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
Acts of a Bishop among which there is no mention of ordaining Priests and Deacons may we thence conclude that the Bishop hath no power of conferring orders Obj. In our English Church before and after the Reformation it was alway held as an undoubted truth that Presbyters neither single nor in conjunction had any power of ordaining Deacons and Priests Id. ibid. Answ Strange confidence Was this ever held as an undoubted truth and that both before and after our Reformation What Confession of the Church of England saith so What one man eminent in our Reformation or before our Reformation said so Do not Usher Davenant Mason Field c. say Ordination by Presbyters is valid which it could not be if they had no power of ordaining For my part I shall as soon be brought to think there were no such men as Cranâ—â—er Peter Martyr Martin Bucer Jewel as to think that they judged that Presbyters had not power to make either Deacons or Presbyters I may now at last I hope conclude with the learned and industrious Gerhard Ex toto codice biblico ne apex quidem proferri potest quo demonstretur immutabili quadam necessitate ac ipsius Dei institutione potestatem ordinandi eo modo competere Episcopo ut si minister ab Episcopo ordinetur ejus vocatio ordinatio censeatur rata sin a Presbytero quod tunc irrita coranâ— Deo frustranea sit habenda Loc. Com. de Minis Eccles But methinks after all this I hear you say you are not satisfied because that when you talk with Episcopal men they constantly tell you that in receiving Ordination from Presbyters you go against the judgement of the Catholick Church for 1600 years and upward Let me ask you who are those Episcopal men that tell you so are they such as you can suppose to have read the most considerable books that were written in all ages of the Church For my part I have usually observed that those who thus boast of all Antiquity are very strangers to all Antiquity and never so much as saw the Fathers and Councels they so prate of If you are resolved to close with every one that saith he hath all the Fathers on his side you must presently turn Papist for who more pretends Antiquity for his opinions than doth the Papist But if you will not beleeve every one that pretends to have all Antiquity on his side then I hope you may think it reasonable to examine the Episcoparians pretences to Antiquity which if you will do you will find that prime Antiquity is no friend to such an Hierarchy as they now would obtrude upon us My advice to you is 1. That if it be possible and as much as in you lieth you would avoid all Disputations of this nature which I have but rarely observed to have any good success 2. If you cannot avoid Disputation then if it be possible confine your dispute to Scripture times Put him that contends for Episcopacy as earnestly as if the very being of the Church did depend upon it to prove the Divine Institution of it and assure your self that which cannot be proved out of the Scriptures is not necessary to the being of the Church 3. If you must needs enter into the lists about the Antiquity of your Opinion then my counsell is 1. Do not take every thing to be the saying of a Father which is quoted as such but forbear answering till you have time to examine whether that be indeed in the Fathers which is brought out of them For nothing is more common than for men in the heat of Disputation to lay the brats of their own brain at the Fathers doors 2. If you find that which is produced out of any Father to be indeed in him then enquire whether it were the intent of the Father to deliver his mind in that place concerning that matter for which his authority is urged For if we will gather the opinion of Fathers from passages let fall on the by we may easily make one Father contradict another yea every Father contradict himself 3. You must also enquire whether what a Father delivers be delivered by him as his own private opinion or as the opinion of the Church and if as the opinion of the Church whether only as the opinion of that part of the Church in which he lived or of the Universal Church If it be but his own private opinion and judgement you cannot think your self obliged to believe it except confirmed by strength of reason and evidence of Scripture If it be delivered as the opinion of the whole Church more reverence is to be given to it but then it is certain that the Fathers did humanum aliquid pati and sometimes affirm that to be Doctrine of the Church Universal which was far enough from being such These and many other directions are given to you by the Incomparable D'aillee in his learned Treatise of the Right use of the Fathers which Book is most heartily recommended to your reading as you are to the grace of God and guidance of his Spirit by Sir Your most affectionate friend and servant R. A. For his much respected Friend H. A. Minister as Postscript An Appendix VVHilst I was waiting for a fit Messenger to send you these Papers somthing fell out which is like to multiply your trouble viz. Mr. Humf. Book of Re-ordination came to my hands wherein he disputes Whether a Minister ordained by the Presbytery may take Ordination also by the Bishop and determines the question affir I was the more desirous to read over his Book because I find him in the very 2d Pag. intimating That since he had suffered himself to be re-ordained it hath pleased God to exercise his Spirit with many perplexities and that he doth not see what end the Lord had with him in his thoughts and workings of that nature unless it be that these throws as it were of his be for the delivery of somthing for one or other of his Brethrens satisfaction M. Humf. being a Scholar and having sought God often upon his knees for direction it would be somwhat unchristian to adhere to my former determination without so much as considering what he had written and printed against it And if I know any thing of my self I am able to say that I come to the examination of his Papers without the least prejudice against his Person or against his Tenent Nay I can safely say that I am hugely desirous to be his Proselyte But the eminent Mirandula hath taught me that which I also experimentally find nemo credit aliquid verum praecise quiavult credere illud esse verum non est enim in potentia hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando ipse voluerit Though I would fain think it lawful to be re-ordained yet unless my Arguments to prove it unlawful be answered I shall never be able to change my mind This Learned Presbyter p. 3.
