Weighty Questions DISCUSSED: 

I. Whether Imposition of Hands in Separating a Person to the Work of the Ministry be Necessary?  
II. Whether it be Essential to the right Constitution of a particular Church, that the Teaching Elders and the Members meet always in One Place?    
Whereunto is added A Prediction of Mr. Daniel Rogers, Minister in Essex, long before the Beheading King Charles I. and Archbishop Laud, foretelling that they should not die a Natural Death.  
By GILES FIRMIN, Author of the Real Christian.  What thing soever I Command you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it, Deut. 13.32. 
LONDON, Printed for the Author. 1692.   

To the READER.  
THat Unity among Christian Brethren is a thing not only beautiful in itself, but also a Duty greatly incumbent upon them who profess that blessed Name of Christ, none that read the Holy Scripture can be ignorant of it; yea, a Duty so greatly incumbent, that they who do not all they can to promote it [provided the Authority of the Scriptures be preserved] taking care that they neither profess nor practise any thing in the House of God, but what is according to the Holy Scriptures, lest that Unity should be hindered, they neither show that respect to the Command of Christ to us, nor to the Prayer he made to his Father for this End, as become Christians.  
I thought I might have said, 
At that Holy Table, where we being many are one bread, 1 Cor. 10.17. I do admit Independents, Presbyterians & Anabaptists, Members of the Church of England, that are, and walk as Christians, tho' we differ in Opinion, and here Ecclesiastical Union is chief seen.  that both in former times, and in these days, I had been as desirous of this Unity as some other Men. Glad I was when I heard some Brethren of the Independent and Presbyterial Persuasion in London did attempt it; their Names were very dear unto me, when I heard who they were that laboured in it, tho' I knew none of them; more glad I was, when about four Years since a Copy of the Agreement was sent me, to which my Brethren in the Country and myself readily consented: We expected the same should have been Published, but we find another much different from it. In particular, in the former, Ordination was to be performed with Imposition of Hands, but in this the Words are left out, and these words put in, The Person that is Chosen, shall be Duly Ordained; not expressing what that Due Ordination is: However, as it is worded, I Consent to this; and whatever be the different Sentiments I have from others, in several things mentioned [and more than are mentioned] in the Agreement, yet I have willingly Subscribed to it, and Profess myself a United Brother with all that are Duly Ordained.  
In a small Treatise which some few Years since I published, I took Notice of the Apostolical Churches how they were Constituted, I named Nine Churches, all that I could find, in which were several Elders: I find not one Church in the Gospel where was but One Pastor.  
Since that, Dr. Owen hath taken Notice of it, and hath proved by several Scriptures and Reasons, that there ought to be many Elders in every particular Church. [There were three Teaching Elders, besides other Officers, in his Church, this was like a Gospel Church.] To have but one Pastor to govern, is a Novel Opinion, he saith; and what he adds is true, It is difficult, if not impossible, on supposition of one Elder only in a Church, to preserve the Rule of the Church from being Prelatical or Popular.  
As there ought to be many Elders in one Church, so I doubt not but the true Primitive Church-Government was by a Precedent with the Presbytery. Not a Precedent over more Churches, but only one particular Church. Not a Precedent superior in Power over the Presbytery, but only Ordinis gratiâ, Revel. 2.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
(a) The Precedent.  24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
(b) 
The Precedent with the Presbytery.  
So Beza, and Raynoldus Anglorum Eruditissimus, etc. saith Didocla. Alta. Damas'. p. 131.   the light of Nature directs to this. I would willingly have but one Instance given, where this Government was ever prejudicial to the Church. More I could say: I only mention this, that tho' in these Points I may differ from my Brethren, besides what are mentioned in the Agreement, yet it hinders not my Union with them.  
What this Due Ordination is, our Brethren, as I said, have not told us. Hence the Discussing of this Question, falls not under that Prohibition, p. 3. that we must not Dispute those different Sentiments: For our Sentiments do all agree it must be Due Ordination; which if it be not declared what it is, we agree and Subscribe to we know not what.  
Before I Subscribed, I asked the Brethren whether the Subscribing to this Agreement did debar us from an amicable discussing the Questions wherein we differ? they All Answered, No. We were not hindered by it. We know the different Sentiments, before we Subscribe the Agreement, and tho' we Dispute them, yet our Union holds as well as if we did not dispute them.  
The Apostle exhorts, 1 Cor. 1.10 and Phil. 2.2. that we be all of one Mind, of one Judgement. If we must not labour after it, to what purpose is the Exhortation? Is not the discussing Controverted Questions in a Christian amicable way, seeking Light from God, and setting up his Ends, [not our own] one way to come to be of one mind, which the Apostle exhorts to? I am sure it is, and could give good proof of it from experience, in the Question now disputed. If we may not do this, than it is as much as to say, There are different Sentiments amongst us, and shall be so; for still, I say, the End of the Agreement, which is Union, is preserved.  
As to the Question of Ruling Elders, which have continued in the Virgin Churches of the Vaudois from the Apostles days, and in the Churches of Bohemia, 
The Apostle mentioning only Bishops and Deacons, 1 Tim. 3. troubles me.  where their Work is laid open with much more satisfaction to me, than in any Book I have yet seen in England. I shall be thankful to any Brother who will dispute the Question Pro or Con, it shall not hinder Union.  
As to this Question about Ordination, it is to my Knowledge a great hindrance of our Union: The thing is so clear in several Texts of Scripture, how it should be performed, and the Practice of the best, if not all the Churches since the Apostles times, have been accordingly with Imposition of Hands, that I have wondered any Man should scruple it.  
I heard of an Ordination in our County of an illiterate Person, and that without Imposition of Hands; after it was past, hearing of another [who is a Scholar] to be Ordained by the same Persons, I wrote to him, to desire the Elders that were to Ordain him, to give me the Scriptures which did Warrant them to Ordain without Imposition of Hands: One of them undertook it, a Person whose Gifts and Graces I honour. For Scriptures he gave me none: Whether his Reasons be Cogent, the sequel shall declare.  
That Diminishing from the Word is as great a Sin as Addition to the Word, none can deny; the Text is expressly against them both, Deut. 12.32. and ch. 4.2. both offer an Affront to the Wisdom of the lawgiver: Addition charges him with Defect: Diminishing charges him with superfluity, appointing things needless and vain.  
Grant it, that Imposition of Hands in Ordination be but a Ceremony, yet it is God's Ceremony, appointed first by his express Command, 
Numb. 8.10, 14.  Not to confer Gifts, as some would have it, but to Separate to Office. If you then could deny Communion with the Church of England, because of their Addition of Humane Doctrinal Ceremonies to the Worship of God [I doubt not but this was one Cause among others,] may we not then question our Communion with you, in your Administering of the Holy things, for throwing out God's Ceremony.  
It is one thing to hold Communion with a Person as a Christian [which I can do with all my Soul] another thing to hold Communion with the same Person as a Minister, dispensing the Holy things of God: For when, as in Separation to Office, God's Ceremony expressed in five or six Scriptures, is left out, have you not given us just Cause, setting by the Authority of God in those Scriptures, to question the lawfulness of your Ministry? O why do our Brethren lay such Blocks in our way, to hinder that which the Lord hath so Commanded, and we so earnestly desire and seek after, Unity?  
I have spoken with some Ordained thus, and they told me they would have been Ordained with Imposition of Hands, and expected it, but they who did it, refused it; the more trouble have they made in the Church.  
They who come into the Gospel-Ministry, must come in according to Gospel-Order. God stands upon his Order, 1 Chron. 15.13. God made a Breach upon us, for that we sought him not after Due Order. How severe was the Holy Lawgiver then; but there was not Due Order, nor is here Due Ordination: God is the same God still, the God of Order as well as then. The Scriptures are plain in this Point; why are not we as plain? what need have we of other words them what we find in the Scriptures?  
If Imposition of Hands were but an indifferent thing, or but a circumstance of the Action: I could Answer myself: But it will appear to be that in which Separation to Office is principally made, and in which only it is seen.  
That godly and learned Men may err as well by Diminishing from the Word, as such have done in Adding to the Word, I know nothing against it, they are but Men: But these Men who [as I judge] diminish from the Word, would not therefore Unite, and hold Communion with them in Worship, where these Additions were, because they were godly and learned Men. We have our Rule to look to, not Men, further than they walk according to that Rule.  
If the Reader meet with the Word Independent, I desire him not to be offended, for this Discourse between my Brother and myself, was before the Agreement of the United Brethren came forth; yet the word may be used sano sensu well enough: For I doubt not a particular Church duly ●●ganized, walking regularly, may Execute all the Power of the Keys within itself, without dependency upon any other Churches.  
As to the End of my publishing this Treatise, my Conscience bears me Witness before the Lord, I aim but at these two things.  
1. To remove that Block, if I could, which hinders our hearty Union: I know it offends many of our Brethren; besides, it gives advantage to them who observe our Practices to speak against us, and that justly.  
2. To keep up the Authority of the Scriptures, which are so plain in this Case, that if we will own Ordination without Imposition of Hands to be Due Ordination, than the Authority of five or six Scriptures is set by.  
I know no other ground of our Sufferings, but our maintaining of the Authority of the Scriptures, while Men would be Imposing upon us such things in the House and Worship of God, which if the Questions were truly stated [which they never did] have no footing or ground in the Holy Scriptures, but were their Addition to them, as if the Wisdom of God in the Scriptures were defective.  
If we suffered then for the Authority of the Scriptures, while Men added to them, we will not give away their Authority now while men diminish from them. Where shall we End if this be the Practice?  
As to the Second Question, I seek Light.  
1. To have but one Pastor or Teaching Elder in a Church, agrees neither with the Holy Scripture nor sound Reason. Good Mr. Faldo was troubled about it, I understand by his Letter to me.  
2. The Poverty of the Churches generally is such, that very few can maintain One, than not more.  
3. Complaints have been made by some Members of Churches, that their Pastors have not proceeded rightly against them, and they had no help.  
4. If then the Holy Scriptures have not declared that the Officers and Members of a Church must meet always in One Place, than all Church-work may be carried on, which as now we stand, cannot be. I beg of the Father of Lights to Guide Us.  
The Unworthiest of the United Brethren, GILES FIRMIN.   

The Prediction of Mr. Daniel Rogers, Minister in Wethersfield in Essex, concerning King Charles the first, and Archbishop Laud.  
IF you ask me who this Mr. Daniel Rogers was? he was the Son of Mr. Richard Rogers, a Man eminent in Holiness, whom God honoured to make him his Instrument in bringing home many Souls to Christ.  
If you ask what he was for Grace himself? His Brother, Mr. Nathanael Ward, use to say of him, My Brother Rogers hath Grace enough for two men, but not half enough for himself. His Natural Constitution was no Advantage to Grace.  
If you ask what he was for a Divine? his Works Answer for him.  
If you ask what he was for a Scholar? two things declared him to be a Scholar; one was this: When Archbishop Land Visited, Mr. Rogers was Summoned to appear, and did so; whether Mr. Rogers did grapple with the Archbishop, I cannot tell, but one that lived in the Town where I now do, being then present at the Court, heard the Archbishop say to him, Mr. Rogers, I acknowledge you to be a better Scholar than myself, but I will make you know your place: And silenced him.  
A second thing was this, which I had from a Kinsman of mine, who was of Clare-Hall at the same time, if not the same Year with Mr. Rogers; the Man was a very moderate Episcopal Man, he told me this.  
The Archbishop sends down a Coryphaus [this was the Word he used] to the University of Cambridge, to Challenge the Puritans, and gave his Question accordingly: Great Expectation there was in the University; Mr. Rogers being Fellow of Christs-Colledge, came up Opponent; the first Argument he used was so strong, and he followed it so close, that he Cramped the Respondent, down fell the Ceremonial Champion; the Under-graduates observing it, went to Mr. Rogers, took him out of his Place, and carried him out of the Schools upon their Shoulders; when he was in the Schools yard, a Fellow of St. John's comes behind him, and gives him a Clap on the Back as he was on their Shoulders, with these Words, Rogers, go home and Hang thyself, thou wilt never die with more Honour.  
