Of schism. Parochial congregations in England, and ordination by imposition of hands. Wherein Dr. Owen's discovery of the true nature of schism is briefly and friendly examined, together with Mr. Noyes of New England his arguments against imposition of hands in ordination. / By Giles Firmin, sometime of new England, now pastor of the Church at Shalford in Essex.

CHAP. II. Concerning Imposition of hands in Ordina∣tion.

ALthough our Divines have all I think [un∣less a few risen up in our days] agreed in the necessity of Ordination to a Minister; yet they have not all had the same thoughts about Imposition of hands, as if it were necessary to Ordination. Most have agreed in this, that though they look on it as a Ceremony, an Ad∣junct, yet it ought to be practised, because of the Apostolical examples. Our Congregational Brethen in Essex cast it away; and some cause I have to stand upon it, because I therefore re∣fused Ordination by them, because they would

not Impose hands, and so it was the longer before I could be Ordained. If I did refuse upon insufficient grounds, I am sure the grounds which were given to me for the contrary were very insufficient. I lost the papers, but met with another manner of Antagonist shortly after Mr. Noyes (a reverend Divine, and my dear friend) of N. England, who hath said more against it then I have as yet heard from these; what any body else have said against it in writing I know not unless the Author of the Diatribe, &c. whom that worthy Divine Doctor Seaman hath answered: I cast my eye upon it long since, but do not now remember any thing Pro, or Con, what there is said, or in any other man. What then I can gather from Scri∣pture and Reason I shall humbly offer to the Reader, and to Mr. Noyes in answer to what he hath said against it.

Not many years since Humane Ceremonies added to the worship of God, how much trouble and misery they added to the Church, we have not yet forgot. Men wrote and spake so far as they dared, and suffered by reason of them. Mens wits are now busied as much in throwing out of God's worship, as theirs were in adding; why then we may not now stand up in desence of God's Ceremonies [if this be but a Ceremony] as they opposed Mens Cere∣monies, I know not.

Come then to Imposition, &c. Let us hear a little what other men have said about it: And first for great Calvin, whom I hear alledged a∣gainst Imposition, which I a little wondered at,

knowing Calvin had spoken sufficiently for it.

1. * 1.1 Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum Impositione, quia tamen fuisse in perpe∣tuo usu Apostolis videmus, illa tam accurata eo∣rum observatio prae cepti vice nobis esse debet.

2. Again, Impositionem manuum, * 1.2 qua Eccle∣sia Ministri, in suum munus initiarentur, non in∣vitus patior vocari Sacramentum.

3. Again, * 1.3 Et certè utile est ejusmodi symbolo Ministerii dignitatem populo commendari, &c. praeterea non erit inane signum, si in germa∣nam suam originem restitutum fuerit-: nam si nihil frustra spiritus Dei in Ecclesia Dei instituit, hanc ceremoniam cum ab eo profecta sit sentiemus non esse inutilem, modo in superstitiosum usum nou vertatur. See him again l. 4. c. 19. s. 31. Cal∣vins judgment is clear, with his Reasons for it.

Chemnitius giving us the judgment of the Lutheran Churches, saith, * 1.4 Nec manuum Impo∣sitionem vocare Sacramentum gravabimur. I omit Austin, who called it so long before they were born, in a large sense, not the Popish sense. Nos uno verbo dicimus, si per Sacramen∣tum jusjurandum, * 1.5 & religiosam, obstrictionem in∣telligunt, sit Ordo ipsorum, per me licet, Sacra∣mentum, quale veteribus erat Sacramentum mi∣litare, saith Musculus.

Walaeus saith, * 1.6

In all the Confessions of their Churches [except one or two] it was re∣quired, and because the Apostles alwayes used it, and the Apostle gives that precept to Tim. 5.22. Not to lay on hands suddenly we

ought not to omit it; because in that negative an affirmative is contained that he should Im∣pose on worthy persons; where since by a Synecdoche it is taken for the election of a Pastor, certè pro ritu, vel parte essentiali ha∣benda est. Thus he.

From the same charge to Timothy, * 1.7 Mr. Hoo∣ker saith he is willing to follow the rode, when he hath no constraining reason to goe aside. It seems this Reverend man knew no cause why Impo∣sition should be laid aside.

