OF SCHISM. PAROCHIAL CONGREGATIONS IN ENGLAND, AND Ordination by Imposition of Hands.  
Wherein Dr. Owen's Discovery of the True Nature of Schism is briefly and friendly examined, together with Mr. Noyes of New England his Arguments against Imposition of hands in Ordination.  
By GILES FIRMIN, Sometime of New England, now Pastor of the Church at Shalford in Essex.  1 Cor. 12.25. That there should be no Schism in the body. 1 Chron. 15.13. The Lord our God made a breach upon us for that we sought him not after the due order. 
LONDON, Printed by T. C. for Nathanael Webb, and William Grantham, at the Bear in Paul's Churchyard, near the little North door of Paul's, 1658.   

To the Reverend the Associated Ministers in the County of Essex.  
Fathers and Brethren,  
EIther we have dealt hypocritically with God and man, or else the Divisions in these poor Churches have lain upon the hearts of the godly in England as an afflicting evil. The Civil Power have seemed to be so sensible of this evil, that more than once it hath been numbered amongst the causes in their Orders for our Solemn and Public Humiliations; if our Fast-days, Prayers, Sermons, Books, etc. may be believed, than the breaches in our Churches have broken our comforts. For my part I have cause to take shame, and to ask pardon of God that this sin which hath wrought so much evil, and brought such dishonour to Christ, have no more affected me; it is for them whose hearts are most divided from self, and united to God, to be indeed affected and afflicted with Divisions in the Church. I look on it as an act of a grown Christian, whose Interest in Christ is well cleared, and his heart walking close with God, to be really taken up with the public Interest of Christ. I will not measure other men's hearts by my own, but I must say for myself, the good Lord pardon my hypocrisy in this point, for to be affected as become Christians for Divisions among Christians, I find it a hard matter, whatever words seem to affirm.  
Can I joy in myself, I should be glad that I lived to see the day when the Lord put it into two or three of your hearts to try what might be done for the healing of our breaches, and thereupon to call some of your Brethren together to see if we could agree so far that we might Associate together, as some of our Brethren in other Countries have done: and let me leave this upon record, so long as this poor Script shall last, for the honour of the Presbyterial Brethren, as they were the first movers for peace, so they have bidden fair for peace; had our Congregational Brethren [whose persons, gifts, and graces I desire to honour and love] been but answerable, we might have had cause to have joined together in praises for our healing, as we have had, and still have cause to mourn for our breaches.  
It is not to be forgotten how the good hand of God went along with us; for though we were men of different principles who were chosen to draw up the agreement, and we met near twenty times before we could finish, yet not unbrotherly clashing was heard amongst us; but so soon as we saw each others principles to be fixed, presently we were called off from Disputing, and the next words were, Come, let us see how we can Accommodate; let the blessing of Matth. 5.9. fall upon such hearts.  
Were it true that uniting with our Brethren in this Association, were a dividing of our hearts from God, as one of our Congregational Brethren did intimate in a Sermon of his upon Hos. 10.2. than I wonder not though he so soon deserted us, and that others stand off from us. For this he said was one note of the heart divided from God, when the heart did not fully come up to God: and under this head brought in such who did fashion and mould themselves in State and Church according to the Mode of the Times, though contrary to their own principles and light, across to [or laying by] the Institutions of Christ, when as the Text saith, Jer. 15.19. If thou separate the precious from the vile, etc. our Brother's aim was understood by divers in the Congregation, and unto him I shall return this answer.  
If he means I have gone contrary to my own principles and light, he is mistaken extremely. If he meant he and other Congregational men must do so if they Associate, how can this possibly be, when it was one of our foundations we laid for agreement, and it was professed again and again, that we went not about to take any man off from his Principles? I wish our Brother had instanced what Institution of Christ we crossed or laid by.  
For the Scripture he alleged, let us see how this suits our case; the Presbyterial Brethren do not indeed separate as do he and others, but doth he therefore upon this Text stand off? I find five several expositions of the words, and very few who take the word Precious for to relate to Persons. But I will give my Brother that sense, Let it be meant of Persons, 
The Arabic word which the Translator render Honestus Golius renders generosus, nobilis. And the other (Dalilon) abjectus, ullis contemptus.  as Piscator thinks it most proper, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alibi de persona tantùm dicitur. And so the Interlineary gloss. Now the question is, 1. Who are meant by Precious? 2. How Jeremiah was to separate these Precious from the Vile.  
For the first, those who do Interpret it of Persons do all understand real Saints; and here standing so in opposition to others it must needs be meant so. Obj. If he will say, that doth not follow; for all Israel were called holy, and that in as high a word as precious. I answer, The Lord speaks of these who were called holy, and yet here commands the separation of the Precious from the Vile; therefore it must be meant of real Saints. I could say more but spare.  
2. For the second, How did he separate, either by Doctrine, or Discipline. Not by Discipline [which must serve my Brother's purpose.] For  
First, To separate real Saints from vile by Discipline is a hard work indeed, and such a task as the Lord never put his Ministers to; who knew men's hearts? then the Congregational Brethren must look to it that all their members are real Saints.  
1. But if my Brother saith, by precious real Saints are not meant but visible, though not so really. [Besides that all were called holy.] This my Brother must prove, and then tell us what he means by a visible Saint. But however separation by Discipline cannot be meant. For  
2. Jeremiah then had a strange task, for he had no particular Church as we; and for him to separate all visible Saints from the vile in the Jewish Church by Discipline were a strange and impossible work.  
3. Jeremiah a single Priest could not do it; as all that know the Jewish governments will confess.  
4. But put case it were so, yet this hinders not his Associating with our Brethren, who desire him but to Associate, where they do separate the precious from the vile by Discipline.  
Since then this separation was Doctrinal, as all Divines upon the Text acknowledge, then whether the Prebyterial Brethren [very many of them at least] do not separate as well as himself, I desire my Brother to consider. For the last words which he also used, Let them return to thee, but return not thou unto them. Doth my Brother indeed parallel our Associated Brethren with those who are meant by them? Let the Presbyterial Brethren return to the Congregational, not they to them: I should not have dared to have made such a parallel.  
I shall only put this Brother in mind what he then said against those who dare departed from standing Commandments, and desire him to consider whether he never read of a standing (to use his own words). Commandment, repeated again and again, that we should follow the things which make for peace, and whether he, with our Brethren who stand off, have answered that Commandment, sober Congregational men shall judge.  
Let me leave with our Brethren a few lines which I received a few weaks since from that learned and godly Divine Mr. Norton, [Teacher of the Church in Boston in N. England] in a Letter to me. The Association you mention amongst the Ministers we much rejoice in, I never thought it better than human, but oftentimes worse, that the Presbyterian and Congregational men cannot close together in Brotherly Communion. The power of godliness interest us in the affections of the godly, above the notions of either of them considered apart therefrom. I believe the Congregational way to be the truth: yet I think better of many Presbyterians then of many Congregational men. 'Tis no wonder if Independents are unruly, for I distinguish between Independents and Congregational men; or rather such [call themselves as they please] that will not acknowledge the rule of the Presbytery, and the order of Councils Thus far this reverend and great Divine. I am sure our Association reaches no higher than a Council.  
As for our Brethren who will not Associate till they see the Civil Magistrate set his stamp of Authority upon this way of Association, whatever the late Instrument made by the Parliament allows us, though they see Anabaptists and Congregational Churches, and other Associated Counties to exercise Discipline without any scruple, though they would quarrel with an Erastian Magistrate, that should deny any such power to belong to Churches, yea, though some of these can suspend from the Lord's Supper whom they please, we must leave these to their own wisdom, and desire them to convince the Magistrate so that he may be able to see clearly that the government of the Church is either Episcopal, Classical, or Congregational, and so establish one; or if the Magistrate be not so clear in either, but yet willing to favour any of these, the persons being godly and peaceable, [as he doth] then let these Brethren consider whether the want of Church-Discipline be a fault to be charged most upon the Magistrate or upon themselves.  
To return to you then [Fathers and Brethren] in a few words. Hitherto God hath brought us; the work we have engaged in is to most [if not all of us] new, and such a work as many of those who have been exercised in it, have so often miscarried in, that the Ordinance of Discipline hath suffered much dishonour: and that which adds to the difficulty, we set to it in such times wherein the Ministry is so much reviled by Sectaries, and as to this work much contemned by the Gentry, and our Episcopal Divines; one of which [and whom I honour] said to me, That we were no more fit to manage the government of the Church of England then David Saul 's Armour. We boast not of our fitness, but for the government of the Church by such Bishops [though I highly reverence some of them] they have no such cause to boast, as witness the Churches they have left us miserably overgrown with ignorance and profanness; had we so many hundreds [or thousands] of pounds per annum, such honour and regal power to stick to us as had they, I hope the Churches might be governed as well as they were before, and be purged a little from that ignorance and profaneness which now we find them in.  
But we must go to our work without Saul's Armour. I am sensible how much wisdom and prudence this work calls for; all my comfort is, Christ of God is made to us wisdom, etc. 1 Cor. 1. I take care for nothing but for Faith, Humility, and Prayer, to fetch this wisdom from our King and Head, and leave the success to him who did institute this Ordinance.  
Your fellow labourer in the work of the Gospel, GILES FIRMIN. Shalford 2. of the 2. Month, 1658.   

An Advertisement of two Books lately published by this Author.  
Mr. Giles Firmin. Viz. 1. Stablishing against Shaking, being a discovery of the Quakers.  
2. The Power of the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion vindicated, and the extent of it determined. By Mr. Stephen Martial, published by his own Copy since his death, with notes upon it.   


CHAP. I. A brief and friendly examination of Dr. Owen 's discovery of the Nature of Schism.  
SEveral definitions of Schism both ancient and modern the Doctor recites, none of which give him content. Austin [he saith] suited his definition directly to the cause he had in hand against the Donatists: for the rest they do not satisfy him; then offers his definition, being the definition which agrees with Scripture, to which he appeals, and esteems this appeal to be necessary and reasonable. I am of the Doctor's mind, and wish we had kept there all this time; for while some men made Providence their Bible, others make Antiquity theirs, they have made us by woeful experience know the evil effects of walking by such Canons. Providences & antiquity are excellent things to confirm us when they have clear Scriptures stand before them as Figures before Ciphers; and if men would reduce their actions and disputes to this Head, by which one day we shall be judged, Rom. 2. [and not by Providences or Antiquity] as we might have spared many of our troubles, so we might sooner come to the closing up of our breaches, which I perceive is one part of the Doctor's aim, but I can hardly believe will ever effect the Cure: For suppose he can convince men that this separation from Churches is not Schism in the precise notion [as he often mentions] of Scripture; yet if they apprehend it to be something else as bad, and it may be worse, his book will prove ineffectual to the healing of our wounds.  
Thus than he defines Schisin, p. 51, 52. It is a causeless difference or division amongst the members of any particular Church that meet together, or aught so to do, for the worship of God and celebration of the same numerical ordinances to the disturbance of the order appointed by Jesus Christ, and contrary to that exercise of love in wisdom and mutual forbearance which is required of them.  
Two things I gather from this definition, and the Doctor's discourse in his Books.  
1. That he confines Schism to a particular Church only.  
2. If Divisions in a particular Church grow so high that divers of the members do causelessly make a Separation from the Church, holding Communion with themselves apart, that this is not Schism in the precise notion, however for disputation-sake against the Romanists and the Episcopal-men he may yield it to be so. The withdrawing from any Church or Society whatever upon the plea of its corruption, be it true of false, with a mind and resolution to serve God in the due observation of Church Institutions, according to that light which men have received, is not where called Schism, p. 46, & 77. And Rev. p. 83.  
It is not called Schism, ergo it is not Schism. Will the consequence hold, if the plea be false? What is it called? I pray. Welfare an erroneous conscience; but suppose upon a false plea such a conscience should raise divisions in a Church, according to the definition, without separating from the Church; were it Schism or not?  
I thought by one passage in the Doctor's Pre-view, p. 54. I had mistaken him; for thus he speaks to Mr. C. If he suppose that I deny that to be Schism where there is a separation, and that because there is a separation, as though Schism were in its whole nature exclusive of all separation, and lost its being when separation ensued; he hath taken my mind as rightly as he hath done the whole design of my book. But adds withal, Because this is not proved, I shall desire him not to make use of it for the future, as though it were so. These words I did not observe till I had done.  
1. If Schism in its whole nature will include causeless separation from a particular Church, and this according to Scripture warrant, than the false plea of an erroneous conscience for causeless separation from a Church, upon pretence of serving God in his Institutions, according to its light, must be Schism whether it be called so or not, unless you can tell us how else it is called.  
2. Why then doth the Doctor pass by the definition of Schism so generally received? for he knows this is the thing which hath given that great offence, separation from true Churches; and that which must satisfy here must be to prove that all this separation is just and warrantable by Scripture; and if so, I know not who can charge these men with Schism, nor any thing else in so separating: so that there was no need of departing from the definition generally received, and giving a new one, of which I know no use: unless, First, To show there can be no Schism in the Catholic Church: And secondly, To show that Church-Members may be guilty of Schism, though they do not separate into parties, and so show that our Churches are more guilty of Schism than we are ware of, which I believe to be true; but this will bring no honour I doubt to some Congregational Churches. Alas, what Schisms have we known? this is so common a thing that a Divine whom I know, [and so doth the Doctor] once a high Congregational man, suffered much under that name, for whom my principles were not straight enough, [but now he looks on me as erroneous, and too straight, though I am the same I was then] being now turned about, and against all Congregational Churches, saith this of them, they will all break in pieces and come to nothing.  
3. Let the Reader be pleased to observe these passages in his books, than judge if I mistake him.  
1. In the same book where he speaks so to Mr. C. who had said there was a separation into parties in the Church of Corinth; this the Doctor stiffly denies, p. 70. and in p. 62. saith, The Schism the Apostle rebuked consisted in Division in it, and not in separation from it. Then in p. 72. What that Schism was from which he dehorts them, he declares only in the instance of the Church of Corinth; and thence is the measure of it to be taken in reference to all dehorted from it.  
Hence than we must dehort men from divisions in the Church, as being Schism, the measure allows it; but we must not dehort them from causeless separation from a Church as being Schism, because that only instance, which is the measure, doth not call it Schism. If that instance be the measure, what then doth not punctually agree with it is not Schism.  
2. In his book of Schism, p. 42. To this Q. [If any one now shall say, will you conclude because this evil mentioned by the Apostle is Schism, therefore nothing else is so?] he saith, I answer, that having before asserted this to be the chief and only seat of the doctrine of Schism, I am inclinable so to do. This instance is the only seat of the doctrine of Schism; but this instance speaketh only of division in the Church, not of separation from it, saith he.  
3. P. 193. Ib. Take it for a particular Church of Christ, I deny that separation from a particular Church, as such, as merely separation, is Schism, or aught to be so esteemed; though perhaps such separation may proceed from Schism, and be also attended with other evils.  
Who ever said that mere separation, separating all moral considerations from it, just or unjust, was Schism? we are speaking of an unjust or causeless separation from a Church, is that Schism? No, it seems.  
Before this causeless separation, there was division most likely in the Church, and this is allowed to be Schism; this Schism at last produces separation causelessly, but this separation is not Schism, nor must be so esteemed, he saith. Compare this with his speech to Mr. C.  
4. The Doctor seems to define the whole nature of Schism, It is a causeless division among members, etc. meeting together for the celebration of the same numerical ordinances, etc.  
Had he thought there might be schismatical acts besides this Act in Corinth. viz. Causeless separation from a Church which was not here, (he saith) than his work was only to describe what was this Schism the Apostle reproves, and so should have said, This Schism was a causeless division, etc.  
But he defines, Schism is, etc. And this agreeth with the Title of his Book, which promiseth to show us the True nature of Schism, [hitherto mistaken it seems by all Divines] and that definition the Doctor only embraceth; and for others he can own them against the Romanists ex abundanti● but no definition hath given the true nature of it but his. Nor doth the Doctor find fault with other men's definitions, because they mistook this particular act of Schism in Corinth, [which it may be they never intended, but to give the whole nature of the sin, as Logicians should do, and the true definition of the sin will fetch in all particular Acts] but he looks upon them all as not giving the true nature of Schism according to the precise notion of Scripture.  
What then the Doctor means by his words to Mr. Ca I know not; these grounds I have laid down will clear that I am not mistaken in what I gather from him.  
I see in his Rev. p. 85. he finds fault with Mr. Ca because he had said that he delivered himself obscurely. But Mr. Ca is not the first man whom I have heard complain of obscurity in his book, but divers others; I could set down their expressions, but forbear. In several places I observe things are not clear, and should have taken some things in the same sense Mr. Ca hath done, for which the Doctor blames him. The Doctor then must pardon us though poor country-Ministers are not so quick of understanding to find out his meaning.  
So far then as I understand the Doctor, I am not in divers things satisfied, and in particular not with his definition, which I do not look upon as Logical. For, one rule of Definition is this. Definitio ne-sit angustior, neve latior suo definito, but the Doctor's definition is angustior suo definito. Therefore not logical. It is angustior in two respects. 1. It takes not in causeless separation from a Church, which I doubt not may be Schism. 2. It takes not in the Schism in the Catholic Church. The Doctor saith there can be none. Whether there can be no Schism from the Catholic Church, is a harder question, it would seem rather to be Apostasy, as saith the Doctor; yet I do almost think we may suppose Schism to be from the Catholic Church. But that there is Schism in the Catholic Church, I doubt not. Now if these two can be made good, than the Doctor's definition is not logical. Every definition must exhaurire totam naturam [specificam saltem] sui definiti, else not adequate, nor reciprocal, which must be.  
1. Then, Causeless separation from a Church may be Schism. Why I put in the word, May, I shall give the reason afterwards.  
But it may be the Doctor may say, That definition of Schism which only agreeth with Scripture, that, and that only, is the true definition of Schism. But such is mine. Ergo  
The Minor [which I shall deny] he proves from this instance of the Church in Corinth. Where is no mention made of Separation from a Church, there was only Division in a Church.  
The word Only I put into the proposition [and the Doctor himself speaks as much, Here is the chief and only seat of the doctrine of Schism, p. 42.] else though I yield such a definition agrees with a particular instance, yet it agreeth not with the whole specifical nature of the fin which we are enquiring into, and therefore not logical. Doth every Scripture-instance give a full definition of the fin forbidden? The Command saith Thou shalt not steal, in Exod. 22.2. I find mention made of a thief breaking in, etc. to which Christ alludes Mat. 24.43. Suppose there were no other instance of theft in all the Scripture, shall I now go set forth a book about the true nature of theft, and go to this Instance, and there ground my Definition, and say, Theft is an illegal and violent breaking into a man's house and taking away goods against the owner's will, and say nothing else can be Theft in the precise notion of Scripture, because the Scripture-instance calls nothing else theft? This were strange. Is not robbing at Sea theft, though no such instance is found in Scripture? That definition given, Furtum est ablatio injusta rei alienae invito domino, will fetch in all theft. It is true, every particular Act of any sin forbidden hath the specifical nature of that sin in it: If a man take my goods unjustly, whether it be at sea, or on the highway, out of my house openly or privately, and several other ways, all these have the specifical nature of theft in them, and theft is predicated of them; we do not make several definitions of theft because there are several Acts: Vnius rei una tantum est definitio. There may be divers degrees of the same sin [as there is of Schism] yet gradus non variant speciem. But we do not use to go to particular Acts of any sin, and out of such an Act fetch the definition of the sin confining the specifical nature [which is more large] to that individual or singular Act.  
So here. There is a command given, 1 Cor. 12.25. There must be no Schism in the body. Now if I would define Schism, must I go to a particular instance, and give a definition of the fi● from that, and say this is Schism, and nothing else, Division in a Church, but no causeless separation from a Church, because there is no instance given where such separation is called Schism; as if we had particular instances in Scripture of all the acts of sins forbidden in the ten commandments. It is true, that is Schism [i. e. the causeleffe Division in the Church of Corinth, though they did not separate from it into parties, whether they did or no, I pass not] which here the Apostle reproves: But is nothing else Schism? Put case the division had risen so high that Cephas and his company had separated from Apollo's and his company, and held communion apart by themselves, had not this been Schism? give a reason.  
Object. Such separation is not called Schism? Answ. It cannot be called so unless it were; the Doctor says it was not; we cannot expect the Scripture to give names to Acts as done, when they are not done. But ex hypothesi, I ask the question, if it had been so [as it is now common with us] that Cephas had separated causelessly, had it not been Schism? Certainly if Racha and thou fool be breaches of the sixth Command, then if one add to his word blows and wounds unjustly, that man is guilty of killing also: So if Cephas and his company will add Separation to Division, and that unjustly, let Cephas pretend what he will, it is Schism.  
There are divers professors in these days, have been and would be esteemed glorious ones still, who are so spiritual that they live above Ordinances [a carnal and wicked spirituality] they have their grounds and pleas why they do so, but we find no such Instance in all the Scripture, of men upon the plea of spiritualness to live above them. Now to which command shall we reduce this sin, certainly a sin it is; if I can find a command where the Lord hath instituted his external worship, and commanded all to attend upon it, thither I reduce it, to the second.  
So if men, though godly [for I know not but they have sin, and the Devil may abuse them] will causelessly separate, though they think not so, but plead this or that, because I find no such Instance in the Scripture, that men upon such pleas have separated, yet causeless separation is a sin opposite to the Union commanded; and I think Schism and Union are opposite.  
If the Doctor then will give me [a poor Countrey-Minister] leave, I will humbly propound the way I would take to find out the definition of Schism. I see it is a sin, and offenfive to Christ, 1 Cor. 12.25. Now what is opposite to this, what is the affirmative precept? Union of the members amongst themselves. This is the thing often commanded, the thing Christ's heart seemed to be fixed upon, John 17. when he was leaving the world, and that such Union as thereby the world may know whose disciples we are, as the Dr. p. 54. than I conceive Schism may be thus defined, 
Schism defined.  Schism is the solution of that Unity which Christ our Head requireth in his Visible Body. I am not in this place critical about the words Union or Unity; the Reader hath my meaning. I think the Dr. will not oppose this, for I find him enquiring exactly into the Union of the Invisible and Visible Church, etc. For the Invisible Church of Christ, there can be no Schism, saith the Doctor; hence I put it not in. It must be in his visible body, there I take in the Catholic Church [which I look on as most properly his Body-visible] and also particular Churches. I take this definition to be reciprocal, I do not call to mind any schismatical Act but it will comprehend it, whether it be Schism in a Church, or from a Church; in the Catholic or particular Churches: and yet my ground is Scriptural also, though I go not to a particular instance.  
1. Hence then let us see whether causeless separation from a Church be not properly Schism. Let us see what unity the Lord required of this Church; was it only that inward love and forbearance [which the Doctor mentions] which by their divisions the Apostle saw they had broken? Did he not also require that they should, as with reverence towards him, so with love one to another mutually and jointly attend upon their Head in all his holy worship and ordivances, Sacraments, etc. [The Doctors definition saith as much, Numerical Ordinances, etc.] If then Cephas and his company had causelessly made the division, and upon this separate from the rest, and not join with them in the Supper [wherein they show themselves to be One bread, Chap. 10.17.] and other Ordinances, dinances, did they not manifestly show a breach of that unity which the Lord required? must I not say, Cephas, you and your company are highly guilty of Schism? let the Reader judge. Thus then stands the argument.  
If causeless separation from a Church be a solution of that unity God requireth in his body, then causeless separation from a Church is Schism.  
But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, the Consequent is true. The Consequence is clear.  
2. In case these who made the Division in Corinth had separated from the other members, the Doctor grants it had been a greater sin, Rev. p. 68 Since than we must not call it Schism, let the Doctor give us another Scripture name for that sin; let him set down the opposite affirmative precept, and see if Union will not be found in it. I doubt he will hardly find another Scripture-name, for I think he will hardly find in all the Bible where godly men, or such as appeared so, dared ever to make a causeless separation from a Church. To say it is Apostasy, no stay; I will suppose those members who thus divide, to be persons sound in the main points of faith, in their conversation visibly godly, such as maintain the Ordinances of God amongst themselves [the very case of divers of ours] but corprution and error in this point hath divided Cephas and his company; now here is no Apostasy: And though it be a Church guilty of Schism, and so far a schismatical Church, yet a true Church. Hence I said a causeless separation, &c may be Schism, i. e. supposing they hold to what before I mentioned, else it fell from the faith, etc. it had been Apostasy, and not properly Schism, unless you will say both. Hence  

If causeless separation from a Church hath no other name given it in Scripture, nor can rationally be referred to any other head then. Schism, then causeless separation from a Church is Schism.  
But the Antecedent is true:  
ergo the Consequent is true.   
The consequence is clear, because it partakes of the nature of no sin, as of Schism: [provided those who separate be such as before I mentioned.]  
