THE ΔΙΑΤΡΙΒΗ Proved to be ΠΑΡΑΔΙΑΤΡΙΒΗ.  
OR, A VINDICATION of the Judgement of the Reformed Churches, and Protestant Divines, From misrepresentations  
Concerning Ordination, and Laying on of hands.  
Together with a brief ANSWER to the Pretences of Edmond Chillenden, for the lawfulness of Preaching without ORDINATION.  
By Lazarus Seaman.  
LONDON, Printed by T. R. & E. M. for John Rothwell, at the Sun and Fountain in Paul's churchyard. 1647.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, Edward Earl of Manchester, Viscount Mandeville, Baron of Kimbolton.  
My Lord,  
MAY it please Your HONOUR to take this Dedication as an humble and grateful acknowledgement of those many favours and encouragements which out of YOUR exuberant Goodness alone, and not for my desert, (which is not) have been vouchsafed to me: And as a token, that I would be thankful, and duly respectful, if I did know how to express either. These are Times, wherein Truth must learn to go alone, & to stand by her own strength: The methods and depths of Satan, with the power of darkness, are all improved against Light; and an arm of flesh will prove a broken re●d to those who trust in it. Yet I shall ever repute YOUR LORDSHIP among those who have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, JAM. 3. 1. & who are willing [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to contend earnestly for the maintenance of the faith once given unto the Saints, JUDAS. 3. And therefore though I dare not presume, or in any wise expect to engage You on my part in the debate about Ordination and Laying on of hands, which is presented in the ensuing Papers; yet upon experience of YOUR natural love to Godly Ministers upon all occasions, I make bold to creep under the wing of YOUR Patronage, upon occasion of this Publication.  
That Honours and Dignities are slippery places; These, stormy and blusterous times; And, that Christ owns none as being of his side, but those who are Called, Chosen, and Faithful, REV. 17. 14. YOUR LORDSHIP knows assuredly. And YOU need not be put in mind by me, that they who do wickedly against the Covenant (whether God's or Man's) are such as are corrupled by slatteries. Neither is this without the bounds of YOUR consideration, That (Without understanding, Covenant-breakers, ROM. 1. 31.) are joined together, in the sad Catalogue of those who are given up [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to vile affections, ROM. 1. 26. and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to a reprobate mind, vers. 28. As the words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] sound alike, so are the things thereby signified of like nature; and serve not only against Covenant-breakers, but against Non-covenanters, if the sense of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] be well observed. There's only one thing which remains for me to be YOUR Remembrancer in; CHRIST'S promise to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, REV. 2. 10. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. Which Grace; to be faithful unto death, that it may abide with You, and abound; and Glory, to receive a Crown of life; That YOUR LORDSHIP may attain in Heaven, after fullness of days on Earth, is and shall be the prayer of  
YOUR HONOUR'S humbly devoted in the service of CHRIST our Lord, L. S.   

To the READER.  
I Know not well how to appear in Print, either with, or without an Apology. To speak of mine own insufficiency, especially in matters of Controversy, (which will too much evidence itself) or to plead encumbrance by employments otherwise; is but to put that Question into the mouths of others against me, Who required this at your hands? And seeing One hath already possessed the minds or hands of many (as he pretends to prove) with [The Judgement of Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines concerning Ordination, &c] For me to add more, may seem superfluous; And to contradict him, if his Evidence be true, and full, (whereof he seems to be confident) is at the least a rash adventure. I know not better how to extricate myself, and stand clear with those who are to judge of all that is hereafter presented, but by this ingenuous account. It moved me not a little to find in print some sheets pretending one way, and intending another. To show the Judgement of the Reformed Churches; this way the Ivy-bush held out: and hereupon an Historical collection out of their Concessions, or Agenda's, and Books of Discipline, might be expected; and yet nothing is to be found out of either: And that which is produced, is only Negative, concerning one or two particulars, to the sense of the Socinians and Anabaptists, rather than agreeable to the general opinion of those who are Orthodox. Whereas Testimony was the fairest way to have proceeded in, that's waved for the most part, and a flourish of Arguments served in instead of it. I considered, on the one hand, the presumption of many, intruding into the work of the Ministry, and taking the profit, or ambitious of the credit of it; and how Some preach others out of the Calling, to preach themselves into it; and that of late, many Old Errors are revived, under the name of New-Light, as by some others, so by many inordinate or unordained Preachers; and People, in stead of blessing God (as they ought to do) for that Ministry which is famous through all the Reformed Churches, and to which, as a means under God, Saints in England now living, or dead in this last Century, own themselves & all that they are, do notwithstanding withdraw themselves and separate from it. And on the other hand, that Both the Houses of Parliament had witnessed against those who Preach unordained; and one of them about the time of publishing of those Papers which I direct an Answer unto, was in a way of questioning those who Preached contrary to their Order: And that it is Minister's duty to strengthen the hands of Magistrates in well-doing, when they show themselves to be (as they ought to be) Nursing fathers to the good, and a terror to the evil. And fearing also that the Diatribe was intended in opposition to those proceed of the Parliament, or at least, that it might prove prejudicial thereunto, I was inclined to consider of it; hoping, that as the sheets were not many, so the Animadversions which I should need to make upon them, would not be long. And because I had reason to think he looked not only forward, as if Ordination was not necessary for the future; but backward, as if it were nothing for the time past; I thought myself, with all other the Ministers of the Church of England, the more concerned in his Positions. And however some may be offended, that Papacy and Episcopacy should be both exploded, and yet, that that Calling in a way of Ordination, which is successively from both, or one at least, either in deed, or in show, should be retained still, and not renounced: though in my own particular I am moved at it no more, then to find Rahab and Thamar among those through whose loins the natural succession of our blessed Saviour is propagated from Adam, yet I have endeavoured in the following Answer, pag. 49. & 84. to remove that stone of stumbling, and rock of offence.  
But whatever becomes of Calling to the Ministry in the manner used heretofore; I hope it will appear, that for the time to come it ought to be (in part at least) by Ordination; and Ordination, by Laying on of hands: and that this is the Judgement of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines. Some will blame me for having said so much; and others say, they expected more. But if this may be of any use toward the clear discovery and decision of the Question under debate, till those who are better able unite their shrength and bring in their supplies, this labour is not lost.  
But how comes it to pass, that those who maintain, That any one sufficiently gifted may Preach; and he whom the People accept of as a Minister to them, is thereby made a Minister, raise such a dust about the Calling of others, who have both their gifts received from God, and the People's acceptance to plead, as well as themselves; and do not rather quiet the People, by instructing of them, that disputes about the external Calling may be laid aside, when as the internal Call of God is evident, and a further reformation about the outward Calling is every day endeavoured? My hope was, to have at large examined that Position also, A man may lawfully preach the Word, who is not called to be a Minister; which in the close of all, I call a Paradox, meaning a thing incredible, as it relates to the ordinary practice of many in our times. But for the present, I have only hin●ed some heads of an Answer to another, who hath written since to the same effect; and desire a little respite for the rest.  
Touching the Author of the Tract which I deal with, as he is to me uncertain, so would I have been to him, if the Press were not now under more restrictions than it was at the time of his writing; that there might be no occasion of digression from the matter, to either of our persons.  
If any where I have mistaken his sense, fallen short in answering, or used any expression which proves displeasing, I shallbe willing to be rectified. So the Truth, and those who are studious in things of this nature, may gain any real advantage, though more by him, and less by me, it shall not, I trust (through Him that strengthens me) be any grief of spirit to me, whose desire is (with the Italian Martyr) that Christ may live, though Idie; and that HE may increase, though all the Ministers of England decrease. For your part, who are to judge betwixt us both, you are entreated to weigh all things soberly, and without prejudice.  
That GOD, who hath promised his Spirit to lead his into all Truth, guide us to the knowledge and love of Truth. Amen.   

Imprimatur,  
Edm. Calamy.   


Four Propositions: Whereof three are proved by the Holy Scriptures, and attested unto by the Reformed Churches, in their Confessions of Faith, and Books of Discipline; the fourth is a just Consequence from the rest. Very necessary for all men to consider of in this juncture of time, especially for those who have sworn to Reform according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best Reformed CHURCHES.  

PROPOS. I.  
THE Office of Ministers is always necessary in the Church of GOD, as an ordinary means of His institution to effect the salvation of the Elect.  
Let these Scriptures be compared & weighed Jer. 3. 15. Ephes. 4. 11, 12. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 3. 9 chap. 4. 1. 2 Cor. 3. 5, 6. ch. 5. 20. ch. 6. 1. Mat. 28. 19, 20.  
The judgement of the Reformed Churches touching this  
The latter Confession of HELVETIA, ch. 18.  
God hath always used his Ministers for the gathering and 
Deus ad colligendam vel constituendam sibi ecclesiam, eandemque gubernandā ac conservandam, semper usus est Ministris, ilsque utitur adhuc, & utetur porrò quoad ecclesia in terris fuerit. Ergo Ministrorum origo, institutio & functio vetustissima & ipsius Dei, non nova aut hominum est ordinatio.— Proinde spectandi sunt Ministri, non ut Ministri duntaxat per se, sed sicut Ministri Dei, utpote per quos Deus salutem hominum operatur. Corpus Conf. par. 1. p. 56.  erecting up of a Church unto himself, and for the governing and preservation of the same; and always will use them so long as the Church remaineth on Earth. Therefore the first beginning, institution, and office of the Ministers, is a most ancient Ordinance of God himself, not a new device appointed by men. Ministers are to be considered, not as Ministers by themselves alone, but as Ministers of God, even such as by whose means God doth work the salvation of Mankind.] Harmony in Engl. printed in 4. Anno 1643. pag. 233.  

The FRENCH Confess.  
Seeing that we are not made partakers of Christ, but by 
Credimus, quoniam non nisi per Evangelium simus Christi compotes, oportere sacram & inviolabilé 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ejus authoritate in Ecclesia sancitā conservari: ac proinde requiri in ecclesia pastors, quibus onus docendi Verbi, & administrandi Sacramentorum incumbat.— Itaque fanaticos illos omnes detest●●●ur, qui qu●●rum in se est, sacrum Ministerium, sive praedicationern Verbi, & administrationem Sacramentorum, abolita cupiunt. Corp. Conf. par. 1. pag. 107.  the Gospel: We believe that that good Order which by the authority of that Gospel is confirmed, aught to be kept sacred and inviolable. And that therefore Pastors are necessarily required in the Church, upon whose shoulders the burden of teaching the Word, and administering the Sacraments, doth lie. — Therefore we detest all those fanatical spirits, who, as much as in them lieth, desire that both this sacred Ministry, or Preaching of the Word, and the Administration of the Sacraments, were utterly abolished.] Harm. Eng. p. 253.    

PROPOS. II.  
Besides the internal Call of GOD, and due qualification through the Spirit; an Externall mediate Calling by men (in the ordinary state of the Church) is necessary to put a man into the office of a Minister, and to enable him for the Work.  
Proofs out of Scripture. Jer. 14. 14. ch. 23. 21. 1 Tim. 3. 2. Rom. 10. 15. Heb. 5. 4. 2 Cor. 3. 1. Act. 1. 21, 22.  

The FRENCH Confession, Art. 31.  
We believe that it is not lawful for any man, upon his 
Credimu● nulli fas esse suapte autoritate invadere Ecclesiae gubernacula, sed legitime electione, quoad ejus fieri potest, & quamdi● Dominus ejus rel potestatem facit, praeeunte, adscisci unumquemque oportere. Corpus Conf. par. 1. p. 108.  own authority, to take upon him the government of the Church; but that every one ought to be admitted thereunto by a lawful Election, so near as may be, and so long as the Lord giveth leave.] Harm. Eng. pag. 253. & 254.   

The Augustane Confession, Art. 14.  
Concerning Ecclesiastical Orders they teach, that no man 
De Ordine ecclesiastico docent, quod nemo debeat in ecclesia publice docere, au● Sacramenta administrare, nisi rite vocatus. Sicut & Paulus praecipit Tito, ut in civitatibus Presbyteros constituat. Corp. Conf. par. 1. p. 16.  should publicly in the Church teach, or minister the Sacraments, except he be rightly Called: according as St. Paul giveth commandment to Titus, to Ordain Elders in every city.] Harm. Eng. p. 258.   

The latter Conf. of Helvetia, chap. 18.  
Furthermore, no man ought to usurp the honour of the 
Nemo autem honorem Ministerii ecclesiastici usurpare sibi, i. e. ad se largitionibus, aut ullis artibus aut arbitrio proprio rapere debet.— D●mnamus hic omnes qui fua spo●●● currunt, cum non sint electi, missi, nec Ordina●●. Corp. Conf. par. 1. pag. 59  Ecclesiastical Ministry, that is to say, greedily to pluck it to him by bribes, or any evil shifts, or of his own accord. We do here therefore condemn all those which run of their own accord, being neither chosen, sent, nor Ordained. Harm. Engl. p. 236.   

The Conf. of Wirtemberg, Art. 20.  
Neither is it unknown, that Christ in his Church hath 
Nec est obscurum qd. Christus instituerit in ecclesia sua Ministros, qui adn●ncient Evangelium suum, & dispensent Sacramenta ejus. Nec permittendum est cuivis, quamvis spirituali sacerdoti, ut sine legitima vocatione usurpet publicum Ministerium in Ecclesia. Corp. Conf. par. 2. pag. 164.  instituted Ministers, who should Preach his Gospel, and Administer the Sacraments. Neither is it to be permitted to every one, although he be a spiritual Priest, to usurp a public Ministry in the Church, without a lawful Calling. Harm. Engl. p. 265.   

The ENGLISH Conf.  
Further we say, that the Minister ought lawfully, duly, 
Credimus Ministrum legitime vocari oportere, & rectè atque ordine praefici ecclesiae Dei; neminem autem ad sacrum Ministetium pro suo arbitrio & libidine posse se intrudere. Corp. Conf. par. 1. pag. 116. See also the 23 Art. among the 39 and Corp. Conf. p. 131.  and orderly to be preferred to that office of the Church of God; and that no man hath power ro wrist himself into the Holy Ministry at his own pleasure. Harm. Eng. p. 255.    

PROPOS. III.  
In Calling to the Ministry, besides Election, Ordination is to be used, where it may be had. (Act. 6. 2. ch. 13. 2. ch. 14. 23. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22.) And besides the usual way of Ordaining by Prayer, Fasting, and Imposition of hands; there is no other spoken of in any Confession of the Reformed Churches.  

The Conf. of Helvetia, quo supra.  
And those which are chosen, let them be Ordained of the Elders, with public prayer, and laying on of hands. We do here therefore condemn all those which run of their own accord— as before. Harm. Engl. p. 236. See also the former Conf. of Helu. Har. Eng. p. 242. Corp. Conf. par. 1. pag. 90.   

The SAXON Confession.  
We do retain in our Churches also the public rite of 
Retinemus igitur & in nostris ecclesiis, publicum ritum Ordinationis, quo comendatur Ministerium Evangelii, verè electls, quorum mores & doctrinam prius exploramus. Corp. Conf. par. 2. pag. 99  Ordination, whereby the Ministry of the Gospel is commended to those that are truly chosen, whose manners and doctrine we do first throughly examine. Harm. Eng. pag. 225.   

The BELGIC Confess. Art. 31.  
We believe that the Ministers, Seniors, and Deacons, 
Credimus Ministros, Seniores, & Diaconos, debere ad functiones illas suas vocari & promoveri legitimâ Ecclesiae electione, adhibitâ ad eam seril Dei invocatione, atque co ordine ac modo qui nobi● Dei verbo praescribitur. Corp. Conf. par. 1. pag. 179.  aught to be Called to their functions, and by the lawful Election of the Church to be advanced into those rooms; earnest prayer being made unto God; and after the Order and manner which is set down unto us in the Word of God. Harm. Eng. p. 258.] Note here, that besides Prayer, they speak of an Order and manner set down unto us in the Word of God; which, for Ministers and Deacons, relates to laying on of hands, or Ordination, if I understand them.   

The Confession of BOHEMIA, ch. 9  
But Ministers ought not of their own accord to press 
D●cent Ministros Ecclesiae, quibus administratio verbi & sacramentorum demandatur, ritè institutos esse oportere, ex Domini & Apostolorum praescripto. Atque hi probentur prius, tum demum factâ precatione, per man●um impositionem confirmentur. à Senioribus,  forward in that Calling; but aught according to the example (or commanded rather, for so ' its in the Latin, ex praescripto) of the Lord, and the Apostles, to be lawfully appointed and Ordained thereunto— They teach also, that above all things they be proved and tried by examination; and so afterward, Prayer and Fasting being made, they may be confirmed or approved (or rather, as it should be translated, Let them be confirmed; those words [or approved] have nothing to answer to them in the Latin) by laying on of hands.] Harm. Eng. p. 246.  
Let the Reader observe, that he who published the Harmony of Confessions in English, was no friend to Ordination and Imposition of hands: as appears, not only by his Notes upon every passage where Imposition of hands is mentioned; but by his Translation here. But that the sense of the Bohemians may be the better understood, I shall here add the words of the Waldenses out of their most ancient Confession, the first that ever was extant against Popery.  
Ad plenam Presbyteri gradationem, tria esse necessaria 
Barnes. L●d. Wald. to. 2. p. 14.  approbamus. Primum, probatio vitae, fidei, donorum, fidelitatis quoque in exilioribus negotiis creditis. Alterum, orationes cum jejuni●. Postremum, contributio potestatis, aptis ad hoc verbis, & manuum impositio, adcorroborationem.   

For the Church of SCOTLAND:  
In their Second book of Discipline, ch. 2 & 3. The Divines of that Church speak clearly, fully, and most accurately to all the former propositions. To the first in the 2. chap. to the second and third in the 3. chap.  
Without lawful Calling it was never leasome (i. e. lawful 
Doct. & Disc. of the Church of Scotl. p. 81. ) to any person to meddle with any function Ecclesiastical. There are two sorts of Calling: one extraordinary by God immediately, as was of the Prophets and Apostles; which in Kirks established and well already reform hath no place. The other Calling is ordinary; which, besides the Calling of God, and inward testimony of a good Conscience, is the lawful approbation and outward judgement of men, according to God's word, and order established in the Kirk. This ordinary and outward Calling hath two parts, Election and Ordination. Election is the choosing out of a person or persons, most able, to the office that vakes, by the judgement of the Eldership, and consent of the Congregation to which shall be the person or persons appointed.— Ordination is the separation and sanctifying of the person appointed to God and his Kirk, after he be well tried, and found qualified. The Ceremonies of Ordination, are Fasting, earnest prayer, and Imposition of hands of the Eldership.  
Let it be observed here, that Imposition of hands is no otherwise made a ceremony, then Fasting and earnest prayer.    

PROPOS. iv  
The practice of those in these days, who commonly Preach, and receive maintenance for so doing, refusing or neglecting to be Ordained; is not to be justified by the Scripture, or by the doctrine of, or approved example in any of the Reformed Churches; but forbidden in their Books of Discipline, and condemned by their Divines, as the opinion and practice of Anabaptists, Libertines, Arminians, and Socinians.  
Towards the clearing of this, examine these Quotations following.  
Crocius de Eccl. Pont. praejud. Dissert. 6. num. 9 pag. 139. Synops. puri. Theol. disp. 42. num. 6. & seq. Joshua Stegman. Photinlanis. disp. 53. qu. 1. & 2. p. 608. 613. Balthasar Mentzerus, in Exegesi Augustane Conf. ad ar. 14. pag 639. & seq. Fredericus Balduinus lib. 4. cap. 4. de casibus conscientiae, Casu 1. pag. ●009. Idem in brevi Instit. Minist. cap. 6. pag. 40, 41. & cap. 9 pag. 79. Johannes Ge●●a●dus, L. C. in fol. de Minist. Eccles. cap. 3. sec. 1. num. 54. & à num. 64. ad finem sectionis.  
Among the Ecclesiastical Canons ratified in the last Synod of Dort, this is the Third. Nemini fas esto, quantumvis Doctori, Seniori, vel Diacono, ministerium Verbi & Sacramentorum exercere, nisi legitime ad ea vocato Contra siquis fecerit, & aliqu●ties admonitus non abstinuerit, penes Classem judicium esto, utrum Schismaticus sit declarandus, an aliâ quadam poena coercendus.    

A brief Answer to the Pretences of Edmond Chillenden, for the lawfulness of Preaching without ORDINATION.  
CHILLENDEN, Pag. 5.  
ELdad and Medad prophesied in the camp. Moses said, would God that all the Lords people were Prophets.  
Numb. 11. from 26. to 30.  
Ans. It is one thing, to Prophecy; another, to Preach, Prophets and Preachers are not convertible, terms: because there are Preachers, who are no Prophets. God hath set some in the Church; first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers. 1 Cor. 12. 28. How shall they be distinguished, if they be the same? Yet those that can prove themselves to be Prophets, shall have liberty (for me) to Preach without Ordination, and that not only in the Camp, but elsewhere.  
Pag. 8.] Jehosaphat sent to his Princes to Teach in the Cities of Judah; and they taught in Judah, and had the book of the Law of the Lord with them, and went about through all the cities of Judah. 1 Chron. 17. 7, 8, 9  
Ans. Remember, none went to any city of their own head, but those whom Jehosaphat the supreme Magistrate sent. What Jehosaphat sent you, and such as you are? Here's no mention of Preaching. If Teaching and Preaching be always all one; then do our Judges (though not Ordained) Preach at every Assize. In this sense, that of the Princes teaching, v. 7. is most properly to be understood. And that in the 9 verse, They taught in Judah, refers to the Priests and Levites spoken of in the 8. verse. It remains on your part to prove, that the Princes preached sermon-wise, or in the same manner and kind as the Priests and Levites did. However, here were none joined with them but the Princes, 'twas Jeroboam only that made Priests of the lowest of the people: Whosoever would, he consecrated him. But mark what follows. — And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off and to destroy it from off the face of the earth. 1 King. 13. 33, 34.  
Out of the New Testament, the instances of the Scribes, Pharisees, and Lawyers are brought; and with them are joined the examples of Christ, Paul and Barnabas, pag. 9  
Ans. The liberty given in the Jewish Synagogues, is no more a precedent for Christian Churches then their exercise of power. It would anger you, if any should say; They whipped and scourged in their synagogues such Teachers as they did not like: and therefore so should we do now. If none might preach among us unordained, but upon such terms, and the standing Officers of our Congregations be the Judges; perhaps you might have occasion to complain with St. Paul, Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one, Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned. 2 Cor. 11. 24, 25.  
A certain Jew named Apollo's borne at Ale●●●dria; an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus etc. Act. 18. from 24. to the end.  
Ans. This (as the former) is but an instance of the liberty given by the Jews, or taken where as yet there was no Church in being. Take in all the commendations of the man, and in a like juncture of time others of like abilities may do the like: And yet this concession will nothing avail to prove the sense of your Position.  
To that (pag. 12.) of the dispersed Disciples, out of Act. 8. 1, 4. compared with Act. 11. 9, 20, 24.  
I answ. In such a condition of the Church as that was, (these cases being much alike; no Order established, and Order dissolved) I should not oppose that able men should teach in love, as they are able, though out of Office. But under this pretence to plead for like liberty to every one that will assume it, in all places, and in all conditions of the Church; is as if one should argue thus: — When there was no King in Israel, every one did that which was right in his own eyes: Therefore it is the liberty of the Subject for every one to do what they please, although they have a King.  
Pag. 15. The next Scripture that offers itself to be looked upon in this particular of Preaching without Ordination, is in 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. As every one hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold graces of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God, etc.  
Ans. Every one is to use his gift with respect to the gift itself, and to his place and calling, and no otherwise: private persons, in a private way; and public officers, publicly. And be a man's gift never so small, yet he must use it. For these words contain a precept. Not that every man is bound to be a Preacher, by this Text: but he that is a Preacher by office, is bound to preach with all his might. Compare this Text with Rom. 12. from the beginning of the 3. verse, to the end of the 8. it may help to understand it. But you will never prove, That both together, or either apart, ●o bind every Christian to preach publicly, as he conceives himself to be able, though he be no Officer. I say, to bind: for the Apostle spea●●●ot of a liberty which we may use or disuse; but of a duty which we must perform. The duty of Preaching lies upon none but upon those that are Called. The ordinary regular way of Calling is by Ordination.  
To all which is produced, pag. 18. concerning Prophets and Prophesying and using of gifts, out of 1 Cor. 12 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. 1 Cor. 14. 3, 39 I answer summarily—  
It's granted, That all Orders, Officers, or Members of the Church, above Ministers, may preach as well as they, whether Ordained or Unordained: ●● Apostles, and Evangelists, and Prophets. For Prophets, such as were under the New Testament, they are always placed next unto the Apostles, and before Pastors and Teachers. 1 Cor. 12. 28, 29. Act. 13. 1. yea, before the Evangelists, Eph. 4. 11. In the Primitive times there were many such, yea many in one Church, or at Antioch and Corinth. Whether these were Ordinary, or Extraordinary, it is easy to judge by the continuance, or discontinuance of them in the Church in after-ages, and at present. If there be any so gifted by the Holy Ghost, above Ordained persons, that they are worthy to take place of them and of Evangelists; let them by all means have the liberty of their gifts, and their proper denomination: I think Ordinary Ministers should give them the right hand both of fellowship & place.  
As for any kind of Prophets, or prophesying in the public Congregations, below Ministers, and their Ministry, there is none to be found in any enumeration of Scripture, either in Rom. 1●. 1 Cor. 12. or Ephes. 4. where we were most like to find it. And therefore it is still with me resolved, that the Prophets and Prophesying which we read of in 1 Cor. 14. was extraordinary. He that believes three kinds of Prophets under the New Test. let him distinguish them.  
But of these things more particularly and at large, when the Lord gives time and strength.  
One writes for Preaching without Ordination; and might upon the same grounds have added, without Election. Another for Preaching by him wh● is not Called to be a Minister. Ordination is thought to be th● weaker part; but Calling is the thing struck at. Yet I am not much solicitous about the necessity of the Calling, that hath a strong promise to support it to the ●nd of the World, 〈…〉 I humbly offer my part, in the Answer following.  