The Synod of New England say, * 1.8 Church-Officers ought to be Ordained with Imposition of hands.

Here then we have the Fathers, Papists, Lu∣therans, Calvinists, Episcopal, Classical, Congre∣gational men, the Churches generally since the Apostles dayes Imposing hands in Ordination. We must have strong reasons (as Mr. Hooker saith) to lead us afide from these Churches. Custome of the Churches Paul uses to make some∣thing of, 1 Cor. 11. I think so should we, having especially such Scripture-precedents going be∣fore them: I look upon their practice as very weighty.

But I come to argument, laying down first my Position: Imposition of hands ought to be u∣sed in Ordination.

Arg. 1. That form of Ordination which cometh neerest to the Gospel-pattern, ought to be used.

But Imposition of hands in Ordination is that form which cometh neerest to the Gospel∣pattern; ergo Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used.

The major I suppose cannot well be denied, especially by those who in the Bishops days use to cry out so much, All things must be made ac∣cording to the pattern in the Mount; and why now I pray must not things be done according to the pattern of the Gospel? what do you make of it? that which you may follow, or let alone as you please? what is said against this I shall meet with anon.

For the minors bring us forth those rules, or examples which shew that men may be ordain∣ed, or were ordained without Imposition of hands: that Church-Officers were ordained with Imposition, the Texts are known, as be∣fore mentioned.

Arg. 2. If the Gospel expresseth the whole Ordinance of Ordination by Imposition of hands, then Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used.

But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Conse∣quent is true.

The Consequence is clear; for why should the Apostle mention that which is but needless, or at least but indifferent to set out an ordi∣nance by.

Obj. But it is said, [Obj.] This was no more then what Paul saith at another time, for this cause I bow my knee, &c. meaning prayer.

A. 1. Be it so, yet this hinders not; [Sol.] for if Paul saith he did bow his knee, I know Paul was so honest that he would not lye; he did bow his knee sure enough. So when he faith, Lay hands, &c. I doubt not but Timothy did and ought to Lay hands, &c.

2. There were other gestures for prayer re∣corded in the Gospel besides kneeling; can you shew other Ceremonies or Adjuncts [as you call them] recorded besides Imposition in Ordination? If there had been never any other gesture recorded in prayer but kneeling, then we would have concluded we ought to use that gesture only; why not then Imposition of hands in Ordination, since none but this is recorded.

3. There may be some difference put be∣tween Paul's narration, what he did, and Paul's injunction of another, what he should do. Paul might tell them another time that he prayed for them standing; but where doth he order Timothy, or others to ordain without Imposition?

4. This objection would carry it, as if there were no more in Imposition of hands in refe∣rence to Ordination then in kneeling to prayer: which I will not as yet yield; what I have said before I think will shew the contrary, and more I shall add.

But the Antecedent is the part I have to prove, which if I can make good, it will make much to shew the necessity of Ordination, and of Imposition in it; the Text is well known. 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands on no man suddenly: the que∣stion is whether Ordination be here meant. I named before the judgement of all sorts of Divines, ancient and modern, Episcopal, Classi∣cal, Congregational, [yea, of divers of the Pa∣pists] who agree it is meant of Ordination: this might be enough one would think; but in our days we must prove what we say; had our Brethren given us reasons to the contrary, I

might have known what to have answered to; but I hear of none.

1. This Imposition cannot have reference to sick persons: There's no matter how suddenly he laid on hands to cure them; nothing ap∣pearing in the context.

2. Nor can it relate to the blessing of chil∣dren; the context hath nothing for it: nor did I ever read that the Apostles did use this pra∣ctise.

3. Nor can it be meant of the Sacrament of Pennance, as many Papists do expound it, though some of the most learned are against it, and rather expound it of Ordination, as be∣fore; the context will favour something this notion: but that I have this against it.

1. For their Sacrament we reject it; for ab∣solution of a repenting person, before bound under Church-censure, this we own; but in Scripture as we have no precept, so no exam∣ple that the Church did use to Impose hands on a penitent; we read no such thing when the Incestuous person was loosed, after he had been bound by excommunication; what reason then to have it understood of that which in Scripture is not to be found; it stands with most reason to expound it with other Scriptures.