3. Since the Doctor makes this instance the only seat of the doctrine of Schism, and toeth us up so straight to it, I was thinking whether it would not hence follow that there can be no Schism in any Church but only in such Churches as do exactly answer this instance; & hence Schism must be only in such Churches where there are diversity of Officers, extraordinary gifts, differences about meats, etc. thus I hope most Churches are uncapable of Schism; and that sin will hardly be found in our days. It may be he will say, by consequence it will follow where there are causeless differences, where the form of the sin is found, there is the sin of Schism, though Churches do not answer Corinth.  
But what the Doctor saith, that the Scripture doth not call causeless separation from a Church Schism. So I can say, this Scripture instance, calls that only Schism, where some were for Cephas, others for Apollo's, etc.  
But further, let us inquire into the form of the sin where it is. In the division amongst the members to the disturbance of the order in the worship of God, etc. I wish the Doctor had told us how that order was disturbed; some things he doth mention, but whether all the disorder in the worship of God be recorded, I know not; and that which is recorded admits of some questions to be resolved before we can clearly understand it. As for the disturbance of the order, I suppose he doth not make that the form of the sin of Schism, nor part of it; I look on it rather as a consequent of the Schism, therefore not the form; neither do I look on Order and Schism properly as contrary, where Vnum uni tantum opponitur, they do not cominus inter se pugnare per proximas formas. Nor am I certain that there was ever Schism where yet some disorder have been found. I cannot tell that there was Schism amongst the Prophets. 1 Cor. 14. but some disorder there was in the exercise of their gifts, as it should seem by the last Verse, the Apostle calls for order.  
Ecclesiastical union causelessly dissolved, I take to be the form of Schism; this is it by which Schism is id quod est. If then the Doctor will allow that Schism may be in Churches by consequence, though the causes be not such as were in Corinth, north Churches parallel to Corinth in all things, because there is the form of that sin which was in Corinth called Schism; then if canseless separation from a Church, be Ecclesiastical union causelessly dissolved, there must needs by consequence be Schism also, for posita forma ponitur formatum.  
4. The Doctor tells us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used in the Scripture for secession, or separation into parties. Division it doth signify, but doth the propriety of the word forbidden it to signify Division into parties? in an Ecclesiastical sense it is used only in this particular example, (he saith) therefore it can signify no other. I suppose the Syriack Translator was not of the Doctor's mind, for he useth that word in the 11. ch. 18. & 12. ch. 25. which comes from the same root with Peleg. Gen. 10.25. Whence Peleg had his name the text tells us, and I think there was division into many parties: the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primitive signification will carry a division into parts. Matth. 27.51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I grant the Septuagint 
* Other Greek Versions I have not to see.  do not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Kin. 11.11, 31. yet why the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not be translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signify what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth, I know not. I conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a larger signification than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but comprehends what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth. This appears,  
1. By the Learned, who as they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by findo, scindo, so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 findere, scindere, qui pannum aut aliquod ejusmodi continuum dirumpit, etc. Buxt. Schind. Pagn. Merc. hence as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered scissura, so the 70. in v. 30, & 31, render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scissurae. So the vulgar render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 31. Nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signify the rending of a thing into parts [in opposition to the Doctor's notion] more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For among the Physicians a rapture in a membrane, the rending of a Muscle, they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though the part be not separated from the body; so Gorraeus.  
2. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament is used and applied to such things as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament, as to the rending of  here, and in divers other Texts. So is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 19.24. Matth. 27.51. Luke 5.36. John 21.11. so that though the Hebrews have two other words which the learned render scindere, findere, yet none [I conceive] answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this doth.  
There may be something in this that the Arabic in the 11. v. use that Verb, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  whence the Noun in 1 Cor. 12.25. comes. Whence I think we may properly say there was a great Schism in the Church and Commonwealth of Israel, and here was separation with a witness.  
To search over other Divines to see what they had said about Schism I thought it in vain, because the Doctor had laid a bar against them all, they are all mistaken, and so their authority is worth nothing; but when I had done, two men came into my mind, who were near to the Doctor's principles, being Congregational men, and therefore had need to look to themselves in their definition of Schism, men of great renown for learning and piety, Dr. Ames, and our Mr. Norton in N. E. in answer to the Q. Quid est schisma? I find Ames thus answers, Schisma dicitur a scindendo, & est scissio, separatio, disjunctio, aut dissolutio Vnionis illius quae debet inter Christianos observari. I was nearer to the Doctor's definition then I was ware of; but then he adds, Quia autem haec scissio maxime perficitur, & apparet in debita Communione Ecclesiastica recusanda, idcirco illa separatio per appropriationem singularem, recte vocatur Schisma; thus he.  
Mr. Norton thus, Schisma est illicita separatio a Communione Ecclesiae; semper grande malum. I will look no further, these are sufficient.  
Now for the Catholick-Church, I am to prove there may be Schism in it. For my groundwork I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25. That there should be no Schism in the body.  

If by the body in this text be meant the Catholick-Church visible, than Schism may be in the Catholick-Church visible.  
But the Antecedent is true:  
ergo the Consequence cannot be denied.   
The Antecedent is to be proved. That by the body is meant the Church, the Doctor yields, Schis. p. 147. but what Church he speaks of is not evident; the difference he speaks of in the individual persons of the Church, is not in respect of office, power, and Authority, but gifts and graces, and usefulness on that account; thus he. But I had thought that by Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Helps, Governments, v. 28. he had properly spoken of office, power, and authority: are gifts and graces meant by these words? very strange. But to come to our Text.  
If the Church be here meant, than it is either the Church invisible or visible. But not the invisible, that the Chapter clears; and the Doctor saith, It's impossible Schism should be in the invisible Church.  
If visible, then either the Catholic, or a particular Church; but not a particular: Ergo  
This I grant, that by body in one Text, v. 27. a particular Church is mentioned, because the Apostle applies what he had been speaking of before to this particular Church, being a similar part of the Church-Catholick, as our Mr. Norton, and other Divines in the definition of a particular Church; [though some Physicians make different definitions, as we respect the matter or form of a similar part, yet I content myself with that definition which is commonly given.] What duties are enjoined the Catholick-Church, or what sins are forbidden, these concern every particular Church; for Christ giveth his Laws to the Catholick-Church primarily, no particular Church hath a special law given to it as such: whence well may the Apostle apply his speech to this particular Church; but that the Apostle was not discoursing of a particular Church, in viewing over the Chapter these arguments persuade me.  
1. It is such a body into which we are all baptised, v. 13. but are we baptised into a particular Church? is that the one body the Apostle means? Let the Doctor speak, Rev. p. 134. I am so far from confining Baptism subjectively to a particular Congregation, that I do not believe that any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptised. As much he seems to intimate, Schis. p. 133. in his answer to this question, wherein consists the unity of the Catholick-Church? A. It is summoned up in Eph. 4.5. one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. It is the unity of the doctrine of faith which men profess, in subjection to one Lord, Jesus Christ, being initiated into that profession [and so that body] by Baptism.  
2. It is such a body as with its head makes up Christ, v. 12. But if one particular Church related to its head be Christ, what are all the other? how many Christ's shall we have? For my part I conceive, as all true believers make up but one spiritual body, to which Christ is a saving and spiritual head; so all the particular Churches in the world are but one body visible, of which Christ is the Political Head. Every true believer is said to be married to Christ, and of this Church, Paul saith, he had espoused them to Christ, and are not thousands more? but we do not read Rev. 22.17. Bride's say Come; nor of the Lambs wives, ch. 21.9. but the Lamb's Bride and Wife: thus the Catholic visible body is called the Kingdom of Christ, not Kingdoms; though by reason of the numberless number, the Lord bids one Pastor, feed you my flock there, and another, feed you my flock there, etc. yet but one flock, one body; these meetings of this great body being in a manner accidental to the Church-Catholick, by reason of the numerosity of its members, for could we conceive that all the members of this Church could meet in one place, and partake of the same numerical ordinances orderly, this meeting in several places should cease.  
3. It is such a body as hath Apostles set in it, v. 28. but though the Apostles were officers to this particular Church, yet not to this only, but to the Catholic.  
4. It is such a body that the members of it suffer together, and rejoice together, v. 26. but this mutual rejoicing and sympathy, is not confined to the members of that particular Church, I hope? the same specifical care, though not the same gradual care, I think such a distinction may help to understand the 25. v. for I conceive there is some nearer tie to my own members in particular, as to my own family, and yet to have no care of other members of another Church, though I see them in danger of sin, or require of me the dispensing of an rdinance, (regularly) etc. I think this is not right. Then 27. v. what I have said of the great body, I say to you who are a similar part of this great body, and so called the body of Christ, Do ye take heed there be no Schism amongst you.  
Thus that parallel Text, Rom. 12.4, 5. seems to be meant not of the particular Church of Rome, but the Catholic; many members, but one body.  
When I can see better reasons given me to prove he is discoursing of a particular Church, I shall yield to them.  
Q. But how can Schism be in the Catholick-Church visible? this must be enquired into, though I fail in the opening of it, yet what I have said to the Text before will save me.  
A. I must premise some things, then come to the answer. The Doctor p. 133. Schis. speaking of the Catholick-Church, saith, The saving doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ, and obedience through him to God, as professed by them, is the bond of that union whereby they are made one body. But [under favour] I conceive the Doctor hath expressed only that bond which is between the body and the head; but are there no ligaments whereby the joints of this great body are knit to each other? surely if a body, there are such; the Apostle Eph. 4.16. I think speaks of a bond among the members; and by the 11. v. he seems to me to speak of the Catholick-Church-visible, from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. Upon which words Zanchy thus, Concludere vult Apostolus quod initio proposuerat, fovendam esse unitatem hujus corporis mystici per vinculum pacis: Ratio, quia ita se habet hoc corpus, ut nisi quis per fidem vivam amorisque plenam cum Christo conjunctus, & per fraternam caritatem cum fratribus totaque ecclesia congruenter coagmentatus permàneat, is non possit a Christo vel vitam vel alimentum & incrementum accipere. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Chrysost. Masculus thus, Dilectio conglutinat membra Christi; and a little before Nihil igitur hic loci est separatis ac divulsis, quales quales tandem esse videantur. With these agree Beza. Charity is the knitting of the limbs together. Faith and Love use to be joined together; if the Apostle doth express it as the bond, surely we may call it so; and thus we have the body united to the head, and each member one to another.  
To the preservation of this union [saith the Doctor] it is required that all those grand and necessary truths of the Gospel, without the knowledge where of no man can be saved by Jesus Christ, be so far believed, as to be outwardly and visibly professed, in that variety of ways wherein they are, or may be called out thereunto, p. 134. To which I add; and unto the preservation of that bond of union among the members, it's required that all such Acts which do externally declare this bond of love whereby these members are joined together, as such a body, ought carefully and Christianly to be performed, when we are regularly called thereunto; this bond of Love so much commanded and prayed for by our Head, being not confined to a particular Church, but extended to the whole Catholic Church his body, by which men show whose Disciples they are.  
Hence then as all such errors which subvert those grand and necessary Truths, being received and believed, do dissolve the bond of union between the head and the members, and declare men to be Apostates; So all such Acts as do openly manifest the causeless breach of Love, by which the members are united each to other, do declare such persons guilty of Schism. Apostasy [as I conceive] properly respecting the Head, but Schism the Body. Now in reference to this I lay down these Conclusions.  
1. The members of this great Body in attending upon those ordinances of worship instituted by their Head, especially the two Sacraments, do declare that faith in their Head which they profess. Open Baptism, we find nothing there but Christ; open the Lords Supper, we have nothing there but Christ our Head, and the grand and necessary Truths which concern our salvation: As the Martyrs sealed up their Confessions by their blood, we do, as it were, seal up our Profession in partaking of our Lord's blood.  
2. The members of the Church in partaking of the Sacraments do professedly declare that Union which they have among themselves by love, as such a body. It is one reason why the Lords Supper is called a Communion, and it is one of the ends of the Sacrament, Vnio fidelium inter se, as Divines do unanimously acknowledge upon that, 1 Cor. 10.17. Fractio panis est unitatis & dilectionis Symbolum, saith Pareus. Much might be here spoken. I know there are other ways by which Christians manifest their love, and so did Heathens in such manner as now is scarcely found amongst Christians; but for the manifestation of their love to each other as such a body, there is no way that I know of, nor no ordinance in which they do so declare it as in this ordinance, wherein they, though many, are one bread, 1 Cor. 10.17.  
3. The Sacraments were not given to a particular Church primarily, but to his Catholick-Body the Lord gave them; and so are the external pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body. That the Sacraments come to be administered in several particular societies, I gave the reason before, seeming rather to be accidental to the Catholic Church, by reason of the numerosity of its members. That body which the bread signifies in the Supper is but one body, and the members of the Catholic body make but one bread. Jesus Christ with his body make one Christ, 1 Cor. 12.12. The Sacraments do show our union with our Head Christ primarily, and the union of the members amongst themselves. I know a person who had received wrong from another who lived 40. miles distant: this wrong caused a division between this person and the other, upon which this person durst not venture to the Supper, but kept off till reconciliation was made, knowing what the Supper did call for, then came to me and joined in the ordinance; I knew not the reason of this person's holding off so long before. If the Sacraments were pledges only of that Love or Communion which is between the members of a particular Church, what needed the conscience of this person to have been troubled, since the other person had no relation to our Church. This was one bred up in the Episcopal way, but it were well if others made so much conscience as this person did in this respect.  
4. Hence than that Church which shall deny to the members of other Churches [qualified as the Doctor requires Catholic members to be, and walking orderly in their particular Churches] occasionally desiring communion with the Church, fellowship with them in the Sacraments, because they are not of their judgements as to Congregational, Classical, or Episcopal principles, and will hold fellowship only with those who are of their principles, I charge that Church with Schism in respect of the Catholic Church, by this Act declaring a breach of that bond of union which Christ requires in his Church.  
Object. But we may love them, and show our love in other ways, though we do not this way.  
Answ. So do the Heathen show love to Heathen, and so do we to Heathen, though we will not admit them to communion in a Church-ordinance; but that Symbol of your love to him or them as Christians, as members of such a body having union with your Head, and union with you also who are of the same body making up one Christ, 1 Cor. 12. you deny. And whereas one while you dare not deny them to be visible members of Christ, being qualified according to the rules for Catholic members, and having all the Ordinances and Officers of Christ according to their light in their particular Churches; yet now as much as in you lies you declare them to have no union with the Head, nor to be parts of the Catholic Body, neither the members refused, nor consequently the Churches to which they belong being of the same judgement. So that while you talk of Love, I say as the Apostle, Show me thy faith by thy works; so show me your Ecclesiastical love by Church-fellowship. To this opinion of mine Doctor Ames in the place before quoted agreeth fully. Haec scissio maxime perficitur & apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda, etc.  
Thus I conceive Congregational, Classical, or Episcopal Churches may be guilty of Schism, and cause Schism in the Catholick-Church-Visible.  
As for that Doctrine, That an Officer of a particular Church must administer an Ordinance to none but his own members. This is confuted in the practice of all Churches that I know of, and I suppose will not be defended.  
To this I add: Suppose there be divers members of several particular Churches, who are very zealous for Prophesying, and they must have their liberty to prophesy, whether they have abilities or not; the Churches conceive that the gift of Prophesying, being extraordinary, is ceased, therefore will allow no such liberty. These are so set for their Prophesying, that they make Divisions in the Churches, and at last separate from them all, and make up one Church by themselves; they are qualified as the Doctor requires Catholic members; they have all the ordinances and officers of Christ among them; whence I cannot deny but here is a Church, but yet they refuse communion with all other Churches in the world, unless of their opinion, neither give nor take, though desired; and there are no other Churches in the world of their opinion or practice. Now this Church I cannot charge with Apostasy from the Head, but with separation from the Catholic Church, and so is guilty of Schism. If it be said this Church is a part of the Catholic Church, how then separate from it? It's true, else it were not Schism, but Apostasy; but as it separates from all other Churches causelessly, in that sense I speak.  
Hitherto of the Doctor's Definition. As for his Design to free All the Congregational Churches from the imputation of Schism, though we suppose Schism to be a causeless separation from a Church, I had rather wave that then go about to prove the contrary, and that partly because of the honour which I bear to many of these brethren; partly because I know not the practices of all Congregational Churches: I cannot be of Mr. Ca mind, if by the title of his book [as I find it quoted by the Doctor, for I never saw Mr. Cawdrey] Independency is great Schism, he means that congregational principles will necessarily conclude a man a Schismatic. Certainly from the principles as our Divines in New-England hold them forth, such a necessity of Schism will not be forced; but whether all in England can quit themselves I doubt it. What some may think of me who find me in Mr. Edward's gang amongst the Independents, and now read this, I know not. Possibly they will say either Mr. Edward's wrote what was false, or that I am changed from my principles [as some have said] but I assure the Reader, I am not gone back, nor advanced one step in these controversies, from what I ever manifested in those times when those letters were sent to Mr. Edward's.  
I intent not to follow the Dr. in all that he hath written, but to come to the point presently. In p. 263. the Dr. tells us He dare boldly say, the holy Ghost hath commanded a Schism from a congregation that is not reform, will not, nor cannot reform itself. with p. 262. 1 Tim. 6.5. 2 Tim. 3.5. Hos. 4.12. If the Dr. apply these Texts to our separations which some congregational Churches make, I question whether they will carry the thing he produces them for. But to be short: I will not say the Holy Ghost commands Schism, but Separation in some cases he doth; therein I agree with the Doctor, and accordingly practice [different from my brethren] but it is only within my own congregation, denying to admit those who are, as Mr. Vines calls the generality of the people in this Land, Bruits for their knowledge, and beasts for their lives, and so will be unto the seals of the covenant of grace. 
Sacram. p. 152.  So I have made a separation in the congregation, but not from the congregation. Had I read that the Apostles had stood upon the reality of grace in their admission into Church-fellowship, I would have been as strict as some brethren say they are; but because I find it not in their practice, I look on it as men's adding to the Word, and so let it alone.  
But our question is not whether any Separation, but whether such a Separation be commanded as thus. Here is a Church where are many corrupt members, that is true; but withal here are 1. many real and visible Saints. 2. A Pastor godly, sound in doctrine, and able for his work, preaching Christ sound. 3. The Ordinances in themselves clear from humane mixtures. 4. Though here are corrupt members, yet when the Lords Supper is celebrated, they are separated, not admitted, but there is a pure lump. 5. The Church is not puffed up, but rather grieved that there are so many corrupt members amongst them, but according to their light, they being so many, know not how to cast them out, left there by other men's sins, but bear this evil with complaint and prayer to God for healing.  
Yet notwithstanding a few of these Visible Saints, the minor part be sure [we observe] shall make separation, not only from the corrupt members, but from the major part of the godly and visible Saints, from that godly Pastor, having no communion with these, no not in the Supper where they are a pure lump; and yet this minor part have not done their part to reform these corrupt members. If the Holy Ghost hath commanded such a Separation, I pray Doctor quote the texts where we may find it. I fear he will hardly find three texts for such a Separation; yet I know where such Separations are, and of these men complain. If he cannot produce Scriptures, he hath said nothing to many of our Separations.  
The Dr. I perceive speaks much of original Institution and primitive Constitution of Churches; but I shall desire him to show us the Scriptures where the Apostles did use to go to several Congregations where indeed were divers corrupt members, but withal many godly, at least visible Saints, who had walked before with their godly Pastors in constant attendance upon and subjection to the Ordinances of Christ; and there the Apostles did pick out some of the best of the members, and leaving the Pastor and others grieved, weakened, and thus did constitute Churches: I cannot remember any Scripture which shows this was their practice, whence I doubt this kind of constitution is not so old, but rather had its original since 1640. As for Parochial Precincis, I shall speak to them hereafter.  
Object. But why then do not these godly Pastors and visible Saints you speak of, separate the profane and grossly ignorant from their Congregations, but sinfully retain them, or at least suffer them to abide with them? If they did so, they should not be troubled with godly men's separating from them; they sweep not the Lords house.  
Answ. Whether godly men would not separate then I cannot tell: If the Apostles rules of admission were sufficient to guide us, there might be more hopes they would not. But when men set up rules themselves, and all men must come to their rules and ways, they would be as apt to separate from those whom the Apostles would admit, I think they would be almost as eager for separation as now.  
Whether those Pastors and Saints visible do sinfully suffer such in their Churches, and so are blame-worthy, I dispute not; but as to the present state of these Churches left such by the negligence & sin of those who usurped the power over them, whence some will scarce own them for Churches, and others plead so much for separation from them, something may be fairly offered, which may plead for them. True it is, men of great grace, great gifts, great purses, great courage, great favour with great men, having the chiefest persons in a Town on their sides [which last was my advantage in this small village] may do more towards the reformation of their particular congregations, than other men can do who are not so advantaged. Magisterial and Cursed Divines, who being aloft every way, consider not the tentations of men below them, are not such honourable men with me as some others are. Those men who have lain in pickle in the brine of varieties of tentations twenty years, have known by experience the evils of debts, poverty joined to great family-charges, low gifts, desperate workings of spiritual and fleshly corruptions, sense of guilt; these are the men who shall write practical books for me; these, I doubt not, will write low, and speak low; these will feel their brethren's temptations. But to the point.  
1. These men do separate at the Lords Supper, and there allow them no communion. This is attained with much difficulty in our days; we know they contend much for it.  
2. The most they do is, they admit their children to Baptism, which considered in themselves are not profane; and were Baptism administered by that latitude which the Apostles did administer it, I doubt not but many may be admitted to it.  
Now in that this is all the privilege they have, more than these men who separate will allow them, the question is, whether there be nothing considerable to sway men to this practice.  
1. It is a question disputable, whether the immediate Parents only can give title; whether the Grandfather, or Grandmother, being in covenant, may not help to give title to a grandchild. Upon this account divers administer Baptism.  
2. There is a question, whether if others under the covenant will undertake the education of such children, may they not be baptised? [as our Mr. Norton conceives they may.]  
3. There are eminent Divines who maintain, that though the Parents be excommunicated, yet the child of such aught to be baptised, Zanch. Perkins, and divers whom I could name. Now if this be true, then though all these were excommunicated, which is the most those who separate can desire, yet their children should be baptised, which is all the privilege these men have though not excommunicated, and which those who separate can stumble at. For the rest of the Ordinances we admit Indians to, I hope they will not deny them admission to those.  
I omit that great question, whether Baptism be not a Regenerating Ordinance, which divers Learned men abroad and at home do maintain, and have Scriptures which speak very fairly for them, so much, as I can scarcely be satisfied with the answers our Divines have given to those texts they bring.  
Now though I have not so much light to carry me in any of these opinions, and convince me fully of their truth; yet I see so much argument for them, that I am very tender towards those who go upon these grounds, whatever arguments I have against them which carry me another way; and were I a private member of one of those Churches where there were so many those visible Saints, an able godly Pastor, and the Supper kept as I said, I should not dare to separate from it as others do.  
I might add to this how some Ministers, though they do baptise, yet they deal roundly first with the Parents, and so as some will come no more at them for Baptism. And one, an Episcopal Divine of eminent note, hath refused to administer Baptism to the children of such parents as he found sottishly ignorant, but sent them back first to learn the principles of Religion, and assent to them.  
So that had these who separate stuck close to their Ministers, and encouraged them in thus dealing with those scandalous persons in private, they might have done more towards reformation then now they have done.  
3. There were divers corrupt members in Corinth, and their children baptised; for aught I know a fault might be in the Officers, and better part, but no command to separate from the Officers.  
4. Should all the godly Ministers in England separate, as these men would have us, and go by their rules in admission of Church-members, I question whether there would be a godly Minister left in England, the common people would not bear it. And verily for godly Ministers to suffer death in things so disputable, wherein holy men and Martyrs before did walk without any scruple, having so much probability from Scripture [as that argument of Circumcision, with the rest before mentioned] but yet more, to suffer for rules which themselves made, & not the Apostles, this is a hard chapter; those who are so free of their lives may take their course. I will bless the Lord if he shall please to assist me with grace to lay down my life for him [if he shall call me to it] in things where I am confident I know his mind, and the Scriptures are so clear that I need not doubt, and in the mean time thank God I meet with such as will bear with me in things wherein I differ from them of less concernment, arguments casting me on that side, but not without great scruples on the other side. I hear great words from some of these, they will not practise any thing but what they are ready to lay down their lives for. I dare not speak such great words.  