This is the Man, with whom after he had Preached on his Lecture-day, I walked to his House: As we were in the way, he asked me, where the King was? I told him: He looks upon me, and said, If that King dies the ordinary Death of Men, than God never spoke by me. I was amazed to hear such words come from so grave and eminent a Divine: O Sir! said I to him, What do you mean to speak such Words concerning the King; I beseech you give me your Reasons why you speak thus: He fixed his Eyes upon me, and gave me only this Answer, Say you no more to me, but do you observe what I say to you.  
I was much troubled at these words. A few days after I met with two of his intimate Acquaintance, excellent Christians, and told them I was much troubled at what I heard Mr. Rogers speak concerning the King; they asked me what he said! 
Note this.  I told them; they Answered me, That might very well be, for before the Wars began, while the Kingdom was in Peace, he told us, If this King Charles and this Prelate Laud die the ordinary death of Men, than God never spoke by me. [Bishop Laud's Head was off before I came into England.] I asked them if he spoke of any more? they said, No, only those two. I thought tho' he were a very heavenly Man, and one much with God in Prayer, yet I did not take him to be immediately inspired by God, as the Prophets were, and so the Thoughts went off.  
Afterwards, when the High Court of Justice [as they called it] sat upon the King, I did not mind his words, for I did not think they had any intention to take away the King's Life: When I understood they were in earnest, I went to Church on the Fast-day, with a purpose to stir up the People to Pray for the King's Life; but before I came there, one overtakes me upon the Road, and told me the King was dead. It was the Fast-day, on which Mr. Rogers always Preached in the Forenoon: In the Afternoon [which he never did before but once, as I remember] he comes to our Church, I suppose to observe how I resented the King's Death: After I had done, Mr. Rogers goes home with me, and discoursing about the King's Death, he recalled a Passage I had in my Prayer concerning it, Thou saidst true, said he to me, and there this Old Prophet [I may call him so] leaning upon my Table, bemoaned the Death of King Charles, being much affected with it. Let others judge of this as they please, yet this I dare say, No Prophet immediately inspired by God, did with more Confidence speak concerning Thing or Person as he was inspired, than Mr. Rogers did confidently foretell that King should not die the ordinary Death of Men.  
That he should have any hand in the King's Death, no rational Man that knew him would think so. 1. For he never came among Parliament or Army Men, but an old Man, lived retired at home. 2. So many Years as I lived by him, I do not remember that ever I heard him speak against the King. 3. The Words were spoken before the Wars began, to others, though after they were begun, to me. 4. He bemoaned the King's Death. 5. Tho' he was a very gracious Man, yet he was exercised too much with God's Hiding of himself from him, to have any Hand in such Acts.  
What Use to make of this, I leave to Wise Men.   

A Weighty Question DISCUSSED.  

Whether Imposition of Hands in the Separation of a Person to the Work of the Ministry be necessary?  
BEfore I come to the Question, give me leave to premise a few things.  
First, Tho' Gifts are Essential to a Minister [they must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 2.2. to whom Timothy must commit the things he had heard, etc.] Yet Gifts do not make a Minister. I have known several Gentlemen [they were Scholars indeed] who as to Gifts were as fit for the Ministry as most Ministers at this day in England; yet these worthy Men did not invade the Office of the Ministry, as many illiterate, inferior, and too many erroneous Mechanics do now, to the disgrace of that Function: Had they been grave experienced Christians, as I have known some called forth, tried and ordained by Learned Divines to Places suitable, I should not have opposed, but encouraged and preferred before many who are called Scholars, but irreligious and ignorant in Soul-Works.  
Secondly, Persons may be instrumental to the Conversion of others, and yet not fit for the Ministry. I have known such. That Parents, even Mothers, by their godly Education of their Children, may be instrumental to the Conversion of their Children: Who will deny it? A notable instance I could give of a dying Mother, speaking to a wicked rebellious Son, [she had other Children godly] God blessed her Words, that he became a gracious Man.  
Thirdly, The Election of the People does not make a Minister. Dr. Owen hath spoken enough to this: 
Lib. 2. p. 83. 85. 139.  Unto Officers of the Church are required, saith he, Election of the People, submitting themselves unto them in the Lord, and the solemn setting them apart, by Imposition of Hands: And after that he writes, that Church Order is defective, that wants the Symbol of Authoritative Ordination, viz. Imposition of Hands.  
And in his Exposition of the Hebr. l. 3. p. 33. Imposition of Hands is a Right of standing use in the Church, and that wherein Church Order is much concerned.  
In his Second Book of the Church, mentioned before, p. 136. he proves there aught to be many Elders in one particular Church. This he proves, 1st. from Scripture; 2dly. by Reasons: one of which he fetches from Imposition of Hands. Is, saith he, there be but one Elder only in a Church, upon his Death or Removal, this Imposition of Hands, must either be left unto the People, or be supplied by the Elders of other Churches, or be wholly omitted, all which are Irregular. He did acknowledge the Ordination he had without Imposition of Hands, when he turned Independent, was defective.  
Whether Dr. Owen had his hand in drawing up the Savoy Confession, I know not. But we see, upon mature thoughts, when he is leaving the World, he gives his Judgement according to the Holy Scriptures [which should be the only Guide and Rule in the House of God] contrary to that Confession.  
Why Imposition of Hands by Elders of other Churches should be Irregular? he names no Scripture to prove it. But if it be omitted, that Ordination, saith he, is irregular, (this we are sure of from Scripture) that's enough for me. If it be irregular, then 'tis not Due Ordination; for the Rule hath not its Due given to it. If such Ordination can be valid, to what purpose is the Rule? We shall have strange things follow if this be admitted, that in Religion, and in the House of God, Acts may be valid which are not conformable to the Word of God. The Word saith thus, but these Acts answer it not.  
Pious and Learned Mr. Faldo before his Death, wrote me word, That one of the Brethren against Imposition of Hands was with him, and debated the Question with him; and this especially he stuck at, He would not allow the Elders of one particular Church to perform Office-Acts, to those that were not of that Church. Mr. Faldo tells me, He gave him a formal Argument, to prove that it might be, and in many cases it must be admitted. This he desired to write down, and did so, and I believe it will be seen by others in this Town of his Opinion: And if they will take occasion to ventilate that Difference Brotherly, it will not be declined by some of your and my mind. Thus Mr. Faldo.  
What that Argument was Mr. Faldo did not write: I wrote to that Brother, desiring him to let me know it, but I cannot obtain it; he searched for it, but could not find it.  
But now, for Imposition of Hands in separating a Person to Office in the House of God, this came in by an express Command of God, Numb. 8.10, 14.  
Who are meant by the Sons of Israel in the 10th. verse, is the Question. Mr Pool saith, the Firstborn, or chief of the Tribes. The same Persons I presume, might be both, and most probable it was so.  
First, Chark●ni [as Mr. Ainsworth Quotes him, and agrees with him in it] saith, They were the Firstborn. In this case he may be credited as soon as any Christian Writer.  
Secondly, We read in the three next verses, 16, 17, 18 the Lord tells Moses three times, that he had taken the Levites instead of the Firstborn: Hence 'tis, most probable, the Firstborn were they who imposed Hands on the Levites.  
Thirdly, By this Act, saith Mr. Pool, they signified their transserring that Right of Ministering to God, from the Firstborn, in whose hands it formerly was. Very good: But who should, or who could give away the First-Borns-Right but themselves? We read, Exod 24.5. Moses sent the Young Men of the Sons of Israel, and they offered burnt Offerings. Who were these Young Men? The Chaldee saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primogeniti, the First born. These were the Priests or Sacrificers, until the Levites had the Priesthood in their Tribe. So Numb. 3.12. 'Tis certain, the Firstborn had many Privileges [tho' Esau despise his Eirth-right.] Then the Firstborn must impose hands, and give away their Privileges; but shall they who have no right give away another Man's Right?  
Fourthly, The Firstborn were separated, Exod. 13.2. Sanctify unto me every Firstborn; in their Sanctification, there was a Separation. Now it is most probable, that they who were separated did separate the Levites, and not others. I insist upon this for a Reason I shall give hereafter; let our Opposites give better Reasons to prove they were not the First born.  
As this Practice came into the Church by God's Command, so it continued in the Jewish Church. Dr. Lightfoot tells us, that some Men who gave themselves to the study of the Law, became very Learned Men which they might, the Law being in their own Tongue, and did teach, beside the Priests and the Levites: but none without being first ordained, and that with imposition of hands, Dr. Owen affirms the same; when the Gospel-Church was to be erected, the Apostles, with whom Christ had spoken of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, Acts 1.3. when a Deacon was to be set apart to his Office, they did it with Imposition of hands, Acts 6.6. And so the Churches practised ever afterwards, Acts 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Tim. 5.22. Heb. 6.2. Of which Text more anon.  
This was the Practice of the Churches next the Apostles, and ever since amongst the Fathers. Papists, and Protestants, both Lutherans, Calvinists, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independents; I never saw in my time, 
Platfor. Ch. Dise. Cap. 9 Thes. 4.5.  while I was there, nor ever heard since I came from New England [tho I have enquired] that any one was ordained to any Office in the Church without Imposition of hands.  
Thus the Synod held there 
* And approved by the Synod. held at Boston 1680.  1649. tells us, upon these Hypotheses, that the Fraternity is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Power of the Keys; and that Election gives the Essence. If there be no Elders, Imposition of hands may be performed, by some of the Brethren, Numb. 8.10. But there is a Difference between the Firstborn there, and our private Brethren; and good reason why they should impose Hands, and not our private Men. It was not so in the Gospel-Church: It is Irregular, saith Dr. Owen. But by this we see how Imposition of Hands must be, and was in Practice.  
In the next Thesis: The Fifth, they tell us, In such Churches where there are no Elders, and the Church desire it, we see not why Imposition of hands may not be performed by the Elders of other Churches. 
1 Tim. 4.14. Act. 13.3.  Ordinary Officers laid hands upon Officers of many Churches. The Presbytery at Ephesus, laid hands upon Timothy an Evangelist. The Presbytery at Antioch, laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas. These Men do not tell us this is their Judgement. but they give us the Holy Scriptures for what they say. Whereas, the Savoy Confession gives us not one word of Scripture; but only tells us, where the Essence of a Pastor lies, without imposition of hands, which is denied. I must say with Tertullian, Non recipio, quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. Si Apostolicus, cum Apostolis senti.  
I find in the beginning of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, when they came newly out of Popery, Imposition of Hands was not judged necessary; 
An. 1560. pag. 26.  as I read in the History put out by Mr. Calderwood. That Man of God, Mr. Robert Bruce [whose Name I honour] was not ordained thus, nor any other way, that I can learn, as if there were something in him extraordinary; though I honour the Man, yet we must stick to our Rule, and not Mr. Bruce. 
An. 1581. pag. 105.  But afterwards, they tell us, how Ordination is to be performed, viz. by Fasting, Prayer, and Imposition of the Hands of the Eldership.  
After this, pag. 383. they make it Indifferent.  
But at a general Assembly, 
An. 1597. pag. 408.  it was ordered, That there be an Uniform Order touching Ordination of Ministers throughout the whole Realm, and that with Imposition of Hands; and thus it holds to this day.  
Mr. 
An. 1598. pag. 424.  Bruce having preached many Years, would admit of Imposition of bands for Confirmation, but not for Ordination. Several denied him to be their lawful Pastor for want of Imposition; but others owned him.  
Mr. Bruce accepts of Imposition for Confirmation; and Mr. Pont imposes hands upon him.  