2. I see Bellarmin and others make little of Imposition in the Sacrament of Pennance; but in Ordination he makes it an essential part: More reason then why of this then of that, which hath no other word for it.

3. For the Brethren who oppose us, I presume they will not understand it thus; for they give

so much to the people, in admission of members, that Timothy might well be hindered for laying hands suddenly on such: and that 2 Epistle to the Corinths, with the practise of Antiquity, especially Cyprian will give some ground for it.

Had it not been for my first reason, and the reasons I have to prove it must be meant of Ordination, I should have inclined this way because of v. 20.

4. Nor can it be meant of Confirmation. I have heard our Brethren have thus Interpreted it. But

1. I can see no shadow of reason for this in the context; for the Apostle is speaking nothing of Baptism, about which time that which men call confirmation was used.

2. They must then prove that Timothy had power to confer the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, for so we find in confirmation they were given, Acts 8, & 9, & 19. Of this more anon.

3. Nor do I see what need of that caution suddenly; for no matter how soon they were confirmed in the faith: they were in the Church already, and to confirm them as fast as might be was good. Peter in Acts 8. and Paul in Acts 19. did suddenly Impose hands to this end; good to keep them from Wavering and Aposta∣tizing.

4. How did Timothy partake of other mens sins when he sought to confirm them suddenly?

5. Laying then these by, the text must needs be meant of Ordination, for I know of no other cases in which hands were Imposed in the New

stament, [nor at all in one case, i.e. pennance:] So that it must be this, and that I shall yet fur∣ther prove.

1. The Apostle from the 17. v. had been dis∣coursing about Elders: now it is very season∣able to give some word about the making of Elders. So the context holds it fairly out.

2. The Aethiopick Version gives it, Ne Con∣stituas quenquam subitò: This is Ordination plainly.

3. The reason why he should be cautious, was lest he should partake of other mens sins. Ne reus fias corrupti ministerii, saith Aretius. And it is certain, he that is the cause of a corrupt mans coming into the Ministry (or insufficient) may be guilty of much sin; it is so weighty a thing to have the charge of souls. Chrysostom, * 1.9 Jerom, Calvin, Chamier, Hemmingius, Cor. a Lap. speak excellently to this reason of the caution.

4. As the Apostle had taught Timothy in the 3. Chapter what should be the qualification of Bishops and Deacons, the former of which he had been speaking of in this Chapter, just be∣fore our Text, it may very well suit that Timo∣thy should not suddenly ordain men, but first see whether they were so qualified as he had written to him. So much for this Text.

2. A second Text wherein the Scripture ex∣presseth Ordination by Imposition only, is that known place 1 Tim. 4.14. the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. This Text is generally understood of the Ordination of Timothy. I never met with any who denied it but one

Socinian. But of this Text more anon.

3. A third Text as some apprehend, is Heb. 6.2. which Mr. Noyes doth very much oppose. I could not at first tell what was his meaning to bestow so many lines upon it, but at last I thought of Mr. Hooker, whose judgement it is likely Mr. N. understood; two advantages Mr. N. hath: 1. The multitude of Interpreters who understand it of confirmation (as Mr. N. saith.) 2. That it followeth Baptism.

But first, let us see if no Divines understand it of Ordination, so as it is comprehended at least under it. Junius, Pareus, and our Anno∣tations take it largely, and look at Ordination included. Gualter, Tossanus, Gellespio, Dicson, Johnson, Jacob. Bullinger of Ordination only, or chiefly. Mr. Cartw. thus, By Imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament, * 1.10 much lesse confirmation after Baptism; but by Trope, or borrowed speech the Ministry of the Church, upon the which hands were laid; which appeareth in that whosoever believeth not there ought to be a Ministry by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Christianity: this is to the point indeed.

Mr. * 1.11 Hooker proves that Church Discipline is a fundamental point of Religion from hence; thus, Laying on of hands being by a Metonymy of the Adjunct put for Ordination; and Ordination one particular put for the whole of Discipline. Having then these men [and these no babes] on my side, I will see what reason there is why Ordination here must not be meant.