5. These men who thus separate, when as yet there is nothing but the baptising of their Infants they can object against, yet allow in their Churches, and think we are bound to allow such who deny all Infant-Baptism, and will call the Anabaptistical Churches true Churches. These who cast off all the Infant-posterity of Abraham from Church-membership: these men must be admitted to the Supper, and what not: the others are debarred from the Supper, but their Infants baptised, which of these two is the worst I wonder? for my part I would rather baptise the child of a wicked man, professing Christ in words, than not baptise the child of a godly man; more reason and Scripture may be alleged for it. Whence me thinks the Doctor, being such a strong Champion for Toleration, may allow unto the Presbyterial Brethren some benefit of his opinion: for Toleration is Malorum, and if this be evil, I presume he looks on the Anabaptistical opinion as evil also; and if this must be tolerated in Churches, and doth not weaken the purity of the Church, why the other should not have some allowance I know not.  
I know no understanding man that is against Toleration simply, he that will allow none is not fit to live in these times; but how far we are bound to Tolerate, is a hard question.  
To conclude, 
Respon. ad Apol. 168.  I shall only see what our Mr. Norton, a man who in some cases allows separation from a true Church, and one that in the Congregational way is Theologus cum primis nobilis, to that question how is secession to be made from a true Church? answers thus.  
1. Not without due use of all means to remove the impurities. I am sure amongst those means this is one, for these to bear witness against the scandalous members, and labour in their places to get them removed regularly; those than who never deal with any of these in a Churchway, who will not bear witness against them to the Eldership, but when their Pastor have asked them, Will you prove against these. etc. answer, No, not they. These use means well, yet such separate.  
Also how some of the Congregational Ministers, who have had their hands in these separations, have used all means, when as they never went to the Ministers; when they encouraged the people in their separation to speak with them, I know not. I have heard two Ministers of note complain of this unkind dealing.  
2. Not presently, but they must use prudence, patience, and long-suffering. Those Ministers and Churches who have found these in those who separated from them, may testify for them if they can.  
3. Without condemning of the Ch●●ch, but acknowledging it from whence this secession is made. It were well if we could get so much from many of these, to acknowledge any to be true Churches but such as are in their gathered [as they call it] way.  
4. Communion still continued with such a Church in things lawful. [Separation from the Lutheran 
* Yet Calovius in his answer to Jo. Crocius, tells us we differ from them in ten Articles, and above thirty Controversies. p. 33.  Churches he will not allow, though we ought not to communicate with them in the Supper.]  
But our men, 1. will not communicate with the Church from which they have separated at the Lords Supper where the doctrine is sound, and the persons admitted as pure as any Congregational Church that I know of.  
2. No, nor will some of them so much as hear the officer from whom they have separated, though sound and godly, but rather set up a Tradesman to prophesy in the absence of their own Minister, and before they had a Minister, exercise their gifts amongst themselves, rather than hear their former Minister.  
Certainly if some Congregational Churches in England be not guilty of Schism, there was never any Schism in this world.  
Thus I have given my reasons why I am not satisfied with all which the Doctor hath delivered concerning Schism, though with a great part of it I am abundantly; men of more learning than I am may give more, only this I I may and do add: it is a trouble to me that I have cause in any point to appear cross to the Doctor, with whom I have had so much inward familiarity, whom I have so entirely loved and honoured, and do still both honour and love.   

CHAP. II. Concerning the Parochial Congregations in England.  
I took it for granted that our Congregational brethren did look on the Parochial Congregations where they came, and have gathered Churches as true Churches before they came there, and so did not lay new foundations, or gather Churches where there were none before, only the Congregations being overgrown with persons grossly ignorant and scandalous for want of Catechising and Discipline, they did segregate such persons from Church-Communion, till they got so much as might declare them to be visible Saints. But one of these Ministers tell me I am mistaken: if I be, than I understand not our brethren all this while, nor do I know when I shall: for my part I have ever professed, I looked on the Parochial Congregations as a true Church before I came to it, though overgrown [as before I said:] Those who were here and elected me to be their officer, I look on myself as having sufficient authority over them by their election; those who have come into Town since, I do require their owning of me for their officer [knowing that government here is founded upon consent] and subjection to all ordinances, if they demand the ordinances of me; so far I go along with our brethren. That many Parochial Congregations are true Churches, I doubt not, though the Presbyterial brethren have not proceeded so far as others have done, and therefore the Congregational Brethren may safely have communion with them. Some things let me premise, and then I will give one argument or two.  
1. The want of some ordinances in a Church destroys not the truth of the Church. Then there can be no homogeneal Church; our brethren I hope will not allow the Fraternity being destitute of officers to baptise, etc. but yet a homogeneal Church they maintain; much might be spoken here, but I forbear. Ecclesiastical Discipline which some allege, as being wanting in these Parochial Churches, do not therefore deny them to be true Churches, [which yet in part they had, for suspension it is well known.] The Rod is not of the essence of the family, though the children may do ill where it is wanting. Feast of Tabernacles, Neh. 8.17. was long wanting.  
2. An officer usurping power in a Church, doth not destroy the truth of the Church. Diotrephes took more than was due. The Bishops were but Ministers, and did ministerial work, if they took more power than the Lord gave them, yet that doth not hinder the truth of the Churches. What shall be said then to the Bishops in the primitve Churches; I wish I had as much zeal and love to Christ as they had.  
3. Though many members be corrupt in doctrine and manners, yet they do not take away the truth of a Church. Corinth had too many of these, and the officers might be faulty in tolerating of them, but yet a true Church; and I hardly think that Paul would have refused communion with the Church. I doubt not but other Churches also had bad members. The Churches which lived under Heathenish persecution were true Churches; yet there are foul scandalous sins reported of some of the members.  
4. Reality of grace, though , O very , yet is not absolutely requisite to the making of a visible Church; though I think it is hard to find such a Church, yet I know not but according to the rules we must go by in admitting of Church-members, there may be a true visible Church where there is not one real true Saint. Dare any Congregational Minister avouch the true grace of all the members of his Church? will any Church excommunicate a person for want of true grace? Did the Apostles when they admitted members search narrowly for the truth of grace?  
5. I had almost said, It is as great a fault to keep out visible repenting believers willing to subject to all ordinances, as it is to tolerate wicked persons in a Church. If the Presbyterial brethren are guilty of the latter, the Congregational are guilty of the former. I think it as great a faultto sin against the lenity of Christ, as against the severity of Christ. It is true, these wicked ones are a dishonour to Christ, leaven to the lump, [but yet suspended from the Lord's Supper] and they have not that means applied which might help to their souls salvation; but it is that which these Ministers would gladly reach if they could, they allege the words of the Apostle, their authority is for edification, not destruction. On the other side, to keep out those who visibly appear like Christians, when men have power to take in, is to hinder these from being levened with true grace, a great offence to the godly, discouragement of souls, and Magisterially to set up Rules which the Lord never appointed. Who blame Bishops for setting up their posts by God's posts? I know the word visible Believer is a contentious word, but I understand one plainly thus; Here is one that hath a competent knowledge of those grounds which are essential to salvation, and believes them. His estate by nature he understandeth, and professeth he believeth in the Lord Jesus for life and salvation; his conversation doth not confute his profession; worships God in his family, and subjects to all Christ's Ordinances; [for the private conferences of Christians and private fastings, which sometimes they have, though this were  to have them frequent them, yet these [in such a manner] being freewill offerings, I dare not tie up men to these, or else debar them] if he hath been scandalous, he declareth his repentance, cordially so far as charity can judge, and proves it by some time, would the Apostles have debarred such a person from the Church? but [I speak what I know] persons who go thus far, and further, cannot yet be admitted to Church-fellowship.  
Some would have us go to Rev. 21.15. and Rev. 11.2. to see the rules for Churches. What they have drawn from hence I know not; I have bestowed so much pains in reading of men upon the Revelation, and find so little content in all that I read [great Hooker of N.E. would say, he would never forfeit his credit in undertaking those Scriptures where he could not make Demonstration] that now I regard nothing which is said upon it. One Text which I observed as I was reading through it in my course, gave me more settlement than all I had read. But alas good men, do they carry us to their Symbolical Divinity to prove what they would have? this will not prevail with judicious men. I think the Apostolical practices must be our Reed to measure by; if you have precepts given where the qualification of persons admittable to Church-fellowship are set down higher than I have set them down, I would be thankful if any one would show me them. As for Rev. 21. I confess there is a golden Text, but I think they draw a leaden argument from it to our Church-fellowship. The fift Monarchy dreams have not as yet infatuated us; that time is not yet come.  
6. Parochial bounding of Churches doth not detract from the truth of Churches; it doth not hinder the purity, much less the entity of a Church.  
Vicinity of members is requisite for mutual inspection, convenient meeting for celebration of ordinances, but it adds nothing to the essence of a Church; particular Churches must be bounded somewhere.  
When the Law enjoined men to keep their own parish Churches, it was but to prevent disorder, that people should be bound to attend ordinarily at that place, and not run up and down where they listed. If the Minister were godly the Law helped him, and it is likely that this hath turned as well to the good of that people, which else would not have so attended upon that Ministry which was powerful and searching; if the Minister were ungodly, it was but the denying of some outward accommodation in that parish, and so remove to a godly Minister. By virtue of the Law then every one did implicitly choose that Minister to be his where he came, which as I said, was as well for the good as the hurt of people; if men had no mind to the Minister, they might choose whither they would go into that Parish or not: those who were godly in the Parish, and had a good Minister, they were not offended at the Law: whence this Parochial bounding should be looked upon as such an Antichristian business I cannot imagine.  
The chiefest inconveniency is by reason of the building of the place for Assembling in divers places upon the skirts of Towns; yet in N. E. persons who live at farms three miles or more from the place of their Assembling in their own parish, go constantly to that place, when as they might join to another Church much nearer in another Town.  
But let us see what we shall do when Parish bounds are broken down: Vicinity is requisite, this is agreed upon by all, how then shall we agree upon Vicinity? what will this Church call Vicinity? I doubt if there be a rich person who would join, and the Officer with members have a mind to him, they will stretch vicinity very largely to fetch him in. Some of our brethren oppose Parochial boundings, because they are so great, I doubt our brethren will not bring their Vicinity into a narrower compass; nay, we see how far they go for members: should we go about to alter Parishes, I think few would be pleased in the manner of doing it, nor will agree upon Vicinity: wherefore I think we had better bear with some inconveniences, then while we seek to mend them create worse.  
7. In reducing of Churches to purity the Minister cannot do it alone; he must know the members impurity, it must be proved to him by witnesses; let Churches be gathered, or whatever you call them, this must be done before persons can be excommunicated. But how do these members who find fault with Ministers do this? One who came to his Minister and was very urgent to have him thus seclude wicked persons from the Sacraments, when the Minister asked him whether he would come and bear witness against them, answered, so he might leave himself not worth a groat; but yet could separate from his Minister: is this right? These things premised, now to an Argument.  
Arg. 1. Where there are the essential causes of a Church [matter and form] there is a true Church.  
But in many Parochial Congregations of England, there are the essential causes of a Church.  
Ergo many Parochial congregations in England are true Churches.  
The Major deny who can. Positis causis essentialibus ponitur effectus. For the Minor, I prove that thus.  
Where there are persons sound in the faith, and visibly conformable to the rules of the Gospel in their practice, there is the matter of a Church.  
Where these persons do consent together to worship God in all his ordinances [Mr. Burroughs saith, all the ordinances so far as they know] with Officers duly qualified, and for substance orderly called, there is the form of a Church.  
But thus it is in many Parochial congregations in England.  
For the matter I suppose we will not deny it, there are such for visible appearance as true as those that are in congregational Churches. If it be asked, How many Parishes are there that have such persons, sufficient in number to make a Church? That is none of my question to answer; but this I can say according to our brethren's practice, who make eight [or fewer] to be sufficient to the first founding of a Church; there will be divers Parishes found to have that number without question.  
For the form, I have put in enough; the covenanting or consenting, our brethren make the form: But I have put in the Officer, and so make it an Organical Church.  
For the Officer, if the quarrel be with his qualification, I think none dare deny but for personal graces, and Ministerial abilities, there are abundance such Ministers in several Parishes.  
For their call, elected by the people, and ordained by a Presbytery very solemnly. If the Episcopal ordination be questioned, I have answered to it before [as also in my Book against the Separation] however I think there is as much cause to question their ordination who are ordained by the people when Elders were present, or with others, only praying after election, as there is to question Ordination by a Bishop and his Clergy. But what do our brethren cavilling against that, when they have Election, which is the essence of the call, as themselves affirm? I think God hath witnessed for them that they were true Ministers, in going forth with them, and giving such success to their Ministry, as I think our congregational brethren have not found since they came to question and cast off Episcopal Ordination [if any do so.] I doubt if the congregational Ministers had no more members of their Churches then they have converted since they have so much cried down Parishes and Episcopal Ordination, they would have very thin Churches. I do not think the Lord did it therefore, because of their Episcopal Ordination; yet I think the Lords appearing so much in those days over now he doth in converting-work, should teach us much tenderness in these days, and not to walk so highly as some do.  
If the objection be about the consenting, the election of the people declare it explicitly, and their constant attendance upon such a Minister in all the ordinances of God, declares their consent implicitly. No Congregational Divine makes the form of a Church to consist in the expliciteness of a covenant, but affirm that an implicit covenant preserves the true nature of the Church. So Mr. Hooker Sur. Ch. Dis. part. 1. pag. 47, 48. So Mr. Norton Resp. ad Apol. p. 22, 28. So the Synod of New-England, Cap. 4. S. 4.  
Arg. 2. If there be as much for substance in many Parochial congregations as there was in Corinth, to make it a true Church, than many Parochial congregations are true Churches.  
But the Antecedent is true; Ergo the Consequent is true.  
The Consequence is clear; for the Church of Corinth was a true Church I hope. For the Antecedent, 1. It's true, we have not many preaching officers in one Parish, as had that Church [which I conceive did not all meet in the same place for Church-worship, but in divers.] 2. Nor have we extraordinary Prophets, as were in that Church [though our brethren strangely make those a proof for their private members Prophesying [as they call it] yea and are so highly carried in their notions, that if their Pastor be absent, though there be another Minister preach in the Town, they will not go to hear him, but a Tradesman must Prophesy [what this implies who seethe not] if a Pastor be dead, and the people go to another congregation, the Pastor whereof is of their own principles, these have been charged by one of our Essex Independent Ministers with irregular walking, for not staying at home and Prophesying [a sin certainly against the eleventh commandment.] 3. Nor have we other extraordinary gifts, as that Church had. 4. Nor have we men ordained by the Apostles. 5. Nor called by the Apostles; for if these things do weaken my argument, than they do as well cut off the congregational Churches to be true Churches.  
But if the Church of Corinth had persons called by the Word, some whereof were real Saints, and some only visible; so have we. If they had persons Officers, who held out the faith of the Gospel in their teaching sound; so have we, as sound as they did or could do, if not sounder, such as build not hay nor stubble, etc. If they had the Ordinances of Christ; so have we. If they consented to worship God, etc. so do ours. These are the Essentials of that Church. The Essence is perpetually the same, but Vnaquaeque res vera dicitur a sua naturâ & essentiâ. If we have corrupt and erroneous members, so had they: Ours debarred, suspended from the Lords Table [a great part of Church-discipline] but that their corrupt members were so, I think will not easily be proved; a great fault in the Officers, who it seems did not regard discipline scarce at all, 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. & 13.2. Paul threatens, that he will not spare. Our Churches come to this by the oppression of the Hierarchy, the Ministers else would have exercised Discipline; but those had none to overtop them, and yet were negligent. How to get their Churches purer the Ministry find it hard; to excommunicate a multitude our congregational brethren say, no; to separate from the rest our classical brethren are not clear, they quote the Text, 2 Cor. 10.8. Their authority is given for edification, not destruction. They must do what they can by degrees, which they are resolved upon, and deserve to be encouraged by all.  
More Arguments I could give [as from the nullity of all the Ordinances which else must follow. Also, I wonder whether our congregational Ministers were converted in Parochial, or congregational Churches.] But I forbear.  
Hence than that congregational brethren may associate with the classical, to me there is no question, though my practice is something different from the classical brethren; yet what they allow is so candid, that I am rather thankful to them that they are so willing to associate with me.  
That we way hold communion with a Church so far as we are entangled in no sin, I think was never denied; but so may we with the classical brethren: For what though they baptise all, and all of them do not [though some do, and more endeavour it] bring their people to an explicit engagement; yet they desire us not to have communion with all their members, but with their complete members, i. e. those whom they admit to all Ordinances; and I am sure those, according to the rules drawn up, would have gone for good Church-members in the Apostles days, and, I think, should now; so that we are called to associate only with those who are as good members as our own.  
As for their Baptising of the Infants of such whom they debar from the Lords table; though their arguments do not convince men [no not good Mr. Blake, that man who now I hear is with God; if he had, I would have poofessed it to the world. I do more admire to see what answers so learned a man gives; but that I have professed in my Epistle to the Reader that I would meddle no more with the question, I find it very easy to take off [at least in my apprehension] what he hath said, had but he cast the major proposition in p. 97. thus [which he knew was my Scope.] Such as for manifest unworthiness de jure ought, and de facto are debarred from the Lords Table, etc. 
To this I have spoken before.  Then see how his answer from Infants takes me off; but I shall add no more. Now though he hath not satisfied me] yet I look on the Arguments as more valid to prove the Infants of those scandalous persons should be baptised, then are their arguments who cast out the Infants of repenting and believing parents from Baptism and the Church; yet these our congregational brethren make no scruple to communicate with, and to have such members in their Churches.  
Are all the members of congregational Churches such as they ought to be visibly? I doubt it. Some are as offensive as many in Parochial Churches. Should we therefore refuse communion one with another because of such? Would Paul have done it at Corinth?  
As for taking members out of other Parishes, which our brethren stand upon so stiffly, and without which there will be no Association, this hath been the old breaking principle, and resolved it seems they are to hold it.  
In what cases, and upon what conditions it shall be allowed, our classical brethren have declared, and I think sufficiently to give a heart that loves peace, satisfaction. For my own part I care not if the thing be yielded; I think I might make as good a shift as another, and have had tentations strong this way: but I did never yet take up such a practice, not out of any conscience to the Parish bounds, but because I have to be that unworthy principle which hath chief kindled the fire in this poor Church. Should I have done it, because I looked on my way more pure than my neighbour-Ministers? I knew the impurity of my own heart, and looked on my Neighbour-Minister as more godly; if I should think more highly of my own parts, I knew my own weakness, and might justly fear lest God should blast the little I had. But  
1. I hope our brethren do not think it a sin for a Minister to keep to his own Parish, if they do, let us hear them prove it. I have heard it reported by a very serious Christian, that one of our brethren should affirm that Christians were bound to come out of their Parochial ways, and to join in Church-fellowship after the congregating manner, else they did partake of the mark of the Beast. I writ it as well as I can remember it, but because I heard it not with my own ears, first I do not so fully believe the truth of it; yet there are good reasons why I should believe it: I had something to say, but at present let it alone.  
2. I am sure Paul said, All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient, 1 Cor. 6.12. Is not this a rule for us? grant the thing to be lawful, that is, it might be done without any breach of God's Law [though not commanded to do it] yet I am sure it is not expedient for us to do it, because we see it is that which hath broken and doth break the peace of our Churches; but the peace of Churches ought to be very precious to us. If we be commanded to follow peace with all men, than I hope to follow after, and endeavour the peace of the Churches, is a duty of great weight.  
But this is looked upon as the Minister's weakness, that this should break peace.  
1. Be it so that it is their weakness, then let others show their strength in bearing with their weakness, since they have no command to take people from other good Ministers. Those who are strong aught to bear the infirmities of the weak.  
2. But I doubt there is strong reason for this weakness. For 1. This grieves the heart of a godly brother, to have those in whom lies his chiefest comfort taken from him; if you take away my comfort, there is reason why I should be grieved: would you not have a godly person to be a comfort to the Minister?  
2. It weakens the hands of that good Minister in endeavours to reform. Who will stand by him if the godly be gone from him? Those commonly who are taken out of other Parishes are not of the poorest sort.  
3. When a place hath wanted a Minister, it hath been a cause of such discouragement to godly Ministers, that a godly man will not readily come into such a Parish, because the congregational men have taken out the good people, or some of them, it may be the chief out of the Parish, and so the Parish lie destitute of a Minister a long time, and at last must get such as they can; and thus the souls of others are endangered. As for their returning of such to that Minister in case he will come, we know their judgement by their practices. When Parishes have had good Ministers, this hath helped to remove them. That practice then which so discourageth good Ministers, as it causeth their removal, and hinders others from coming into place, I do not look at this as a light matter, but a practice intolerable in the Churches. Though this be not so bad as is the practice of some by me, yet in effect it comes to the same. Two small Parishes lying so as they may easily join, and would; but those in them who had a show of Religion turned to the Separation, whence no godly Minister cares for coming among them, but there the people lie year after year, no Minister to regard them, no Ordinances: who knows what God might have done for the souls of some of them, had the professing party held close, and encouraged a godly Minister to come amongst them, whereas now for divers years they have had none, nor are like to have. This practice of our brethren comes to the same in conclusion, if they thus take away the good people out of other Parishes.  
4. What weakness soever this is in them, I doubt our strong men would not take it well, to have another come and take away their people from them. Something I heard hisce auribus what one said when a Minister would have come into another Parish by, and took away some of his people. Those who are eminent in parts, and have their people sure to them, may say Let them go; but what they would do if the thing should be practised, I know not: But however 'tis good to weigh things in the scales of reason; and if so, I think it a just matter of grief, and so of offence to good Ministers, against their free consent to take away any of their people. So much for weakness.  
3. The congregational brethren being less in number by ten, if not twenty parts, compared with the number of other Ministers, and those godly, one would think it should be a mercy sufficient that they live in such a Nation as this quietly; having the freedom of their consciences, let them reform what they can in their own places. The Magistrate doth countenance the Ministers, though of different judgements, and so numerous, yet willing to associate, and show brotherly communion. For my part, I look on it as a great mercy [had I a heart to answer it] though I do not go and fleet the cream of my neighbour's congregations because they are not of my judgement.  
This is spoken in reference to our Associating, which if it were but yielded, there were hopes of closure: Nor do I see any reason why our brethren should so much stand upon it; for I think their gathering of one Church out of divers true Churches is almost at an end; for those who have a mind to separate, affect no Churches rather then Congregational Churches.  
As for such to whom the brethren have offered the Agreement for peace, and they refuse to associate with their brethren without any Scriptural reason given why they so refuse [a great care having been taken of crossing of men's principles which were not plainly against Scripture, and might stand with peace and sobriety] but rather affect to stand alone: if any in their Parishes shall desire to join with any of the Associated Churches, I know no reason why our hands should be so bound up that we should not receive them; but others must take from us, especially if they be such who have a right to the Lords Supper, but did not, nor will communicate with such a congregation, because they require that of them which the Word doth not, before they will admit them. This I conceive were great bondage, that a Minister with three or four men shall set up a way of admission to the Lords Supper, which all must come to; the thing itself may be good, but not required to a Church-state, nor the receiving of the Supper; and that all must stoop to this, or have no Supper there; and because of Parochial bounds they must have it not where else. Men may be of different judgements from mine, but that shall never hinder communion, if they be otherwise qualified, and yield but to what is necessary to a Church-state, in which men, though of different persuasions other ways, yet all agree, be they Episcopal, Classical, or Congregational, unless some of these last make an explicit covenant the form of the Church, which I see some of our brethren do here in England: Else what means that passage of a brother, But it will by us be expected [satis pro imperio] that you leave the brethren and godly (yet ungathered) free who have voluntarily come under no engagement explicitly with your Parish ways since the fall of Prelacy. I could quote another who carries it more closely. Then it seems all those Christians who before this walked with their godly Pastors in constant attendance upon, and subjection to all Ordinances, must now come under an explicit covenant, or what?  
For my part, I said before, it was not any conscience to Parish bounds which hath kept me from receiving of persons from other Parishes, but desire of peace: But if men will refuse terms of peace so drawn up with so much tenderness, as I think can well be desired, I shall receive those who shall desire to join with me, and resign them up again when there comes a man who will embrace peace with his brethren: I do not look upon our rules binding me further than our Associations.   

CHAP. III. Of Association of Churches.  
OUr Brethren in Cumberland [with whom our Brethren in Essex agreed] conceive That in the exercise of Discipline, 
Assoc. Cumb. p. 3.  it is not only the most safe course, but also most conducing to brotherly union and satisfaction, that particular Churches carry on as much of their work with joint and mutual assistance as they can with conveniency and edification, and as little as may be to stand distinctly by themselves, and apart from each other.  
This some of our congregational brethren look upon, as cutting off congregational liberty by the middle. But I conceive not so, they put in the words Conveniency and Edification; nor is their intent [so far as I apprehend] to null the power of particular Churches, but only to be assistant to each other in the wise managing of so great an Ordinance: and Blessed be God [say I.] that such Assistance may be had.  
