
Acts 16.3.  & indifferns quae tantum ad fovendam charitatem, non ad pietatis exercitium valebat.  
Baldvinus saith, Vtebantur enim Judaei tunc circumcisione non ut medio conversionis, 
Gal. 2.3.  nec ut sigillo gratiae, quem usum habuit olim, sed ut signo externo in carne, quo discernebantur à Gentibus, & hanc ob causam toleraban● eam Apostoli, ita ut non damnarent eos qui non eam recipiebant.  
Aretius' in Acts 16.3. saith in effect the very same.  
Gelaspy makes this difference betwixt the English Popish Ceremonies (as he calls them) and the Jewish used by the Christians, 
English popish cerem. p. 61.  Our● are imposed and observed as parts of God● worship, theirs not so; for where rèad we, tha● (during the foresaid space) any holiness' wa● placed in them by the Apostles? Again, our● have certain mystical significations, theirs no● so; for it is not where to be read, that the Apostles either practised them, or prescribed them, as significative resemblances of any mysteries of the Kingdom of God.  
Hence I infer, that our case differs exceedingly from Paul's; for he had the power over these actions in his own hands, and might use such expressions as would best fit his own sense, and such modes as would best suit with his intended, etc. But now the business of reordination is quite out of our hands, and we are typed up to such expressions, forms and ceremonies as do clearly hold forth a second proper ordination: so that all that can be hence argued, is but this, that if we had reordination in our own hand, we might perform the outward act of reordination to another end then the former, with expressions sured to that end; but this being put out of our hands, the Argument is put out of doors.  
4. Though Paul did condescend for a time to the use of these rituals, to prevent prejudice in the Jews, in hope to improve that time so as to take off the Jews from those observations; but when he saw that the Jews were hardened, and grew worse and worse, and there was no hope of persuading them, than Paul would condescend no more, though to the endangering of his liberty, 
Gal. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  and life, and all, as Saint Hierom well observes; Si Titus cum esset ex gentibus, nullo potuit terrore compelli ut circumcideretur Hierosolumis Judaeorum metropoli Civitate in qua tanta Paulus blasphemiae in Mosen flagrabat invidia, ut postea ad Judaeis pene interfectus sit quando à tribuno liberatur, & Romam vinctus ad Caesarem mittitur.  
Hemmingius saith, Doctrina ergo hic observetur de discrimine infirmorum, 
Gal. 2.3.  & obstinatorum; illis parendum est ad aedificationem, his nihil largiendum quo Christiana libertas incolumis servetur.  
Paraeus saith well, Paulus igitur circumcidendo Timotheum ad scandalum infirmorum fratrum evitandum, 
Gal. 2.3.  qui de libertate Christiana nondum erant edocti, non peccavit, quia necessitas evitandi scandali eum ad hoc obligabat: Titum vero à circumcisione defendenda recte etiam facit, quia falsam opinionem circumcisionis necessariae ad salutem stabilire non debuit.  
And Calvin saith, Quemadmodum autem infirmis attemperare nos convenit; ita malignis, & qui data opera insidiantur libertati nostrae, fortiter resistendum est. Here might be added the words of Estius, Aretius, Dionys. Carthus. Musculus and others, which speak the same thing, though in different words.  
But to conclude, I say, If we had the least hope of withdrawing our reverend Reordainers from Reordination, by the condescension of some thereunto, than something might be said from this parallel; but alas! alas!— So that now whether Paul's circumcising Timothy make more for reordination, or his refusing to circumcise Titus, though it endangered his liberty, make more against it, judge ye.  
Object. 2. Is drawn from the Instance of Paul and Barnabas. Mr. H. 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 (Acts 9 with Acts 22.) which is ordination, and likewise Barnabas by the Church at Jerusalem, that sent him to Antioch (Acts 11.22.) when yet they are both separated after (Acts 13.) by the holy Ghost; and laying on of hands unto that further work they are called to in Seleucia 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?— 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, etc. Acts 26.16, 17, 18. and yet is he ordained after by the hands of men, Acts 13.3. Will any man say, 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 would never put up, who in express● terms stands upon it, that he was an Apostle neither of men, nor by men, but by Christ, Gal 1.1. which is the truth. It is plain then, that a man which is a Minister, may be ordained; or that it is not necessary to be ordained only to this end, to have the office conferred on him. Page 49, 50.  
Resol. 1. Some deny that Paul and Barnabas were ever ordained Apostles by men before that at Antioch. As for Paul, it is evident, that what Ananias said to him hath scarcely the least colour of ordination; 
Acts 9.17.  The Lord (even Jesus that appeared to the● in the way that thou camest) hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and b● filled with the holy Ghost: And what follows but this? And immediately there fell from his eyes as in had been scales. 
ver. 18.  So that it is plain, that the work of Ananias was to restore Paul's sight, but surely not to ordain him; for afterward it follows, that Paul arose and was baptised. Sanctius and others give this reason against the conjecture of an ordination in this Text. Which conjecture, I observe, a considerable number of Commentators never dropped from their pens. And as for Barnabas, whether that were an ordination in Acts 11. is very doubtful; for it might well be judged but an occasional Embassy: And if it cannot be proved that Paul and Barnabas were twice ordained by men, what will it avail to say they were twice ordained, once immediately by Christ himself, and the other mediately? For how can this justify a twofold ordination by men? Or if they had a twofold ordination, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary, can that justify a twofold ordinary consecration? Again, if the immediate sending of these Apostles hold forth any thing to us, is it not answered by Christ's gifting and inclining persons to undertake this office, which is Christ's immediate work? and is by some called the internal Call; and then our ordination by men answers the supposed ordination in Acts 9 And Acts 11. and then where is the third ordination to be found, to justify this third Call (if with others I may so speak) or fourth perchance exacted from us?  
2. What if we should grant that action in Acts 13. to be a proper ordination, yet (say some) it might be to a higher office than they had received before, and such a second ordination who denies? Or what will it avail the Advocates of Reordination?  
3. To what purpose is this, Acts 13. brought to justify a second proper ordination to the same office, exceptit be proved that such an ordination is there intended? In which material business I admire that ingenious Mr. H. was so much overseen; for through the whole tract, I find not the least Argument advanced (as I remember) to attempt such a proof; though the proof thereof lies wholly on his part, as is clearly evinced, thus. He being to prove the lawfulness of a second ordination by Scripture, argues thus: If Paul and Barnabas were reordained, then so may we; but Paul and Barnabas were reordained; ergo. Neg. Minor. He proves his Minor from this, Acts 13. We deny that separation to be a proper ordination, such as ours in the Question; it lies therefore upon him to prove it; which he hath not done: I shall now therefore advance several Arguments towards the proof of the contrary, viz. that here is meant no proper ordination to an office, but only some benedictory separation to the exercise of their office among the Gentiles.  
1. The Holy Ghost required no more but a separation to the work, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Not mentioning the office in the least.  
2. Luke tells us expressly, that after Paul and Barnabas had done their work, they returned to Antioch, whence they were recommended to the grace of God by fasting and prayer for the work which they fulfilled. 
Act. 14.26.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And let it be considered whether those Greek Fathers which call this an ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not possibly intent ad exercitium Apostolicum potius quam munus.  
3. Saint Luke tells us, as it was a work, so a work which they quickly fulfilled. And if by work you understand office, than the sense is this; they fulfilled their office, or finished their office to the Gentiles; than which what need to be more harsh, or contrary to truth? for Paul executed the Apostolical office among the Gentiles long after; though that particular expedition to which they were separated at Antioch, was quickly accomplished.  
4. How can this Text bold forth a proper ordination from men, when yet Paul stands to it, that his office was neither of man, not by man? Gal. 1.1.  
5. If this were an ordination to an office, then either to the Apostolical office, or some inferior office? not to the Apostolical office; for how could Simeon, Lucius and Manasses who were but Prophets at the most (for aught I find) ordain Paul and Barnabas to be Apostles? how could inferiors ordain superiors? if you maintain that they can, your Reordainers will con you no thanks for your pains; for than their trite Maxim, Nil dat quod in se non habet, and their other oracle, That a Bishop is essential to an ordination, will presently fall to the ground; then will they have no foundation for their condemnation of Presbyterian ordination, or justification of reordination. Yea you will run upon that which may possibly prove a greater rock then either of these. (To say nothing of that Scripture, the less is blessed by the greater, so notably scanned by M. Pryn) you must then make men of inferior qualifications suitable to their inferior offices, Tryers and Judges of those more eminent qualifications required in the bearers of superior offices, for which work they seem to be utterly unfit. Here it is supposed that the extraordinariness of this instance hinders not from being ordinarily exemplary; for if it should, the whole objection falls without any more ado. But then on the other hand this could not be an ordination to any office inferior to the Apostolical. 
Acts. 14.4, 14.  