Some Notes belonging to the Treatise hereafter answered, Omitted by the Printer.  
Add therefore, pag. ●1. lin. 13. to the margin.— Budaeus. H. Steph. Thes. p. 35. l. 4. Thes. ling. Grae. Novum usum huic verbo tribuere. p. 38. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud Eustach. Thes. lin. Gre. tom. 1. 1732. C. & 17●7. E. Carthwr. in Act. 14. 23. P. 29. l. penult. these words should have been setdown at large. Quicunque ad docendum idoneus eligitur & vocatur suffragio & voce Ecclefiae, is verus est verbi Minister; siquidem vocatio & electio legitima facit Ministrum. Ordinatio verò est illius vocationis declaratio coram coet● Ecclesiae; sicut non Coronatio facit Regem, sed Electio: Coronatio verò est sole●nis duntaxat ren●nciatio, & declaratio regis. Aegid. Hun. contra assert. Arturi. Vocatio propriè & essentialiter consistit in electione. Ames. Cas. Cons. l. 4. c. 25 sect. 28. Ordinatio seu Consecratio, nihil alind est quàm legitima Electio. Voet. p. 267.   


Erratas in the Marg. of the Answer.  
Pag. 3. for essentiaam, read essentiam. p. 5. debeat, r. debet. p. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 17. l. 29. mancipitur, r. mancipatur. lin. 32. ligere, r. eligere. p. 18. l. penult. saltem, r. solum. p. 10. l. 13 after praeire enim, add debent. lin. 14. cum, r. cor. l. 25. essensum, r. assensum. p. 34. & dominus, r. ut Dominus. p. 44. in stead of the words there found in the beginning, read thus: Omnes illi actus qui pertinent ad vocationem, vel tendunt ad electionem, etc.   

In the Answer itself.  
Pag. 9 lin. 1. after et, add pro. l. 9 after that is, add in. p. 9 l. 29 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 11. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. ●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 25. l. ult. Comitur, r. Committitur. p. 34. l. 13. after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, blot out often. p. 66. l. 9 porrectione, r. porrectionem. p. 77. l. 1. for to ●abylon, r. of Babylon.     

AN ANSWER TO THE TRACT bearing Title, The judgement of the Reformed Churches, and Protestant Divines, concerning Ordination, Laying on of bands in Ordination of Ministers, etc.  
The words of the Treatise are here set down, without adding, altering, or abridgement.  ORdination is taken commonly for an act of Ministers or Elders, after Examination and Election. 
The ANSWER.  
1. IN the common acception of the word. Ordination includes Examination, and Imposition of hands; and is not a single act, but a complicate. So as all is to be taken in, which belongs to the Ordainers for the solemn 
* Solenne est quod solet fieri.  constituting or setting apart, and making of him to be a Minister who was none before. Ordinatio Apostolica triplici actione constabat: Primus act●s erat praparatorius, scil. jejunium: Secundus, preces; Tertius, manuum impositio. Nico. Hunnius, Demonstratione Minist. Lutheran. p. 271.  
2. Whether the words Ministers or Elders be to be taken here disjunctively or exegetically, is uncertain, because they are sometimes taken for the same, and sometimes for several sorts of Church-officers. That Ministers alone may Ordain without other Elders, when the Presbytery is not integrated, is a received opinion; but how Elders who are no Ministers may act in Ordaining, is disputable.  
3. As for Election and Examination, whether you suppose them here as the acts of Ministers or Elders, or of the people antecedently, I know not, nor what kind of election you mean; for there are divers kinds:  

