come to the Second Part of my Task which is to shew That Ordination by Presbyters is valid which I shall endeavour by these following Arguments 1. If Presbyters and Bishops be not different in Order then Ordination by Presbyters is valid But Presbyters and Bishops are not different in Order Ergo. The Consequence of the Major is founded on that Maxim so frequently used by the most Reverend Usher Ordinis est conferre Ordines Proposition so evident that it is acknowledged even by Dr. H. Ferne one of the greatest upholders of the lately declining Episcopacy in his Compendious Discourse Page 115 116 117 c. The Minor That Presbyters and Bishops are of the same and not a different Order shall be proved by as good Authority and Testimony as is produced or can be expected in a Controversie of this Nature viz. It shall be shewed that this was the general Sentiment 1. Of our Protestant Divines whether English or Transmarine 2. Of very Learned Famous Papists 3. Of Ancient Fathers living before some of the Controversies depending betwixt the Papal and Reformed Churches were in being In writing of the Judgment of such Divines as are commonly called Reformed and Protestant I might be large Indeed I scarce know one against me The Late Archbishop of Canterbury when he was to answer for his Degree did give this for one of his Questions An Episcopatus sit Ordo distinctus Affir But he was sufficiently checked for that Heterodoxy by Dr. Holland the Regius Professor as you may find in Mr. Prynnes History of him If you should be so curious as to ask whence Mr. Prynne had that Relation I can tell you he had it from Dr. Prideaux who was present at the Disputation I can further assure you that the Doctor of the Chair was so moved that he told his Wife when he came home that he had a Papist that day to answer under him in the Schooles Setting him aside and some violent Followers of his Protestants generally hold that a Presbyter and a Bishop do differ Gradu not Ordine I 'le not trouble you with Quotations from the Transmarine Divines lest you should say they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor yet will I transcribe any thing from Dr. Field or Dr. Whitaker or Dr. Rainolds because 't is yielded that these and several others held Episcopacy to be only some superiour Degree and Eminence Mr. Francis Mason renowned for his Defensio Ministerii Anglicani hath in a set Discourse maintained that Episcopacy and Presbytery are not distinct Orders and that therefore the Ordinations of the Churches beyond the Seas are good and valid Go we to the Times of King Edward the Sixth in which he Foundations of our Reformation were first laid You may gather from Mr. John Fox Vol. 2. Pag. 658. Edit London 1631. That that young Josiah by the Authority of his own Regal Lawes appointed certain of the most Grave and best Learned Bishops and other of his Realm to assemble together at his Castle of Windsor there to argue and entreat c. Much I have longed to meet with an Author from whom I might learn what was done at that Meeting but could not hear of any one hat had met with any thing that might give me or others satisfaction till of late casting mine eye cursorily upon a Piece Published by Mr. Edward Stilling fleet a very Judicious and Peaceable Divine I understood that by some singular Providence there came to his hands an Authentick M.S. of the Proceedings here From that we are assured that T. C. A. of C. afterwards Martyr gave it in as his Judgment That Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion And from the same M.S. it further appears That the Bishop of Asaph Therleby Redman Cox all employed in that Convention were of the same Opinion that at first Bishops and Presbyters were the same Redman and Cox expressely citing with approbation the Judgment of Jerome Of the same Judgment undoubtedly were the Composers of that Tract called the Institution of a Christian man as may be seen in what they delivered about the then so called Sacrament of Orders In a word our Martyrs did so generally opine that Episcopacy was no superiour Order to Presbytery that Dr. Heylin in his Historia quinquarticular is Part 2. p. 17. doth on purpose caution us that we should not attribute too much to them or measure the Doctrine of our Church by them lest we should be forced to allow the parity or Identity rather of Bishops and Priests because John Lambert he might have named many others did so conceive In the Primitive Church saith he there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons that is to say Ministers as witnesseth beside Scripture St. Hierom in his Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul Whereas those whom we now call Priests were all one and no other but Bishops and the Bishops no other but Priests men ancient both in age and Learning so near as could be chosen nor were they instituted and chosen as they be now a dayes the Bishop and his Officer only opposing them whether they can construe a Collect But they were chosen also with the consent of the people amongst whom they were to have their Living as sheweth St. Cyprian But alack for pity such Elections are banished and new Fashions brought in By which saith the Doctor Truly if it may serve for a Rule our Bishops must be reduced to the Rank of Priests But falsely doth he add that then the right of Presentation must be put into the hands of the people to the destruction of all the Patrons in the Kingdom If I