1. Because Acts 13. & 14. are express that it was to the work of the Apostles, and therefore not to any inferior office.  
2. In the execution of this work, as they act like Apostles, so they are called Apostles.  
3. It cannot be rationally denied but they were Apostles before, and then it cannot be rationally affirmed that the Doctors at Antioch would ordain the Apostles to inferior offices; for this would be a degradation of their persons, and a diminution of their office, and needless; for Omne majus continet in se minus.    
6. Though its true the separation of a person from amongst the fraternity to the Ministerial work doth imply ordination, because the exercise of authority supposes the existence of that authority; yet the separation of a person from amongst Ministers to this or that part of their work, implies no such thing, but rather the contrary. Now its evident that the Text holds forth but a separation of Paul and Barnabas from among Ministers (for it is said there were certain Doctors and Prophets at Antioch, among which Saul an● Barnabas are named, and but to a wor● which they had sufficient authority to discharge, a greater authority than which these Prophets and Doctors could not confe● on them. And hence methinks here i● something of a probability, that this wa● only a solemn benediction when they wen● upon this sudden and new expedition.  
7. It is said when Paul and Barnabas were separated to this work, 
Acts 14.  that they were commended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. Which seems also to imply that the main business of this exercise wa● no ordination, but an united solemn beging of the assisting prospering grace of Go● in the exercise of their Apostleship among the Gentiles to whom they were sent; and surely this is nothing more (abating only the imposition of hands of which hereafter) than what hath been common, as well as good, in our country, when a Minister removed to a new charge.  
8. It is strange that never any Divine this sixteen hundred years, or very few could discern any foundation in this Term for reordination; it's well known that reordination hath been generally disavowed through the Christian world; and if any acknowledge an ordination in this Acts 13. then they deny any from men before to the same office; and if they acknowledged any by men before, than they generally deny any ordination here. 
T. 3. Q. 74. disp. 34. Sect. 1. Jus Divin. Min. Evang. 147, 148. Disput. of Church-government, p. 189. Synopsis p. 824. De Min. Angl. p. 46, 47.  Observe how Suarez interprets this Text, Haec manuum impositio nobis tantum deprecatoria, non etiam consecratoria videtur. Learned Chamier and Mr. Hooker of N. E. are cited by the London Ministers, as concurring with them in this interpretation. Distinctious Mr. Baxter after he had distinguished the office, and the exercise, and affirmed a reordination to the first unlawful, than he adds, It is not like as the separation and imposition of hands on Paul and Barnabas was to their first Apostleship. Willet brings in the Rhemists thus interpreting this Text, that Paul and Barnabas were admitted, ordered and consecrated by them; he adds the judgement of the Protestants, which we say not, but they were only sent out to the execution of their office, being before chosen of the Spirit. Learned Mason saith, Haec manuum impositio non eo spectabat ut Episcopalem gratiam eis largiretur, sed (docente Scriptura) ut segregarentur ad opus ad quod Spiritus sanctus assumpsit eos, & ut commendarentur (precibus scilicet & jejunio) gratiae Dei ad opus quod mpleverunt: and to this interpretation I am most ready to subscribe. To conclude, if it cannot be proved that Paul and Barnabas were ordained before, and that they were ordained here, and that to the same office, all falls; and truly I cannot see how these can be proved, and I hope you will not wonder because I find not one Interpreter that ever pretended to such a sight.  
These premises may serve to take down another argument advanced for the support of Reordination.  
Object. 3. Drawn from a new devised end of Ordination, fancied to be public allowance. Mr. H. p. 32, 33, 34. The reason of a precept is to be looked on as a 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 reordination, but we have here in this instance (Acts 13.) 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 it is said) for that purpose before, and I will presume to give the like or the same for our reordination by the Bishop— What then is the reason indeed hereof? is it to give the Ministerial office, and nothing else? surely if it does that at all— yet is not this the reason altogether for certain, because there is an instance to the contrary, let any man cavil at it what he can. What then is the reason? why really I think it is this, this solemn rite doth 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, etc.  
R. Though in this subtle discourse there are many notable excrescencies of an ingenious fancy, yet this crafty device of a new end to ordination to prevent profanations, seems unto me the Monarch of all. Yet I think I may say of this as well as the rest, acutile sonant, sed jacta reperiuntur obtusa. In order to the discovery whereof I would first show what are the true ends of that action, Acts 13. And secondly, that a public allowance was not likely to be the end, whatever was. The ends mentioned are these three. 

1. This action tended to a solemn dismission of Paul and Barnabas from the great work at Antioch. That they were engaged at Antioch, appears by those words, v. 2. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted; their dismission appears in those words, ver. 3. When they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Hence Piscator calls this forma dimissionis. 
Piscator in Acts 13.3.  So that indeed this action seems to be a valedictory dismission of Paul and Barnabas by the Church at Antioch from their work there.  
2. This action seems to be a solemn separation of Paul and Barnabas to the Apostolical work among the Gentiles, from ver. 2. It's said by the Holy Ghost, Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them. And that this work was the Ministry among the Gentiles, is evident from their discharge of this work, Acts 13. & 14.  
3. This action was intended as a recommendation of the Apostles to the grace of God, for the assisting, protecting and succeeding of them in the work to which they were separated, as appears Acts 14.26.   And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. So then here you have from Scripture three ends of this action, dismission, separation, and recommendation, but not the least syllable (as I observe) that holds forth a proper ordination to these ends; for indeed it was not needful thereto, nor yet the least syllable as holds forth any such a fourth end as publikè allowance: And whosoever shall well consider the eminency of the Church at Antioch, where the Disciples were first called Christians, and the eminency of the service that the Apostles had done there, let him wonder if he can; that the Church there should give these Apostles such a solemn, affectionate, Christian, dimissory valediction. And do but think how glorious as well as how dangerous, how difficult and how necessary the conversion of so many heathen nations by two persons contemptible in the eyes of the world, must needs seem to be, and then judge it strange, if you can, that the Antiochians should fast and pray with all earnestness for the concurrence of God's grace with Paul and Barnabas, which alone could enable them to accomplish such an unlikely work. Surely here is reason enough for all that was done, though reordination, and public allowance never came in their thoughts. Thus having shown you what were probably, yea certainly the ends of that fasting, and prayer, and imposition of hands; I now come to show that public allowance, or currant repute was not probably the end intended thereby. 

1. They could not intent a mere Political allowance, such as ours by the Satute-law.  
2. Nor a mixed allowance, such as ours by the Canon-law.  
3. Nor a Scriptural allowance, such as ours by ordination.  
4. Nor a popular allowance or currant esteem among the people. 

1. Such eminent Apostles stood in no need at all of esteem to be procured by the Antiochians, 
Cor. 3.2.  any more than by the Corinthians.  
2. If the Apostles had need, yet inferiors seem to be utterly uncapable to add esteem to Superiors; obscure and private persons to famous Apostles.  
3. If the Apostles had gone to other Churches where the Antiochians were better known than they, in that case I confess the Antiochians might have added something; but sigh they go to the blind Heathens in very remote countries, that it may be, had never heard of the Church at Antioch, or if they had, it is like never regarded it, except to revile and reproach it, and therefore how can we imagine that the Antiochians separation could add any thing to the Apostles estimation?  
4. If the Apostles had need of estimation, they could procure it to themselves by their admirable Doctrine, and unheard of miracles, yea they were much more likely by their stupendious miracles to add to the Antiochians, than the Antiochians at all to them.  
5. How can we think an ordination at Antioch, or anywhere else, is a likely medium to create esteem for the Apostles in Paphos, Lycaonia, Iconium, or such like blockish Countries or Cities, where it is like neither the quid nominis nor quid rei of ordination was ever known until they were told them by the Apostles!  
6. If the Gentiles had ever heard of an ordination before, yet how little did they esteem of it? and unlikely to add estimation to others is an action not esteemed itself: do not we see even in England, that a man's parts and gifts, his holy life, and unwearied labours add more to his estimation then ordination itself?  
7. How can we imagine that Paul would take an ordination from men to add to his esteem, 
Gal. 1.1, 11, 12.  when he plainly denies any ordination from men, as a thing that would undervalue him?  
8. Had the procuring of estimation been their end, than would they much rather have used letters of recommendation, which the very light of nature (as well as Scripture, 2 Cor. 3.1.) shows us and all nations to be the most proper medium, as appears by the practice of all Nations in sending their Credentials and Testimonials with their Ambassadors.  