For confirmation [which so many expound

it of] I searched amongst those Protestant Di∣vines which I had to find a definition of it in our Protestant sense, and why they call it so; but I could not find one who gave me satisfa∣ction but Chemnitius, Exam. Concil. Trid. de confirmat. The Papists definition I knew, and a pretty one it is. That which Chemnitius speaks gave me great content; but I could wish some body would, prove this is the meaning of Im∣position in this Text, for then we should have one more strong ground for Infant-Baptism, as we may gather by Chemnitius opening of con∣firmation. Casting my eye on Diodati I see he thus expounds it, and hence gathers Infant-Bpatism. But this is not sufficient; we call for proof now. I know Imposition of hands was after Baptism in Scripture, except Act. 9.17. and so far as we can learn from Scripture, we find

1. Extraordinary gifts were ever the effect of it. So Acts 8. Acts 9. Acts 19. nor do we find any other end of it; these gifts being conveyed in a way above nature, might very well tend to the confirming them in their faith received, and so well called confirmation. But in the con∣firmation we talk of there is no such thing, nor do I see why we should call it confirmation.

2. The persons who did Impose hands, were either Apostles, or persons extraordinarily raised. We read but of one Ananias, Acts 9. I do not find the Evangelists did Impose. Hence the Bishops, who call themselves the Apostles successors, they claime this power, and poore Presbyters must not do it [at least without leave from them.]

That then which truly deserves the name confirmation, is ceased many hundred years since. But for the thing it self, which our Di∣vines call confirmation, as Chemnitius lays it down, * 1.12 I could heartily wish with Calvin that it were brought into practise, only Imposition, I think, might be left out; yet I would not con∣tend with him who did use it, rather so, then not have the thing practised. Musculus speaking of Imposition in confirmation, saith, The Impo∣sition of the Apostles was of miraculous operation, * 1.13 and ceased long since: Exemplum illius retinue∣runt Episcopi, quo magis Apostolorum viderentur esse successores. But he speaks nothing against Imposition in Ordination.

But to the Text; let us see why Ordination must be shut out here.

1. The key of Interpretation I take to be the word Foundation and principles, &c. (as we Translate.) So Camerarius, Sunt necessaria Dog∣mata & Capita doctrinae Christianae quae enume∣rantur hoc loco. So Chrysostom. Now it seems strange to me that a foundation should be lost out of the Church above fifteen hundred years. I thought foundations should hold so long as the building lasts; take away a foundation the house must be in danger. But if this be meant of Ordination, then it holds; for the Ministry shall hold so long as the Church holds; till the body be perfected, Eph. 4. But if confirma∣tion, and extraordinary gifts, which were the only effect, so far as we find in Scripture, [as before I touched] then this foundation is gone long since.

2. Faith, Repentance, and Baptism, are to last to the end of the world. Some of our Divines do from this Text prove against the Socinians that Water-Baptism is an ordinance still to con∣tinue, because it is put amongst the foundations, Chatechetical heads; why then the Ministry, which is Christ's great ordinance, to convert, to beget faith, [which comes by hearing, &c.] and authorized to baptize to the end of the world, should not be meant by Imposition, * 1.14 but a temporary thing which was to vanish present∣ly, I can see no reason.

3. That Imposition alone is put for Ordina∣tion we have other Scriptures to shew. 1 Tim. 5, & 4. [as before] but shew us another Text where Imposition alone is put for confirma∣tion.

4. Extraordinary gifts were conveyed with∣out Imposition of hands: as Act. 2.10. & Act. 44.4. why then Imposition should only signifie the Holy Ghost, which yet was given without it, I am not satisfied.

5. Then these Divines must prove, that all who were baptized had hands Imposed, and ex∣traordinary gifts conferred, else the placing after Baptism proves nothing; if onely to some baptized persons and pro tempore, what is this to prove it meant of confirmation; for I hope all baptized ones are to be confirmed in their sense. But this will be hard to prove.

One thing more I shall add when I come to Mr. Noyes, why it should be meant of extraor∣dinary gifts; Camero gives the strongest reason. But yet I hope to an indifferent Reader, it

doth appear by what I have said, that there is no forcing reason why Ordination should be shut out, but may at least be fairly implied. So much for my second argument.

Arg. 3. That Act which the Church ever used [and that regularly] in ordaining of Officers, ought to be used in Ordination.