That Church-Discipline is an Institution of Christ, I do not at all question. That the cutting off a member from a Church is a thing of great weight, I do not also question. [Surgeons, though able, when they come to the Amputation of a natural member, love to call in all the help they can.] And as certain I am that through the abuse and ill maniging of this Solemn Ordinance, it hath almost lost its glory. This hath not been the fault of the Pope and the Hierarchy; but I wish I could say that some congregational Churches had not exposed it to contempt through their indiscreet carriages in this Ordinance; I know of more than two or three of these Churches in which this fault will be found. In Ipswich in N. E. where those two worthy men Mr. Nathaniel Roger's [Pastor] and Mr. Norton [Teacher] had the managing of this Ordinance, they carried on the work with so much prudence and long-suffering [the cause did permit it] before they came to the execution of it, and with so much Majesty and Terror when they came to the Sentence, that the hearts of all the members [I think] were struck with fear, and many eyes could not but let drop tears; the Ordinance had something of the majesty of the Ordainer in it. If we could carry on this Ordinance thus, we might recover the glory of it.  
What particular Churches may do when no Assistance can be had, is one thing; what they ought to do when it may be had, is another. Doctor Ames is a man who favours particular Churches enough, yet saith, 
Medul. C. 39 S. 27.  Ecclesiae tamen particulares, ut earum communio postulat, naturae lumen, & aequitas regularum, & exemplorum Scripturae docent, possunt, ac saepissimè etiam debent Confaederationem, aut Consociationem mutuam inter se inire, in Classibus & Synodis, ut communi consensu & subsidio mutuo utantur, quantum commodè fieri potest, in iis praesertim quae sunt majoris momenti, etc.  
Furthermore, because the brethren stand so much upon the power of particular Churches, I desire [as I have divers years professed my dissatisfaction satisfaction in this point] they would please to clear it from the N. T. where they find such particular Churches as ours are in these small Villages, consisting of one Pastor, and a few members, being so near to other Churches as ours are, and might unite if they would; yet that such particular Churches kept themselves distinct, and exercised all power within themselves, without any dependence upon, or consociation with other Churches. If Scripture-examples be any thing to us, I think they will not prove it. I could never yet understand the reason of this consequence. The Churches in Jerusalem, in Rome, in Corinth, in Ephesus, etc. were independent for the execution of their power; Ergo, every particular Church in a small Village with one Pastor, and a few members, is independent for the execution of all Church-power.  
I pray let us consider whether it will not more answer the Scripture-patterns, to have divers of our smaller Villages to unite, and make up but One Church, though every Minister continue in his station, taking care especially [though not only] of those who live within his own Parish, and to preach to these, administer Sacraments, exhort, rebuke, etc. as he findeth cause. But yet as to the exercise of all Church-power, they are but One Church. I dare say it will come nearer to the Scripture, then doth the practice of the Churches as now they stand. Our brethren yield the Church at Jerusalem to be but One Church; but that this Church met always for all Ordinances in one place, who can imagine? Though the Apostles went up to the Temple to Preach, yet that was as well for the sake of others who came to the Temple, and not yet converted; the Apostles went to meet with them, they did not go to meet with the Apostles. But we do not read that they went thither to administer the Lords Supper. Where they could find a room for five thousand persons to receive the Supper together, I cannot tell; to throw away ones reason in matters of practice is hard: what a long time must they be administering? though others did help, yet they must have room to pass to and fro to carry the elements, that at last we must have a vast place.  
Most Divines that I read agree, that by breaking of bread, Acts 2.42. is meant the Lords Supper: I do not see that Beza hath many followers. Why then by breaking of bread, v. 46. should not be meant the Lords Supper also, and their eating meat with gladness their Love-feasts which attended the Supper, I see no reason, though I know many Divines do not understand it as in 42.  
That it is the phrase whereby the Lords Supper is set forth in the New Testament, is yielded, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. & Cap. 11. and so in the 42. v. of this Chap. Once in Luke 24.30, 35. we find it meant of an ordinary supper, the text doth clear it, though some Papists would draw it to the Sacrament under one element, yet other Papists deny it here.  
It's true, we find this phrase once in the Old Testament, Isa. 58.7. to be understood of the giving of Alms to the poor; but there is difference between these phrases, Breaking bread to the hungry, and this Breaking bread: we do not find the words to the hungry, or such like, added in the New Testament. If this be yielded, than they did break bread Domatim, as Beza.  
Corn. a Lap. thus interprets the Text of the Eucharist, and saith that doth not hinder that they did break Domatim, quia crescoute numero fidelium, per varias domos eos distribuere, in iisque Eucharistiam celebrare oportebat. In this sense also Chemnitius takes the words, 
Exam. Conc. Trid. p. 95.  not troubling himself with that question, an ad veritatem Eucharistiae requiratur peculiaris qualitas loci? He draws his answer from the example of Christ and the Apostles: Nec Apostoli peculiares habuerunt Basilicas; sed sicut perseverabant in doctrina Apostolorum, & oratione, quando in privatis domibus colligebantur, ita etiam per domos frangebant panem. Although Lormus be against this interpretation himself [his reason insufficient;] yet he acknowledges Antoninus to understand it of the Lords Supper, qui ait esse communem opinionem; so Gagneius, Baronius, Boderianus, etc. as Lorinus quotes. Thus I doubt not but it was in Rome, Ephesus, and Corinth, where were many Officers, and much people, Acts 18.10. They met in several places for Preaching and Sacraments; yet these were but one Church. That Text 1 Cor. 14.34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. seems to carry it fairly: There were divers of these Assemblies in Corinth which he calls Churches; and yet in another sense it is the Church of Corinth. As for the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how Calvin and others interpret them is well known, with whom agree the Arab. Version, Acts 2.44. so that I say no more to them.  
Now if these did thus meet as before, why may not we as well meet in our several Parishes, and yet be but one Church, and the Ministers Elders in common to that One Church? so may we have divers Elders in One Church, as had these Churches. Our Parishes lie so, that those who dwell in the next Parishes are as well known to Ministers as many of their own; they dwell much nearer to places of Assembling for the worship of God, then do many in our own Parishes; and for number, we may join divers of our Parishes together before we shall have so many complete members to all Ordinances as were in Jerusalem, Rome, or Corinth. Such a Church as this I could willingly call (in one sense) an Independent Church. Dr. Owen (a congregational Divine) was once very near this opinion in his Country Essay for the practice of Church-government. 
P. 59  He would have the extremes of the Division not be above 8, or 10 miles, so the centre not more than 4, or 5 miles from any part of it, etc. though in some things we shall differ, yet not in what I aim at. For aught I can see this would come nearest to Scripture, and for the benefits of it.  
1. If any Minister die, here are Ministers still left in the same Church to ordain another in his room [the people electing] and to try him before election.  
2. The matters of Jurisdiction are carried on with the counsel and assistance of divers; where is hoped to be more safety, and the Ordinance of Excommunication more solemn.  
3. If any Minister be scandalous, here is a way for his Excommunication. Things now may be carried on as they were in those Churches which we find in the New Testament, where there were many Elders; and divers questions which have troubled the Churches, about the people's ordaining of a Minister, Excommunication of their Minister, etc. avoided. And thus our brethren's trouble about Parish-bounds is also avoided in great part. The greatest difficulty I find is this, that we are divided about the qualification, of Church-members, which they in Jerusalem, Corinth, etc. were not. Certainly there were and are common rules for all Churches to go by, or else they could not have agreed more than we. If the Lord had left it to the liberty of every Minister to require what qualifications he pleased, than confusion and division must necessarily have been always in the Church. Is it so hard then to find out these Rules? Were we to Preach to Heathen, and they understanding the doctrines of salvation, did profess their assents unto those Doctrines, their consent to take Christ for their Saviour and Lord, their sorrow for and renouncing of their former wicked ways, giving up themselves to Christ, his ways and ordinances, surely such as these we must admit and baptise; if not, give us a Text where the Apostles refused such. If after Baptism they visibly answered their profession then made, they were continued members, and had fellowship in all Church-priviledges, I think so. Let us come thus far, and we shall agree for many; those among us who apparently belly the profession made at Baptism, let them either be brought to repentance, or secluded. [That is my opinion, and I think all would have it so, who would reform the Church.]  
2. However the congregational brethren, who do agree in qualifications, and dwell thus near, may unite into one Church; and so may others.  
3. Since our brethren who look on all their Parishes as Church-members, do not yet require of us so to judge of them, and desire us only to Associate with them in giving communion to such as are qualified according as they have set down [the qualifications certainly being strict enough for Church-members, if not too strict, if we go to the rigour of them, so as congregational Churches will not answer in all points] why may we not unite with them so far? These things I propound willing to receive some light; but as to what the Classical brethren require, it is no more than N. E. Divines do allow and practice in their Councils. Certainly since we know ourselves to be men subject to infirmities, corruptions, tentations, many, if not most now unacquainted with the exercise of Church-Discipline, a weighty Ordinance, the glory of it almost lost, one would think no Christian Minister should desire to stand alone, but be most willing to take in all assistance he could, and not esteem it a needless troubling of himself [as say some of our brethren] but rather a mercy that he may have help from his neighbouring Ministers.  
If any man will go further with me, and say, if you will mould your Churches according to those in the Scripture, and have divers Elders to carry on the Affairs of the Church, why then may we not have one Elder among these, who may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, suppose a standing Moderator? For in those Churches we find mention made of an Angel in Ephesus and the other Churches, which seem to imply as much.  
I answer. If you do not make this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus Presbyter, standing Moderator [or what other name you will give him] a distinct Scriptural Officer from other Presbyters, giving to him a power distinct from and superior to the power of other Preaching Presbyters, whence he shall perform some Church-Acts which other preaching Presbyters shall not or cannot perform, so that it be no distinct or superior power, but only order which is contended for, I am well content to yield it, being ready to go with others for peace and unities sake, till they come to constitute Officers which Christ never did, than I say Hold. But for a standing Moderator, one that Durante vitâ modo bene se gesserit, shall keep that place, let him, per me licet. For,  
1. In the meetings of Councils there must be one who must rule and order the affairs at those times; a Precedent, a Moderator must be, reason leads us to it to avoid confusion: and this is seen in the synodical meetings of Congregational Elders.  
2. He who is chosen Precedent or Moderator this Session may be the next, and the next; we may choose him for one year, or two years, what Scripture text forbids it? why may we not twenty?  
3. I am so far from thinking it is contrary to Scripture, that I think it comes nearest to Scripture. [I may declare my opinion with submission to better judgements] for as for the word Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the seven Churches, though I cannot agree to that which that ever honoured and learned Davenant doth gather from it, namely, 
Determ. 42.  the superiority of the Bishop above other Presbyters, because here was one in the Church of Ephesus, etc. which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For what Isidore saith of created Angels, Angelus est nomen officii non naturae, semper sunt spiritus sed cum mittuntur vocantur Angeli, I may apply to this, if all true preaching Ministers are sent, as they are, Rom. 10. then they also are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I think our Divines have spoken sufficiently to take off this; yet [with favour] I conceive that Christ mentioning an Angel in the singular number, and reason telling us what must be in all orderly Meetings & Councils to avoid confusion, there being divers Elders in one Church, who had the care, inspection, and government of it; I conceive those Elders had one who for order sake was a Precedent, Moderator, [though he had not power above them, as may be proved by other Scriptures] that ordered the transactions when they met; nor can I conceive it was so, for one Session or two, but for his life for aught I can learn, he that can, let him prove the contrary? in that he is taken notice of so in a special manner, it should seem he was one that was so more than one or two Sessions.  
4. I verily conceive that error [be not offended, I pray, if I call it so, for I humbly conceive it to be so] which so soon crept in, of one assuming power above other Presbyters, took its first rise upon occasion of this Order. God's providence so ordering it to leave his own Servants to their wisdom and wills, who freely acting made way at last for his Decrees: for if the Precedent or Moderator had shifted and changed every Session, I cannot tell which way it was possible a Pope should have risen.  
Obj. Therefore away with your standing Moderator, you have spoken enough against it.  
Ans. Stay, not too fast; must I throw away every thing that may be or is abused? occasio and causa differ much. Diotrephes, and so other Ministers may abuse their power; shall then a Minister have no power over his people? Tollatur abusus, maneat usus.  
Obj. But for Minister's power we have Scripture for it plainly, so we have not for a constant standing Moderator.  
Ans. By Scripture Authority we make Officers, who have power from Christ immediately. I am not discoursing of the making of a Church-Officer, and what power such an Officer should have, I disclaim this; power and order are two things.  
2. That Text which before I produced, I know not what fairer Interpretation can be given of it. I can exclude superiority of power by other Scriptures, but why an Interpretation of Scripture which crosses no other Scripture, nor sound reason, and hath such fair probability from the practice of the most ancient, should not be admitted [especially when a fairer Interpretation cannot be given [for my part I know none] I know no reason.  
The most that can be objected against me is matter of Prudence. But I conceive 1. that which comes nearest to make peace in the Church, and doth not cross the Scripture, that is prudence. 2. That which comes nearest to Scripture Interpretation, having the practice of so many ancient holy Men and Martyrs [though I know they went higher] to give light to it, this I call prudence. 3. Time will discover which will have most prudence in it, whether a Moderator or Precedent changed every Session, or a standing Moderator. I think now we are out of danger of making a Pope, if his time of ruin be so near as some think.  
Thus I have delivered my thoughts, humbly conceiving that a Church so moulded as there may be divers elders in it, and amongst these one chosen for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precedent, [or what you will call him] for order sake, to abide so constantly, come nearest to the platform of the Churches in the Scripture; and in this there is something of the Congregational, something of the Classical, and something like the Episcopal way; such a Church for the exercise of its power, being independent, as was the Church in Ephesus. But to have one Pastor, and it may be twelve men to stand alone, and to exercise all Church-power when they may associate, I desire to see such a Church in Scripture.    

PART II.  

CHAP. I. A Plea for Ordination. 
To. 4. Disp. 9 q. 1. p. 1. I own no Church Officer which is not ordained. Nemo ad ordinariam in ecclesiâ functionem, sive ad Diaconatum sive ad Presbyteratum, etc. admitti debet nisi legitimè electus & ordinatus. Zanch. 4. praec. p. ●77.   
ALthough I am far from Valentia's judgement, making Ordination a Sacrament [strictly so called;] yet in this I think he saith true, when he would have the word Ordination to be taken from the effect of that Ordinance, Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque Ordine certo ecclesiasticae dignitatis constitutiur. Thus some are Pastors, some ruling Elders, some are Deacons, they are in such an Order in the Church when they are Ordained. This hath been the judgement, and accordingly the practice of the Church for many hundred years; till yesterday Ordination was made but an Adjunct of a Ministers call [popular election being made the essential cause:] and too day Ordination is thrown out; no wonder, for Adjunctum potest abesse, etc.  
This clothing of God's things with our Logical notions, (though I know Logic is a general Art) and by them to raise one thing above another, one must be cried up, the other slighted, when both have the same Divine stamp upon them, I utterly mislike, and think it too much boldness. Hath the Scripture made such comparison between these, as between Ceremonial and Moral worship? We blame the Socinians because they adhere not to Divine Testimony, but will try all things at the bar of their reason, and so approve or disapprove: and are they blameless, who when they have Divine Testimony and reason also for two things, yet they will call this but an Adjunct, (when as that Adjunct hath more and clearer Scriptures for to prove it) and the other an essential cause (which hath fewer Scriptures, and those not so clear to speak for it) and so neglect the Adjunct? what are these notions to our practice? to which God's Adjuncts (if you call them so) are essential.  
A few words then for Ordination (my chief aim being at Imposition of hands in Ordination, and so I will make the more haste over this.)  
Q. Whether gifts and popular election be sufficient to constitute a Minister without Ordination?  
Where, first, by a Minister I understand not one who exerciseth for the trial of his gifts, before he be ordained; for if Timothy must commit the things, etc. to faithful men, 
2 Tim. 2.2. 1 Tim. 5.22.  and such as are able to teach others. If he must lay hands on no man suddenly, then good proof must be had of men's lives, 
Chrysost. in loc.  and so of their abilities. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But by a Minister I understand one who doth Officially and Authoritatively Preach, administer Sacraments, govern the Church, ordain others, (though the latter seems to be a begging of the question.)  
2. Neither is the question what may be done in a case extraordinary when Ordination cannot be had, this our Divines have spoken to sufficiently; 
Loc. come. p. 748. Synop. pur. Theol. Dis. 42. S. 39, 43, 44.  I could quote divers, but I will mention only Peter Martyr, who shall speak for all the rest. Quando adhuc extructa non est ecclesia, & homines Christianae religionis ignari sunt, quicunque ibi fortè fortunâ fuerint qui Christum probe norint, illum tenentur annunciare, neque ordinatio est expectanda ubi haberi non potest: quod est intelligendum, si omnino ei desit copia Ordinantium; nam si aliquos possit accedere qui se usitato more ordinent Manus imponendo, non debet Ordinationem negligere. Then adds a little after, Quae a Deo fiunt extra ordinem, admirari debemus, non semper imitari. But this is none of our case. These things being premissed, I undertake the Negative.  
1. Gifts are not sufficient. A person gifted is the material cause of a Minister, the formal as yet is wanting. 
Heb. 5.  It was said of old, No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God. But if he be gifted he may take it, may he not? No; the Text allows it not. I let the Socinians alone to those who have answered them: I only add, it was the office not the honour that did look to Christ. Our happiness lies in this, that he is our High Priest, performs that office in our behalf, not in the honour that attends the office (at least not primarily.) Christ hath his call, Isa. 42.6. Paul hath his call, Rom. 1.1. A Minister must be able to say he was called to the office. 
Sur. ch. dis. p. 3. p. 9 p. 2. p. 42, 45.  Reverend Hooker calls it an Anabaptistical Frenzy to meddle with the Acts of a Church Officer without a call: and in another place he saith, All such Acts are void, and of none effect, though men have gifts.  
I know Ames is much against the the common Interpretation of that text, Rom. 10.15. upon which I perceive generally our Divines have grounded that Missio potestativa, which they make the substance, essence, and formal act of Ordination. But Ames saith, 
Bell. ener. To. 2. p. 82.  Missio nusquam in Scriptura significat vocationem ordinariam, qua per homines in aliquem derivatur: neque sua significatione notat actum aliquem hominum vocantium hominem ordinaria ratione vocandum. Supple, a Deo, saith Cajetan. I intent not to meddle with what the Doctor hath said (though to me the Apostle plainly intimates, there can be no preaching without sending, but then I would ask, How shall I know whether myself or another be sent of God?) but I will rather examine what the Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. (who makes Ordination not essential to the call of a Minister) hath commented upon it. The sending which the Apostle means is not a Ministerial or Ecclesiastical sending, but a providential sending by giving men gifts, and working with them in their use and exercise. He gives reasons, of which afterwards.  
1. Then it seems Ecclesiastical sending is not providential sending. Hath God no act of providence in the sending of a Minister, when he is sent by Ministers? I thought providential sending (as the more general) had comprehended under it Ministerial sending, but this Author opposeth them not this but that.  
2. I thought God's presence working with men in the exercise of their gifts, let them be sent providentially or ecclesiastially had been a distinct thing from his sending them; that to send is one thing, and to work with a person sent is another. So to give gifts is one thing, but to send a gifted man another: if not, but gifting be sending, than Election is as needless as Ordination; for why? I am sent providentially because I am gifted: but that Author is stiff for popular Election.  
3. But what if God doth not please to work in the exercise of gifts to breed faith? are not therefore such persons sent? it must not be so by this Interpretation. The Prophets of God did little or no good that we read of, yet 2 Chron. 36.15. God saith he sent them: till they found the Lord working they were not fent. It's possible they might preach half a year or more before they did convert one; it seems all that time they were not sent because God did not work with their gifts. Isa. 6. the Prophet had a commission not to breed faith, yet sent; this will trouble some good Ministers. Some men's gifts lie more in building up then in bringing home, are they not therefore sent?  
4. Then it seems if God make me an instrument to beget faith in any, I must not look at it as the fruit of God's sending me Ecclesiastically (as he hath appointed Pastors and Teachers for the gathering and building up his Church) but only as I was sent providentially, and so have no comfort quatenus an Officer.  
5. Doth God's sending by giving gifts, and Ministerial sending oppose each other? in one sense indeed he may make gifts and Ordination opposites, for they do differre re & ratione: but if he consider them in their affection to a Minister, they are essential causes constituting the same effect, the Ministerial fending following God's gifting.  
His Reasons. 1. Else none can be an instrument of conversion but a Preacher sent.  
A. The great standing Ordinance which God hath appointed to breed faith instrumentally, is the Ministry Ecclesiastically fent: and I think Eph. 4.11, 12, 13. will prove it; though God hath not tied up himself so as to use no other means, but this is his common way. 
Fox Mart. Vol. 1 p. 299.  Waldus when his neighbour that was walking with him fell down dead, began to live spiritually; here was no body sent providentially with gifts. I have heard of some persons who were adult, that could neither hear nor speak, yet so far as in charity we might judge by some of their outward gestures in reference to holy things, they might have grace; yet faith ordinarily comes by hearing. I knew a good Christian, in conference with a sick person, another standing by the beds-side and hearing the conference, he who was now seventy years old began to live; the Christians gifts not fit for a Minister; but what then? doth not God ordinarily convert by gifted men? Divers instances might be given which would make as much against providential sending by gifts, as Ecclesiastical sending.  
2. Reason. No man can be sure whether he hath faith or no, till he be sure his faith was wrought in him by a Minister lawfully called.  
A. The former answer serves here; we tie not men to this; the old man I mentioned before, and Waldus, might upon his grounds as much question the truth of their faith, because not wrought by men providentially sent with gifts.  
I could give another answer, but I leave this.  
2. As gifts alone are not sufficient, so neither are gifts and popular election sufficient.  
Let these men bring forth their Scriptures and show us where these two have constituted a Minister. There are but three Texts brought to prove popular election, and none of them will do it. Not Acts 1. for (besides divers things which might be said) they did not elect an Apostle, when they had nominated two, they could not tell which was the Apostle till God chose. 
Cartw. Reply, p. 204.  The Church chose no Apostle, but only choose two, of the which one was taken by the Lord to be an Apostle. Cartw. So Calvin Inst. l. 4. c. 3. s. 13.  
Acts 6. will not prove it; there was Ordination besides election, (though some deny here as any officer at all ordained, of which anon.)  
Acts 14. I find a Text much insisted upon: some from hence would gather that a man may be a Minister without Ordination, that popular election is sufficient; which they ground upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: others of our congregational Brethren here in England, who will allow Ordination as an Adjunct to the call, they find it here in the verse; which thus they define. Ordination is a recommending a person (chosen) to God, by fasting and prayer.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that carries the popular election; then with fasting and prayer they commended them to God; here is Ordination, and that without imposition of hands. I will examine both these heads.  
First, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am confident that those learned Divines, who have made most use of this word to prove the people's power to elect their Minister, did never think that this popular election did constitute a Minister without Ordination, when it might be had; their writings prove it. Neither did ever intent to prove and warrant such elections as our people make, namely, that without any dependence upon the judgement and assistance of godly and learned Divines to help them, to choose whom they list upon their own heads. Mr. Cartwright hath spoken enough, and with heat sufficient for the people's privilege from this word, yet how far he was from approving such elections we may conceive by his words to the Rhemists. 
Rhem. 14. Test. Act. 22.  It may be understood how truly you speak, as if we so commended the Church's election, as we shut out the Bishop's ordination, which we do not only give unto them, but make them also the chief and directors in election, (Scripture Bishops we mean.) And thus in other place. Thus Ames also, Med. The. C. 39 Thes. 31.  
If what our ancient Divines have said will not give content, I will come a little nearer.  
1. It's certain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to Paul and Barnabas; those who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 22. v. do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 23. v. else we must go look for our Grammar, which Luke did and could write sure enough.  
If then the word must be restrained to election, I am sure Paul and Barnabas did elect; this the Grammar will force, which is a surer rule than a Criticism to bring the people in.  
2. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must relate to the people, then let us see what sense we shall make of it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people choosing by lifting up their hands, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: I think it should rather have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, surely they choose for themselves not the Apostles, than it would have run more smoothly for popular election; but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est eligere proprio suffragio, non per suffragia ab aliis data.  
3. It is certain what we call Ordination, the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it is used in reference to the constitution of an Officer: this is plain enough to him who will read chrysostom, who I see in all these places where Imposition of hands is used in the Text in the Ordination of a Church-Officer in his Comment upon the Text, useth always the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See him on Acts 13.3, & 4 where three times he uses this word. I will name no more but Acts 6.6. upon those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thus he speaks. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus I have observed Basil to use the word; It's strange these Greek Fathers should not understand their mother-tongue. Had Chrysostom been against the people's Election, I should have suspected something; but I find him contrary. That the word must needs imply the people's Election, Acts 10.41. is well known to oppose it.  
