_Answ._ I. I know some of the ancients allowed it in necessity. But I know no such necessity that can be: for, 1. God hath expressly made it a part of the ministerial office by commission, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. 2. He hath no where given to any other either command to oblige them to do it or commission to authorize them, or promise to bless and accept them in it, or threatening if they omit it. 3. He oft severely punisheth such as invade the sacred function, or usurp any part of it. 4. Therefore it is a sin in the doer, and then there can be no necessity of it in such a case in the receiver. 5. He that is in covenant by open, professed consent, wants nothing necessary to his salvation, either _necessitate medii vel præcepti_, when it cannot be had in a lawful way. II. As to the nullity, I will not determine so controverted a point any further than to say, 1. That if the layman had the counterfeit orders of a minister, and had possession of the place, and were taken for one, his deceit deprived not the receiver of his right, nor made it his sin, and I should not re-baptize him, if after discovered. 2. But if he were in no possession, or pretence of the office, I would be baptized again, if it were my case; because I should fear that what is done in Christ's name by one that notoriously had no authority from him to do it, is not owned by Christ as his deed, and so is a nullity. As if a deceiver go in my name to make bargains for me. 3. And if any that had after discovered a minister to be indeed no minister that baptized him, should doubt of the validity, and for certainty have it done again by an authorized minister, I would not discommend him: nor would I account it morally twice baptizing, but a physical repeating of that act which morally is but one (as I explained before of re-ordination). Therefore if one that was a gross heretic in the very essentials, or an infidel, or one that had not knowledge and parts essentially necessary to the ministry, baptize one, (in right words,) I would not blame him that for certainty would have an authorized person to do it; especially if he was notoriously such a one when he did it. Let those that are angry with this resolution be as fair to me as they will be to Venerable Bede, and that great miracle-working bishop John, whom in his ecclesiastical history he reporteth to baptize a man again in England, merely because the priest that did it was so dull, ignorant, and insufficient as in John's judgment to be uncapable of the office, and therefore had been by him forbidden to use it, though the person baptized (at age) knew not this:[296] viz. Herebaldus, ut Bed. l. v. c. 6. [296] Of which before. Quest. XLVIII. _May anabaptists, that have no other error, be permitted in church communion?_ _Answ._ Yes: and tolerated in their own practice also: for, 1. They agree with us in all points absolutely necessary to communion.