9 What need Paul and Barnabas be reordained to prove estimation among the Gentiles beyond seas? for they had no more personal knowledge of the last ordination then of the first, and might have been as well certified by the Antiochians of the first ordination, as of the last; yea and much better, by how much the immediate Call was more famous and wonderful than the mediate.  
10. If Paul and Barnabas suffered a reordination to create them esteem in a far country, then by the same reason may a Minister, when he removes into a strange country, admit a reordination to advance his local estimation, and so, toties quoties, than which what is more unheard of? Neither could this reordination be to create esteem among the Jews; for they were not sent to the Jews, but to the Gentiles; and they had great esteem among the Jews before, as appears by their reception, administration, and valediction; and besides Paul looked upon it among the Jews as an undervaluing, to be accounted an Apostle of man, or by man, etc.      
By all which I hope it appears, that in this Text is held forth no reordination, to procure estimation. But here I would answer this Question before I pass on to the next Objection. Why may we not submit to a reordination to this end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Though this end should not be found affixed to ordination, either in this. Acts 13. or in any other Scripture; yet an end, a remote, a higher end undoubtedly it is; for what is the end of ordination (according to you) but the giving of power? And what is the end of that power, but the free peaching of the Gospel?  
Resol. 1. Were we not tied up to use Christ's Institutions according to institution, but lest to prudential rules, and providential events, then might something be yielded.  
2. Did not the end give the species in morals, than might we be the more bold to affix a humane end (for so this would be in esse relativo) to a divine Ordinance; but seeing the end being of humane institution, will make the whole Ordinance in its immediate relation to that end to be but of humane institution; ergo, etc.  
3. Would not this instance drawn into example, open a door to innumerable profanations of God's Ordinances, than something might be granted; but because it will, ergo, etc. thus I argue, If we may use an Ordinance of God at our pleasure, for the attaining of an higher end, then why not much more for the attaining of the highest end, the glory of God? And if so, then how many ways may men abuse Baptism and the Lords Supper, if they do but conceit (as in our case is little more) that their abuses will tend to God's glory?  
4. Were the expressions in the book of Consecration so lax, that they would admit such a construction and use of ordination only, then there would be more to be said.  
5. Or if our reverend Bishops were so free to an accommodation, as to omit or alter those (as to this new end) cross-grained expressions, which will signify nothing less than a new investiture, then much more might be conceded.  
Object. 4. Drawn from the supposed iterability of marriage. Thus Mr. H. p. 37. So is marriage an entrance into the conjugal state. 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 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 that that form, which is compiled in the book, for the entering, or (which 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 misusage is it not? Apply the fame here, etc.  
Resol. 1. We must distinguish betwixt the formal contract, and the solemnity of marriage, and so I answer: 1. The formal contract, or marriage, in its essential is uniterable, as Argument 5.  
2. Marriage in its essentials is but a civil contract (as I suppose) but ordination is a religious, and therefore we may be more bold in the case of marriage, then in the case of ordination.  
3. Though marriage in genere be Gods Ordinance, yet in specie, I conceive, it hath no divine institution in any positive Law, neither hath the solemnity; and hereupon there is a latitude, and upon this latitude marriage in specie is become an humane Ordinance, which we may be somewhat more bold with, as I said before; but now ordination in specie is a divine Ordinance, instituted in God's positive Law, and therefore we are incomparably tied up, then if there were no such institution.  
4. The formal contract, which gives the relation, may be, and often is before the solemnity in marriage; but not so, I conceive, in ordination; for though God hath said of the ministerial honour, No man taketh this honour to himself; yet he hath never said of conjugal honour, No man taketh this honour to himself, but rather the contrary. And though a man might not take this office to himself, if no Law of the Land should forbid him, yet (for aught I know) a man might take a wife to himself, if the Law did not forbid him. So that the repetition of marriage is not the repetition of the proper formal contract, but of the solemnity; but not so in ordination.  
5. The proper end of the marriage solemnity is the satisfaction of the world; and therefore if the first solemnity give not satisfaction, the proper end of marriage seems to require a repetition; and hence it is, that there is no profanation of the Name of God. But now ordination, as it is not a mere solemnity, so its proper end is not the satisfaction of the world, but to invest with ministerial power, which end is certainly attained in the first ordination, and therefore its repetition must needs be a taking Gods Name in vain.  
6. Suppose that such a repetition of marriage should be imposed, as doth destroy your former marriage, null your relation to your wife, prove your children illegitimate, rocate your title to her estate, I presume you would scarcely submit unto it: even so when such a repetition of ordination shall be imposed as destroys God's Ordinance, nulls our ministerial relation to the Church, proves our administrations but an illegitimate brood, and that our Church maintenance belonged not to us, how shall we submit unto it?  
Object. 5. Drawn from the repetition of in Oath to confirm the same truth. 
P. 21.  Mr. H. May not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy be repeated, and yet the Name of God not taken in vain by it? And hence he would infer a repetition of orders without profanation.  
Resol. There is not much confidence put in this Argument, I presume, because it is so quickly passed over; and therefore as quickly will the Answer be dispatched. The great end and use of an oath among men, is to be for confirmation to them the end of all strife. Thence it follows, 
Heb. 6.16.  if the first oath be ineffectual to attain its end, that its lawful to repeat it in order to that end: and all that is implied in this necessary repetition is this, that the proper end of the Oath w●● not attained, and therefore we repeat i●● Yet undoubtedly to repeat an Oath whe●● strife is ended, and the Question in han● resolved, and so the proper end attained, i●● no less than a breach of the third Commandment. The Application is obvious.  
Object. 
P. 21.  6. Is drawn from the reptition of our prayers for the same mercies. Mr. H. Is it enough to make our Liturgy unlawful, because we have in one service the Lord Prayer twice over?  
Resol. 1. There are more institute● ends then one of prayer; and therefore whe● one is attained, yet another may be unattained, for which end we continue our prayers; but what is this to the repetition of that ordination, whose one end is attained, and no other end unattained?  
2. One great end of our prayers is the supply of our wants; and if those wants ar● not supplied at our first requests, our blessed Lord hath taught us to repeat them: whose example, 
Matth. 26.39, 42, 44.  as well as our own necessity, in order to the end unattained, do clearly show such repetitions to be no vanities. Yet undoubtedly that man which shall repeat his requests for the bestowance of that numerical mercy which he obtained upon his first request and possesseth, let that repetition be to what end it will, he shall be guilty of a vain repetition; as well as he that after a formal Popish manner repeats his bead-rows, as if he should be heard for his much speaking. And forasmuch as the Lords Prayer is summa petendorum, therefore to use that Prayer after our Prayers, may be thought no vain repetition, because when we have prayed fulliest, yet there may be something wanting to be supplied by that comprehensive Prayer; yet the use of the Lords Prayer twice or thrice in the same service, wherein the latter can supply no defect in the former, whether it be not too like a vain repetition, let the more spiritual and judicious judge. But now in ordination the end being certainly attained, how can there be room for a repetition without profanation?  
Object. 7. Is drawn from Christ's personal baptism by John Baptist. 
P. 30.  Mr. H. 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 of some others.  
Resol. 1. Suppose you should hold, that remission of sin was the sole end of John's baptism, which our sinless Saviour received, yet there is a Jesuitical slick-stone to smooth over the business.  
Cornel. A Lap. discovers it thus; Christus in se peccata nostra susceperat; 
Mat. 3.13.  ergo quasi reus & paenitens Joanni se sistit, ut ab● eo baptizatus in se quasi luat & abluat peccata nostra.  
2. But I suppose you will grant, that the great end of baptism was and is to be the solemn admission of members into the visible Church; and this end, I hope, our Lord Jesus was capable of attaining. And methinks here I have a fair opportunity to lay open the very sinews of Christ's own Argument produced to justify his desire of baptism, 
Mat. 3.13, 14, 15.  It behoveth us to fulfil all righteousness. Righteousness being a conformity to the Law, and the Law requiring this solemn admission of members into the visible Church (otherwise john's baptism was a lawless thing) and Christ being made under the Law, did not the Law of God bind him to baptism now, as well as to circumcision in his infancy? So then Christ's baptism being the solemn inauguration of a principal member, even the head of the Church, was therefore neither in vain, having no end, nor yet monstrous, having no usual end.  
St. Hierome gives the same reason thus: Triplicem ob causam Salvator à Joanne accepit baptismum. 
Mat. 3.13.  