First, As for Imposition of Hands for Confirmation, as it is used in England, after Baptism, I find not one word of it in all the History, nor did the Church of Scotland own it, that I find there.  
Secondly, All this while, there is not one Scripture brought by those who opposed Imposition: Yet they had taken the Word of God for their only Rule, which is so express for Imposition, etc. which makes me wonder at Mr. Bruce, so holy a Man. But if they had no Scripture, had they no Reasons? Yes, they had one, and but one, and that a pitiful one too. Thus, It being laid as a ground, 
pag. 425.  that none can receive Ordination to the Ministry, without Imposition of Hands, and that the Ceremony is proper to Bishops, it behoved to follow, that none could enter into the Ministry, without the Imposition of the Hands of Bishops. This is all very strange that Mr. Bruce should admit of Imposition of Hands for Confirmation, when the Bishops do appropriate that to themselves as well as in Ordination.  
How many things may be said to this, to show the weakness of this ground? Any understanding man may easily see; but I forbear. The Representation of Presbyterian Government, and put out the Year 1690. when Bishops are turned out, tell us in the sixteenth Section, That Men come into the Ministry by Election and Ordination, by laying on of the Hands of the Bresbytery, which is a mean of Communicating Authority to him. Then it seems the Church of Scotland, where this stir was, can impose Hands in Ordination without Bishops.  
By reading this History, I find the Government of the Church of Scotland, from the first beginning of Reformation, was Presbyterian; wherefore it was no small injury to impose upon them Prelatical Bishops, unless they had been of Christ's Institution, which we are sure they are not. And that, our first Reformers in King Henry the Eights, and in King Edward the Sixth's, did declare, That Episcopacy was no distinct Order from Bresbytery by Divine Right, but only a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrate, for the better Government of the Church.  

SECT. II. The Definition of Ordination.  
AS to the word Ordination, I think Greg, de Valen. speaks right; 
Tom. 4. Dis. 9 Q. 1. p. 1.  the word is taken from the Effect of that Ordinance, Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque Ordine certo Ecclestasticae Dignitatis Constituit●r. Some are Pastors, some are Teachers, some a●e Ruling Elders, some are Deacons, they are set or placed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 1.28. in such an Order in the House of God, by Ordination. Thus it hath passed for Currant many hundred Years in the Church, till yesterday, Election gave the Essence, and Ordination was but an Adjunct. I desire my Brethren but to give me that Adjunct, according to the Word of God, and we shall unite, tho' we differ in our Logical Notions.  
What should he done where Ordination cannot be had? Something I had to say to it, but being none of our Question, I let it alone. It is more material to know what Ordination is, and being it is Essential to our Discourse, I will give the Definition of it. This being a sure Truth, That they who do not give the Definition, they do but mock the Person to be ordained, and abuse the Ordinance, for he is not ordained, Cui convenit Definitio eidem quoque Convenit Definitum: & è Contra, etc.  
Ordination then is, the Separation of a Person rightly qualified to the work of the Ministry, by teaching Elders, with Fasting, Prayer, and Imposition of Hands.  
Something I had thought to have spoken about the Qualification [wherein I see these men's Practices with no content, their way being to debase the Ministry] but the stress lying most in the Ordiners and Impositions of Hands, I shall speak to these two Heads.  
That it belongs to Teaching Elders, Act. 13.3. Tim. 1.4.14. I prove it.  
Here the People rise up, and claim a Right; by Virtue of their being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Power of the Keys: And I have seen it practised. Two Private Persons imposed their Hands upon an Ancient grave Divine, who was ordained, I believe, near 40 Years before in England, etc. They gave him the Essence, in giving him a Call, and so they gave him the Adjunct. And this being the Opinion of these men here, I preser their Ordination, with Imposition of Hands, and would own him for a Gospel Minister, before them whom you ordain [as you suppose] without Imposition: And if Ordination be no more than Prayer and Fasting, what need of you [according to the Principles of Independency] in another Church. It is not Prayer, Preaching, and Fasting. Tho' I grant Preaching is very comely at such an Ordinance; yet Preaching is not Ingredient into the Ordination: The People can Fast and Pray as well as you. I observed, while the hands of these private Persons were upon the Head of their Pastor, one of them made such a Prayer as might become any Minister, it was so apposite to the business in hand, that I could but wonder at it; and I believe it was his own Composing.  
Whether the Fraternity be the first Subject of the Power of the Keys; 
Mr. Nath. Ward use to say, They were the first Subject of the Key-Clog, not the Keys: So they have proved in many Churches, I am sure.  I have spoken to it several Years since in another Tract. I add but a few word now.  
In the Common Wealth, the People are before the Magistrate: In the Church, the Ministry is before the People. Thus it began with the Apostles, they were first, and after them by a continual Succession of the Ministry the Church is continued. The Ministry is the Instrument in God's Hand, which he useth commonly or chief, for the bringing in, and building up of his Church, 2 Cor. 6.1. Ephes. 4.11, 12. The principal Cause and the Instrument work together, to the producing of the Effect; that then the effect of a Power, should be the first Subject of that Power of which 'tis an Effect, is new Logic to me.  
Dr. Owen saith, The Church is before Ordinary Ministers.  
Answ. First, But is it before the Ministry? Else 'tis nothing.  
Secondly, The Proposition is not true, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that faithful and laborious Servant of Christ Mr. Eliot [whom I know and honour] Mr. Mahew. Mr. Leverick, with great Labour and Industry, get the Indian Language, and preached to the Indians; they were but ordinary Ministers. God blesseth their Preaching: The Indians some of them are converted, gathered into a Church: Were they a Church before these Ministers? And were they the first Subjects of the Power of the Keys, before these Ministers preached to them?  
Let the Scriptures, in the Languages, that the Spirit of God inspired his Penmen to write them, be sent to a People who never saw them, nor heard of them. Let this People understand them, believe them, embrace them, give themselves up to them without any Ministry, to translate, to interpret, and to help them to understand and believe; I will allow this People to be the Subjectum Primum, Secundum, Tertium, of all the Power of the Keys, but rot else.  
Secondly, There are others who lay claim to this, and impropriate it to themselves, as belonging to them only, i. e. Bishops, as being of a Superior Order above Teaching Elders: Thus Bishop Gawden told me, it was out of Courtesy, that the Bishop admitted Presbyters to impose Hands with them in Ordination. Thanks to this Courteous Bishop. I thought they had followed the fourth Council of Cartbage: But if Presbyters do impose Hands with the Bishop, than the Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter, in Ordination, is gone: For Imposition of Hands is the Principal thing in Ordination, as I will prove anon, because one prays at the Imposition; that argues no Superiority of Power in him.  
All Bishops were not of this Bishop Gawden's mind; not that Bishop of Peterborough, who when he ordained many at one time, but then take notice, That he did ordain them as Presbyter. He spoke not without Reason; for no Ministerial Acts in the Church are valid, but such Acts as are performed by Ministers of Christ's, Institution. They who are Officers in the Church by Civil or Ecclesiastical Constitution, all their Acts as such, signify nothing. But his being a Bishop, and so superior to a Presbyter, was by no Institution of Christ, had only jus Humanum to Warrant his Authority, and therefore he did not ordain as such a Bishop, but as Presbyter. Two I know, Mr. Statham, (as I heard) and Mr. Samuel Smith, who were then Ordained: Mr. Smith spoke of it often, what the Bishop said to them, and ●●d them take notice of it: Had Mr. Smith lived till now, he had been about 78 years of Age; suppose him to be Ordained about 25 years of Age, some by this may guests what the Name of that Bishop was about 58 years past. I have often thought of this; the meanest Officers in the Commonwealth, be they Rum-bailiffs, Ale-Founders, yet they must have Law for their Office to Warrant their Actings: But that in the House of God there should be such as look upon themselves as the Chiefest Officers in the Church, and yet can show no Law from the Lord of the House to Warrant their Office; this is strange, what hath jus Humanum to do in the House of God? Is not the Wisdom of the Great God Sufficient to know what Officers to appoint in his House, but sinful Man must set up Officers, and supreme Officers too, without him? Thus Bishop Gawden told me; The Bishop is the Supreme Officer, [He should have said the Archbishop] in the Church; you Presbyters are but the Pipe-staves, the Bishop is the Hoop that holds you together. An excellent similitude; I desired him to tell me who should be the Cooper to knock on this Hoop, I doubt (I told him) the Pope would swear by his Keys, that he must and will be the Cooper. And Bellarmin will maintain it by his Argument a Simili, etc. De Romano Pontif. mibi. 204. He told me moreover, you Presbyters are no more able to manage the Government of the Church of England, than David was able to wield ' Saul's Armour.  
The Government of the Church of England is a hard word, there needs an Interpreter. We poor Presbyters look only to the Government of our particular Flocks, whom we feed with the Word and Sacraments, over whom God hath made us Bishops, Acts 20.17, 28. If all the particular Congregations in England (supposing them to be visible Saints) were so governed, then by an Induction of particulars, it might be so called.  
We do not indeed in our Government use Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo, Prisons, Fines, Cutting off Ears, these are Saul's Armour, but none of Paul's spiritual Weapons, 2 Cor. 10.4. with which we are content. If it be well examined, it will be found that the Zeal of his Government hath been carried out against Conscientious Men, who for Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, stick close to the Word of God, without admitting any Humane Inventions to justle with him; I say the Zeal has been carried out against those far more than against Whore-mongers, Drunkards, profane Swearers, Dam'mees, etc.  
I can but take notice of Dr. Lightfoot, 
1 Vol. p. 787, 788.  that learned Man and Son of the Church of England, living in the times of our Persecution, who denys Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles. And that it is an improbable and unconstant Inference, that because there was Subordination between the Apostles and Philip. (in Acts 8.) that therefore the like is to be reputed betwixt Bishops and other Ministers.  
I have done with this; I only aimed at this; Teaching Elders may Ordain, and we have Divine Authority for it in the Texts before mentioned: These we are sure are Officers in the Church by Christ's Institution; The Lutherans have Bishops, yet they deny any inequality jure Divino, between Bishops and Presbyters, quoad Potestatem Jurisdictionis. Therefore Gerrard answering Bellarmin appropriating Ordination to Bishops saith, 
De Minist. Eccles. p. 261.  there is not one tittle in all God's Book, that Ordination by Bishops should be valid, but by Presbyters should be Null.  
The next thing is, it must be performed with Imposition of Hands: I named five Scriptures for this before.  
What Dr. Owen saith, Ordination of Ministers is one thing, Imposition of hands is another, differing as the whole and the part. I yield it by this whole, he must mean totum integrale, it cannot be totum universale, but we say in Logic, suolata qualibet parte tollitur perfectio Integri, sed sublata parte principali tollitur integrum. Then I say where there is not Imposition of hands, there is no Ordination, for this Imposition is the principal part, and so tollitur Integrum.  
That it is the principal part I prove, and this shall be my first Argument.  
1st. The Spirit in the Apostles, sets forth the whole Ordinance of Ordination, only by Imposition of Hands, but never by Fasting and Prayer, 1 Tim. 4.14. the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay Hands on no Man suddenly. That in those Texts Ordination is meant, and not Confirmation, nor reception of Penitents, nor the Sick. I have proved in another Tract, so that I insist not upon them. Heb. 6.2. This my Brother with whom I now deal, denies to be Ordination, but it is meant of Confirmation, and bids me see Dr. Owen so interpreting it.  
I honour the Doctor, and will consider him when I have first proved it is meant of Ordination. If men's Judgements be worth any thing then for learning and Holiness, we have very eminent Men for it. Archbishop Usher, Mr. Cart-wright, Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Thomas Hooker, Gualther, Tossanus, Bullinger, Gillespy Dicson, Johnson, Jacob, These understand it only of Ordination. Other Divines of Confirmation and Ordination, and 
* Because my Brother Charges me with my false Quotation of Mr. Cart-wright, take his words on Heb. 6.2. By Imposition of Hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament, much less Confirmation after Baptism, but by a Trope or borrowed Speech, the Ministry of the Church upon the which Bands were laid, which appeareth in that whosoever believeth not, there ought to be a Ministry by order to Teach and Govern the Church, overthroweth Christianity.  Dr. Owen here doth not exclude it.  