would produce all the Testimonies of the Learned among the Papists my Papers would swell to too great a Bulk D. Forbes the Scotchman who hath deserved well of the Hierarchy doth amply prove that it was the general Opinion of the Schoolmen that Episcopacy and Presbytery are the same Order See his Irenicum Lib. 2. Cap. 11. P. 154 155 156 157 158. You may also have recourse to Mr. Mason in the before commended Treatise concerning Ordination beyond the Seas by Presbyters This also did so much stick with Bishop Hall that he would not maintain Episcopacy to be a superiour Order though he were by Archbishop Laud much pressed so to do See the Letters that passed betwixt these two Prelates recorded by Mr. Prynne in Canterburies Doom Would you have me go higher yet to the Fathers that deserve more reverence then these Popish Schoolmen I might bring you Michael Medina a Pontifician Writer acknowledging that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose were of the same mind with Aerius See him Lib. 1. De Sacrorum Hominum Origine Continentia Cap. 5. But because he is so severely chastised by Bellarmine for this concession c. 15. De Clericis I desire you to consider seriously and impartially to ponder what is
by Presbyterians produced out of these Authors themselves Ambrose his words are these Post Episcopum Diaconatus Ordinationem subjicit Quare Nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est Uterque enim Sacerdos est Sed Episcopus primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est But these Commentaries 't will be said though bearing the name of Amb. are not his To avoyd trouble and Dispute about a Controversie which is not much ad rei summam I grant the Commentaries are not the Commentaries of Ambrose but then they are the Commentaries of one Hilary as ancient as Ambrose a Deacon of the Church of Rome For it is observed by D. Blondel that under that name Aug. quotes some words still extant in those Commentaries and Augustine had a very reverend esteem of this Author Though if I mistake not B. Hall in one of his replies to Smectymnuus speaks of him very slightly and contemptâ—bly Chrysostome in a Piece of his never that I find excepted against as spurious his Homilies on 1 Tim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ther 's not saith this Holy Father much difference betwixt Presbyters and Bishops What think you Did he mean they were of different Orders He would then have said they differ as much as may be as much as Presbyters and Deacons do The Collection of Questions on the Old and New Testament was very anciently ascribed to St. Augustine 't is not now by Learned men thought to be his but the Author whoever he was had Antiquity and Learning enough to set him above Contempt These are some of his words Quid est Episcopus nisiprimus Presbyter hoc est summus Sacerdos Now I pray you do not these words plainly imply that a Bishop is but of the same Order with a Presbyter Suppose you should meet with these words in any ancient Author Quid est Praesidens nisi primus Socius Would you not quickly thence infer that that Author judged the President to be of no higher an Order then that of a Fellow If this make you not of Michael Medina's Opinion I then turn you over to Sixtus Senensis Bibl. Sanctae Lib. 6. Annot. 324. Only you must give me leave to reply before I leave this Argument to two Objections which would not be so great had they not been used by so great Schollars Obj. 1 'T is said that Aerius is by Epiphanius reckoned among Hereticks for asserting the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters Answ It must be acknowledged that Aerius is by Epipha on that account among others branded for an Heretick Heresie 75. with whom also jumps St. August de Haeres c 53. But 1. Ther 's no mention of any Aerian Heresie either in Theodoret or Socrates or Sozomen no not yet in the History of Eustathius Bishop where Aerius was Presbyter 2. 'T is acknowledged by most Protestants that some things charged upon Aerius as Heretical are not truly such And if Epiphanius miscalled some of his other Opinions so might he this also about Church-Governours 3. This Opinion of Aerius about Bishops and Presbyters was not condemned nor so much as heard in any Council and therefore some have judged that Epiphanius though otherwise a good man yet being hot and cholerick and incensed against Aerius might condemn him out of private hatred 4. If Aerius was as he is represented turbulent and factious and causelessely separated from those Churches in which there was a Bishop I will easily grant that he might justly be reputed an Hereâ—ick in that large sense in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by Epiphanius and some other ancient Writers for it is evident enough that with them somtimes it denotes only a schismatick I must not conceal it from you that Dr. Jer. Taylor hath made some reply to all or most of these Ans in his Episcopacy Asserted Which Reply I am obliged to take notice of lest I should seem to wave any thing that is brought against us Thus therefore he pag. 330. A Dissent from a publick or a received Opinion was never called Heresie unless the contrary Truth was indeed a part of Catholick Doctrine For the Fathers many of them did so as St. Austin from the Millenary Opinion yet none did ever reckon them in the Catalogues of Hereticks but such things did only set them down there which were either directly opposite to