1.  quia homo natus erat, omnem justitiam & humilitatem legis impleret.  
2.  baptismate suo Joannis baptisma comprobaret.  
3.  Jordanis aquas sanctificans per descentionem columbae, Spiritus sancti in lavacro credentium monstraret adventum.    
Chrysostom (or whoever was the Author of the imperfect work on Matthew) I suppose aims at the very same reason in these words. 
Mat. 3.15.  Justitia siquidem est omnium mandatorum impletio; quia ergo inquit (Christus) cuncta mandata perfecimus, hoc autem solummodo est reliquum, id quoque ipsum oportet adjungi.  
Cornel. à Lap. gives this as his eighth reason for Christ's baptism,  Christus qui novam Christianorum rempublicam condere decreverat, in quam non nisi baptizati adscriberentur, esset & in se Princeps baptizatus, ut sic per omnia fratribus assimiletur absque peccato.  
Pareus thus brings our sweet Saviour speaking, 
Mat. 3.15.  Non enim jam adsum tanquam Dominus, sed tanquam servus Domini, Ecclesiae novae atque officio inaugurandus.  
So then Christ being baptised for one of the special ends of baptism, what can this make for a reordination to no instituted end? Again, if Christ being made man lay under a law to be baptised, what is this to justify those that lie under no Law of God to be reordained?  
3. But if neither of these ends should hold good; yet Cornel. à Lap. for fear of failing hath added seven or eight more, with the first and third whereof Calvin himself agrees, and with the third Pareus, following Hilarius.  
4. Who knows what special command the Lord Jesus had received from the Father to come to John's baptism? There are great Divines that put such a Question; but it is beyond all question, that we have no special command for reordination.  
5. Or why might not Christ, being Legislator in his Church, affix his baptism to what end he pleased? Which we cannot do by ordination.  
6. How can we imagine that John would use any such words in the baptism of Christ, 
Acts 9 begin.  as should either intimate a belief in the Messiah to come (as ordinarily it may be he did) or the remission of sin through his blood by repentance (as Matth. 3.) sigh John knew full well who Christ was when he came unto him, as appears Matth. 3.13, 14. John 1.29, 30, 31. A learned person saith thus, Verisimile quoque est Joannem in ipso baptismo Christum populo demonstrasse; cum enim forma baptismi Joannis fuit haec aut similis, baptizo te in nomine e u● qui venturus est, vel Crede in Messiam jamjam venturum, ut colligitur, Acts 19 4. Videtur quod Christo veniente, & baptismum recipiente, dixerit, Hic est M●ssias quem venturum dixi. The same Writer affirms in his Comment. on Acts 19 4. Hinc colligunt S. Hieron. D. Thom. Mr. Sentent. Bonavent. Palacius & alii, hanc fuisse formam baptismi Joannis, Ego te baptise in eum qui venturus est, ut credas; hoc est in Jesum Christum, quem vobis mox ostendam: Christum vero baptizans, dixit, Ego te baptizo in nomine tuo qui venturus es, ait Palacius, etc. But in this (for aught I yet see) Bellarmine said true, Valde probabile est Joannem nulla omnino forma uti consuevisse. 
l. 1. de Bap. c. 20.  So than if John used no form in baptism, this Ordinance might the more easily be accommodated to this end, and not to that. But this is not our case; we have no such liberty in reordination. Or if John did use a form, it is certain that John was so faithful, that we would accommodate the same to the end of Christ's receiving baptism: but if unfaithful, no doubt Christ would have commanded him so to have done. But alas! this is far from our state; for if we come for reordination, we must use such forms as are altogether accommodated to an end, which by us must not at all be intended, and altogether unaccommodated to the end chief, yea only by unprosecuted.  
Object. 8. Drawn from a supposed rebaptisation. 
P. 85, 86, 87, 88  Mr. H. Let us turn then to Acts 19 and we shall find there certain Disciples at Ephesus, who were baptised into John's baptism. It is like that Apo●los living there, a diligent Teacher, and knowing only the baptism of John, Acts 18.24.25. had baptised them. Now we are to know that this baptism, having the same Author, Mat. 2.25. Matter, John 1.26. Form, John 1.32, 33, 34. Ends, Luke 3 3. and consigning the same Gospel, Mark 1.3, 4. was but one with Christ's baptism, Ephes. 4.5. Paul therefore catechising them therein, thus instructs them, John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, laying 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; 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 came to him, John 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, etc.  
Resol. Though I observe a greater variety of opinions about the interpretation of this Text, than almost of any other through the whole Bible; yet this I observe also, that they all agree in this (whatever else they differ in) to explode a repetition of the same valid baptism which is the only pillar of our reverend Brother's Argument. Yea moreover it is very observable, that the very reason of this so great diversity, was their detestation of rebaptisation. I find these ten several interpretations, none of which allow a repetition of every way the same baptism, which therefore cannot support the repetition of the same ordination.  
1. Some think in that Text baptism is always to be taken Metaphorically for the doctrine of baptism, that the sense may run thus; those twelve Disciples which were only instructed in the doctrine of John, were afterwards instructed in the Doctrine of Christ.  
2. Others say, that baptism may be taken always Metaphorically in that Text; but in the first place for the Doctrine, in the second for the gifts of the Spirit bestowed by imposition of hands.  
3. Others suppose, that the baptism of John is to be taken Metaphorically for the doctrine, and the baptism of Christ properly; and so, that these twelve were but once baptised, and that not by John, but Paul.  
4. O hers take the baptism of John properly, and the baptism of Paul Metaphorically for the Doctrine, and so make but one baptism, and that by John, not by Paul.  
5. Some take the baptism of John properly, and the baptism of Paul improperly, for the gifts of the holy Ghost.  
6. Others take baptism properly in both; but yet observe that both these expressions relate to John's baptism; and of this opinion are many of our Moderns.  
7. Others take baptism properly in both, and acknowledge a rebaptisation; but it was because those Disciples wanted the true baptism of John, and had only a corrupt administration from some of John's Disciples, wanting the true form, being not in the name of the Holy Ghost.  
8. Others acknowledge a rebaptisation, but it was through this accidental corruption in the administration of John's baptism, the baptised being not instructed in the doctrine of the Trinity, and of Christ's baptism with the Spirit.  
9 Others acknowledge a rebaptisation, but erroneously administered by some of Paul's Disciples before Paul came to them.  
10. That Paul did indeed rebaptize whom John had baptised, but it was because Christ's baptism and john's were not the same: And this way goes the Council at Trent, Bellarmine, Estius à Lap. and (I think I may safely say) the Romanists generally; and if I should add the Ancients also, I should not be much overtasked to prove it; and this way Diodat. himself seems to go. And now I infer, If any of these interpretations may be allowed, or if the uniform consent and practice of the Catholic Church may be admitted, then is our reverend Brother mistaken in his interpretation. And oh how strong and subtle was that temptation, that trapan'd so learned a person into the justification of one novelty by another, reordination by rebaptisation? And what cause have I, and such as I, to pour out our souls in that petition, Led us not into temptation?  
But hold, I must not sit down as yet, there is another job of work behind, and that is to saw asunder the Argument for this singular opinion; and which is more difficult to resolve, amongst all these Divines, whose handsaw to use; to use them all at once is needless, if not impossible; to reject any out of our shop, is prodigal, if not scandalous: and therefore I will only make use of one, and let the rest lie by until I have more need of them. I shall not now deny Christ's baptism and john's to be the same, but shall rather conject ure that John's baptism was never iterated; and therefore I must proceed to answer the Argument for the contrary.  
1. It is certain that the whole history (Acts 19) was written by Luke, as the Historian.  
2. It is certain that the Question (ver. 2.) Have ye received the holy Ghost since ye believed? (which probably is to be understood of the extraordinary gifts, as Calvin, Beza, Annot. etc. because it was to be received since they believed, and the ordinary gift before, or in believing) was from Paul.  
3. It is certain also, that that Answer, We have not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost; (which is probably to be understood suitably to the Question, of the extraordinary gifts, for John did tell his Disciples of the person of the holy Ghost) was the answer of John's Disciples.  
4. It is certain also, that that Question was Paul's, Unto what then were ye baptised?  
5. And the Answer following was the Disciples, Unto John's baptism.  
6. It is certain also, that the explanatory reply. (ver. 4.) was from Paul.  
7. Neither do I see any evidence necessitating a denial of the next words (When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus) to be attributed to the people that heard John, saying, that he baptised with the baptism of repentance, and that they should believe in him that should come after him: But it is laid, that those words (that is on Christ Jesus) could not be John interpretation, because John knew not Christ's name till afterwards.  
Resol. 1. I see no necessity that those words (that is on Christ Jesus) should be taken for John's interpretation, but for Paul's: Paul tells them that John said, that they should believe in him that should come after him; which Periphrasis of Christ Paul explains by those words, That is, on Christ Jesus, which Paul having done, he adds, When they (i e. John's hearers) heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus; that is interpretatively, In the name of the Lord Jesus; but literally, In the name of him that should come after him.  
2. I see no convincing evidence that John was ignorant of the name of Christ, till Christ came to him to be baptised: all that is proved by John 1.33. is only that John knew not the person of Christ before, though the name Christ he might know before; and it seems probable that he did so; for it is certain that Herod knew the Messiah which was to come by the name Christ, Matth. 2.4. so did the Pharisees, John 1. 24, 25. yea the people of the Jews generally, Luke 22.67. yea the woman of Samaria, John 4.25. And can we think that all these knew the Messiah's name, and that John did not? Again, is it not probable that the Jews had sent to John, to know whether be were not the Christ, which John denied, before Christ came to be baptised? John 1.19, 20.3.28. And doth not the name Messiah signify Christ? John 1.41. And can we think that John understood it not? Again, the Angel having told Joseph and Mary, that their blessed Babes name should be Jesus, Matth. 1.21. Luke 1.31. And the b'essed Virgin being Cousin to Elizabeth, John's Mother, and going to visit her, and continuing with her three months, and conferring with her with the greatest mutual joy concerning the holy feed, is it probable, that all this while the blessed Mary did not tell her Cousin of her Child's name? And if Mary told Elizabeth, how is it probable that Elizabeth, so good a Mother, would not tell her son John? Moreover it being about thirty years' space (as is conjectured) betwixt the giving the name Jesus unto Christ, and the preaching of John, is it probable, that all this while John did never hear Christ's name, Jesus? Especially being his Kinsman, and his singular forerunner. By this, I suppose, it is probable, that John did know the names, Christ Jesus, and so the Exegesis might be his; but if it were not, it will not infer, that the persons spoken of were not John's hearers. Thus having enervated the Argument for rebaptisation; give me leave to add a few considerations to evince the contrary.  
1. If Paul repeated the same baptism, how doth he say, There is one baptism, Eph. 4.8.  
2. If the same baptism may be repeated; how shall we gainsay the Anabaptists?  
3. If baptism may be repeated, then may the thing signified by baptism (viz. the new birth, or entrance into the Church) be repeated, but that is impossible.  
4. Calvin argues thus, Quod si priorem baptismum ignorantia vitiat, ut sit altero baptismo corrigendus, primi omnium rebaptizandi erant Apostoli, quitoto post baptismum suum triennio vix modicam syncerioris doctrinae particulam degustaverant, etc. This Argument will hold good upon a more general accouns, as well as upon this special.  
5. Our English Annotators on this Text argue from the oneness of circumcision, to the oneness of baptism; and so doth learned Wallaeus de baptismo.  
6. The end of Paul's action was the giving of the Holy Ghost, which was done by imposition of hands; but by baptism where shall we find it? Calvin and Beza both hint at this Argument.  
7. Beza on this Text gives this reason, Particula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae in graecis omnibus codicibus summo consensu legitur, & particula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessario respondet, nullo mode, nullo (inquam) modo patitur ut hujus orationis seriem discerpamus, quasi part Paulo, posteriori sit ipsi Lucae Scriptori tribuenda; ergo haec quoque Pauli verba sunt, tum doctrinam à Joanne quidem annuntiatam, & ab ipsis fide apprehensam ut vere Evangelicam, tum etiam baptismum illis collatum, ut vere Christianum approbantis, quibus postea manus imponens subsecutis iis demum donis, quae Spiritus sancti nomine prius significarat, & de quibus fuerat ●os percontatus. This same reason is given by Wallaeus from Calvin, as himself acknowledgeth.  
8. We have the universal Church against rebaptisation, not only in thesi, but for aught I see, in hypothesi also. 
Enchir. in fol. c. de Bapt. p. 85.  Respondeo baptismum semel legitime collatum iterari non debere, tota Ecclesia Christiana hactenus dedefendit, saith Wallaeus. So that hence, I conceive, this Text holds forth no rebaptisation, and therefoee can be no warrant for reordination. But what if john's baptism, which was extraordinary (as Diod. calls it) were seconded with an ordinary by Paul, how can that justify the seconding of an ordinary ordination with an ordinary? or what if john's non-conformal baptism (as Diod. implies) were followed with a formal baptism in the name of Christ, yet how can that justify the repeating of a Scripturally formal ordination?  
Object. 
p. 48, 49.  1. Is drawn from the supposed reordination of the Apostle. Mr. H. The Apostles have one authoritative mission, Mat. 10.7. And they have another also, Mat. 28.19. John 20.21. They are doubly ordained then, and both ordinations extraordinary.  
R. The acts of Christ in order to the plenary perpetual Apostleship of these twelve were various. 