1. By way of desire, with submission or reference.  
2. By way of acceptance, or acquiescence.  
3. By way of choice, out of many to pitch on one.  
4. By way of creation, which is by choosing to make one what he was not before.   
Ordination supposes no Election, on the people's part, but that which is by way of desire with submission, and reference. This may precede the act of Ordaining, but is not simply necessary in all cases. Election by way of creation is included in Ordination, and is not far from the formal reason of it. That Ministers and Elders may ordain none, de jure, in any state of the Church, or in any case but those whom the People 
Vide Concil. Laodic●num, can. 5. The substance and essence of Ordination consisteth in the appointing of such for the holy Ministry by persons in office. Ruth. Due right of Presbyteries, p. 186. ●. dist.  have first chosen, will not easily be proved. 
* It is not of the substance of the calling to be chosen by voices of the people. Dr. Fulke on Act. 14. 23.   
4. Whereas you speak of Ordination commonly so called, you name neither Church nor Divine who state it as you do here, and I think you can name none. Be it an act of Ministers or Elders after Examination and Election, there must be something added to make it a definition or description. In stead of the quid rei, you give us only the qu●●d●. If your proofs have no more strength, than your exp●●ation hath clearness and fullness, you may still conceal your ●a●e, and that will be your best advantage.  
In that sense Ordination is not essential to the Calling of Minister.  
Ans. 1. This implies there is a Scripture-sense wherein Ordination is essential to the Calling of a Minister; or else you oppose it in all senses, and then what needs those words [in that sense]? If there be a sense wherein you, with the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines, do grant it, why is that concealed?  
2. If your Thesis had been entirely expressed it would run thus. Ordination as it is commonly taken for an act of Ministers or Elders after Examination and Election, is not essential to the calling of a Minister. Put then what's the meaning of it? That no act of Ministers and Elders about the calling of a Minister is essential thereunto, or none but Examination and Election? I suppose it is not your sense, that Examination and Election by Ministers or Elders is essential to the calling of a Minister, and tha● these together are commonly called Ordination. That no act of Ministers or Elders whatsoever is essential to a Ministers calling, will not be found to be the judgement of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines, and that without limitation and restriction, which 
Formadat esse. Materia est part quid ditatis.  yet in your Title you pretend unto.  
3. The word essential may prove a blind to some readers, being a term of art which learned ones agree not about. That form gives being, and yet matter is part of the quiddity, as also 
Quod essentianam rei non constituit, sine eo essentia rei salva esse potest. Propria adjuncta non constituunt essentirei. Ergo sine iis essentia rei salva esse potest, & ●x consequenti n●n debent vocari essentialia Heiz. Nullus Philosophorum in ●oto orbe terrar●i dabit tibi Majorem. Rod. Goclen. ad Pisc●●. Piscator in Thesibus, p. 604.  the distinction of essential into, 1. antecedent, 2. constituent, and 3. consequent, is common in the Schools: yet in a learned company I have heard it to be, by one of them, little less than hissed at. One Heizo propounding this argument against Piscator.— The essence of a thing may be without that which doth not constitute it, Proper adjuncts do not constitute the essence, Therefore the essence may be without them, and consequently they are not to be called essential. Rodolphus Goclenius Professor at Marpurg, answers for Pisc. No Philosopher in all the world will grant the Major. So as if Ordination were not constitutive, yet if it did necessarily follow upon that act which doth, as suppose Election by Ministers or Elders with the consent of the Church, it might be called essential.  
What think you of this, Whether Ordination be not at ' 
* Zanc. makes Election and Ordination parts of Calling So Ames If parts, then essential, or integral.  least an integral part of a Ministers calling? and whether some integral parts be not essential to an integral whole? and Ordination such a part of Calling?  
4. In plain words, I suppose this to be your meaning: No man who desires to be a Minister, needs be Ordained; and if he be, he is not thereby made a Minister. And this you assert without any distinction of time or state of the Church, or of Calling, whether it be mediate or immediate, ordinary, extraordinary, or mixed. You might as well say, Marriage, as an act of Ministers or Magistrates, after the consent of the parties, is not essential to the calling of man and wife, none need to be so married, and if they be, they are not thereby made man and wife. Wise men would soon perceive that your word essential would not be a sufficient salvo against the danger of such a position; families are likely to be destroyed by it notwithstanding. He that says no act of Ministers or Elders is essential to a Ministers call, will say as much with fairer pretence of Magistrates; and then either nothing is essential, or something to be done by the people, or something immediately on God's part: what follows upon this, but either Erastianisme, that there is no Church-power or Order; Brownisme, that all power is in the body of the people; or Enthusiasm, that every man is to act [in sacris] as he is led by inspiration, without respect to polity.  
If this be your judgement, yet methinks it sounds not like the judgement of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines. Papists use to impose such a sense upon them, and they use to disclaim it. Yet I do not wonder that you are thus bold with them, seeing you begin with First, Second, and Third, etc. which must be understood either of Scripture or Reason, or both, as if right reason, and that Spirit which leadeth into all truth, were fully on your side in this cause, whereas I fear they are not.  
5. As to your position in your own terms, Ordination is not essential to the calling of a Minister; the Reader (who is to judge betwixt us both) must observe this mystery. Ordination is taken two ways in the Reformed Churches among Protestant Divines.  
1. First and most frequently for the rite of imposing hands, which is the last act whereby a Ministers calling is consummated. This (because they call it a rite) they do not count essential, that is, always and in all cases absolutely necessary (especially as appropriated unto Bishops, distinct from Presbyters jure divino) but they hold it to be lawful and more or less necessary in a settled and wellordered Church.  
2. Ordination signifies that act wherein and whereby Church-governors' do in the name and stead of Christ set apart one to be a Minister, and by such separation make him one, with Prayer, Fasting, and either with or without Imposition of hands. Here they distinguish of the time and state of the Church; and though (in my observation) the term [essential] be used sparingly, yet the necessity of this thing in the substance of it, in a mediate calling, and regular state of the Church, is every where asserted. 
* Nemo ad ordinariam in Ecclesia functionem admitti debeat nisi legitime vocatus, eoque legitime electus & ordinatus. Zanch. in 4 praec.   
You in all your Exercitation confound those things; and whereas your Position, as you state it and explain it in the beginning, runs upon this latter sense, those Authors which you cite speak of the former only. So as if your sense, and the Reformed Churches be clearly held forth, you and they will be found opposites.  
Nothing to be done by Ministers or Elders at any time, or in any state of the Church, or in any case which may befall a Minister in his calling, is essential thereunto. That's your sense.  
Unto the ordinary mediate calling of a Minister in the regular state and condition of the Church, it is necessary or essential that those who are already Ministers do try, examine, approve, and actually set apart those who are to succeed them in the same kind of Calling; and this uses to be by prayer, fasting, and imposition of hands.  
This latter I believe will appear to be the judgement of the Reformed Churches and their Ministers, at least wise for any thing that you have yet produced unto the contrary; which what it is, comes now to be considered.  
1. Arg. Treat. p. 5.  
The word To ordain, Tit. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even when it is used concerning Officers, signifies to fix, settle, establish one who was in office before, as appears by Psal. 2. 6. where the Septuagint use the same word Paul doth to Titus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Ans. In this paragraph you seem to imagine this argument. If Ordination be essential to the calling of a Minister, then, Titus 1. 5. compared with Act. 14. 23. must prove it to be so, because in those places we read of some who were made Ministers by Ordination only, and have little else to guide us in things of this kind but examples. Hereupon you set yourself by way of undermining to make a show that no such proposition can be gathered out of those Texts, and instead of laying down your grounds directly for your own position, you give us in an obliqne insinuation that the contrary cannot be proved. And though it might suffice to say that the places instanced in bear not the whole stress of the affirmative against your thesis, and if the whole of your implied assumption was granted, yet the consequence remains unproved; yea, suppose all were true which is contained in your own express assertion, that the word To ordain, Tit. 1. 5. signifies to fix, settle, etc. It follows not, therefore Ordination is not essential: because though it have such a signification in some places, in Titus it may have another. Yet I shall answer more particularly,  
1. Here is no proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Titus 1. 5. must have the same sense and signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Psal. 2. 6.  
2. The Hebrew of the Psalm should rather be consulted with then the Septuagint, a corrupt translation; Especially because it renders that passively (contrary to all other Greek 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aq. & 5 Ed. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sym. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. sexta ed.  Translators) as spoken by David or Christ, which should be active as spoken by God. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, I have anointed or poured out. ordained, authorised *. The translation of the Seventy cannot be retained, but force must be offered unto the Hebrew text in three places, as Rivet and others upon the Psalm observe 
* Ainsw. on the place. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Que verba retineri non possunt quin vis flat Ebraico textus tribus in locis. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●sakti, legatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisakti, in Niphal. & pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 malkis, regem meum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 malko rex ejus. & pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kodeshi sanctum men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kodsho. Rivetus. Musculus, besides the same observation with Rivet observes further against the Greek translator, Et adjecit quod in textu non est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. in eo.— Chaldaus Paraphrastes Ebraicam veritatem retinuit.  
3. As for the Hebrew word, it may relate to God's decree. Yet have I see my King upon my holy hill of Zion, that is, my eternal decree and purpose. Which is the more probable because of that which follows in the next verse. I will declare the decree, etc. In Prov. 8. 23. where we have the phrase used passively, * I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning or ever the earth was; it cannot be understood 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  otherwise then of Christ's eternal generation, or that decree of God whereby he was assigned to his Incarnation and Offices. In neither way it will agree to your sense of of fixing, settling, or establishing one who was in office before.  
4. There is a vast difference between settling (per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by way of might, and (per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by way of authority. God might set a King in Zion (especially as you understand it) by force; but Titus could set Elders from city to city no otherwise then by the peaceable exercise of spiritual power: And therefore there's the less likelihood that we should have recourse to the 2. Psalm, to understand that phrase in Titus. And if you will needs compare them, some authoritative act must needs be understood in both places; and all power of making Ministers did not belong unto those in Crete among themselves, but unto Titus, as one sent unto them to set others over them. For in both places, not simply fixing, settling and establishing, but such a fixing, etc. as is by virtue of power and authority so to do, must needs be understood.  
But you add,  
Now if you understand the Psalm of David in the type, he was a King many years before he took in the hill and fort of Zion, 2 Sam. 5. 5, 6. Or if you understand it of the Apostles preaching up Christ, as the Apostles do the Psalm, Act. 4. 25. etc. Christ received all power at his ascension, and did but settle his Kingdom by their. Preaching, the Apostles were but witnesses of Christ's glory, and in being so did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Answ. 1. It's well you put an [if] concerning the Psalm as to be understood of David in the type, because it's noted that almost all the Orthodox Fathers do understand all things in this Psalm, simply and immediately of 
Patres Orthodoxi fero omnes de Christo simpliciter & immediate accipiunt, & interpretantur quaecunquein hoc Psalmo d●c●ntur. Rivetus in arg. & partitione Psal. 1 Sam 16 13. 2 Sam. 2. 4. c. 5. 1. & 3. 8.  Christ.  
2. It may be questioned whether that act of David's taking in the Hill of Zion be here directly pointed at, because we read of his anointing by Samuel at Bethlehem, and at Hebron twice, * but never of any anointing at the Hill or Fort of Zion, and therefore have no ground for the Hebrew phrase here used in the strict and proper acception of it.  
3. How the Apostles understand the Psalm, and this passage of it appears by those words Act. 4. 27. Against thy holy Child Jesus whom thou hast anointed 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in Psal. 3.  both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together. Here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek answers to Nasakti in the Hebrew, and both together imply, that God had mad Christ Jesus whom the Jews crucified, both Lord and Christ, Acts 2. 36.  
4. As for the Apostles, that they may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to settle his Kingdom by their preaching, we find no such phrase in Scripture, you do but dream in ●sing of it; and though its true they were witnesses of Christ's glory, yet it's also true they were more the● witnesses: as you use the word in way of Diminution, but to 〈◊〉, settle, and establish Christ upon his Throne either by preaching, witnessing or other way is not where ascribed unto them.  
Thus you proceed.  
And however the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken sometimes, yet Titus 1. 5. it cannot be taken for making him an Elder who was none before. For what is enjoined there is to be done by Titus only, or by Titus joining with other Ministers. For the text saith, I have left [thee] to ordain. But neither did the Apostles, much less might other Ministers make a Minister by a sole act of their own.  
Answ. How the word may be taken sometimes is not much material; the ordina●● acception is chief to be looked at. For that must take place in Titus, unless some reason from the text itself, or from the nature of the things there spoken of, can be given to the contrary. If all the places in the New Testament of this kind, where it is used, be enquired into, it will be found to signify either the making of him an officer who was none before, or to give him a greater power than he had at first. For instance, Mat. 24. 45. Who is then a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) over his household to give them meat in due season? Luk. 12. 14. Man, who made me (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) a Judge or divider over you? Act. 7. 10. Pharaoh made him (speaking of Joseph) governor over Egypt and all his house, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
For the second sense, see Mat. 24. 47. Verily I say to you he shall make him ruler (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) over all his goods. Mat. 25. 21. I will make thee ruler (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) over many things. The like in Luk. 12. 42. 44. When Deacons were first to be constituted in the Church of Jerusalem, the Apostle speaks thus unto the multitude, Look you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) whom we may appoint over this business. 
* Act. 6. 3.  To produce like places out of the Septuagint, is as needless as it would be endless; or out of the first and most ancient of the Greek 
* Vide Concil. Nicenum can. 4 Ancyranum can. 10. & 18. Antiochenum can. 23. Laodicenum c. 11. & 16. Sardicense can. 4. & 6.  Counsels. One place out of Clemens his Epistle to the Corinthians (which is of great repute among the learned) may give some light unto the text in hand, speaking of the Apostles and of their preaching in countries and cities, he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they made the first fruits of them that believe Bishops and Deacons, (not by popular election, but by virtue of the spirit of discerning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 
* Clemens in epist. ad Corinth p. 54 & 55. . What they did themselves in this kind, they did also appoint to be done by Evangelists as they saw occasion.  
But you say [however the word may be taken sometime, yet Titus 1. 5. it cannot be taken for making him an Elder who was none before. And your reason is, because what is enjoined there is to be done by Titus only, or by Titus joining with other Ministers.  
Ans. Be it granted that Titus only was to ordain, what need then that other Ministers should join with him? And if other Ministers were to join, yet that cannot be proved from the signification of the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) there used. Something was peculiarly enjoined him, for wherefore else receives he a commission and commandment from Saint Paul? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have appointed thee. That which follows [that the Apostles, much less other Ministers, might not make a Minister by a sole act of their own] is a mere petitio principii.  
Your [as for example] is no proof. Was Titus a Minister to Crete when he came thither, or was he not? if he was, show us whose act concurred with Saint Paul's, and whose authority he took in to settle him there as a Minister to them.  
Thus you go on [as for example, Acts 14. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & c. the word translated they ordained in the plural number, may be referred to the people as well as to Paul and Barnabas.  
Answ. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one place doth no more refer to the people than the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When the people are spoken of it refers to them, but Paul and Barnabas only are here distinguished from the people.  
To that which follows  
[For it is such a word as properly belongs to the people as well as their Rulers, when they gave their votes, and never to the Rulers without the people.]  
Answ. The truth is it belongs properly either to Rulers or people to gether, or a part as there is occasion. Your [never to the Rulers without the People] is too confident an assertion, if so be (de facto) no instance could be given to the contrary: yet (de jure) no reason is produced why it might not. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Suidas hath it) signifies both Plebiscitum, a Law made by the people; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the ordinary word used in Demosthenes and in the Attic laws for (Senatus consultum) a Law made by the Senate. As when the people make a Law, they are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so may the Rulers in like manner in those Laws which are made by themselves alone. What think you of this passage in Julius Pollux? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* Julius Pollux l. 8. c. 9 § 1.  The Thesmothetae do privarely prescribe when judgement is to be given, and promulge public accusations and suffrages to the people. Whose suffrages were these, if not the Rulers?  
And of that in Demosth. (Phil. 1.) cited by Hen. Steph. whom you quote so often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and of making an Officer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But you say [the custom was among the Grecians in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lawful meetings, that the people joined Votes with the Rulers, and the Rulers with the people, before any act was accounted legal. Yea it may be rather referred to the people, than to them, for the people sometimes voted alone, but the Ruler did never.  
Answ. For this (I think) you cite Budaeus and Henry Stephen, but at large; go and consult them once again; you wrong those learned men while you would have us to believe that they were as ignorant of the Greek story as yourself, or that this is to be found in them which is not. For what you here assert, were it true of some particular Commonwealth in Greece at som● time, yet it is far from truth concerning all the Grecians generally. The Rulers in Athens often met apart and voted apart; nothing was, or might be brought into their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what the Rulers had first consulted and concluded. 
* Sam. Petitus in comment. ad leges Atticas, l●b. 2. de legibus titulo 1. p. 116.  A Law made by the Senate alone stood good for a year before the people were consulted with about it. And this was one of Solon's Laws, sine Senatus praejudicio populus nullâ de re rogator. Let the people be consulted with in nothing which the Senate have not predetermined. * There were a sort of Rulers among them who voted things amongst themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the Senate and the Common Hall. 
* idem p. 123.  See more to the clearing of this in Henri Steph. Tom. 4. p. 429. G. But imagine all was as you say of the custom among the Grecians in their (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) lawful civil meetings, what is that to bind Christians in their Churches? Paul saith we have no such Custom nor the Churches of God. 'tis not said, nor the 
1 Cor. 11. 16.  Churches of Greece as meaning civil Assemblies. You must first prove that the government of the Church is democratical, and that every single Congregation among us is to have the same power which a Common-Hall had among them, and that our manner of proceeding is to be regulated by theirs; before you argue from the one to the other. But to go on:  
[And in this sense (say you) it is to be taken by the Reverend 
Engl. Pop. cer. p. 166.  Divine of Scotland; his words are, [But it is objected that Luke saith not of the whole Church, but of Paul and Barnabas, that they made them by voices Elders in every city. Ans. But how can we imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went to suffrages? Election by most voices or the lifting up of the hand in token of a suffrage, had place only among a multitude assembled together. Wherefore we say with Junius, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both a common and particular action, whereby a man chooseth by his own suffrage in particular, and likewise with others in common, one; so that in one and the same action we cannot divide those things which are so joined together.]  
Ans. The sense you mean, as I suppose, is this. Paul and Barnabas as Rulers, together with the People who had interest of authority in this business, by joint suffrage or election made Elders, not Paul and Barnabas alone. This you call the sense of a reverend Divine of Scotland; in other passages you cite the same book as speaking the sense of that Church.  
1. Though I reverence the Church and the Divine thereof, yet I cannot but remember Amicus Plato, etc. though Junius be heretaken in, yet all will not help to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth necessarily refer in this place to any other than to Paul and Barnabas. It sufficeth against the Papists, that the people are not excluded by the Word; but how it shall be proved that they are included by virtue of it, I see not. The note of Grotius upon the place is worth observing. Sol●● quid●m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumi de quavis electione et i●m quae ab ●●● vel pancis fit.  
2. And be it granted that Paul and Barnabas made Elders with the consent of the people, as it is by Grotius himself and Protestants generally, (their consent is one thing, and by their authority another) that must be granted not from the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but from analogy of the act of making Ministers with that of choosing Mathias, Act. 1. or Deacons Act. 6. or from some other ground.  
3. Neither need it seem strange that a thing should go to suffrage between two, if we consider what we read of Barnabas and Paul in the case of John Mark▪ Act. 15. 37, 38. and what is the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which refers to God alone, Act. 10. 42.  
4. When Junius saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both a common and particular action, his meaning cannot be that there must be many of divers sorts, people as well as rulers, or else there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And granting, as he doth, that it may signify a particular action, it cannot be from the word proved that more join in the action then are said to join. Besides, where two alone do join, there is actus communis & particularis simul. And as to the Text in ●and, only Paul and Barnabas are here expressed to be those who gave suffrage. And when two are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it's not necessary to understand twenty or two hundred. Two Consuls may be said truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by a common and a particular act, when they join in any business belonging to them as Consuls, though the whole Senatus Populúsque Romanus do not Vote with them. Those Divines among us Protestants (as Calvin and Ames 
* Calvin instit. l. 4. c. 3. §. 15. Nempe sic Romani historici non rarò loquntur consulem qui comitia habuerit creasse novos magistratus non aliam ob causam nisi quia suffragia receperit & populum moderatus sit in eligendo. * Amesius Bellarm. enerv. 10. 2. l. 3. c. 2. §. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is dicitur qui prae●st 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo sensu tribuitur presbyteri● primariis vel episcopis aliquando apud Euseb. ) who answer the Papists that Paul and Barnabas are said to ordain, because they gave direction and had precedence in this business, do thereby acknowledge that the action is here expressly ascribed to them alone.  
To that which follows, [But if the word [they ordained] be referred to Paul and Barnabas, and signify to create or make an Officer who was none before; yet the power whereby this creation is wrought is not their own only; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is creare per suffragia, as H. Stephen renders it, which is as much as to say they did it not only virtually in the power of others, but they did it by others.]  
Ans. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes simply to choose, with lifting up of hands or without, so as there be some outward expression of the inward consent of the mind it sufficeth; and sometimes by choosing to create. But how will you prove that it signifies mixedly to create per suffragium proprium & alienum, or non per proprium sed per alienum, as you here suppose, or that the plural suffragia hath any weight to imply a multitude in the Latin tongue? They who gave their own suffrage, and by giving it created and made or chos● Ministers, they had the power. Thus did Paul and Barnabas, they made Presbyters by suffrage; that must be understood of their own suffrage: Not they by the people, but they, that is Paul and Barnabas, for them, that is for the people to their use and benefit. That the people did it in Paul and Barnabas by acquiescing in their vote, will not be denied; but that the people did it by them, as if the power were the peoples, and not the Apostles unless by delegation from the people, is not yet, nor can be proved from the word as here used. In the close of this Paragraph, as your reasoning is weak, so your expressions are confused: if the answer fall short, thank yourself. Your second argument to prove that Ordination is not essential to the calling of a Minister, gins thus:  
2. The end and scope of Ordination is but to solemnize, 
The second Argument.  inaugurate, or publish the Calling of a Minister. It is to a Minister as Coronation is to a King, it makes him not a King, but declares him and sets him forth with glory. These are the very expressions and similitudes of Protestant writers both Lutherans and Calvinists in this matter. Sicut non coronatio facit regem, sed electio.] Aegyd. Hun. add artic. Arturi, contra assert. 6. Ames. Bellarmini enerv. tom. 2. p. 76. idem. Cas. cons. l. 4. c. 25. sect. 28. Boet. disp. causa papatus, l. 2. c. 20. p. 264. Majorem differentiam comminisci non potest inter duo illa (elect. & ordinat.) quam inter constitutionem & commissionem principis nudè spectatam, & inter eandem commissionem erbitrariis quibusdam symbolis, sceptro, coronâ, etc. insignitam, id. p. 267. Your margin, Aegid. Hun. add artic. Arturi contra assert. 6. declaratio solennis. Ames. cas. cons. l. 4. c. 25. s. 28. constitutionis testificatio. Croci Antisoci disp 24. s. 3. missio solennis in possessionem honoris. Jun. testimonium vocati publicum. T●●nob. de minist. l. 1. c. 25. Consecratio, & manifestatio, declaratio, promulgatio, significatio coram ecclesia, solennis testificatio. Voet. desp. causa Papat. l. 2. s. 2. c. 20.  
Ans. 1. If there were no other use of Ordination, than there is of Coronation to a King, it might suffice in some sense to prove it essential to the calling of a Minister. If coronation among Kings in our time be of like use to them as anointing was to Kings among the Jews, or as imposition of hands was unto the Elders and unto Joshua in succession unto Moses. 
Josh. 27. 18.   
2. Coronation is not of the like nature in all times and places, nor in all men's judgements, who writ of Politics. And though for the most part it suppose some precedent act whereby a King receives title; yet such weight is laid on this solemnity even among those who inherit by succession, that he who is a King thinks himself not rightly settled till he hath been crowned, and from the time of crowning the time of reigning uses to be accounted in the Empire. 
* Althus: polit. c. 19 num. 95.   
3. It is not simply right that makes a man to be a King, but the solemn declaration of that right in a forensick way (which uses to be done by proclamation) and some acknowledgement of the right demanded, and that's by coronation. All these in the substance of the things must concur and may be said to be essential, because though the outward sign be juris positivi, yet the thing signified is juris naturalis. Apply this to the calling of a Minister, and see what follows. The consent of those who have power to make him a Minister who otherwise is none, is substantially necessary. Among those who have that power, I hope the Ministers and Elders as such, shall be allowed their share. And that manner of declaring consent, which is approvable by the fundamental laws of the kingdom of Christ, is also necessary; the one antecedently, the other consequently. Let Ordination be in as much request among us for making Ministers, as Coronation is for our Kings, and it shall suffice: for then, as we have no Kings but such as are crowned, so we shall have no Ministers but those who are ordained. Remember that you are now speaking of Ordination as it is an act of Ministers and Elders, wherein they are to consent for making of a Minister. And if their consent as such, h. e. as Ministers and Elders, be essential, though the manner of Declaring it were arbitrary, yet that will suffice to prove Ordination in some sense essential.  
4. As for the Protestant writers, when they compare Ordination to Coronation; though it might suffice to say Comparisons prove nothing, (Theologica symbolica non est argumentativa) yet I answer further, They thereby understand for the most part the rite of Ordination, or the act of Imposition of hands as distinguished from the foregoing consent of the Ministers and Elders; and in that sense it may be admitted that Ordination is declaratio solennis, aut constitutionis testificatio, missio solennis in possessionem honoris, and such like. And this will be no advantage to you, or prejudice to us. You are now to speak of Ordination as distinguished from Imposition of hands, (for that follows afterward to be considered) but how the Protestant writers understand it when they compare it to Coronation, is another thing. To the testimonies which are cited by you, I shall speak more particularly in the close.  
Whereas you say that [these expressions and similitudes are agreeable to Scripture; for, Act. 13. Paul and Barnabas are said to be separated to the work by prayer and fasting and laying on of hands, but both of them were Ministers before, as appears Act. 12. ult.  
Ans. This text Act. 13. compared with Act. 12. makes nothing for proving the former expression and similitudes, but it makes much against the scope of your argument; because if Paul and Barnabas were Ministers before by a call from God without election, and yet the Lord would have them to be ordained, it makes much for the necessity of Ordination where it may be had. The holy Ghost said Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereto I have called them. [I have called them] why might not that suffice? but that the Lord would teach us by this extraordinary act and dispensation 
* Quod si hoc factum fuit in eo qui immediaté fuit vocatus quanto magis id facere decet in vocationibus mediatis. quae sunt verba D. Chemnitii, par. 3. l. de ecclesia c. 4. p 333. apud. Gerh. l. come. de min. eccls. c. 3 s. 2  of his Spirit to make more account of Ordination than of Election, or at least more than you would have us. He saith no more but [Separate them for the work] they understand his meaning to be [Ordain them:] And therefore when they had fasted and prayed, they (that is the Prophets and Teachers of Antioch) laid their hands on them. No man therefore in an ordinary way, is to be accounted separate to the work of the Ministry, until with fasting and prayer he hath hands laid on him. But of this more hereafter.  
5. Should I say no more, I think I fall not short of a sufficient answer to this Argument. Yet because herein you make the fairest show, and seem to have the Lutherans and Caulinists all on your side, and make many particular citations; therefore I shall the rather enlarge myself a little in 
* Nos verò legitimam vocationem nominamus eam quae▪ sit collect is suffragiis totius ecclesiae nullo ordine excluso: ita tamen ut certa persona à doctorib●●s ec●lesi● examinata sistatur magistratui & popule, à qu● publicè audita communibus omnium ordinum suffragiis eligitur, vel just is allegat is rationibu● rejicitur. Fred. Baldvinus de artic. S●●●lcadicis, dispur. 17. thesi 16. Sequitur secundum Ministrorum requisitum Ordo seu ordinatio, quâ person a legitimè electa & vocata per alium ecclesiae praesbyterum coram totâ ecclesia, Apostolico ritu nimirum manuum impositione, aliisque precibus inauguratur, & hac ceremonia quasi à reliquo caetu separatur, & sancto ministerio mancipitur. Id. thesi 46. Ecclesia constat tribus ordinibus, Sacro, Politico, Plebeio, omnes in vocationem alicujus consentire debent si vocatio est legitima. Ad sacrum ordinem pertinent Ministri ecclesiae, quorum est examinare doctrinam & mores vocandi, personamque idoneam & ecclesiae utilem ligere. Idde. cas. cons. l. 4. c. 4. casu 3. of Ordinationhe he speaks thus. Citra necessitatis casum & si haberi possit nequaquam est omittenda, propter evitand● novitatis scandalum. Semper. e. in ecclesia Apostolica usitata fuit, ubi vocati ad ministerium verbi per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presbyterii in officio suo confirmati sunt. & cap. 6. casu 1. Presbyterii nomine intelliguntur non tantum Ministri verbi, sedetiam illi qui ab ecclesia ad functiones ecclesiasticas constituendas sunt deputati, quos Seniores praepositos & consiliarios ecclesia, adeoque senatum ecclesiasticum appellam●s. Atque his quidem presbyter is primas parts in electione & vocatione Ministrorum conc●denda● esse, nemo sanus ut opin●r negabit. AEgidius Hunnius. Dan. Arculariu●. Jo. Wilke●mannus, etc. Propositionum come. 2. disp. 22. these 83 & 84. vide plura apud Ba●thas. M●●●zerum in exegesi Augustian● confessionis, ad Ar. 4. num. 4, 5, 6, & 8. Chemnitium ●● exam. conc. Trid. De s●cra●. ordinis, ad can. 8. Nic. Hunnium indemons. Min. Lutherans, per totum.  matter of testimony, and desire that these few things may be observed.  
1. The general opinion of the Lutherans about the regular and orderly Calling of a Minister, is, That the three Orders, Classes, or Estates, (all these words are used by them) that is, Magistrates, Ministers, and People, by a several interest of Suffrage, are to concur, together, or apart, to the calling of a Minister. And herein they make an act of Ministers and Elders, as such, to be necessary, yea the most necessary, proper and essential thing. And this supposed as antecedent, they use to say Ordination is the declaration of a Call, and compare it with Coronation, or the solemnisation of Marriage. And though they hold Ordination to be but a declaration of the Calling, yet they hold it more or less necessary, and to be the peculiar act of Ministers and Elders.  
Gerhard one of the most eminent among them, to justify the Calling of Ministers (in ecclesiis quas vocant evangelicis) useth this argument against Bellarmine. Vocatio mediata legitima juxta divinam institutionem & Apostolorum praxin fieri debet à tota ecclesia & omnibus tribus illius ordinibus. Nostrorum vocatio fit à tota ecclesia & omnibus tribus illius or dinibus. Ergo. A lawful mediate Calling according to Divine institution and the Apostles practice, must be made by the whole Church and all the three Orders thereof. The call of our Ministers is made by the whole Church, and all the three Orders thereof. Therefore it is lawful according to Divine institution, and Apostolical practice. The minor, saith he, is manifest out of the custom used in our Churches 
* Ad exemplum enim ecclesiae Apostolicae & primitivae, homines idon●is & necessariis donis à Deo instructi, ab ordinariis Presbyteris, Magistratu constituente, & Populo suffragante post legitimam vocation in per impositionem manuum, & preces ordinatium, & hac ratione cultu● divino consecrantur Loquimur dejure & ordinarid reguld in constitionibus nostris ecclesiosticip praescr●p●â. ●●. Gerh. l. come. to. 6. deminist ecclesiast. c. 3. §. 9 p. 157. Nos ordinationis ritum nequaequam omittendum, sed extra necessitatis casumin constitutione ministerii ecclesia lici semper adbidendum esse ditimus. Idem quo supra §. 12. . So as in their judgements an act of Ministers and Elders is of divine institution in the calling of a Minister.  
Yet a little more clearly and fully concerning the interest of Ministers about the calling of a Minister. 
* v. Nic. Hun. in Dem. Min. Lutherani, p. 199. multis ex causis ministris nau sabem susfragiunt, sed primum ac praecip. sussragium meriti●simeconceditur. 1. Hoc postulat praecep●um Apostolicum, 2 Tim. 2. 2. Tit. 1. 5. 2. Aptitudo cligendi. 3. ipsius offici● ratio. 4 ratio pro animabus reddenda. 5. exemplum Apostoli, Act. 1. Act 6. 2, 3. 6. piae & orthodoxae antiquitatis exempl●.  The same Gerhard enquiring to whom the right and power of Calling doth belong, gives this answer. [Whereas in the Church there be three distinct states or orders, the Ecclesiastical, Political, and Economical; or Presbytery, Magistrate, and People, of all which as of so many members the Church consisteth; Therefore no state of the Church is simply to be excluded, but their parts and offices must be left to every one of them in the mediate calling of Ministers. And 1. (saith he) that Bishops and Presbyters (understand by both names one thing) must be used when the Ministry is to be commended to any one, is manifest (ex mandato Apostolico) by the Apostolic commandment and the approved examples of Scripture, Act. 14. 23. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. Tit. 1. 5. Coming afterwards to speak more particularly (quid cuivis statui propriè tribuendum sit) what is properly to be given to every several state; that no confusion may arise, and one state may not take to itself that which is peculiar to another; after other things premised, he makes this distribution of their parts:  
Presbyterio competit exame●, ordinatio & inauguratio: To the Presbytery belongs examination, ordination, inauguration. Magistratui Christiano nominatio, praesentatio, confirmatio: To the Christian Magistrate nomination, presentation, confirmation. Populo consensus, suffragium, approbatio, vel etiani pro ratione circumstantiarum postulatio: To the People consent, suffrage, approving, or as circumstances may require, postulation. Id. loco & cap. citatis sec. 3. num. 85. p. 93. & num. 86. p. 95. 
* vid. ead. apud cund. Augustana confession is par. 2. cap. 1.  Now Sir I beseech you recollect yourself, and tell whether in the judgement of the Lutherans, Ministers and Elders, as such, have not an interest in the calling of a Minister; or why the People's act should be essential, and not the Ministers, by virtue of any ground which they build upon; and where you find in them Ordination and Imposition of hands so distinguished as they are here by you.  
2. The Calvinists do for the most part agree with the 
Hanc (viz. electionem seu designationem Ministri) dicimus non ad solom supremum Magistratum pertinere, us Gretius & alii judicarunt, nec. etiam ad solam ecclesiam Excluso magistratu ut alii volunt, imprimis Anabaptistae & Papistae: sed dicimus ad totam Ecclesiam hanc electionem certo respectu pertinere, ordine tamen debito observato ut praecant Ecclesiae praefecti adsentiatur populus, quisque suo ordine. Ant. Wallaeus locis come. parte 2. de functionibus ecclesiasticis edit. priore in 4. p. 907. Pertinet autem electio & designatio ipsa ad totam Ecclesiam in quâ sit: sed divers● ratione— Pessime quoque hallucinantur qui non distinguunt quae sunt Presbyterii, quae aut●m Plebis in electionibus istis parts; sed quod est illius, istitribuunt, indicentes in ecclesiam Dei magnam omnino confusionem. Praesbyterorum est, personam quae idonea ad munus vacuum videri potest, inquirere ex totepopulo, camque designareoculis & de ea inter sese agere & conferre●raire enim toti Ecclesiae Presbyteri.— Cum autem hoc. primum suffragium ad praesbyteros pertineat non ad universam ecclesiam & populum, quemodmodun tamen quidem sentiu ut & consentiose disputant. Ratio est. 1. quòd presbyteri & pastors dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ecclesia Heb. 13. 7. undo sua voce su● que consilio praeire populo debent. 2. Quòd illi ipsi sunt ecclesiae senatus ad quem prima rerum ecclesiasticarum deliberatio ac cura pertinet, atque etiam referenda est. 3. Exemplum ipsius primitivae ecclesiae, Apostoli enim ipsi primi de diaconis eligen dis deliberant. 4. Ex ipsa loquendi ratione quâ utitur Scriptura Act. 15 v. 22. 16. v. 4. 1 Cor. 16. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex qua phrasi luce clarius intelligatur à populo & universa ecclesia probari tantum vel improbari quae praesbyteri & ipsi praepositi ecclesia ère ecclesia esse judicarant atque proposuerant. 5. Exempla posterioris ecclesiae, quae tum canonibus suis sanxit, tum etiam usu ipso & praxi demonstravit à plebe tantum essensum requiri, ut quae à presbyterio gesta sunt justa aliqua ratione plebs vel rata haberet vel irrita faceret. Sed fierit summus Magistratus fidelis in cujus territorio aliquis ad dignitatem ecclesiasticam est asciscendus, debet cert● specialis istius Magistratus consensus praeter eum qui à toto populo praestatur expectari & accedere. Lamb. Danaeus come. in 1. ad Tim. ad cap. 5. v. 22. p. 348, 349, 352, 353, 354. Vide plura in hunc sensum apud Bucanum, loc. 42. de Ministerio in respons. ad quaest. 39 & Marcsium in Enchiridio de Minist. potest. & discip. ecclesiae, p. 117. thesi 39 inter Canon's ecclesiasticas Synodi Dordrac. can 4. Zanch in 4. praec. loc. 4. qu. 2. to. 4. p. 780. & sequ. Harmo. Synodorum Belgic. cap. 1. art. 4.  Lutherans touching the interest of Magistrates, Ministers and People about the calling of a Minister; though in manner of expression there be some difference, yet in the substance of the thing itself there is an harmony. Some speak of Calling, others of Election, both mean the same thing; and ascribe it not to the People alone, as you do with the Libertines, Anabaptists, Brownists and the like, nor to the Magistrate alone as Grotius and the Erastians'; but principally and primarily to the Ministers and Elders, and respectively to the whole Church.  
3. None of those writers in particular which you cite either in the body or margin of that paragraph, pag. 7. exclude Ministers and Elders from sharing in the power and act whereby a meet person is made a Minister; but every one of them hath more or less, expressly, for their interest. For the Calvinists (to give them the first place) I shall speak of them in order as you rank them. Aims against Bellarmine, tom. 2. p. 76. hath nothing at all one way or other, unless the Edition which I follow deceive me. In that of Oxford, 1624. p. 96. I find this. Populus in judicando dirigi potest ac ordinarie debet à judicio aliorum pastorum electionem vel praeeunte vel comitante. The people may, and ordinarily must be directed in judgement by the judgement of other Pastors either foregoing or accompanying Election. And in his book of Cases of Conscience, lib. 4. cap. 25. num. 27. Actus varii ad vocationem pertinentes possunt aliis committi, & ex ordine debent à praecipuis ecclesiae membris vel praesbyte●is praestari. Cura etiam ut omnia rectè fiant pertinet ad Magistratum. [Divers actions pertaining to the calling of a Minister may be committed to some, and according to order must be performed by the principal Members or Presbyters of the Church: the care also that all things be done rightly, belongeth to the Magistrate.] Crocius tells us, the conspiracio of the people must not be taken for a lawful call. Non conspiratio populi pro perfectè legitimâ vocatione haberi debet. 
* Antisocin. disp. 24.  Of the rite of Ordaining he says, Haec est constitutionis illius testificatio, quae exemplo Apostolorum docetur licita, neque extra casum necessitatis in Ministerio constituto temerè negligenda.] This is a testification of that Election, which is taught to be lawful by the Apostles example, and not to be rashly neglected in a settled Ministry, when there is no case of necessity.] Out of his words I fram this argument. That which is not only lawful, but so necessary about the calling of a Minister, that it may not be omitted but only in case of necessity, is more than a bare solemnisation, inauguration, or publication and little less than essential: but so it is with Ordination in the judgement of Crotius: therefore Crocius makes against you, not for you.  
For junius, he is so far from giving nothing but a bare rite about Ordination to the Presbytery, that he gives all unto it. And though (in several respects and a divers kind) he ascribes the power of Ordaining, both to Christ as the head and Spouse of his Church, and to the Church as the Body and Bride: yet (in a mediate Calling) both of them in his judgement make over the power unto Ministers and Elders. Sic totum in solidum Ordinatinnis potestatem Christus habet, quam cum ecclesia sua communicate; uterque verò pro suo jure, sponsus inquam, & sponsa, Presbyterio tradit jure Divino. [So as all the power of Ordination in full belongs to Christ, which he communicates with his Church; and both of them, the Bridegroom and the Bride, according to the right of each, gives it by Divine right unto the Presbytery. 
* Junius anim. in Bellar. con. 5 l. 1. c. 3. ar. 16. ] And whereas in the Presbytery, if it be complete, there be two sorts of Elders; he distinguisheth after this manner, that it may be known what belongs to each. Actu presbyterium totum (i. e. singuli in corprre presbyterii) potestatem ordinandi habet, ritu verò soli Presbyteri pascentes verbo, i. e. Ministri verbi habent ordinandi potestatem 
* Art. 21. . The power of Ordaining, in the act of it, belongs to the whole Presbytery, (consisting of Ministers and Elders as distinguished) but in the rite of it it belongs to the Preachers only.] What can this Act be as thus considered apart from the Rite, but something substantial to the Calling? the rather because (in the same chapter 
* Art. 3. profectò id legitimum est ut quemadmodum in ministerio absolutè per episcopos; it à in ministerio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bujus aut illius ecclesiae per ipsam ecclesiam ordinetur communi ecclesiae nomine. ) he makes the act of the Ministers and Elders to be that whereby a fit person is made a Minister; and the act of the Church to be that, whereby he is made a Minister of this or that particular Church.  
As for Voetius, though of all other he seem most to favour your cause, and to ascribe much to election, and little to Ordination; yet I desire that this may be seriously weighed out of him: That he professedly and at large maintains against jansenius, that the first Reformers had an ordinary outward call, not only to the work of reforming, but also to the office of being Ministers. Which cannot possibly be maintained on any other principle but this; That as in some cases Election alone sufficeth (for he speaks but of Cases) as all that is essential to a Calling; so in their case, Ordination alone made them Ministers, and that way of Calling contained all that was essential thereunto. See to this purpose, Desp. causa Papatus, lib. ●. sect. 1. à cap. 2. ad ult. & sec. 2. cap. 1. & seq. usque ad 12.  
And whereas he says, Majorem differentiam, etc. None can imagine a greater difference between these two, Election and Ordination, then between the Constitution and Commission of a Prince considered nakedly, and the same commission adorned with some arbitrary symbols, as sceptre, crown, etc. It may be answered, besides all the premises, that Election is that act whereby one is chosen in futurum Presbyterum, to be made a Minister; and Ordination is that whereby he who is so chosen is actually made a Minister. And the reason is clear, Because between Election and Ordination something may intervene to make the choice null in relation to the end and effect whereunto it is intended, to wit the making of such a person to be a Minister. The designing of a person to be made a King, and the act of putting him into the Kingly office, as the choice of a meet person to be a wife, and that act of marriage whereby she is made a wife (de praesenti) do very much differ: the last is the most formal and constitutive. And so it is between Election and Ordination when they are rightly compared, and specially when Ordination (as in this debate) is taken for the substantial act of Ministers and Elders distinct from the rite of Imposing hands.  
Hitherto of those Calvinists which you cited. Now for the Lutherans, though you speak big, yet you name but two, and the one was cited to your hand in the other, as Hunnius in Turnovius. For the judgement of Turnovius, 
* Paulus Turnovius de S. ministerio, l. 1. c. 6.  he makes Election to be (vocationis initium tantum) only the beginning of a call, and that it differs from Calling itself; which he proves by the instance of those two Act. 1. 23. who were both chosen, and yet but one of them was called: and by experience, because many are chosen, and yet upon examination rejected. And relating to the judgement of Danaeus, that the first suffrage belongs to the Presbytery, though he grants in matter of fact it is sometime otherwise, yet he says it would be (rectissimum & justissimum) the most right and just way, that no Patron, Magistrate, Nobleman, or Ruler, should make any promise to any that they should be taken into this Order of the Ministry, before he was (satis exploratus) sufficiently tried both for doctrine, ability to teach, and conversation, by the Presbytery, Consistory, or Superintendent and Company of Ministers. Quòd quoties negligitur, & hic ordo legitimus non servatur, toties ju●a ecclesiae violantur, atque utinam ipsa in periculum nunquam praecipitaretur. For Hunnius, I cannot yet meet with that Tract of his which you cite, but you have his judgement out of other writings.  
4. The use of Ordination (take it how you will in the sense of Protestant writers) is more than to solemnize, inaugurate, or publish the calling of a Minister. And therefore your [but to solemnize] is a gloss of your own to corrupt the text of those Authors (and others of like kind) whom you have quoted.  
Why was not that englished, Missio solennis in possessionem honoris, The solemn mission into the possession of honour? Show us some reason why a right in the thing should not be essential as well as a right unto it; or some other Scripture way whereby a Minister is actually made a Minister, and put into the possession of Ministerial power, besides that of Ordination. Tarnovius in the book and chap. which you have cited, pag. 267. assigns a threefold use of it. [1. The person chosen is by this ceremony separated from the remaining company of Hearers, and consecrated unto God as a sacrifice. 2. He is hereby commended to the Church as the Governor thereof. 3. Blessed unto the Ministry, and to that end Prayer and Fasting use to be joined.] From the first of these ariseth this argument. When a man is separated from the common company and condition of hearers, and consecrated unto God to do him service in the holy function of the Ministry, than he is formally and essentially made a Minister. But every man is so separated and consecrated in and by his Ordination; therefore in and by Ordination he is formally and essentially made a Minister.  
Chemnitius among other uses whereunto it serves, sets down this for one, ut esset quasi publica & solennis ecclesiae coram deo protestatio in electione & vocatione servatam esse formam & regulam à spiritu sancto praescriptam. [That it might be as it were a public and solemn protestation of the Church before God, that the form and rule prescribed by the holy Ghost hath been observed in election and calling.] But how can such a protestation be thereby made, unless Ministers be taken into the Election and Calling, not only to direct and guide the Church in choosing, but also to judge and determine of the validity of their choice; seeing the form and rule prescribed by the holy Ghost in Scripture examples gives no election or power of calling to the people, but under an oversight and prostacie. (For as he well observes 
* ad Can. 6, 7, 8.  out of the Apostles practise Act. 1. about Mathias, and Act. 6. about the Deacons) Non prorsus se abdicant cura vocationis, & vulgi aut multitudinis caecae & confusae libidini eam permittunt, sed sunt quasi gubernatores & moderatores electionis & vocationis. Proponunt enim doctrinam & regulam quales & quomodo eligere debeant, & electi sistuntur coram Apostolis, ut illorum judicio electio probetur an rectè fiat; illi verò orantes impositione mannuns electionem approbant. The end of Ordination is therefore (with him) to approve and validate the People's choice, which might otherwise be accounted null or insufficient. And in this sense may all those particular expressions which you have cited be understood; that Ordination is a solemn declaration, a testification of the Ministers constitution, A public testimony of one called, A consecration, manifestation, declaration, signification, and solemn testification before the Church. All which declaration, testification, etc. is to be performed by Ministers and Elders; not only as Witnesses, but as Judges in the room and stead of God and Christ: and without this, the sufficiency of all that is done by the people may be suspected and questioned. And if it be well considered that the mediate, as well as immediate Calling of a Minister doth properly belong to God alone and to Christ as their act; it will plainly appear, that where such a declaration is wanting (which should be performed by them who in their office act in the name of God and Christ) that there that which is most proper to an external and mediate calling from God is wanting. And if it were granted that Ordination in this sense is but to solemnize etc. yet it would not follow that it is not essential to the calling of a Minister, but rather on the contrary that it is: because though it may be admitted that God calls by the Church in choosing; yet the People's proper part is to desire and accept, or to design the person, but with submission to the Ministers and Elders, who are to judge, detetmine and declare, yea to give, and set over, with the Church's consent and approbation, in the room and stead of Christ: so as when one is to be Ordained, (Commitur illi nomine ac loco Dei ab Ordinatore cura gregis dominici) The care of the Lords flock is, by him who Ordains, committed 
* Nic. Hunnius quo supr. p. 280.  to him that is Ordained, in the name and place of God.  
Your third Reason:  
Then a man is a Minister when he hath a calling to the work from God and man: But both these he may have without Ordination.  
Ans. That a man is a Minister when he hath a calling to the work from God and man, is granted; if you understand this Call not of a providential permission on God's part, nor of any undue and irregular choice by the people alone; but of Gods calling with approbation, and man's orderly proceeding to make a Minister according to the rules of Scripture in that case provided. And that both these, God and man, may concur in a calling without Ordination in some extraordinary cases, will not be denied. That which you should prove, is, that Ordination is essential neither in ecclesiâ constitutâ, nor constituendâ But let us see what you prove.  
A man is called by God, when he is approved to he of eminent gifts, and hath his heart stirred up by spiritual respects to use those gifts for public good.  
Ans. It seems by this, that Judas had no call of God to be an Apostle, nor the sons of Ely to be Priests; and that an unregenerate person cannot be a Minister called of God; nor any regenerate person, though he have sufficiency, unless he be of eminent gifts. But who must have the judging of this eminency, and of the spiritual respects wherewith the heart is stirred up to use them for public good? Is not other judgement to be made use of but a man's own? or have the People all power to be sole Judges in this case? First prove that Ministers and Elders are no competent Judges in this kind, and then you shall hear further. But of Man's calling it follows.  
He is called by Man, when the People who are godly, consulting with the Word of God, and laying aside all carnal respects, choose him and give up themselves unto him.  
Ans. Suppose ungodly people choose a godly man approved to be of eminent parts; is the choice void, because the choosers are not godly? Who shall be Judge of the people's godliness? if themselves alone, than who will be excluded from being of the number of the godly? Every Minister lawfully called is ae gift of Christ 
* Eph. 4. 8. 11. : therefore people should rather receive Ministers as from his hands, by the Ordination of other Ministers and Elders, then give Ministers unto Christ, and unto themselves. If Ministers be sent them and set over them in the Lord, they may receive them by acceptance, 
2 Cor. 8. 5. ●.  and give up themselves unto the Lord, and unto them as his Ministers, although they do not first and formally choose them themselves. Carnal respects may sometimes cause godly people to choose one rather than another, and (it may be) the more unworthy. True Apostles were often despised, when False teachers and the messengers of Satan were welcomed as Angels of light. And therefore the calling of a Minister should not be left entirely to people's election upon pretence of godliness. You know who made this outery, 
* Numb. 16. 3.  All the Congregation is holy, yea every one of them; to set up themselves in stead of those who were set over them by the Lord himself. And we cannot but remember S. Paul's prophecy, which is too much verified in the history of our times; The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts they shall heap to themselves 
2 Tim. 4. 3.  Teachers, having itching ears.  
But where is the proof of your Assertion? What Scripture have you to show that People's choice (their consent is of another nature) is either only essential, or otherwise essential unto the calling of a Minister in all cases, than Ordination is? or where are Ministers and Elders interdicted from acting in the call of others?  
Your Minor, That a Minister may have a call both from God and man, without Ordination, may be thus inverted. A Minister may have a call from God and man without the People's election: for so had the Evangelists, and so may they who are sent to preach among the Heathens; and they who are first Ordained, and after sent unto a people and accepted of by them as their Ministers. And therefore popular election is not essential to the calling of a Minister.  
Yet though the Scripture fail, it may be the Protestants against the Socinians will help you out. Of all others, I fear, those who writ against Socinians (whose cause you patronise in this) will hardly stand by you to the last; And the Socinians themselves do speak more favourably of Ordination than you have done. Smalcius against Frantzius speaking in the name of all the rest, says thus: Non negamus ex ista consuetudine primitivae ecclesiae Apostolicae consequi, illud etiam jure fieri posse hodie quod olim fiebat; & si ecclesia semper incorrupta mansisset, non dubitamus quin valde justum fuisset ut modus iste ordinandi Ministros observaretur, quemadmodum etiam nunc ubi constituta est respub. Christiana valdè decorum esse arbitramur ut id observetur. Sed non hoc potissimum quaeritur. Hocenim in quaestione est, an hujusmodi constitutio sit prorsus necessaria ad constituendum verbi Dei ministrum 
* Smalcius in refutatione Thesium Wol Frantzii disp 4 pag. 337. Vide plura apud eund. Hom. 4. in 1. Joh. p. 40. . You engage yourself upon the same point of contest with them, but no where grant so much as they. To that of Crocius against the Socinians, where he makes Calling necessary, and not Ordination, this might suffice: He speaks not of Ordination as distinguished from Imposition of hands, as you here do, but as convertible therewith; and in Calling does not exclude the Ministers and Elders from acting, as such, Yet because all that you have here, is a transcript out of him, (yet but a part) I have the more diligently perused that Author, & find you very injurious in quoting of him by leaveing out these two material passages. One concerning Election: Non enim conspiratio populi pro perfectè legitimâ vocatione haberi debet, ubi non observatur Dei voluntas, sed temerarius plebis & stultus assensus, quem rudiores & indigni praeproperis pransationibus ferè captant. Wherein he intimates what great abuse is incident to the choice of the people: for the preventing whereof I conceive no better remedy than Ordination. The other is concerning Ordination, which though he makes to be but Constitutionis testisicatio, (speaking of the rite) yet he says it is not extra casum necessitatis in Ministerio constituto temerè negligenda. In another of his Works he speaks more fully to the same point. Ordinatio ministrorum per manuum impositionem, non quidem absolutè necessaria (that's against the Papists) non tamen quia apprimè utilis, extra necessitatis casum temere omittenda est. (this later part makes against the Socinians and yourself.) 
* Lud. Crocius syntag. Thcol. l. 4. c. 15. reg. 6.   

