SECT. II.

HAving in my first paper made these scatter'd efforts already, I shall now more roundly and freely lay you down my opinion, with a larger compasse up­on the whole matter in five or six pro­positions. For the doing whereof [wa­ving in the way that touchy objection of the Covenant, which for my oaths sake at my Degrees in the university I never took, and if it were to do again could not take] I need not any elabo­rate disquisition, which neither the na­ture of a letter, or my time, or my pre­sent stock can allow; but I shall set my thoughts down faithfully as they fall into my pen, travailing only with words, (as already I have done) to deliver my mind, and not with the lick­ing of the expression.

1. I doubt not of Presbyterial ordi­nation, but that those men who have been ordained without a Bishop, have [Page 14]done, and do well, but according to their office and duty, in administring the word and sacraments as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. I can as well doubt, whether my people before me are men or living crea­tures, and not wheels or some things moved only by weights and engines; as I can doubt of this. The judgment of Bishop Usher, Downam, Carleton, Archdeacon Mason, Field of the Church. Lib. 3. c. 39. and the practise of the Reformed Churches, is known in the case.

2. It appears in the time of the Apo­stles, that a Presbyter and a Bishop was all one by these Texts. Tit. 1.5. with 7. Acts 20.17. with 28. Phil. 1.1. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. This, Doctor Hammond thought safest to own. The Bishops suc­ceeded the Apostles, and consequently while there was Apostles there was no Bishops. I speak here but after the ex­cellent judgment of our late King. The Churches then had recourse unto them (as might be prooved by their sending [Page 15]still to Paul about their affairs, in many places) which makes, and answers I think for Episcopacy; They had then no Bishops indeed, because the Apostles and Evangelists filled up the use of them. Whether the ministers at first were all Presbyters, and for avoyding of schism and faction, they chose out one to be Bishop (as Jerome:) Or whether at first they were all Bishops and as their Ter­ritories encreased, and the people came in, they ordained Presbyters under them, I leave to the severall palates of the ju­dicious. This I take to be certain: while the work was not divided, they must needs be both but the same office, unto which either name was common; but when the work was divided, then they distinguished the names and kept them up accordingly. See the Right Honourable Sir William Morice his most candid, cleer, and impartiall judg­ment upon the whole matter of Pres­bytery and Episcopacy, and both compa­red, in his excellently learned book the second Edition in Folio from p. 146 to 169.

3. Whensoever the distinction arose, I believe, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are not different orders of the Ministry, as a Priest and a Deacon is; but only the one is the same office with the other in a different degree of eminency. See the 42 quest. in Bishop Davenants de­terminations. The Apostle in his first Epistle saies, Timothy was ordained with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery: In the second, by the lay­ing on of his hands; You may gather from hence that Paul must needs be then one of the Presbytery, and ordained as one of them (the agent must act quá tale to the production of the effect; I speak this ad hominem) and consequently that Presbyterial ordination and Episco­pal is the same; So that the old rule a­lone Magis & minus non variant speci­em does satisfie me here; though I forget not (if I could believe the Apo­stle indeed to be so criticall) an acute annotation of my own grave and lear­ned Bishop (in his discourse with mee) upon the two Prepositions, that [...] in [Page 17]the one place imports authority, and [...] assistance only in the other. And yet, what if there be here it self some double kind of Ordination, which for ought any one can be sure of, was so: though you and I put not our beliefe to it.

4. Whereas a most Reverend, late, and moderate Prelate is noted to have stated the matter thus, that Pres­byterial Ordination is valid, but Schisma­tical: Let it be understood only, where the Episcopal government is in force; If a man should, now Episcopacy is up, go to be ordained only by Presbyters; no doubt but this, in every true Episcopal Judgment, is Schism: but, when the Bishops were down here, and in the re­formed Churches, where there are no Bishops, it is rather questionable, to my thinking, whether it were not tumul­tuousnesse of spirit, not to be conten­ted with the Ordination which is going, and present necessity puts upon him. Si Orthodoxi Presbyteri, ne pereat Eccle­sia, alios Presbyteros cogantur Ordinare; [Page 18]Ego non ausim hujusmodi Ordinationes pronunciare irritas, sayes Davenant, be­fore quoted. See the second part of Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, where Ordination by Presbyters is justified at large, and more large than I need here mention.

5. I will distinguish then between what Ordination is required to the set­ting a part a man to the Office of a Mi­nister in the sight of God, and what is requisite to the making him received as a Minister among men, and give him authority (or full repute) to execute that Office in the Church or place where he shall be called: I believe (as before) that Ordination by the Pres­bytery only (sufficing but a little while ago to both) suffices still to the former, (supposing Ordination goes so far). But we all begin to know also, that Or­dination now by a Bishop, is necessary to the latter; and, consequently, though I have been ordained before by the Presbytery, this hinders not, but I may [Page 19]be ordained again by the Bishop, be­cause I seek not to be ordained by him to make me a Minister again, which I am in foro Dei already, but to have Authority (as to men) to use my Mi­nistery, and be received as such (which I cannot else) in foro Ecclesiae Angli­canae. And this, me thinks, I am a little justified in, that when I was or­dained by the Presbytery, the very words used at the point, (to my best memory) were, Whom by the laying on of hands, we set a part for the Office of the Ministry, and in the Ordination by the Bishop, they are, Take authority to Preach the Word and Minister the Sacraments in the Congrega­tion where thou shalt be appointed, that is, in thy place. Not, but those words do confer both of these (supposing what is supposed) to the unordained before; yet does not that hinder, but rather argue, If they do confer both to others, they may doubtless (and actually do) confer one (and can but the one only) to such as are in my case: In short, there is my Ministry, and the use of [Page 02]my Ministery in the English Church: My first Ordination (as we suppose) hath given me the one, yet is the lat­ter, not superfluous, because it conduces (and that legally or regularly) to the other. I mean clearly, as to authority, freedom at least, and reception in the same.

6. Whereas the Scripture is clear about subjection to Superiours, Civil and Ecclesiastical; Obey those that are over you in the Lord. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for consci­ence sake: I do question, whether eve­ry man that yields to Episcopacy in his judgement (if but only as not repug­nant to the Word of God, and humane Institution) is not obliged hereunto, if it may be had on this account, without reclaiming, or prejudice to his former Ministry. I say not barely, that it ap­pears a thing lawful, while we see how it may done, but being stood upon, a due, to be done; and if any thing be amiss, it is in them that exact it, and not in us that cannot help it. For what is [Page 21]Re-ordination in this case, but a submis­sion to the order of that Church-Poli­ty, which is again set over us? And what evil is there more in it, then a second marrying (as before) or confirm­ing (with a new) my former title to my living? If it be required of me, Why may I not be ordained twice as well as once, and thrice as well as twice, if there be still reason sufficient for it? May not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy be repeated, and yet Gods Name not be taken in vain by it? Is it enough to make our Liturgy unlawful, because we have, in one Service, the Lords Prayer twice over? I confess, I read indeed of one Baptism in Scripture, and a stress is laid upon it, but I read not so of one Ordination. Where there is no law to the contrary; where I pray lyes the transgression? It is true, there may be found in some anci­ent Canons something against this per­haps, where they had not the like rea­son. Si quis Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus secundam ab aliquo Ordi­nationem [Page 02] [...] [Page 21] [...] [Page 22]susceperit, deponitor, tam ipse quàm qui ipsum ordinavit, say the A­pocryphal Canons of the Apostles. Can. 67. Where this very distinction thus made of the Clergy, does witness them (this one of them, at least) to be of after-times, and so forged, as Rivet notes it. I know also the Trent Do­ctors, out of the Schoolmen, do tell me (with an Anathema) that there is an indelible character imprinted by three of their Sacraments (whereof this is one) for which cause, they cannot be iterated: but I know not, that any of them can tell, what this character is, or where, or how it is impressed, or shew it me in the Bible, or in the Fa­thers, or that the Protestants do make any thing at all of it. Synops. pur. Theol. Disp, 43. Thes. 36. Let my fear, O Lord, be taught me by thy Precepts, and neither by mans meer notions, nor Tradition. Quod Baptismus non sit ite­randus (sayes Chemnitius in his Exa­men de Charactere) de re magná agitur. Pactum gratiae in illo Deus nobiscune [Page 23]iniit. — Illud verò (sayes he, blaming the Trent determination) quod Baptis­mi proprium est, ut scilicet non ite­retur, ad suos Ordines transtulerunt. You may see easily through this little cranny, the true light of this Great Mans free thoughts. Will you be pleased therefore to hear an honest, learned and impartial Doctor, speaking his mind out full for him. Dr. Baldwin, Pro­fessor of Wittenberg. De casibus consci­entiae, putting this very case, Whether a man ordained by the Papists, may be ordained again by us, and main­taining, that there is no necessity of it, does yet clearly deliver here, his thoughts in this matter. Quod si quis existimat se tranquilliùs suo in nostris Ecclesiis Officio, perfungi posse, si etiam nostris ritibus ad Sacrosanctum Ministerium utatur, nihil obstat, quin Ordinationem à nostris acci­pere possit: non enim eadem est ratio Or­dinationis, quae Baptismi, qui iterari non potest; Hoc enim Sacramentum est Eccle­siae, illa autem externus tantum ritus. Lib. 4. c. 6. cas. 6.