non sint qui minus quam atribus Ordinati sunt ordinati Episcopis omnibus patet quoniam ut bene nostis prohibitum a sacris est partribus ut qui ab uâ—o vel a duobus sunt ordinati Episcopis nominentur Episcopi Si nomen non habent qualiter Officium habebunt And in the 16 Canon of the African Council at which were present no fewer then 217 Bishops it was decreed in haec verba forma antiqua servabitur ut non minus quam tres sufficiant qui fuerint a Metropolitano directi ad Episcopum Ordinandum And this usage they seem to have borrowed from the Synagogue for it was a fundamental Constitution among the Jews that Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be by three at least as may be seen Misna Gem. tit Sanhe cap. 1. By the way I desire you to take notice how our Episcopal Brethren deal with us in this controversie they call upon us to shew them an example of a Presbyter laying hands on a Bishop this case could not happen but in the defect and absence of Bishops for modesty will not permit a Presbyter to lay on hands Bishops sufficient to do the work being present and such defects of Bishops could be but very rare but once we find there chanced to be such a defect and then a Church of no mean denomination thought a Presbyter sufficient to do what a Bishop was to do Now when we bring this example they rail against it and say that it was done only in the want of a Bishop and it had better have been left undone My second argument to prove the validity of Ordination by Presbyters I 'le put into this form Either Ordination by Presbyters is valid or else something essential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters But nothing essential to Ordination is wanting in Ordination by Presbyters ergo c. The major is evident grounded on this plain Proposition that it is only some essential defect that can make a thing invalid or null he that wants either body or soul is no true man he that hath them is truly a man though he want many of the integral parts which concur to the integrity and perfection of a man The minor I thus prove if any thing essential to Ordination be wanting in Ordination by Presbyters it is either material formal final or efficient cause but neither of these is wanting ergo nothing essential is wanting Let the material formal final causes be what they will doubtless they may be found in Ordinations by Presbyters as well as in Ordinations by a Bishop only we are told there is not a due efficient cause for God hath appropriated Ordination to a Bishop and it cannot have its effect if performed by any other then him that hath attained Episcopal Dignity This being that foundation upon which the confidence of those who nullifie all Ordinations by Presbyters whether at home or abroad is built I shall take liberty to enquire 1. Whether if there were a Law of God appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Bishop it would follow that all Ordinations without a Bishop are null 2. Whether there be any such Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Bishop As to the first I humbly conceive that if a Law could be produced appropriating Ordination ordinarily to a Bishop it would not follow that Ordination without a Bishop were alway invalid and null my reasons are 1. Because 't is generally agreed that Jus Divinum rituale cedit morali necessitas quod cogit defendit 2. I find that whereas by the Law the Priests were to kill the sacrifices yet at such a time when the Priests were too few the Levites did help them 2 Chron. 29.34 and neither God nor the King nor the people offended at their so doing 3. Baptisme is appropriated to the Ministers of the Gospel yet if at any time it were administred by a Midwife who neither was a Minister nor was capable of being made such such baptisme was not by us here in England judged a nullity yea 't is affirmed by sundry Schoolmen that if baptisme were administred by one Excommunicate it were valid and not to be repeated and either my notes do fail me or else this was the judgement of St. Augustine for Melancthon out of Austin ad Fortunatum tells us this story That two men were in a ship which was like to perish in a storm at Sea the one very godly but yet not baptized the other baptized but excommunicated there being no other Christian in the ship with them and they fearing they should be both cast away knew not what to do in that condition he that was not baptized desired baptisme by the hands of him that was excommunicate and he that was excommunicate desired absolution from the other whereupon the question was moved whether these acts were valid and good Austin answers they were and commends the actious I come now to enquire Whether there be any Law of God appropriating Ordination to a Bishop I say there is not if any say there is illi incumbit probatio he must proferre tabulas produce the place where such a