The Syriack Translation confirms this; for they render the word, Et constituerunt. The same verb, and in the same conjugation which Paul useth, 1 Tit. 5. But if it were the people's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which did constitute Officers, certainly Paul needed not to have left Titus there to do that, which they could do without him, and did though he were there; to leave Titus only to contribute an Adjunct when the people have given the Essence, I could never receive this conceit.  
The Arabic also refers the Act to the Apostles, Et designarunt eis manibus suis in singulis Ecclesiis Presbyteros. And by this the Imposition o● hands is plainly employed. 
etc.   
All things considered, I do much more question whether any thing can be brought from this word to prove popular Election, than I do believe popular Election constitutes a Minister. To have a Minister imposed upon godly people, or a true Visible Church without their consent, I look on it as great tyranny. This was not the primitive practice; 
Ep. ad Cor. p 57  for Clemens saith when the Apostles, or other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [no mention made of the Fraternity doing it] did constitute Elders, he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet I do not think that the people elect tanquam ex authoritate, 
Electio non cogit.  they do eligere, non per jurisdictionem, sed per subjectionem, saith Ames. This power the people have, that no man shall have power over them unless they consent to subject unto him; but what is this to their having so much power over him, as to make him a Minister? To be their Minister, and to be a Minister are two things. If no Authority be put forth in the people's Election, there is none put forth in Ordination (sure:) if it be but an Adjunct, certainly the Adjunct should most properly belong to them who give the Essence, than Ministers come into Office without any Authoritative Act put forth; fasting and prayer [common to all Christians] which they make Ordination, is no Act of Authority.  
It is strange Doctrine to me, that a Minister should be a Minister only in that congregation which elected him. Mr Noyes tells us, That the Elders of one Church have power to act in all Churches upon mtreaty; 
P 48.  and yet tells us the power of the Keys is originally and essentially in the body of the members, that they give the Keys: 
p. 10. p. 11.  that Election is the Essence of the Call; which doctrine I cannot yet receive. I question not but every true Minister bears relation to the Church Catholic; were now the Catholic Church reduced to six particular Churches, if members came to my congregation out of all those six, I would not question to administer the Lords Supper to them all at one time, and this our brethren deny not; but why must I perform an official act to them to whom I bear no relation? If I should go with my people into any one of these six congregations, than I hope I may administer there also; this I suppose may be allowed; for why may not I as well administer there as in my own place? I hope they will not tie up Churches to places, so as the place makes the difference. I know what men argue from the Analogy of a Mayor in a Corporation, which is no proof, but only illustration; and if our brethren can find out that Christ hath one Catholic Civil Commonwealth which makes up his body, as we can find he hath a Catholic Church which is his body, than the Analogy will have more force. But I must break off from this discourse, though I had something more to have said to this.  
I doubt not but in some cases a man may be Ordained, and Authoritatively sent forth to preach the Gospel and baptise without popular election preceding. What Athanasius did with Frumentius is well known, and so others whom I spare to name.  
If this be true, 
Loc. Com. p. 199.  then popular election gives not the Essence. Musculus, though he had pleaded for that privilege of the people in the Apostolical Primitive Churches, yet again shows that that custom cannot be profitable to the Churches now; and therefore in their Churches the people did not elect.  
So much for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I know no other Texts that can be brought for popular election. Our brethren do allow Ordination besides Election; but whether that be Ordination which they call Ordination, is the question: being I am now upon the Text, and think it is that which they build upon (for I know no other) I will briefly examine, and so return to this Text no more.  
1. It is true, that when a Minister is to be ordained, the Church doth solemnly seek the Lord by fasting and prayer for his grace and blessing upon the person to be ordained, which shows the weight of the office, and of Ordination to it; but commending here doth not relate to their fasting and prayer, but is distinct. Fasting and prayer relates to their Ordination. Cor. a Lap. saith, here is a Histerologia: Oratio enim & jejunium praemissum fuit ordinationi presbyterorum, 
Intex.  ut in. Cap. 13. v. 2, 3. Therefore Luke useth the Aorist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. postquam orassent q.d. cum post orationem & jejunium constituissent eis Presbyteros. Nor is that the main business of Ordination, to commend a man to God, this Text will not force it, as in the next I shall clear. 〈…〉 ordinationis proprius est collatio protestatis docendi & sacramenta administrandi, ad illum ordinatio per se dirigitur, 
De Minis. Eccles. p. 182.  eundemque perpetuo & infallibiliter consequitur: saith Gerhard, with whom agrees the stream of Divines, and the practice of the Churches in N. England: For though a man may teach for the trial of his gifts in order to office half a year, a whole year, yet he administers no Sacraments till he be ordained. 
Sepa. Exa. p. 54, 55.  I have spoken more to this in my Book against the separation.  
2. This Text serves not our brethren's turns; for if so, then All those whom the Apostles here commended to God the Apostles ordained.  
But the Apostles did not ordain all those whom they commended to God: ergo, ordination is not a commending, etc.  
The major is plain; for Definitio & Definitum reciprocantur. Our brethren will say, but the commending of persons chosen, etc. will be ordination by this Text. No; for the last words show whom they commended; The Believing Disciples. The whole Churches; they commended them to God in whom they had believed. Now believing is not the next cause of a persons being ordained, but they did commend them to God quatenus believers. The method of Ordination is thus, 1. A Believer. 2. A Person gifted. 3. A Person elected (in constituted Churches.) 4. Ordained. Women did believe, and they were commended to God as well as any other. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the verse; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in v. 22. this being the last act of Paul and Barnabas, when they had confirmed and exhorted the Disciples in v. 22. Ordained them Elders in v. 23. they commended them all Pastors and people to God. I see Calvin, Piscator, Cor. a Lap. agree with me, making no question of this Interpretation, for they pass it over as granted. And Musculus speaks my mind clearly, Ergo jejunantes & orantes, quod in coetu fidelium fieri solebat, ordinarunt Presbyteros a fidelibus electos (observe, he puts a difference between election and ordination in this verse) & post eam ordinationem, commendaverunt ecclesiam Domino & discesserunt.  
3. That Text in Acts 20.32. confutes this notion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fellow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text to the 2. Aor. voc. med. and we shall find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 14.23. Now the Apostle did not ordain these, he calls them Elders and Bishops before, and so they were; but now taking his leave of them, he commended them to God; and so he did in Acts 14. departing from the Churches he commended them to God in whom they had believed.  
4. I cannot yet be convinced, but that ordination is an act of authoritative power; but commending of a person to God in prayer is no act of such power.  
5. The Scripture gives us another definition of Ordination, as I shall show afterwards, ergo this is not the true definition.  
Thus than I have made it clear, that gifts and popular election are not sufficient to constitute a Minister, (if the Scripture may be judge) we may make use of other civil officers to illustrate it more. 
Keck. pol.  The Athenian Senators were sworn, though the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So are our Magistrates: take a Constable, though the Town hath chosen him to that office, yet if he shall act as a Constable before he be sworn, he is a trespassor, and a man may have an Action against him for his so doing.  
There is much reason why the popular election should give the essence here, but there is no such reason why it should to a Minister; yet here we find in civil officers more than election before they can act. I pray let us have order in the Church as well.  
This being dispatched, now it will necessarily follow that Ordination is necessary to the constitution of a Minister, though I should say no more: it is but little I intent to say, (or need to say) for the reason I gave before.  
Arg. 1. First, Conformity to the rules of God's house in things pertaining to his house is necessary.  
Ordination of Ministers, Stewards (pertaining to the house) is conformity to the rules of the house of God: ergo Ordination of Ministers is necessary.  
The major, if any deny, they must take away the authority of the Scriptures, leave men to their own fantasies, which no holy man ever dare say, so that I doubt not but that will stand. The minor, if any deny, it must be upon one of these two grounds. 1. Either denying that we have any positive rules, because we have none but examples, which shows how Ministers came in to office. But if those examples of Apostles commissioned by Christ to order his house, having such a promise of his presence with them, be not rules to us, than we have no rules at all left for officers coming into his house, which were strange defect of wisdom to impute to Christ, that he should have a house and no order in it; and contrary to the old Church, which had rules exactly for their officers coming in. Nor must popular election be ever more pleaded for. Or  
2. They must deny it, because officers were made without any ordination, which is the thing. I desire to see proved from Scripture. If we observe the practice of the Apostles after they had received the promise of the Spirit, and were now fitted and sent forth to act with that Spirit guiding them, we find that thus they did set Deacons in the house of God, Acts 6.6.  
Obj. But it is objected, That here was no ordination to any office at all; there were persons before who did this work that we suppose the Deacons should; these men were appointed only for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, necessity, in v. 3. that is, to end that difference which arose in v. 1.  
1. A. It is true, there were some who did distribute the goods of the Church to the poor, etc. who those were I think Chap. 4. v. ult. will tell us: They laid the money at the Apostles feet. Whence it is clear to me that the Apostles had this burden upon them also; compare the verse with chap. 6.2. and this they found a great hindrance to them in their preaching work so that both they could not tend; whence by the Spirit they were guided to Institute the Deacon. Upon search I find other men of my mind. 
a Inst. l. 4. c. 3.9.  Calvin. 
b Exam. Con. Trid. p. 217.  Chemnitius. 
c In 4. praec. p. 766.  Zanch. with more whom I could mention.  
2. The Apostles do not say v. 2. to leave the word of God & decide differences, but serve Tables, which they saw hindered them, and one they saw they must neglect, or perform not well, as we see complaint made; whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 3. must answer to that which the Apostles could not attend to in v. 2. which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
3. As the Church-Members consist of bodies as well as souls, which bodies must be provided for by others if they have not of their own to uphold them; and since God hath given in charge that collections should be made for the poor. Since also there are divers things which belong to the worship of God, and things about the Church, which must have money to buy them, and to answer for them; hence it stands with right reason that an Officer be chosen and authorized to be the Church-Treasurer, to take in these collections and moneys, and by these to serve the poors Table, the Lord's Table, (I conceive they had their Love-feasts at that time also) and why they should not attend upon the Minister at the Administration of the Lord's Supper I know not. In N. England the Deacons also bring in to the Elders Table, they are not troubled as we are here to send to every body's house in particular for our due.  
4. It is clear by 1 Tim. 3. and Phil. 1.1. there was such an Officer as a Deacon, and that distinct from the Bishop. I wonder what was the work of this Deacon being an Officer, not the Bishops I am sure, than he should not have been distinguished from the Bishop; neither are the same qualifications in every point required of him that are of the Bishop. When or where had this Officer his original? I think in this Chapter we may be satisfied, but no where else that I know of.  
These things satisfy me, with the judgement of the Church, which constantly hath maintained that here were Officers ordained. I know much dispute there hath been and is whether this Deacon might not preach and baptise: but that is none of my question; if here were the ordination of an Officer it serves my turn. When I had done, casting my eye accidentally upon Bucanus. 
P. 494.  Loc. Com. I found him speaking my thoughts, and something more, who gave me much content in opening the Deacons Office.  
Thus then Deacons come into their office.  
Thus Timothy also came into his office, 1 Tim. 4.14. so it is generally understood. Out of his Epistles I shall gather more in the next argument.  
Whether Paul and Barnabas were ordained in Acts 13.2, 3. is a great question, some deny it, many affirm it: if they were, it puts much honour upon that Ordinance, and shows more the necessity of this ordinance in men coming to the Ministry. Let us see first who they are that own this to be ordination, some I have met with, and others may know more; of this judgement I find chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [observe the word] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. with whom agree others of the Greek Fathers. Thus Calvin. Inst. l. 4. c. 3. s. 14. Chemnitius, Zanchy, Polanus, Gualther (Officio divinitus simul & ab ecclesiâ commislo, saith he upon the Text) Aretius (who infists upon it largely.) Gerhard, Maccovius, Malcolmus, Waltherus, (who reconciles this with Gal. 1.1.) Ravanel Diodati, Our English Annotations, Ainsworth (upon Numb. 8.10.) The Synod of N. England, who quote this Text to prove Ministers ought to be ordained, and that with Imposition of hands. Of the Popish party I could name more, but I spare them. These men are so worthy, that their judgement is not easily to be slighted.  
But we have harder work in writing in our days than others had heretofore, when the quotation of men was proof sufficient, but this will not now serve the turn. Thus then  Positâ definitione, ponitur Definitum. 
But here Ponitur Definitio Ordinationis: Ergo. The Papists, who make Ordination a Sacrament (properly so called) contend about the matter; for the form they are all agreed, that the form Consistit in verbis, quibus sufficienter significatur traditio potestatis, saith Valen. To the same purpose speaks Bellarm. Convenit inter omnes, materiam esse aliquod signum sensibile, formam autem esse verba quae dicuntur, dum illud signum exhibetur. But whether the calix & patina cum pane & vino be the matter, and those words then spoken, Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium, etc. be the form, as Valen. and his party, or whether the Imposition of hands, with these words, Accipe potestatem remittendi peccata do complete the Act, so as a man is not ordained till this be done, as Bellarm. and his party; here they are divided. Bellarm. will have Imposition of hands to be essential to the Sacrament, because else, saith he, we cannot convince the Heretics, that Ordination is a Sacrament properly so called, because we cannot demonstrate in the Scripture any other external symbol of this Sacrament. As for the word Sacrament in their sense, their cup, platter, etc. we lay them by; so for their words, which they make the form, we lay them by: yet I perceive our Brethren do contend for some words which should be used at the laying on the hands of the Eldership.  
For my part I am loath to engage further than I have clear Scripture to back me, or necessary consequence from it. If we take Ordination at large, as this Scripture holds it out, and other agree with it, it may be thus described. Ordination is the separation of a person called to the work of the Ministry, by persons in office with fasting, prayer, and Imposition of hands: Thus far this Text will warrant us; and it is the fullest that any one Text will afford us. Let us see how this suits with other Scriptures. Rom. 1.1. Paul tells the Romans, he was called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God. Here is my Authority, I do not run before I was sent. But when was this done? and how this done? look to my Text, and I doubt not but these Texts answer each to other. Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them, v. 2. I have called, do you then separate: both the words we find here. It seems they were not to seek what it was to separate, how to go about it, they had been acquainted with that work before. This phrase separate is the old phrase the Lord used before in his ordaining of old Officers. Numb. 8.14. Thus shalt thou separate the Levites, etc. thus, how? among other things; The children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites. It was so here with Paul. So Deut. 10.8. At that time the Lord separated the Tribe of Levi. So Numb. 16.9. a full place. The Lord separated Israel from other Nations, this was a high favour; but in Israel the Lord made another separation, and this was higher honour still. Seemeth it but a small thing unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you, etc. Thus we see the Lord keeps the old phrase.  
A person called. Paul and Barnabas were so, by God immediately, and these persons commanded from God immediately to separate to ordain them: whence well might Paul say, Gal. 1.1. was no Apostle by man. For all is here by immediate command from God; whatever was done about them was by immediate revelation. Whence he saith v. 4. So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost: yet they prayed, fasted, and imposed hands. Waltherus, Harmo, p. 490. speaks more to the clearing of this doubt. As Paul then and Barnabas were called immediately, so in constituted Churches Ministers are elected.  
By Persons in Office. Not every office; no mention made ●here of Ruling Elders or Deacons, but Teachers at the lowest.  
If the people should claim this power as some do, for the people in Numb. 8. did impose hands on the Levites, I have answered to this. Sepa. Exam. p. 70, 71. I add but this, The Apostles did translate Imposition of hands from the old Testament to the New in the Ordination of Ministers; but for the people's imposition of hands, we find no such thing.  
With prayer, fasting, imposition, etc. Here a question may be moved, Whether fasting and prayer did properly belong to the essence of Ordination? or whether as in other Ordinances we pray before the Administration of the Ordinance, so here was praying for the Lord's grace and blessing upon the person to be ordained, but ordination for the essence a distinct thing?  
Some I suppose make it the whole essence, their Acts declare it, they do nothing else (unless preach) and others look on imposition of hands but as a common thing among the Jews, when they would wish one well, or pray for them, or bless them after their manner, they laid their hands on their heads, and so imposition is now laid aside.  
A. But stay a little, 1. Are you certain that these prayed while they imposed hands in ordination? I do not see how you will force it out of the Text: nor can you force it from Acts 6.6. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Aor. 1. Whence the Syriack and Arabic Translations (with which Piscator and others agree) render the words, and when they had prayed they laid hands, plainly signifying that the prayers went before imposition; nor I am sure will this Text help them; for what, I pray, Did they impose hands all the while they fasted and prayed? surely their arms were very weary to lie upon their heads a whole day; whence it is more probable after that day was well spent in fasting and prayer, than they imposed hands. Then the Jews common custom doth not make imposition so silly a thing.  
2. In the consecration of the Levites (and so of the Priests) where we find Imposition, we find no mention of prayer at all (that I see) much less at their Imposition; if it were, it was not the essence of the ordinance, so far as I can learn; I know divers of God's things must be esteemed as slight things, if our heads must be judges. But I think Tertul. spoke excellently: 
De paeniten.  Audaciam existimo de bono divini praecepti disputare: neque enim quia bonum est idcirco auscultare debemus, sed quia Deus praecepit, etc.  
3. Ordination is the authorising of a person to his work: So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 6.3. plainly imply. Both H. Stephens, and Scapula, agree that the word signifies 
* Constituo, sic Constituere Regem. vel Creare. H. Stephens, Ib.  praeficio. [Hinc praefectus] to put in authority, to give rule, to ordain a Ruler. So these Texts, Acts 7.10.27. Luc. 12.42. make it clear, with other Texts. H. Stephens, Thes. To. 1. p. 1768. quoting of these Texts, Matth. c. 24. & cap. 25. Acts 6. Luc. 12. where the word is used, saith, Quibus in locis, non constituere solum, sed & praeficere verti potest, 
Sur. Ch. Dis. p. 3. p. 9  & quidem aptiùs. To this reverend Hooker agreeth. The Lord Christ in his Kingly care conceived it necessary for the honour of the place, and the execution of the work of a Deacon, to appoint choice men and solemn Ordination to authorise them to the work, etc. But then how Prayer doth properly carry any thing of this nature in it I do not apprehend: define prayer, and see how it suits with authorising, nothing like it; to beg and to authorise are not the same. Unless we look on Ordination as the consecration of a man to God, than a prayer may be part of the essence.  
4. If you ask me what is then? truly I find it hard to answer; it is plain to me, it is not that which some cry up so, and content themselves with, dissenting from their brethren. Imposition of hands I am sure is in the Text, and must come into Ordination. I find that the old Non-conformists, speaking first of the election of a Minister, in which the help of neighbouring Ministers must be required; then add, After that he is to be ordained by the laying on of the hands of the eldership, with these words pronounced by the Minister thereunto appointed, [According to this lawful calling, agreeable to the word of God, whereby thou art chosen Pastor, In the name of God, stand thou charged with the Pastoral charge of this people over which the Holy Ghost hath made thee Overseer, to govern the flock of God which he hath purchased with his blood.]  
When I read these words, it made me call to mind the manner of the ordination of two Deacons in N. England about sixteen years' since, which was the last ordination I saw, or can remember any thing of; my memory may fail me in some circumstance, but as I do remember it was very little different from this.  
The Pastor and the Teacher Imposed hands, and then said, We do in the name of Christ ordain thee N.N. 
Mat. 10.5. Mark 3.14. Luc. 9.2. Christ called, ordained, sent his Disciples forth to preach with power and authority, he in his own name, we in his name, surely Christ used words suitable.  (naming the person) Deacon of this Church, etc. then what duties the Scripture puts upon the Deacon they framed into a handsome form; when they had so done, a short prayer they made, their hands being still upon the Deacons head.  
According to the form of the Non-conformists and the Church in N. England, there is something appears like authorising of a person to his work. Now if the question be whether this be lawful or not? where have we warrant for this? that words were thus used in the primitive times, is plain enough to those who read Hierom, Ambrose, Austin. For Scripture this is plain, though some of these words be not set down in the Scripture, yet if there be an authorising, appointing, Acts 6.3. a separating, setting apart, Acts 13. Some words must be spoken that must signify so much, and what breach of rule it is to say, we ordain, or set apart, being the person is now setting apart, the thing is doing? For using the name of Christ, I hope it is he who hath given Pastors and Teachers to his Church, and from him doth the person now ordaining receive his power immediately, (It was not the Kingdom of Heaven gave Peter the keys, 
I do not say the form of Ordination lies in these words, I am not willing to make that the formalis ratio of an ordinance, which I have not express Scripture for, I would not give my adversary so much advantage; yet Reason tells that prayer alone, or imposition of hands alone, or both without words suitable cannot make an Ordination.  but Christ gave Peter immediately the keys of the Kingdom of heaven) under his authority, in his name they must act. For the other words applying to the person ordaining, what duties the Scriptures do charge such an office withal; I hope this aught to be, else it were a raw business. So that by necessary consequence from Scripture I cannot well see how these things can be denied; who can prove the Apostles did not use some such words, though they be not set down. A sending, Rom. 10. Setting apart, Appointing there must be and is; then give us that which show and express these words: they were rational men, and the Spirit purely rational which guided them, whence we may well conceive something was spoken which answered the Scriptural expressions; and so long as we hold to them I can see no harm, but that rather ought to be. Let others speak more rationally who oppose this; and leaving out imposition of hands, with these expressions, show what you do, which doth carry in it the authorising of a man to his work. I am sure there is more reason for this, and Scripture will more look to us in it, than there is for that magisterial power which congregational Ministers (not Christ, that we can find in Scripture) give to the people to keep men as they please from being admitted into the Church; and hence against their Pastors, qualified men are kept out.  
For the Objections which are made against this Text for Ordination, I find these.  
Obj. 1. Some conceive there is no ordination here, because he doth not say, to the office, but for the work whereunto I have called them, v. 2.  
A. By the same reason you may say, there was no ordination in Acts 6. because the Apostles in v. 3. do not use the word office, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But I am confident those Divines who use this argument, do acknowledge there was Ordination.  
2. If a person be separated to the work of an officer, I think he is separated to the office which that work belongs to.  
Q. But what office was it to which they were now separated?  
A. To be Apostles to the Gentiles: this I conceive was the business, and if we follow them in this and the next Chapters, we shall find what was the office. I think verse 15. of Chapter 9 is now fulfilled: the Lord told Ananias that Paul was a chosen vessel to bear his name amongst the Gentiles; and now is Paul ordained to it, and not before. This was a great work indeed, to have the Gentiles brought into the Church; there was need of some solemn act to prove their commission. Observe verse 46. of this Chapter, Paul says to the Jews, Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Thus Chrysostom twice, it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I think signifies Munus Apostolicum. And thus most Divines I meet with affirm.  
Obj. 2. Paul was made an Apostle before, Acts 9  
A. Prove that; the Text holdeth forth no such thing. Aretius saith, that in Acts 9 Paul was not sent to the Gentiles, but to Ananias, a quo disceret discenda. And Mr. Noyes denieth that Paul was an Apostle in this Chapter 13. but thinks he was an Evangelist.  
2. Paul was a Preacher before (and so had his authoritative mission I doubt not.) Our Divines in their Comments upon the 1. v. reckon up five eminent persons amongst those Prophets and Teachers mentioned [and this runs most smoothly] Saul must be one of those, or else five will not be found. Had Saul been then an Apostle, than it should have been there were in the Church at Antioch an Apostle, Prophets, and Teachers: but Luke doth not mention an Apostle, which sure he would, since he doth inferior officers. For my part I conceive Paul was a Prophet; partly because he was filled with the Holy Ghost, Acts 9.17. [Paul had there an authoritative mission to preach] as I conceive the Prophets mentioned were extraordinary persons, and their gifts such for aught any thing I could ever see to the contrary as yet: partly because I find Prophets did go from one Church to another, according as there was cause, being men so extraordinarily fitted for service. Thus Judas and Silas, chap. 15.32. being Prophets were sent, etc. thus Chap. 11.27. Prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Thus we find Paul and Barnabas joined and sent together, Chapter 11.30. and 12.25. and these two abode together a whole year at Antioch, Chap. 11.26. But that he was an Apostle before now, I see nothing to force it. Paul then being one of these, and now called to an higher office, this doth not prove Re-ordination to the same office: any person in office, and called to a higher office, aught to be ordained to it, though he was ordained to an inferior office before. Re-ordination to the same office I know no warrant for.  
3. After Christ's Ascension Apostles were not chosen in such a private way as that Acts 9 would hold out. We find Mathias, Acts 1. chosen in a public and solemn manner, God declaring his choice. So here in Acts 13. in a public meeting Paul is called and separated in a solemn manner.  
Obj. 3. If Paul were ordained an Apostle, than the greater was blessed of the lesser: his Apostolical power and order was given by them who themselves had not Apostolical power, being but Prophets and Teachers.  
A. 1. They were not commanded to bless, but separate. Ordination and blessing differ very much; we might as well say, Why should the less separate the greater? so we find it here, and it is in vain to dispute against it if God will have it so; but this was extraordinary.  