SECT. III.

I Have done now with my Essay as to the Question. I come to the Scruples and Objections that have run into my Soul like water. I shall endeavour through Divine Assistance, to lave them out as well as I can, by Confession, or Solution.

For the first, it hath been this: The Apostle limiting the use of our Christian liberty in indifferent things to the rule of charity, instances in meats offered to Idols. The weak Brethren thought in their consciences it unlawful, to eat of such meats; the stronger Christian hereupon is bound to forbear, because they seeing him who had knowledge sit at meat, their consciences would be emboldned to eat likewise, who having not that knowledge, should sin. Ap­ply the case here. Many of my Bre­thren do think it unlawful (it is likely) to be ordained again; Now they seeing [Page 25]me, though the meanest among them, yet whom they think may have some knowledge, to be re-ordained: Shall they not be emboldned to do so like­wise, which if they do, whilst they be­lieve (or doubt) it to be unlawful, they perish. But when you sin against the Brethren, and wound their weak consci­ences, you sin against Christ. I confess, I do the rather propose this, for the seeking satisfaction, if it can be given me, in regard of the vast range the Case hath, and takes in more especially all Ceremony; I cannot wear a Sur­plice, nor read Common Prayer, (at this interim) or stand up at the Creed: Nay, I cannot wear my hair long, and a hundred more, certainly, indifferent things; but some do think these in their consciences unlawful; and so, while I embolden them by my pattern to do the same, I occasion their ruine, and incur the hazard of such Texts, Rom. 14, 15, 21. 1 Cor. 10.28. 1 Cor. 8.11, 12. Mat. 18.6, 7.

I must profess, if this Proposition will arise from any one, or from all these Texts, that a man who is satisfi­ed of a thing as indifferent and lawful, must yet forbear upon the account, that by his example, others may be embold­ned to the same, who having not that knowledge, do judge it unlawful, and so sin if they do it; then is the way of poor Christians (the Lord knows) very straight: Nevertheless (besides the learn­ed Hammonds interpretation of that Chapter, 1 Cor. 8. bearing away quite the edge of that place) I am though, through grace, something enlightned to judge, that a man may sometimes do much good in leading an example to the doubtful, when a thing is be­coming necessary, as he may do much amiss in things more certainly lawful, that are better spared. As for the Schools definition of Scandal; I say, an indifferent commanded, becomes rectum, which was minùs rectum before; and Scandalum with them is, Dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens alteri oc­casionem [Page 27]ruinae. I will take up with that here of Mr. Calvin, treating about in­different things in this case, and menti­oning Pauls circumcising Timothy, and yet not Titus, as to the point. Nihil jam (sayes he) hâc regulâ expeditius, quàm Utendum libertate nostrâ si in proximi nostri aedificationem cedat; sin ita proximo non expediat, eâ tunc absti­nendum. Inst. lib. 3. c. 19. §. 12.

SECT. IV.

THE grand Objection in the se­cond place and chief that I can think of; and which, I am perswaded, if I can satisfie thoroughly, I have done my work; I will lay down as cleer as possibly I can frame it: for it hath come in often, and laid long with the dint of it in my thoughts. Ordination is that which according to Divines does give a man the office of the Ministery (they mean, they say, as to the Essence of the outward Call, Jus Divin. Evan. ch. 11.) This is the end they account here­of: Now when a man is a Minister al­ready, there is not this end; If there be not it's end, it is to no purpose, an or­dinance, or Gods name, taken in vain which is against the Third Commande­ment.

To this I answer, as cleerly, I hope, directly, and fully; and shall enlarge upon it after. There are more ends [Page 29]then one in Ordination, as in Baptism and other Institutions; It is not necessary to the taking or using an ordinance that a man be capable of all it's ends (I might adde, if need were, nor the grand end) so long as there is some right and suffi­cient end of the same. Ordination (it is said) does not install a man in his of­fice, but gives a man his commission and authority, that is, it must be meant, does not only doe this; for it necessa­rily does the first, whether it does the last or not. I will suppose then, it does no lesse. It makes a man a Minister (I say I suppose this, not grant it) and also signifies him to be such before men. It gives the office and also it makes a man to be received as such in the Church where he is sent, which is a matter of great weight and open importance, as I shall say more about it. Now I am fixed here; Though we that are Ministers already, cannot be ordained to the one end, which is supposed the most common (our case being peculiar); yet are we, may we, and, for any thing I know (if [Page 30]required) ought we to be ordained a­gain for the other. The common and generall end of Baptism was for remis­sion of sins, yet was Jesus Christ bapti­zed, who was not capable of that end (but some others). The common end of Ordination is for the office (as is sup­posed); yet if the Bishop shall say here, Why comest thou to be ordained? Thou hast no need that art a Minister already. I will answer him humbly in my Savi­ours words, Suffer it so to be now for it becommeth us to fulfill all righteousness, It becometh us to conform to the peace uni­ty and government of the Church, as well as State (so far as we can) in the Nation.

St Paul is made a Minister by Christ himself; Mark the words well, for they are beyond dispute, I have appea­red to thee for this purpose to make thee a Minister. And now I send thee to the Gentiles to open their blind eys, &c. Act. 26.16, 17, 18. And yet is he ordained after by the hands of men, Act. 13.3. Will any man say that the imposition of hands did make him a Minister, or [Page 31]confer his office? That were not only a­gainst that text, but such a manifest wrong he will never put up, who in ex­presse termes stands upon it, that he was an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Christ Gal. 1.1. which is the truth. 'Tis plain then, that a man who is a Minister already, may be or­dained; or that it is not necessary to be ordained only to this end, to have the of­fice conferred on him. And now then my Friend that art in my case, doe thou tell the Bishop, thou art a Minister already; Be sure thou doest not renounce thy former ordination, and consequent­ly (as much as in thee lyes) all thy mi­nisteriall acts past (together with thy consent to the Reformed Churches) for any thing; If he shall thereupon ask thee, wherefore then wilt thou be or­dained? Say, To this end, this very end, St. Paul here was ordained, let it be what it will, it is that alone I come for; which indeed in effect is nothing else but the canonicall stamp of allow­ance, or Establishment of thy former [Page 32]vocation; and as for the bare Ceremo­nies it self twice using, which alone is left to be excepted at, value it not. Who does not know that imposition of hands with prayer is used for Confirmation, as well as Ordination?

I will advance here on further; The reason of a precept is to be look't on as the precept; To perform a precept a­gainst the reason of it, is to break it; To do according to the reason, though not according to the precept, is to keep it; We have no precept in Scripture for Re-ordination; but we have here, in this instance, the reason of it. Let any one tell me the reason of this impositi­on of hands upon Paul by Lucius and Niger, who could not be made a Mini­ster by man seeing Christ had appeared to him (as is said) for that purpose be­fore; & I will presume to give the same or the like, for our re-ordination by the Bishop. If you say, Here was a command of the Holy Ghost. It is true: but that takes not away the reason of the rite; the thing must have it's due end, and [Page 33]reason, but the rather, for that.

What then is the reason indeed here­of? Is it for to give the ministerial of­fice and nothing else? Surely if it does that at all (which one may think God alone does by the warrant of his word upon his enabling gift, and the mans Consent); Yet is not this the reason alto­gether for certain, because here is an instance to the contrary, let any man cavill at it what he can. What is the reason then? Why, really, I think it is this. This solemn rite does give the cur­rant repute, or valuation, to a man of a Minister; so that he who was truly called of God before, is now received as such, by all, as to the exercise of his function with freedome and acceptation; And this is that authority alone I count the Bishop gives (at least as to us) in those words, Take thou authority &c. To wit an authority of esteem in regard of men, who many will not, and many perhaps out of conscience mislead, can­not, hold me for a true, or legall Mini­ster otherwise? And hereupon you see, [Page 34]upon what ground it is we go in Re­ordination) and that is no other, then the very reason it self of Ordination; which, believe it, is not a little matter, e­ven no lesse then that of the Apostle, [...], namely, the very course and glorifying of our Gospell, which ought to be, I think, one of the greatest Concernments to us in the world.