Law is recorded For my part having read the Scriptures with my best eyes I could never find any such place nor could I ever meet with that Episcopal Divine who could direct me to such a place some have sent me to Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of late one hath ventured to tell us in print Mr. Sandcrof Ordination Sermon that this Text is as it were a kind of Magical glass in which an eye not blind with ignorance nor bleered with passion may see distinctly the face of the Primitive Church in that golden Age of the Apostles the platform of her Government the beautiful order of her Hierarchy the original and derivation of her chief Officers and their subordination both to one another and to Christ the great Bishop of our Souls in the last resort together with the manage and direction of the most important acts of Government both in point of Ordination and Jurisdiction too This learned mans phrasifying thus concerning his Text puts me in mind of that Impostor mentioned by Scultetus in his Annals who perswaded certain Noble men that he had adorned their Temple with very exquisite pictures but such as could be seen only by those who were begotten in lawful wedlock the Noble men lest they should be thought not lawfully begotten said that they very well saw that painting So here we are told of great matters that may be seen in this Text but only by those whose eyes are not blinded with ignorance nor bleered with passion and so men will be ready to say that they see these things lest their eyes should be judged under these sad distempers but I who have my conscience to bear me witness that I have often prayed for the eye-salve and Grace of the Spirit that my understanding may
Churches in the inferiour Cities to those in the chief or Metropolis An example of this we have in the story of the Acts concerning Syria and Cilicia and the several Cities thereof in relation to Antioch the Metropolis for when the question Acts 15.2 was referred and brought to Jerusalem from the Church peculiarly of Antioch Chap. 14.26 and 15.3 and the Decree of the Councel returned to them by whom the question was proposed i. e. to the Church of Antioch ver 22. yet in the Epistle in which that Decree was contained we find the Brethren through Syria and Cilicia i. e. all the Christians of that Province to be expressed and joyned with those of Antioch v. 23. and after when that Decretal Epistle was delivered to the Church of Antioch v. 30. Paul and Sylas went over Syria and Cilicia v. 41 42. and as they went they delivered to every City the Decrees of the Councel cap. 16.4 which is an evidence that the Churches of those Cities related either immediately to Antioch or as Antioch it self did to Jerusalem and were in subordination to it as to the principal Metropolis of so wide a Province c. I heartily wish this argumentation had been put into a Syllogistical form then it would have been easie enough to find out a Proposition that might safely be denied But seeing the Author hath not thought meet to put his discourse into that dress I shall not do it for him lest I should be thought not to do it according to his mind Taking it as we find it I say 1. That which he supposeth may well admit some dispute viz. Whether the question referred to Jerusalem was referred to it by the single Church of Antioch but that as Metropolis of all Syria for if it can be proved that this reference was made only by the Church of Antioch and that Antioch was Metropolis of all Syria it will still be unproved that the reference was made by Antioch as Metropolis for many things are done by a Metropolitan Church which are not done by it as such 2. There 's no evidence that the ground of the reference to Jerusalem was because that it was the principal Metropolis more probable it is that the reasons of referring this controversie to a determination at Jerusalem were because of the authority of those Apostles that were at Jerusalem in which it was supposed those who contended with Paul would acquiesce and because those Judaizing Teachers pretended the Commission of the Apostles for their doctrine Against these let us examine what is objected 't is said page 204 205. That the first taken alone could not be the reason because there being but two Apostles there at that time Peter and John 1. There might be so many in some other City 2. Paul and Barnabas being before this separated by Gods Commands to the Apostolick Office were in this respect of equal authority with them and so in this sense the words of S. Paul have truth Gal. 2.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The reference is made not to the Apostles alone but to the Apostles and Elders Acts 15.2 4. The cause of the reference was not only the contention of those who came out of Judea but the Antiochean Christians being taught i. e. being seduced by them Acts 15.1 and accordingly the Decree respected them peculiarly and so this first reason is of no force Answ 1. 