Catholick Faith though in minoribus articulis or to a holy Life This is rather peremptory than satisfactory If the Reverend Doctor had said that nothing ought to be called Heresie unless the contrary Truth was indeed a part of Catholick Doctrine I might have let his Affirmation pass without a censure But to say that never any thing set a man in the Catalogues of Hereticks made by Epiphanius August Philastrius but what was either directly opposite to Catholick Belief or to a holy life is such a as hath scarce dropped from the Pen of a Learned man What thinks he of the Quartodecimani Was their Opinion contrary to a holy Life or to the Catholick Belief I trow not Yet are they listed among Hereticks Philastrius also reckoneth those in the number of Hereticks who thought that the breath of life was the rational Soul and not the Grace of the holy Spirit but I do not imagine that the Doctor can think that this Opinion was either contrary to the publick Faith of the Church or to holy Life Let him proceed p. 331. It is true that Epiphanius and St. Austin reckon his denying Prayer for the dead to be one of his own Opinions and heretical but I cannot help it if they did let him and they agree it they are able to answer for themselves but yet they accused him also of Arianism and shall we therefore say that Arianism was no Heresie because the Fathers called him Heretick in one particular upon a wrong Principle We may as well say this as deny the other Why then may not we also say if Epiphan and Austin condemned his asserting the parity of Ministers for heresie we cannot help it let Aerius and they agree it c. This is our Argument they miscall one of his Opinions therefore it may be they did miscall the other If they justly accused him of Arianism which whether they did or no I find Learned men to doubt then indeed he was an Heretick but it will not thence follow that whatever else he held was Heresie He hath not yet done for ibid. He was not condemned by any Council No. For his Heresie was ridiculous and a scorn to all wise men as Epiphanius observes and it made no long continuance neither had it any considerable party This is but just affirmed and therefore it will be sufficient Confutation to deny it He that reads Hierom and Ambrose will not think the Opinion ridiculous or a scorn to all sober men I shall follow
should when the Churches necessity did require constitute Presbyters and have power over them This Intention must be manifested and declared from some passages in Scripture or else it will not by Protestants be looked on as a Law of Christ or as a thing of perpetual concernment to his Church For either the Scripture is a sufficient and full Record of Christs universal Laws or it hath not that Perfection which the Reformed in their Controversies with Catholicks do ascribe unto it But why do I stay so long about this The place produced out of Clemens Alexandrinus to prove that St. John in Asia instituted these secondary Presbyters proveth no such thing Read it and you will agree with me It is recorded in Eusebius l. 3. c. 23. after the Greek division In Mr. Hanmers English Translation 't is the 20 chap. As for the place in Epiphanius that so often occurs in Dr. Hammond of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. 'T is a place very obscure and so unfit to build an Opinion on 2. It may seem to savour of the opinion of those who say there is no particular Form of Church-Government by divine right 3. It hath nothing in it peculiar to St. John It no more proves that St. John instituted second Presbyters then that St. Peter instituted such 4. I might tell you that as Ancient and Reverend Ecclesiastical Writers as Epiphanius when they have been ingaged have boasted of a false matter and talked of Records and Traditions where there were no such things You will now expect before I take my leave of the Arguments brought for Episcopacy that I should answer that brought from Succession For it is said that in all places Bishops did succeed the Apostles But this Argument I have alway accounted but slight such as will not weigh much with you if you consider 1. That the Question is not whether Bishops did succeed but whether Bishops exercising Jurisdiction over Presbyters 2. That the Catalogues that are brought of the Successors of the Apostles were made by conjecture and delivered down to us by men that lived at a great distance from the Apostolical times Read the ingenuous Confession of Eusebius l. 3. c. 4. If he so studious in searching into antiquity that he is by a Learned man of our own called the Father and Fountain of Ecclesiastical History was at such a loss in the matter of Succession at what a loss must they needs be that lived after him Lest this should seem a meer shift I will take notice of one Authority produced I think by almost every one who hath ingaged in the Episcopal Cause but most magnified by Dr. Jer. Taylor in his Episcopacy asserted These are his words p. 79 80. I shall transcribe no more testimomonies for this particular but that of the General Council of Calcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The splendid Name of the General Council of Calcedon made me curious to enquire into the very bottom of this Testimony I have so done and thus I find the matter to stand The Calcedonian Council was called by the Emperour Martian Anno 451. or 452. or 454. as some compute In it saith Dr. Prideaux Matters were mostly transacted