To be short then, for we are now at the bottome; Forasmuch as our former ordination by the Presbytery though it be good according to God, and conse­quently such as ought to give us this reputation (or outward authority) as Ministers (which is the reason of ordai­ning) yet does not do it and reach it's end, in our Church, by reason of the times (and perhaps according to the an­cient Laws) as they are now changed, and like to stand: I argue, where the reason of the precept is repeated, who can deny, nay who dare refuse, the re­petition of the duty?

And here the prime knot of the whole [Page 35]difficulty is also loosed, which is this. We on one hand dare not but own out former Ordination as valid for our mi­nisteriall acts past: On the other hand, if we owne the first as valid, what room can there be for a second? There must be some sense therefore, wherein it is to be conceived not valid, null, or ra­ther (as the case truly is) nullified (as to some considerable intents) or else a se­cond ordination does nothing but what is done, which is absurd. I answer therefore directly. The validity of our former Ordination accipitur dupliciter. This is what is cleer, and so may seem easy to you, found; but cost mee many thoughts to frame and find. This va­lidity I say, is to be taken either in re­gard of what it ought to do; or in re­gard of what it does do, as I have said; It would be fuller, if I could say, In regard of what it ought to doe according to the Law of God; and in regard of what it does do, according to the law of our Church or Land: wherein I am not so well-skill'd, as to speak sure­ly. [Page 36]In the first regard, (to wit, of what it ought to do) we stand upon it, to be valid or good; we profess that, that alone is such, according to Scripture, as ought to give us the repute and full re­ception as Ministers, by all persons, and to all intents and purposes what­soever: But in the second regard, (to wit, of what it does do) we yield it is not valid, we acknowledge it indeed, hereby (not to be so); It does not do this, 'tis true; it is that we perceive, and know, and complain of: what through error in some, and wilfulness and injury in others, they render it to us as null (both as to the main, and spe­cial effects) so that it will not any longer serve the turn, or end (through the stream of the times, how happy so­ever otherwise) to give our Ministry its free course (the marrow of all); and upon that account, are we ordained again. Which being, I say, the reason (or one main reason, at least) of this rite it self, it is substantially satisfactory (and I suspect, also obligatory) for our [Page 37]yielding to the same. And thus do I avoid both the sin on one hand, of dis­owning our first Orders; and the Soloe­cism on the other, of doing only what is done in our last. When yet I should have thought this matter might have passed pretty well at first, if it had been but so determined, as to be (if men would) some kind of Soloecism, but no sin.

You have the body of this main Ob­jection; I shall now proceed to the limbs of some farther scruples.

Object. Ordination is our entrance into the Ministry; How can a man have a double entrance into the same state?

Answ. Besides that this is taken off, in the reason of the thing (as to its foundation) I return; So is Marriage, an entrance into the conjugal estate. Suppose a couple marryed only by the Magistrate, and as to some considerable effect, their marriage is in question, Who would doubt, but upon such, or any other serious cause for it, they may be marryed again by the Book of [Page 38]Common Prayer? And why not up­on this very reason? Because, there is nothing else in it, but only, that that Form which is compiled in the Book, for the entring, or (what is the truth) signifying the entrance of two persons into wedlock, is now used, to signifie these to be entred, or confirming them legally in that estate, which it will do as well, as enter them at first? Who will say, it is a sin, or transgression, to use it so? A great piece of matter, and mis-usage, is it not? Apply the same here, and if any will condemn us for the like use of the form of ordering Priests, let them include the multitudes, that have been so marryed in these times, and take heed, they can answer it before the Lord. Who art thou that judgest thy Brother? Rom. 14.10. In­dignum est (sayes the Father) ut prop­ter ea qua nos Deo, ne (que) digniores ne (que) indigniores possunt facere, alii alios vel condemnemus, vel judicemus.

Object. Ordination is not a naked sign, only to declare a man a Minister be­fore [Page 39]men; but there is grace implored; we are recommended to Gods grace, and we are to suppose grace accompanying of it; Now, Is not the being twice ordained, a kind of offering an indignity to the grace of God?

Answ. If we look into 1 Cor. 15.10. we have footing for a distinction of Grace; I laboured, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. There is therefore the grace of God in us; or, with us; That grace which is implo­red, unto which we are committed, and may expect from this solemnity, is, I take it, the grace of God with us, the assistance and blessing of God upon us for our work; which being what we may alwayes pray for, or what is continually vouchsafed; I hope there is no more evil here, then the bidding several times, God speed, or, blessing our friends in the Name of the Lord more then once. It was no wayes de­rogatory to the divinity of Pharaohs first Dream, that it was seconded by ano­ther; For that the dream was doubled [Page 40]unto Pharaoh twice, it is, because the thing is established by God. By the way, A second Ordination then, by various persons and rites, destroyes not the first, but is an Establishment; the title by which I have chosen to call it.

Object. But there is a gift given by Ordination, which is in us. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophesie, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. with 2 Tim. 1.6. And that gift, it is likely, can be received but once.

Answ. It is probable, that this gift was something extraordinary, and pe­culiar to Timothy. Because; 1. It was given him by this ceremony (as is thought) according to the miraculous gifts, of those times. 2. He was an extraordinary Officer, an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. or at least, a singular per­son. 3. It is given him by Oracle. 4. There is no mention of such a gift, in the Ordination of any other. If so, this objection is quite taken off from us: If not, but the Gift is ordinary, it will [Page 41]concern us; And what then is it (let us search) that is conferred by this Rite?

It is not the grace of God (gratum faciens) or saving grace; for that is not tyed to this means. Nor is it the Ori­ginal talent, Endowment, Parts, or A­bilities for the Ministry; for those are tryed, and to be found first in the par­ty to be ordained, and therefore not given hereby. Nor should it be the Office it self (one may judge) because 1. What need is there, the word Gift should be taken Metonymically, when it may be taken properly? 2. How can the Office be said, to be stirr'd up (Stir up the gift that is in thee, sayes the second Text) which is proper of the grace to discharge it? 3. That which is yet harsher, How can it be said of the Office, The Gift that is in thee? It is proper to say, a man is in his Office; but to say, a man; Office is in him, seems strange. 4. If it be thought, the office must necessarily be conferred by this rite, it is false; in our [Page 42]instance of Paul for certain, and Barna­bas likely. Haec manu [...]m impositto non eò spectabat ut Episcopalem gratiam cis largiretur; sed (docente Scripturâ) ut se­gregarentur in opus, & commendarentur gratiae Dei, Mason. de Min. Ang. p. 46. If it be thought, it may and does con­fer it, where it is not before, that shall be still supposed by me, though not granted, nor conceived.

Suppose it then, seeing it is the most currant sense, that by this gift is meant Docendi Officium, as our London Divines, with Anselm, Thomas, Cajetane, Gerson, Bucer; or, what is all one, Authority, Power, and Commission for this Office and work, as our Book of Orders, Take thou authority to Preach the Word, and Minister the Sacraments. Ordo, est Sa­crum quoddam, quo spiritualis potestas traditur Ordinato & Officium, sayes Lom­bard. Now then, the question will be this only, at the highest, Whether an Authority or Commission to an Office or work, in the nature of the thing, may be renewed and refreshed? And there [Page 43]is one instance alone to this point, may I think, pluck the superstitious doubt up by the root from the heart. It is this; The Apostles beyond question, had Mission, and Commission, and so this gift, (whatsoever it is) from Christ, when he made their Ministers in his life: and yet we find them Commission, or Authority ministerial renewed ex­presly again after Christs Resurrection. Joh. 20.21, 22, 23. Which herein hath the more support in it, (modo liceat) that it is the same form which is used to us, with­out repetition. Mr. Calvin, upon the fore­cited Text, understands by this Gift only, that, through the Prayers of the Church, Grace (to wit, gratis data) is impetrated on the ordained: and speak­ing of Timothy, Certum est, & doctrinà (sayes he) & aliis dotibus priù eum excelluisse. And so, I hope, there is no scruple, how more talents, and a bles­sing still from God may be repeated and fresh sought. I will lean upon the instance mentioned, and suppose you can hardly raise an Objection, intrinsecal [Page 44]to the thing, but that may be turned ar­tificially to it.

It may be said, The Apostles were sent only before to the Jews; now they are sent to the Gentiles, and so there is need of a new Commission (for a new, it seems to be by the word [...], Mat. 16.19. in the future tense, pointing to the time in John). I return then, There is the office of the Apostleship, and the use of that Office in a farther place, (even unto all Nations). Though they had Commission already belike for the one, this does not hinder, but they may have a new (or renewed) for the other. So state I the Re-ordaineds case: They are Ministers already; but for the use of their Ministry, as to the place, or farther service, whereunto they shall be called, Who shall forbid the like to them? If you scruple here, I have no new work, or new place: Yet you may re-mind our instance of Paul before, who was sent by Christ at first to the Gentiles at large, and yet is ordained again after, and sent to the same.