1st. I lay the Foundation for my Proof, in these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1.5. not laying again the Foundation. This then is a Fundamental point. Foundation must last as long as the House lasts. Confirmation by extraordinary Gifts conveyed in the Imposition of Hands, do not last so long as the Church lasts: the Church hath lost this above Fifteen hundred Years: But the Ministry intended in this place, shall last to the end of the World, Mat. 28.20. till the Body of Christ be perfected, Eph. 4.12, 13. Therefore this is the Foundation.  
The other Heads of Catechism that are joined with it, must last to the end of the World. And if Baptism, than the Ministry, that have the Command from Christ, to Teach and Baptism, Mat. 28.20.  
2dly. Let it be observed, that the extraordinary Gifts which were given sometimes, by Imposition of Hands; were given first to the Jewish Christian-Church, and then to the Gentiles, without Imposition of Hands, Acts 2.2, 3. with Acts 10.44, 45, 46. This is very material. Do you then show us two Texts where the Apostles separated Men to the Ministry without imposition of Hands; as extraordinary Gifts were given first, both to Jews and Gentiles, without Imposition of Hands; and to Cornelius and his good Company before Baptism. Acts 10.47.  
3dly, We have other Scriptures, where Imposition, etc. is put for Ordination; I named two. Do you name one more where Imposition of Hands, mentioned alone, is put for Confirmation.  
4thly. Imposition of Hands in Ordination to Office, was before Imposition of Hands to the Collation of extraordinary gifts, and more frequently mentioned; therefore the more reason why it should be so understood here, and not excluded.  
The placing of Imposition, etc. in the Text-after Baptism, does not prove it to be meant of Confirmatton, no more than the placing of Faith in God, after Repentance will prove that Repentance goeth before Faith in God; whereas if a Man do not first believe God to be, and such a God as the Word declares him to be; yea, if he do not believe the Resurrection and the last Judgement, he will hardly Repent.  
2dly. Cornelius and his Friends, the Gentiles, had those Gifts Conferred before Baptism, Acts 10.45, 46, 47, 48.  
3dly. Let them prove that all that were Baptised had these Gifts Conferred after Baptism. This made Dr. O. so to expound it, because it follows Baptism in the Text.  
As for Dr. Owen's Reasons against Ordination I see no reason, saith he, why the Apostle should pass from the Doctrine of the first entrance of Christian Religion, and proceed to the Ordination of Ministers, omitting the Lord's Supper.  
2dly. Nor why he should insert the observation of this Rite, or the Doctrine concerning it, in the same Order, and under the same necessity with the other great Fundamentals, etc.  
Answ. 1st. And what necessity was there of his inserting extraordinary Gifts, common to godly and ungodly, and which were to expire in a short time amongst the Fundamentals.  
2dly. Gospel Worship is a fundamental point, and it was Christ's pleasure to have a Gospel Ministry to carry on that Worship to the World's End; and under that Rite, the Ministry is meant, Ephes. 4.11.12, 1 Cor. 12.28.  
3dly. Under Baptism, the Lord's Supper might be comprehended, being the other Sacrament 
* So Dr. Gouge 's Baptism Synechdochice is put forboath Sacraments.  or being those were the Catechetical Heads, which the Novices learned before they were Baptised and admitted into the Church (as Baptism and Repentance went together in John's Baptism, Matthew 3.) so here Baptism and Repentance are mentioned, but for the Lords Supper, they might be further instructed after they were in the Church, before they were admitted to it.  
4thly. There is not such a necessity of Baptism, as of Faith and Repentance; yet Baptism is mentioned amongst those Heads.  
The Prophets under the Old Testament Prophesied of these Gifts, that they should be poured out saith the Dr.  
Answ. True, but the Prophets do not say, they should be conferred by Imposition of Hands, and so be made a Chatachetical Head under the New Testament.  
2dly. So do several of the Prophets foretell, what Pastors the Lord will give to his Church under the time of the Messah. But to make an end with Dr. Owen to whom you refer me; He gives us four Cases in which this Imposition of Hands was used. The Second he mentions was in healing of Diseases, Mark 16.18. etc. This cannot be the meaning here, saith he, for this gift was extraordinary, occasional, Temporary, Proper to some.  
Upon the same grounds, it cannot be meant of Confirmation. For the Gift was Extraordinary, Temporary, Proper to the Apostles; Ananias had an immediate Call to it, Acts 9.10, 11.17. Philip had no such power, or Gift in Acts 8. And after the Apostles we read of none that could, or did confer Gifts extraordinary by Imposition of Hands. What he means by occasional, I know not. I know no word of Healing unless People were sick.  
2dly. But I read in the Dr. p. 34. thus, we shall allow room also for that other exposition of the Words which is more generally received, (I suppose he means Ordination) because it complies with the Analogy of Faith: I dare not be peremptory. Then the Dr. is not absolutely against me.  
So much for my first Argument.  
I go on,  
2dly. Ordination is an Act of Authority, but Prayer and Fasting are no Acts of Authority. These are the Duties belonging to all Christians. I would desire no more Blessings than many good Women can pray for. Therefore Prayer and Fasting do not make Ordination.  
The Major only remains to be proved, Acts 6.3, 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom we may appoint, etc. Tho' the Persons were qualifyed, tho' elected by the Church, yet they were not in that Order of Deacons, till the Apostles put them into it Authoritatively, Imposing their Hands upon, them. And this is common with all Presbyters, Tit. 1.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same word we had before. This word I find several times in the New Testament, belonging to a Person in Authority, giving Authority to others, as Acts 7.10. and 27, and 35. Matth. 24.45.47. Matth. ●5. 21.25 etc.  
What Mr. Ainsworth saith of the First born imposing their hands upon the Levites, I think 'tis true: By this sign, they did put the charge and Service of the Church upon them, and did Consecrate them to God in their Name. So I think the Presbytery in their Imposing of hands do impose the charge, the burden, the work of the Ministry upon the Persons ordained, giving them Authority from the Lord, to go forth and Preach, and Administer all the Holy things of God with Authority. As the Church of Scotland saith, It is a mean of Communicating Authority to the person Ordained. Well may the Apostle say, lay hands upon no Man suddenly. See it in a civil Case, Numb. 27.18, 19, 20. Joshua must stand before the Highpriest and the whole Congregation: Moses must lay his hand upon him, a sign of his calling, and Ordination to his Office. v. 23. Moses did so, and gave him his Charge.  
Thus if strangers hearing there is an Ordination come in among you, there they may hear Preaching and Prayer; but who is the person to be ordained, they cannot tell by Preaching and Prayer, but when a person is brought forth, and the Presbytery Impose their Hands upon him and pray, now they may know who the Person is.  
3dly. If Prayer and Fasting be Ordination without Imposition of hands, then as oft as Ministers meet together, to keep days of Fasting and Prayer, and pray for him who is the Pastor of that Church where they meet, for increase of grace, gifts, blessing upon and success in his Work, so oft the Man is ordained; are not these the Heads you pray for, when you Ordain in your way? What Heads have you more? Not only in the Sacraments; but in all Church-Ordinances, there is something which visibly shows a difference between that Ordinance and another. As the Eyes and Hands lifted up to Heaven in Prayer, visibly show a difference between Prayer and Preaching, and so in Preaching from Prayer; but according to you there is nothing whereby Ordination differs from other Ordinances.  
Fourthly, Acts 13.3. That here in Ordination, I meet with seventeen Divines besides Dr. Owen, that acknowledge it, and the Definition of Ordination is here seen. When God commanded them to separate, Paul and Barnabas, etc. He did not tell them how they should separate, they knew that before, and accordingly did it with Imposition of Hands; they had learned that from Numb. 8.10.14. the positive Command, where the word separate is used.  
If ever Ordination might have been spared, then here; for what did this signify to the poor ignorant Gentiles to whom they were sent, that knew nothing of it? And if they had told them they were thus Ordained, what cared they for it? They carried their Credentials with them, the power of Miracles, to confirm their Doctrine. If the Church did Pray and Fast for success upon their Ministry, but what need Imposition of Hands? Not to confer Gifts, they were qualifyed before, Paul, Acts 9.17. Barnabas, Acts 11.24. and for Teachers to Confer Gifts extraordinary, we read none. They were called to separate, by an immediate Command or Call of God. So Paul was no Apostle of Men, Gal. 1.1. Tho' Men did Ordain, yet what they did, being by the immediate Call and Command of God, he may be said to be an Apostle not of Men, or by Men.  
But this is observable: This Ordination is the first that ever was out of Judea. Antioch then the chief City of Syria, the most powerful City of Asia, where the Perfect of the East most where resided, called by some the Gentiles Jerusalem. Here then in a City of the Gentiles, is the Apostle of the Gentiles, set apart to the Work of an Apostle among the Gentiles. And I cannot tell what use to make of it, since as I said, the Gentiles neither knew it, nor regarded it, but it is of use to us, to show us that as the Apostle of the Gentiles was separated to his Work, so all Ministers that are the Successors of the Apostles, should be separated to their Work; that as they were thus separated in the Jewish Church, so it should be in the Gentile-Christian Church.  
Object. But Paul was an Apostle before.  
Answ. 1. I deny its For, 1st. Then the Text would have called him so. The Text tells us there were Prophets and Teachers, but he doth not say there were Apostles. Surely Paul should have had the Title of his Office, if he had been an Apostle, as well as the Prophets had.  
2dly. The Lord tells Anantas, Acts 9.15. Paul was a chosen Vessel, to carry his name among the Gentiles. But this was not done till now.  
3dly. Pa●l was never called an Apostle till after this, Acts 14.14.  
Lastly, When the Apostle chargeth Timothy 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands suddenly on no Man; the Affirmative Is employed, he ought to lay hands, if he sound a Person worthy; in mandato negativo Affirmativum continetur. Thus I have given you my Definition, and proved by several Scriptures; now Brother, give me your Definition, and prove it by Scripture; you indeed have not alleged that, Acts 14.23. but two others have brought that Text against me, ●o prove that Election (from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) with Prayer and Fasting, without Inposition of ha●ds, makes a Minister.  
1st. This Text I see by Lutherans and Calvinists, is brought to prove the Peoples-right in Election; Dr. Owen hath made great Use of it, so Dr. R●le, so Gerhand, makes great use of it; but when they have done so, yet they all tell us, a Man is not a Minister as yet, but Ordination must be, and that as I defined it.  
2dly. I think it is a good rule to help to understand the Scriptures, if one Text be obscure, and there be clearer texts in the Scripture speaking to the same thing: Carry the obscure Text to them, which are ●lear. We have several clear Texts for Ordination with imposition of Hands, but not one now that gives the least shadow to prove such an Interpretation as this. It falls out very unhappily with some Men, saith Dr. Owen in another Case, who think they see some peculiar Opinion, in some singular Text of Scripture, and will not bring their Interpretation of it to the Analogy of Faith, and see how contrary it is to the Current of the word in other places.  
3dly. Paul knew how Imposition of Hands in separation to Office, came into the Jewish Church, by the positive Command of God, and how it continued in that Church. Secondly, He know the Practices of the Apostles. Now, Thirdly, He knew how he himself was separated. Fourthly, He can tell Timothy how he, i. e. Timothy, was separated, and charge him that he take care how he laid Hands upon others. Can any rational Man think, that Paul now would in these Churches, separate Man to Office without Imposition of Hands? I think no Rational Man will believe it. Why then is this Text abused?  
For my part I am for the People's Election, provided it be carried on regularly; and look upon this Imposing of Ministers by Patrons upon the People against their Consent, as cursed Tyranny.  