But Imposition of hands is an Act which the Church ever used [and that regularly] in or∣daining, &c. Ergo

The Major seems so fair, that I think no rational man will deny it. The Minor is clear; the Church under the Old Testament used this act. Numb. 8.10. Upon which verse Mr. Ainsworth thus speaketh, This rite was kept at the Ordination of Officers, both in the Old Testament and in the New. Acts 6.6. & 13.3. By this sign they did put the charge and service of the Church upon them, &c. Then why it ought not still to be used, I know not. Mr. Ains. was a man learned, holy, and far from Popery, or idle Ceremonies.

Arg. 4. Let us suppose Prayer and Fasting to be of the essence of Ordination [as say our Brethren.]

If Prayer and Fasting without Imposition do not difference Ordination from another Ordi∣nance, then Imposition of hands ought to be used in Ordination.

But the Antecedent is true, ergo the Conse∣quent is true.

The reason of the Consequence is, because every Ordinance hath something in it whereby it is distinguished from others; so must this have something.

Here I lie open to two Objections. Some will say, Why do not you put in those words which they call verba creantia, where some put the very essence of the Ordinance? To these I answer, * 1.15 Although I do agree with the old non∣conformists, and other Churches, that some such words must be used, and by necessary conse∣quence it will be forced, [as before I spake] yet I rather use this, because it is my question, and that which we have plain Scripture for, and so feeling Scripture at my back, shall be more able to make good my ground.

The other party say, by this I put the form of Ordination in Imposition; for forms di∣stinguish. I do not at this time assert what it is, but finding it in Scripture, I argue against those who leave it out. Walaeus we see could not tell whether to call it a Rite, or an essential part. I know Bellarmin and other Papists look on it as part of the essence of Ordination, and if they do so, I do not blame them [they having Scri∣pture for it] as I blame those who leave it out.

Doctor Owen in his Review of the nature of S. p. 23. tells us that by Ordination of Ministers, many upon a mistake understand only the Impositi∣on of hands used therein. [I have not met with any of this opinion; I find none of the Papists speaking thus, who make as much of it as any] then adds, Ordination of Ministers is one thing, Imposition of hands is another, differing as the whole and the part. Enough.

If a Totum, then Totum universale he cannot mean, but Totum Integrale: then Imposition of hands stands affected to Ordination as mem∣brum

to Integrum, which is Symbolum causae es∣sentialis; then not an Adjunct. If it be a part, and a principal part, then where there is no Im∣position there is no Ordination, for sublatâ parte principali, tollitur Integrum. If it be not a princi∣pal, but less principal, yet Ordination is but Imperfect; for sublatâ quâlibet parte tollitur per∣fectio Integri. Then let those who are ordained [as they say they are] without Imposition of hands, consider their Ordination, and I hope they cannot be offended with me for refusing (at best) an imperfect ordination, when I could have a more perfect Ordination. One of their own Ordainers hath spoken enough for me.

I pray tell us how praying and fasting for a blessing upon a person elected, is an Ordinance distinct. We Pray and Fast for rain, for fair seasons, for peace, for success in war, for health, for counsel in great affairs, &c. But I hope pray∣ing and fasting for these ends does not make these several and distinct Ordinances; but it seems it should be so, as well as praying & fasting for a blessing on a person elected makes this a distinct Ordinance; prayer and fasting is but one Ordinance by it self used for many ends.

Moreover, we seldom fast and pray [nay, never I think] at a neighbour Congregation, but the Ministers use to pray for a blessing upon the Minister of that Congregation, then it seems so often we Ordain him; this is absurd.

Also good people fast and pray before ele∣ction, what is it then? I know not how they will avoid it, but they must confound Election and Ordination, which I am sure is contrary to Scripture.

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he did not charge him that he should not fast and pray suddenly, but not Impose hands suddenly. Words used which signifie sending, setting apart, ap∣pointing to the office with Imposition of hands; do distinguish Ordination from other Ordi∣nances.

5. The last Argument I shall use will be ad hominem, yet I think there is something in it.

If Satan from a wicked Imitation of God hath made use of Imposition of hands in the consecration of his Ministers, then Christians, from an obediential Imitation of God, ought to use Imposition of hands in the Ordination of Christ's Ministers.