by favouring Parties between Leo the first of Rome and Anatholius Patriarch of Constantinople Let that pass In the 11th Action of this Synod I find in Binius and Crabbe that Leontius did use the words that are quoted from him But what was this Leontius A man saith the L. Brooks in his Discourse of Episcopacy p. 66. whose Writings have not delivered him Famous to us for Learning nor his exemplary Holiness mentioned by others famous for Piety Surely not of Credit enough to sway our Faith in this Point because he is contradicted and convicted of falshood by Philip a Reverend Presbyter of the Church of Constantinople and by Aetius Archdeacon who instance in divers others besides Basilius that had been Ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople So that the General Council of Chalcedon proves to be the Testimony but of one man and of one who was either ignorant of the Truth or else did love Falshood In a word what is it in antiquity from whence out Episcopal Brethren will argue the Divine right of Episcopacy From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We will grant that all along from the Apostles times there have been those in the Church who were called and might not unfitly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops But we deny that those whom the Ancients did call Episcopos were Bishops in our sense i.e. We deny that they were looked on as having the sole power of Jurisdiction and Order Let the Prelatists prove that for 1500 years or for 800 years Presbyters have been looked upon as poor inferiour Creatures having only power to preach the Word and not to administer Discipline I for my part promise faithfully to yield the Cause and my heart would even leap for joy that I were so conquered For I do assure you it goes more against the hair with me to put forth one act of Discipline then to study twenty Sermons Are our Brethren offended with us that we argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and will they argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical Writers That is not fair play But I shall now give you my Arguments to prove that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right and they shall be two The first I shall cast into the Form of a disjunctive Syllogisme thus If Episcopacy be of Divine Right then either the Romish or the English Episcopacy But neither the Romish nor the English Ergo none at all As for the Major it contains a sufficient enumeration For though there be Episcopacy of a different mode exercised in other places yet that Episcopacy which is established in the Roman Churches and the Reformed English Church doth most pretend to Divine Right You dodbtless will deny my Minor and say that our English Episcopacy is of Divine Right But I prove it is not thus If our English Episcopacy be of divine Right then either all the Circumstances and Appendages are of Divine Right or only the substance of it But neither Ergo. All the Circumstances or Appendages of it to be sure are not Jure Divine 1. their way of Election is not jure divino ther 's no Command of Christ for a Conge d'eslire I would not be thought to say that the Magistrates interposing in making of Church-Governours is against the Law of Christ I only say that ther 's no Law of Christ requiring that the Civil Magistrate should either make Bishops or require others to chuse I add that we have no Primitive Example of such a thing as a Conge d'eslire Rather we find that all Bishops were made and chosen not without the consent and suffrage of the Clergy
and all the people over whom he was to praeside and govern I confess I had thought as to the people this had been plain from the Epistle of Clemens ad Corinthios The words are these Pag. 57. Edit Junianae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But Dr. Hammond hath rendred the last words applaudante aut congratulante Ecclesiatota and saith upon the Phrase by way of Parenthesis Disser 5. p. 278. Nihil hic de acceptatione totius Ecclesiae sine qua Episcopos Diacones ab Apostolis Apostolicis viris constitutos non esse concludit D. Blondellus quasi qui ex Dei jussu approbatione constituebantur populi etiam acceptatione indigere putandi essent The Grammatical sense and meaning of this Parenthesis I think I understand but the Purport and Drift of it I cannot guess at The blessed Clemens saith that Church-Officers were made the whole Church applauding or consenting Is there nothing in this Phrase from whence Blondel might conclude that Bishops and Deacons were not then made without the Acceptation of the whole Church It may be I shall be able to find out the meaning of the Learned Doctor by his Reply to Dr. Owen In that thus he expresseth himself p. 86. Blondel made the peoples acceptation a sine qua non a necessary condition affirming that Bishops c. were never constituted by the Apostles and Apostolical men nisi unless they had this which I suppose makes the peoples acceptation praevious to the Apostles Act For if it followed after it can be of no moment the Act of the Apostles was compleat without it and stood valid without it and though it was most happy when it followed yet still this as any other consequent must be accidental to the Constitution of Bishops as that which advenit enti in actu existenti comes to it when it is is no way required to or constitutive of its Being 'T was no doubt the Opinion of Blondel that the Peoples consent was praevions