Let this dilemma, at least serve thy turn; If thou keepest thy place, and thy conscience here is weak, the Act for Confirmation of Ministers, secures thee upon thy Ordination thou hast: If thou art turn'd out, or hast a safe Call by Providence to a new place, thou mayst have a peculiar Ordination to that work. See besides the former instance, Act. 11. with Act. 13.2. and assure thy self, it is light when the Sun is up. This were an account upon which the re-ordained haply, and re-ordain­ed both, might be justified. And then, if, besides an Ordination in general, to set apart a man for his Office, there may be a particular, to recommend him to the grace of God for his work in another place, Why may not this be distinguisht upon need, as to the same place also? Thou must have, me thinks, but narrow thoughts of the Scripture, and the Au­thor of it, if thou thinkest, that the continuance of thy Ministry, or the Parrhesia only, or full liberty thereof for the Lord, will not bear thee out [Page 46]for such a matter. I choose for our selves the largest Foundation.

Before I pass hence, though, I cannot here but put a difference between the authority which Christ gave his Disci­ples, whose Prerogative it is, to make his own Officers, and the authority man gives; As when it is said, The Saints shall judge the world; Divines say, that is, by approving (as Assessors) Christs sentence: So I take it, do men make Ministers, by approving Christs call. There is then the spiritual inward pow­er and commission for my office to­ward God. Ordination, I suppose, gives not this character; but it lies plainly, I judge, in these three things, Institution, Ability, and Consent: to wit, Christ hath appointed such an Office to be; furnishes a man with endowments for that Office; and gives him a will, so that he dedicates himself thereupon to that work. Here is Christs call. And what then doth man, but upon tryal, finding this so, he approves, and de­clares him a Minister, by the solemnity [Page 47]of Ordination, and so adds to him, an authority towards man, he had not be­fore. Let us know then, (and not be in the dark any longer); It is Christ still gives us our Office (thou must hold thy Office from him certainly, if thou art Christs Minister) and Man gives us re­pute. Believe it, the Essence of this out­ward authority, or call, which is all at last, that dare be assumed and ascribed to Orders indeed (if men know once what it is) lies there: Ordination, for certain, is in its nature, a recommend­ing us to the grace of God for our work, Act. 13.2. with chap. 14.26. And why might not any few good Mini­sters, or private Congregation (which were absurd and insolent) do this; but that this repute or valuation, to all intents, as Ministers, is to be attained by that solemnity?

And after this, I do begin to be per­swaded, That this gift in Timothy, (though there be something else yet hangs in my mind) is indeed, to be un­derstood of his Office, (especially seeing [Page 48]this is the sense, you may think, most op­posite to me) which will appear mainly by that Text, 1 Tim. 1.18. This charge I commit to thee son Timothy, according to the prophesies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare. This warfare (compare it with 2 Tim. 2.4.) is his Ministry. Hence I ar­gue, (I can't say surely) what was given Timothy by Prophesie, was his Ministry. But this gift, is that, which was given him by Prophesie. Therefore, this gift is his Ministry. Well now, upon this supposi­tion, you see, how Timothy's Ministry, or Office is given him: The objected Text sayes expresly, by Prophesie. What that means, the other Text doth illu­strate, to wit, by Revelation; no other­wise, then when the Holy Ghost bid, Separate me Paul and Barnabas, in the Acts. If God, then by express call, gives him his Office, when it is added, With the hands of the Presbytery, it can be only as in the parallel instance, by the way of a declarative assent, allowance, or confirmation.

And now, I hope, the vizard of this uncouth thing, Re-ordination, does fall off: For is it indeed so against rea­son, and all example? Is it such a Gob­lin, to be re-ordained, think you truly? What if I muster upon you, now at last? The Apostles were re-ordained, Paul re-ordained, Barnabas re-ordained, and perhaps Timothy also. Let not your eyes, I pray, be holden, if it be so in good earnest. Those Divines (say the Provincial Assembly) define Ordination very well, that define it to be, Missio po­testativa. You see, I speak not at the lowest. Well then, The Apostles have one Authorative Mission, Mat. 10.7. and they have another also, Matth. 28.19. Joh. 20.21. They are doubly ordained then, and both Ordinations extraordi­nary. Paul hath Mission Potestative, from Christ, Act. 26. And yet hath an open Ordination also by men, Act. 13. He is re-ordained, and one Ordination is extraordinary, and the other, ordina­ry. Barnabas hath Mission from the Church of Jerusalem, Act. 11.22. (and [Page 50]authoritative, no doubt) and another al­so with Paul, by them at Antioch. Here is double Ordination, and both ordinary by men. I may stop here, for I have enough. Who will not be ready to say, Give me but one instance of this thing in Scripture, and I am satisfied? Loe here, is two or three for you: Nihil est tam certum, quàm quod ex dubio certum est. And yet, what if I add? The Bishop hath no new order, or office from a Priest, and yet hath he a new Consecra­tion without scruple. I will fold up this paper then with St. Cyprian. Non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit; sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus priùs fecerit: ne (que) e­nim hominis consuetudinem sequi opor­tet, sed Dei veritatem. Lib. 2. Caecil. Epist. 3.

SECT. V.

A Third Objection, is this, To be re­ordained, does seem, virtually to renounce our former Ordination: and for any to do so, (at least, for me; after twelve years Ministeral acts) were, I think, not only a light thing, but a heavy sin: Besides, it seems to be a kind of departure from our station, and leaving the Presbytery, which makes a man look like one of the Lapsi, to some folks think­ing.

For answer to this; I do not know, what others may judge in their consci­ences; but as for my self, I am humbly perswaded, That so long as a man doth clearly, and unfainedly, both before and after (unto the concern'd) as he hath occasion, declare himself to the contrary, this will not by the Lord, and ought not by Man, to be laid to his charge; and that upon this evident rea­son: Because, Expression in this case, [Page 52]does give Construction to the Action. The denomination must be à fortiori; and there can be no doubt to the unbyassed; Whether a manifest declaration by mouth, or a dumb shew, or act, is the clearer (and so the stronger) significa­tion: You may take one full instance, in the matter of the Reubenites, when they erected an Altar, Josh. 22. The body of Israel presently rise up, and look upon this as a renunciation of their Religion: Hereupon, they do but make direct profession, That they had not built this Altar for Sacrifice, but for a witness, and you see presently all are pacified; the Altar stands, and there is no more said against it. Besides, there is this here takes out the coar, that the thing is ge­nerally conceived (as if already they knew your mind) to be Necessity, Form, and Establishment only, and no such matter in the least, as Renunciation, in­tended by it.

Doubt. What if my Bishop is of opi­nion, That my former Ordination is null, and Ordains me in his mind only on that [Page 53]account; Will not that opinion of his, render me uncapable to be re-ordained by him?

Answ. If, notwithstanding his opini­on, he gives thee liberty to declare thy self, there is no reason (thy conscience being discharged) for thee, to imagine his opinion should hinder thee herein any more, then the intention of the Priest in the matter of the Sacra­ments.

Quest. But what shall I declare? That I come not for a new Ordination, but a legal confirmation of my former?

Answ. Of your former Call, or Mi­nistry, if you will; The dream it self of Pharaoh, is not said, to be confirmed by a second; but the thing signified, was established by both. For, to be a little accurate here; Though as to others, in sensu vulgari, (and to speak only as a Divine) my former Ordination, may be said hereby, to be confirmed, yet in sensu peculiari, as to the Bishop himself, this opinion of his, makes it not properly a confirmation (Confirmare [Page 54]est rem firmam facere; there must be res, before it be made firm, which he holds null) but his Act (as Lawyers speak) works by way of Estoppel; so that he (nor any of his judgement) shall be able to implead my Ministry for the future:which is all one for the doing, and notrendring the thing vain, as if it were a confirmation in the most proper, and formal sense in the world.

Nevertheless, as for my Call, or Mi­nistry it self; in the very nature of the thing, it is hereby confirmed, so that, I have thereupon, the free use thereof in our Church, for which I come. Care not thou therefore for words, but de­clare thy mind plainly, That Presbyte­rial Ordination is good in the sight of God, as thou believest; that thou hast not acted basely without Orders hither­to; and yet, in regard the times re­quire it, thou submittest for the Gospel sake to these other also, that will pass. This is enough: and then, I must tell thee, that the thing it self is Confirma­tion. Ordination (I count) is a Con­firmation [Page 55]of a mans call from Christ to the Ministry, (which is, his Commissi­on coram Deo) by the solemn God-speed, allowance, or approbation of such who are of authority, to give a man the repu­tation of a Minister (where lies potestas coram hominibus) to its due intents, in the Church where he is sent. That I think, were a true, and almost full de­finition. And forasmuch then, in re­gard of the full current of the times, you see wherein you may look upon your first Orders, though true, to be null in certain respects, without ever the less esteem of them indeed, or in­jury to them, and with the Presbyteri­ans leave too, I trow; you have clear room and ground for submission to Re­ordination, as in the Paper before.