1. Christ calls them to be his Disciples, and declares to some of them his purpose to make them Ministers: Mat. 4.18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Mar. 1.16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Luke 5.10.  
2. These being discipled, Christ calls twelve of them to him, and points them out to be Apostles, but doth not as yet (I conceive) empower them, Mar. 3.10.11. Luke 6.13.  
3. These twelve being chosen out to be his Apostles, he gives them a particular temporary commission to preach and work wonders, Mat. 10.1, 7. Mar. 6.7. Luke 9.1.  
4. Christ declares upon occasion what full power he will afterwards give unto them, Mat. 16.19.  
5. He gives them their full Commission at last to preach both to Jews and Gentiles, i. e. to all the world, and to continue by themselves and successors to the end of the world, and perfection of his Church, Mat. 28.22. Mar. 16.15. Joh. 20.21, 22, 23. Ephess. 4.8.13.   So then here I fix, That it seems most probable that the Apostles had not their plenary perpetual commission till after Christ's resurrection, and that what they had before, was both temporary, and particular, limited only to the Jews. And this I shall endeavour to confirm. 1. This Commission (Mat. 10.7.) was to last but for a time, 
Mat. 10.7.  appears, 

1. Because the work that they were then impowered to, was to preach that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. And therefore it should seem that when the kingdom of God was come, that is the Gospel-Church, that their power should then cease. Calvin in locum, Hoc est quod dixi praeconium quo crigi populi animos voluit Christus in spem propiuquae redemptionis.  
2. Because the full measures of the spirit were not given till after Christ's resurrection, and therefore it is probable, not that full power which supposed those full gifts.  
3. Because this former sending forth is expressly said to be for a journey, 
Mat. 10, 9, 10.  for which journey they should provide nothing.  
4. Because Christ tells them they should not be able to perform their journey, 
Mat. 10.23.  and their work before the Son of man be come.  
5. Because the Apostles not long after they were sent forth, gathered themselves together, 
Mar. 6.30.  and return to their Master to give an account of their work.  
6. Doth not Christ lay such a foundation for their last Commission, which seems to imply that their former commission was not full. Observe our Lords words, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, 
Mat. 28.21, 22.  Go ye therefore and disciple me all Nations, etc. mark, go ye therefore; wherefore? because now all power in heaven and in earth is given unto Christ Jesus: it should seem by this that Christ waited for the full donation of power into his hands upon his full and actual satisfaction, before he would grant full commissions to his Apostles. Not unlike is that Eph. 4.8, 9 Calvin saith, Mathaeus vero antequam discipulis injunctum narret docendi munus, Christum de sua potestate praefatum esse dicit, nec absre; non enim hic sufficerit mediocris authoritas— non enim aeternam potentiam jactat qua praeditus fuit ante creatum mundum, sed, quam nunc accepit, dum ordinatus fuit mundi Judex; immo notandum est imperium hoc non fuisse liquido cognitum donec à mortuis refurrexit. Musculus dialogues thus, Quis ille mittens est? Mat. ult. dicit, 
In joan. 20.  Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo & in terra; quibus dictis, subjungit, Euntes ergo docete, etc.  
7. When Christ gave his Apostles a perpetual commission, he expresseth its perperuity, 
Mat. 28.22.  I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. And when Paul mentions this commission, he expressly mentions its perpetuity thus, Till we all come to the unity of the faith, 
Eph. 4.13.  etc. but in the former intimations of Christ's commissionating his Apostles, there is no mention of any perpetuity; as if the Holy Ghost did purposely put this difference betwixt them. So then were our former ordinations but temporary, as the Apostles first commission, then could we admit a second upon expiration of the first: but sigh ours was an ordination to a perpetual office, therefore these Texis cannot warrant any reordination in our case.    
2. This former commission of the Apostles was but particular, limited only to the Jews; 
Mat. 10.5, 6.  and this limitation was not of their execution only, but of their power, as appears from the commission itself, Go not in the way of the Gentiles, etc. and likewise from their latter commission, 
Mar. 12.28.  which runs thus, Disciple me all nations, etc. preach the Gospel to every creature, etc. So that hence we may observe this difference betwixt these two commissions; the former was limited to the Jews, with an express exception against the Gentiles; but the later expressly to both Jews and Gentiles: So than had our former ordination been to a private place, with an express limitation to go nowhither else, then indeed upon our removal to the excepted place, there would be need of a new Commission as well as with the Apostles; but our ordination was to the whole work of a Presbyter in the universal Church, without any limitation in our commission to a particular Parish, County, Nation or People: therefore this instance neither as an instance, nor from the reason of the thing, can justify our reordination. And to prevent the censure of singularity in this interpretation, 
In Mat. 10. etc.  observe what Calvin saith, Notandam tamen est de perpetuo Apostolatu nondum haberi sermonem, sed tantum de praeconio temporali— Nunc ergo mittuntur, ut in Judaea tempus adesse promissae instaurationis, & salutis nuntient. Postea ordinabit eos Christus ut evangelium spargant per totum orbem; hic tantum adjuros sibi eos assumit. — Postea docendi partes quas obierane illis resignabit; atque hoc not are operae pretium est, non putemus stabilem fixamque legem omnibus verbi ministris traescribi, dum praeconibus suae doctrinae mandet Dominus quid eos ad breve tempus facere velit; quae inscitia noultos fefellit, ut sine discrimine ad hanc normam omnes verbi Ministros exigerent. Paeraeus likewise speaking of the difference betwixt these Commissions, saith, 
In Mat. 10. begin;  Fere triennio illam praecessit; & illa quidem fuit universalis ad praedicandum evangelium omni creaturae, Judaeis & Gentibus, non ipsis solum, sed successoribus corum ad finem usque saeculi delegata; ista vero singularis sequentibus quasi praeludium— Ineptissimi sunt Scriptura Interpretes, qui vel perpetuam regulam Ministris Ecclesiae servandam hic praescribi volunt. I might cite Aretius to the same purpose, with many others; but quotations puff up too fast, and therefore I forbear.  
Object. 10 From a supposed reordination of Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.14. & 2 Tim. 1.6. M. H. p. 4.  
R. We will grant that 1 Tim. 4.14. is to be understood of ordination, and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for so is the sense of Divines; and though that phrase, the authority that is in thee, seem harsh to vulgar ears, yet if authority be a relation, it is an accident; or make authority what you can, it will be but an accident, and then it must be in a subject, and that subject is the Minister, or none that I know. And we will suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Caetus Presbyterorum, because it is never used in Scriptture (saith Bucer) for the office; and what hands hath the office to impose? and why would not the Holy Ghost, if the office were intended, rather use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? beside the stream of Divines both Ancient and Modern, 
pryn's Unb. Tim. & Tit. Ca●v●n in 1 Tim. 4.  run this way; Calvin though he gives another interpretation, yet he approves this also. Presbyterium qui hic nomen collectivum esse putant, pro Collegio Presbyterorum positum, recte sentiunt meo judicio; and lastly the new coined distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will utterly subvert the other interpretation. Yet there are three several answers, each of which will take off the pretence of Timothy's re-ordination.  
1. It is well known that several learned Divines do take that act in 1 Tim. 4.14. and that in 2 Tim. 1.6. to be one and the same ordination: some say, with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery, may be meant Paul's hands; so Bishop Bilson, Mr. Mason, Calvin, Gelaspy, 
De gubern. Ecc●● 252.  and others; others think that Paul's hands were not the hands of the Presbyteric, yet that both Paul's hands and the Presbyters were laid on together; 
De Min. Ang●. p 44, 45. in 1 Tim. 4. Misc Qu. p. 101.  and so both concur in one ordination; so than if either of these were true (as I confess I dare make a point of faith of neither) than there is no ordination to be found here.  
2. It's more probable that if these Texts must be understood of two ordinations, that they were to two offices, the first to an inferior, the second to a superior office; and perchance first to the office of a Presbyter, and afterwards to the office of an Evangelist. Gelaspy seems to lean this way. 
Misc. Qu. p. 90, 103.  It's observable indeed that in the first Epistle Paul never gives Timothy any higher Title than Bishop or Presbyter (which now at last are acknowledged to be used by the Holy Ghost promiscuously) but in the second Epistle wherein Paul mentions the laying on of his own hands, he styles him an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. and either here must be a twofold ordination, or else Timothy was ordained per saltum, or else his second ordination is not recorded.  
3. Some think (and I think it is most probable) that 2 Tim. 2.1.6. is not to be understood of ordination at all, but of some special gift conferred by the laying on of Paul's hands. 

1. As Mr. Baxter saith, It may be imposition of hands in confirination, or for the first giving of the Holy Ghost after baptism, (ordinarily used by the Apostles) that is there spoken of, which also seemeth probable by the Apostles annexing it to Timothy's faith, in which he succeeded his Mother and Grandmother, and the following effects of (the spirit of power, and love, and of a sound mind) which are the fruits of confirming grace, admonishing him that he be not ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, which is also the fruit of confirmation.  
2. That very expression, stir up the gift, doth seem to imply that gift to be gratia gratum faciens; for it seems too improper to say, stir up thy office.  
3. The Apostle doth somewhat critically use a divers particle in these two Texts, in the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now the Question is, why should Paul use different words, if these were not different acts? I am not ignorant that some say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to set forth Paul's act in ordination, because he was the Ordainer; and only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set forth the Presbyters act, because they are only assistants in ordination.   But 

1. This crotchet, though ingenious, yet it seems to be new.  
2. Altogether without proof.  
3. And it seems to contradict most of our Protestant Divines, even Episcopal as well as others that acknowledge a power of ordination in Presbyters, and that their ordination without a Diocesan is valid, which they would not do, had the Presbytery no power of ordination at all.  
4. It supposes ordination in this Text, which supposition is contrary to the two first probabilities, that this gift was gratia gratum faciens. and not gratia gratis data.  
5. In Acts 13. there is the same word used to signify the act of the Doctors, as was used to signify the Act of the Prophets.  
6. This would overthrow their new interpretation of 1 Tim. 4.14. which is to put Presbyterium for the office, with a Parenthesis in the Text to help the same; and so make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify Paul's act.  
7. It will overthrow that testimony of the Ancients so much magnified for understanding by a College of Presbyters, a College of D●ocesans, for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify their act.  
8. If this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the Presbyters consent only, then why should the Presbyters lay on hands any more than the people? for the people were anciently to consent, and to assist by their concurrence in prayer.  
9 If Presbyters are Ordainers with the Bishops (as some confess) then is it not against the nature of ordination; for have not all ordainers the same causality?  
10. But further to speak the truth, whether it make for me or against me, these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are often used promiscuously; instances are not rare of using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for per, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for cum.   And it is evident, that the whole Church, till of late (for aught I yet see) hath so understood the same in these Texts. But to leave it now to the impartial Reader to judge, whether if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference any things, it be not more probable that they difference the interpretation of the holy Ghost from an ordination, than an ordination from an ordination. But let it go how it will with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet sure I am that it is more probable, either that Paul ordained ●ot Timothy at all, or that he joined with the Presbyters in their ordination, or that the Presbyters ordained Timothy to one office, and Paul afterwards to another, a higher, then that Paul ordained him to the same office to which he was ordained before.  
All that I observe further in Mr. H. tract, is, the authority of Chemnitius and Baldwin.  
Resol 1. Methinks it is a Question, whether reordination be more credited by these two authorities, or more discredited in that they are but two, and two not of the Ancients neither. And though it is to be acknowledged, that these two were learned and reverend Lutheran Divines, yet, no doubt, there may be two score easily rallied against them, and it may be, as learned as they. I believe no Reordained will ever adventure to pole authorities, and if they will not number but weigh, they will get but little: But if they will needs urge me with their bare authority, I must needs return to such an Ipse dixit, as we were wont to return to the authority of Arist. at Oxford, Rationem Arist. expecto, non authoritatem. Or our reverend Brother may be answered in his own words, or rather St. Hieromes, Quod de Scriptures authoritatem non habet, eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur. But more particularly it is certain, that Baldwin was against reordination (as appears by his seventh Argument produced against it) where the person was satisfied of the validity of his former ordination; 
Bald. C. C. 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042. Examen. Presb. 2. de Sacra. ord. p. 401.  and only then for a repetition, when the person himself was not satisfied; which I suppose is the case this day but of a very few in England. And as for Chemnitius, he is so large in his discourse upon the Sacraments, that I thought it not operaepretium to scan him all over, but this I found by the way, that in the business of ordination he refers us to their August. Confession, wherein he saith, their Churches have explained themselves. 
August. Conf. l. 3. c. 11. f. 362  And there, I am sure, it is said more than once or twice, that Orders are initerable: The very title of the Chapter of Orders is this, Ordinem, sive sacram ordinationem vere (though largely, not as Baptism and the Lords Supper, as Chemnet. tells the Trent Conventicle) Sacramentum isse, nec posse in aliquo iterari. For explication and confirmation whereof they cite several sentences of St. Augustine.   

CHAP. V.  
Centaining certain Concessions on the persons part in the Question, in order to an accommodation.  
1. WE may lawfully accept a general confirmation of our former ordination, which confirmation pleaded, would work by way of Estoppel, as Mr. H. after the Lawyers speaks. Instances both of giving and accepting such confirmation shall hereafter be produced.  
2. But if this general may not be granted, we proceed to particulars, and say, that it is lawful to submit to the trial of our abilities, faith and manners by those that shall be deputed thereto by authority. This seems to be employed in that Command, 
1 Pet. 3.15  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If to every one that ask, then much more to those in authority. If they ask, and if of our hope, then of our faith and life, which are the foundation of our hope. And this seems to be no more, than what our Lord Jesus, Peter, Paul; and other Saints have submitted to before us.  
Chrysostom saith, Porro is qui volentibus, 
Ilt. 1.  hortantibus & gratias agentibus praeesse vult, si ea lege praesumit, ut consilio proprio tantum omnia faciat, quasi nemini rationem rediturus, tyrannice potius quam populariter hujus modi exercet officium.  
3. It is lawful to attend the Bishop for, and to receive their approbation of our qualifications and constitutions, if they please to grant it; and whether their approbation be testified by word or writing, altars not the case. This needs no proof, it flows so naturally from the former.  
4. I 'tis lawful to accept, yea to seek a licence from the Bishop to exercise our ministerial gifts and authority. 
Exod. 5.  What is this more than to seek leave of any one that detains us, either by right or by wrong, to go about our Master his business? 
Exod. 7.  What is this more than Moses and Aaron did in seeking to Pharach to let the Israelites go to worship? 
Nehem. 2.  Or Ezra or Nehemiah did in seeking to Artaxer xes for liberty to go and build the Temple? 
Acts 21.37, 39  Or Paul in desiring Claudius' Lysias to give him liberty to preach to the people?  
5. It is lawful to accept, yea to desire the prayers and benediction of a good Bishop; prayers for the increase of ministerial abilities, continuance of divine assistances and bestowance of abundant success. Were this all that the Bishop would have, that he might give us his benediction in solemn fasting and prayer, there were no reason to refuse it, but rather (I think) thankfully to accept it. Did not the Elders of Ephesus receive Paul's benediction long after their ordination? 
Acts 20.  And did not Paul and Barnabas use the prayers of the Doctors at Antioch long after their ordination? 
Acts 13.  And are we not commanded to pray one for another? 
Jam. 5.16.  And is it not said, that the fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much? And God forbidden that I should ever think, that there are not righteous men among the Prelatical, or fervent effectual prayers that are Liturgical. And methinks this might tend somewhat towards the satisfaction of our right reverend Bishops, sigh so much of ordination lies in a solemn blessing. St Augustine saith somewhere, 
In Comment Sent. l. 4. p. 15. de Gubernat. Eccle. p. 337.  that Ordinatio est oratio super hominem cui imponuntur manus. And learned Estius calls it, Benedictionis Sacramentum. And Bucer queries thus, Manus impositio quid est aliud juxta Canonem visi oratio super hominem? Hanc ver● orationem Presbyteris illucitam fuisse credibile cuipiam videatur?  
6. It seems lawful to admit the imposition of the Bishop's hands on the person in the Question; this rises high, but from bottom to top I will give you a survey of my thoughts. 