* Jos. Stegman Photinianismo disp. 52. qu. 5. An ritus ordinationis futuro Ecclesiae ministro sit necessarius?  Jos. Stegman speaking to the same point, expresseth himself more exactly. [We distinguish between the necessity of Vocation and Ordination: Vocationis necessitatem majorem, Ordinationis minorem dicimus.] Both are necessary according to his judgement, though not alike necessary.— And a little after: Vel ipso respectu manet necessaria quod extra casum necessitatis in Ministerio constituto negligi non potest. All this he saith (de ritu Ordinationis) of the ceremony used in Ordaining. What he judgeth of the substantial act of Ministers and Elders, may be easily understood thereby.  
It remains yet on your part to prove, that Ordination is never necessary to a Calling: your own Witnesses have asserted the contrary; and besides them the Professors at Leyden, who are as ancient as Ames, Crocius, or Voetius, and as well worthy to be reckoned among Protestant Divines. They propounding the question, 
* In Synop. pur. Thcol. inter Coral. ad disput. 42. An Ministri futuri Ordinatio in ecclesia semper requiratur? R. Sicut ejus vocationem, sic ejusdem Ordinationem in ecclesia jam constituta semper requiri, adversus Socinianos affirmamus. For Rivetus (who is one of them) these are his words by himself, in the name of Protestants. Cum Cypriano agnoscimus, hibere aut tenere ecclesiam nullo modo posse, qui ordinatus in occlesia non est. Nec nos alios agnoscimus Pastores praeter eos qui juxta Apostolorum canonesin Acts & Epistolis, legitime sunt Ordinati. Si qui sunt qui illud munus usurpant sive vocatione Ecclesiae, eos inter vagahundos & circumforaneos rejicimus. Apol. pro verâ pace Eccl. §. 96. p. 180.  Whether Ordination be always required? answer affirmatively against the Socinians, That in a constituted Church it is always required.  
Your fourth Reason:  
4. Whatsoever substantial act belongs to the making of 
Quicunque ad docendum idoneus eligitur, etc.  a Minister, or is solemnised in Ordination, the same is done in Election.  
Ans. What you mean by Election here is uncertain, whether an act of choice by the people alone, (as most of your expressions imply) or an act of the whole Church consisting of Ministers and Elders as one part, and of the People as of another: for so it is to be understood in Hunnius, whom here you cite in the margin; what think you of this in stead of it? Ministers and Elders alone without People do every substantial act which is done in election. They examine and approve his abilities, set him apart to the Ministry. The people receive him as from God by their hands, and he accepts of the Charge whereunto he is assigned by them; therefore Election is not essential unto the calling of a Minister. But perhaps the strength of your Proofs may carry it, though your naked Argument would blush to see itself. Therefore if this might suffice to the whole, yet I shall say something to the particulars of amplification.  
To Election there goes the trial and approbation of a man's abilities.  
Ans. So there does to Ordination; and whether Ministers and Elders be not as able at least for this, as the People, let the people judge. In this respect therefore Ordination may be as essential as Election. 
* Note.  As for your quotations here to the beginning of this 4. reason, they are the same which you gave us before, p. 7. for the 8. Reason, and serve only in this place to swell the margin for a show; and therefore I pass them over and refer the Reader to the answer of them in that place where they were first alleged.  
In Election the Church giveth up itself to God to take whom he shall direct their hearts unto, and in choosing one well 
Act. 1. 24.  qualified they choose him whom God would have chosen.  
Ans. In Ordination Ministers and Elders give up themselves to God to ordain him whom he shall direct their hearts unto; and in ordaining one well qualified, they ordain him whom God would have ordained. Where is the substantial difference that Ordination may not be essential? Yet I pray you remember that which we read Act. 1. 24. speaks of ●ods choosing, not of the peoples. And where all the eleven Apostles were choosers, Ministers and Elders are virtually a part. There were two nominated at that time, both well qualified, and both referred unto God, and he chose one. If the people had all power in making Ministers, why did not they apart from the Apostles choose one alone, when there was but one to be chosen? but to teach us that to the regular Call of a Minister something is necessary besides a mere election by the people.  
In their choice they (h. e. the People) eo ipso separate and set him apart to the Minister●.  
Ans. Those two whom the hundred & twenty presented Act. 1. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were neither of them eo ipso set apart to the Ministry; but after the lot fell upon Mathias, eo ipso he became an Apostle, and was numbered with the eleven. When the holy Ghost said, Separate me Paul and Barnabas with fasting and prayer, by Imposition of hands they were separated, Act. 13. 1, 2, 3. So in Ordination, when a person well qualified hath hands laid on him with fasting and prayer, eo ipso he is separate and set apart to the Ministry 
* See the testimonies formerly cited, pag. 17. . But where is either precept, example, or ground of reason for people to set any man apart by a sole act of their own, and thereby to make him a Minister, when they may have Ministers and Elders to join with them in choosing, and after to Ordain?  
Him (h. e. the Minister) they take as from God's appointment and hand, they offer themselves to God by him.  
Ans. This is true, when one is Ordained for them, whom they accept of as made their Minister by Ordination, and who accepts of them as his cure and charge. But when people choose one to be a Minister, who neither is Ordained, nor intends to be, they give him to God so as they are the Priests, and the Minister the Sacrifice, and God must receive him as a Minister to him from their appointment and hand. The truth is, a Minister should be called in such a manner as he may come to the Church from God, and as a gift of Christ, yet so as it may appear that the Church receives him as such; and therefore as some testimony of the Church's consent is necessary, so much more an Ordination by Ministers and Elders: for otherwise well may Ministers be looked upon as given by the Church unto God, but it cannot be held out that they are given from God to the Church.  
In accepting the choice, the Party chosen undertaketh to be in God's stead to them, and in their stead and behalf to God, (for what else is it to be a Minister?) And all this is done with prayer and mutual agreement. 
2 Cor. 5. 20.   
Ans. All this is but a consequent of Election and Ordination both; no substantial act of either, but an effect; The duty of a Minister when he hath a call, towards God and the people to whom he is assigned, not the formal thing whereby he is made a Minister. That a Minister is an ambassador for Christ, God beseeches by him, and he in Christ's stead, we learn indeed from 2 Cor. 5. 20. But this makes nothing at all for a call by popular election, because many were true Ministers (as Prophets and Apostles) in all these respects, who were never chosen by the Church to that end, but by God alone. And what is more improper then for a People to choose an Ambassador, and one to be in God's stead unto them? As he is to act for them, there is some pretence for choice, but no necessity; for every Highpriest (yea every Priest) was taken from among men, and Ordained for men in 
Heb. 5. 1.  things pertaining to God: and yet none of them was properly chosen by men, but all by God. And as he is to act for God, so its necessary there should be some act whereby Gods sending of him in his stead may appear. The choice or calling of Ambassadors belongs not to them to whom they come as Ambassadors, but unto him from whom and in whose name they are to act. And because God doth not now adays make any extraordinary designations, either by voice from heaven, as at Christ's 
a Mat. 3. 17.  baptism and transfiguration 
b ch. 17. 5. , or by prophecy, as in the case of Timothy 
c 1 Tim. 4. 14. ; or by some extraordinary and express signation of his Spirit, as in the case of Paul and Barnabas 
d Act. 13. 2. ; or by vision, as in the case of Paul at first unto Ananias; or by lot, as in the case of Mathias: 
e ch. 9 15.  there remains the only way of Ordination, whereby we come 
f ch. 1. 26.  to know who are sent of God, and who are not.  
Now as where the Church agrees in an act, God will be present to confirm that act, Mat. 18. 18, 19 so Prayer is also a separation of one to the Ministry, Act, 13. 2, 3.  
Ans. The word Church is not used in either of those verses which you cite in Matthew; and in the 17. verse where we find it, it signifies a company endowed with power of binding and losing, and consequently the Presbytery, Ministers and Elders. If they agree to Ordain a Minister, their act is valid by virtue of this ●ext: And if they ask of God the confirmation or blessing of their act, it shall be granted them. Agreement must here be understood not only with reference to the persons among themselves, but with respect unto the right rule of acting. That people have a power to choose themselves a Minister, and by that act of theirs to make him one without Ordination, who otherwise is none, even when there is a way open for his Ordination, (for that must here be supposed) remains yet for you to prove. That Prayer alone is a separation of one to the Ministry, is but your bare assertion: and to cite Act. 13. 2, 3. for the proof of this, is bold presumption, and abuse of Scripture. That Deacons were separated with prayer and imposition of hands without fasting, (for there is no mention of that) we read in Act. 6. 6. And that Paul and Barnabas were separated by prayer, fasting, and imposition of hands, we read also Act. 13. 2, 3. But what's this to prove separation by Prayer only; and that also by the people alone, without Ministers and Elders?  
Add further. Our translators of the Bible take and render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ordain, which signifies properly to choose: And where the Scripture speaks expressly of choosing, they supply the text with the word Ordain.  
Ans. Our translators use the word Ordain for the English of several words in the Greek: as in the Old Testament, for that one English word Idols, there be many and divers words 
Elilim. Gillu. limb▪ Tera●him. Baal●m. Tsirim. etc.  in the Hebrew. This liberty is necessary, and almost unavoidable in many places; and the more warrantable, because the Holy Ghost speaking in divers places of the same thing, does often vary in the manner of expressing. And this is to be found not only by comparing those places which are cited out of the Hebrew in the Greek of the New Testament, but also one place of the Hebrew with another, as Ainsworth often observes in his Annotations. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies properly to choose, in some places, is granted; provided that you acknowledge it may signify sometimes as properly to ordain: for it may indifferently be applied as well to Magistrates, when by vote or suffrage they constitute, which is by way of authority to ordain; as to People, when they elect or choose by way of privilege or of power. Whereas you say the Scripture speaks expressly of choosing, in Act. 1. 22. and yet the Translators supply the text with the word ordain; it is a great injury not only to the Translators, but to the Scripture itself, and to the Holy Ghost who is the author of them. The 21. and 22. Verses being taken in together to make up one entire sentence, tell us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One must be made witness with us of Christ's resurrection. Here the Scripture speaks expressly of making, not of choosing; and of one to be made not by the people, but by God. Among those who were present, there were not people only, but those who were greater than Ministers and Elders: and they appointed (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or presented and nominated two, that God might choose one 
* Non audent unum aliquem certo nomina re, sed duos in medium producunt & Domin●s sorte declaret utrum ex iis velit succedere. Calv. inst. l. 4. c. 3. s. 13. . Show whether of these two thou hast chosen, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Here indeed the Scripture speaks of God's choosing one, and such a kind of choosing may well be called ordaining, because it is a constitutive and consummating act whereby the people are bound to receive one as set over them by God. But in the making of Mathias an Apostle, the people had no such power (as in this sense) to choose him: if they had, why were lots used? for than they might have pitched on one without using such a means of decision.  
Hen. Stephan calls the act of choice (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) creare magistratum, the making of an Officer; for it is (as he says) a newfound sense of the word to signify laying on of hands. And if the Apostle Luke should use it for laying on of hands, 
Engl. pop. cer. p. 155, 166. Carth. on Act. 14. 23.  it was never used so before his time by any writer holy or profane: And unless his purpose was to write that which none should read, it must needs be that as he wrote, so he meant, Election by voices, (says Cartwright.)  
Ans. Henry Stephan says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies (a-among other things) creare magistratum the making of a Magistrate; at cum accusati●o personae, creare. Sic etiam Act. 14. citing the words of the Text; and adds, At vetus interpres, Quum constituissent. But then he tells you, Sunt tamen qui ad ritum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. impositionis manum, id referri putent, quum alioqui novum usum huic verbo hic tribuere minimè necesse videntur. Here you discover either negligence or fraud. The sense of the word which he approves in that Text Act. 14 is creating, or constituting; others he says understand by it imposition of hands; this he calls a new use of the word, and says it may seem not necessary, yet he does not deny but the word may bear that sense: because he knew well what he had said before, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manum portendo & attollo, manum porrigo; and that in Imposition of hands there is a lifting up and stretching out of the hands; for what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he also expresses it? The Text speaks of constituting; and because in constituting Church-officers, imposition of hands was the rite used in the Apostles times, therefore it should not seem so strange a thing to hold, that as the act of Paul and Barnabas in choosing Presbyters, so also the consequent act of imposing hands should be comprehended under that one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seeing the etymology of the word agrees to the latter, if the use do not. Certain it is that the Greek Fathers and Counsels do use the word for imposition of hands most frequently, as Bilson instances at large 
* Of Perp. Government. ; which they would never have done if the nature of the word would 
Dr. Fulk in locum says, both election by the Church, and Ordination by imposition of hands of the Apostles, are comprehended under that one word.  not have borne such a use. And it is as certain that many Greek words are used in the New Testament in such a sense as they are not where else to be found: those common words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are enough to prove it. And if you will needs have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify nothing but an act of choice or election by voices (as you call it) yet Paul and Barnabas were the choosers, and this makes nothing for popular election, which you would have to be the unum and unicum necessarium in the Calling of a Minister; and yet you cannot prove by this word (as there used) that the people chose at all, and much less that they only were the choosers. Produce if you can but one instance out of any Author, wherein the word is used in such a sense as you contend for, viz. for some to choose by other men's voices? Our old English translation, When they had ordained them Elders by election, doth plainly hold out that two distinct acts, ordaining and electing, yet not two distinct agents, are included under that one word. Beza upon the place, though he says enough to show that Ordination from Popish Bishops is not necessary, yet endeavours not to prove that Imposition of hands is not included under the Greek word. To say that Imposition of hands is there meant (vi vocis) by the proper signification of the word, is indeed absurd; but to hold it is included (ex natura rei) from the nature of the thing, the making of Church-officers, and the example of the Apostles elsewhere upon like occasions, is no absurdity. As for Cartwright, though he is a little warmer in many expressions than needed, yet in the close he is exceeding wary, and says, They speak untruly which accuse us (Protestants) 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 the Election; understanding by Bishops only such as are mentioned in Scripture, and not humane creatures.  
All that follows might be spared, but that you have a great mind to let the world know you sometimes look into a Greek Dictionary: and lest some Readers be beguiled by your show of Learning; I shall therefore omit nothing, especially because you earnestly call for observation.  
Yea let it further be observed that in Election and Ordination the same word is used. In Election, Act. 1. 23. Act. 6. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Ordination it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same word with the addition of a Preposition (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) only.  
Ans. That Act. 1. 23. speaks not properly of Election, in your sense, is already proved. Neither is Election to be understood by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. 6. 6. In the 5. verse it is said of the whole multitude, they chose Steven etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The sixth verse says they set them, viz. those whom they had chosen, before the Apostles, not over themselves by way of authority, but before them that they might Ordain them. I wonder at your boldness with the Scripture, and especially at your abuse of words in the Original language. The truth is, though the Apostles referred the choice of fit persons to the people, yet as they took unto themselves to prescribe the qualifications, and the number of the persons, wherein they make themselves Judges of the election, so they reserved unto themselves the constitution and ordination of them, and thereby plainly declare that Election without an Ordination suffices not, no not in the case of Deacons, and much less of Ministers of the Word. And in this they seem plainly to have an eye (as in all things that belong to the polity of the Church) to the commonwealth of Israel, and to Moses his manner of making officers among the Jews, whereof we read in Deuteronomy. Take (or give) ye wise men and understanding among your tribes, and I will make them 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Sept.  rulers over you, (ch. 1. 13.) And ye answered me and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do (v. 14.) so I took the chief of your tribes wise men and known, and made them 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  heads over you. (v. 15.) This gives great light to that in the Acts, if the phrases be compared. But all this while we have nothing for Election alone, without Ordination. But something we have for Ordination by your own grant, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to Ordination. You must needs intent this of the phrase in Act. 6. 3. and if there it be so understood, it is the more likely to have the same sense in Tit. 1. 5. which you denied before. Yet you seem loath to grant that truth which you dare not deny: and therefore having said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. 1. 23. and Act. 6. 6. is to be understood of Election, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for that you mean out of Act. 6. 3.) of Ordination; yet you go about to prove that the simple and compound word have the same sense and signification, that by this grammaticisme you may seem to gain something. Thus men who are ready to sink, use to catch at any thing, or the shadow of a thing. Hitherto we have not found an Election in any sense without an Ordination, as Act. 6. or something more, as an extraordinary decision by lots, but it may be we shall anon.  
And as the translators of the Bible render both words Appoint; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They appointed, Act. 1. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We will appoint, Act. 6. 3. So the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not alter the sense specifically from the word when it is without it, no not in the matter of making an Officer; for it is all one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as H. Stephen observes. In the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to place one, and to place one with honour: when the phrase is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He shall set the sheep on his right hand, Mat. 25. 33. it is an authoritative word, as Rom. 3. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We establish the Law. And the Septuagint whom Luke is observed to follow most, use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Chron. 9 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These did David and Solomon appoint in their set office.  
Ans. This great show of something comes to nothing. For, granting that the simple and compound word have sometimes (for always they have not) the same signification, yet it will not follow that they have the same sense in the Texts alleged, as appears by that which hath been said already. The action of the hundred and twenty in appointing two out of which God was to choose one, was not of the same nature with Gods appointing one, because neither of the two were made Apostles by the former act, but one alone by the latter. And that of the Multitude in setting seven men before the Twelve, was not of like nature with the Apostles in Ordaining them. Whereas you say in the margin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Eustath. you abuse yourself and the Reader: because neither the simple nor the compound in his sense are to be understood as you understand them here. And H. Stephan (of whose words you pretend not to be ignorant, and are therefore the more inexcusable) hath it thus: At Eustathius ●ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse pro simplici 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, intelligens ut opinor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prosiste: sed ita sumpto, ut quum dicitur sistere cursum. Posset tamen aliquis magis etiam proprio verbo utens, illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustathii reddere Appelle *. In the latter of those pages which you cite out of him, viz. p. 1767. he says that Cicero's phrase, constituere regem, is (in Greek) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And in the former of them (viz. p. 1732.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est quod Cicero constituere regem dicir. But what of this, till we know what Cicero means by his constituere? Is there therefore no difference between the people's appointing two, and Gods choosing one? or did the Multitude and the Apostles, both or either, constitute (as Kings use to be constituted) in the same sense? Then why should the foregoing act of the people be counted essential in the Calling of Mathias and the Deacons, rather than the latter act of God alone, or the Twelve? It might suffice you to say, the act of t●e multitude in setting seven men before the Apostles was essential, though the act of the Apostles in setting the same seven over the multitude was not. But must you needs make the act of God in choosing one of two, to be a mere accident? Take heed. To make the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Diminutive, is against all use and reason. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to place one, and to place one with honour, and is an authoritative word, and as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be granted in some texts, though not in these; but that will not content you, unless the compound signify less than the simple. In good earnest let us know some reason why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not signify pr●fic●re (as H. Stephan saith it doth in those texts of Matthew and Luke heretofore insisted on) and consequently to place one in honour, by way of authority, and as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Why is the act of the people under authority a substance, and the act of those who are over them in the Lord a shadow? I fear it is not so much for the Truth's sake, or for the People's good, as for some advantage, that you make so light account of the Apostles and God himself. I would willingly allow the people all right, but I dare not say that alone which they do is essential, authoritative, and establishing, but nothing else. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be an authoritative word in that phrase, We establish the law, where the Apostle speaks but of a doctrinal establishment; let us know why, when he speaks of political acts, and applies the compound to them, that should not also be as authoritative, or at least authorittaive?  
When you say, [the Septuagint whom Luke is observed to follow, use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 1 Chron. 9 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, These did David and Solomon appoint in their set office.] I hope by this time you see the mistake. The words are, whom David and Samuel the Seer did appoint in their set office. And if you mean that the people's act in Act. 1. 23. and Act. 6. 6. was like unto that of David and Samuel about the porters, you are mistaken. David and Samuel might be said to set, appoint, or ordain, either as the one was a King, and the other a Judge, or as they were both Prophets, but neither of these acceptions belong unto the people. Yet there is something in the close wherein perhaps you may speed better than you have done hitherto.  
But especially consider that electing one is taking up an office for him, Act. 1. 20. 22. and he that is elected is said to be numbered amongst officers, Act. 1. 26. The lot fell upon Mathias, and he was numbered amongst the Apostles. Numbered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communibus suffragiis seu calculis ad scriptus est, by common consent or votes he was put into the number or enrolled amongst the Apostles.  
Ans. That electing one, is taking up an office for him, I understand not. But that by God's election Mathias was made an Apostle, as all the rest by Christ, is certain. That there were two presented by the people at first, and afterward 
Apostolos solus Deus eligit, Ecclesia accipit: Apostoli à Christo solo Ecclesiae capite, ac non ab hom●nibus, (ut Paulus ad Galat. 1. 11.) eliguutur. Jun. ecclesiast. lib 3. cap. 1.  one accepted of by common consent in way of obedience to God's determination, I verily believe. There was no other suffrage nor second lot, though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sound that way: (for to refer the choice by lot to God, and after to vote whether God's decision should stand, were to tempt God.) but an acquiescence on all parts in his as the last resolve. Calvin speaking to this point, A quibus eligendi sunt Ministri, says, Hujus rei certa regula ex Apostolorum institutione peti non potest, quae nonnihil habuit à communi reliquorum vocatione dissimile 
* Calv. inst. l. 4. c. 3. §. 13. . And that the 120. acted here as a general Church visible, not as a single Congregation, is the rather to be believed, because he that was chosen was to be an Apostle: and this will make little for the right of Congregations to have all power in electing of their Officers. Yet this example may be of this use, to teach us, 1. That the Church's consent or assent is in some cases requisite unto the call of a Minister. 2. That a Ministers call is not to be left wholly to the People's election; for then what need either of a Lot, as here; or of Ordination, as in the case of Deacons? And for all that yet appears in the discussion of this argument, Ordination may be estentiall to the calling of a Minister.  
Your fifth Argument: pag. 11.  
5. Upon whomsoever Election falleth, Ordination doth necessarily, and therefore the Call to the Ministry lies principally in Election; as he that i● chosen to be a King, must be crowned, therefore his Election gives him the right to rule. That Ordination necessarily follows Election, appears Act. 6. 3. where the Apostle bids them look out (i. e. choose, as is explained ver. 5.) and he would appoint.  
Ans. This Argument falls short in the Conclusion, That therefore Ordination is not essential. And if Ordination do necessarily fall upon whomsoever Election falleth, then is Ordination at least necessary after Election. If it be necessary, it may not be omitted when it may be had; all that neglect or despise it are without excuse, especially when the Magistrate enjoins it agreeably unto the Word. And if it should always follow upon Election, yet you cannot thence conclude that the Call to the Ministry lies principally in Election. Marriage is begun by the motion of the man to the woman that he may have her for his wife; and yet marriage itself lies not principally in that, nor in their mutual consent, but in their solemn taking one another, and in the ratification thereof by such as are in authority to allow or disallow of such desires and purposes. In generation nature gins with the preparation of the matter, and after that the form is educed or introduced, and yet the essence or being arises from the union of the form with the matter. That he who is chosen to be a King, must be crowned, makes still more for the necessity of Ordination; and if his Election gives him the right to rule, yet his Coronation only doth solemnly declare to the binding of all his Subjects unto obedience, that his right is acknowledged, and he is actually put into the exercise of it. Grant that a Minister may not (have jus in re) act as a Minister in things of Order and Jurisdiction, till he be Ordained, and our strife will cease. Where you say, that Ordination necessarily follows Election, appears Act. 6. 3. I fear you mean it backwards, that Election must necessarily go before Ordination: but then Act. 6. 3. will not prove it, because neither that one example nor any other hold out a full enumeration for all cases which belong unto the calling of a Minister 
* In hist. N. Testamenti exempla habemus constitutionis mi●i●●er●i, & ejusde● etiam conservationis, sed nō●estaurationis ejus aut Refor●ationis post generalem apostasium. Omnia igitur quae pertinent ad plebem fidelem in tali casu, non representantur ibi certis exemplis. Ames. Bell. Eneru. ●●. 2. c. 2. n. 6.  And if the Apostle reserves (as you grant) [appointing] to himself, it thereby appears that some act of another nature distinct from Election belongs to the calling of a Deacon, which is not in the people's power: for why should the Apostles reserve that unto themselves which did belong unto the people?  
As to your Margin about this Argument, if I should take no notice of it, either you might think yourself neglected, or some Reader be so weak as to imagine there was strength in the Latin, though the English prove weak: and therefore I shall take that also into consideration. Out of Aims you tell us, 
* Omnes illi actus qu● pertinent ad Electionem, ut nominatio, praesentatio examinatio, vel ab Electione pendent, ut O dinatio, institutio, vel immissio. Ames. cas. consc. quo supra.  All those acts which pertain to Calling, either tend to Election, as Nomination, Presentation, Examination; or depend upon Election, as Ordination, Institution, or Immission.  
Ans. Nomination, Presentation, and Examination, tend equally to Ordination as to Election, and some kind both of examination and election belongs properly to the Ordainers, and not unto the People. If Election be taken for the people's act, Ordination does not depend upon it absolutely in all cases, as hath been proved already: but suppose it did, what hinders but that those things which depend upon Election may be as essential unto Calling as Election itself? What think you of the act of a Minister in accepting of the work and charge unto which he hath been chosen? If that be not essential, a Minister may be compelled and made a Minister whether he will or no: If you say it is essential, you grant that something which depends upon Election is essential; for he cannot properly accept until he have been chosen first. Sometimes there is Mission, Institution, Ordination, or something of like nature thereunto, without any Election on their part to whom Ministers are sent; as in the case of particular Ordination, as Junius distinguishes of it into universal and particular. When Peter and John were sent unto Samaria, they might preach, baptise, perform any act of Ministerial order among the Samaritans respectively to their state and condition: an● if they had any Election from the Believers there, it must follow after their lawful calling to the Ministerial work in that place, which they brought with them from Jerusalem, and received not in Samaria, and so was not essential to constitute, but accumulative to corroborate their call. When a Ministry is first set up in any place to convert those who are yet uncalled, it comes in after this manner mediately or immediately.  
To that of Voetius, though it be more full in his own words then as you contract it, 
* Relationes in subjecto dicuntur existere posi●o fundamento & term●no. Sed legitima electio est fundamentum Ministerii, & particularis Ecclesia ista vel illa terminus. Voet. ubi sup. p. 265. Consecratio est adjunctum Ministerii, atque adjunctum est po●terius suo subjecto. Id. 18  That relations are said to exist in their subject upon the position of their foundation and term, and that the lawful election and vote (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the Church is the foundation of the Ministry, and this or that particular Church the term. as also, that Consecration is but the adjunct of Ministry, and the adjunct is after his subject. Yet you shall do well to prefer reason before testimony, and to consider that the foundation of Calling, is power and authority to set one over others in the Lord for the Ministry: and the term may be indefinite or particular, or both, as the good and state of the Church doth require. Election of the people can be nothing else but a desire that such a one may be made a Minister, and their Minister in particular; and may either go before, or follow Ordination, according to the state of the person who is desired. This desire of theirs is to be subject, as in some respect to the person himself, so more especially unto them who are to discern, judge and determine in the room of Christ. The sentence of such competent Judges is the true foundation of Calling; and the assignation of a particular Company to be ministered unto (which when they are Saints is to be done with their consent) is the term. All this is done in Ordination; and in that regard Ordination rightly stated is not an adjunct of Calling (it might be an adjunct, and yet inseparable) but the form itself.  
That which follows concerns those of Scotland.  
And to this agree our Brethren of the Church of Scotland, speaking of Ordination in general, (though they instance it as 
Eng. pop. cer. pt. 3. c. 8. p. 167  to a particular flock) Neither the Patron's presentation, nor the Clergies nomination, examination, and recommendation, nor the Bishops laying on of hands and giving of institution, nor all these put together, can make up to a man his Calling to be a Pastor, without the free election of the flock. [Here it might be added, Nor the free election of the People without Ordination.] Again. A man hath from his Election power to be a Pastor, so far as concerns jus ad rem; and Ordination only applieth him to the actual exercising of his Pastoral office, which Ordination ought to be given to him only who is elected, and that because he is elected.  
Ans. Upon what ground you entitle that book so often cited, to the Brethren, and sometime to the Church of Scotland generally, I know not, unless it be to de●●de the Reader, or upbraid the Brethren and the Church. Some of them have been long in England as Commissioners from that Church; and have not been silent where they had occasion to debate. Besides, their Works speak for them; as the great pains of Reverend Mr. Rutherford at large to the point in hand 
* Due right of Presb. from p. 178. to 241. . Before their arrival here, there was a learned Tract of Patrick Forbes of Corse, to clear the Call of Ministers in the Reformed Churches, and particularly in Scotland, against Objections of the Papists. As to these particular passages here cited, you wrong both the Author, the Reader, and the Truth itself, by leaving out all those expressions whereby Ministers and Elders are interessed in Election as distinguished from Ordination; and by misapplying those words which you have expressed. But whiles (saith he) we plead for the Election of People, we add, 1. Let the Clergy of the adjacent bounds in their Presbyterial assembly try and judge who are fit for the Ministry. 2. Even when it comes to Election, yet (Populus non solus judicat, sed praeeunte & moderante actionem Presbyterio: the words of Junius) Let the Elders of the Congregation, together with some of the Clergy concurring with them, moderate the action, and go before the body of the People. Would to God that these things were observed by all. I add Amen: for then an act of Ministers and Elders in judging of the Calling of a particular person, would always be found in praxi, and without it all choice by People alone would be counted null and invalid. Whereas you say he speaks of Ordination in general, and yet instances it as to a particular Flock, the truth is, he speaks there only of Ordination to a particular flock, and not of Ordination in general until he come to the next page. It followeth (saith he) to speak of Ordination; 
pag. 168.  wherein with Calvin, Junius, Gersom, Bucer, and other learned men, we distinguish between the act of it, and the rite of it. The act of Ordination standoth in the mission or deputation of a man to an Ecclesiastical function, with power and authority to perform the same. Now that Ordination, at thus described, is essential to a Calling, he himself implies by these words, For how shall they preach except they be sent? speaking of such a sending as he had before stated. That Ministers should not be obtruded invito populo, against the people's will, is the sum of all which he pleads for, and will not be gainsaid where the people are Saints and Orthodox: but it will not thence follow that People have a power to make one a Minister, excluso or invito Presbyterio, without or against, or otherwise then by a Presbytery. Suppose a man had by Election jus ad rem, power to be a Pastor, yet he is not therefore or thereby a Pastor actually; and if Ordination be that which gives jus in re, no man is to act as a Pastor till he be ordained. And if Election do only design a man to be made a Minister, and Ordination be that act whereby he is so made; I hope it will be plain, that as the introducing of the form is essential in creating, rather than preparing the matter or mass which i● to receive it; so Ordination will be found to be essential rather than Election, though Election may precede in time, and Ordination follow after.  
6. A Minister may want and be without Ordination in 
The sixth Argument.  some cases; therefore it is not essential to his Calling. Thus Gregor. Thaumaturgus was, and others may be in times of persecution.  
Ans. Here you fight against yourself, if one word be changed. A Minister may want and be without Election in some cases, therefore it is not essential to his Calling. This is commonly judged to be the case of our first Reformers, and may be the case of others in times of extreme persecution. You care not to wound yourself, so as you may strike others. There must be a voice from heaven, i. e. a true Ministry to bring men out of Babylon 
* Non pot●i● Ecclesia restitui, nisi restituto Ministerio, (de formâ ecclesiae visibilis loquor) quia non alia ratione qu●m praedicatione Evangelii vel instaurari ecclesta, vel instaurata potest conservari. Sadeel de legit. vocatione Min. p. 7. Verum h●c summo studic attendi debet, quòd vocationis Ministrorum verbi divini necessitas, huc usque adstructa, non ad quod vis tempus, etiam corruptae ecclesiae, atque turbatae salsa doctrin● atque immani persecutione. Nam ubi ecclesia, aut salsa doctrinâ turbata, aut persecutione dissipata est, it aut desint qui sinceros verbi divini M●nistros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocate possint & ●elint: hac certè rerum necessitate extrema concedit Deus, ut quivis qui volunlotis divine gnari sunt, verbum Dei praedicent, Sacramenta administrent, collapsam veritatem restaurent, & quaevi● munia sacra citra ordinariam vocationem obeant. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 222.  (Rev. 18. 4.) but who shall either ordain or elect, when Clergy and Laity (I use the words only for distinction sake) are equally corrupted. At such a time, wherever God providentially sets up a standard, his people may flock unto it; and if they find a burning and a shining light, it sufficeth that they know it is not of men, but from heaven, and that they ought to walk in the light of it.  
But you add:  
This argument Voetius presseth larger, and showeth (even by confession of Papists) that one Elected or chosen may without Ordination do all the Offices of a Minister, as Excommunicate, Absolve: and concludes it is no more to the essence of a Minister, then bowing of the knee externally is essential to ptayer to God, or the leading of the Bride and pomp of a wedding day is to Marriage. Desper. causa Papat. 266, 267.  
Ans. 1. Voetius speaks not of Ordination there as an act of Ministers and Elders distinct from the rite of laying on hands. 2. The Papists distinguish between the power of Order and Jurisdiction; though they grant Election gives jurisdiction, yet it is but in some cases; and those things which belong to Order can be done by none but by Ordained persons, according to their principles. Neither 3. doth Voetius produce any such confession of the Papists as you here assert he doth, that one elected or chosen may without Ordination do all the offices of a Minister. And the instances which you give of Excommunication and Absolution (both of which belong to Jurisdiction) show plainly of what kind of actions the Papists are to be understood; and such are all those cases which you find cited in him, and many more of like nature which are more fully insisted on by a Parisian Lawyer to the same purpose 
* Johan Dar● is de Hierarch. Ecclesiast. p. 10. . 4. But this is especially to be noted, That Voetius thinks Ordination, or (as he there expresses himself) Coronation or Investiture may be wanting only (aliquo in casu) in some case, and instances in the time of persecution, (cum nec plebe nec presbyteri in unum convenire possunt) when neither the People nor Elders c●n meet together. Wherein he seems to suppose it is necessary at other times. The reasons which he gives why it should not be necessary in the case, concludes as much against the one, as against the other. In time of persecution Ministers cannot assemble to Ordain, nor People (saith he) [I add, to Elect] and therefore that case which voids the one, voids the other also, and more strongly: A few Ministers may more safely meet privately to Ordain, than many people to Elect. The case of Greg. Thaumaturgus, if truly stated out of Voetius (whence you had it, as all the rest of this Paragraph) doth much confirm thi●; For as he was not Ordained, so neither was he Elected in your sense h. e. chosen by the people; nor so much as present, neither did he consent, but was compelled: there went nothing to his Call but an act of the Bishop (Deo consecrans eum qui corpore non aderat) Consecrating him who was not present bodily, unto God. And if this be all that is essential to a Call, a company of Ministers and Elders may perform it, as well as one Bishop alone. The same Gregory (as you may read elsewhere) being called to Cumas to Ordain a Pastor for 
Histor. Pontif. Jurisd. Parisiis 1624. l 2. c. 1.  that Church, the People being divided in their Election, he alone chose Alexander Carbonarim, & dedit civitati Sacerdatem, nihil moratus consensum aut electionem Populi.  
The seventh Argument:  
7. The inconveniences will be very great which follow upon this, That Ordination is essential to the calling of a Minister: For of necessity, for the maintenance of it, it must be asserted that the Romish Priests, by whom Ordination comes to us, (And therefore to Beza it was all one to be Ordained by the Ordinary, and to be Consocrated in Romana Ecclesia, in Ac. 14. 23.) are the Ministers of Jesus Christ; and the Church of Rome wherein they are, the true Church & Spouse of Christ: yea, that there is a personal succession of Ministers (uninterrupted by Heresy, or whatsoever else may nullify a Ministers Calling) from the Apostles times to this presons, and if there be but one, who when he Ordained was no Minister ●● not Ordained, all that were Ordained by him are no Ministers, if Ordination be essential.  
Ans. Is this the best, or the worst of your Wine, that you have kept it for the last? Whatever you intended, your Arguings (like violent motions) grow weaker and weaker nearer the end. If you think there's none like this, as David said of Goliahs' sword, I think your cause will utterly perish, as that Giant did by his own weapon. And though you make a flourish with many words, yet this in short is the substance of your argument. [If Ordination be essential to the calling of a Minister, than the Church and Ministry of Rome are true, and Personal succession uninterrupted is necessary.] 1. I deny the consequence, and shall expect your proof hereafter, for at present you do not so much as offer any. And why have we nothing of Voetius here? do you not know that he maintains the lawfulness of that Call which Luther and other of the first Reformers had in the Church of Rome (for the substance of the thing) and yet denies that it follows thence that the Church of Rome is a true Church 
* Lib. 2. sec. 1. cap. 6. pag. 97. . To clear the ground of this denial, I distinguish between the Church and her external Polity: That which is essential to the Churches Being never ceases, but that which is essential to her outward Polity may, because Polity itself is not essential. The Church, for Being, like Christ as God, never dies; but in her external Order, like Christ as man, she dies and rises again. If this be no good argument: [Election is essential, therefore it hath been from the beginning of the world, and shall continue to the end, as the Church and Calling have done and shall do]— as you know it i● not; then must you needs acknowledge your own inconsequence in the former. For every one of your aggravated inconveniences will fall as heavy on the head of Election, as you think they do on Ordination, and besides them many more. As 1. That there must be a true Church before there can be a true Ministry, i. e. the effect before the cause, and the end attained before the means of attaining are provided. 2. That the government of the Church is purely and strictly democratical or popular; for if the People without Ministers and Elders are sole Judges of their own Saintship, and of fitness for the Ministry, and consequently of soundness of Doctrine and the right way of Worship, what can be denied them? 3. That a Ministers calling, as a Minister, extends not beyond the bounds of a single Congregation; or that one Congregation may make a Minister to serve themselves or any other. 4. That the providence of God hath failed concerning the essentials of Ministers calling, for many generations every where, because the right of electing Ministers hath been denied to Christian people.  
As to the Inconveniences themselves, let them be considered distinctly, and have the patience to hear what the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines do think of them. The first inconvenience is:  
1. That the Romish Priests by whom Ordination comes to us are the Ministers of Jesus Christ. To make this the more odi● us; you swell it out with a wind● parenthesis, That to Beza it was all one to be Ordained by the Ordinary, and to be Consecrated in Romana Ecclesia. in Ac. 14. 23.] Herein you wrong him, and abuse the Reader; for he speaks not of Ordination in your sense, as distinguished from Imposition of hands, neither doth he account it all one to be Ordained by the Ordinary, and to be Consecrated in the Roman Church; as if every one that is Ordained by a Bishop in any of the Reformed Churches, were in that respect to be looked upon as Consecrated in the Roman Church: (To say nothing of those who are Ordained by Ordinaries in the Greek Church) And this is plain by his own words, speaking of the wo●d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quidam (saith he) hoc referre malunt ad manuum impositionem, quae & ipsa fit prorsus necessaria, ut hoc praetexti● accepto vocationem nostram irritam esse dicant, quoniam Ordinarii quos vocant nobis manus non imposuerunt, sive quòd non sumus in Romana ecclesia constituti. A●d though after he show the invalidity of their Call, ex ipsis Canonibus quos jactant, out of those Canons which they boast of; yet he brings not one reason to prove that Imposition of hands is not to be included in the Original word so much insisted on. And if the word [Elders] used in that Text, be to be taken synecdochically for Pastors, Deacons, and Ruling Elders, as he there expounds it; why may it not as well be said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it signif●●, choosing, does also include Ordaining? because it appears by Act. 6. that with choosing, Ordination by Imposition of hands was also used.] This by the way to your Parenthesis. To the Inconvenience itself I answer:  
1. The Ordination of Rom●sh Priests as Priests is a mere nullity, because the Priesthood i● self is so: but their Ordination adonus Presbyterii, to Preach and administer the Sacraments, is of another nature, and therefore these must not be confounded together; the rather, because in their manner of Ordaining they are really distinguished 
* Vide Pontisicale Romanum. .  
2. Though some of our Divines deny a lawful Ministry, and Calling thereunto, to be in the Roman Hierarchy, as * Beza and Sadeel; (not as making of it to be simply invalid and null, but extreme sinful) yet they must not be interpreted too rigorously, unless we mean to set Protestants at variance among themselves to our own prejudice: And that 1. Because the Lutherans do maintain the ordinary Call which Luther had in the Church of Rome, as sufficient. And, 2. not they only, but divers also of the Calvinists, as Voetius, Forbes, Festus, Homius, etc. 3. They who say there was something extraordinary in Luther's Calling, do place that extraordinariness rather in his spirit, gifts, success, and manner of ministry, than in the Call itself, and therefore make his Calling mixed.  
3. The most judicious and best approved amongst us do hold, That as Baptism, so Ordination even in Rome is so far forth valid, that upon separation from them, and joining with us, there needs neither new Baptism nor a new Ordination.  
4. We all agree that a Call from Rome is not necessary at all, against the Papists, who make the Pope to be the fountain of Order and Jurisdiction.  
5. This inconvenience follows not at at all upon the opinion that Ordination is essential; but upon that mistake only, that the lawful way of Calling is one only in all cases and conditions of the Church: wherein whesoever engages either for Election or Ordination, apart, and much more for both together, will be sure to plunge himself into inextricable labyrinths. I approve our men (saith Reverend Forbes) who sustain our ordinary Vocation in common, but who plead so for it as a point absolutely requisite for approving our cause, and in such a case of the Church do place all defence therein: in my judgement they do wrongly limit the Holy One of Israel, against both the privilege of his power and his usual manner of dealing in such cases. Forbes Defence of the lawful Calling, sec. 28. pag. 60.  
To your second inconvenience:  
That (then) the Church of Rome is a true Church and Spouse of Christ.  
I answer, 1. It follows not; because in a false Church there may be something true. 2. Many Protestant Divines are not afraid to grant that in some sense it is a true Church, [So at the whole Church was not extinct in Rome, neither did the Ministry altogether perish there.] 
* — ●●a ut sicut non penitus exti●cta ibi suit Ecclesia, sic neque penitus interitrit ibi Mini●terium Zanch. i● 4 pr●●.   
3. This objection is so fully answered by all our Writers of this subject against the Papists, that it is not worth the while to transcribe them. Vide Voetium quo supra.  
4. Those who are commonly called Brownists are sufficiently zealous against Rome; and yet even among them the more moderate part, as Johnson and his followers, do not only grant that the Society commonly called the Church of Rome is a true Church, without all fear of inconvenience, but labour at large to prove it 
* Christian Plea by Fran. Johnson. Printed Anno 1617. hom pag. 119. ●● 215. . The more rigid of them, who deny that which he grants, as Robinson and Ainsworth, yet acknowledge that in Rome there are some true Ordinances, as Baptism for instance: And in granting the administration of Baptism with those of Rome to be valid, and yet denying the Church to be true, they must needs reject your consequence.  
As the Lord hath his people in Babylon (saith Robinson) his I mean both in respect of Election and of personal Sanctification: so hath he for their sakes there preserved (notwithstanding all the apostasy and confusion which is found in it) sundry his holy Truths and Ordinances, amongst which Baptism is one. Robin's. justificat. of Separate. ed. ult. p. 232.  
If the question he whether Ordination or Imposition of hands be not another Ordinance retained in Rome from the beginning; the Reader shall do well to weigh what follows here out of Mr. Johnson, one of no mean account among the Brethren of the Separation.  
Whereas one that was Minister in the Church of England, was after chosen Teacher to a Separate Congregation without any new Imposition of hands, he labours for to justify it after this manner, (in his Ans. to the Letter of H. A. touching the division among themselves, p. 50. & seq.)  
The Anabaptists holding (saith he) that Antichrist hath utterly destroyed all God's ordinances, so as there was not so much as true Baptism retained and had among them (h. e. in Rome or England) thereupon they began to baptise themselves again. Whose errors while we confuted, and while some of them objected that we should no more retain the Baptism than the Ministry there received: we had just occasion thereupon to consider thereof; and so weighing with ourselves that one main and special reason against Rebaptisation is, because Baptism is an ordinance of God which was had in the Church of Rome before she fell into apostasy, and hath been there continued ever since the Apostles times (however it be co-mingled among them with many corruptions and inventions of their own) we began to consider Whether the like might not be observed and said concerning Imposition of hands; that it was had from the Apostles in the Church of Rome before her apostasy, and is there continued to this day, though mixed with many pollutions and devises of their own.  
And entering into a consideration thereof, we observed— 1. That Imposition of hands is of God, and not an invention of man; not a post or threshold first brought by Antichrist into the temple of God, but had therein afore Antichrist sat there. 2. That Baptism and Imposition of hands are joined together among the principles of the foundation spoken of Heb. 6. 2. which we thought therefore should in this behalf be well regarded. 3. That Imposition of hands i● in the Church of Rome still given to the Office of Ministry, and in the name of the Lord; as they do also still administer Baptism. 4. That we found not either precept, example, or ground in the Scripture binding us to the repetition thereof. 5. That the Priests and Levites in Israel becoming unclean, when afterward they were cleansed retained still their places of being Priests and Levites: And that the children of the Priests and Levites succeeding after them, did minister without a new Anointing, or new Imposition of hands: yea that in the case of Idolatry, the Levites repenting kept their first function, and the Priests also, being only debarred from the Altar, but still remaining Priests, both doing such duties, and enjoying such benefits thereof as the other Israelites might not, no nor the Levites but in cases of necessity. Leu. 22. 1, 9 and Ezec. 44. 10, 14. 2 King. 23. 9 with Leu. 21. and 24, 9 Mat. 12. 4, etc.  
Other reasons we considered also on the other hand, which I need not here mention. But seeing we found that it was even from the Apostles times in the Church of Rome long before she became apostate, as Baptism was; and that the repeating of it among us, and not regarding the having of it there, is a means to strengthen the Anabaptists in their errors,— We stayed ourselves, and rested in this that the Church did choose.  
5. Let it be supposed that some others are of the same opinion, as you know there are, whose testimonies are elsewhere produced by Dr. Hall: What is the inconvenience which you so much fear by this concession? That then Separation from the Church of Rome is unlawful? So Robinson and John Can imagine. But (if I mistake you not) you yourself and many others in these times can tell how to avoid that, who pretend to acknowledge the Church of England and her Assemblies to be true Churches, and yet separate yourselves from them: and Johnson in his Plea, p. 118. will help you out, so as the inconvenience is not so great as you would have us to conceit it.  
But you tell us of a third—  
That there is a personal succession of Ministers (uninterrupted by Heresy, or whatsoever else may nullify a Ministers Calling) from the Apostles time to this present. For if there be but One who when he was Ordained was no Minister, or not Ordained, all that are Ordained by him are no Ministers, if Ordination be essential.  
To this I answer, 1. It cannot be inferred upon the supposition, unless Ordination were the only essential way of calling Ministers at all times, and in all cases, which needs not be much insisted on. 2. Though in fact a personal succession could not be proved, yet of right and according to precept it might be necessary; as in the case of Circumcision among the Jews from Abraham downward among his posterity, during the force of that Law. 3. That which you suppose, that Heresy and something else (you say not what) may nullify a Ministers calling; as you do not prove it, so it is not granted neither by all the Papists 
* Nulla laesionis portio a●●ingit ●um qui ●● haereticis jam damnatis ordinatur. Decret. par. 1. dist. 20 cap. 8.  nor by our Protestant Writers. Suppose the people who choose a Minister be indeed Heretical, if you say their Calling of him by Election alone is a nullity, as therein you shall gratify the Papists who in this respect especially except against our Calling in England, because our first Reformers, though Ordained persons, were (as they reproach: them) Heretics: so also will you wound your best friends in the point in hand, the Socinians, 4. More may be said for personal succession in way of Ordination, to prove it hath been, than you take notice of. See Voetius to that purpose 
* Desp. Causa Pap. l. 2. sect. 1. cap. 2. pag. 65. . And as it was of some use to the Fathers in the Primitive times, so it is no small comfort to the Churches now. We are sorry for the death of Christian friends, though we believe their resurrection; and should count it no small part of our misery, that Succession though now revived in Reformed Churches, yet was sometime at that pass as to need a raising up again. 5. Succession of Ministers is the more to be enquired into, because of that promise Mat. 28. 20. I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. As also because either Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, or Pastors and Teachers are always necessary for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ. Eph. 4. 11, 12. 6. This also is worth observing, that the chief Instruments of Reformation have been rai●ed out of the number of Ordained persons in all places. Yet, 7. there is not a like necessity of the way of Calling, as of the Calling itself; because the Scripture examples afford, and the state of the Church requires a greater liberty for the manner of Calling, then for the want of Ministers. And God in thrusting forth labourers into his harvest by ways of providence, with a blessing, shows plainly that he is free to give as he please, 
* Cum Dei judicio ita labefactatur Ecclesia, ut jamjam ruitura videatur, corruptis jam p●orsus ordinariis Ministris & Episcopis; tum solitus est Deus Extra Ordinem never exc●tare Ministros, qui rutatem Eccl siam erigant, & Ministerium ab ordinarits neglectum & corruptuminstanrent. Zanch. quo supr●. Vide Confessionem Gallic●m Artic. 31. .  
8. For matter of succession in the way of Ordination. I see no need of contending for more than is granted by some of the Separation.  
[I deny not but confess (saith Robinson 
* Justif. of separation pag. 322. It. page 327. ed. ult. ) that the Church of God, and more particularly the Churches of the New Testament continuing and abiding in that State, faith, and order, wherein they were set, and established by the Lord in the hands of his Se●vants the Apostles and Evangelists, were to receive their Ministers constantly by succession after a sort, namely so fare as that all succeeding Ministers were to be Ordained by Ministers, and not otherwise]  
Provided that this be added, when Faith and Order are revived, the same way of succession ought also to be revived: because this Order is necessary to preserve that faith which was once delivered to the Saints.  
To conclude.  
Whatsoever may be said of the calling of our first Reformers, in the case of immediate separation from Rome, or of others in times of tyranny and persecution, when there is no place either for an orderly Election, or Ordination, yet you have not brought so much as one shadow of reason, why Ordination should not be necessary with us in England, in the way now appointed by Ordinance of Parliament, should all be granted whereby you pretend to prove, That Ordination (as commonly taken) is not essential to the calling of a Minister.  
But as to the regular and ordinary lawful Calling of a Minister: if precept and examples out of Scripture; the general practice of the Church in all ages from the Primitive downward, with that of the Reformed Churches, ever since the foundations of the Second-Temple-mysticall have been laid among them; or arguments drawn out of Scripture and from the judgement of Protestant Divines conform thereunto, will determine any Question: I shall presume (notwithstanding all you have insisted on unto the contrary) That  
Ordination, h. e. an act of Ministers and Elders as such, whereby they IN THE NAME OF CHRIST separate and set apart a meet person to the Work and office of a Minister, is necessary, and more or less essential to his Calling.  
For Imposition of hands, though many things avoidable, as either You, those Authors which you have cited, or the nature of the thing gave occasion, have been touched upon about it; yet it follows now more particularly to be considered.  
Yet stay a while.  
Upon perusal of the papers, after the Press had made some progress, I take notice of a double oversight, one in myself, another in you, besides some erratas of the Printer. In the transcribing of your part, a few things are unwittingly omitted, which should be in the margin: yet for the things themselves you shall find an answer. Only one passage which is with you, pag. 8. in the body of the Tract, I forgot to set down at length; and therefore (though out of place) I supply it here, which should have been inserted pag. 29. before the fourth reason.  
This (meaning your third) is the reason of Crocius in 
Anti Soc. di●p. 24. see 3.  defence of the Protestants against the Socinians. Distinguimus inter necessitatem Vocationis & Ordinationis, (says he) We distinguish between the necessity of having a Call, and of being Ordained 
* Illa est necessaria ratione mandati, haec ratione ordinis & cons●itutionis Ecclesiasticae. Illa est constitutio in officio, quae si legitima est duo habet. 1.  à Dco quis eligatur. 2.  per ant●cedentem po●uli consensum eligatur. A Deo eligitur cum ipse donis exorna●, etc. . A Calling is necessary by reason of God's command; Ordination is necessary in respect of order and Ecclesiastical constitution. The Calling is the Constitution of one in Office; which (if it be lawful) hath two things in it. 1 That one be chosen of God. 2 That he be chosen by the antecedent consent of the people. One chosen of God when he is adorned with gifts, etc.  
To this, besides what I have already said (pag. 28. lin. 22. & seq.) I shall now add further.  
1. That the Socinians insisting only upon this question, [Whether a Constitution by way of Ordination be altogether necessary to the making of a Minister?] are not (as you think) to be opposed; neither are the Reformed Churches nor Protestant Divines of any other judgement than they: and therefore what needs Crocius to defend the Protestants against them in this point, or profess himself Anti-Socinian? unless he will say more for Ordination than they have done; which cannot well be, but by holding it to be essential.  
2. It's granted, that there is less necessity of Ordination then of Calling; yea, that Ordination is not always alike necessary, but according to the state of the Church. And it might be proved, that there is a case wherein it is so far from being necessary, that it is not lawful: But it will not thence follow, that in no case it is essential.  
3. Those Scriptures which prove the lawfulness of it, will prove more: For we cannot argue from the bare example of the Apostles — Thus they did, therefore we may do the same. Because it follows not in all things. Therefore 
De Eccl. Pontis. Praejud. Disser. 6. p. 149.  Crocius (in a later Work) flies to 1 Tim. 5. 22. for his ground and proof: and there we have a precept.  
4. That Order and Ecclesiastical constitution which he speaks of, can be understood of none other than Apostolical; and those things which the Apostles wrote about Order, were commandments, 1 Cor. 14. 37.  
5. Whereas he says, A Calling is necessary by God's command; and after seems to show what he means by Calling; namely, that the person constituted be chosen by the antecedent consent of the People. You know full well, no command of God can be found for this way of Calling, but as it is gathered out of examples by consequence from Act. 1. and the 6 chap. And if those examples imply a command for the People's Election one way, I would hear some solid reasons why the like command is not to be concluded out of examples for Ordination.  
6. Whether the antecedent consent of the People be always necessary, is not the point at present under debate. But this is his sense: That the power of choosing is the right of the whole Church, and belongeth not to the People alone, as we commonly understand the word: And the antecedent consent of Ministers and Elders, is (I'll be bold to say it) necessary unto a Call. And that granted, suffices to the matter of Ordination, as it is here considered.  
7. To that That one is chosen of God, when he is adorned with gifts. I think you yourself make some scruple of it. When the Ministers of England have pleaded (among other things) to prove their Calling the gifts which God had given them: Those of the Separation, in their Writings, are wont to tell them, Qualification is no Calling. Neither dare I say, Every one that is sit to be a Minister, is called to be one. And in a mediate Calling, the testimony of competent Judges concerning Abilities, and the right to exercise them, is most necessary; and that useth to be, in the orderly way of Gods prescribing in the Word, by Ordination.  
Now (Sir) give me leave to mind you of an oversight in yourself. You told us in your Title-page, of the Judgement of the Reformed Churches, as a distinct part from that of Protestant Divines. Why are none of their Confessions cited, or Books of Discipline? Make they for you, or against you? If they be on your side, would you spare to tell us? Suppose they were against you, yet you might not conceal it, while you pretend to hold it out. As for particular men, their Judgement is not tanti, if it agree not with the Church in general. He that made the Observations on the Harmony of Confessions in English, will help you out a little: but the Confessions themselves are not (as it seems) for your turn. As for the Divines which you have cited; of the Lutherans there are but two, Hunnius and Tarnovius; and of the Calvinists but three, Ames, Voetius, and Cortiu●. Though each of them be Reverend, yet they are but of yesterday, either living, or lately dead; too few to make up a full verdict touching the Historical part of the point in question. Indeed you have not so much as one witness to your Thesis of Ordination as it was stated in the beginning. As for the English Popish Ceremonies, whether one alone composed that Tract, or many concurred together by their joint endeavours, I know not? I take it for no more than a single, and in many things for a singular and solitary Testimony.  
What think you of Protestant Estates? Is not their Judgement considerable? If they do not hold Ordination to be essential, why have they ever been so strict in urging it? You know our Worthies assembled in Parliament are under a Solemn Vow and Covenant to reform according to the Word of God, and the Example of the best Reformed Churches; and in pursuance thereof they have declared it, as a thing manifest by the Word of GOD, 
* Ordinance of Parliament for Ordination pro tempore.   
That no man ought to take upon him the office of a Minister, until he be lawfully Called, and Ordained thereunto. And that the work of Ordination, that is to say, An outward solemn setting apart of persons for the Office of the Ministry in the Church by Preaching Presbyters, is an Ordinance of Christ.  
This they have since attested unto in the same words in other Ordinances of Theirs, giving power to Ordain unto Classical Presbyteries. And that this sense of Theirs might be better taken notice of, they have further Ordered as here followeth.  