Satan in his worship hath ever loved to imi∣tate God in his worship. As Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. and Tertul. Praescrip. adv. Haeret. both shew how this Ape hath taken example from the worship God had appointed in his house, and accordingly appointed the form of his worship. So in the consecration of his Priests, Livy reports of Numa that hands were Imposed upon his head, cum summo sacerdotio initiaretur. Why should not we upon another principle stick close then to the examples in the Word, since the Divel thinks there is something in it, I suppose he took it from the Levites.

I am not ignorant that some of our Divines, though they do use it, yet they look upon it as indifferent. So Polanus, Manuum Impositio est in rerum indifferentium numero, * 1.16 quia a Deo ex∣presse praecepta non est. Yet adds Si in aliquibus Ecclesiis Impositio manuum recepta est & usi∣tata,

improbari minime debet, cum exemplo Apo∣stolico nitatur. Say you so? then I think you had no reason to disapprove of it indeed. Thus also Chemnitius; * 1.17 his reason, Nec enim necessitatem volu••runt [Apostoli] Ecclesiis imponere de quâ ipsi nullum habebant Christi mandatum.

The summe is, we have examples indeed but no commands, and therefore indifferent. To which I say,

1. Then make the rule general; What ex∣amples soever we have in the word, for which we find no commands, those examples are but indiffe∣rent, we may follow or not. This must be a certain truth, else we shall ask the reason, why some examples having no commandment are to be imitated, but the examples of Imposition of hands in Ordination are not to be imitated? [I know all examples are not imitable, but I cannot lanch forth in that discourse] See what follows. Hence

1. Popular election of a Minister is a thing in∣different. I regard not whether I be elected or not; we have some examples [though none such as our popular elections] indeed, but we find no command, that the plebs should choose their Minister.

Chemnitius had been pleading for popular election, and to prove it brings in some ex∣amples out of the New Testament; when he had done, he adds Haec exempla Apostolicae Hi∣storiae clarè ostendunt electionem pertinere ad uni∣versam Ecclesiam, certo quodam modo ut suae in electione seu vocatione sint partes & Presbyterii & populi.

But if Chemnitius will plead for more then an indifferency in it, I must bar this play, to have him come in with Haec exempla. I can shew him Haec exempla more clear for Ordination by Imposition, &c.

2. Hence the consent of the people in ad∣missions [for which I know neither example nor command] and excommunications of members is but indifferent; for the latter though it may be conceived we have an example, yet no command.

3. Hence there is no Independent Church: with divers more things which I would draw from hence.

2. I answer, if Imposition of hands carry those five things in it which Chemnitius, Ib. p. 221. tells us, then I know no reason why he should call it an indifferent thing. At the end of that para∣graph he is still speaking of Imposition, as I think, and saith Nititur mandato, &c. having quoted Acts 13.3. See Zanchy 4. praec. p. 785, 786.

Doctor Owen in his Review [before quoted] p. 23, 24. saith, For that part of Ordination which consists in the Imposition of hands by the Presbytery [where it may be obtained according to the mind of Christ] I am also very remote from managing any opposition to it. I think it ne∣cessary by vertue of precept; and that to be con∣tinued in a way of succession. It is I say according to the mind of Christ, that he who is to be ordain∣ed unto office in any Church receive Imposition of hands from the Elders of that Church, if there be any therein. But what, I pray, if there be no

Elders, what is the mind of Christ then that they must be ordained without it? here the Doctor conceals his judgement; but I can help the Reader to understand his judgement [if he have not changed it] he would have Ordained me with Imposition of hands [and there were no Elders in our Church to do it] if the other Minister would have Imposed hands also. Then still I had reason to refuse an Ordination where something of a precept was left out, unless a Scripture can be brought to prove that the necessity of it by vertue of precept ceases where there are no Elders in the Church. This Scripture is desired.

3. If it be indifferent, then it may be used; there can be no sin in using it; we have an Apostolical example for it, Confitente, Polano. Then

1. This will give a man more satisfaction, as to his Ordination whether it were regular or not, when he finds it answer the Apostolical ex∣amples. I would not have that scruple to lie upon me about my own Ordination, whether it were valid or not, because I had Imposition, for much.