1. Imposition of hands was of frequent use in the ancient Church, Gen. 48.14, 15. Numb. 27.18, 23. Levit. 24.14. Deut. 17.7.  
2. It is not abolished in the Gospel, but continued, Acts 6.6.13.2, 3. 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6.  
3. That the use of imposition of hands was various. 

1. Sometimes to signify the bestowance of some extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, Acts 8.17, 18, 19.5.6.  
2. To signify the working of some extraordinary▪ cure, Mark 6.5.  
3. The conferring of Ecclesiastical power, 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Tim. 5.22.  
4. The bestowance or desire to bestow some spiritual blessing, Gen 48.14, 15. Mark 10.16.  
5. As a sign of consent or approbation, Levit. 24.14. Deut. 13.9.17.7. Numb. 8.9, 10, 11.     This imposition of hands by the Israelites might signify their consent to their consecration, but not their consecration by themselves. 

1. Because the Israelites had no power to consecrate the Levites to an office to which they were not consecrated themselves.  
2. Because the Levites are said to be an offering to the Lord, and the people were restrained from a personal offering.  
3. It is expressly said, that Aaron should offer the Levites.  
4. It seems to be here as in the case of the bullock, Levit. 4.15.— 6. Imposition of hands may be used as a sign of confirmation, as many both of Ancients and Moderns do conceive, and accordingly interpret that Heb. 6.2.7. This hath been used as a sign of a separation to a particular work, Acts 13.2, 3.8. This hath been used as a sign in popular election, say many great transmarine Divines, and some, not Dwarss, at home,— 4. By this various use you may see, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iterable; as in confirmation and ordination, afterwards: or as in Paul and Barnabas, and the giving of the holy Ghost, and a separating to the Apostolic work among the Gentiles; or as in Timothy's ordination and a donation of a special gift:  
5. Likewise from the various use of this ●●te, you may see that it is lawful for the person in the Question to admit imposition of hands: for though it is true, it cannot signify to him either the bestowance of an extraordinary gift, or the working of a miraculous cure, or the conferring Ecclesiastical authority, or the confirmation of baptism, or popular election; yet it may be used either to signify the Bishop's benediction, or his approbation and allowance, or his confirmation of our orders, or as a separating us to this or that particular work.   Thus they that cannot admit the Bishop's hands for one end, may do it for another.  
7. It is lawful for the person in the Question, upon his undertaking a new charge, to admit a solemn separation by the Bishops and Presbyters with fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands, unto that particular work. This I take to be irrefragably argued from Paul and Barnabas, Acts 13.  
8. It seems lawful to admit all that is aforesaid, though a man should not remove to a new place. If a Minister upon this change gave up his place for lost, and his people gave up him, upon the dissolution of his legal title, if he shall afterwards gain a legal establishment, and have his liberty to proceed in his labours in that part of the Lords harvest, he may (for aught I know) accept the solemn Good speed, with the approbative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the honest Bishop.— By this you may see, how strongly bend my soul is to peace; insomuch that there is nothing that I can devise about ●eordination in the si, that the right reverend Bishops can demand, but it shall be yielded, except only the formal investiture with ministerial power.   

CHAP. VI  
Containing certain Considerations humbly offered to those that are for the imposing of reordination, to promote an accommodation.  
1. CAn it be imagined, that Presbyterian ordination is such a groundless novelty, as to be destitute of all authority? I confess I wondered when I read the challenge of the late right reverend Bishop Hall, and heard the like from a reverend Dean, to give any solid Instance in all antiquity of a Presbyterian ordination. What did they think of Paul's ordination (as some call it) Acts 9 by Ananias a Disciple? It is well known, that some would make the Bishops the successors of the Apostles, of the seventy two Disciples; and if so, you know what follows. Or what do they think of Saul and Barnabas their ordination (as some call it) in Acts 13. by the Teachers at Antioch? Or what of Timothy's ordination by the hands of the Presbytery? 
In Epist. ad ●vag.  1 Tim. 4.14. Or what of the Alexandrian Bishops consecrated by the Presbyters (as St. Jerome tells us) for the space of about two hundred years next after the Apostles? Or what of the like history of ordinations by the Presbyters throughout Egypt by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine? 
Amb. In Eph. 4. August. q. ex utroque Test. Q. 101. Inter Ep: Cyprian. epist. 75.  or whoever they were, yet to you it suffices, in that they are cited by yourselves for Ambrose and St. Augustine: or what of Firmilians assertion, that in the Church, wherein all power and grace is seated, there preside certain Elders, which have both the power of baptising, imposing hands, and ordaining? But to come nearer home, 
Bish. Usher de prieccle. Brit. 798, 799, 800.  What did they think of that so famous story, reported by so many great ones, that the Scots from their first embracing of the Christian Faith, Anno 179. till the year 430. were constantly instructed and governed only by Presbyters and Monks, without Bishops? 
Dr. Blond. Apol. 314.315. Baxter's disp. Ch. G●v. 97. Beda Ecc. hist. l. 3. c. 35.17, 21, 24, 25, 26. l. 4▪ c. 4. Dr. Blond. Apol. 367, 368, 369.  Or what did they think of those so famous converters of a great part of our English Nation, Segerius, Aidanus, Finanus, Colmannus, Tuda, Diuna, Ceollach, Trumhere, Cedda, and others, who received their ordination successively from Columbanus the Abbot, Presbyter of Hylas Abby, who came out of Scotland at the invitation of Oswald King of Northumberland, in the time of the Heptarchy? About that time, or somewhat after, was Augustine the Monk sent from Gregory the great into the South part of England. 
Chy●●aeus in Chron. S●xon. l. 15 p. 456. Pryn ibid. 94.  Or what did they think of M. Luther, Doctor Medler, and other Presbyters, that ordained Amsdorfius Bishop of Newburgh? Whosoever would see more Instances of Presbyterian ordination, let him read Doctor Blondels Apol. Gersom, Bucer de gubern. Eccl. and Mr. Pryn's Vnbish. Tim. & Tit.  
2. Can it be valid or candid to argue from the condemnation of Novatus, Aerius, Coluthus, or Maximus, to the condemnation of all Presbyters, ordained by the Presbytery? Certain I am, that Bishop Downam and Bishop Bilson, that argued from these against the regularity, yet would not argue from these against the validity of Presbyterian ordination. But let us consider these condemned persons severally.  
1. Novatus, 
Eus●b. hist. l. 6. c. 42.  who was censured in the third Century, according to Eusebius: He was 

1. A Priest of Rome, puffed up with pride against those that fell in time of persecution through infirmity of the flesh, as though there were no hope of salvation for them, yea, though they performed all that appertained to true conversion, and right confession of faith.  
2. He became the Author and Ringleader of his own heretical Sect.  
3. He was excommunicate and banished the Church by a Synod of sixty Bishops gathered at Rome, with many Presbyters and Deacons.  
4. He wàs ordained a Priest by the favour of the Bishop (though all the Clergy, and many of the Laity withstood it) who requested that he might be permitted to allow only this one.  
5 When he had presumptuously endeavoured to challenge to himself the title of a Bishop, not granted him from above, he chose two men of desperate condition to be partakers of his heresy, whom he might send to a certain corner of Italy, and there to seduce three Bishops, plain, simple, and country men, by some crafty means, avouching that they must in all haste come to Rome, feigning that they, together with other Bishops, meeting to the same purpose, should appease and remove a certain Schism raised in that City; these being simple men (as we said before) not knowing their crafty and mischievous fetches, after their coming, were included by such lewd persons as were suborned for that purpose, and about ten of the clock in the night, when they were somewhat tipsy and well crammed with victuals, were constrained to create him Bishop, etc. of which one of these Bishops repent, and all deposed.  
6. He had formerly been possessed of the Devil.  
7. It was doubted of his baptism, which at the best was on his bed in sickness.  
8. In persecution he denied himself to be a Priest, and forsook the Church of God.  
9 He caused the people at the Lords Table to swear by the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, they would never forsake him, and fly to Cornelius, ere he would delver them the Sacrament, and instead of Amen, to say, I will not fly to Cornelius—   Now then let any one judge whether all that were Presbyterially ordained, were such as Novatus, or their ordinations like his; if they were, let them be censured with him; but if not, we crave justice.  
2. Let us consider the case of Aerius, who was condemned by Epiphanius for an Heretic (as some say) for maintaining an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwixt Bishops and Presbyters. But I suppose that Aerius was condemned by Epiphanius on this account; yet I hope you will not think Epiphanins' censure sufficient to make Aerius an Heretic; for if you do, than you must acknowledge that he was an Heretic, for denying prayer for the dead, for denying the Paschal Fast as Judaical, sigh Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. For on these accounts was he condemned for an Heretic by Epiphan. Yea and other Doctrine: shall you find condemned by Epiphan. for heresies, which the very Papists themselves will acknowledge for verities. 
Haere●●s nomen rebus levissimis impingitur. Ludo. Vlu. Quid est Pascha, saith Aerius, quod apud v●s per ficitur? judaicis fabulis rursus addicti est●s— qua ratione nominatis post mortem nom na mortuorum? Orat vivens, quid profuerit mortuo? Aerius— Arianus qaidem in totum; aliter enim non fentit quam velut Arrius, furiosus ment, elatus opinion— magnam mult●tndinem allexit— sugabatur cum sitis ah Eccles●is, etc. quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum? Nihil differth●c ab illo unus enim est ordo, & unus (inqu●t) honour, & unadignitas. Epiphan. haeres. 75.  