But for my own part (giving honour to these worthy Men, far more learned than myself) I am not satisfied, that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text, whatever the Etymology of the word was at first, must necessarily note the Act of the People listing up their Hands in Election of their Officers. I rather consider how the word is used, in that Age or Time when Men write. 'Tis well known that words in time do vary in their signification from what they did at first. Among divers others, we have one in Scripture, 
Ethis. l. 4. Cap. 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ephis. 5.4. Aristotle tells us how the Word was first used, and who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Man that was facetious, pleasant, Witty, but withal cleanly in his Discourse: But afterwards in his time, if a Man did seem to be Witty, tho' Scurrilous and base, he now was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Divers such words we have in the Latin, and English Tongue. Philo and Paul were Contemporaries, 
Philo flourished in Caligula 's Time, and wrote before Paul.  and how Philo useth the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dr. Hammond, has given us an account out of his Works. Likewise out of Lucian, and Maximus Tyrius. Where the word is used of single persons, so that the word did not in those times signify the suffrages of the People, and the Word in Holy Writ, Acts 10.41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being given to God: Plainly carry it, that the Word doth not always intent or force the People's Suffrage, whatever the Etymology of the Word signifles, upon which Gerbard lays his stress. I have not seen that piece of Mr. Selden, but Mr. Ranew told me he had made it clear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had lost that signification these contend for, many years before Christ.  
2dly. That Rule which Henry Stephens gives us, concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; I take to be very true; When this word governs an Accusative Case, than it signisies but to create, Ordain. Thus he Now in this Text, Acts 14.23. it doth so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But in Cor. 2.8.19. which these Men urge to confirm their Opinion, there is no accusative Case, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He was chosen of the Churches. Let me add to this, the Syrryack Version: I doubt not but that Translator did understand the Etymology of the word as well as any of us; now in this verse he renders the word they ●id Constitute, or Ordain 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the very same Syriac word, which is used in Tit. 1.5. Ordain Elders. But in the 2 Cor. 8.19. there he uses another word, to chase, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and doubles the Verb, as the Hebrews do, which the Latin Translation gives thus, deligendo delectus sit. So the vulgar Translation, Constituissent.  
3dly, The Grammatical Construction is more to me than a Criticism: when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, v. 22. they returned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Confirming the Souls, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Exhorting them to continue, etc. These two were Paul and Bar●abas's Acts, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Paul and Barnabas lifted up their hands, if the word must signify so from the Etymology of the word, this was as much their Act as the ●ormer. Let any Schoolboy construe it, tho' the Boy can tell you the Etymology of the word. Then we shall have a new ●a●hion of ordaining, by Ministers fasting, praying, and listing up their ha●ds. ●esides, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how will that agree with the People's listing up their hands, what ●air sense shall we make of it? But if we take the word as we see it was used in that time, and as H. Stephens saith, if it governs an accusative case, as it doth in this place, th●n the Sense runs smooth, Paul and Barnabas did Constitute or ordain them. (i. e. the Disciples in the  verse) Elders in every Church, etc.  
4thly. It is certain the Greek Fathers did use their word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Ordination: Surely they understood their own Mother tongue as well as we. I have observed Chrysostem in all those Texts where Imposition of hands is mentioned; he useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gerhard confesseth that Chrysostom and other Ecclesiastical Writers, do so use it. And though he stick to the Etymology of the word to maintain the People's right of Election, yet Ordination he saith must be with Imposition of hands, therefore he saith in the next word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demum sit mentio, in their praying, they Imposed hands. Thus he.  
As to these Fathers who thus use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had they been against the Election of the People, than I should have suspected their Integrity in their use of the Word, but the People then had their Election of their Bishops and Presbyters. And one thing I took notice of in the 5th. Century; I read of one Syn●si●s, a Man of very good parts, who was to be Ordained Bishop of Siren: But when he should be Ordained, he did not believe the Resurrection of the Body, yet the People who had elected him, were so earnest to have him Ordained, that Theophilus Alexand. did Ordain him, hoping he might believe it afterwards; as he did. When I read it, I thought what a difference there was between those times and ours, they could Ordain a Bishop, who did not believe one of the Articles of the Apostles Creed (as it is called) but the Church of England could cast out about eighteen hundred Ministers, but for what? was it because they did not assent to the Doctrine of the Church of England? I heard Mr. Harmar should tell Bishop Reynolds, if you can maintain the Discipline of the Church, the Dissenters must maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England) was it because they were scandalous in their Conversation? was it because they were Idle and lazy? was it because they did not worship God according to His Word? Blessed be God, they could charge us with none of these things, for what then? Let them answer that when they come to appear before their and our Judges. They were Churchmen and Bishops that made that Act against us.   

SECT. III.  
NOw to your Reason, why you Ordain without Imposition of Hands, that which you chie●●y insist upon is this.  
There is neither Scripture, Precept, no● Precedent, for ordinary Officers, of one. Church, to impose Hands in the Ordination of an Officer in another Church Answ. First, What need of such Precedents, while Apostles and Evangelists were living? Secondly, This Argument of yours plainly implies, that there is Scripture Precept, and Precedent, to ordain in another Church, so it be without Imposition of Hands: It lies upon you to show, where that Precept or Precedent is. I know no such Texts; you acted, did you act in Faith; that you acted according to God, and were wellpleasing to God, in your ordaining without Imposition of Hands? Then show us that Divine Testimony upon which your Faith for so acting, is grounded: You never gave me one as yet; and if you cannot do it, your Faith in this Act is but vain. If there be any thing I do in the House of God, for which I cannot give either Precept, Precedent, necessary Consequence, from Scripture or light of Nature, I will lay by that Act, I will not trouble the Peace of the Church, nor hinder Union with my Brethren, by keeping up such Practices.  
Thirdly, The Apostles did not constitute Churches as you do, with one single Pastor, etc. In Nine Churches we find several Teachers, but not one with a single Teacher. In a Young Church at Antioch, Act. 13.2, 3. There were three Teachers to separate Paul and Barnabas. There is an Error then in your Constitution, and that does not justify your Error in Ordination.  
Fourthly, Give me a Precedent, where the Pastor of one Church did so much as preach or pray in another Church; if you cannot, than we must not so much as preach or pray in another Church: But you have called me and others to preach in your Church.  
To this you answered me, You could well do that, from Matth. 28.19. go teach all Nations; if so, then in other Churches.  
Answ. First, Set by Precedents then, it seems you can find none.  
Secondly, I may deny your Consequence, at ●●ast according to some Independent Principles, unless I preach as a gifted Brother. To preach to the Nations who were Heathens, and to preach in an Independent Church, differ. I may preach to Heathen as a Minister of Christ, but in an Independent Church, as a gi●ted Brother. I wish we knew the first Author of this Distinction, that we might scratch his Cranium, for so witty an Invention.  
What your judgement is as to this distinction, 
Lib. 2. p. 101.  I cannot tell. But I am of Dr. Owen's mind: If I did not think myself bo●nd, saith he, to Preach as a Minister, and as a Minister Authorized in all places, and on all occasions, whe● I am called thereunto, I think I should never preach much more in this world.  
Fisthly, If that Text will warrant me to preach in another Church, it will warrant me to Baptise in another Church, if there be need, and I am called to it. They are joined together; and if I may put forth two Acts of Authority, I may also put forth a third: If there wants a Pastor, and I am called to join with others to separate him to his Office, we will do it according to the Word, with Fasting, Prayer, and Imposition of Hands, without which 'tis not Ordination: We do not give him the Deficition.  
Sixthly, Since than we are come to consequence from Scripture; I gave you a Scripture, 1 Cor. 12.12 The Body is one, and hath many Members, etc. He does not mean that particular Church of Corinth, is that one Body: he adds, so is Christ, v. 13. Jews and Gentiles make up that one Body. v. 25. The Members of this one Body, must have the same care one of another. Does the Apostle tie up his Discourse to the Church of Corinth, that the Members of that Church should have care one of another? and if one of their Members did ●●●●er, v. 26. all the rest of the Members of Corinth suffer with them, but for other Churches take no care of them: If they suffer, you need not suffer with them. Certainly, this was not the Apostles meaning. I look upon all particular Churches to be Members of that one Body: It is such a Church, in which Christ hath set Apostles, Prophets, etc. v. 28. It is such a Church, where some are as Eyes, others as Ears; some as Feet, some as Hands, verses 15, 16. Therefore he speaks of the Visible Church. If every particular Church were the Body of Christ, how many Bodies should Christ have? But he hath but one Body, as the 12th. verse, and Ephes. 4.4, 12. tell us. Since th●n all particular Churches are but Members of that one Body, and the Lord hath commanded the Members to have care one of another. Surely, the Lord hath not confined the Ministerial Power of a Pastor, to his own particular Church; so that if a Neighbour-Church have no Pastor, that the Pastors near to this Church may not help that Church to a Pastor, and in that way which his Word hath declared. Your Practice testifieth it; for you would make the Person to be ordained, and others believe, you ordain in another Church; and this is an Act of Authority, but not as you perform it, nor according to God's Word, and so it is no Ordination.  
There is a difference between a Ministers helping another Church destitute of an Officer, in seeding them with the Word and Sacraments, a joining with others in the Ordination of a Pastor to them, and exercising Discipline in that Church, in case of Scandal. The Church hath some Power to help itself in this Case, though no Pastor.  
For instance, a Pastor of a Church not far from us in the time of Persecution leaves England, goes beyond-Sea many miles; this Church had none to seed them: they desired help of their Neighbour Ministers, who accordingly did afford them help; some preached, some baptised their Infants, and others Administered the Lord's Supper to them. One of the Church fell very foully, being seduced by another Professor; the Scandal very great, so that the Hearts of good People very sad, but our Enemies rejoiced; it made such a noise in the Country, many miles about us, that the like I believe have not been known in these Parts. I was desired to preach there; when I had done my Sermon, a Writing was delivered to me, wherein the Church desired me to declare to the Congregation [which was then very great, being no Sermon in the public place] their abhorrency of such Acts, and withal desired me to inform them what was their Duty, what they ought to do in such a Case as this. I gave them my thoughts thus: You are but a Homogeneal Body, and so have no power to Excommunicate, that being an Act of Authority; nor have I any power to call the person to an account, and excommunicate: But yet this you may do, since the person was admitted into Church-Fellowship and Communion with your consent, she having fallen so foully, dishonoured God so greatly, and opened the mouths of Men against Godliness, you should first meet together, and humble your Souls before God, that there should be such Dishonour brought to his Name, by one of your Church. Then, First, You have the Lord's Supper Administered sometimes amongst you; there you may deny Communion with her. Secondly, You have times when your Church only meet together, for Prayer, mutual Conference, etc. You may there deny her Communion also; but when you meet publicly with others, there you should not deny, but she may be present at Prayer, being it is natural Worship; though she were actually excommunicated, and rendered as a Heathen; I have seen the Indians present with us, at Prayer, and Preaching, tho' as yet they had not embraced Christianity. Thirdly, As for the Civil Familiarity you had with her before, you ought to suspend that too, 2 Thess. 3.14. and verse 6. yet having a care of her, being in a poor condition, that she do not perish. Fourthly, You may choose three or sour of your chief Members, and send them to her, to make her know, the Determination, of the Church, and that the Church doth this, in the Name of the Lord Jesus.  
The Church did so, the effects of it was, the clamours of the People ceased; the Mouths of them who before were opened against us, were silent, and now they rather sound salt with me, that I was too sharp upon the Person offending, the effect was a relenting, and humbling of herself before God in the public Congregation, to the satisfaction of the Church, she is now dead, but the Church having then their Pastor, absolved her before she died: and it was a comfort to her: her Absolntion was without money.  
By this I see, were this Ordinance of Church Discipline carried on according to the word of God (which hath been so fearfully abused) we should need no Writ de Excommunicato capiendo: I did but add a sew words, what the case of such a person was under this Sentence, and it struck an awe in the hearts of Carnal People.  