Die Sabbathi, 26 April. 1645.  
IT is this day O●dered and Declared by the Lords and 〈◊〉 in Parliament disenabled, That no ●erson be permitted to Preach, who is not Ordained a Minister either in this, or some other Re●o●med Church; except such as (intending the Ministry) shall be allowed for the ●●yall of their 〈◊〉, by those who shall be appointed thereunto by bo●h Houses of Parliament.  
It is this day Ordered by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, That this Ordinance be forthwith printed and published; And that it be forthwith sent to Sir THOMAS FAIRFAX, with an earnest desire and recommendation from both Houses, That he take care that this Ordinance may be duly observed in the Army; and that if any shall transgress this Ordinance, that he make speedy representation thereof to both Houses, that the Offenders may receive condign punishment for their contempts. It is further Ordered by the Lords and Commons, That this Ordinance be forthwith sent to the Lord Mayor and Committee of the Militia in London; to the Governors, Commanders, and Magistrates of all Garrisons, Forces, Places of strength, Cities, Towns, ●orts and Ports: And to the several and respective Committees of the several and respective Counties, with the like injunction unto them respectively; and that they take care that this Ordinance be duly observed in the places aforesaid respectively, and that they make speedy representation to both Houses of such as shall offend herein, that they may receive condign punishment.   