2. This will tend more to union; for now there is an occasion of difference for want of this.

3. It is great and just matter of offence to the Episcopal party, who in some cases do allow Presbyters may Ordain, but whether Ordi∣nation can be without Imposition of hands, I do not know they are resolved for the affirma∣tive. Things then which tend to union, and

taking of offences and scruples out of mens minds, if they may be done, and no sin in so doing, I think ought to be done.

4. Imposition of hands, which we conceive Apostolical men, directed by the Spirit of God, translated from the Old Testament to the New, had an express command for it in the separa∣tion of Levites to their office, Numb. 8.10. it was not indifferent then, why now?

5. When the Apostle gives Timothy this charge, Lay hands suddenly on no man; and when the Lord commanded them to separate Paul, they answer the command by Imposition Acts 13. I am mistaken if we find not a precept here. If Timothy hath a rule for the modification of his Act, and that Act, for ought we can find, con∣stantly used in this part of Instituted worship, I think the Act it self must needs be commanded. For acts in themselves civil, and used amongst men, even Heathens, as being customes of Na∣tions, if we find the Scriptures many hundred years after their civil use, to add a modification to such Acts, whether we are bound to such Acts where there is no such national customes, I much question. The thing the Lord intends in them, be it humility, hospitality, love, we are bound to, that's true; but I suppose not to the meer civil acts of other Nations, but from hence to cast out Imposition, I cannot yield to it. For

1. I cannot find that it was their custome to separate men in Civil States to the Office of a Magistrate by Imposition of hands, and that God took this up from them. Joshua indeed

was thus appointed to his office, but by a com∣mand from God, Numb. 27.18. but where doe we find this civil custome before, thus to lay hands on Magistrates?

2. The thing the Scripture intends in the civil Acts of Nations we may shew and exer∣cise, though we follow not the civil customes of other Nations; but this being an Act belonging to Instituted worship, I know not how the thing it self is performed [at least not perfectly] without it. * 1.18 As for Joshua, though the spirit of the Lord was given in a larger measure at this Imposition, yet this was not the only end intended, for then Moses might have Imposed his hands in a private Tent, and not before all the Congregation, and there give him his charge, v. 22, 23. but Moses did by this Act declare the Designation and Ordination of Jo∣shua to his Office before the whole Congrega∣tion. So it is in Ordaining of Ministers.

3. If it were a Jewish custome, and upon that account only used, why should Paul command Timothy a Greek to use it, and that in Ordina∣tion of Officers to Gentile-Churches where no such custome was?

From these grounds I do not yet look upon Imposition as being a thing indifferent; but I look at Ordination without it, at least as irre∣gular: and let me speak my mind freely, I would rather chose to be ordained by a Bishop and Presbyters [which many cry out upon as Antichristian] then be Ordained by any other without Imposition.

Now let us see what Mr. Noyes hath written against it. I shall begin at his third Argument

against it, because that strikes at the examples in Scripture, and is the very Argument our Brethren here now use, and indeed if that can be made good, I shall not much stand upon Im∣position. He saith,

Those examples are not a warrant for us, be∣cause they were either extraordinary persons [as Apostles] or extraordinary Presbyters, or they were extraordinarily raised who did Impose hands.

To that of Timothy he saith, It conferred an extraordinary and sensible gift.

All extraordinary it seems, but by this we shall not lose only Imposition but Ordination also, which yet Mr. N. owns: the same obje∣ction was against Ordination, as we saw before; and certainly if Mr. N. takes away those Texts which speak of Imposition, I know of few Texts he will find to prove his Ordination. I desire Mr. N. would give us strong proof for Ordination, leaving out those Texts: so that we shall have nothing left but election, and I think he will hardly prove any election, where∣in extraordinary persons had not their hand: so at last lose all.

But how doth he prove these Imposed hands quà extraordinary persons? The example in Timothy [the Presbytery which laid hands on him] and Acts 13.3. he foresaw would be alledged; to these two he lays in answer afore∣hand, telling us they were extraordinary Pres∣byters.