'T is certain that the reference was made not only to the Apostles but also to the Elders from which perhaps something might be deduced no way advantagious to the cause of the Episcoparians 2. We 'll grant it probable that these Judaizers did not only teach but also had perswaded some of the Antiochean Christians to imbrace their errour But then 3. We deny that there were at Jerusalem but two Apostles viz. Peter and John James undoubtedly was there and it is by very learned men thought that when the other James had run his course he was taken into the Apostolical rank office and imployment Now it will never be proved either from Scripture or any other credible testimony that there were in any one City three persons so fit to be appealed to as these three As for Paul and Barnabas granting them to be separated by Gods command to the Apostolick Office and so of equal authority with Peter c. yet their Apostleship might be more questioned by these Judaizing Teachers to stop their mouths and let the Antiochean Christians know that they did not go about to abolish any thing which Peter James and John who did mostly converse with those of the Circumcision did reckon obligatory this reference is made this journey undertaken The learned Doctor seems not to deny but that those who came from Jerusalem might pretend Commission and Commandment from the Apostles to teach what they taught but thinks this is useful not disadvantagious to him For hence he thinks it follows That if these certain men had been truly sent and commissionated by the Church of Jerusalem then this would have been of some force at Antioch which it could not be if Antioch were perfectly independent from Jerusalem page 205. But who can swallow this what Christian doth not think that if these men had come at that time into England with a Commission to preach that except we be circumcised we cannot be saved it should be of no force because we are a Church independent on Jerusalem 3. Therefore we deny that the Decrees did therefore oblige the Churches of Syria and Cilicia because Antioch or Jerusalem was their Metropolis but because the Decrees were made by Apostles men acted by an infallible spirit who could not but know the mind of Christ their Lord and Master Such Decrees did concern and oblige all Christians that had any certain knowledge of them whether they were under the Metropolis of Jerusalem or no. My second argument to prove that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right shall be taken from the testimonies of those Authors who do clearly and plainly make it to be but of humane institution I begin with Jerom in his Commentaries on Titus made Anno Dom. 387. Sicut Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores In his Epistle to Evagrius Quod autem unus posteà electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet If you say that Hierom was a Presbyter and provoked and so may be thought to write all this in a fit of spleen and malice I shall without retorting the argument which you know is obvious refer you to Isidore who was a Bishop himself he saith in his second book De Divinis Officiis cap. 7. that Presbyters have most things in common with Bishops Sed sola propter
administer Christs Baptisme after Johns as there was to administer Johns baptisme after Circumcision a Sacrament not specifically different from baptisme Of this the learned Vossius speaks succinctly and clearly Pro diversa fidelium aetate potuit sacramentum initiationis variare fidelium enim alii rediderunt in Christum venturum alii in eum qui veniret quasi in via esset alii in eum qui jam venisset Primis instituta fuit circumcisio alteris baptisma Johannis tertiis baptismus Christi I have done with the main body of Mr. Humfrey's Diatribe and must now consider of two or three stragling arguments which may seem to some not altogether to want weight Page 56 57. He propounds a query 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 of God may be used without breach of the third Commandment or other sin even then when it cannot be directed to its principal no not its proper end so long as it will but attain one higher then all viz. the promotion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Answ Certainly no for Circumcision after the Resurrection was no Ordinance being blotted out by the death of Christ and nailed to his Cross 't was become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Had Timothy been circumcised in such a way as were the Jews before the passion of the Messiah Christ had profited him nothing Mr. Humf. should have thus propounded his question Whether from Pauls circumcising of Timothy an irrefragable argument may not be drawn to prove that in order to the propagation of the Gospel it