Die Jovis, 31. Decemb. 1646. A Declaration of the Commons assembled in Parliament, Against all such Persons as shall take upon them to Preach or Expound the Scriptures in any Church or Chappel, or any other public place, except they be Ordained either here or in some other Reformed Church.  
THE Commons assembled in Parliament do Declare, That they do dislike, and will proceed against all such persons as shall take upon them to Preach, or Expound the Scriptures in any Church or Chappel, or any other public place (except they be Ordained either here or in some other Reformed Church, as it is already prohibited in an Order of both Houses of 26. April, 1645.) And likewise against all such Ministers or others, as shall publish or maintain by Preaching, Writing, Printing, or any other way, any thing against or in derogation of the Church-government which is now established by the authority of both Houses of Parliament. And also against all and every person or persons, who shall willingly and purposely interrupt or disturb a Preacher who is in the public Exercise of his Function: And all Justices of Peace, Sheriffs, Mayors, Bailiffs, and other Head-Officers of Corporations; And all Officers of the Army are to take notice of this Declaration; and by all lawful ways and means to prevent offences of this kind, and to apprehend the offenders, and give notice hereof unto this House, that thereupon course may be speedily taken for a due punishment to be inflicted on them.  
For the Example of the best Reformed Churches, if thereby you understand (as some do) those of New-England, how ever their Elders speak ●● part as you have done, yet by their Practice they make it essential (for why else is it that they put the power and a●t of Ordaining into the people's hand, or some of their deputing when they have no Officers?) and in their Doctrine they hold it Necessary by Divine Institution *. 
Church Government and Church Covenant discussed. pag. 67.   
For those of the separation, these are the words of their Confession, Art. 23. that every Christian Congregation hath power and Commandment to elect and ordain their own Ministry according to the rules in God's word prescribed.— And if there be a commandment for Ordination, as well as for Election, why should not the former be essentials, as well as (in their account) the latter is. Whether every congregation have the power is no part of the present question and therefore as they affirm it. I deny it and pass it by.  
Those who are wont to ●e called Non-conformists, in that book of Common-prayer which they advised 
* Printed at Lon●on by Ro. W●●de-gra●e.  they speak of the Election and Ordination of Ministers to the Election they call in neighbour-Ministers. After that (say they) 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 this flock of God, which he hath purchased with his blood.] Among th●m there are two of great eminency, whose expressions I shall here add. One, the Reverend Mr. Arthur Hildersham, who (in that letter which Johnson in his Treatise of the Ministry 
* Page 117.  pretends to answer) makes a right Ordination into the office, a substantial part of a true Calling to the Ministry. The other Mr. H. Jacob (whose old books have furnished those who are known among us by the name of Independents, with their new light and all subtleties whereby they would be thought to distinguish themselves from Brownists) There are two essential parts of Calling to the Ministry (these are his words 
* Attestation ch 8. pag. 299. ) Election and Ordination. And though he make Imposition of hands but a ceremony, yet he adds Howbeit I suppose Christ's Church offendeth in omitting of it, for though it be but a ceremony, yet it is Apostolic. And howsoever in this place he reputes it but a Ceremony, yet elsewhere 
* Declaration pag. 39 The Divin● beginning and institution of Christ's true visible or Ministerial Church. Argum. 7.  he makes it to be of the foundation necessary to salvation ordinarily, and unchangeable by men.  
Whether these latter witnesses be to be reckoned among Protestant Divines, especially in your account, I shall leave it to you to judge.  
But let this suffice at present to the question of Ordination.   