And indeed, while thy Bishop, and perhaps many other good men, and, it may be, some of the chief of thy own Parish are of this mind, That while thou hast no other hands laid on thee, then such of thy own degree, thou art not a Minister at all, or such a one as [Page 56]thou oughtest to be; and so perhaps they sorrowfully, but silently get others to do some Ministerial acts for them, and there grows strangeness towards thee, and they greive for it; besides the like and worse effects: Who does not see here, That this thing is a matter of more consequence, then thou couldst at first think of: and if thereupon, thou yieldest to the remedy, thou dost not go beyond (nor so far as) the Apostles own pattern, who became all things to all men, (as especially in the case of Timothy) even to these ends only, the magnifying his Ministry, and that he might gain some; and who hath also left us a clear precept with his example, Rom. 15.2. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his edification. And here I may propose ex abundanti this farther, Whether an irrefragable argu­ment, may not be drawn from the Apo­stles use of Circumcision upon any, af­ter the Resurrection of Christ, to prove that an Ordinance may be used, with­out breach of the third Commandment, [Page 57]or other sin, even then, when it cannot be directed to its principal, no, not its proper end; so long as it will but at­tain one higher then all, to wit, The promotion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus?

I will therefore now call the Reube­nites instance again to mind, craving leave to make so much use thereof in the cloze, as humbly likewise (after this) to declare our case. There are many of us, who have been some years fellow Souldiers with our Brethren; we cannot find it in our hearts, to be lawful, to give our selves a discharge in this war, which were so pleasing to the flesh, upon a pretence that will not hold with the Lord; and hereupon we have been content to be farther en­gaged, and submit in this thing. Now the Lord God, the Lord God of Gods knows, we have not done this to erect an Altar against an Altar, one Ordina­tion against another; we have not done it in rebellion, or renuntiation thereunto; but rather for fear of this thing, that [Page 58]in time to come (or that now is) they should say, What have you to do with the Lord God of Israel, or with his Mi­nistry, that are not ordained according to the fashion of the Land? and so they shall make us cease from our service of him; Therefore said we, that it shall be when they should say so to us, that we may say again, Behold the pattern, of your own orders for a witness be­tween us and you, that we have our part also in the Lord, and how much we desire accommodation. And now, I hope, that Phineas himself, the High-Priest, and all our pious and tender Brethren, when they have heard these words, will be pleased, and let us pass with that blessing; This day, we per­ceive, that God is among us, because you have not committed this trespass a­gainst the Lord.

For the second part of the Objection. It hath pleased God, by his Providence, to call us universally to change, and it is not the interest now of good men to [Page 59]be stiffe, and dividing, but to be find­ing out the most conscionable grounds of complyance, as far as ever they can, with one another. It would have been ingenuous, I think, (for the case of Bancroft, and the Scotch Presbyters is known) if Episcopacy, would by some general act of Confirmation, have wa­ved Ordination past; but, if she deal, me thinks, (against her nature) Pedan­tically, not generously, not Catholiquely herein, it will become us yet, (who are the parties thus ordained, and pro­perly concerned) to be fair. We know what is her chief flower; some­thing must be yielded to her, if we would have her part with any thing again; and so long as we may de­clare our own sense, and escape the sin, we are to comprimize the matter for our selves, by bringing our conscience toward God, and submission to her, unto composition. If a second Or­dination, did necessarily, in the fact, imply a renunciation of the first; what a hainous thing had it been for Paul [Page 60]to be ordained after by men, that was made a Minister immediately by Christ? Assure your self therefore, most firmly from the former Paper, about that matter.

For my part, I will confess, although I am one that cannot be lookt on, as engaged to the Presbytery, any more then to have been ordained by them; yet am I so held under the convicti­on of the power and life of godliness in some of that sort of men, above ma­ny others; that I cannot let Naomi go easily, and much less, part with her with any indignity. When these good men (or party) were high, I could not fall in with them: Now they are down, my spirit, like Ruth, is more ready to cleave to them. Nevertheless, as for their way, and particular government, I cannot choose but retain my freedom, and be apt to understand with those, that give us the greatest latitude unto agreement and concord in the Nation, To which end, that tenent of Whitgift, (Def. Ad. p. 78, 83, 98.) to my think­ing, [Page 61]does conduce. It is true, that no­thing ought to be tolerated in the Church as necessary to Salvation, or as an Arti­cle of Faith, except it be contained in the Word of God. It is true also, That nothing in Ceremonies, Order, Discipline, or Government in the Church, is to be suffered, being against the Word. But that no Ceremony, Order, Discipline, or kind of Government, may be in the Church, except the same be expressed in the Word of God, is an absurdity, and breedeth many inconveniences. For we know, (sayes Calvin) that every Church hath liberty to ordain, and appoint such a Form of Government as is apt and profitable for it, because the Lord hath therein preseribed no certainty: upon 1 Cor. 11.2. as he quotes him.

To proceed on this subject, I have in my second Paper, and second Pro­position, set down certain Texts, which according to St. Jerome, at large on the first of Titus, do plead the identity of a Presbyter and a Bishop, and from him made use of by others. Now I [Page 62]will take a Note or two thereon, which will come in fitly here, as the farthest way perhaps about, but the neerest way home of saying something to pur­pose in this business.

The one Note is this; that, As those places on one hand do shake Episcopacy, if pressed strictly, Jure Divino: So do they on the other hand go farther, and take the Lay-Elder clean away; which while some have pressed as strictly in Presbytery, it would not pass. A Pres­byter (or Elder) is all one with a Bi­shop in Scripture: But there was never heard of a Lay-Bishop, (a Lay-Pastor) and consequently, no Lay-Elder; I mean, as to ruling Ecclesiastically in Ecclesiastical affairs; for if there were any, as to deciding of quarrels, to pre­vent the Brethrens going to Law, (ac­cording to 1 Cor. 6.) that, I suspect, was all. When there are no qualifica­tions layed down by the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3. where he directs about the making Church officers, but only of the Bishops and Deacons, as it cuts off the Bishop [Page 63]from being a distinct Order from the Presbyter, so does it quite cut away the Lay-Elder.

For that controverted place there­fore, 1 Tim. 5.17. (which as it is urged, in the Divine right of Church govern­ment, did hold me under conviction, until this light, of the Presbyter being one with the Bishop, was clearer than it). I will give you my interpretation; And the rather, because neither of the many, which Erastus, Field, Bilson, Dow­nam, Mead, Sutliffe, or others, have in­vented, to wave that Text against Pres­bytery, could satisfie me; as perhaps this of mine may not likewise satisfie others. Such as it is however, you shall have it. The Bishop and Elder, I have said, are one office, the one name only sig­nifying Industriam curae pastoralis, the other Sapientiae maturitatem, as Hender­son out of Bede: This office is to rule, and preach; Ruling and preaching are the inseparable parts of the same, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. Heb. 13.7. I speak quoad [...], whatsoever it be sometimes quo­ad [Page 64]exercitium. Now there are some, more able for one part of their office, and some more able for the other. Those that are eminent in either, the Apostle would have to be encouraged, or rewarded accordingly. Let them have double honor, that is, Not, as some do fondly gloss it, two things, Reverence, and Maintenance; for the next verse to this, tells us what honor he cer­tainly means; such as when otherwhere, he says, Honor widows; that is, Mainte­nance, or provision for them; and double honor, is, more maintenance then others.

The Emphasis then for the Inter­pretation, does lye on the word [...], which is not to be construed barely bené but pulchrè, egregiè, eminentèr, (that is the genuine signification of the word, as [...]). And this being put in the beginning emphatically, to the first branch, will appear easily to him, that ponders the Greek Text, that it must be understood again in the latter, to wit, [...] scilicet [...] also. Here then [Page 65]plainly is the meaning. Those Ministers that are more eminent then others, are to have more encouragement, honor or maintenance above others, that is, double honor: whether they are emi­nent in one part of their Office, or in the other, in ruling, or in preaching, but especially, if they are eminent in preaching.