2. It is evident, that Epiphan. understood by heresy, any doctrine pertinaciously held against the Church, whether fundamental or not, and so his heresy seems to me to be sometimes but a higher degree of, or an aggravated Schism.  
3. But if Epiphan. had understood the word heresy never so strictly, yet Aerius, being an Arrian, might and is thereupon called an Heretic.  
4. I do not observe that Epiphan. anywhere calls Aerius an Heretic, merely and simply upon the account of his Ifotomy; nay confident I am, that some Doctors of our own do deny it, and particularly (if my memory exceedingly fail me not) Bishop Jewel and Doctor Field.  
5. If Aerius held an equality, not only in order, but degree and dignity also, as no doubt (if Epiphan. may be credited) he did; then some of ours, ordained by the Presbyters, cannot be brought under that censure.  
6. But if it were heretical to say, that Bishops and Presbyters were but one order by divine right, what then is Catholic?  
7. It seems that Aerius was furious and turbulent, and divided the Church of God, being settled; but so it cannot be said of many Presbyterially ordained. So than what is the Instance of a disowned Arrian, schismatical Aerius to orthodox peaceable Presbyters?    
3. We come to consider the instance of Coluthus, and whether it be forcible or friendly to argue from the pretended ordination of Ischyras by Coluthus to the ordination by Presbyters. 

1. Socrates (Ecclehist. l. 1. c. 20, 21.) tells us, 
August. in Euseb. ecc hist. 595.  One Ischyras practised privily such a kind of offence as deserved a hundred kinds of death.  
2. When he had never taken orders (it is said) he called himself a Minister, and presumed to exercise the office of a Priest.  
3. Nay more, Athanasius accused him to have received no orders at all.  
4. He raised heavy slanders and reproaches against Athanasius, such as I scarce ever read on before.  
5. The Coluthians (of which party Ischyras was) affirm, that the evil of punishment cometh not from God.  
6. This Ischyras adheared to Euseb us and the Arian faction, as the other Meletians did; whom though Epiphan. will not call Heretics but Sectaries, yet Socrates will, and gives us this account thereof; Meletus, Bishop of a certain City in Egypt, 
●●ccl. l. 1. c. 3.  beside sundry other causes, specially for that in time of persecution he had renounced the faith, and sacrificed unto Idols, was deprived of his Bishopric by Peter Bishop of Allendria, which suffered martyrdom under Dioclesian.  
7. It is said by Doctor Field and others, 
Of the Church, l. 3. c. 39  That Ischyras was deposed for being ordained by Coluthus a Presbyter; not because such ordination was void in its own nature, but from the strictness of the Canon.  
8. If I might give my judgement upon the diligent perusal of the whole story, I should say, That I fear irregular contentions, more than irregular ordinations, caused such frequent deprivations; and that uncharitable animosities, more than antiscriptural heresies, drew up such dismal charges against each other.    
And will not now adays some surmise, that these are the principles within, when they see such practices without? But to conclude, according to the history, what is the deprivation of a scandalous, heretical, schismatical, unordained Ischyras, to justify the deprivation of holy, orthodox, peaceable, ordained Presbyters? Reader, scorn not at these Epithets; for verily we will submit to the severest trial before fit Judges; and those Presbyters that are not found such, we will be content they should be deprived, on condition those that are so may be confirmed.  
4. Now I come to consider, whether the condemnation of Maximus by the Constantinopolitan Council, and those that were ordained by him, will warrant a condemnation of Presbyterian ordination? Gregory Nazianzen, the person chief eoncerned in this transaction, assures us, that Maximus was a very wicked, debauched person; thus he paints him; 
Poema de vita sua ad popul. Constant.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea more he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Yea the very Citizens of Constantinople were mad at him, and accused his wicked life. 

2. He invaded, without the consent or knowledge of the Bishop, Clergy, or fraternity, the Church of Anastasia in Constantinople, Gregory Nazianzen B●shop there being sick.  
3. He came in the night.  
4. With many bribed persons.  
5. Was ordained in the Church, into which they broke, by certain Bishops of Egypt, and so out of their own confine, sent by Peter Bishop of Alexandria (is Bishop Bilson calls them) But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Perpetual Gou. 254.  and as Gregory Nazianzen faith of them.  
6. He was ordained Bishop, 
In Apol. 339.  never being ordained Deacon or Presbyter before, as Doctor Blondel tells us.  
7. He was droven out of Constantinople by the people.  
8. When he addressed himself to the Emperor Theodosius, 
Greg. Na. Poem. ib.  he was repulsed with great wrath and formidable threats.  
9 Yet not quiet, he goes to Alexandria, and there drives Bishop Peter out of his Chair.  
10. Though it is true he was condemned by the Constantinopolitan Council, yet I find not the least mention that he was ordained by Presbyters only, or for such ordination that be was deposed. Take the Canon itself and make your best of it: Propter totius indisciplinationis ●jus doctrinam quae Constantinopoli orta est, 
Constant. Conc. Can. 6. secundum Merlin.  ut neque Maximus fuisse aut esse etiam putetur Episcopus, Statutum est neque hi qui ab eo ordinati sunt qualemcunque gradum Clericatus obtineant, omnibus scilicet quae circa cum vel ab eo gesta sunt, in irritum revocatis. Now where is the word Presbyter to be found? or any syllable that should intimate any Presbyterian ordination to be the reason of that censure?  
11. It seems that this was not the cause, in that all things done by Maximus were made void, as well as his ordinations.    
Now let any candid Reader judge whether the person in the Question have common justice, when such persons and actions as these shall be drawn into example against him?  
3. Doth it not well become these to pass over irregularities in others ordinations, whose own are guilty of so many? how is it possible for any one to condemn Presbyterian ordinations for irregularities and non-canonicalness, and not condemn the Prelatical also? for is it not an irregularity to be consecrated a B●shop without the election or consent of the People and Presbytery? to ordain a man a Deacon and a Presbyter both in one day? and without a public congregation, in a private chamber? and without the notice or consent of the Bishop of the Diocese? I might add, are Drunkards canonical? are swearers? are cursers? are gamesters? are whoremongers? are Non preaching Prelates and Priests? and are illiterate Mechanic Readers, & c?  
4. As to the Statute-Law of our Realm, is not that of capacity large enough to admit to preferment those that have imposition of hands only from the Presbytery? it seems so to be. 

1. From the Act of the late Parliament, confirmed in this present Parliament, begun May. 8.61. which confirmeth the ●udicial proceed in the late interruptions, ●xe cised by virtue of the authority from the late pretended powers, such as were many of the ordinations by the Classes.  
2. From the book of consecration, and the law establishing it, neither of which have any clauses (as is asserted by a great Lawyer) that null ordinations by other forms.  
3. Because the Statute of 13. Eliz. c. 12. doth seem plainly to take in other ordinations than are according to our form; it runs thus, Be it enacted by this present Parliament, that every person under the degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of institution, consecration or ordering, than the form set forth by Parliament, or now used in the reign of our most gracious Sovereign Lady, shall in the presence of the Bishop, or Guardian of the spiritualities of some one Diocese, where he hath or shall have Ecclesiastical living, declare his assent and subscribe to all the Articles of religion which only concern the confessions of the Christian faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments.  
4. It seems further undeniably clear that the Law would allow such Ministers, in that formerly presentations, institutions and inductions were granted to persons Presbyterially ordained, and they so invested were deemed legal Incumbents, first fruits and tenths received from them, and tithes paid to them; yea they had the very same benefit of the law to sue for their tithes and profits, and to secure their propriety as others had.   And certainly the law is not at all altered in this case. We judge of the sense of the law by the uniform execution.  
5. I beseech the Reverend Prelatists to consider whether the principles and practices of the late Bishops do not oblige us to own Presbyterian ordination? shall we not give occasion to some to account us apostatical, if we should utterly disown such ordinations as the Church of England hath hitherto owned? and moreover if our Reverend Predecessors would join in communion at the Sacraments, either formally by their presence, or virtually by their approbation with those that were Presbyterially ordained, and we shall refuse, do we not refuse to communicate with the Church of England? or the generality of the chief Pastors, and infinite numbers of the members thereof?  
6. What a lamentable blow would the nullifying of Presbyterian ordination give unto the Church of God, especially the Reformed Churches? it is well known that in the Reformed Churches their ordination is but Presbyterial; no not any better in Denwark, or those other countries where they have Superintendents; for those Superintendents have all their authority under Christ from the Magistrate and Presbytery, without any Diocesans at all. And moreover some of those Churches when they had Bishops, cast them out, and others when they were offered, refused them: yet it is to be observed in how great concord we have lived with them since the Reformation; and those that do now disown them, I would have them speak out that the world may know them. Further, if the want of Prelatical ordination will unchurch us, than greater faults will unchurch a people much more; and then what will become both of the Eastern and Western Churches?  
7. Will not the nullifying of Presbyterian ordination give support to the hypochondraick fears of melancholy persons, lest some in the Clergy should too much indulge the unreformed Interest? it is well known that Bellarmine's great argument against the reformed Churches is hence, because they have no legal Bishops, and therefore no Ministers, and therefore no Sacraments, no Churches; now if any amongst us should deny the Pope to be Antichrist, and the Papists idolaters, and acknowledge their Priests to be true Ministers, and their administrations firm, but deny all the Protestant Ministers not Prelatical to be true Ministers, and their administrations valid, who would think, etc.  
8. What can be gained by creating this necessity of reordination? whether Parsons, or people, or Parsonages? not Parsons, for its very observable that multitudes will never submit to reordination; and of those that do submit, many do it as to an unlawful thing on the Imposers part, though lawful on their own part; and therefore they are not gained at all; and few other that I can hear of. Not many of the people; for its most certain, that a huge number of the sober people of this nation are much saded at the loss of those faithful Ministers that submit not to reordination, and no small number saded at those that submit; fearing that they will prove time-servers, and turn to any thing; yea the more studious sort of the Gentry that read Bishop Usher, Bishop fuel, etc. observe the variations from the old way, and are not well pleased; yea many of the worst of all the people can see a difference betwixt drunkards and sober men, painful Preachers and idle drones. But then, Parsonages and other Live be gained, there is no doubt: but then where shall we find men to deserve them? To engross into Pluralists hands, and settle idle, drunken, insufficient persons that will be content with little more than they deserve, to the starving of poor son's, is abominable to God, Angels and men, and will gratify none but the Devil himself and his off spring.  
9 What will you do with those multitudes of Ministers that cannot submit to reordination? It may be said, displace them. Oh what a sad and lamentable work will that be, to ruin men, women and children, so many hundreds of families for that which is disowned by all the Protestant Churches! But if they preach in other Churches freely, being maintained either by their own temporalties, or the charity of their Christian friends, or by renting farms, or the like, what will you do with them then? silence them. Oh dreadful work! what silence Christ's Ambassadors? whose Ministry he hath sealed with the conversion of souls, and who have been received as such by God's faithful people, and the like of whom have been always owned in England as well as elsewhere. Oh cruelty, to take away the children's bread and let them starve with hunger! but suppose that they will not be silent, but will preach up and down either publicly or privately, as they can meet with company, what will you do with them then? imprison them. Oh sad still! what lamentable complaints will come then daily both into the Court of heaven, as also into the Court on earth? who shall maintain such multitudes in prison, or their families that while? what general disatisfaction through relations, friendship and common compassion to honest men in this suffering, will this beget? yea what if they preach in the prisons to the people within and without? it may be, you will say, banish them. Oh worse and worse! what, may not one kingdom hold on earth, whom one house shall hold in heaven? how many of the Kings most peaceable, faithful, praying Subjects, which are the best Subjects, will then be lost? how much of the English treasure will then be transported? and what correspondencies with other nations, and multitudes of such inconveniences will then follow? But it will be the best way to put them to death. Oh worst of all! for how will the cry of their blood come up into the ears of the Lord! and the report of their honest peaceable lives, and comfortable deaths infect their very enemies, whilst they see men debauched, lazy, and ignorant in their rooms! Oh that these things, written not to provoke any to stubborness, but all to charity, might well be considered, especially by those that so contrary to his Majesty's sweet disposition, and gracious declaration, would trample their brethren under their feet!  
10. Who can produce any one suitable solid instance of reordination? where shall we find one person for hundreds of years reordained, merely because his ordination was by the Presbytery? verily he that shall undertake to produce many such instances, and hath accomplished his Herculean labour, shall be crowned with laurel by my consent; but if such instances cannot be produced, as I suppose they cannot, how then shall those that so much venerate antiquity, affect a novelty? But it is said, the former ordination was no ordination, and therefore there is no need to instance in reordinations. Let it be considered, 