Concerning IMPOSITION OF HANDS.  
This is your Position — pag. 13.  
IMposition or laying on of Hands is neither essential to a Ministers Call, nor to his Ordination.  
Ans. Before I speak to the particulars wherein you pretend to the proof of this, it seems necessary to preface a little concerning the Subject in general, that the Terms belonging to the Question may be the better understood.  
When shall we know what you mean by a Call? and how it shall be discerned what is essential to it? Or to whom the power of Calling does belong? Whether one way of Calling be precisely determined? Or what manner of Ordaining is to be found in Scripture, besides that of Laying on of hands? At your leisure resolve these Inquiries distinctly, that the Reader may be fully informed.  
Till I am convinced of the contrary by yourself or some other, I shall presume that a Call is always necessary, yea a Call from God, mediate or immediate. That way of Calling mediately is to be followed in succeeding times, which is warranted by precepts or example● in the New Testament. In the nature of the thing itself, Calling for the substance of the act is more necessary, than this or that manner, or rite of Calling. Election may possibly he either by silence, as in the discipline of the French Churches it is prescribed, or by lively voice, or by holding up the hand, or by writing. The Church at Frankford in Queen Mary's days had a peculiar way of choosing Ministers, in part blindfold, by a kind of Ballattingbox 
* Lyturgia in Ecclesia Pereg●inorum Frâ●oford●ae. p. 51. . For Ordination, the Papists have devised many Rites, not only by perverse applying of the examples of Christ and his Apostles, but also by their own presumptuous inventions. The Reformed Churches suffice themselves with Prayer, Fasting, and Laying on of hands. Some few have used manus porrectione, the giving of the right hand of fellowship in stead of Laying on of hands: but though there be an instance of the use of that Ceremony in token of approbation between Paul and Barnabas on the one side, and some of the Apostles at Jerusalem on the other part, (Gal. 2. 9) yet that will conclude nothing to the question of Ordination.  
In such things as are indeed (not pretendedly) left unto the Church's liberty, she may use it as makes most for edifying; and about many Circumstances belonging to a Ministers Call, there is a liberty supposed, granted, and taken; and in some things necessary to be determined, not so much by rule or Canon, as (per prudentiam practice practicam) by the discretion of those who are (pro hic & nunc) employed in Calling. To this purpose some speak largely enough 
* Quibus ritibus Doctores ecclesiae sint vocan●i, quâ ratione publicum hoc docendi mun●● e●● sit delegandum ac imponendum, non est expresse traditum, sed liber●ari Ecclesiae relictum. Magdeburgenses, cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4 pag. 118. lin. 33. Modus elect●ni● nullus certus est prascriptus i● sacris literis. Aretius, probls. parte 3. de Minist. Vocati●●ata habenda, dum vocatio Dei manet conjuncta foris aliquâ testificatione ipstu●, quae qui●varia est, desinire non possumus. Armin. , and more than I dare assent unto without due caution.  
Yet this must be remembered, that God is not sought after the due Order, (1 Chron, 15. 13.) when any rite or manner of doing is omitted which is of his appointing: And it's safer to cleave unto warrantable examples even about circumstances, then to presume too much of our freedom in devising any thing which may be called new, or transferring the rite of one thing to another. And many things which were in themselves, and to the Apostles, free and indifferent, become by their example more or less necessary to us, especially when their example is backed by the aptness or equity of the thing itself, and either directly commended to us, or enlivened with some insinuation, that in doing as they did we shall do well. The certainty of lawfulness is always a sure point for us to centre in:  
As to the use of Laying on of hands (to say nothing of that which was common to all Christians to be applied unto them upon several occasions, but of that which was used by those who were already in office, in putting others into office also) The Papists urging of it as a Sacrament, as a means of conveying the Holy Ghost, as always absolutely necessary and essential: And those hands to be a Bishops, as an Order or Degree superior to a Presbyter, gave occasion to some of the first Reformers in some parts to suspect it, to judge it indifferent; and to argue from the Apostles liberty in taking of it up, and translating of it from ● Jewish use unto a Christian, to their liberty of using or difusing it as they found expedient, and the state of the Church in their times and those places where their lot fell, made way.  
For my part, when I consider how uniform and accurate the Apostles were in observing it, and of this rite alone in the matter of Ordination, and that we have no instance or example of their Ordaining otherwise; How unsafe it is to vary from their lawful and imitable practice; What advantage the Papists have to bring in other rites upon pretence of liberty, And what danger might be by substituting another way of Ordaining than we have sure warrant for; Of what consequence it is that Ministers should keep up a peculiar interest of acting in the name and stead of Christ, by something peculiar to themselves; and that this alone doth most clearly hold it out, beside the manifold uses of it which are expressed by Protestant Divines: Though it be commonly called a rite, and in that respect is but an adjunct, so as it must needs seem harsh to call it essential; yet I judge it sinful for any who desire the office of a Minister to refuse it, and scandalous in any Church wilfully to throw i● aside. That it's more or less necessary in the judgement of Reformed Churches and their Divines, cannot but be known to those who are acquainted with their writings. The peace of the Church may be preserved among those who hold it lawful; and the dispute whether it be Essential, might be spared.  
Yet because though it were not essential, your Proofs may fall short of that Conclusion, I shall consider of them.  
Your first Reason is:  
Some have been made Ministers without it, as the Apostles and Mathias, Act. 1.  
To which I answer. 1. If your Argument had truth and weight in it, it would prove, That nothing is essential which is to be performed either by the Church or her Officers, because the Apostles were made Ministers by the Head alone without the Body. Paul calls himself an Apostle neither of man nor by man, Gal. 1. 1. and yet he was a Minister, 1 Cor. 4. 1. The like may be said of the Twelve. And whereas you distinguish between the Apostles and Mathias, as if he were none, Acts 1. the Text here cited proves the contrary.  
2. It's not enough to say, That some were made Ministers without it; unless you show further, that in being made Ministers they were Ordained, and that without Laying on of hands.  
3. How some have been made Ministers in particular cases, as Mathias alone by lot, is not to be insisted on; but what's the general rule for all in an ordinary way.  
4. Were it proved that the Apostles have been made Ministers, and Ordained without the Rite in question; it would be little to the purpose, because there is neither the same rule nor reason for Them and ordinary Officers.  
The second Reason:  
When the Apostle bids Titus to Ordain, Tit. 1. 5. he says not a word of Imposition of hands.  
Ans. You should say, Not of Election by the People, and therefore Election is not essential. But if Tit. 1. 5. be compared with Act. 6. 3. 5. it will appear he means appointing or constituting by Imposition of hands. There were among the Cretiant 
Tit. 1. 11.  many ●●r●ly and vain talkers, specially they of the Circumcision, whose mouths (saith Paul) must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. These might well be the fruits of that liberty of Preaching without a Call, and the People's making to themselves Ministers by their own choice without Ordination or Imposition of hands, which you contend for; and Titus, it seems, was left at Crete to Ordain others in stead of these.  
The third:  
When the Apostle used it to Timothy, 1 Tim. 1. 6. it was so used as it was in giving the Holy Ghost; as appears by comparing that place with Act. 19 6. And therefore was no more essential to Timothy's being a Minister, than it was to their Baptism, Act. 19 6.  
Ans. 1. Suppose the Holy Ghost was given by Imposition of hands, both after Baptism, and in Ordination; as this makes nothing to prove it to be essential unto either, so it makes nothing against it: but in that such a blessing did then accompany it, we may be assured that the use of it was of God, and not from men.  
2. There's no mention of the Holy Ghost, in 2 Tim. 1. 6. but of the gift of God which was in him (or which he had) by the laying on of Paul's hands, that may be meant of the power and authority conferred on him, or of the Office itself; for Offices are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifts, Eph. 4. 8. And Power and Authority is by many thought to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grace, Rom. 12. 3. If Laying on of hands be the instrumental rite of conveying the gift or grace in this sense, it is the more necessary.  
3. Because the Holy Ghost was given by Laying on of hands after Baptism in Ordination, and upon other occasions also; therefore you will not easily prove that Ordination must needs be understood in that place, as you use to argue.  
Neither, 4. doth Act. 19 6. or any other place speak of Laying on of hands in Baptism: and in Heb. 6. 2. Baptisms and Laying on of hands are distinguished as things of a divers kind. In all this you seem rather to answer, than to frame an Argument. To say the Holy Ghost was given by Imposition of hands then, but not now, and therefore it is not essential, is no proof (as shall further appear hereafter.)  
5. Under the Old Testament Imposition of hands was used in divers cases. As first in Blessing, Gen. 48. 14, 20. Secondly, in Consecrating, or setting apart of a sacrifice unto God, Numb. 8. 12. Thirdly, in Ordaining, or appointing unto an Office; as when Joshua was appointed to succeed Moses, Moses laid his hands upon him and gave him a charge. Num. 27. 23. Joshua also is said to be full of the Spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him, Deut. 34. 9 He was full of the Spirit of wisdom, and therefore had hands laid on him, as appears Num. 27. 18. Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay thy hands upon him. As in the New Testament, the Deacons were first full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, Act. 6. 3. and therefore they had hands laid on them, v. 6. This laying on of hands was (as Ainsworth calls it) 
Ainsworth on Numb. 18. 18.  a sign of his Calling and Ordination. And though a greater measure of the Spirit might be given with the sign, yet that was not the only ground of using it. We read not of any Law requiring the use of it constantly, save in the case of consecrating: and yet you show no reason to the contrary, why it may not be necessary under the Gospel in the setting apart of a meet person to an holy function, though every other kind of using it be not necessary, whereof we have example in the New Testament. All Ends of using it do meet together in Ordination; as Blessing, Consecrating, and Setting apart unto an Office. And therefore we have the greater reason to continue it still.  
To that of the Divines of Scotland:  
The Apostles indeed by the Laying on of hands did signify 
Engl. pop. cer. p. 169.  their giving of the Holy Ghost: but now as the miracle, so the mystery hath ceased.  
Ans. 1. It not where appears by any express Scripture, that Laying on of hands in Ordination was used by the Apostles as a signs, with relation to the Holy Ghost as the thing signified and given thereby: It's too much advantage to the Papists, in making 〈◊〉 Sacrament, to grant so much.  
2. Suppose that the 〈◊〉 Ghost was given by, with, or after Imposition of hands in Ordination, and that such miraculous giving do now cease: yet as Baptism of water continues, though there be no miraculous Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and is not in that respect to cease, as the Socinians pretend; so may Imposition of hands continue still in Ordination as a rite of designing a fit person to an office in the Church, because no reason can be supposed for the use of it in that kind then, which holds not in other ages of the Church, in the regular and ordinary state thereof.  
[Solemnly to design and point out the person Ordained as a moral sign, was one of the ends and uses whereunto this rite of Laying on of hands was appointed by themselves, as Chemnitius showeth.]  
These last are the words of your own Testimony in the same page.  
That which follows of your own, is—  
Something extraordinary its likely was in the Apostles Laying on of hands. For he says, the gift was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the laying on of my hands, as it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by prophecy, which was peculiar to extraordinary Officers; but it was but [with] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 4. 14. They (it seems) had but a bare concurrence, but the efficiency was in Paul, as our Brethren of Scotland express it.  
To which I answer, 1. All this is but, its likely, and it seems, by which its likely to prove nothing, and it seems you yourself saw as much aforehand.  
2. To say there was something extraordinary in the Apostles laying on of hands, is ambiguous, because it may relate either to the ground, or manner of doing, or to the effect or accidental consequent thereof. There might be something extraordinary, but that can be no prejudice to the ordinary use of this rite, unless they ●ad only some extraordinary ground for their using of it.  
3. In comparing 2 Tim. 1. 6. 〈…〉 4. 14. there is indeed a difference between (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈…〉 ●nd with; and from thence the Papists and Prelates wo●●●●fer, That the efficiency of Timothy's Presbyteratus was i● Paul as in a Bishop, and in the Presbytery by a bare concurrence, and thence infer the necessity of a Bishop unto Ordination. But this is equally vain, as in them to one end, so in you to another. For that in 2 Tim. 1. 6. you may remember what was said in the beginning of this answer to your Third. And as you tell us pag. 17. touching laying on of hands in 1 Tim. 5. 22. that its not necessary to be understood of Ordination, because it was used in other cases. So might it be put off here. But be it granted that Ordination is intended in 2 Tim. 1. yet it will not follow that Paul ascribes any thing to himself, as excluding the Presbytery. Junius speaking to this Text, says: [In a common thing, the arguing from position of one, to the removing or denying of another, is inconsequent. As after this manner: Paul laid hands on Timothy, therefore the Presbytery did not. 
* Junius in Bel. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 3 ar. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 18. Ac. 16. 1 a. ] Those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by prophecy, do show the moving cause, and what encouraged Paul with the Presbytery to lay hands on him, viz. It was prophesied that Timothy should be an excellent Minister, as Cartwright (upon the place) interprets it.  
That phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and the other, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. do both of them equally imply an instrumental efficiency in Paul, and in the rest of the Presbytery. That the Preposition [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] by, with a genitive case, doth usually signify an instrumental working, yet not in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is amongst Cartwrights Annotations. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with, is sometimes put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by. as Act. 13. 17. chap. 14. 27. & 15. 4. In the 12. v. of that chap. Then all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring 
See Beza in loca.  what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. In the Greek 'tis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this latter place; but in all the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet the like thing, viz. what God did by them as by instruments, is intended in them all. The reason why the Apostle useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Tim. 4. 14. may be because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 goes immediately before in the same verse in that phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where it hath another sense than the next words will bear, if it had been used there also. How fit it would have been for the words to have run thus: [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] etc. by prophecy, by laying on of hounds, let the learned judge.  
5. If the efficiency was in Paul singularly, and in the Presbytery by a bare concurrence, as you say it seems; there using of it then, makes nothing at all for our using of it now, unless we had such concurrence: and then Laying on of hands in these times is not only non-essentiall, but unlawful. We must wait with the Seekers for some New Apostles to revive this way of Ordaining: and the practice of those, who being themselves out of Office are deputed to lay on hands, is most presumptuous; because there is no instance so much as of their concurrence, and much less of their acting alone in this kind.  
6. Those words [as our Brethren of Scotland express it] seem to relate unto the former passages; and then they are injurious, because you go about to put a sense upon them which I think you know they will not own: That the Presbytery Ordained only by a bare concurrence, and not as (Causa socia) a joint cause, in way of efficiency.  
I shall now consider their words as you allege them.  
Paul's hands were the mean; the laying on of their hands the rite and sign of his Ordination. And therefore they add (as you say) It's not to be used with opinion of necessity; Ordination may be done by word alone, without ceremony. And again. If the use of Imposition of hands in Ordination be accounted and used as a sacred Rite, and as having a sacred signification, (the use of it not being necessary) it becomes unlawful by reason of the by gone and present superstitious use of the same in Popery.  
Ans. 1. All this you heap together by substraction as you please: And though it's true, the first words [Paul's hands were the mean—] are to be found in the place intended, yet your conscience will tell you that the Author used them to one end, and you unto the contrary. Take them fully, and let a third be Judge between us. Thus he:  
[Because Imposition of hands was used in Ordination, not only by the Apostles who had power to give extraordinarily the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but likewise by the Presbytery or Company of Elders; and Timothy did not only receive 
2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Tim 4 14.  that gift which was in him, by the laying on of Paul's hands as the mean, but with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery as the rite and sign of his Ordination: therefore the Church in after-ages hath still kept and used the same rite in Ordination; which rite shall without leave be yet retained in the Church.]  
2. For my part, I see no ground at all either in the nature of the thing, or in the Texts, for that distinction of mean and sign. The Professors of Leyden are not afraid to call Ordination a mean. Ad legitimam Pastorum ordinariorum vocationem duo potissimùm media sunt adhibenda; vocandorum 
Synop. pur. Theol. ●is●. 42. n. 31.  Electio, & electorum Ordinatio. [Two means are especially to be used for the lawful Calling of ordinary Pastors: Election of those who are to be called, and Ordination of those who are elected.] But this is clear out of the former Testimony; that notwithstanding the difference of the phrases, by the laying on of Paul's hands, and with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, the latter cannot be so understood as to give unto the Presbytery (in his judgement) a bare concurrence, because than it could not be a ground of using the rite either at the Present or in former ages.  
3. For those expressions — It's not to be used with opinion of necessity, and the rest; they are indeed Provisoes, or rather some excerpta, extracts of those things which the Author brings in by way of providing: the sum whereof is— 1. Laying on of hands is to continue, if it be not used with opinion of necessity; Nor 2. as a sacred significant Ceremony. But naked testimony avails little, especially when it i● is single or singular. Therefore I answer, 1. Necessity must be distinguished. Simple necessity with relation to all times and cases, is asserted by none but Papists. Necessity (secundum quid) in some respect, either for Orders sake, or to avoid scandal, is acknowledged by those Protestants who make least account of Laying on of hands. As it must be granted that all examples either of Christ or his Apostles have not the nature of a Law; so must it also be maintained that some have: and I think as much may be said for this in particular, I mean the Apostles practise in Ordination, as for any other; or as much as for the gesture of sitting in receiving the Sacrament. At present here's nothing but bare Assertion, and therefore the less need to dwell upon the particular. 2. If Imposition of hands be a sign, and (as your Author calls it) a moral sign, it must in some sense be sacred, because the subject of it, and manner of using, belong unto the first Table; and as a sign, it is essential to it to be significant. That grace is given by and with the Ordination of the Ministers, when 
Cartwright against the Them. on 1 Tim 4 14.  it is duly given and received, we willingly yield, because the words of the Scripture bear it. Thus much Cartwright grants unto the Rhemists, in the name of Protestants.  
To your fourth Reason, pag. 14.  
If laying on of hands be essential to a Ministers Call, then are the Ministers of the Reformed Churches no Ministers: For though they use Laying on of hands, now, as a thing indifferent; yet they who used it first, had it not themselves.  
I answer. The Consequence is denied. 1. Because Laying on of hands (contrary to what you say) hath continued in most of the Reformed Churches successively to this day; as in England, Denmark, and many parts of Germany. For England, in this respect the spite and envy of the Papists hath been especially set against the Ministry of it. And though 
* Tractatu de vocatione Ministrorum.  Champney labours to invalid all which Mason alleges (de Ministerio Anglicano) to prove succession; yet in his Epistle to George Abbot then Archbishop of Canterbury, he confesseth he heard that the said Archbishop caused some Popish Priests to be brought before himself and some others in Commission with him, that they might testify they had seen those Public Acts which Mason urged for his proof. For Denmark, and also for divers parts of Germany, I refer you to Melchior Adamus in the life of Bagenhagius, p. 315.  
2. Because there are times wherein neither Election nor Ordination [as Church-acts] are essential unto a Ministers Calling; as in part hath been cleared already, and will further appear in that which follows.  
To your large Quotation out of Beza on Act. 14. 23. in these words:  
Some (said he) choose to refer this to Laying on of hands, as 
Quid●m hoc ●●ferre 〈◊〉 ad manuum impositionem, quae & ipsa si● pro●sus necessaria; & hoc praetext● accepto vocationem nostram irritam esse dicunt: qu●niam Ordinarii (quos vocan) nobis manus non imposuerunt; sive quòd no sumus in Romana ecclesia ordinati. Resp. & ipsis canonibus qu●s jactant, irritam esse consecrationem cui non praeirit legitima electic, aut quae fit Excommunicaro. Ostendant autem ipsi vel unumin tota illo Hierarchia qui legitimè sit vocatus, imo qui non sit centies ipso jure excommunicatus, si ipsi eorum Synodis statur. Not abitur cur ab illis Impositionem manuum pe●eremus? aut qu● sure ipsi nobis eam tribuerent? Habemus autem nos Dei beneficio certas nostrae vocationis nota●, legitimo ab ecclesiis nostris & vitae & doctrinae testim nio (per Dei gratiam) ornati, & ab i●sdem electi, ac demum etian invocate Dei nomine, in no●tro Ministerio confirmati, cui Dominus (ut spero) ejectis tum suribus tum mercenariis, benedicet.  if it also were altogether necessary; and under this pretence say Our Calling is null, because the Ordinaries (as they call them) have not laid hands on us, or because we are not Consecrated in the Church of Rome. I answer by those Canons which they boast of, the Consecration is null, where there was not first a lawful choice, or which was done by one who is excommunicated. Let them show but one in all their Hierarchy who is lawfully chosen, yea who is not by the very Law a hundred times Excommnicate, if they will stand to their own Synods. Why should we therefore desire hands to be laid on us by them? or by what Law can they do it? But we have by the blessing of God certain marks of our Calling, being (through the grace of God) adorned with the lawful Testimony of our Life and Doctrine, from our Churches; and after that, by calling upon the name of God, confirmed in our Ministry; which God, I hope, will bless, and cast out both the Thiefs and Hirelings.  
Ans. These few and brief Notes may suffice for answer. 1. Beza gives no reason at at all to prove why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word there spoken of, should not be referred to laying on of hands, or why it should imply some joint act of the Apostles and of the Churches. But of this enough before. 2. The whole passage is rather an apology for want of Imposition of hands in some, than to show that it is needless in all. 3. It's granted, that in such a case as he speaks of, the first coming out to Babylon, it was not necessary to return back again to Popish Bishops for Ordination: and to this his reasons are strong; but what is that to the regular and ordinary way of Calling? 4. It's worth observing how he gins: [Some choose to refer this to Laying on of hands.] For indeed they were not only Papists who urged the necessity of having hands laid on, (and it seems from this place) but Protestants also were offended with the first Reformers in France, for want of succession in the way of Ordination. Which gave occasion to Sadeel to write a special Treatise (De legitima vocatione Pastorum Ecclesiae Reformatae) against those who professed to differ from the rest (in hoc tantùm capite) in this point only, That Ministers wanted a lawful Calling, for want of succession from the Apostles to the present times. And therefore you must not wonder if you cannot persuade all men to be of your mind, especially when your reasons are far from cogencie: And Beza, from whom you might expect something, and make a show of much, waves the determining of that on the place, which was most proper to it. 5. If it be said, he gives certain marks of Calling, and yet reckons not Imposition of hands for one. As 1. the Testimony; 2. the Election of the Church, (for that's in the Latin, though you leave it out in the translation) and 3. Confirmation by prayer. I answer, these suffice when the condition of the Church will not possibly afford more, yea less than these: The edisication of the Church is so necessary, that it must be endeavoured as Providence makes way; but when there may be Order and beauty observed, its sinful to neglect the rules and means of procuring and upholding it. That which is lawful by virtue of necessity, is only so far lawful, as the necessity is real, and not pretended.  
That which follows is in part confused.  
And in the same case are the Lutherans, who hold Laying on of hands not to be essential to their Calling, yea, that its Popery to hold it so. Bellarmine (says Tarnovius) would have laying on of hands to be absolutely necessary, as the substantial part of Ordination.  
Yet I answer, 1. In the connexion of these words either to those immediately foregoing, or to the beginning of the Paragraph, you make the Lutherans Thiefs and Hirelings, or exclude them out of the number of the Reformed Churches, which is extreme uncharitable. 2. Though the Lutherans do not hold Laying on of hands to be essential, yet they need not fear a nullity in their Calling, having Imposition by succession, and using it still. The act itself is of force, though they should err in the grounds of using it. 3. To hold Laying on of hands to be absolutely necessary in all cases, may well be counted Popery; if we think those hands must be a Bishops, and that Bishop consecrated by a power derived from the Sea of Rome, as Papists do: But to hold Laying on of hands such a rite as ought not to be omitted by those who have authority from the Word to use it, in designing a meet person to the Ministry, and in the visible declaration of that designation, is no Popery. 4. In this passage you deal fraudulently with your credulous Readers, while you pretend to tell them the Judgement of Protestant Divines, and do purposely conceal it. Tarnovius in that very place which you point at in your margin, propounding the question (De impositionis manuum necessitate) Concerning the necessity of Laying on of hands, supposeth a necessity more or less to be granted on both sides between Papists and Lutherans; and having set down Bellarmine's opinion, afterward gives this for his own and others of that part. Nos eum (speaking of this rite) necessarium existimamus secundum quid, nimirum quia citra scandalum omitti hodie non potest, qui tot annos in Ecclesia usitatus fuit, & habet suos usus. What need you cite Tarnovius only to let us know what Bellarmine says and will not let us know the judgement of Tarnovius himself; if it were not upon design to rake up all that may be said against that Rite, and to hury (as much as in you lies) all that makes for it. 5. As for the opinion of the Papists in general, and particularly of Bellarmine, they are divided in this point. And though he labours to prove Manus impositionem ad essentiam 
De Sac. Ord. lib. 1. cap. 9  Sacramenti ordinis pertinere; yet he says, Alii existimant manus impositionem esse accidentariam.— ita Dominicus à Soto, & alii quidam. Whether there be not some difference between (pertinere ad essentiam) to belong unto the essence, which is Bellarmine's expression; and, esse substantiale, as Tarnovius hath it: or, to be a substantial part, as you phrase it, is considerable: because that belongs unto the essence, without which it cannot be complete or entire; and that only is a substantial part, without which it cannot be at all. Among 
Decret. Greg. lib. 1. tit. 16. ●. 1.  the Decretals of Gregory, this Case is put: An permitti debeat ministrare qui sine impositione manuum fuerit ad Ordinem Subdiaconatus assumptus. Whether one taken into the Order of a Subdeacon, without Imposition of hands, should be permitted to minister. By this it appears, 1. That laying on of hands was sometime omitted in some Ordinations. 2. That such Ordination 
Impositio manuum non requ●r●tur in omnibus Ordinibus ecclesiasticis velut in cocolytho & subdiacono ordinandis. Can. subdiacon. & can. seq. dist. 24.  was not presently thought to be invalid, and [eo ipso] null. Which is further manifest by the Pope's answer to the Case, which is made a Canon in their Law. In talibus non est aliquid iterandum, sed cautè supplendum, quod incautè fuerat praetermissum. In such cases nothing is to be reiterated, but that must be warily supplied, which was unwarily pretermitted. Th●s is of great use against the Papists themselves, who can find a salvo for want of Imposition of hands among themselves, and yet allow none to the Paotestants. And serves also to show the vanity of your argument, who from the defect of this one hang, without any distinction of time or state in the Church, would infer a mere nullity in the whole. Thus far by occasion of that in Tarnovius.  
Touching Chemnitius it follows.  
Chemnitius puts the case, Whether his Ministry be Null who hath not hands laid on him? And having repeated their opinion who say it's not necessary, so the Call be lawful; he lays the necessity of it to be in regard of others who run and are not sent, not in regard of the Calling itself, but that the Calling may be witnessed which the Minister hath; and says, Ordinatio non facit vocationem, Ordination makes not his Calling, but declares it. And further, Praecipuè servatur iste ritus, ut tota Ecclesia communibus & ardentibus precibus etc. That Imposition of hands is retained chief for the Prayers sake which the whole Church makes, etc. Yea, Fatendum sane nullum extare in Scriptures mandatum Dei 
In 1 Tim. 5. 22.  quod h●c ritus Ordinationis sit adhibendus. There is no command of God in Scripture to Ordain by laying of hands. Loc. come. tom. 3. 137.  
The answer. 1. Why did you conceal from the Reader 
Cer●ò &  constat, cum ex Scripturae mandatis, tum exemplis, Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 4 14. 2 Tim. 22. Act. 14. 23. Eos qui jam sunt i● M●n●sterio, & profitentur sacram doctrinam, adhibendos esse quando per medi●tam vo●ationem al cui comm●ndandum est ministerium. Turbulenti & sedui si Anabaptistae minime rectè faciunt qui vocabulo Ecclesiae intell gunt tantum promiscuam multitudinem, excluso Ministerio & pio Magistratu. Chemnit. par. 8. L. C. de Ecclesia. pag 134.  what you found in Chemnitius in favour of Ordination, as an act of Ministers and Elders, when you were upon that Head? Are not those his words, which you have here in the margin?  
2. Touching the matter itself which you here refer unto, you mis-relate him. He speaks not of laying on of hands in the ordinary and regular Call of a Minister, for therein he supposes Imposition of hands should be used; but of a certain case. Nam interdum hujusmodi casus incidunt, ut quis habeat vocationem, & impediatur quo minus se conferat ad Nobiliorem Ecclesiam, in quâ accipiat ritum Ordinationis. Questio ergo est, a illius ministerium sit evacuatum? His answer is, Aliqui id affirmant, aliqui negant: Some grant it, some deny it.  
3. It suffices me that he grants Imposition of hands to be necessary in any respect agreeable to the Word. For they who agree in that, will agree in a warrantable use of this rite; neither the peace nor the communion of the Church will be disturbed, though it be not held to be essential. 4. Take his own words fully, (Sed tamen propte● eos qui currunt, & non missi sunt, vocatio debet habere publicum Ecclesiae testimonium. Et ritus Ordinationis nihil aliud est quàm talis publica testificatio, quâ vocatio illa in conspectu Dei, & ipsius nomine declaratur esse legitima & divina.) and consider whether th●s follow not: — A Ministers call is then declared lawful and divine, and so to be reputed, when he is Ordained by laying on of hands. And if there be no other way of such Declaration to be f●und in Scripture, This of Imposition of hands will be essential to it. 5. Whereas you single out those words only, Ordinatio non facit vocationem, Ordination makes not his Calling, but declares it:— The entire sentence is this: Licet ergo Ordinatio non facit vocationem, si tamen quis legitimè est vocatus, ille ritus est declaratio & confirmatio vocationem illam quae praecessit esse legitimam. Here are two things which you leave out. 1. That Ordination is a confirmation of that Call, as well as a declaration. 2. It is not barely a declaration of the Call, but of the Lawfulness; so as the lawfulness of the Call may justly be questioned, which hath not been declared by Ordination. 6. This rite is not retained chief for the Prayers sake (as you translate his words) but rather for the benefit of such prayers as use to be made at Ordination. [Et illas preces tali ritu peractas, non esse inanes testatur Moses, Deut. 34. 9 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim, 1. 6.] 7. As I grant those are his words, Fatendum sanè etc. so you cannot deny that these which follow are his also. Habet tamen ille sua fundamenta in verbo Dei. This rite hath its foundations in hhe Word of God. 8. It's much that you have alleged out of Chemnitius; but is there nothing else which is of concernment for the Reader to know touching this Rite? You know there is more (pag. 138.) where he gives an account to what end and use Imposition of hands is retained in the Reformed Churches. As, 1. Illo publico ritu testamur, hoc opus licèt sit mediatum, esse tamen verè divinum. [By this public rite we testify that this work although it be mediate, yet it is truly Divine: for it is not ours, but God's work which we perform, who calls and Ordains that person by us.] 2. Hac impositione manuum sistitur Ecclesiae, ut haec quoque admoneatur Deum per hanc personam & ejus ministerium velle ipsos docere, exhortari, consolari, Sacramenta administrare, peccata vel absolvere vel ligare. [By this imposition of hands the Minister is presented to the Church, that they also may be admonished that God by him and his ministry will teach, exhort, and co●fort them, administer the Sacraments unto them, and lose or bind their sins.] But the people must hear nothing of this kind from Protestant Divines, lest they soon perceive that those Ministers who make them believe that power of Ordination belongs unto the people, do deceive; and that there is something belonging to the Call of a Minister, which from the nature of the thing itself cannot belong to the People, or to any of their deputing to this act, but to such as are already Ministers, by them to be performed towards the people in the name of God and Christ alone. Authoritas coram Ecclesia tribuitur ei, cuimanus sunt impositae. [Authority is conferred on him publicly before the Church, on whom hands are laid. Thus Chemnitius. But this was not for your turn; neither doth it serve ad captandum populum, to hear of authority conferred on Ministers, especially by Imposition of hands. Thus far of Chemnitius.  
To that of Danaeus in 1 Tim. 5. 22.  
Laying on of hands is not necessary, so there be but Prayer made to confirm the Party elected, and the whole Church join in prayer with him, that the Spirit of God would strengthen him. And he gives amongst other reasons, as that Prayer is all, this for one. Qui hanc ceremoniam praecise urgent, incidunt in vanas quaestiones & ineptas. The urging of it breeds vain and foolish questions about Ministers Callings.  
I answer, 1. I question whether ever you consulted with the Author himself, and did not rather transcribe a little out of that which you found cited in Tarnovius. If you did, it further appears how partial and unfaithful you are in setting down the Judgement of Protestant Divines; For he makes an act of the Presbyters not only to be necessary, but necessary in the first place before the assent of the people be asked, in calling of a Minister; and gives five strong reasons for it, to which I refer the studious Reader in the Book itself, pag. 352, 253, 254.] 2. Whereas you say, Laying on of hands is not necessary, Danaeus his own words (pag. 360) are, Non usque adeo certè necessaria est. And so they are also in Tarnovius, so as you cannot pretend that he deceived you in this. By that manner of expression he grants some necessity, though not absolute; and does not simply say as 〈◊〉, Laying on of hands is not necessary. 3. That reason, that Prayer is all, is obtruded on him (if I mistake not) and not to be found in any of his expressions. 4. What he says of the precise urging of the Ceremony, is to be understood of the urging of it upon Popish grounds. The foolish questions which he means, are those in a Popish Canon de triplici manuum impositione, una Ordinatoria, altera Confirmatoria, tertia Curatoria, and such like. 5. It's granted that he says expressly, that Laying on of hands is not essentialis pars, & ritus legitimae vocationis; and that it is in rerum indifferentium numero, & retineri & omitti potest pro more regionis in qua electus ordinatur. This last is more than you have yet acknowledged: And if it be to be retained pro more regionis according to the custom of the Country, it must continue in use among us, for aught that you have said or can say to prove it Non-essentiall.  
Now thus it follows—  
And with them agrees the Church of Scotland. The 
Engl. pop. cer. pag. 168, 169.  Church hath full liberty to use any other decent rite, or to use no rite at all beside a public declaration; the Church is not not tied to use any rite at all by the Word of God, in the giving of Ordination.  
Ans. What's the matter that you cite this book so often? Are you in love with English Popish Ceremonies? or do you take that Book for an Oracle? Or do you think the Church of Scotland will abide by every expression to be found therein? Or is there no other way to know the sense of the Church of Scotland, but by that Book? Are you of the same judgement with that Church, or any of those Protestant Divines whom you have cited, so much as in this one head of Ordination, and the rite of it? I fear nothing less. The Church of Scotland is at an agreement within itself, and with such eminent Divines abroad as Chemnitius and Danaeus; but you and they differ (if I be not misinformed) more than a little. But, 2. to the thing itself. Liberty of devising new rites in Ordination is neither s●fe to be granted by way of doctrine, nor to be used in practice, especially in those Churches which have suffered much under pretence and by the abuse of such liberty, and who in other things are strict urgers of examples as binding, and that in matter of Rite. 3. Those Scriptures which tie the Church to Ordination, tie her also to the Rite which we are speaking of: Or tell us where you find a Scripture for the one, and not for the other?  
That which follows, whether intended as a fifth reason, or as an excursion only, I know not: though it be confused, yet it sufficiently discovers what you aim at, viz. To make those who were Ordained by Bishops no Ministers, under pretence that they were Ordained by them as a Superior Order unto Presbyters, and so you slide into another Question: Whether the Person ordaining or imposing hands be of the essence of the Call.] I shall lay down all your own words entire, and then answer. Thus you, pag. 16.  
Yea, suppose it essential; and then, whereas it hath been held against the Brownists, that the Ministry in the Church of England is not null, though the Bishops laid on their hands, who should not have had a finger in it, (because an extrinsecall Circumstance failing, or being corrupted, a thing ceases not to be) yet if it be made Essential, what shall be said? Seeing both in the Bishop's intention in ordaining, and in the profession of the Party ordained, hands were laid on him, not as a Presbyter formally, but as one of a superior Order to Elders; and for such an Order there is no Divine institution. As therefore that Baptism must be repeated, which was administered by a person not lawfully called to the ministration of it, if the Person ministering be essential to Baptism; so must that person be Ordained again, who had hands laid on by a Bishop, as a Bishop, if Laying on of hands be essential to the Ministry. Whatsoever wants its Essentials, is not, though it seems to be.  
Ans. Let the Questions be propounded distinctly, which are here involved, and then it will be easier for any one to judge.  
1. What will follow concerning the Ministry in the Church of England, if Laying on of hands be essential?  
I answer. That the Ministers of England who have Hands laid on them, have that which is essential to their Calling. Who can imagine otherwise upon the supposition?  
2. But seeing Ministers in England were Ordained by Bishops as a superior Order to Elders, and no such Order is of Gods appointing, nor aught to be; is not their Calling null in that respect?  
Ans. No, i● is not. 1. Because neither Church nor State did ever declare Bishops to be a superior Order, though some of them (for they were but some) made such a claim. The State hath often declared against it, not only by books approved by them, as in the days of Henry the 8. but by several acts of Parliament in King Edward's time, and since.  
2. Because Bishop's only and alone were never authorised to lay on hands, excluding other Presbyters, but together with them.  
3. Bishops were Elders first, before they came to be Bishops; and of Elders were made Bishops in way of accumulation, not in way of privation. Their error, that they thought themselves a superior Order above Presbyters, could not make them no Presbyters.  
4. All Ordinations are counted valid which are performed in a settled Church, with the consent of Magistrate, Ministers and People; whether the Ordainers be Bishop, Superintendent, or a Presbytery. This principle is maintained both by the Lutherans and Calvinists, as you use to distinguish, For the Lutherans, I refer you to Hen. Ekhardus [in opusculo de Ordine Ecclesiastico, pag. 5●. and to Nicolaus Hunnius [Demonst. Min. Lutherani, pag. 294.] For others, Zanchy says, (quo supra.) Nihil refert sive ab omnibus praesentibus Ministris, sive ab uno omnium nomine imponantur manus. It matters not whether hands be laid on by all the Ministers who are present, or by one in the name of the rest. So he. And I think it might be added, nor how many be present; the Quorum is but of prudential determination. Pareus speaks more largely. 
* Comment. ad Rom. 10. 15.  The lawful Calling of the Church is that, which is instituted in every Church by public authority, for Orders sake unto edification. Neque enim uniformis est omnium ubique quoad circumstantias externas, sed libertati Ecclesiae relicta.  
5. To speak my own judgement. When sin cleaves to the manner of Calling, through the general error or corruption of all sorts who are concerned in it, though such a Calling cannot be said to be legitima, or legi proxima, but is displeasing to God, and null in some sense, (as unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is counted no receiving, 1 Cor. 11. 20.) and sinful fasting, no fasting, Zach. 7. 5.) yet it is not otherwise to be invalidated here below, than by doctrinal censure and repentance, and not (as we use to phrase it) by reiteration.  
2. As to your third question, What shall be said to the Brownists? By the way, let us know what you are; whether to satisfy you and them be not one thing? And let them first agree amongst, and answer for themselves. Ainsworth, the more rigid, thinks the People have power to Ordain. Johnson denies it, and maintains the validity of Baptism and Ordination not in England only, but in Rome. Whether all, I know not, but sure I am many of those in New-England fall in with Ainsworth in this fundamental of the Brownists. Those amongst us here at home, who say they are not Brownists, and like not to be called Independents, are not all one man's children in this point. What a case are they in with the Anabaptists, who will not call in or repair unto the Elders of other Churches to Ordain for them, and can have no Eldership within themselves but by popular Election; if Ordination be essential, and the persons Ordaining in Scripture be found to be only Elders, or more than Elders, and there be nothing almost or in comparison but examples in things of this kind?  
3. For your close: Whatsoever wants its essentials, is not, though it seems to be. I answer, There's difference between essentia partis, and compositi; and in a totum integrale, a member may be wanting, and yet all being not be destroyed. He that loses an arm or a leg, doth not thereby lose his life, unless it be by accident. As Election relates to the People, and Ordination to the Elders, they subsist apart: Each of them have their fair claims for priority. In several cases both may carry it, and the presence of the one supply the absence of the other. That Ordination which is pretended by the body of the People, or such Members out of office as they depute, seems to be and is not: But that which is performed by Preaching Presbyters, is an Ordinance of God, and you have yet proved nothing to the contrary.  
Next you make show of answering an Objection.  
1 Tim. 5. 22. Laying on of hands is put for the whole matter of appointing Ministers, Ergo it is essential.  
Ans. Before I consider of your answer, I have something to say in general, and particularly to this for the general. 1. If you have a mind in good earnest to answer such things as may be produced for the affirmative of that Thesis which you deny, why say you nothing to that of Calvin, whereof I suppose you are not ignorant? 
* Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum impositione, quia tamen fuisse in perpetuousu apostolis videmus illa tam accurata corum observatio praecepti vice nobis esse debet. Calv. inst. lib. 4. cap. 3. sec. 16.  Although (saith he) there is no certain precept extant concerning Imposition of hands, yet because we see it was in perpetual use by the Apostles, that their so accurate an observation must be in stead of a precept to us.  
2. Imposition of hands was of such account with him, and many other the most eminent among Protestant Divines, that I believe you think they said too much in favour of it, and cannot but conceive they saw some reason for so saying, and therefore it would not be below you to vouchsafe them an answer. Non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum. So Calvin 
* Calv. lib. 4. cap. 14. sec. 20. cap. 19 sec. 39 . In another place: Superest impositio manuum, quam ut in veris legitimísque ordinationibus Sacramentum esse concedo, ita nego locum habere in hac fabula. Martin Bucer enquiring after that Ordination which the Holy Ghost in his Scriptures teacheth to be lawful, says. Ea vero est— solennis per verbum Domini & preces Ecclesiae, & manuum impositionem, institutio, atque imitatio 
* Videndum igitur quàm Sp. Sanctus in scriptures suis doceat legitimam● esse Ministrorū ordinationem. Ea verò est eorum qui agnosci possint & debeant ad Ecclesiae ministeria esse ritè vo●a●i atque probati, ad eadem ministeria ● legitime Ordinatore solennis per verbum Domini & preces Ecclesiae, & Manuum impositionem institutio, ●tque i●●ia●i● M. Bucer inter scripta Anglicana. De Ordinatione legitima Ministrerum Ecclesi● revocanda. p. 238. . In his judgement therefore, where there is no laying on of hands; there is no lawful Ordination; and this way of Ordaining is the Scripture-way, and the way which the Holy Ghost teacheth.  
Now particularly to that place in 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man. This argument may be drawn from them▪ Laying on of hands is established for continuance, because only the sudden laying on is forbidden, and whatsoever is commanded about Ordination is essential to it. But this you take no notice of; only you devise a Reason which I know not who will own, and think perhaps to be applauded for your answer.  
Take it for granted (say you) that [Laying on of hands is put for the whole matter of appointing Ministers] (for this must be supplied hither out of the Objection) though it will not easily be proved, because the Scripture shows it hath been used in other cases then in appointing Officers; yet it follows not that it is the principal or essential thing in Ordination. As for example, Prayer is put for the whole worship of God, yet it is not the principal part of worship; for sometimes keeping the Sabbath is put for all the Worship; as Isa. 56. 4. Again, as when the Scripture by the same figure puts lifting up of hands for Election (as it doth Act. 14. 23) it binds not to that in all Elections, nor placeth it the essence of a choice in that: so neither doth the Scripture place the chief part or essence of Ordination in laying on of hands, though it put it for that work.  
Ans. 1. Though laying on of hands was used at other times, as well as at Ordination; yet there is no reason why we should imagine that in this Text it refers to any other thing because the Chapter speaks for the most part of things belonging to Elders. 2. Be it granted that laying on of hands was used in other cases besides that of appointing Officers: yet the use of it in ordaining Elders is one thing, if it be not the only thing here intended. 3. This argument will surely hold. Laying on of hands is put for appointing Ministers therefore in appointing Ministers its lawful to lay on hands. As this: Prayer and keeping the Sabbath are put for Worship, therefore they belong to Worship. And if because they be put for Worship, they are therefore parts of Worship; then Imposition of hands is part of Ordination, because it's put for Ordination. If a part, than either essential or integral; so as at lest no Ordination is complete and entire without it. 3. Lifting up of hands is not put for Election, in Act. 14. 23. as you understand Election; and if you will needs have Election understood there, it will follow that Paul and Barnabas did both elect and ordain; and while you grasp in all for the People, you will leave them nothing. 4. If lifting up of hands by the people, were as directly intended and as often expressed as laying on of hands by Apostles & Elders is, your zeal for the People would make you think it necessary. To what purpose should laying of hands be so often mentioned, if the Holy Ghost intended it should be merely arbitrary, whether it be used or no? 5. Consider what Antonius Walaeus hath said, propounding the question, Whether Imposition of hands be necessary. 
* Video in omnibus Confessionibus Nostrarum Ecclesia●um; praet●r unam a●t alte am, eam requiri & Sane cum Apostoli semper eam usurparint, in●o Apostolus praeceptum dat Timotheo. 1. Tim. 5 22 Ne ●ito ●●iquam manus Imponito, nos omittendam non judicamus: quia in negativo illo mandato, etiam affirmativun continetur: ubi cum pro totâ electione Pastoris sumatur per Synecdochen, certe pro ritu aut parte essentiati habenda est, alioquin pro toto sumi non possit, aut saltem proadjuncto proprio & omnibus vocationibus communi. Ant. Wal. l. de Funct. Eccl.  [I perceive (saith he) that it is required in all the Confessions of our Churches except one or two. And surely, seeing the Apostles always used it, yea the Apostle gives Timothy a commandment, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man: we judge it is not to be omitted; because in that negative commandment an affirmative is also contained: where being taken by a Synecdoche for the whole Election of a Pastor, it must be taken either for a rite, or for an essential part; (otherwise it could not be put for the whole) or at least for a proper adjunct, and that which is common to all Callings.]  
Now you begin to draw towards a conclusion, and propound this question:  
If therefore laying on of hands be not essential, why should those be kept altogether from labouring in the Lord's harvest, who cannot or have not receivedit, and in a way too that is as questionable as the thing itself? If the Calling may be true without it, why is it equally pressed with it? Is there more need of an adjunct, an accessary, a solemnity, then of Ministers, peace, salvation to people's souls by Preaching? Assoon as they had but an Altar, they offered on it when they came out of Babylon, and stayed not till all the Temple in all its furniture and utensils was ready, Ezra 3. Before they were wholly carried away into Babylon, they worshipped and served God with those vessels which were left in the Sanctuary, though they had not all, 2 Chron. 36. 7. 10. 18. What higher point of Separation is there, than to make void or deny a whole Ordinance for want of a Circumstance?  