The other note I must add in the behalf of Episcopacy: for if I know any thing by my own heart, it does love integrity, which is the speaking, as nothing but what I find in it, so the whole I find there. When I have said above, that, the identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture does shake Episcopacy, if it be held Jure divino, strictly; I must confess also, if it be held so only at large, there does some impressions, ever since my deliberate reading of the Conference at the Isle of Wight, remain upon me for it, By a Jus divinum I understand vul­garly, justum & jussum in the Word of God. It is true, there is no superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter in [Page 66]Scripture, because they were all one then, two words for the same thing; but yet there is a superiority and inferiority in the Scripture among the Ministers in the Church. The Bishops superiority is not jure divin [...]; but I say, Superiority is jure divino. The twelve Apostles were above the Seventy. God hath set some in his Church, first, secondarily, thirdly, &c. 1 Cor. 10.28. Now while the Church had her extraordinary Officers, it did suffice, that this superiority and inferi­ority was terminated, or lodged in those divers orders; but when that which was extraordinary, was done away, and there remained only one Order (the Pastor and Teacher) of the four (Ephes. 4.11.) there was in the Church before; then must the superiority & inferiority of the preaching Ministry, or Priest, quite fall: or else the Authority of the Church must interpose, and make a difference of degree in identity of order; and so the names of Bishop and Presbyter be­ing sit for the turn, were prudently di­stinguished by pious antiquity, and mad [Page 67]use of for it. For man to create a new officer, or another order in his Lords house, which himself hath not set there, (1 Cor. 12.28.) cannot, I doubt, be taken well by him. But to put a difference on­ly of degree, or to double the dignity as well as maintenance, (1 Tim. 5.17.) to some above others in the same office, is not like to be at all against his will.

Now then, if you ask me, Is Episco­pacy jure divino, or no? I answer, If you take this largely, it is; because su­periority, and inferiority in the Preach­ing Ministry of the Church, is of Christ, and the Scripture. If you take it strictly, it is not; because the distinction of a Bishop and Presbyter is not of Scripture; but this disparity of degree in the same order, is assumed by man, as consonant to the will of God, in general, and ne­cessary to government. To be more short; Inequality for orders sake in the Ministry, is of divine; the mode, or fa­shion thereof in Episcopacy, is of Eccle­siastical, institution.

It appears in the Epistles to Timothy, [Page 68]and Titus, that Paul writes to them af­ter such a rate, that does signifie very plainly, an authority in them over the Elders and Deacons in their Churches. How does he tell Timothy of his abiding at Ephesus, to charge some, that they teach no other doctrine? Why does he lay down qualifications of the Pastor and Deacon, what they ought to be, and do? What are the duties of other men to him, but upon this account? Wherefore does he bid him, Rebuke an Elder: And how shall he receive an accusation a­gainst him by witness, if he had not an in­spection, and power of Jurisdiction, over them? And these things I write, (says he) that thou might'st know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the Church of God. Again, Do nothing by partiality. Who does not see here, Episcopus pasto­rum as well as gregis? Who will not confess a preheminence of Authority in Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, over the Ministers there, that is not com­patible with every common Presbyter? You may believe it the rather, because [Page 69]our Divines at the Conference menti­oned, never denyed it. That which is an­swered, is this; That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists: But in the mean time, the thing it self, and matter contended for, is found in Scripture, and granted to be practised by these two men. And what if they had lived and dyed where Paul left them, in the exercise of this Authority? Had the continuance there­of, changed the nature, and made it evil? Was it lawful for them to exercise such a power and jurisdiction for a year? and had it been unlawful, if they had exercised it ten, or for their lives? If it had not, there is the whole thing which is disputed for, in a fixed Bishop. Here then, I take up, and distinguish; There is the matter it self of Episcopacy, and the form or mode of it. The matter ap­pears to have its warrant in Gods Word: The form, which is the breaking a single order (to wit, the order of the Pastor) into two degrees in that order, and, up­on the ceasing of the Evangelist, an higher order, the placing his work so [Page 70]far as it is ordinary, and continues neces­sary to the Churches welfare, upon the superior degree of the Pastor so divided, is indeed of mans authority and contri­vance. Let then the Bishop remember, that as he is Pastor, the Ministers also are Pastors by God, whose office as to their own flock, is to rule and to teach, as well as his. Let him beware for his life, he does not un-pastor the lower degree; but think rather, how good is help like to be unto burden and work; And then, forasmuch as the timber of Epi­scopacy is cut out of Scripture, though the structure it self, and whole rearing of it up be of man, and that varyed ac­cording to places and times; I see no reason, but the Presbyterian himself may yield to it, with good satisfaction. Will you hear the Learned Fathers own arbitration? Sicut Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine, ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos: ita Epi­scopi noverint, se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Deminicae veritate, Presbyteris esse majores; & in communi [Page 71]debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Mo­sen, qui cùm haberet in potestate so­lus praeesse populo Israel, Septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret.

SECT. VI.

I Have not digressed, as I may seem, in the preceding Paper; yet shall I return more directly on the point, to that which remains, that is, the fourth and last Ob­jection. I did not think at first of writing half thus much; but loe here, how my ink, like the waters, rise upon me, that there are some few Scruples not yet passed over. And after this, especially my fourth Paper, What is there more in the ransack of my soul, that all the supersti­tion which is there, can rake up farther against this thing? Truly, I find there is something yet methinks sticks, about that gift mentioned with laying on of hands in Timothy, with a passage (put them to­gether) I have met with lately out of St. Gregory. Sicut baptizatus semel, ite­rum baptizari non debet; ita qui conse­cratus est semel, in eodem iterum ordine, non debet consecrari. Here is argumentum à Simili. Let my misgiving thoughts for a while work upon it.

Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation into Christianity: So, haply, Ordination into the Ministry. In Baptism, there is the spiritual grace and outward rite: In Ordination, there is an outward rite, and likely this spiritual gift. To every functi­on, there is a gift apt for the discharge of it, annexed to it, and given (when God please) with it. Why is not Imposition of hands a sign and seal of this gift in the Ministry, as washing with water of grace in baptism? Ceremonia hac est pri­mùm (sayes Calvin) ex Scripturis sump­ta, deinde quam non esse inanem nec su­pervacuam, sed fidele spiritualis gratiae symbolum, testatur Paulus. Inst. l. 4. c. 19. §. 28. And what if Ordination hereup­on be a very perfect Sacrament, as Bap­tism is? [...], sayes Chrysostom of Baptism on Heb. 6.6. Adverte quàm illud tremen­dum sit, & quantum valeant Pontificum impositae manus? sayes Theophylact of Ordination, on 1 Tim 4.14. In the Council of Nice, the 19^th Canon, where I read of Re-ordination, it is in such a [Page 74]case only, that required also rebapti­zation; and in Concilio Capuano, ui re­baptizationes, ita re-ordinationes sunt prohibitae, Baron. an. 389. n. 74. quoted by Mason de Min. Ang. p. 170. In short, a man cannot be born twice, or twice re­generate, no more can he be twice bap­tized, and consequently neither twice ordained. Here is the Herculean pillars, and I guess, the non ultrà of my doubts.

For answer whereunto, I shall pre­mise one thing, that the Conscience is solely Gods Prerogative; and, as it can­not, so we ought not to suffer it, to be bound by the authority of man (I mean, so far as to make any matter in it self sin) where it is left free by his Word. Let that of St. Jerome, to this purpose, be heeded, Quod de Scripturis authoritatem non habet, eadem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur. This premised, the Solution here, does lye in the rejecting such ap­prehensions as these, which are too high strained, and not consonant to the re­ceived Doctrine of the Protestants, who admit only two Sacraments upon grand [Page 75]reason, and that there cannot therefore be a parity of Ordination with Baptism, as I have framed. To unravel the same then, let me take a little scope. There are three things (say our Divines) must go to a Sacrament; Symbolum externum, di­vina institutio, and promissio gratiae. For the first, it is manifest in Ordination. For the second, an authentick Divine hath these words: Licèt nullum extet certum praeceptum (which yet in 1 Tim. 5.22. is implyed, says Walaeus) de manuum impo­sitione; quia tamen fuisse in perpetuo usu Apostolis videmus, illa tam accurata eo­rum observatio praecepti vice nobis esse debet. Cal. Inst. l. 4. c. 3. §. 16. For the last, promissio gratiae; we must know there is a double grace. The grace of the Covenant (as I may say) and Ministeri­al grace, that is, endowment for our of­fice to profit others: When Divines tell us of a promise of grace, which must go with the Precept, to make a Sacrament; we are to take Grace still, in the first sense, the grace of the Gospel: and so, No Ceremony, Rite, or Institution (Apo­stolical, or otherwise) which is not to [Page 76]be received of Christians pro sigillo justi­tiae fidei, Rom. 4.11. or pro signo gratiae justificantis, that is, which does not sig­nifie, consign, and confer to us remission of sins, and salvation upon our believe­ing, can be no Sacrament, in the strict and right notion of it with us.