2. Paul's Apostolical power he received from him who commanded him to be separated, that is, the Holy Ghost, yet he is pleased to command these to separate him to it; and surely such persons who ordain others by virtue of an immediate command and revelation from God, though their office be inferior to the persons ordained, yet this immediate command and revelation will countervail the act of others who are equal in office. They acted all by an immediate and extraordinary revelation; whence Paul might well say it was by the will of God not of man, that he was an Apostle; hence the Text saith, v. 4. they were sent forth by the Holy Ghost. The call was from the Holy Ghost, the command to separate them was from the Holy Ghost.  
3. That Barnabas was made an Apostle now, I think will not be denied: that he was an Apostle, Chap. 14. v. 14. tells us, which when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul, etc. Thus Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. p. 373, & 375. mentioning some of the writings of Barnabas calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice. Thus Hierom, Catal. Script. Eccles. saith of him, Barnabas was ordained Apostle of the Gentales with Paul. Others I. could quote, who call him the Apostle Barnabas. But that Barnabas was an Apostle before now I think none will say; for the Text is clear against him. Why then Paul should not now be made an Apostle also, I see no reason, as well as Barnabas. Hierom saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
4. If Paul were separated before to the office of an Apostle, what need he be separated now again: I know no instance in Scripture where men were twice separated to the same office.  
Corn. a Lap. upon the Text, speaks thus, Saulus jam ab initio suae conversionis, a Deo designatus & auctoratus erat Apostolus Gentium. Acts 9.15. Sed in actu primo & secretè, hìc in actu secundo & publicè designatur Apostolus.  
Mr. Noyes, who writes against impostion of hands, finding it used in this place, saith, Paul was indeed called out of course, and therefore God may by this sign with many other commend Paul to the Church as an Apostle of Christ. Yet but an Evangelist as yet with him. See Waltherus Harmon. p. 490. Also Aretius upon the Text.  
Arg. 2. If Christ hath committed power to Ministers to ordain Ministers, than Ordination is necessary to a Minister. But the Antecedent is true; ergo the Consequent is true.  
The Consequence is clear; for to what end was the power committed if it need not be executed; it is to accuse Christ of want of wisdom to give a needless power to officers, to command them to do a thing, and order them strictly in doing of it, if men may come into office without it. If I have a power committed to me to preach, and baptise, than some are bound to hear and to be baptised. So in this.  
1. For the Antecedent, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands on no man suddenly. 
p. 2. p. 50.  In quo praecepto non solum exemplum sed mandatum continetur, saith Walaeus. That Ordination is here meant, there is such a unanimous consent of the Church, that I think there is no question of it. Thus the Fathers, Lutherans, Calvinists, Episcopal, 
* Synod. N. E. platf. ch. p. 11. M. Hooker Sur Ch. Disp. p. 2. p. 74.  Classical, and Congregational: yea, though divers of the Papists do understand their Sacrament of Penance, yet Anselm, Cajetan, Cor. a Lap. Justin, Salmeron, understand it rather of Ordination. But I must meet with this Text again, and then I will prove it must be meant of Ordination.  
2. 2 Tim. 2.2. few Interpreters that I see touch that which I aim at, i.e. How did Timothy commit? or what was it for him to commit? etc. The things which we had heard [not Traditions, as the Papists hence gather, for Quae Apostolus Timotheo viva voce tradidit, 
Gerh. in loc.  sunt eadem cum illis quae scriptis consignavit] he must commit: To whom? They must be faithful mon, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to teaach others. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Chrysostom upon this Text, and Cartwright in his Comment upon the speech of Christ to Nicodemus, would make us believe it is not so easy a matter to be a Minister as our vain heads in these days take it to be. But still how did Timothy commit these? was it by teaching or preaching to them? so he did commit them to weak men and women as well as able men: was it by writing these? so the whole Church had them committed. This is clear, the men must be able before the things be committed: his teaching might help them to be able; but being qualified and able, how doth he commit them? Surely by laying on of hands, i.e. ordaining of them, and thus separating them to the work of the Ministry, he doth indeed commit them. If this Interpretation do not please, give me a better. After much searching I found one or two go my way. Non solum fideliter eos doceas, sed etiam potestatem alios docendi ipsis conferas; this is Commenting in Gerh. opinion. Magna cura eligendus est Doctor, saith Ambrose in loc. If you lay hold of eligendus, pray take it in a large sense as Ambrose doth, and it was Timothy's election. Anselm, and Bullinger incline also this way.  
The 3 Titus 5. Titus is left in Crete to Constitute or Ordain Elders. I do not remember that Clemens uses any other word, but either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [signifying the same] in his Epist. ad Corin. when he speaks of the Apostles ordaining of Officers. Doubtless [saith Musculus] as Paul left Titus to ordain, 
Loc. Com. p. 198.  so Titus kept the method Paul used, i. e. election, prayer, and imposition of hands. Those than that come into the Ministry in Crete, they must be ordained. In vain were those words to Timothy and Titus, if ordination were such a needless thing: Timothy and Titus also being Church-officers, where is this popular election that is so much cried up to give the Essence? One would think the Apostle should have given strict command to the people to look to their Election, because it gave the Essence; but not be so exact with Timothy and Titus, who gave but an adjunct; who can deny the adjunct, or of what force is it when the essence is given before? Timothy and Titus might well say, nay Paul, We are clear, we must not ordain whom we will, 
See separ, exam. p. 55. ad 59  but whom the people will, to whom they give the essence; if an unworthy fellow be chosen, let the fault lie where it doth, it cannot on us; if we gave the essence it were true indeed: whether we will ordain them or not, that hinders not, for they have the essence; then act they may sure enough without us.  
Arg. 3. It is necessary that he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Minister, should show true Authority by which he doth them.  
But he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Minister without Ordination, cannot show true Authority by which he doth them.  
Ergo Ordination is necessary to a Minister.  
The Major is plain, it holds in all Acts of Authority, else a man is an usurper. By what authority dost thou these things? said they to Christ; the question was rational: if Christ had not Authority, he would not have done them.  
Minor. He who shows true Authority for his Ministerial Acts, must show Scripture-authority.  
But he that performs Ministerial Acts without Ordination, cannot show Scripture-authority. Ergo.  
The major is plain. The minor, if any deny, let them produce their Scripture-authorities. He who is sufficiently qualified, elected [supposing there is a Church already] and ordained, this man I am sure may show his Authority: But he that is not Ordained, cannot show it, I know no Scripture to warrant it. Let our question be attended.  
I have heard it affirmed, and that strongly, from a person of no small abilities, that the Fraternity may Preach, Baptise, administen the Supper as well as the Pastor; the common Scriptures urged by this wild generation, and Acts 10.48. were alleged. I never heard that the Papists, or our Bishops, would allow any private man to baptise in a Church where there were Ministers present; this text would force it, if these men argue right, provided they can prove that these brethren were private men, and Peter not extraordinarily guided; which yet they have not done. But a little further.  
1. It was granted there are Church-Officers, and shall be till the body be perfected, Eph. 4. If so, than these Officers have some things so proper to them, that they are not common to others: But if all men may preach, baptise, administer the Supper, there is nothing proper to the Officers: if any thing, it must be government; which first is by many denied: But if it be yielded, why may they not take this also as well as the rest? but if Church-officers have nothing proper to them, how are they officers? That officers have something proper to them, I think none can devy, the nature of the thing will carry it in all Officers: If all can make warrants, etc. where is the office of a Justice? and thus in other offices, what is common to all, is proper to none: how are officers known but by their actions?  
To say, That though the brethren do the same things, yet they do them not as their Officers, is to say nothing. How shall we know that? If any man may make a warrant, and that warrant is as valid as the Justices, how shall a man know who is Justice? the name may differ, but not the power, Ergo, not the office.  
2. We find divers promises made to the Church of Gods giving Officers, Jer. 3.15. & 23.4. Ezek. 34.25. Isa. 30.20. But if every body may do the officers acts, than God seems to make promises of good to his Church, which are needless; a great show of mercy, but no mercy indeed. There is no need, no use of the things promised, what would this impute to God?  
3. Our Divines have maintained against the Papists that Matth. 28.19. was spoken to the Apostles, and the Ministers of the word their successors, and the context will force it, I think, if he spoke to the eleven Apostles, v. 16. And though the Lord's Supper is not there mentioned, yet surely it was there included, there is par ratio. Let any man bring a proof from Scripture or antiquity, that ever any but an officer did administer the Lord's Supper. Docete, baptizate, Matth. 28.19. Haec dicuntur solis Apostolis & Ministris verbi; certum est haec non fuisse dicta hominibus privatis. 
Bell. ener. co. 3. p. 342  In Acts Apostolorum nihil omnino legitur de privatis Christianis absque speciali revelatione baptizantibus, saith Learned Ames.  
4. The Church-officers under the Old Testament had such acts peculiar to them, as none but they could do: It were strange that Christ should institute Officers under the New Testament, and they should have nothing proper to them.  
5. If this be true, than all the body is an Eye. The foot may say to the eye, though you are placed above, and I below, yet I do the same acts you do; and it is not the place, but the organ and the action which makes an eye. It is not the place, but the actions show the Officer; that member which seethe is the eye, place it where you will; if all see, than all are eyes. But the Apostle denieth the whole body to be an eye, 1 Cor. 12.  
6. Church-officers are called Stewards, overseers, Preachers, Ambassadors, Rulers. We would think it strange, men would not bear it in civil acts, to have every body do the acts which belong to these Relations; as much order I hope in God's house, as in other houses or States. He is every where a God of order, but this was spoken in reference to his House especially.  
I intent to add no more arguments to prove the necessity of Ordinantion: I have only two objections to answer, which two eminent Divines made against me, maintaining the necessity of Ordination.  
Obj. 1. We read of no Ordination but it was performed either by extraordinary persons, or at least some such were present when they died who know where they left the power. The Bishop, Presbyter, Fraternity, each of these challenge the power, but who knows to whom it belongs?  
Answ. The first part of the objection cuts off Ordination wholly [and that is chief aimed at:] The second part doth seem to yield it, could we but find who should Administer it.  
To the first part I answer.  
1. It's no wonder though we find extraordinary persons in the administration of this Ordinance when they were in Being. In the first beginnings these must ordain, or none: we have but the histories of planting of Churches in the New Testament, where none were before; and this was done by persons extraordinary.  
2. All that extraordinary persons did, I hope did not die with them. What is there more extraordinary in Ordination then in Preaching? why must not Preaching die as well as ordination to Preaching? The action is no more than may be performed by ordinary Ministers.  
If it be said (as I know it is) they conveyed gifts in Ordination, I shall answer this when I come to Mr. Noyes.  
3. How shall we prove that there were Ministers elected without the presence, acting, guidance, and consent of extraordinary officers? I think no man can prove there were any so chosen, by the examples we have of the people's choice; for extraordinary persons were ever present, and we find they acted. By the same reason throw away Election, which this Divine would hardly do, 
Walaeus To. 2. p. 51.  Nullum etiam occurret exemplum in toto Novo Testamento, nec in primitiva Ecclesia quae Apostolorum aetatem excepit, ullam ullius ordinarii Doctor is Electionem in ulla Ecclesia peractam fuisse, sine consensu & consilio aliquorum saltem Doctroum. This pincheth.  
4. Were the Churches so blind, that they could not see this to be an extraordinary thing, and that to die with these officers? Would the extraordinary officers admit ordinary Presbyters to join with them in that work which was proper to them as extraordinary officers. But that they did so, the Epist. to Timo. doth plainly carry it, and was, no doubt, the ground of that Canon. 3. in Concil. Carth. 4. where Presbyters were to impose hands with the Bishop.  
5. Were the Epistles to Timothy and Titus writ to them as extraordinary officers? I know when Timothy is called upon to do the work of an Evangelist, this was proper to him as such an officer; but I think, laying aside that which was proper to them as Evangelists [which did not consist in the administration of any Ordinance] those Epistles were written to Ministers. They must preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, etc. as well as Timothy; and why not I pray commit the things, 
2 Tim. 2.2.  etc. 2 Tim. 2.2. lay hands on none suddenly, as well as Timothy? What extraordinary matter is in this above the other?  
6. Shall persons come into the Ministry untried whether they be fit or unfit, sound or heretical? No, by no means, this is judged a dangerous thing. Men must be tried, and that by those who are able to judge [as now we have Commissioners.] But what Scripture-rule have you for this? If you leave out the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, 1 Tim. 3.10. I doubt you will hardly find any in Scripture: but Timothy and Titus were extraordinary persons, and what have we to do with their Epistles? but if you will make use of those Epistles to mainain your trial of men [it was a Commissioner that made this objection against me] give us leave to make use of the same Epistles to prove our Ordination of Ministers; those who are able to do the one, I hope are as able to do the other.  
For the second part of the Objection, I little regard that. As for the Fraternty, let the people bring forth their Charter, and show us where the great Lord gave them this power. Against this I have argued a little [I intended but a little] in my book against the Separatists, p. 70, etc.  
For the Bishop and the Presbyter it must first be proved that these are distinct officers jure divino, or else the contest is vain: this is not a question for me to handle in this place, but I can safely say this, there must be more brought from Divine writ then I see is yet brought to prove it, or else I can acknowledge no such thing. I suppose Bishop Davenant in his Determination upon the question, hath summed up what can be brought from Scripture, but that will not do: yet he there in some cases will allow Presbyters to ordain, and I think our case is as weighty as any. Anselm, the Popish Canterburian Archbishop, in his Comment upon Titus 1. [Though I see much of it is taken out of Jerom] gave me enough to quiet my thoughts about this question; such lines from his pen took much with me considering the Scriptures he brought. I am sure he that made the objection did not own any such distinction. I think no sober Bishop did ever yet deny the Ordinations in the French, Dutch, and Scottish Churches to be valid.  
The second Objection was made by another reverend Divine, when I passed the Commissioners; He put this question to me, Whether I judged Ordination necessary to the Constitution of a Minister? I answered, Yes, if it could be had. He asked me to which command I would refer Ordination? I answered, to the second. To which he assenting added, Cultus naturalis could not, nor must be laid aside; but Cultus Institutus might rather than Cultus naturalis should: God will have mercy, not sacrifice in such a case; but if I would say Ordination was necessary and might now be had, than I must own it by succession, and consequently maintain the Church of Rome to be a true Church. Some words then passed, but time cut us off.  
To this reverend Divine I shall now give a further answer:  
A. The first part of the speech saith no more than we allow, only when Ordination cannot be had, I think it is not then properly laid aside.  
2. Preaching, take the word strictly, as it is the act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be referred to the first Commandment (I conceive) but to the second; nor do I see our Divines make it a part of Cultus naturalis.  
3. This notion will cut off popular election, as well as Ordination, if preaching belongs to Cultus naturalis, for that must not be laid aside, saith this Divine; I hope popular election doth not belong to the first Commandment; then election is as unnecessary, and if men may preach without Election and Ordination we shall have brave work. [Preaching here is put for all other Ordinances] where then is the essence of a Minister according to his own notion?  
But the last part of his speech was that where he put the most strength, which yet hath been often answered, that I might well spare my pains: something I answered then, and now will add more.  
1. Divers of our Congregational Divines [of which this reverend Divine is one] conceive [and practise accordingly] the Fraternity to have power of Ordination; and if so, then if election may be had, Ordination may be had; so shall it not need be laid aside, nor shall we need trouble ourselves about Rome, that dispute rather may be laid aside. I desired an Answer of him what he thought of it, but he would give me none.  
2. But suppose his judgement be contrary: According to this argument Ordination, which we are sure was once an Ordinance of God, [and I have before proved it] must be utterly lost, [unless with the Seekers we gape for some Apostles again] For this argument of Succession may ever be urged, and will be as strong to the world's end as now. But why must the Church lose an Ordinance? If the argument be so strong against Ordination, is it not as strong against any thing else that came through Rome?  
Rome is no true Church, ergo nothing that comes through Rome is valid. What will be next? Mr. Ainsw. and other Separatists zealous enough against Rome, would not say so of Baptism, therefore admitted of no rebaptising. Nor would Mr. Johnson upon the same ground admit of re-ordination; one was as valid as the other.  
3. If God hath so far owned the Ministry of England, as to work with it to the conversion of many sound, and others visibly, whence there are numbers to elect Ministers, I doubt not but he will as well own the Ordination of Ministers by them, though they had some accidental corruptions adhering to their own Ordination [for the substance true.] If he hath not owned the Ministry, how came our Brethren to gather Churches here some few years since, those who elected them to office, I believe very few of them [if any in some places] were converted by Ministers who were not ordained, because they must have their Ordination by succession, etc. I pray where is there a Ministry in the world which God hath more owned?  
4. Let it be as this Divine saith, because Cultus institutus may be laid aside, Ordination may be also, etc. Let us see whither this will go; then official preaching [pardon the expression, for I think all preaching, properly so called, is official] Baptism, the Lord's Supper, Discipline, may be all laid aside upon the same account, for these belong to Cultus Institutus, so the whole second Commandment lost; which way shall we come to these for fear of Rome? will he say, that the Churches [and those without Ordinances, it seems] may choose their Pastor's [suppose Wickliff, Luther, Zuinglius, men gifted and raised extraordinarily] and election giving the essence to a Ministers call, these may now preach, baptise, etc. [so the second Commandment is saved, else I know not which way he can save it] though they be not ordained; may not the same Ministers as well Ordain other Ministers, Ordination belonging to the same Commandment? surely no rational man can oppose it; this he must yield to, or else the whole instituted worship of God must be lost out of the Church as well as Ordination. But if election will help, than I hope most of the godly Ministry in England may ordain, for they have been elected by the people, men qualified, and whom God hath blessed in their work more or less: though they have more than election in their own esteem, that hinders not; they have that which you think can authorise them to preach, baptise, etc. then to ordain as well; and those who are ordained by such, no doubt but may Ordain again; so Rome and Succession trouble us not. Ames grants that Wickliff, 
Med. The. l. 1. c. 33. s. 39  Luther, Zuinglius, may not unfitly be called extraordinary Ministers, joining some of our famous Martyrs with them, and giveth three reasons for the assertion; the last is, Quia ordine tum temporis perturbato & collapso, necesse habuerunt non nulla tentare praeter ordinem common. So Syn. Pur. The. D. 42. S. 41, 42, 50.  
5. Carry the objection to our first Reformers, where it should seem to have most strength, what godly man is there who calls to mind Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Ridly, Philpot, Bradford, etc. persons upon whom this objection would fall, as to their own Ministry, and their ordaining of others, that would not be ashamed of himself, should he null their Ministry, and as some [though this Divine abhors it I believe] whose mouths are full of nothing but Antichristian, call these Antichristian Ministers, because ordained by Popish men. Thou who callest these Antichristian Ministers, rise up with them in the morning, answer them in holiness, go to the prisons with them, and from thence to the stake and burn with them for the sake of Christ: grant it they were ordained as the objection runs, after enlightening they threw off Popery, but their Ordination they held, being no Popish Invention, they go on still to preach, baptise, etc. and ordain others; Why not? when these men were ordained by such men, they had a Ministerial charge put upon them, set apart to the work of the Ministry to dispense the things of Christ, not of Mahomet, or such like. While they were in the dark they acted superstitiously, afterwards more purely; the corruptions they reform, the substance they kept [and so our Divines now] Will not the mercy of God pardon this, and keep his sacrifice still in his Church? I doubt not but he will. The usual distinctions made 1. Between a person and his office. 2. Between the substance of an ordinance and the accidental corruptions of it. 3. Between what cometh through Rome, [being Christ's Institutions] and what cometh from Rome, being their own Inventions; these distinctions will soon answer the objection.  
6. 
To. 2. p. 66.  Learned Aims in his answer to Bellarmin urging this, Ecclesia nullo modo potest esse sine Pastoribus & Episcopis: illi soli sunt veri Episcopi qui ab Apostolis per legitimam successionem & Ordinationem descendisse ostenduntur, etc. speaks thus, Ab Apostolis descenderunt ownes illi Pastores qui secundum canones Apostolicos in Scriptures traditos sunt in ecclesia constituti. 4. Horum perpetua successio ab Apostolis & Apostolicis viris non est necessariò ostendenda ex historiarum humanarum incertis testimoniis, sed ex promissione illa Christi, qua spospondit se per omnes aetates excitaturum operarios ad salutem electorum procurandam. 5. Ordinandi potestas quoad jus cuique ecclesiae particulari est a Deo concessa. Now for his last. 6. pastors hunc in modunt descendentes, & justo jure ordinatos habemus nos per Dei gratiam in omnibus ecclesiis ex voto nostro constitutis. If any should take hold of the last words, and suppose the Doctor means, gathered Churches in which the people did ordain, surely they wrong the Doctor much. I wonder how many such Churches there were when the Doctor wrote? neither had the Doctor answered Bellarmin, who opposes all Ministers not ordained by the Roman power, but had fallen off from Rome: then the Doctor must own the ordination of the Reformed Ministers, else he said nothing to the Jesuit. I wish this Divine would answer Bellarmin better. Doctor Ames uses to be esteemed of amongst Congregational men.  
7. For Rome being a true Church: it is well known that Rome is more corrupt now in Doctrine than it was when our first Reformers fell off; what difference there is between the former and latter Schoolmen who knows not? so that Rome is not now what it was then, when our men had their Ordination from thence. But may we not say as our brethren do of Parish-Congregations, they will not deny [the most understanding and sober of them] but that in many parishes there are true Churches, though they will not say the whole parish is a true Church, according to the constitution. So there is a true Church under the Romish jurisdiction, though we do not say Rome is a true Church.  
But what shall we say to such a people where the true God, and the Trinity, with the Attributes of God; Jesus Christ in his divine and human nature; the satisfaction and price of Christ as the meritorious cause of our justification 
* See Bellar. de Justif. l 1. c. 2. & l. 2. c. 5.  and pardon; The Scriptures; All the ordinances of God; The doctrine of the Freegrace of God in opposition to man's proud freewill [O excellent Bradwardin, and Alvarez; etc. are owned, defended, believed] where there are persons who walk according to Scripture rules in a great degree: what shall we say? is here no Church?  
If our State have been rightly guided when they made the Act to Tolerate those who own One God, Christ, and Scriptures, than a Church in Rome may be owned, where these and many other truths are maintained, more sound than they will be by many of our tolerated persons: yea, it were well if all the members of Congregated Churches in England were as sound in those truths [before mentioned] and as holy in their conversations as are divers who live under Rome.  
As for the Pope, were it no more but bare government, compared with the carriage of many Church-members, I may say as Learned Mr. Norton of N. England, in his Epistle to the General Court, Is there no medium between Boniface and Morellius, between Papacy and Anarchy, Babylon and Babel? etc. both are naught, the People's Anarchy as well as the Pope's Tyranny; and his Tyranny will not sooner deny a Church there [as to Discipline] then Anarchy doth in these members: we see the effect, how many men in England have turned Papists, since they saw these carriages in the Churches.  
But again, What mean those Texts, Come out of her my people, Rev. 18.4. if there be no Church there? The woman's flying into the wilderness, Rel. 12.6. take it as Mr. Mead, or as Pareus, yet it will argue a true Church to have been under Rome. The witnesses prophesied 1260. days, during the time of the woman's being in the wilderness they were to feed her; this must needs fall under the time before the Reformation, begin it when you will.  
More I could say, but I think this is sufficient to prove that Ordination may and ought still to be continued notwithstanding Rome, and that it is necessary to a Minister. And since both these objections are made against me by Commissioners [though I would hope more Disputandi gratiâ, then being indeed opposite to my Thesis, I say I would be glad to hope so] and since this Script may possibly fall into some of their hands, I wish humbly [and I know I could have hundreds of godly Ministers to join with me] they would please to take off that offence, which I conceive is justly given to the most part of the godly Ministry in England, when they see them let into the Ministry persons illiterate, and some blame-worthy in their conversations [as I am informed by godly Ministers who know them] besides being illiterate, and persons who neither are ordained, nor will be ordained, nor I think would sober Ministers ever ordain them. These things are not secret, but more publicly spoken off then my Book can publish; whence their friends are grieved, their enemies rejoice, having cause they think to open their mouths against them, and to vilify Reformation, besides the hindrance of union in the Churches.   

CHAP. II. Concerning Imposition of hands in Ordination.  