1. What is said against that by so many great ones.  
2. Produce instances if you can, of nullifying Presbyterian ordination, merely because such.  
3. However, what is imposed, is reordination to us, because we dare not disown our former ordination.  
4. However, let us have but the case stated and debated, that so there may be satisfaction tendered as well as force;   I confess it hath been matter of admiration to me, that so many should deny such ordinations, and yet not one man that will write us one tract for our satisfaction.  
11. Would not an accommodation by the two great interests of the Nation in this point by some general confirmation, be the most proper and profitable way to the Church of God? 

1. Hath not the Kings most excellent Majesty promised moderation, and prosecuted it also somewhat far? And have not the Nobility and Gentry promised the like, and likewise the Clergy? And doth it not become faithful persons to remind their former declarations and professions, and to perform them, lest (as his Majesty was pleased to say to the present Parliament (the generations to come should censure them as men of no fidelity?  
2. Have not those called Presbyterians, been as faithful to his Majesty as any? and suffered under the late usurped powers as well as any? and were they not (in effect) the only instruments to bring in the King's interest? when others durst not so much as appear in many places, for fear of doing more hurt then good: and must they now be trampled under feet by those whom they have advanced? and ruined by those that they have raised from their ruins? Oh horrible ingratitude!  
3. Would not the rejecting of this Ministry be the casting off the greatest and most lasting interest of the sober people of these Nations, and so to proceed, what absolute impolicy?  
4. And how certain is it that so long as there is a conscientious people in England, there will be a continuance of this interest! for what is it that they contend for, but to unite Monarchy in the State; a Scripture-discipline, a preaching, powerful, painful, holy Ministry, spiritual worship, and purity with simplicity of administration in the Church?  
5. How many Ministers, that in the late unhappy wars were in the Schools, or Universities, and have never acted any thing against either King or Bishops, but behaved themselves peaceably and courteously to all men; how easily by moderation might these be gained? and how quickly and pitifully are they generally lost for want of a due condescension? some moderation would give life to their hopes, that it were possible for them to perform the conditions of their desired liberty in the Ministry; but no moderation creates despair, and forces them to believe it is as good suffer at first as at last, for something as for nothing.  
6. What beauty, what strength would an accommodation add to the Church of God? yea and to the civil state also? and what terror and amazement would it add to the Church's enemies? what a security of men's legal propriety, what a promoting of charity, preventing of contention, providing for immortal souls, rejoicing of hearts, would this mutual condescension be? in this case of ordination, let the world judge whether we have not gone two steps towards them, and whether their one towards us would not unite. I should add more to this particular, but that it is so excellently done already by Mr. Corbet in his interest of England, so quarreled at, but unanswered by that Strange Respondent.    
12. How commonly hath a general Confirmation been used to prevent contentions about irregular ordinations? if such a confirmation had never been planted heretofore, it could not now have been expected; but having been granted in greater provocations, it is to be admired that it should be denied in the less. But let us proceed to some instances. In that first great Council of Nice, 
Merlin de Concil. Can. 8.  it was ordained that the Novatians (though as it is said by some, ordained by Presbyters and in a schism) yet upon their return to the Catholic Church, should have reconciliatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so remain in the Clergy. Thus the Canon runs. Si qui voluerint venire ad Ecclesiam Catholicam ex Novatianis, placuit sancto Concilio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (reconciliatoria manus impositionem accepta, saith Blondel)— Hi vero qui ab illis veniunt, 
In Apol. P. 357.  si forte Episcopus fuerit, habeat sacerdotii dignitatem, nisi forte placeat Episcope Catholico concedere ei etiam Episcopalis nominis honorem; si v●ro non placuerit, inveniat ei locum, ut sit in parochia Coepiscopus, aut in Clero Presby●r, & in civitate una non videantur duo Episcopi esse, & ille omnimodò in clero ●●r manere videatur. To the same purpose, ●or aught I am sure to the contrary, 
Tom. 7. Cont. Epist. Parm. l. 2. c. 13.  may ●e applied that of St. August. concerning ●he Dontatists. Et cum expedire hoc videatur Ecclesiae ut Praepositi eorum venicentes ●●d Catholicam societatem honores suos ibi non administrent, non eis tamen ipso ordinationis sacramento detrahuntur, sed manent super eos, ideoque non eye in populo manus imponitur, ne non homini sed ipsi sacramento fiat injuria; & si quando ignoranter fit, nec animose defenditur factum, sed corrigitur cognitum, venia sacilius impetratur: Deus enim noster non est dissentionis Deus sed pacis. Concil. Ilerden. thus determines, Qui contra decreta Canonum indiscrete clericos usque nunc or dinaverunt, eye Dominus, vel sancta & Ecclesiastica charitas ignoscat; amodo vero si in tali usu proruperint, decretum Canonum quod ciroa corum personas statutum est, id est ut nullum ordinare jam audeant, observetur; vel qui deinceps ordinati fuerint, deponantur; high vero qui tales hactenus ordinati sunt, nullo tempore promoveantur. Here is rigour enough, yet not exclusive of all charity. Yet further I shall cite a story out of M. Mason, 
De Min. Aug. p. 169, 170.  to the extremest shame of uncharitableness. He urges against the Romanists, that their Bonner, Bishop of London, Heath Archbishop of York; and Thurleby Bishop of Ely, were ordained in a time when both ordainers and ordained were pronounced both Heretics and Schismatics by the Pope of Rome, 
Sand. de Schism. l. 2. p. 260. Unbish. Tim. & Tit. postc. p. 35. postc. p. 35.  and Cardinal Pool, when Queen Mary came in, Pontificis Legatus cum regnum à priore schismate ac haeresi absolvisset, & Ecclesiae Catholicae reconciliasset, Episcopos omnes qui sententia religionis erant Catholici, in priore schismate factos confirmaret; ita pro legitimis habiti sunt Episcopis. The same story I find in that Testimonial Writer Mr. Pryn, with two more. The one is this, That sundry English Scholars who fled beyond the seas to preserve their lives, liberty and religion, during her (i.e. Queen Maries) bloody reign, where they received ordination from Presbyters in many Protestant Churches of Germany and Genevah, were not only allowed and presented to benefices as lawful Ministers by our Bishop's 〈◊〉 Queen Elizabeth's reign, upon their re●● England, without any reordination, but one or two of them made Bishops without any previous Episcopal ordination, and Archbishop Parker himself consecrated by three Bishops and a Presbyter. The other story is of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury, who coming from Rome, an. 670. confirmed Ceadda ordained before by the Presbyter Monk of Hylas Abby. In the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Nice, we have this eminent instance of the confirmation of those that were ordained by Meletius, 
Hist. l. 8. c. 10, 24. Socrates in Harm. translat. l. 1. c. 6. p. 225.  who sacrificed to Idols in time of persecution, joined with the Arrians, and was excommunicate of the Church, and (as Nicephorus saith) took his Bishopric to himself. There remained as yet touching the contumacy of Meletius, and such as he had advanced to Ecclesiastical orders, to be determined of us, and what the Council decreed touching him, thus understand; Well beloved brethren, the Council being bend to deal with more clemency towards Meletius than he deserved (for by just judgement he was worthy of no pardon) decreed that he should remain in his proper City, that he should have no authority to make Ministers, no authority to advance any to the Ecclesiastical function, neither to appear, nor present himself in any other region, or in any other city for that purpose, but only to retain the bare name and title of his office and dignity. They have decreed further touching such as were entered into holy orders by the laying on of his hands, that they after confirmation, with more mystical laying on of hands, should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church, with this condition, that they should enjoy their dignity and degree of the Ministry— They who through the grace of God, and the means of your prayers were found no maintainers of schism, but contained themselves within the bounds of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, void of all erroneous blemish, let these have authority to consecrate Ministers, to nominate such as shall be thought worthy of the Clergy, and in fine, freely to do all according to the Canon of the Church. Let me add one instance more, 
Niceph. hist. l 11. c. 20.  and that shall be of Amphilochius, of whom it is storied, that he was consecrated a Bishop by the Angels, which thing being known, 
Estius in Sentent. Com. l. 4. in dist. 25. p. 43.  certain Bishops without any further consecration admitted him to the Episcopal function, bestowing upon him only a salutation and a kiss; and thus was a doubtful ordination confirmed. By all which we see that good men and great men, Politicians and Christians have thought such a general confirmation in the case of doubtful ordinations, both lawful and needful, charitable and profitable; and surely it may be imagined that when God shall give us divinely qualified heads, and piously peaceable hearts, then shall we be ready to transcribe their precedents into our practices, and draw their instanced confirmations into healing imitations.  
FINIS.