For the gift then given to Timothy, which hath come in play before, upon supposition, his office was thereby meant, (for so the Scripture, Rom. 12.6, 7.) calls Ministery, Teaching, gifts) and waved in the sense, that it must now come in again to be considered here, namely, as it may be taken for grace (gratìs data) or a faculty to discharge his office, and so lies still upon our hands: Let us note, that it is said manifestly to be given by Prophesie. By Prophesie no doubt (com­pared with 1 Tim. 1.18.) is meant divine revelation; If by this gift then, were meant his office, (as the more judicious still hold) it denotes, that Paul was direct­ed by revelation (as we read the like, Act. 13.1, 2.) to ordain Timothy a Minister. Spiritus Sanctus oraculo Timotheum de­stinaverat [Page 77]ut in ordinem Pastorum co-op­taretur, sayes Calvin in locum. If by the Gift, is meant Grace, Ministerial Grace, or a special talent for his office, then must it import, that Paul was in­formed by the Spirit of Prophesie (whe­ther in himself, or others) that such a gift, talent, or doubling his ta­lents, would be bestowed on Timothy from God upon this Ceremony, where­upon he layes his hands on him; And then it does appear, that this Text (or Texts) cannot (no more then that, where Christ breathes on his Disciples) afford us a solid ground, to conclude any pro­mise of grace, or gift (such gift) to be annexed to this rite for any others be­side him. I say, if Paul does expect this gift, to be given to Timothy upon this action, from revelation, then cannot we ground upon this, any connexion of this gift to the rite, without the like Prophe­sie going before on us; or some other Scripture, that holds forth the promise thereof to us in the use of the said Ce­remony; which seeing we have not, not [Page 78]can be pretended otherwhere, there is left us the pure institution, without any thing at all in it Sacramental, to scare or terrifie us in this matter. Similitudo solvitur (says the School) ostensâ dissi­militudine.

You may say; In the Sacraments, Grace is supposed, and then the outward rite is the sign and seal of it. When Circumcision is said to be the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham, it is said, Which he had before while un­circumcised. So must this Gift be sup­posed in the person to be ordained, in­somuch, that it is to be tryed first, and found in him: and understanding it of the talent it self first given, and not of the improvement, This Imposition of hands is tessera minimè fallax ejus gratiae, and cannot be iterated, because Baptism cannot (which is the argument at first) or for the reason only (whatsoever that is) thereof.

Answ. Let us know clearly, that the bottom of the absurdity, which is con­ceived in the iteration it self of Bap­tism [Page 79]by Schoolmen and Fathers, will be found to lye in an opinion flat contrary hereunto; to wit, that the Sacraments confer grace; and consequently initia­ting grace (or regenerating grace) which is conferr'd by Baptism, being not pos­sibly to be conferred any more then once, Baptism can be but once: Where­as those Divines, that after Calvin taking the Sacraments only for Confirmations of our Faith, do make Baptism only to sign, signifie, and seal the grace which we have, and not confer it, the absurdi­ty is vanished from hence (and must be found out elsewhere): for there is no ab­surdity at all, to testifie, seal, or signifie the same grace more then once. The Lords Supper does signifie, seal, and re­present the very same benefits of the Covenant (sealed and signified by Bap­tism) to the believer twenty times over. Those that were circumcised and bap­tized in Johns and Christs dayes, had the same initiatory grace sealed and signified to them twice. If this Imposi­tion then of hands, be only symbolum, [Page 80]or tessera, to signifie, testifie, or declare such a gift, or faculty in a person (alrea­dy received), there is no absurdity to de­clare it, and signifie it as often as there is good occasion.

If indeed, the first talent it self, or o­riginal gift adapting us for the office, could be tyed to this Rite, as the certain means of conferring it (as they thought of Baptismal Regeneration, that it was still conferred by Baptism, and never without it); then were there that absur­dity in Re-ordination, as the Schools con­ceive in Re-baptization. But seeing,

• 1. There is no such promise as annexes this gift to the rite.
• 2. It were miracu­lous, if so given.
• 3. It is against univer­sal experience.
• 4. This gift it to be found in the ordained, or else they are not to be admitted.
• 5. Timothy no doubt was endowed with ability (and that excel­lent) before, being trained up from a child to the Scripture.
• 6. The grace that is obtained hereby (to wit, precibus Ec­clesiae, non virtute Signi) is Gods grace with us, or blessing upon our studies and [Page 81]work, and encrease of talents (if you will) thereupon, and no otherwise.

In short, seeing this is disproved other­where, and from the first reason above, which is more especially of force; I do perceive that, that which hath troubled me as an objection, will turn to advan­tage, and serve but the fuller to lay open the nature of Ordination, which is fur­ther needful.

The truth is, with much beating here­upon, I do see plainly, This solemnity doth both these things; It signifies this gift, and impetrates a blessing. When a man comes to be ordained, he is to be examined; This Examination (if we know what it is), is, whether he hath this Gift, which is his call from God: When this is found, if you will say this solem­nity, is a Sacrament hereof, in a large sense, as a visible publique sign or token attesting, signifying and declaring this in­ward invisible Ministerial grace in the person to the Church, for its proper end; Mentem teneas (with Austin) linguam corrigas, it is but the same our Divines say, Ordination is the confirmation of his [Page 82]Call, or may help us well to understand it.

There is then a double call. A call from men, and the call of God. A mans call from men, lyes in their choice of him for their Minister, or his title to a place. Whilest most have bin poring upon this outward call by men, the true notion of Ordination hath been out of sight. Hence Dr. Ames (with others commonly) E­piscopalis Ordinatio Ministri sine titulo, est ae (que) ridicula, ac si quis maritus singe­retur esse, abs (que) uxore. But it is a speci­ous mistake. A man may be ordained, I think, to the work, as to a place. Heads, and Fellows of Colledges, cannot but be supposed to be ordained without absur­dity. There are Teachers as well as Pa­stors in the Church. The bottom of the mis-apprehension then, lyes here: when these Divines have said well, That Or­dination is this declaration only, or con­firmation of a mans call, they dream of this outward call only, this call by men, and so are out. The call of God then, in the next place, does lye no doubt in this Gift, apt to discharge the function; Rom. 12.6, 7. Eph. 4.7, 8, 11. 1 Cor. 12.4, 7. Rom. [Page 83]15.15. Act. 20.28. Jer. 23.21.) a fitness for the Ministry; when God gives a man endowments, with a heart for this ser­vice. This is his Call and Commission from Christ, which, it is his Prerogative too only to give. This now, is tryed by the Ordainers, The rule is, Lay hands on no man suddenly. That meddles not, I think, (unless occasionally) with the mans title to his Living, but his qualifications, fit­ness, abilities, whether he hath this in­ward call, the commission and talent from our Lord, that we may own him as a fellow servant in this work. When this is found, What is Ordination then real­ly, (as hath been before mentioned), but the declaring or approving of the person accordingly, as indeed so called, endow­ed, and fit, (or, as indeed, commissioned, from the Master himself) by this solem­nity? and so hath he not spiritualem po­testatem, his Ministerial power and of­fice (which is derived upon him imme­diately by vertue of Christs will declared in his Word, that such as are so quali­fied, should be Officers to him; or rather, least we be too nice, by vertue of the [Page 84]full call of the Institution, gift, and his con­sent together) bestowed on him by the hands of man, (for he is the Embassador alone of Christ and God, and not of men) but confirm'd to him hereby: which it does, 1. In recommending him to God for his grace, wherein we beleive it, not to be profanus ritus, or inutile signum, but expect accordingly his blessing both upon our studies and our work. 2. In conciliating to him an authority in re­gard of men, that his Ministry is received thereupon by all in the Church; where­in (let me say) the essence, or quint­essence, of all that which dare be arroga­ted by mortal man, as what he indeed contributes, or does, to the making of a man Christs Minister, when it is through­ly weighed, will be found to lye at last. And thus hath silver the Tower-stamp, and Dignities are made currant by their proper ceremonies and customs, wherein all concerned may take notice of them.