To return to my Brother. To what I have said from the one body in the Corinth. 12. That the Pastors of Churches may help other Churches, where there are none, and they call to help them, you answer me.  
This is all you have to say, and there is little in it.  
Answ. No, not all, Brother; I gave you your own Text, whereby you proved that Pastors of other Churches may join with you in days of Fasting and Prayer, and preaching; and if so then in Ordaining.  
2dly. I gave you the Texts of Scripture, whereby the Synod of N. England proved, they might ordain in another Church, with Imposition of hands.  
You tell me, you deny a Political-visible Catholic Church.  
Answ. So do I. If I said but little, I am sure you say too much. How doth it follow? Because we may help neighbour Churches, when they call us to help them with Pastors in a Gospel way. Therefore I must own a Political, visible, Catholic Church. I gave you instance before, how Churches may help to purge themselves from seandalous persons, though they have no Officers. If there be a Family by us where are several Children Parents both dead, and there is none that takes care of them to help them to food: It is one thing for me to go to the House, and help them with food, another thing to cast one of the Children out of the House, if it be cross, refractory, and will not be reclaimed by counsel. Thecase is the same here; twenty or forty Elders may meet to give Counsel in a Case, leaving the Execution to the Church whence the Case depends.  
You tell me, Ministers are not set over the whole Church, their Power may be refused in other Congregations.  
Answ. But they do not refuse their Power, when they Call for it, and desire to help them in their want. I limit the Power of Elders to other Churches, to the Call of those Churches, being in want. They are not therefore set over the whole Church.  
When you with the two other Ministers [they go for such] did separate that illiterate Person to the Work of the Ministry, did you Act as Officers or as private Brethren? If you acted as private Brethren, than I am sure he is no Minister; the Brethren of the same Society had more right than you. If you acted as Officers, than it seems you could not put forth Official Power in another Church. To separate to an Office, is an Act of Authority. Whom we may appaint, [not the People] Act. 6.3.  
You tell me, the 13 Acts 3. is no Platform for us, unless we have an immediate Command from God to Ordain Men.  
Answ. The immediate Command was in the separating Paul and Barnabas to the Work of their Apostleship. The Command was not to Teach them how they should separate; the Lord saith only, Separate, etc. they knew how they should separate before. The Synod of New-England and Dr. Owen were much mistaken, who quote this Text for Ordination by Impostion of Hands: But to this Text I have spoken before.  
As to what you say, That Gifts were then Conserred with the Imposition of Hands.  
Answ. The end when the Lord first Commanded it, was not to Confer Gifts, but to separate, Numb. 8.10, 14. so Acts 13.3. Separate we Paul, etc.  
2. The Savoy Confession is against you, if there be Elders in the same Church, it calls for Imposition of Hands.  
3. Paul and Barnabas were Gifted before, as I named the Texts.  
4. The Deacons were Gifted before their Ordination, Acts 6.3.  
5. Paul then needed not to have given that Caution to Timothy, 2 Tim. 2.2. that they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to whom he Committed the Gospel-Doctrine; for Timothy by the Imposing Hands might Confer Gifts, and make them able, or fit Men for the Work.  
6. As to what you gather from 1 Tim. 4.14. for your Proof, that Text you know admits of Controversy: As whether Timothy was not first Ordained a Presbyter, and asterwards an Evangelist? Whether Paul's Imposition and the Presbyters were both at the same time? etc. but this is certain, laying the 1 Tim. 1.18. and 2 Tim. 1.6. together with this Text, there was something extraordinary as to Timothy's Gifts, in which the Presbyteries Imposition had no share; the Propositions differ, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the putting on of my Hands; 
See Didoclavius Altar Damos. p. 161. Thus Gillospy Misc. p. 101.  but 'tis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the la●ine o● of the Hands of to● Presbytery, after Prophecy. So that when Paul and the Presbytery did both impose Hands, the Gift was conveyed as Paul saith, by my Hands. But as to ●●s Office to a Potestative, Authoritative Mission, the Imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery did concur with Pa●●'s.  
You tell me, I must own Succission, and those polluted Hands, etc.  
Answ. Your Argument speaks thus, If you will have no Ordination without Imposition of Hands, according to Scripture, than you must own Succession. So I will: Was Imposition of Hands in Ordination, an Invention of Rome, or an Institution of God? the Papists can prove their Act in this Point by Scripture, so cannot you.  
2. Mr. Robinson, Mr. Johnson, tho' rigid old Separates, yet worthy Men, made light of this Argument, because it was God's own Appoinement  
3. You had best throw away Baptism, because their polluted Hands do administer it.  
4. This concerns the first Reformers. We receive our Ordination from godly and learned men, who hate and have cast off whatever is Romish, but not the Holy Scripture, because they pass through Rome to us.  
As to the Text you quote, Phillip 3.16. When eunto we have already attained, etc. this is nothing to our Case, nor will it heal.  
Several there were who did believe in Christ, and embraced the Gospel, but were not so clear in the total Abolition of the Ceremonial ●aw, as Rom. 14. shows: But however since they had believed in Christ, and embraced the Gospel, walk according to that Rule unto which you have attained, God will reveal more in time: The Case is nothing like. You have attained to Fasting and Prayer in Ordination, but not to Imposition of Hands. But Fasting and Prayer we use and may use in twenty Cases, but these Cases do not make twenty distinct Ordinances, though we Fast and Pray: It is but one Ordinance. But Separation to the Work of the Ministry is a distinct Ordinance.  
Secondly, They were to walk by the same Rule: But by what Rule do you walk? for the Rule is with Imposition of Hands, according to which you do not walk.   

SECT. iv  
AFter I had done with this Brother, there came to my Hand a little Book, put out by another Brother, who writes thus, All Church-Officers are made by Ordination, and Ordained alike; [is there no difference between Acts 6.6. and Acts; 3.3?] and that Ordination is not Imposition of Hands; and if the most be made of it, it's but a Ceremony annexed, which is now obsolete.  
It's But a Ceremony: Whose Ceremony is it? Did Man or God Institute it? If it be God's, methinks it is not com●●y for a Creature to cast a slighting But upon any of his Institutions. What was the whole Ceremonial Law? yea, What is Water in Baptism, Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper, setting by the Authority of him who did Institute them? the Image of a King stamped upon a Farthing, tho' but a Farthing, who dare refuse it?  
Though it be but a Ceremony, yet being God's Institution and Command, there is,  
1. Necessitas Praecepti anne●●ed to it, and it is Disobedience to his Institution to Omit it. The Spirit is pleased three times to set forth the whole Work of Ordination by this Ceremony [as you call it] alone.  
2. There is ●●c●ssitas Medii, in this sense, viz To the sending forth of a Person to Preach and Administer all Ordinances in God's House with Authority. Dr. Owen rightly calls it, The Symbol of Auth●itati●● Obsignation. Our Bre●●hren of Scotland call it, a Medi●m, of Communicating Authority to the Person Or●●ained. When the Presbytery Praying and Imposing Hands, do in the Name of the Lord Jesus, the King of his Church, Separate a Man to the Work of the Ministry, the Act carries Authority in it. By the Imposing their Hands, they do Impose the Charge, the Burden, the Work of the Ministry upon the Person in the Name of the Lord. Persons in Authority do in the Name of the Lord Convey Authority.  
The Apostle bids Timothy, 2 Tim 2.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Com●●● the things etc. the Persons must be first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fit to Teach other, 〈◊〉 Men, before he Commits them, this is plain. But then how doth Terothy Commit the thines to them, when he finds them such? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Commendatur depositum ●●●andum, & suo tempor● red●e●●●●●, Ear●●us. So the Sitia●k, D●●suit in sidem alle●jus.] That it is an Act of Authority, Luk. 12.48. is plain. Timothy does not Commit them by Election, that is the Act of the People you tell us; he could not do it by Conferring Gifts, he had no such Power: Besides, he must see they be such before he Commits them. He did not do it by Prayer for them, any might have so Committed as well as T●mothy, and Prayer is no Act of Authority; but when T●●●●●y Prays and Imbases Hands to separate them to the Work of the Ministry, which Pa●● charged him not to do it s●ddenly, 1 Tim. 5.22. Now he Commits them: Now Separation to the Work is seen, and not before. So that when the Presbytery do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
After I had done, I met with Mr. Gillesp●●s upon the Text, Mis●tl. p. 52. which he saith is a considerable Text against the So●inians and Anabaptists, 
What work these Gifted Brethren have made in Churches, we see to our shame.  [which this Practice of our Brethren, and crying up Oisted brethren's Preaching, have not a little strengthened, to the bringing in of Consusion and Disorder into the Church, as we see at this day, to the shame of Reformation] and he gives the sense of the Text as I have done, for Ordination, which in another place he saith must be with Imposition of Hands.  
As to his saying that it is a Coremony now Obsolete:  
I thought the Word Obtolete did connote a thing out of Date, out of Use, worn threadbare; but Imposition of Hands in Ordination, hath been used in the Jewish Church and the Christian Church in all Ages to this day, among all Churches; so that if it be obsolete, it must be only among some few Independents of yesterday standing, and is this sufficient to make it obsolete?  
One Word about Popular Election, because I see it is that which gives the Essence to a Minister in some men's Opinion.  
I am for the People's Election, provided it be regularly carried on; but that it makes a Minister, I cannot yield to that.  
Mr. Eliot and those I mentioned before, Preach to the Indians, God works with their Ministry, brings some to the Faith in Christ, they are form into a Church, they choose Mr. Eliot 
* Suppose it had been so.  to be their Minister, so than their Election makes Mr. Eliot a Minister; is not this pretty Logic, the Effect give the Essence to the Cause. If the People be visible Saints, they are ordinarily the Effect of the Ministry [tho' not of that particular Minister whom they choose it may be] as Ministers are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Workers together with God, 
1 Cor. 3.6. 2 Cor. 6.1.  Instruments in his Hand.  
2. If the Election of a Deacon do not give the Essence to a Deacon, than the Election of a Minister do not give the Essence to a Minister, but the Antecedent is true, Ergo.  
Unto all Church-Officers Election gives the Essence [as they say] and no wonder if the People be the first Subject of the Power of the Keys, as it is in these men's Opinion; then if it doth not give the Essence to a Deacon, than not to another Officer, nay, much less to a Minister; for the People may be more able to judge of an Officer to serve Tables, than they are able to judge of the Abilities and Soundness of a Man to be chosen a Minister: But it did not to a Deacon. Whom We may appoint over this B●sitess, Acts 6.3. say the Apostles. It was not their Election that did Constitute them Deacons, but the Apostles Authoritatively kppointing them over this Business. We appoint, not Y●● appoint. As Pharaoh appointed Joseph Governor over Egypt, Acts 7.10. the same Word, the Act of Authority.  
3. A Man whom God hath qualified, may be Ordained to the Work of the Ministry, tho' there he no People to Elect him: As if one having gotten the Language of some Heathens, he may go and Preach among them, and if God bless his Ministry he may Baptise them, if there be lent one or two at one time, as Philip did the Eunuch, and as the Aposles Paul and Bounabas, who were Ordained before they were sent forth to the Gentiles, [of which we see no need, as I said before, they carrying their Credentials with them, the Power of Miracles] but that Man cannot Baptise unless he be Ordained, he is not in Authority before he be Ordained.  
So that true Qualisication and Fitness for the Ministry, and Authoritative Separation to the Ministry makes A Minister: Election of the People makes him their Minister.  
4. Tho' I deny Election to give the Essence, yet suppose Election to be an Ingredient into it; where two things meet together to the Constitution of an Officer, Subjection and Authority, certainly Authority gives the Essence more than Sabmission; thus Dr. Owen, the People Electing Sabmit themselves; and Dr. Ames 
* Bellar. enera. to. 2. p. 87.  before him, answering Bellarmin, who made it strange, that Sheep should choose their Shepherd: Yes, saith Dr. Ames, rational Sheep may choose their Shepherd, not by Jurisdiction, but by Sabjection.  