Ans. 1. Here are many rash insinuations: As,  
1. That some are kept altogether from labouring in the Lord's harvest, who cannot, or have not received Imposition of hands.  
2. That the way to receive Imposition of hands, (speaking of the present) is as questionable as the thing itself.  
3. That Calling, and Imposition of hands are equally pressed.  
4. That nothing should be pressed about the Calling of a Minister, but that which is essential.   
I shall speak a little to these, and then answer your main question.  
For the first. The fault of our times is, and long hath been a boundless liberty usurped by some, and connived at by others. Perhaps some may be denied approbation for, and admittance unto the public Ministry by way of charge, not because they had not, but because they would not (though tendered to them) receive imposition of hands. But who are kept back altogether? Many, both men and women, are said to have laboured much in the Lord, by their private endeavours; who did not yet stretch themselves 
Phil. 4. 3. Rom. 16. 12.  beyond their line to preach publicly un-ordained. This liberty in a moral way is denied none.  
For the second, I suppose your Margin is intended, where you tell us—  
We have the word [Presbytery] but once spoken of in all the Scripture, as belonging to the Churches of the New-Testament. Calvin understands by it the office of a Presbyter, not a company of them. Those who take it for a company, differ among themselves. Some say a company of Preachers, as the Leyden-Professors. Synops. purior. Theol. disp. 43. n. 37. Some take it for a company of extraordinary Ministers, as Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets. Scoti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Paracles. p. 228. Others for a company of Ruling Elders as well as others, Eng. pop. cer. p. 171. Some understand it of a congregational Presbytery, (as the Non-conformists against 
See the answ. to Bp. Downham, serm. p. 93.  Downham, and the Scots against Tilenus.) Some of a Classical Provincial Presbytery, as the LONDON-Ministers.  
Ans. 1. You should do well to let us know your own judgement, whether we shall repute you Prelatical, Brownist, Anabaptist, Independent, Erastian, Seeker, Sceptic? Or whether you understand it of a Conclave of Cardinals. Would you have it a cipher to signify nothing, or ad placitum? What means this pretending of ambiguity, where there is none? You cannot but perceive that most of these opinions fall into one, against those that place the power of Ordination in the People. There might be a company of Preachers, and of extraordinary Ministers, and some Ruling Elders, and yet all in one Presbytery. No man yet ever dreamt that it signified a company of Believers without Officers. 2. What of that that it is but once spoken of in all the Scriptures? You cannot find the word Excommunication so much as once, nor Trinity; will you therefore be Erastian or Arrian? Show us one place for Ordination by the people, or calling to the office of a Minister without it? Wheresoever there were divers Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, or Bishops and Elders orderly assembled for acts of power, there was the substance of a Presbytery, (we have neither fit nor other name in Scripture to call such an Assembly by.) Such there were both at Jerusalem, Act. 15. and at Antioch, Act. 13. 1. and at Philippi, Phil. 1. ●. And therefore though we read of the name but once, we have the thing often. 3. For Calvin, these are his own words upon that Text (1 Tim. 4. 14.) Presbyterium qui hîc collectivum nomen esse putant pro Collegio Presbyterorum positum, rectè sentiunt meo judicio. [They who think Presbytery in this place to be a Noun collective put for a College of Presbyters, do think rightly in my judgement.] Therefore though he think another sense (non malè quadrare) may agree with the words; yet you have no reason to set him at a distance from others, and from himself. 4. As touching the Leyden-Professors, whereas your printed book hath disput. 43. n. 3●. I suppose your Copy had disp. 42. for there only is show of something for your purpose, but nothing indeed. Though the power of Ordaining or Confirming Pastors (say they) belong to the whole Presbytery; yet of old the Presbytery did execute that in the rite of laying on of hands, not so much by Ruling Elders as by Pastors, who did especially attend on prophecy or explication of the Scripture, and application of it to the use of the faithful. unde Prophetia cum Manuum impositione per quam olim fiebat Ordinatio Pastorum, ab Apostolo conjungitur. 1 Tim. 4. 14. By this it appears they have a singular opinion of the word Prophecy, not of the word Presbytery; for they plainly suppose the Presbytery consisted of two sorts of Elders, and yet that preaching Elders only laid on hands. And well they might suppose that, (as doth your Author so often cited pag. 171.) because much of Prayer and Teaching is to accompany the act of Imposition, before and after. 5. That which you cite out of the answer to Tilenus, under the title of Scoti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paraclesis, is not to be found in it as applied to the word: but this he says in general. There were many Presbyteries in the Apostles times, in which no Bishop (properly so called) could preside. Quia pars magna ex Apostolis, Evangelistis, & ejusmodi viris constabat, qui Episcopis longè erant superiores. [Because a great part (not the whole) did consist of Apostles, Evangelists, and such like men, which were far superior unto Bishops.] 6. None affirms that the word Presbytery as it is used in 1 Tim. 4. 14. does necessarily imply a company of Ruling Elders as well as others. But upon the supposition that there are two sorts of Elders, proved by other places, they may be included under that one word, because its comprehensive of them both. The Presbytery may be in the essential consideration, but cannot be whole in the integral without them. He that says, The number of preaching Elders in one city, together with those Elders 
Eng pop. cer.  which in the same city laboured for Discipline only, made up that company which the Apostle (1 Tim. 4. 14.) calleth a presbytery; must be understood to speak of that company in the general notion of it rather than in the peculiar or individual. And this is plain by those words of his which follow a little after. The Doctor himself (speaking of Forbes in his Irenicum) by the Presbytery whereof the Apostle speaks, understandeth as we do, Consessus Presbyterorum. 7. That some understand it of a congregational Presbytery, is granted; and some exclusively, as if there were no other, as you yourself perhaps. But whatever the Nonconformists against Downham do, surely the Scots in general do not, nor those in particular who wrote against Tilenus. And howsoever they use the word, Parish or Congregation, as distinct from Diocese, yet they use it in so large a sense, as serves to take in the greatest City of England to make but one Congregation. The words of him that wrote against Tilenus (lib. citat. cap. 28. pag. 218.) are these. Diversae sunt Londini paroeciae distinctae, quarum tantus est numerus, & tam exiguus 
Note.  locus, ut impossibile sit omnes simul & semel convocari, & tamen pro una tantùm habentur congregatione seu paraeciâ. 8. For the London Ministers, it appears plainly pag. 191. that they bring the word Presbytery as used in 1 Tim. 4. 14. only for the proof of this Position, That there is a pattern of a Presbytery in the Word of Christ. And that not only because they find the thing as in other places, but the name as here. And if we find the nature of a Presbytery, we shall more easily discern what use is to be made of it. 9 All this while I hear nothing but a windy noise, that the way to receive Imposition of hands is as questionable as the thing itself. Sir. to be plain with you before ou● parting, If you can say no more against the way of receiving, than you have said against the lawfulness and expediency of Laying on of hands, (which is worth the while in reference to practise) than you have said yet, You may begin when you please, and bring both ends to nothing.  
To your third insinuation, that Calling and Imposition of hands are equally pressed. I answer, 1. Were it so, you need not wonder; because there are few who zealously oppose the one, but they oppose the other also: if you mean it of a Church-Call, the thing itself is struck at. Most of those who care not for having Hands laid on them, do as little value the People's choice; were it not that the people are purs-bearers, & the beneficium is sure to come from them, whosoever conveys the officium. Gifted men would plead only the right of their own gifts, but that the People's gifts bias them towards the people's Call. 2. He that scruples to have Hands laid on him, may well be suspected to question something else; the rather, because they make a new Sect beyond all in ordinary enumeration, who pretend the unlawfulness of this Rite: and therefore Church and State have need to watch against the creeping in of such.  
To the last, That nothing should be pressed about the Calling of a Minister, but what is essential. I answer; Consider of qualifications whether every one of them be essential or no: if they be not; yet whether they may not be pressed? Is there any Church in the world that urgeth only essentials? Many things may be said for Imposition of hands, that cannot be said for every rite, if it be but a rite. This is to me in stead of all: That liberty, whereby we pretend to lay aside this, will imholden us to devise some other in stead of it; and that's (at least) dangerous. Be it but an adjunct, in one sense it will prove an inseparable one; Ordination is likely to fall with it, and this monster like to arise in the room of it: the Church will be all body, in visible administrations to itself, to act her own part and Christ's, confusedly.  
But it remains to answer your Questions a little more particularly.  
If the Calling may be true without it, why is it equally pressed with it? Ans. It is as well pressed, but not equally; and therefore pressed though it were not essential, because so to do is conform to the Apostles practise, not only in the particular thing, but in other cases, as Act. 15. Order, in the particulars of it, is not essential; and yet particulars may be pressed for Orders sake, and that by way of commandment, 1. Cor. 14. 37.  
Is there more need of an adjunct, an accessary, a solemnity, than of Ministers, peace, and salvation to people's souls by Preaching?  
Ans. The necessity of Ministers, peace and salvation, are strong obligations to bind those who desire the office of a Minister, not to refuse a lawful adjunct, accessary, and solemnity. Woe unto him that had rather not preach, then submit himself to have hands laid on him; especially when the use of that rite is carefully purged from superstition and abuse.  
As soon as they had but an Altar, they offered on it when they came out of Babylon, and stayed not till all the Temple in all its furniture and utensils was ready. Ezra 3.  
Ans. Yet they did not sacrifice before they had an Altar, under pretence of necessity: And why should any do the work of the Office, and take the profit of it, who refuses in an orderly way to be admitted to the Office itself? Our Temple yet hath not all his furniture & utensils, but we have a way of Ordination: let such as it concerns make use of it, & take heed that by their example in neglecting and opposing this particular, they provoke not God to make the work of Reformation cease, to the joy of our adversaries, and the grief not only of our own hearts, but of God's spirit. Can any thing be more displeasing to God, and delightful to the Popish and Prelatical, than to make the labour of Reformers a judibrium and opprobrium? Is this to cry grace! grace! unto the work?  
Before they were wholly carried away into Babylon, they worshipped and served God with those vessels which were left in the Sanctuary, though they had not all. 2 Chro. 36. 7. 10. 18.  
Ans. Therefore though we have not the power of all Censures, nor a pure administration of every Ordinance; yet Ordination being purged, let's make use of that as a pledge of the rest. To set and observe the right way of entering into the Ministry, whereunto Ordination serves, is not only to lay the foundation, but as the rearing of gates and bars belonging to the ingress of the House of God. Let none be as a thief to break through and steal, but enter in by this door.  
Yet you have one question to be resolved.  
What higher point of Separation is there, than to make void or deny a whole Ordinance for want of a Circumstance?  
Ans. 1. You shall do well to beware of points of Separation 
* Nam consilia Separationis & inani● sunt, & perai●iosa, & sacrilega; quia & superba fiunt, & pl●● perturbant infirm●s bon●s, quàm co-rigunt animosos malos. A●g. ●on. Parm. l 3 c. 2. to. 7. . In these times many Teachers and Christians are all for Chemical extracts of Society; [quorum separatione novus quidam Monachismus irrepit] by whose separation a new kind of Monkery is crept in: And this plague is the more hurtful [quo est hypocrisi picturatior] by being coloured over with a show of greater holiness. These are the expressions of Bullinger 
* Lib. de funct. Prephetica. p. 18. col. 2.  (no contemptible one among Protestant Divines) speaking of the Catabaptists.  
2. To make void or deny a whole Ordinance by refusing to use a lawful Circumstance, is, whether a high point of Separation I know not, (the phrase is improper) a great sin questionless. But who are guilty of it, if not they, who rather than they will suffer Hands to be laid on them in such a way as is now established agreeable to the Word, will either not be Ministers at all, or be made Ministers (as they suppose) by such a company of People as are not in a capacity for their parts to Elect, either by the laws of the Land, or any warrant in the Word of God; and much less to Ordain?  
3. Multitudes have been allowed to preach, and that publicly to their great profit, in this time of general disturbance in Church and State. But that liberty might be given and taken then, and whiles Reformation was under debate, which now can neither be asked with modesty, nor granted with wisdom and justice. If you please to take like pains for proving the Lawfulness of Imposing hands in Ordination, as now established, as you have done to argue against the Essentiality; I hope there will be little need to complain either of pressing to, of withdrawing or exclusion from the Ministry.  
As touching your Paradox (for so I call it) A man may lawfully Preach the Word, who is not Called to be a Minister, That also shall be examined, God willing, by itself apart.  
FINIS.