ALthough our Divines have all I think [unless a few risen up in our days] agreed in the necessity of Ordination to a Minister; yet they have not all had the same thoughts about Imposition of hands, as if it were necessary to Ordination. Most have agreed in this, that though they look on it as a Ceremony, an Adjunct, yet it ought to be practised, because of the Apostolical examples. Our Congregational Brethrens in Essex cast it away; and some cause I have to stand upon it, because I therefore refused Ordination by them, because they would not Impose hands, and so it was the longer before I could be Ordained. If I did refuse upon insufficient grounds, I am sure the grounds which were given to me for the contrary were very insufficient. I lost the papers, but met with another manner of Antagonist shortly after Mr. Noyes (a reverend Divine, and my dear friend) of N. England, who hath said more against it then I have as yet heard from these; what any body else have said against it in writing I know not unless the Author of the Diatribe, etc. whom that worthy Divine Doctor Seaman hath answered: I cast my eye upon it long since, but do not now remember any thing Pro, or Con, what there is said, or in any other man. What then I can gather from Scripture and Reason I shall humbly offer to the Reader, and to Mr. Noyes in answer to what he hath said against it.  
Not many years since Humane Ceremonies added to the worship of God, how much trouble and misery they added to the Church, we have not yet forgot. Men wrote and spoke so far as they dared, and suffered by reason of them. men's wits are now busied as much in throwing out of God's worship, as theirs were in adding; why then we may not now stand up in defence of God's Ceremonies [if this be but a Ceremony] as they opposed men's Ceremonies, I know not.  
Come then to Imposition, etc. Let us hear a little what other men have said about it: And first for great Calvin, whom I hear alleged against Imposition, which I a little wondered at, knowing Calvin had spoken sufficiently for it.  
1. 
Instit. l. 4. c. 3. s. 16.  Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum Impositione, quia tamen fuisse in perpetuo usu Apostolis videmus, illa tam accurata eorum observatio prae cepti vice nobis esse debet.  
2. Again, Impositionem manuum, 
L. 4. c. 14. s. 20.  qua Ecclesia Ministri, in suum munus initiarentur, non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum.  
3. Again, 
L. 4. c. 2. s. 16.  Et certè utile est ejusmodi symbolo Ministerii dignitatem populo commendari, etc. praeterea non erit inane signum, si in germanam suam originem restitutum fuerit-: nam si nihil frustra spiritus Dei in Ecclesia Dei instituit, hanc ceremoniam cum ab eo profecta sit sentiemus non esse inutilem, modo in superstitiosum usum nou vertatur. See him again l. 4. c. 19 s. 31. Calvin's judgement is clear, with his Reasons for it.  
Chemnitius giving us the judgement of the Lutheran Churches, saith, 
Exam. Concil. Trid. p. 221.  Nec manuum Impositionem vocare Sacramentum gravabimur. I omit Austin, who called it so long before they were born, in a large sense, not the Popish sense. Nos uno verbo dicimus, si per Sacramentum jusjurandum, 
Loc. Com. p. 321.  & religiosam, obstrictionem intelligunt, sit Ordo ipsorum, per me licet, Sacramentum, quale veteribus erat Sacramentum militare, saith Musculus.  
Walaeus saith, 
Loc. Com. l. 1. p. 473.  In all the Confessions of their Churches [except one or two] it was required, and because the Apostles always used it, and the Apostle gives that precept to Tim. 5.22. Not to lay on hands suddenly we ought not to omit it; because in that negative an affirmative is contained that he should Impose on worthy persons; where since by a Synecdoche it is taken for the election of a Pastor, certè pro ritu, vel parte essentiali habenda est. Thus he.  
From the same charge to Timothy, 
Sur. ch. Dis. p. 2. p. 74.  Mr. Hooker saith he is willing to follow the road, when he hath no constraining reason to go aside. It seems this Reverend man knew no cause why Imposition should be laid aside.  
The Synod of New England say, 
Platf. ch. Dis. c. 9  Church-Officers ought to be Ordained with Imposition of hands.  
Here than we have the Fathers, Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Episcopal, Classical, Congregational men, the Churches generally since the Apostles days Imposing hands in Ordination. We must have strong reasons (as Mr. Hooker saith) to lead us afide from these Churches. Custom of the Churches Paul uses to make something of, 1 Cor. 11. I think so should we, having especially such Scripture-precedents going before them: I look upon their practice as very weighty.  
But I come to argument, laying down first my Position: Imposition of hands ought to be used in Ordination.  
Arg. 1. That form of Ordination which cometh nearest to the Gospel-pattern, aught to be used.  
But Imposition of hands in Ordination is that form which cometh nearest to the Gospel-pattern; ergo Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used.  
The major I suppose cannot well be denied, especially by those who in the Bishop's days use to cry out so much, All things must be made according to the pattern in the Mount; and why now I pray must not things be done according to the pattern of the Gospel? what do you make of it? that which you may follow, or let alone as you please? what is said against this I shall meet with anon.  
For the minors bring us forth those rules, or examples which show that men may be ordained, or were ordained without Imposition of hands: that Church-Officers were ordained with Imposition, the Texts are known, as before mentioned.  
Arg. 2. If the Gospel expresseth the whole Ordinance of Ordination by Imposition of hands, than Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used.  
But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Consequent is true.  
The Consequence is clear; for why should the Apostle mention that which is but needless, or at least but indifferent to set out an ordinance by.  
Obj. But it is said, Obj. This was no more than what Paul saith at another time, for this cause I bow my knee, etc. meaning prayer.  
A. 1. Be it so, yet this hinders not; Sol. for if Paul saith he did bow his knee, I know Paul was so honest that he would not lie; he did bow his knee sure enough. So when he faith, Lay hands, etc. I doubt not but Timothy did and ought to Lay hands, etc.  
2. There were other gestures for prayer recorded in the Gospel besides kneeling; can you show other Ceremonies or Adjuncts [as you call them] recorded besides Imposition in Ordination? If there had been never any other gesture recorded in prayer but kneeling, than we would have concluded we ought to use that gesture only; why not then Imposition of hands in Ordination, since none but this is recorded.  
3. There may be some difference put between Paul's narration, what he did, and Paul's injunction of another, what he should do. Paul might tell them another time that he prayed for them standing; but where doth he order Timothy, or others to ordain without Imposition?  
4. This objection would carry it, as if there were no more in Imposition of hands in reference to Ordination then in kneeling to prayer: which I will not as yet yield; what I have said before I think will show the contrary, and more I shall add.  
But the Antecedent is the part I have to prove, which if I can make good, it will make much to show the necessity of Ordination, and of Imposition in it; the Text is well known. 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands on no man suddenly: the question is whether Ordination be here meant. I named before the judgement of all sorts of Divines, ancient and modern, Episcopal, Classical, Congregational, [yea, of divers of the Papists] who agree it is meant of Ordination: this might be enough one would think; but in our days we must prove what we say; had our Brethren given us reasons to the contrary, I might have known what to have answered to; but I hear of none.  
1. This Imposition cannot have reference to sick persons: There's no matter how suddenly he laid on hands to cure them; nothing appearing in the context.  
2. Nor can it relate to the blessing of children; the context hath nothing for it: nor did I ever read that the Apostles did use this practice.  
3. Nor can it be meant of the Sacrament of Penance, as many Papists do expound it, though some of the most learned are against it, and rather expound it of Ordination, as before; the context will favour something this notion: but that I have this against it.  
1. For their Sacrament we reject it; for absolution of a repenting person, before bound under Church-censure, this we own; but in Scripture as we have no precept, so no example that the Church did use to Impose hands on a penitent; we read no such thing when the Incestuous person was loosed, after he had been bound by excommunication; what reason then to have it understood of that which in Scripture is not to be found; it stands with most reason to expound it with other Scriptures.  
2. I see Bellarmin and others make little of Imposition in the Sacrament of Penance; but in Ordination he makes it an essential part: More reason then why of this then of that, which hath no other word for it.  
3. For the Brethren who oppose us, I presume they will not understand it thus; for they give so much to the people, in admission of members, that Timothy might well be hindered for laying hands suddenly on such: and that 2 Epistle to the Corinth's, with the practice of Antiquity, especially Cyprian will give some ground for it.  
Had it not been for my first reason, and the reasons I have to prove it must be meant of Ordination, I should have inclined this way because of v. 20.  
4. Nor can it be meant of Confirmation. I have heard our Brethren have thus Interpreted it. But  
1. I can see no shadow of reason for this in the context; for the Apostle is speaking nothing of Baptism, about which time that which men call confirmation was used.  
2. They must then prove that Timothy had power to confer the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, for so we find in confirmation they were given, Acts 8, & 9, & 19 Of this more anon.  
3. Nor do I see what need of that caution suddenly; for no matter how soon they were confirmed in the faith: they were in the Church already, and to confirm them as fast as might be was good. Peter in Acts 8. and Paul in Acts 19 did suddenly Impose hands to this end; good to keep them from Wavering and Apostatising.  
4. How did Timothy partake of other men's sins when he sought to confirm them suddenly?  
5. Laying then these by, the text must needs be meant of Ordination, for I know of no other cases in which hands were Imposed in the New stament, [nor at all in one case, i.e. penance:] So that it must be this, and that I shall yet further prove.  
1. The Apostle from the 17. v. had been discoursing about Elders: now it is very seasonable to give some word about the making of Elders. So the context holds it fairly out.  
2. The  Version gives it, Ne Constituas quenquam subitò: This is Ordination plainly.  
3. The reason why he should be cautious, was lest he should partake of other men's sins. Ne reus fias corrupti ministerii, saith Aretius. And it is certain, he that is the cause of a corrupt man's coming into the Ministry (or insufficient) may be guilty of much sin; it is so weighty a thing to have the charge of souls. Chrysostom, 
* on Isa. 58.  Jerom, Calvin, Chamier, Hemmingius, Cor. a Lap. speak excellently to this reason of the caution.  
4. As the Apostle had taught Timothy in the 3. Chapter what should be the qualification of Bishops and Deacons, the former of which he had been speaking of in this Chapter, just before our Text, it may very well suit that Timothy should not suddenly ordain men, but first see whether they were so qualified as he had written to him. So much for this Text.  
2. A second Text wherein the Scripture expresseth Ordination by Imposition only, is that known place 1 Tim. 4.14. the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. This Text is generally understood of the Ordination of Timothy. I never met with any who denied it but one Socinian. But of this Text more anon.  
3. A third Text as some apprehend, is Heb. 6.2. which Mr. Noyes doth very much oppose. I could not at first tell what was his meaning to bestow so many lines upon it, but at last I thought of Mr. Hooker, whose judgement it is likely Mr. N. understood; two advantages Mr. N. hath: 1. The multitude of Interpreters who understand it of confirmation (as Mr. N. saith.) 2. That it followeth Baptism.  
But first, let us see if no Divines understand it of Ordination, so as it is comprehended at least under it. Junius, Pareus, and our Annotations take it largely, and look at Ordination included. Gualther, Tossanus, Gellespio, Dicson, Johnson, Jacob. Bullinger of Ordination only, or chief. Mr. Cartw. thus, By Imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament, 
Rhem. Test.  much less confirmation after Baptism; but by Trope, or borrowed speech the Ministry of the Church, upon the which hands 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: this is to the point indeed.  
Mr. 
Sur. Ch. Dis. p. 1. p. 7.  Hooker proves that Church Discipline is a fundamental point of Religion from hence; thus, Laying on of hands being by a Metonymy of the Adjunct put for Ordination; and Ordination one particular put for the whole of Discipline. Having then these men [and these no babes] on my side, I will see what reason there is why Ordination here must not be meant.  
For confirmation [which so many expound it of] I searched amongst those Protestant Divines which I had to find a definition of it in our Protestant sense, and why they call it so; but I could not find one who gave me satisfaction but Chemnitius, Exam. Concil. Trid. de confirmat. The Papists definition I knew, and a pretty one it is. That which Chemnitius speaks gave me great content; but I could wish some body would, prove this is the meaning of Imposition in this Text, for than we should have one more strong ground for Infant-Baptism, as we may gather by Chemnitius opening of confirmation. Casting my eye on Diodati I see he thus expounds it, and hence gathers Infant-Bpatism. But this is not sufficient; we call for proof now. I know Imposition of hands was after Baptism in Scripture, except Act. 9.17. and so far as we can learn from Scripture, we find  
1. Extraordinary gifts were ever the effect of it. So Acts 8. Acts 9 Acts 19 nor do we find any other end of it; these gifts being conveyed in a way above nature, might very well tend to the confirming them in their faith received, and so well called confirmation. But in the confirmation we talk of there is no such thing, nor do I see why we should call it confirmation.  
2. The persons who did Impose hands, were either Apostles, or persons extraordinarily raised. We read but of one Ananias, Acts 9 I do not find the Evangelists did Impose. Hence the Bishops, who call themselves the Apostles successors, they claim this power, and poor Presbyters must not do it [at least without leave from them.]  
That than which truly deserves the name confirmation, is ceased many hundred years since. But for the thing itself, which our Divines call confirmation, as Chemnitius lays it down, 
Instit. l. 4. c. 19 s. 4.  I could hearty wish with Calvin that it were brought into practice, only Imposition, I think, might be left out; yet I would not contend with him who did use it, rather so, than not have the thing practised. Musculus speaking of Imposition in confirmation, saith, The Imposition of the Apostles was of miraculous operation, 
Loc. Com. p. 321.  and ceased long since: Exemplum illius retinuerunt Episcopi, quo magis Apostolorum viderentur esse successores. But he speaks nothing against Imposition in Ordination.  
But to the Text; let us see why Ordination must be shut out here.  
1. The key of Interpretation I take to be the word Foundation and principles, etc. (as we Translate.) So Camerarius, Sunt necessaria Dogmata & Capita doctrinae Christianae quae enumerantur hoc loco. So Chrysostom. Now it seems strange to me that a foundation should be lost out of the Church above fifteen hundred years. I thought foundations should hold so long as the building lasts; take away a foundation the house must be in danger. But if this be meant of Ordination, than it holds; for the Ministry shall hold so long as the Church holds; till the body be perfected, Eph. 4. But if confirmation, and extraordinary gifts, which were the only effect, so far as we find in Scripture, [as before I touched] then this foundation is gone long since.  
2. Faith, Repentance, and Baptism, are to last to the end of the world. Some of our Divines do from this Text prove against the Socinians that Water-Baptism is an ordinance still to continue, because it is put amongst the foundations, Chatechetical heads; why then the Ministry, which is Christ's great ordinance, to convert, to beget faith, [which comes by hearing, etc.] and authorized to baptise to the end of the world, should not be meant by Imposition, 
Matth. 28.20.  but a temporary thing which was to vanish presently, I can see no reason.  
3. That Imposition alone is put for Ordination we have other Scriptures to show. 1 Tim. 5, & 4. [as before] but show us another Text where Imposition alone is put for confirmation.  
4. Extraordinary gifts were conveyed without Imposition of hands: as Act. 2.10. & Act. 44.4. why then Imposition should only signify the Holy Ghost, which yet was given without it, I am not satisfied.  
5. Then these Divines must prove, that all who were baptised had hands Imposed, and extraordinary gifts conferred, else the placing after Baptism proves nothing; if only to some baptised persons and pro tempore, what is this to prove it meant of confirmation; for I hope all baptised one's are to be confirmed in their sense. But this will be hard to prove.  
One thing more I shall add when I come to Mr. Noyes, why it should be meant of extraordinary gifts; Camero gives the strongest reason. But yet I hope to an indifferent Reader, it doth appear by what I have said, that there is no forcing reason why Ordination should be shut out, but may at least be fairly implied. So much for my second argument.  
Arg. 3. That Act which the Church ever used [and that regularly] in ordaining of Officers, aught to be used in Ordination.  
But Imposition of hands is an Act which the Church ever used [and that regularly] in ordaining, etc. Ergo  
The Major seems so fair, that I think no rational man will deny it. The Minor is clear; the Church under the Old Testament used this act. Numb. 8.10. Upon which verse Mr. Ainsworth thus speaketh, This rite was kept at the Ordination of Officers, both in the Old Testament and in the New. Acts 6.6. & 13.3. By this sign they did put the charge and service of the Church upon them, etc. Then why it ought not still to be used, I know not. Mr. Ains. was a man learned, holy, and far from Popery, or idle Ceremonies.  
Arg. 4. Let us suppose Prayer and Fasting to be of the essence of Ordination [as say our Brethren.]  
If Prayer and Fasting without Imposition do not difference Ordination from another Ordinance, than Imposition of hands ought to be used in Ordination.  
But the Antecedent is true, ergo the Consequent is true.  
The reason of the Consequence is, because every Ordinance hath something in it whereby it is distinguished from others; so must this have something.  
Here I lie open to two Objections. Some will say, Why do not you put in those words which they call verba creantia, where some put the very essence of the Ordinance? To these I answer, 
Mr. Weems saith, In their Churches when they Ordain a Minister they give him the Book of God in his hand, to signify that now he hath power to preach the word, as the Priest's hand was filled with flesh Numb. 3.3. P. 105.  Although I do agree with the old non-conformists, and other Churches, that some such words must be used, and by necessary consequence it will be forced, [as before I spoke] yet I rather use this, because it is my question, and that which we have plain Scripture for, and so feeling Scripture at my back, shall be more able to make good my ground.  
The other party say, by this I put the form of Ordination in Imposition; for forms distinguish. I do not at this time assert what it is, but finding it in Scripture, I argue against those who leave it out. Walaeus we see could not tell whether to call it a Rite, or an essential part. I know Bellarmin and other Papists look on it as part of the essence of Ordination, and if they do so, I do not blame them [they having Scripture for it] as I blame those who leave it out.  
Doctor Owen in his Review of the nature of S. p. 23. tells us that by Ordination of Ministers, many upon a mistake understand only the Imposition of hands used therein. [I have not met with any of this opinion; I find none of the Papists speaking thus, who make as much of it as any] then adds, Ordination of Ministers is one thing, Imposition of hands is another, differing as the whole and the part. Enough.  
If a Totum, then Totum universale he cannot mean, but Totum Integrale: then Imposition of hands stands affected to Ordination as membrum to Integrum, which is Symbolum causae essentialis; than not an Adjunct. If it be a part, and a principal part, then where there is no Imposition there is no Ordination, for sublatâ parte principali, tollitur Integrum. If it be not a principal, but less principal, yet Ordination is but Imperfect; for sublatâ quâlibet parte tollitur perfectio Integri. Then let those who are ordained [as they say they are] without Imposition of hands, consider their Ordination, and I hope they cannot be offended with me for refusing (at best) an imperfect ordination, when I could have a more perfect Ordination. One of their own Ordainers hath spoken enough for me.  
I pray tell us how praying and fasting for a blessing upon a person elected, is an Ordinance distinct. We Pray and Fast for rain, for fair seasons, for peace, for success in war, for health, for counsel in great affairs, etc. But I hope praying and fasting for these ends does not make these several and distinct Ordinances; but it seems it should be so, as well as praying & fasting for a blessing on a person elected makes this a distinct Ordinance; prayer and fasting is but one Ordinance by itself used for many ends.  
Moreover, we seldom fast and pray [nay, never I think] at a neighbour Congregation, but the Ministers use to pray for a blessing upon the Minister of that Congregation, than it seems so often we Ordain him; this is absurd.  
Also good people fast and pray before election, what is it then? I know not how they will avoid it, but they must confound Election and Ordination, which I am sure is contrary to Scripture.  
When Paul wrote to Timothy, he did not charge him that he should not fast and pray suddenly, but not Impose hands suddenly. Words used which signify sending, setting apart, appointing to the office with Imposition of hands; do distinguish Ordination from other Ordinances.  
5. The last Argument I shall use will be ad hominem, yet I think there is something in it.  
If Satan from a wicked Imitation of God hath made use of Imposition of hands in the consecration of his Ministers, than Christians, from an obediential Imitation of God, aught to use Imposition of hands in the Ordination of Christ's Ministers.  
Satan in his worship hath ever loved to imitate God in his worship. As Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. and Tertul. Praescrip. adv. Haeret. both show how this Ape hath taken example from the worship God had appointed in his house, and accordingly appointed the form of his worship. So in the consecration of his Priests, Livy reports of Numa that hands were Imposed upon his head, cum summo sacerdotio initiaretur. Why should not we upon another principle stick close then to the examples in the Word, since the Devil thinks there is something in it, I suppose he took it from the Levites.  
I am not ignorant that some of our Divines, though they do use it, yet they look upon it as indifferent. So Polanus, Manuum Impositio est in rerum indifferentium numero, 
Synt. The. l. 9 c. 33.  quia a Deo expresse praecepta non est. Yet adds Si in aliquibus Ecclesiis Impositio manuum recepta est & usitata, improbari minime debet, cum exemplo Apostolico nitatur. Say you so? then I think you had no reason to disapprove of it indeed. Thus also Chemnitius; 
Exam. Council Trid. p. 222.  his reason, Nec enim necessitatem volu●runt [Apostoli] Ecclesiis imponere de quâ ipsi nullum habebant Christi mandatum.  
The sum is, we have examples indeed but no commands, and therefore indifferent. To which I say,  
1. Then make the rule general; What examples soever we have in the word, for which we find no commands, those examples are but indifferent, we may follow or not. This must be a certain truth, else we shall ask the reason, why some examples having no commandment are to be imitated, but the examples of Imposition of hands in Ordination are not to be imitated? [I know all examples are not imitable, but I cannot launch forth in that discourse] See what follows. Hence  
1. Popular election of a Minister is a thing indifferent. I regard not whether I be elected or not; we have some examples [though none such as our popular elections] indeed, but we find no command, that the plebs should choose their Minister.  
Chemnitius had been pleading for popular election, and to prove it brings in some examples out of the New Testament; when he had done, he adds Haec exempla Apostolicae Historiae clarè ostendunt electionem pertinere ad universam Ecclesiam, certo quodam modo ut suae in electione seu vocatione sint parts & Presbyterii & populi.  
But if Chemnitius will plead for more than an indifferency in it, I must bar this play, to have him come in with Haec exempla. I can show him Haec exempla more clear for Ordination by Imposition, etc.  
2. Hence the consent of the people in admissions [for which I know neither example nor command] and excommunications of members is but indifferent; for the latter though it may be conceived we have an example, yet no command.  
3. Hence there is no Independent Church: with divers more things which I would draw from hence.  
2. I answer, if Imposition of hands carry those five things in it which Chemnitius, Ib. p. 221. tells us, than I know no reason why he should call it an indifferent thing. At the end of that paragraph he is still speaking of Imposition, as I think, and saith Nititur mandato, etc. having quoted Acts 13.3. See Zanchy 4. praec. p. 785, 786.  
Doctor Owen in his Review [before quoted] p. 23, 24. saith, For that part of Ordination which consists in the Imposition of hands by the Presbytery [where it may be obtained according to the mind of Christ] I am also very remote from managing any opposition to it. I think it necessary by virtue of precept; and that to be continued in a way of succession. It is I say according to the mind of Christ, that he who is to be ordained unto office in any Church receive Imposition of hands from the Elders of that Church, if there be any therein. But what, I pray, if there be no Elders, what is the mind of Christ then that they must be ordained without it? here the Doctor conceals his judgement; but I can help the Reader to understand his judgement [if he have not changed it] he would have Ordained me with Imposition of hands [and there were no Elders in our Church to do it] if the other Minister would have Imposed hands also. Then still I had reason to refuse an Ordination where something of a precept was left out, unless a Scripture can be brought to prove that the necessity of it by virtue of precept ceases where there are no Elders in the Church. This Scripture is desired.  
3. If it be indifferent, than it may be used; there can be no sin in using it; we have an Apostolical example for it, Confitente, Polano. Then  
1. This will give a man more satisfaction, as to his Ordination whether it were regular or not, when he finds it answer the Apostolical examples. I would not have that scruple to lie upon me about my own Ordination, whether it were valid or not, because I had Imposition, for much.  
2. This will tend more to union; for now there is an occasion of difference for want of this.  
3. It is great and just matter of offence to the Episcopal party, who in some cases do allow Presbyters may Ordain, but whether Ordination can be without Imposition of hands, I do not know they are resolved for the affirmative. Things then which tend to union, and taking of offences and scruples out of men's minds, if they may be done, and no sin in so doing, I think aught to be done.  
4. Imposition of hands, which we conceive Apostolical men, directed by the Spirit of God, translated from the Old Testament to the New, had an express command for it in the separation of Levites to their office, Numb. 8.10. it was not indifferent then, why now?  
5. When the Apostle gives Timothy this charge, Lay hands suddenly on no man; and when the Lord commanded them to separate Paul, they answer the command by Imposition Acts 13. I am mistaken if we find not a precept here. If Timothy hath a rule for the modification of his Act, and that Act, for aught we can find, constantly used in this part of Instituted worship, I think the Act itself must needs be commanded. For acts in themselves civil, and used amongst men, even Heathens, as being customs of Nations, if we find the Scriptures many hundred years after their civil use, to add a modification to such Acts, whether we are bound to such Acts where there is no such national customs, I much question. The thing the Lord intends in them, be it humility, hospitality, love, we are bound to, that's true; but I suppose not to the mere civil acts of other Nations, but from hence to cast out Imposition, I cannot yield to it. For  
1. I cannot find that it was their custom to separate men in Civil States to the Office of a Magistrate by Imposition of hands, and that God took this up from them. Joshua indeed was thus appointed to his office, but by a command from God, Numb. 27.18. but where do we find this civil custom before, thus to lay hands on Magistrates?  