I suppose now, this being the whole of Ordination, our scruples may end (and that best) in the nature of the thing only; For who is so dull, that he cannot apply [Page 85]this? Nevertheless, in regard that the comparison with Baptism, is that which hath stuck with the most (and may still perhaps) at the bottom, I shall add one thing more, which will fetch that thorn too, quite out; provided you will pardon me, if the Needle be thrust some­thing nearer then I would else, to the quick, for to do it. Let us turn then to the 19. of the Acts, and we shall find there certain Disciples at Ephesus, who were baptized unto Johns Baptism: It is like, that Apollos living there, a dili­gent Teacher (and knowing only the baptism of Iohn, Act. 18.24, 25.) had bap­tized them. Now we are to know, that this baptism having the same Author, Mat. 21.25. Matter, Joh. 1.26. Form, Joh. 1.32, 33.34. Ends, Luk. 3.3. And consigning the same Gospel, Mar. 1.3, 4. was but one with Christs baptism, Eph. 4.5. Paul therefore catechizing them herein, thus instructs them; John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying, unto the people, that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, (sayes he) on Christ Jesus. [Page 86]It follows, when they heard this, they were baptized 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 spake, or the persons (the twelve men) to whom Paul speaks? not the first certainly, because then must these words [that is, on Christ Jesus] be John's interpretation, when it is plain, he did not know Christ by his name, when he baptized, until Christ himself came to him, Ioh. 1.30, 31. Who are they then? Why, the last, no doubt. For John, and his Disciples did baptize into one which should come (as it is said here): but it was the Apostles and Christs Dis­ciples, that baptized expresly, in the name of Christ Jesus.

To wave this, some learned men (as Dr. Whitgift) do accept Calvins inter­pretation, who by baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, would have meant, Baptized with the Holy Ghost. The learned Annotations of the Assembly, seeing this quite incredible, would have invented this other way; but I will set you down Mr. Diodates very faithful [Page 87]Annotation. After Paul had largely in­structed them, touching the correspondence of John with Christ, they formally were baptized in the name of Christ; for there was no inconvenience to confirm Johns extraordinary baptism, with the ordinary and more express baptism of Christ, seeing God would have them who had received the old seal of the Covenant, namely, Circumcision, to receive the new one of Baptism.

From this place then, I shall advance this truth, that quite rids the whole doubt, at least as to the hainousness (in hand) of our conceit, in this matter; that, Not­withstanding the universal judgement and currant practise of the Church for single baptism, be not impeached, but stands good in thesi: yet is there, or ra­ther hath there been (for I will speak sure) some particular reason in hypothe­si, that even this very Sacrament it self of baptism (from whence all our dread arises) might be twice received, in some case, by the same persons without sin; and that when their first too remains valid, and not to be renounced, or held [Page 88]null, but only some farther end and confirmation, is obtained by the repeti­tion. I shall not need to make applica­tion to our case, but I will conclude; If this most solid and judicious Interpre­ter last quoted, accounts it no inconve­nience, to confirm Johns baptism by baptizing these men again formally (as he speaks) in the Name of Christ: I hope then, there is no sting left us à pari, but we may resolve more freely (whose case at this time is particular) that there is no inconvenience neither (un­less perhaps less) for us to confirm our Ordination by Presbytery (or rather, former Ministry) by being formally (as he has it) or Episcopally ordained again to that purpose: So that, as we are verè, rectè, secundùm Scripturas, quoad sub­stautiam already, we may also become legalitèr, ritè, secundùm Canones, & quo­ad circumstantias & accidentia, (to wit, secundum consuetudinem nostram & ritus Ecclesiae; Ordained Ministers of our Church in this Nation. In short, if you will, we had before Ordinationem legi­timam, and so there needs no other to [Page 89]be required; but having it not legitimè, (or Canonicè,) I think, without laying stress though, on these terms, both for the comparisons sake, as our grounds before) if another be required, a man may without sin submit to it.

For those worthy Episcopal Divines, that will say, Presbyterial Ordination is vera, but not legalis, non tamen iteran­da (as Bishop Carlton) I will understand them, that they account as I do, where there is this, it suffices by the Word of God so as there is no need of other, if men would: But if any will take them so, that in no case there may be no other; Let them take heed, them do not make more sin and law then God hath made.

When a thing is good in its self, the repetition can be evil only in being su­perfluous, or more than needs; Now I say, though as to the part of our Rulers, who might take the opinion, that Pres­byterial Ordination is valid as former Bishops have done, Re-ordination in­deed, is more then needs; (Let them take heed that impose it): Yet, as [Page 90]for our part, when it is plainly stood up­on, as it is, it ceases to us, to be more then needs; and then Obedience to Ru­lers, in things not forbidden by God, is a ground of action. You will say, things indifferent, become prohibited in case of scandal. I answer, there is scandalum datum we know, and scandalum accep­tum; Though there be here really (I fear) as to the part of the Requirer, Offence given; yet as to the part of the Submit­ter (I hope in mercy) it is Offence only taken. I may add more assuredly, we shall indeed give offence, if many of us do otherwise. Cum Romam venio, jejuno Sabbatho; cùm hic sum, non jejuno. Sic etiam tu (says St. Ambrose;) ad quam fortè Ecclesiam veneris, ejus mo­rem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scan­dalo, nec quenquam tibi.

SECT. VII.

I Have done, and I hope, you will not think any of these things to be tedious, or out of necessary order; If you do, I remember the Comaedian, that there is a negligence sometime to be imitated, rather then an obscure diligence. I must confess, I am tyred for once, in digging the mettal; what­soever of it, shall pass the fire when it is tryed, may be put into a new mould with less labour, to him that shall have use of it.

There is one thing only I would pro­pose now at last, as hugely conveni­ent, in my slender opinion, at this sea­son, in regard of the multitudes invol­ved in our case, as also for such as may come over at any time to us from o­ther Churches, that for the removing of offence and scruple altogether, unto [Page 92]the forms of ordering of Deacons and Priests, there were a new added, for the Confirmation by the Bishop, of such of them, who have yet been ordained by Presbyters only, which should be made to run in such a strain; that we may say of it, as Suarez does of the Ordination of Paul and Barna­bas. Haec manuum Impositio nobis tan­tum deprecatoria, non etiam consecrato­ria videtur.

Let all things (sayes the Apostle) be done in decency and order; Now it seems a thing not agreeable to or­der, that he which is a Priest alrea­dy, should be forced back and made a Deacon. You may say, If this be a breach of order, how could I sub­mit to it? I answer, if I askt how it can be required, it were more to the purpose. Non oportet ut qui ma­jores ordines susceperunt, minores pri­ùs habuerint; quanquam sic ordinatè or­dines conferri statuerit Ecclesia, ut pri­ùs minores deinde majores suscipiantur. Aq. Sup. q. 35.50. It is no question, [Page 93]but a Priest may be a Deacon, be­cause our Church of a Deacon makes a Priest; and I was not ordained a Dea­con before. But that which I have to speak hereto, and that satisfiedly, is: Matters of order (I hope) must give place to matters of greater mo­ment; If the Church does stand upon it, it is pro formâ only, and I do but observe order, in breaking it. As for us, let our Rulers look to this, we do but vail our heads to Obedience, to Uniformity, to Peace, to Necessity. What if my Ordinary be of the judge­ment, that I am no Minister, if or­dained only by the Presbytery (as hath been intimated before) which, by the way, if he is, I am convinced, do what I can for all that, it is an error; for, it is one thing, to hold Ordination ought to be by a Bishop, and ano­ther, that no Ordination, is good and va­lid otherwise. Quod fieri non debet it self, factum valet. Yet does sober Davenant quote Athanasius, telling us, that when some in his time were ordained only [Page 94]by Presbyters they judged them in Laicos redire, when yet he has his Ego non ausim (before) in the same determi­nation. And what if accordingly, ma­ny of my people will not own me, but clamour; They will not receive the Sacraments from me; I am no Minister, and ought not to preach? Nay, what if my self do question whether I am a Minister of England, though a Minister of Christ, or ra­ther, though verè a Minister, whe­ther I am yet legalitèr so, accord­ing to our Church? And what then, if they will make me Church-warden or Constable? Yea, to speak more gravely, What if they do thus (as before mentioned) some out of Con­science, and others pretend it? Who does not see here, that the stopping the mouths of gain-sayers, the cutting off occasion from those that seek it, the satisfying the sober, and letting my Ministry have its free course, is a matter of more consequence then this whole business, that we should [Page 95]scruple so much at it? The Lord still keep in me a tender frame, and serious spirit; but deliver me from a scanty soul, and too scrupulously-superstitious conscience.

And here, methinks, my heart is enlarged towards many of my pious Brethren, that need relief; and who, I am perswaded, If they did know, (as Christs speaks) but what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, would not haply condemn the guiltless, that is themselves, that for the continuance, or the establishing their Ministry, do submit to this thing, Re-ordination. Provided still, they may crave remedy, if it be clogg'd with any circumstance against their conscience; which at present may be attained, I presume, according to his Majesties Declaration. Then Mat­tathias and his friends said one to ano­ther, If we shall all do as our Bre­thren, have done, and not defend our selves upon the Sabbath, then will they come upon us, and take our place; then [Page 96]shall others possess the Sanctuary, and incontinently upon our scruple, rid us from the same.