but I do much question whether any such thing can be inferred from the word nisi used by him p. 11. of his Apology and I see not but that so much may be fairly inferred from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not say the phrase doth necessarily import so much for I might properly say that the King was Crowned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the Consent of the City be not Conditio sine qua non of his Coronation But if either Law or Custom did require that the King should not be Crowned except the City of London did consent then if I should say that he was Crowned consentiente amni Civitate all would say and think my Meaning was that the Consent of the City was first asked and obtained before he was Crowned Now this is our Case we are sure from the 6. of the Acts the Apostles would not ordain any to the Office of Deacons till the Disciples had chosen them nor do we find that ever they did otherwise except happily where God himself made the Choyce therefore Clemens his Genitive put absolutely may well be thought to imply so much But I need not much contend about Clemens his Meaning Cyprian a very ancient Father and pious Martyr is plainer then that he can be eluded I 'le not transcribe all that he hath said to this purpose but yet enough to prove the Point out of that 68 Epistle sent to the Clergy and people of Spain in answer to a Question propounded to the African Churches Plebs obsequens Praeceptis Dominicis Deum metuens a peccatore praeposito separare se debet nec se ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia miscere quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod ipsum de Divina auctoritate descendere videmus ut Sacerdos plebe presente sub omnium oculis deligatur dignus atque idoneus publico judicio atque testimonio comprobetur sicut in Numeris Dominus Moisi praecipit dicens Apprehende Aaron fratrem tuum Eleazarum filium ejus impones eos in montem coram omni Synagoga exue Aaron stolam ejus indue Eleazarum filium ejus Aaron appositus moriatur illic And not long after Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divina Apostolica observatione observandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fere per Provincias universas tenetur ut ad Ordinationes rite celebrandas ad eam Plebem cui praepositus ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus deligatur Plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit quod ut apud vos factum videmus in Sabini Collegae nostri Ordinatione ut de universae fraternitatis suffragio de Episcoporum qui in praesentia convenerant quiq de eo ad vos Literas fecerant judicio episcopatus ei deferretur manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur How horribly Pamelius is put to it to reconcile the Papal Ordinations to the several expressions of St. Cyprian in this Epistle you may see in his Annotations and in the Replies of Simon Golartius to them which also will sufficiently fortifie you against the in this case I hope I may say it without offence trifling and weak Objections of the Author of Episcopacy asserted p. 273 274. 2. I suppose it will not be said that there is any Divine Law requiring that our Bishops should be Lords have Votes in the Upper House of Parliament and exercise Temporal Dominion and Jurisdiction in their Diocesses Rather it may be questioned whether any of these be so much as lawfull The Work of an ordinary Presbyter much more of an English Bishop requires the whole man Who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2.16 The Apostles put off from themselves the very burden of distributing to the necessities of the poor Acts 6.4 And Paul laies it down as a general Rule 2 Tim. 2.4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this Life that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a Souldier Shall I plant two or three of the Canons called Apostolical against our Prelates medling with secular affairs Can. 6. vel 7. Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus nequaquam seculares cur as assumat sin aliter dejiciatur And the 82. vel 83. Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus qui militiae vacaverit simul utrumque retinere voluerit tam officium Romanum quam functionem sacerdotalem deponitor Quae enim Caesaris sunt Caesari quae Dei Deo Read also the 7th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon but especially the 66 Epistle of St. Cyprian in which you shall find the Holy Father puritanizing to purpose Hugo Grotius is but of yesterday yet because he is much magnified by our Prelatists I shall account it no lost labour to transcribe somthing
plainly tels us that repeating or doubling of Ordination is odd and uncouth in its first and naked consideration And p. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he affirms that he dare not justifie our Church-Rulers in the imposing of it by the way he may do well to consider whether his over-hasty submitting to re-ordination be not a virtual at least interpretative justification of those that require it But he faith also that he puts it in the number of such things as the necessity of convenience renders tolerable for the time p. 5. Notionally he suspects it is not good but morally he judgeth it an indifferent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good or bad though unequally as it is used I will not now enter into the dispute about things indifferent but will rather then quarrel grant this reverent Author and Dr. Sanderson that as there are indifferentia ad utrumlibet so there are indifferentia ad unum too that is things which though they be neither universally good nor absolutely evil yet being barely considered sway more or less rather the one way then the other There are some things which of themselves do notably and eminently incline unto evil rather then unto good so that if the Question were barely propounded to me whether they be evil I could not be blamed if I did indefinitely answer they are evil which things yet in some cases and circumstances may be lawful But for the present I must deny to this judicious Brother that the Re-ordination he perswades us to is such a thing as yet I think there is a moral evil in it and not only a notional phantastical or imaginary evil Here we might close and joyn issue but because he tells us that in his first Paper he only made scattered efferts and that he would more roundly and freely lay down his Opinion with a larger compass in the whole matter sect 2. we will attend his motion thither His four first Propositions I assent unto In his fifth p. 18. he distinguisheth between what Ordination is required to the setting apart 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 exercise that Office in the Church or place where he shall be called He believes that Ordination by Presbyters sufficing but a little while ago to both sufficeth still to the former but seeing Ordination by a Bishop is necessary to the latter he thinks his being ordained by the Presbytery hinders not but he may be again ordained by the Bishop because he seeks not to be ordained by him to make him a Minister again but to have authority to use his Ministry and be received as such in Foro Ecclesiae Anglicanae For my part I readily acknowledge that he who is already a Minister may betake himself to a Bishop or to any one else whom the Magistrate shall appoint to procure a License to exercise his Ministry quietly but the question is Whether when I am made a Minister I may go and take another Ordination and that the very Ordination which the Church useth when those who before were no Ministers are made Ministers I encline to the Negative this Learned Casuist to the Affirmative In which Opinion he saith p. 19. he is a little justified because when he was ordained by the Presbytery the very words used at the point were Whom by the laying on of hands we set apart to 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 Sure this can but a little justifie him in his Opinion for the words by him mentioned are not all the words that were used in his Ordination by the Bishop 'T was then also said Receive thou the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they shall be remitted and whose thou retainest they shall be retained and several Prayers were used that did evidently imply him to be no Minister before He saith in the same place that the words used in Episcopal Ordination do confer the Ministerial power to the un-ordained but that hinders not but rather argues if they confer that the other too they may doubtless and actually do conferre one and can but the one only to such as are in his case All this sure makes much against him for if the Presbyterial Ordination leave him not capable of having any thing conferred upon him but only the free use of his Ministry in the English Church why will he submit to such a Form of Ordination as was purposely instituted to confer the very Ministry it self Why is the Right Reverend troubled to do that which is already done Why are such Prayers put up to God as manifestly suppose me to be no Minister when as I all the while suppose my self to be a Minister Let Mr. Humfrey but procure us to be ordained in such away as shall only license us to exercise that Ministerial Authority we already have and to be prayed for with such a Form of Prayer whose tendency shall only be to implore a Blessing upon us in the use of that Sacerdotal Function we have already received and then he need not doubt but we shall most readily and thankfully accept of it But till this be done let him not blame us if we keep our ground and chuse rather to lose the exercise of our Ministry for a season which yet is an affliction heavier then the Sands of the Sea then to take gradum Simeonis that I may allude to the Form of the Oath by which we are sworn when we are made Masters of Arts in the University Either I am mistaken or I have already suggested that which will help you to solve all Mr. Humfreys Arguments by which he laboureth to justified his submission to a Second Ordination Let 's try p. 21. He querieth What evil is there more in re-ordination then in second Marrying 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 Answ No Question if there be reason sufficient a man may be ordained every hour of the day but there cannot be reason sufficient for ordaining either a third or a second time to the same Office because the end of Ordination is attained by one Administration of it and the Church of Christ may do nothing in vain As for the Instance of second marrying by it is either understood marrying of a second wife when the first is dead and if so 't is strangely impertinent Or else a second solemnization of the former Marriage and then I say that no wise man that hath already been married in a lawful way will or ought to submit to such a Form of Marriage as supposeth him all the time before to have