2. The thing the Scripture intends in the civil Acts of Nations we may show and exercise, though we follow not the civil customs of other Nations; but this being an Act belonging to Instituted worship, I know not how the thing itself is performed [at least not perfectly] without it. 
Deut. 34.9.  As for Joshua, though the spirit of the Lord was given in a larger measure at this Imposition, yet this was not the only end intended, for then Moses might have Imposed his hands in a private Tent, and not before all the Congregation, and there give him his charge, v. 22, 23. but Moses did by this Act declare the Designation and Ordination of Joshua to his Office before the whole Congregation. So it is in Ordaining of Ministers.  
3. If it were a Jewish custom, and upon that account only used, why should Paul command Timothy a Greek to use it, and that in Ordination of Officers to Gentile-Churches where no such custom was?  
From these grounds I do not yet look upon Imposition as being a thing indifferent; but I look at Ordination without it, at least as irregular: and let me speak my mind freely, I would rather choose to be ordained by a Bishop and Presbyters [which many cry out upon as Antichristian] then be Ordained by any other without Imposition.  
Now let us see what Mr. Noyes hath written against it. I shall begin at his third Argument against it, because that strikes at the examples in Scripture, and is the very Argument our Brethren here now use, and indeed if that can be made good, I shall not much stand upon Imposition. He saith,  
Those examples are not a warrant for us, because they were either extraordinary persons [as Apostles] or extraordinary Presbyters, or they were extraordinarily raised who did Impose hands.  
To that of Timothy he saith, It conferred an extraordinary and sensible gift.  
All extraordinary it seems, but by this we shall not lose only Imposition but Ordination also, which yet Mr. N. owns: the same objection was against Ordination, as we saw before; and certainly if Mr. N. takes away those Texts which speak of Imposition, I know of few Texts he will find to prove his Ordination. I desire Mr. N. would give us strong proof for Ordination, leaving out those Texts: so that we shall have nothing left but election, and I think he will hardly prove any election, wherein extraordinary persons had not their hand: so at last lose all.  
But how doth he prove these Imposed hands quà extraordinary persons? The example in Timothy [the Presbytery which laid hands on him] and Acts 13.3. he foresaw would be alleged; to these two he lays in answer aforehand, telling us they were extraordinary Presbyters.  
A. Say what Presbyters and prove; the extraordinary Presbyters are enumerated. 1. The Synod of N.E. Mr. Hooker, nor a thousand more ever thought of any such thing; the Synod conceive it was the Presbytery of Ephesus which Imposed hands on Timothy. Junius conceives it was the Presbytery of Derbe and Lystra where Paul took him, 
Eccles. p. 1960.  Acts 16.2. Chrysostom indeed thinks they were Bishops, for Presbyters could not ordain Bishops, saith he. Mr. N. doth not believe Chrysostom I know, nor do I believe they were extraordinary Presbyters.  
2. I wonder the Bishops of old, and our latter Bishops did not hit of this notion, but that both according to the Canons of old, and so of our Bishops, Presbyters were admitted to join in Ordination with the Bishop; I question not but the Canons were grounde● upon this Presbytery which Imposed with Paul upon Timothy: but if Mr. N. notion be true, it might have been easily said, those were extraordinary Presbyters, so these ordinary Presbyters have no power in Ordination.  
For Acts 13. he saith, these seem to be extraordinary Elders. 1. Partly by their Ambulatory course [ordinary Elders are not where described by the title of Doctors only.] 2. Partly because it is evident some of them were extraordinary Prophets, yet they are all put together as equal.  
A. 1. How will Mr. N. prove that all the Prophets and Teachers which were in the Church of Antioch used that ambulatory course? had not this Church a settled Presbytery? that were strange; how was it in Corinth?  
2. Teachers, when taken distinct from other Officers, [as hear] I think use to signify ordinary and settled Officers. Why doth Mr. N. say that ordinary Elders are nowhere described by the title of Doctors only? What difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 4.11. there as here, distinct from Prophets. So I think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12.28. else we must find no ordinary preaching Elders there.  
3. Though there were some extraordinary Officers there, yet that hinders not, but the whole teaching Presbytery of Antioch might join in the separation of Paul, and so in imposing of hands: how will Mr. N. prove the Teachers were excluded; neither doth it follow, because they are numbered together therefore they were equal. Prophet's here [as in other Texts] are named before, and as distinct from Teachers.  
But ordinary Presbyters might not impose upon extraordinary Presbyters, this I think he would have; but have you a Scripture-rule which forbids it? what if God will have it so. If Paul were now made the Apostle of the Gentiles, as all that I see but Mr. N. do acknowledge, then though only the Prophets had Imposed, yet here inferior officers imposed on superior: for Apostles were superior to Prophets, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. and I hope by the same reason a Presbytery might impose on Timotby an Evangelist.  
Thus Mr. Hooker and the Synod of N.E. say Presbyters [not extraordinary] imposed hands on Timothy an Evangelist.  
To say inferior may not impose, when the Text saith, these did Impose, [and it lieth upon Mr. N. to prove which were excluded] is flatly to deny the Text.  
But Mr. N. saith, He was no Apostle yet, and his proof is, because the Apostles long after this time gave him the right hand of fellowship.  
A. 1. If there were no Apostles at Antioch now [as doubtless there were none, for than they would have been mentioned as well as inferior Officers] then Apostles could not now give him the right hand of fellowship.  
2. Why should their right hand of fellowship make him an Apostle? that I suppose he doth not mean; he was one before they gave him the right hand [it is so in inferior Officers.] Paul saith he was called to be an Apostle, Rom. 1.1. What, when they gave him the right hand of fellowship? or here where God saith so? I have called him. Mr. N. in this is singular, and his proofs not sufficient.  
He further proveth that they as extraordinary persons did Impose, because there was an extraordinary and sensible gift conferred on Timothy: and thus much he insinuateth in his fourth Argument. The extraordinary gift ceaseth in respect of Ordination; ergo it must be removed, as from prayers for the sick and converts, etc.  
A. This is somewhat like, and this I have heard urged; I know nothing to take off Imposition but this, if it can be proved. If Mr. N. can carry this, he shall carry me: But how proves he this? Thus; it had this effect upon Timothy, ergo. What? it had the same upon all, and this was the end of Imposition. But this Mr. N. must prove: If I can prove the contrary, than I must tell Mr. N. to argue a particulari ad universale is none of the best Logic. But of Timothy more anon.  
1. The Apostles Acts 6. when they Imposed hands, did it not to confer such gifts. For 1. They say plainly it was to appoint them, v. 3. to such a work, i. e. they were made Deacons [I think Mr. N. will not deny.] 2. They were to seek out men full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom; they were then gifted before Imposition.  
2. In Acts 13.3. when the Prophets and Teachers were commanded to Impose hands on Paul and Barnabas, the end was not to confer extraordinary gifts; Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost, Acts 9 when Ananias Imposed hands. The end here was to separate them, etc. the Old Testament-word.  
3. Timothy had command to Impose hands [in Ordination I doubt not] 1 Tim. 5.22. But that Timothy conferred extraordinary gifts, is a task for Mr. N. to undertake to prove. Philip was an Evangelist, but it seems he could not do it. Acts 8.15, 17. Peter and John the Apostles did this: besides that all the ordinary Presbyters [for I hope some were ordinary] had extraordinary gifts, seems strange.  
4. Timothy is charged to commit the things, etc. to ahle men. 2 Tim. 2.2. So Titus hath order sent him to Ordain men qualified, gifted, such as must be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. So in 1 Tim. 3.2. the Bishop must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what need this caution? For if they by Imposition of hands, could confer extraordinary gifts, they could make them able, be they never so weak before. As we find in Acts 8. and Acts 19 when the Apostles after Baptism Imposed hands, they did not look at their ability or inability, they made them able presently.  
5. Imposition was in practice before this time under the Old Testament, from whence [as say our Divines] it was translated into the New Testament, Numb. 8.10. But I hope the Israelites did not thereby confer extraordinary gifts, it was one Act in their separation of the Levites.  
Now for Timothy, who is the only proof of Mr. N. his Argument. I wish Mr. N. had opened the Text more fully. What was this Prophecy? One thus, He will have Ordination be in fancy Ecclesiae cum prophetiâ, i. e. cum recitatione, & interpretatione verbi Divini de Ministerio Euangelii. But this gives no content. Zanchy understands that Timothy came by that gift by Prophecy, i.e. Per sacrarum literarum interpretationes quas partim jam inde ab ipsa juventute didicerat, partim ab Apostolo acceperat: 
The Leyden Profess. understand Prophecy as doth Zanch. Disp. 42. S 37.  Deinde idem Donum confirmatum in eo fuit & aucium per impositionem manuum, cum fuit Ordinatus. If this were all, this would not so confirm Mr. N. his notion: for why may not the Lord increase the gift of a Minister, and confirm it at his Ordination, by means of that Ordinance. If he hath done it, may be not do it still? Let him give me a reason. Nos vero non negamus gratiam. i e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conferri in ordinatione, saith great Chamier. Then Imposition need not be cast out for this: for Mr. N. must prove it was an extraordinary gift which Timothy had nothing of before, and which this Presbytery by Imposition conferred; which I think he will not easily do.  
Others understand by Prophesy a Revelation made to Paul concerning Timothy. So Beliarmin, with which the thoughts of most agree, a Revelation made by some Prophets which then were in the Church, by which he was designed to the Ministry, 
In Loc.  & post ea per Impositionem mannum fuit in eo confirmatus & quasi investitus, saith Gerhard. And this the Apostle mentions, both for the commendation of Timothy, and for his excuse, being yet so young, and else in regard of years unfit for so great an Office. See Gerh. Ib.  
For this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thoughts of Divines are very various; but the most probable fall under one of these two heads. 1. Either those gracious qualifications by which he was fitted for his work. Or 2. The Docendi officium, the very office and place unto which men through grace are fitted. So Rom. 12.6. This is most generally received. Gerhard takes in both, but doth not reckon extraordinary gifts; he saith, Gratiam docendi, exhortandi, Scripturas interpretandi, contradictores redarguendi. I think he saith truest. Yet as Zanchy before, so I conceive Timothy had some degree of those gifts before, though now more increased and confirmed.  
2. But if the gifts were extraordinary, let him tell us how Timothy should stir up extraordinary gifts.  
3. Where doth he find extraordinary gifts conferred by a Presbytery? which is here distinct from Paul, who was an extraordinary Officer. Presbyter is the common word for an ordinary Pastor in the New Testament; and when it is named as distinct from other extraordinary Officers, I know not why it should not be meant of an ordinary Presbyter, and so this Presbytery but ordinary: to say this gift was extraordinary, and the Presbytery extraordinary without sufficient proof will not satisfy a rational man.  
4. I had another Notion, but was afraid to set it down, lest I should be charged with singularity, as is Mr. N. it was this, Suppose the gift were extraordinary, yet it should seem to be given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 4.14. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Tim. 1.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joined to both; so that this gift came by Prophecy, as much as by hands. And if withal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehends the Ministerium ecclesiasticum to which Timothy was ordained, he being by Prophecy designed to it being young, the Presbytery might well Impose hands with Paul to separate him to his office, as Paul being commanded to be separated, etc. Acts 13.3. Here the preposition is changed, it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I knew no hurt in this Notion, nor what fault could be found with it, only (as I said) I feared singularity. But casting my eye upon Diodati I saw he concurred with me in my Notion. By the Imposition of Paul's hands, 2 Tim. 1.16. Timothy received the extraordinary gift. By the Imposition of the College of Elders hands, 1 Tim. 4.14. He was installed in the Ministry with a public blessing. Thus he on 2 Tim. 1.6.  
Didoclavius, whom reverend Mr. Hooker follows, observed the difference in the phrase, but whether he meant as Mr. Hooker doth I know not. For thus Mr. Hooker, By gift he understands those gracious abilities which Timothy received by the spirit in way of Prophecy, whence he was fitted to be an Evangelist. It is by the hands of Paul there is a causal virtue under Christ of constitution: but it is with the hands of the Eldership, as concurring by way of Approbation only. Thus he. That Paul's hands should causaliter constituere gracious qualifications, and that the hands of the Eldership should only concur by way of Approbation that Timothy should have such qualifications seems something odd: What need of their concurrence or approbation? Nor do I think constitution here is taken in that sense the New Testament doth use it.  
I hope by this time this Argument of Mr. N. used by our Brethren doth not appear strong enough to remove Imposition: as for the rest of his Arguments I will now take them in order, omitting what is needless.  
His first Argument is, Imposition is not warranted in Ordination by Imposition on the Levites. He giveth divers reasons; I can yield to divers things without hurting my cause.  
His fift reason, Israel Imposed hands on the Levites, to signify that they were to bear their sins, and make atonement for them, Exod. 29.  
A. 1. There is no such thing mentioned in the Chapter quoted. In Numb. 18.3. the Levites were not to meddle with the Priest's office; no not to sprinkle blood. 2 Chron. 30.16.  
2. The 14. verse tells us it was a part of the separation of the Levites: nor do we make this our first warrant.  
His fift reason, This was a Jewish Ceremony, and why should this, all other being abrogated, be only reserved.  
Let the Apostles give the Answer; Why did they use it? and Paul bid Timothy use it? Let him blame Paul if Imposition upon the Ordained be a Ceremonial Law which took end by the coming of Christ, than the Apostles were injurious unto his death, who translated that Ceremony from the Jews under the Law into the Church under the Gospel, saith Mr. Cartwright, Reply p. 221. More anon.  
His second Argument from Heb. 6.2. doth not hold it forth in point of Ordination, but it is a fundamental principle of religion, used figuratively for the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is signified and conferred.  
A. Then Mr. N. of all men must not exclude Ordination, in which it conferred extraordinary gifts [as he hath affirmed before] for that time than it must comprehend Ordination; his own Notion confutes himself.  
2. I think as he saith [and so in his sixth reason, which I will therefore omit] it was a fundamental principle, and therefore should stand so long as the Church stands. Let the Reader be pleased to cast his eye upon what I have said concerning the Text before.  
His first reason hath there its answer also.  
His second and third reasons, I think, aim both at the same thing. Doctrine is added to Baptism, and Imposition, to intimate the doctrine of the Ordinance, not the Ordinance itself was intended: the communication of the Spirit is the thing signified, or the doctrine of Imposition.  
A. Is indeed the Doctrine of Baptism here only intended, and not the Ordinance of Baptism itself? I must request him to excuse me, I intent not to give so much advantage to the Socinians. I think the Ordinance is plainly indeed, and so is Imposition.  
2. Doth not the Apostle then Tautologize? Do not Repentance and Faith comprehend much of the doctrine of Baptism? why should the Ordinance be mentioned if not intended?  
3. What error is there if we read the words dividedly, with a Comma betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as do the Tigurin and Aethiopick Versions. So Oecumenius, Luther, Erasmus, Gagnaeus, as Gerhard saith, and the Greek do not oppose it; Thus Cajetan and Aretius: See their Comments. Then this notion fails, and it will make yet more for my Interpretation.  
4. But let us suppose the Doctrine of Imposition be here intended: Yet as Aretius saith well in loc. De hac ceremonia admonebantur Neophyti, quandoquidem tum in frequenti erat usu, quid illa esset, cur instituta, quibus, & per quos imponerentur manus: item ad quid conduceret discebant Fidei Tyrones. Very good: must not then the Neophyti answer, Hands were Imposed in Ordination of Church Officers? If we come to teach ours this head of Catechism, and they must answer according to Mr. N. his notion, they may well say, What is this to us? how is it a foundation to us, the thing is ceased so many hundred years since? [besides what I have before said.] But according to our Interpretation, we both open the Doctrine, we use the thing, and it remains as yet a Foundation to us. The old holy non-conformists tell us how they look upon the Ministry: there was an objection made, We have been taught heretofore that Discipline is an essential part of the Gospel and matter of Faith. To this they answer,  
That Discipline of the Church [being generally understood] is a matter of Faith, and an essential mark of the Church, I hope our Brethren will not deny; for Discipline comprehendeth not only the Administration of the Keys, but Ordination and Imposition of hands: but without Ordination there are no Preachers, Rom. 10.15. and without Preaching there is no belief, v. 14. Wherefore without some part of Discipline it cannot be denied but that the Church is no Church, Faith no Faith. Thus they. This suits Mr. Hooker's exposition of our Text.  
5. If the confirmation and increasing of ordinary gifts be the Spirit's work, than still it may hold, as Zanch. and Chamier before.  
His fourth and fifth reasons are answered before: only whereas he saith, Imposition is added as an explicative adjunct of Baptism. It should seem no [besides what have been said] there being so few heads enumerated, it's unlikely the Apostle would add an Adjunct to this ordinance, [which I think he cannot prove was always at Baptism.] I think also this crosseth the former head, wherein he said, Not Baptism, but the Doctrine of Baptism is intended.  
His seventh it is interpreted in the next, v. 4, 5. Illumination answers to repentance, Taste of the heavenly gift to Faith, the participation of the Holy Ghost to the doctrine of Imposition and Baptism, the tasting of the good word to the resurrection.  
A. This doth not please. Illumination, as most understand the word belonging to the Intellectual part, and repentance to the heart, do not seem to answer. I know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 1. v. if the word be taken strictly as the word sounds belongs to the mind, but so as its Act is perfected in the heart; it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Syriack render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise; and that Baptism is taken for Illumination among the Ancients, according to the Syriack who knows not; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 94. So Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 1. p. 93, 95. So Greg. Naz. Orat. 40.  
2. Mr. N. saith, Justifying Faith is signified in Baptism, than not in the word Faith expressed in the Text, than Faith must be taken in a large sense, and this will rather answer to Illumination then repentance.  
3. How doth Resurrection answer to the Taste of the good word; when as Resurrection is a terrible word to most. The good word of promise rather, the promise contains good.  
4. Why doth he make one word to answer Baptism and Imposition, when they were divided in the Text; and Mr. N. hath not yet proved that they went always together.  
5. Why may not the participation of the Holy Ghost have respect also to such gifts as are given now in our days? for do we not observe [with trembling] how some lose their gifts, even eminent gifts, profession, and so fall away, as never more return? should it be tied up only to extraordinary gifts [which I do not believe] yet those were given in Ordination, as Mr. N. saith, so that for that time Imposition must be comprehended.  
His eighth: Imposition is made a principle from which it was necessary an Apostate should fall if finally: but it is not necessary that one should be instructed touching the office of the Ministry: one may be saved, and yet be ignorant in the point of Ordination, and one may fall away finally though ignorant in this respect.  
A. I know not what he means by the Apostates falling from the principle. He doth not mean, I suppose, that a man must have first those extraordinary gifts, and so fall from them, else not an Apostate; there are too many Apostates yet never reached those gifts.  
2. One may be saved as well though he doth not understand the extraordinary gifts conferred by Imposition. I presume Mr. N. doth not think the Apostles conferred the Holy Ghost in a gracious saving way by Imposition.  
3. It is one thing for a person to be ignorant of Ordination, another to be ignorant of that which Ordination holds out; of what necessity the Ministry is, Mr. Cartwright and the Non-Conformists [before mentioned] tell us. So the Scripture. But Mr. Hooker takes it in a larger sense.  
4. I think there are few Apostates who have been ignorant of the Ministry; for those who have been ignorant of this, never came to so much as the Text expresses; then they cannot fall away from what they never had.  
His ninth: If we should understand the docirine of the Ministry by Imposition, than we must exclude the Administration of Baptism in the principle of Baptism, because Baptism in this consideration belongeth unto the Ministry, and therefore cannot [unless it signify the doctrine of Baptism only] be a distinct principle from Imposition. And if we make Baptism itself together with the doctrine which it holds forth a distinct principle, and the doctrine of Imposition together with the Administration of it in Ordination another distinct principle, to what principle shall we refer the Lord's Supper.  
If I mistake Mr. N. in what he would have, I must craye pardon; I wish he had been more clear, but as I understand him, so I answer. The Lord's Supper being of the same nature with Baptism; a sign to represent, a seal to confirm, an instrument to convey, etc. [as say our old Catechisms] well may it be referred to Baptism. As for Baptism, it being 1. An Ordinance so long practised before by John. 2. The initiating Sacrament. 3. Answering all those Baptisms the Hebrews knew well. 4. At this time greatly esteemed and practised. 5. The spirit foreseeing our times wherein that Ordinance would be slighted and cast out, as now it is, no wonder though this be expressly set down, to which the other is fitly referred.  
If the Lord's Supper be referred to Baptism [as there is reason why it should] and the Ministry [which will include Preaching and Discipline] be understood in Imposition of hands, than we may have in these few heads the sum of those Doctrines which are necessary to salvation and a visible Church in the Ordinances and Officers held forth.  
His tenth: Interpreters apply this to confirmation, not all, I named some before that are of another opinion. But if we should lose this Text, yet we have not lost our cause.  
His third Argument I answered first.  
His fourth is also as good as answered: this it is, If we must remove Imposition from converts, from prayers for the sick, if from any, why not all; the extraordinary gift ceaseth in respect of Ordination, as well as in respect of other Administrations. The strength of the Argument lying upon the extraordinary gift, this is answered before.  
Then he meets with an Objection. It may be a sacred sign in Ordination to signify the consecration of a person to administer holy things; or if he had pleased to have added to show the Designation, the Separation, the Appointing of this person to his office. As the Congregation saw Joshua and knew him appointed to his office when Moses imposed hands and charged him.]  
To this he answers, 1. It was not of this use in the consecration of Priests and Levites.  
A. Why not? he should have told us of what use it was, not to confer extraordinary gifts I am sure. Omitting what might be said, let Peter Martyr speak for the rest of our Divines. 
Loc. Com. de. Voca. administ.  He reciting the several rites of the old consecration both of Priests and Levites, saith, Haec externa ratio eo valuit ut populus intelligeret eos esse jam ministros sibi designatos a Deo: sublatis autem istis umbris nobis nihil relinquitur nisi Impositio manuum. Thus also Zanc. 4. praec. p. 785.  
2. He saith It is not of this use in Ordination of Deacons.  
A. I shall only give him Mr. Hooker's words, 
Sur. Chu. p. 3. p. 9  The Lord Christ in his Infinite wisdom and Kingly care conceived it necessary for the honour of the place, and execution of the work of a Deacon to appoint choice men, & solemn Ordination to Authorise them to the work. If a Deacon be only the Treasurer of the Church, he had need be designed and authorized to it; but Mr. Noyes, who writeth against ruling Elders, giving all their work to the Deacon, 
p. 23.  had more cause to allow of it. Let him show us Deacons in Scripture ordained without Imposition of hands.   
FINIS.   

Errata.  
PAge 3. line 16. read review. p. 13. l. 7. r. Christ. p. 14. l. 2. r. if. p. 16. in the Syriack word put Tau in the place of Ae. p. 21. l. 17. r. Ordinance. p. 22. l. 31. r. Musculus. p. 38. l. 17. r. 1. p. 39 l. 19 r. Congregation. p. 49. l. 10. r. from being. p. 51. l. 6. r. me. p. 52. l. 15. after have r. judged this. p. 63. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 79. The Arabic words have neither the Vowels nor Orthographical notes placed right; the words should be wasamou lahom, with elif quiescens placed after Sin. p. 80. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 92. l. 34. r. others. p. 93. l. 20. r. think. p. 102. l. 30. r. committing. p. 103. l. 1. r. 1. Titus. p. 114. l. 24. r. communem. p. 121. l. 8. r. ecclesiae. p. 130. l. 19 r. words. p. 138. l. 24. after had r. no.  
Some few other faults in the Greek, and pointing, but the judicious Reader will soon correct them.   

THe Admission of persons baptised in their infancy, without due Trial of their Faith & growth in Christ, when grown in years, to a full participation of all Church-Privileges & Ordinances, hath caused great confusion in the Administration of holy things; And therefore, I conceive, the Learned Author of this Elaborate exercitation hath deserved well of the Churches, by clearing the way of those Admissions from Scripture-grounds, and the concurrent Testimonies of many, both Ancient and Modern writers; As also, by discovering and removing those Popish additions and pollutions which by several steps and degrees have crept into it. And if what he hath offered in this Essay come not up to the Judgement and Practice of the best constituted Churches; yet this ingenuous and pious overture holds out more than most Churches have hitherto attained, and may provoke the zeal of many to hold out what they have attained, as more commodious for, and perfective of the much-desired and longed-for restauration of the Churches to their privitive purity, both in separating the precious from the vile, and in uniting the precious into a more beautiful and beneficial Order among themselves. These considerations have confirmed me in giving not only Licence to the publishing, but thanks to the Publisher of this discourse of Confirmation.  
Joseph Caryl. The 24th of the 6th. Month, 1657.