5. The Scriptures which are for Ordination by Imposition of Hands are more in number, and far more clear than those for Election; the first Text which they bring for Election, Acts 1.15. this differs much from curs, for our Election is with Subjection to him whom the People Elect: But this was not so. Did Peter [the Pope will be angry if you tell him so] and the other Apostles sabject themselves to him whom they Chose? 2ly. It was choosing one of their own Order, not one above them, so does not Popular Election. 3ly. Tho' Peter did speak to all present, yet it does not appear that all present did choose, but the Apostles, for they could tell best, who had accompanied them all the time the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, V 21, 22. Surely all that were present could not tell who those were as the Apostles. 4ly. They gave forth their Lots, V 26. 5ly: They Prayed to the Lord, to show whether of these two Thou hast chosen, 24. Is this Text clear for Popular Election?  
The 6 Acts 3. is the clearest for Election, but not of a Pastor. The 14 Acts 23. is much Controverted, and these are all I meet with for Popular Election. But for the other, we have First, God's own Institution. Secondly, We have five Scriptures more in the New Testament, which are plain for it, which makes me wonder how it came about that any Men of Learning should put so much upon Election, that it should give the Essence to a Minister.  
6. The People's Election gives the Essence to a Minister: What, without his Acceptation? No sure. If ten Churches choose a Man, he may resuse them every one, he may have Reasons for it; Where then is the Essence their Election gives? my Acceptation is every whit as essential to my being a Minister, as their Election; why then is the Causality given to their Election? To be a Minister to them, that they may demand of me, and I be bound to administer all Ordinances to them, by way of Office, I grant here their Election and my Acceptation are essential: But to be A Minister, hath other Causes, where Popular Election hath no Cansality.  
That a People must subject themselves to a Minister, and perform all the Duties the Word of Go I require to a Minister, and yet not choose him, is Tyranny fit for Rome, not for the Church of Christ.  
This Notion of Popular Election giving the Essence to a Minister, is the ground of that Witty Distinction of a Minister's Preaching; if he Preach to his People that Chose him, than he Preaches as a Minisler, but if in another Church, then as a Cisted Brother. And hence they must not Administer the Sacraments in another Church, tho' there be need, and the Church desire; he must not Act as a Minister beyond them who gave him the Essence of a Minister: And this they would prove or illustrate from a Mayor of a Corporation, who out of his Corporation hath no Power.  
Ans. 1. In a Kingdom or Corporation 'tis sufficient there be a People first, of whom neither the King nor the Mayor are Causes in the least; in the Church 'tis not sufficient there be a People, but such a People, viz. Visible Saints, of whom God hath Ordained the Ministry, to be in his Hand the Instrument to make them such. So that the Ministry is first, and an Instrumental Cause to make them a People as such.  
2. The Work of a Mayor is to Govern only. A Minister hath other Work, to feed with Word and Sacraments, which they may do, when called to it, where they cannot Govern, as I showed before.  
3. The Catholic visible Church, made up of particular visible Churches, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ephes. 4.4. 1 Cor. 12.12. and we are all Members of that one Body, and the Members are bound to help one another, else 'tis contrary to the Light of Nature, 1 Cor. 12.25. But where do you read that all Corporations and Kingdoms make one Body of Christ.  
4. I think Pastors and Teachers are Ministers; the Apostle calls himself and others so, Ministers, 1 Cor. 3.5. The Apostles were Catholic Pastors to the Catholic Church 
* 2 Cor. 11.28. The Care of all the Churches.  Actu primo & secundo depended upon the Call of no Church to Act in that Church al. Acts of Power, yet Ministers. Hence we say the Ministry 
† 1 Tim. 1.12. 2 Tim. 4.5. Col. 4.17. , not ●he Pastorship. I then a Man be a Pastor of such a Church, both Actu primo & secundo, yet he is a Minister, and doth habitually actu primo, bear a respect to the Catholic Church, and may perform the Acts of a Minister to another Church that is in want, and cannot at present help themselves, and call upon him to help; for as he is a Minister, that Church which Called him was no Cause of that.  
What disserence is there between the Acts of a Pastor and a Minister? because I read one saying. He may Preath as a Minister, [which is better than a Gisted Brother] but not as a Pastor.  
This giving the Key to the Fraternity, as the first Subject of them, hath brought in that Sin which Mr. When [that Emitrent Servant of Christ, and my former Pastor] calls Koraism. 
* See M●. Quicks Sermo. a● Mr. Faldo 's Funeral, p. 22.  What Mr. Q●ick writes I am both an Eye and Earwitness to: About fitty sour Years since he Preached on Mar. 2.5. in Boston in New-England, and did think-the Peterman had Faith, because Christ tells him, his Sins were forgiven, but no Forgiveness without Faith; up risen one first, forsooth he was not satisfied, than another after him, than Mr. Cotton our Teacher he took up our Pastor's Case, and defended it, and ten, one after another, fell upon him: Tho' the Text does not say, when Jesus saw his, but their Faith, it doth not follow but the Palsie-man might be included in the word their; and his Faith put them on, both the Bearers and Palsie-man had Faith. This was too common in that Church, though the most public, where Seamen and all Strangers came. Sir Henry Vane was the Man that did embolden them, when Ministers had done Preaching, he would find Questions to put to them, though they were Strangers.    

Second Question.  
AReverend Author out of a Book composed [as he tells us] by several Bishops and great Doctors, and approved by Authority, in King Henry the Eighth's days, hath Collected these Propositions:  
First, That a Parochial or Congregational-Church Government, is accordint to the Church of England, jure Divino,  
Secondly, That the Diocesan or National Government is jure Hamano.  
Thirdly, That Protestants [except some obscure Writer] assert, Particular Churches to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church-Government.  
Among whom, saith he, there are these differences:  
1. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from the Congregational about the Extent of particular Churches, i. e. the Congregational concludes there must be no more than are capable of Personal Communion: The former make a greater extent, and give too great advantage to Papacy.  
2. They differ concerning the Nature of Discipline; the Congregational being esteemed an Espouser of a Democracy, the Presbyterian of an Aristocracy, the Episcopal of Monarchy.  
[But Maccovius 
a Theol. Polem. p. 161. , Keckerman 
b Syst. Theol. p. 3.  mention another, Aristo Democratical, and Dr. Ames 
c Medul. Theol. p. 1. c. 33. thes. 20.  seems to be of the same judgement]  
Fourthly, All Protestants agree in afferting the Independency of particular Churches.  
Thus far my Author.  
That we may understand one another clearly: Suppose we then that all the Christians in England, that dwell in their several Parishes, were such as deserved the Name of Visible Saints; these meet every Lordsday in their Parish-Church [as they call it] to Worship God, where there is but one Pastor. [Lecturers and Readers are but in few Parishes in the Country, nor have they any Power in Church-Government.]  
1. Are these the particular Churches you mean, by the words Parochial and Congregational? I suppose my Brother means so.  
2. Is every such particular Church the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Power of the Keys?  
3. Are all these Independert? my Brother hath said it.  
First, I desire my Brother would Name one such Church, which the Apostles did Constitute but with one Teaching Elder or Paster.  
Secondly, How you may persuade the Pastor to admit the People to be Rulers with them, I cannot tell, but I doubt we should have a Monarclical-Government set up in every Parish in England, which you say the Bishops espouse.  
Mr. Norton, as acute and Learned Divine as New-England had, being at a Meeting of about forty Elders, one that was newly come into the Country was reading to the Elders what his Judgement was about Church-Government: He would have it to be Democratical, quoting Morellus several times: What have we to do with Mor●llus, said Mr. Norton to me; if I cannot prove the Government of the Church to be Presbyterial, I will give up our Cause.  
Thirdly, If all these particular Churches be Independent, I fear we should have wild do, Experience have proved it already. 
At this day we see woeful effects of it.  If there be one or two Gentlemen, of Purse, Piety and Parts, that stick close to the Minister, and awe the People, things may go on quietly; else if there be but two Self-conceited, pragmatical Fellows, as I have known, you should soon see what will become of your Parochial-government.  
Fourthly, Suppose the Pastor be foully scandalised by some of his Church, one or more, how shall the Government be carried on? shall he be Plaintiff and Judge in his own Case? I have known a Case where a Pastor had great Offence given, I propounded the Case to Dr. Owen 
* And Mr. Faldo. , whether that Pastor should proceed according to Matth. 18.15, 16? he told me by no means, when he heard my Reason. We shall meet with hard Cases if we come to set to Government indeed.  
Fifthly, Suppose the Pastor himself grow scandalous, how shall Government be carried on now?  
Sixthly, Good Men and Ministers are subject to Passions and Infirmities, whence it is not fit the Government of the Church should be Committed to One alone.  
Seventhly, To Govern will is a Gist by itself; a Man may be a good Preacher, but no good Governor.  
Eighthly, When our Lord sent out the Apostles, and the Seventy, only to Pre●●●, he sent them out by two and two, Mar. 6.7. L●k. 10.1. Now a single Paster undertakes all.  
Ninthly, The Jewish Synagogues bade several Elders to carry on the Government in one of their Synagogues, and we but one, 〈◊〉 vident O●●li, quam O●ul●s.  
It is true, our Pastor with his People may truly be called a Church; as that Woman who had no Arms, but held be Pen between her Toes, and so wrote, 〈◊〉 have seen of her Writing 〈◊〉 may well be said to be Animal rationale, a r●●io●●● Creature; but had God made the W●●an so at first, the Woman had not been a 〈…〉 to Man So here is a Company of V●●ible Stints, one Pa●●or, here is Preaching, Prayer, Administration of Sacraments, and in some Cases Excresse of Discipline, so that it is a true Church, but not such a Church as the Aposlles sent by Christ did Constitute, 〈◊〉 to answer all ends of a Church; 'tis imperfect, defective, and our Duty is to write after that Copy the Apostles of Christ have set us.  
Dr. Owen hath proved there aught to be many Elders in every Church, 
2d. Part of the Church, p. 138.  by Scriptures and Reasons, I think sufficiently.  
Soon after the Apostles in the Primitive Churches, Mr. Clarkson in his Discourse against Diocesan Churches [his first Book, p. 5.21.] hath shown there were more Presbyters in every Church than were necessary.  
In those Virgin Churches in the Valleys of Piedmont, which were never defiled with Popery, but kept pure from the Apostles days, [where I find Ordination was with Imposition of Hands, contrary to our Men] I read in their low Condition seven Elders made a Classis; they carried on their Government by joint Councils; they had their Consistories, and 140 Pastors heretofore in a Synod.  
Whence, this one Teaching Elder, or a single Pastor in a Church, is a Novel thing, different from the Apostles, and the Practices of the best Churches.  
The last time I was with Dr. Owen, discoursing, with him about Church-Government, he was saying to me, I would said know whether the Government of the House of God be likely to be most prevalent, being carried on by one single Pastor, or by many Elders met together, and Acting in the Name of the Lord? I think the Question may be easily Answered, and in Order to it, I state the Question:  Quest. Whether unto the right Constitution of a particular Gospel-Church, it be Necessary that all the Officers and Members of the Church do meet together in one place at one time, to Celebrate all the Institutions of Christ? 
The Learned Dr. Owen having changed his Opinion from what it was when he wrote his Country Essay for the practice of Church-Government; 
p. 5●.  when he would have the extreme of the Division not above eight or ten Miles, so the Centre not more than four or five Miles from any part of it, etc. He now tells us, To manifest that Assemblies of the whole Church, at once and in one place, for the Celebration of Divine Worship, is of the Essence of a Church, without which it hath no real Being,— the Lord appointed the Males which were the Circumcised Church, should appear in one place three times a Year, Exod. 23 14. Deut. 16.16.  