is lawful to use the outward rite or ceremony of an abolished Jewish Ordinance had he so proposed it I should not have counted my self obliged to return any other answer but this that the question is no way pertinent to the matter in hand For 1. Ordination is not an abolished Ordinance 2. We are not called to the bare rite or ceremony of this Ordinance the question is not whether it be lawful to let the Bishop lay his hand on my head but whether it be lawful to let him lay his hand on my head with this form of words Receive thou the Holy Ghost or with any other form of words the purport whereof is to confer the Ministerial power which I already have 2. He produceth the authority of Doctor Baldwin the Professor of Witten who putting the case whether one ordained by the Papists may be again ordained by us though he maintains there 's no necessity why he should so be re-ordained yet thus determines Quod si quis existimat se tranquillius suo in nostris Ecclesiis officio perfungi posse si etiam nostris ritibus ad sacrosanctum Ministerium utatur nihil obstat quin ordinationem a 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. 1. Supposing but not granting that Baldwin is fully for him yet Gregory a more Venerable Author is against him Sicut Baptizatus semel iterum baptizari non debet ita qui consecratus est semel in eodem iterum ordine non debet consecrari Epist lib. 2. Epist 32. There is a Tract among the works of St. Cyprian entituled De operibus Cardinalibus Christi Pamelius saith it is his or some others as ancient as he Our learned James from a book he met with in All-Souls Library thinks it was made by Arnoldus Bonavillacensis who lived almost twelve hundred years after Christ if so however his authority and testimony is to be preferred before Baldwins these are his words De ablutione pedum Baptismum repeti Ecclesiasticae prohibent regulae semel sanctificatis nulla deinceps manus iterum consecrans praesumit accedere Nemo sacros ordines semel datos iterum renovat nemo sacro oleo lita iterum linit aut consecrat nemo impositioni manuum vel Ministerio derogat sacerdotum quia contumelia esset spiritus sancti fi evacuari posset quod ille sanctificat vel aliena sanctificatio emendaret quod ille semel statuit confirmat Edit Goular p. 513. The Councel also of Capua is against him as I find in Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius ad annum 389. If Mr. Humfrey have a man for him he hath an Army against him But 2. I do not see that Baldwin is for him for he determines not that a man who is ordained and judgeth himself to be so may take a second Ordination but only that he who is ordained and is not satisfied in his own mind and conscience about the validity of his ordination may be re-ordained which case is heavenly wide from the case of Mr. Humfrey for he thinks that he is ordained and saith he will tell the Bishop so yea and dreadeth not to affirm that his Diocesan doth amiss in calling him to these second orders Now truly though I would not altogether baulk a way because no man did ever walk in it before me yet I must take leave to suspect such a way and consider well before I venture into it The Poet saith Illi robur aes triplex circa pectus qui fragilem c. He was a bold man that did first expose himself to the Sea in a ship and King James would say that he had a good stomack who first eat an oyster May not we also think that they who ever they are were too hardy who were the first that submitted to re-ordination which if it be no more is Ordination redundant a mishape in our apprehension page 4. Page 94. He suggests That if he should not be re-ordained many of his people will not own him but clamour they will not receive the Sacraments from him and perhaps they will make him Constable or Church-Warden Constable or Church-Warden that were pity indeed but yet better be either one or the other then do that which is so destructive to communion of Churches as re-ordination upon examination will appear to be 'T is not unlike some peevish people before this turn might say that Mr. Humf. was no Minister because not ordained by a Bishop but he did not then judge it any part of his duty to be re-ordained that he might stop their mouths how comes he now to be so tender of them And I doubt some of the better sort of our hearers should they understand that we are so light as to take a non-significant ordination in so solemn a way as we must do if we come under the Bishops hands would be so scandalized as scarce to account our Ministry worth attending on Upon the whole I see not but that they who refuse Re-ordination may be reckoned among men of a tender frame and serious spirit and not among such as are of a scanty soul and too scrupulously superstitious conscience The Lord lead you by his Spirit into all truth and after you have suffered for a while make you perfect FINIS