I did not think that Place being but a Subject, and Time an Adjunct, should be Essential to a Church; yea, so as no real Being without them.  
Neither am I satisfied with this Proof: For their Meetings three times a Year, were to perform three particular Services, proper to the Jews, and that but once a Year, and that day the Law appointed, and no other, we have no such Appointments under the Gospel: The Lord's Supper which answers the Paslover, was Celebrated every Lordsday in the Primitive Churches.  
2ly. Only the Males appeared then: We think Women and Children as well as then Children, are Members of the Church, and aught to appear with the Males, to Worship God every Lordsday.  
3ly. When they were in Jerusalem, the Metropolis of the Kingdom, how did their eating the Passover in a thousand, it may be two thousand several Houses, answer our Partaking of the Lords Supper at one Table in one particular Church? we should have so many Churches: The other Feasts were proper to them.  
Nor could they meet in the Court all at one time to Worship God, there being in David's time, 
1 Chron. 21.5, 6.  one Million, five hundred and seventy thousand men [besides the Tribes of Benjamin and L●●i] that drew Sword.  
The Dr. tells us, 
1st. Book, p. 87. & 353.  The Members of such a Church may and aught to meet occasionally in distinct Assemblies, especialty in times of Persecution, for Prayer, Preading of the Word, mutual Exhortation, etc. And in another place, The constant meeting in one place is not best for Edisication.  
Since he mentions Preaching of the Word, I suppose he means their Officers are with them to Preach to them, and why not then as well to Administer the Lords Supper as to Preach? one Scripture against it I would gladly see. To Baptise, they do not question. There were three Teaching Elders in Dr. Owen's Church, [the only Church that I know of in England, that came up to the Apostolical Pattern] these three might meet together with their Members in times of Persecution, especially in three distinct Assembles, consequently Places, to Pray, to Preach, to Baptise, and to Administer the Lords Supper, for any thing I know out of God's Word: Then may not we meet in distinct Assemblies to such Ends, and yet be but one particular Church, as his was; but for other Ends we may meet in one place.  
So in the Country Villages we may have many Elders in one particular Church, as he saith there aught to be, else I know not how we shall do for Churches in the Country.  
But to come to the Question: If the whole Church meeting together in one place, and at one time, be essential to a Church, and it hath no real ●eing without it, than it must be proved: 1. Either from Divine Precept. Or, 2. From the Examples of the Churches planted by the Apostles. Or, 3. From forcing Reasons drawn from the Ends of Worship.  
For the first, I see none named, but Example is the Proof, and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mentioned in the Acts and Corinthians, are the Cornerstone of this Building; five times pious and learned Amts quotes these words: 
* Vol. 2. p. 755.  Dr. Lightsoot hath spoken very clearly to these words against it.  
I grant, where there are many Elders and much People dwelling so that they can meet conveniently in one place, to carry on all Church-work, as was the Case of all the Churches we read of in the Gospel, being in Cities, there is a particular Church without any question. So I yield to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But I wish these Men who are so rigid for one place, had but the experience in themselves which I have observed in others. Precious Christians, who had no Coaches nor Horses to carry them, but crazy Bodies, yet longing for the Ordinances, which they might have had, if my Notion might prevail, within two Stones cast, but for this Notion of the One Place they must Travel two Miles; they do so, but when they come home at Night, they are so spent and tired that to Bed they must go, the next day came Complaining to me, they had lost the Benefit of the Ordinances, they could mind nothing but their Pain. Many Christians having infirm Bodies must nor enjoy the Ordinances at all, when they might have them the next door: Hath God no respect to the Bodies of his People?  
As to the Examples he brings, the Question is, Whether there were no more Christians in these Cities than could meet in one place? if not, then 'tis no more than I have yielded before; for these had many Elders in them to carry on all Church-work, which the Dr. faith ought to be, and is the thing I stand upon, from the Apostolical Constitution of Churches.  
But if his Argument from Examples be so Cogent, than he must bring us Examples out of these Cities, where there were more Christians than could meet in one place, at one time, and so were forced to meet in more places, and these made more distinct Churches. If these Examples can be brought, than I yield the Question from Examples.  
But if no such Examples can be brought, [as I am sure there is not one in all the Gospel] then the Argument from Examples falls, and is of no force.  
Obj. If they did meet in distinct places, they were, and must be distinct Churches?  
Answ. But his Proof is all from Example, and that implies there were such Churches de facto, else there could be no Example.  
2. I deny the Consequence; for tho' a Number of Christians did swarm out of the first Church, yet they might have but one Teaching Elder, and so could not carry on all Church-work; and there ought to be many Elders in one Church, saith the Dr. be they six or seven Congregations, it comes to the same. I have heard that in Lantashire there is one great Parish Church, and several Chapels belong unto it, in which Ministers Preach and Administer the Lords Supper, which do shadow out what I aim at.  
As to the Examples which are brought, Mede and Fuller, Men of great Learning, tell us, that in the first Century, Christians had a room Dedicated and Appropriated to the Worship of God, [what their Design is I leave] yet they tell us it was but a room in some private Disciples House: Nor in the second Century had they public Places to meet in, say our Homilies against Idolatry, lib. 2. p. 66.  
The Lord tells Paul, Acts 18.10. I have much People in Corinth: How much? so much as may meet in one place in a private Disciple's House, when their Tables for their Love-Feasts, etc. are set: This is much honour to the Text.  
Several of the Fathers understand the word Church, in 1 Corinth. 11.18. to be meant the place where the Church met; Contin●ns pro Continento, and I think it may be so well understood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these were the Church of the believing Corinthians, that met together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Church. The Church here is opposed to their own Houses, v. 22. then I know nothing against it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the 14 chap. 34. may be so understood, Let your Women keep silence in the Churches; not in the Church, as in the 18th. V but Churches; so that they met in more places than one, in Corinth, yet but one Church, 2 Cor. 2.1.  
Our last Annotator Translate the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the 20th. V for the same thing, not the same place, and I think his Reason is good; and I have wondered that Learned Men should render the words so in Acts 2.44. Dr. Lightfoot saith the words cannot be so rendered, and gives other significations of the words, that they will not prove the Question.  
As for the Church in Ephesus, which is another Example brought, Paul continued there three Years, Acts 20.31. The reason of his stay, a great and essectual door is opened, 1 Cor. 16.8, 9 The Word of God grew mightily, Acts 19.20. It grew so, that they dare venture to burn the Books that were of Value among the Ephesians, before the face of the People, valued at eight hundred Pounds the least, Acts 19.19. Both Jews and Gentiles came in, Acts 19.10, 17. And how many Christians have we now in Ephesus? so many as may meet in one room in a private Disciples House. Paul's great door, and his word mightily, had better been spared, for this is but a disgrace to the Text.  
As for what J●stin Martyr writes, that the Christians in the Towns and Villages met on the Sunday. 1. How many were there in the Villages? 2. Had they any Pastor in the Villages? 3. How far were these Villages from the Towns? Justin Martyr saith nothing to these Heads.  
Come lower to the Year 252. when the Quarrel was between Cornelius and Novatianus. Cornelius in his Epistle to Fabius' faith of Novatian●s, He was Ignorant there ought to be but one Bishop in that Church [of Rome] in which were forty six Presbyters, seven Deacons, etc.  
A little Digression. One Bishop in Rome. Was not Rome a Metropolis, where the Seat of the Emperor was? but than it should have been Archbishop; but Cornelius saith one Bishop in that Church [of Rome.] And to this day we call the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, not Archbishop of Rome. Simple Bishop can content Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Cornelius Bishop of Rome, which two Cities caused bloody Battles, which of them should be the Empress of the World. How they then can be esteemed Men of Truth, we may easily judge, that dare Preach and Print, the seven Angels of the seven Churches in Asia were seven Arch-Bishops, when one hundred and sixty Years after those Churches, there was no Archbishop in those great Cities.  
But to go on— concerning the Church of Jerusalem, I Consent to what he saith, and let it stand for our Rule to Act by; of it Dr. Owen thus writes, This Church of Jerusalem, thus called and collected out of the Church of the Jews, was the Rule and Pattern of the Disposing of all the Disciples of Christ into Church Societies, in Obidience to his Command throughout the World, Catechis. p. 85. let this stand.  
How many thousands of Disciples did belong to this Church of Jerusalem, we cannot tell; but this we find, Acts 4.4. there were five thousand at that time; and Acts 5.14. Multitudes of Men and Women now were added to those five thousand: In the 6 Act. 7. we read the Number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly: I suppose no Man will say these were such as we read of 2 Act. 5.9. Strangers; if they were, yet it hurts not me, they were all of this Church; and we know Members of Independent Churches in London lived forty Miles distant from them: Here was Prayer, Preaching, Administration of both Sacraments, Election and Ordination of Officers; Terrible Discipline, if I might so call it, upon Ananias and Saphira. But was all this in one place? No sure; when there were but the three thousand added, they Broke Bread, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
Act. 2.46.  Beza and Grotius speak fully to my purpose as to the distinct places; and that by Breaking of Bread the Lord's Supper is intended, as in the 42 v. the Salmur Divines, A Lapide, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Owen, Mr. Baxter, and others whom I mention not, do all agree. Nor do I think there is any Man will say they did all partake of the Lords Supper in one House, at one time; much less than afterwards. Thus was their Preaching, Act. 5.42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
It is certain than they met in several distinct places, both to Preach and Administer the Sacrament, yet but one Church. How long it was between the day of Pentecost and Stephen's Death, I know not; but so long thus was their Practice, and had been longer, if that Persecution had not befallen them.  
If then the meeting in one place had been so essential to a Church as the Dr. makes it, we should have seen it here. Surely the Apostles, with whom our Lord had been speaking concerning the things pertaining to his Kingdom, 1 Act. 3. so lately, would not do any thing contra-essential to a Church. Yea, here was matter ready prepared for several particular Churches, meeting in several distinct places, for Divine Worship, had the Lord pleased to have declared that it was his Will, that meeting in every such distinct place, should make a particular Church, and so have given a Pattern, how all particular Churches should be Constituted: Here wanted nothing, I say, but the Declaration of his Will.  
We have heard in the time of our Persecution, that several thousands of the Scots met in one Field, to Administer and partake of the Lords Supper. Tho' it was not a House, it was a Place, yet we do not read that ever the Apostles did so much as once call all the Church together into one place, to Administer the Lords Supper, that they might leave one Example at least, that in every Church there must be but One Table, or one Altar as some call it; which they might easily have done, had one place in their Judgement [mwn guided by the Spirit] been so essential to a Church as some make it now.  
Many thousands of particular Churches make up One Body of Christ: Why then so many particular Congregations [where the Members of one Congregation are known to the others] as there may be Elders sufficient to carry on all Church-work, may not make one particular Church, I know not. It is certain, that where only one Pastor, with a Parochial Congregation make a Church, all the Ends of Churches cannot be attained; not only Reason, but Experience also hath sufficiently proved it.  
Where a Congregation is so far remote from others, and so poor that it cannot maintain one Pastor well, such a People must do as well as they can; but where Congregations are nearer, tho' they be poor, [as I know sew that are not] yet they may Coalesce into one Church, to attain all Church-Ends, so far as our Performance of Duties to those Ends may conduce.  
Suppose there were seven Teaching Elders in a particular Church, there is but One of these that Pray, Preach, Administer the Sacraments, Order the Singing, at one time, all the rest put forth no Official Act, but are Attendants, as the Private Brethren. But if these seven were in seven Congregations, every one is at work, performing these Acts. As for other Official Acts, as Exercise of Discipline, Ordination, Election of Officers, etc. they may all meet together, and Act jointly; and thus it was in our Mother Church in Jerusalem, which is more to me than all that is said for One Place, One Altar, One Bishop. I cannot call to mind any Church-End, but may be attained as well this way, as if they met in one place always, and better.  
FINIS.