A. Say what Presbyters and prove; the ex∣traordinary Presbyters are enumerated. 1. The Synod of N.E. Mr. Hooker, nor a thousand more ever thought of any such thing; the Synod

conceive it was the Presbytery of Ephesus which Imposed hands on Timothy. Junius conceives it was the Presbytery of Derbe and Lystra where Paul took him, * 1.19 Acts 16.2. Chrysostom indeed thinks they were Bishops, for Presbyters could not ordain Bishops, saith he. Mr. N. doth not believe Chrysostom I know, nor do I believe they were extraordinary Presbyters.

2. I wonder the Bishops of old, and our latter Bishops did not hit of this notion, but that both according to the Canons of old, and so of our Bishops, Presbyters were admitted to joyn in Ordination with the Bishop; I question not but the Canons were grounde•• upon this Presbytery which Imposed with Paul upon Timothy: but if Mr. N. notion be true, it might have been easily said, those were extraordinary Presbyters, so these ordinary Presbyters have no power in Ordination.

For Acts 13. he saith, these seem to be extra∣ordinary Elders. 1. Partly by their Ambulatory course [ordinary Elders are no where described by the title of Doctors only.] 2. Partly because it is evident some of them were extraordi∣nary Prophets, yet they are all put together as equal.

A. 1. How will Mr. N. prove that all the Prophets and Teachers which were in the Church of Antioch used that ambulatory course? had not this Church a setled Presby∣tery? that were strange; how was it in Corinth?

2. Teachers, when taken distinct from other Officers, [as here] I think use to signifie ordi∣nary and setled Officers. Why doth Mr. N.

say that ordinary Elders are nowhere described by the title of Doctors only? What difference be∣tween 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eph. 4.11. there as here, distinct from Prophets. So I think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Cor. 12.28. else we must find no ordinary preaching Elders there.

3. Though there were some extraordinary Officers there, yet that hinders not, but the whole teaching Presbytery of Antioch might joyn in the separation of Paul, and so in im∣posing of hands: how will Mr. N. prove the Teachers were excluded; neither doth it follow, because they are numbred together therefore they were equal. Prophets here [as in other Texts] are named before, and as distinct from Teachers.

But ordinary Presbyters might not impose upon extraordinary Presbyters, this I think he would have; but have you a Scripture-rule which forbids it? what if God will have it so. If Paul were now made the Apostle of the Gentiles, as all that I see but Mr. N. do acknowledge, then though only the Prophets had Imposed, yet here inferiour officers imposed on superiour: for Apostles were superiour to Prophets, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. and I hope by the same reason a Presbytery might impose on Timotby an Evan∣gelist.

Thus Mr. Hooker and the Synod of N.E. say Presbyters [not extraordinary] imposed hands on Timothy an Evangelist.

To say inferiour may not impose, when the Text saith, these did Impose, [and it lieth upon Mr. N. to prove which were excluded] is flatly to deny the Text.

But Mr. N. saith, He was no Apostle yet, and his proof is, because the Apostles long after this time gave him the right hand of fellowship.

A. 1. If there were no Apostles at Antioch now [as doubtless there were none, for then they would have been mentioned as well as inferiour Officers] then Apostles could not now give him the right hand of fellowship.

2. Why should their right hand of fellowship make him an Apostle? that I suppose he doth not mean; he was one before they gave him the right hand [it is so in inferiour Officers.] Paul saith he was called to be an Apostle, Rom. 1.1. What, when they gave him the right hand of fellowship? or here where God saith so? I have called him. Mr. N. in this is singular, and his proofs not sufficient.

He further proveth that they as extraordina∣ry persons did Impose, because there was an ex∣traordinary and sensible gift conferred on Timo∣thy: and thus much he insinuateth in his fourth Argument. The extraordinary gift ceaseth in respect of Ordination; ergo it must be removed, as from prayers for the sick and con∣verts, &c.

A. This is somewhat like, and this I have heard urged; I know nothing to take off Im∣position but this, if it can be proved. If Mr. N. can carry this, he shall carry me: But how proves he this? Thus; it had this effect upon Timothy, ergo. What? it had the same upon all, and this was the end of Imposition. But this Mr. N. must prove: If I can prove the contrary, then I must tell Mr. N. to argue a particulari

ad universale is none of the best Logick. But of Timothy more anon.

1. The Apostles Acts 6. when they Imposed hands, did it not to confer such gifts. For 1. They say plainly it was to appoint them, v. 3. to such a work, i. e. they were made Deacons [I think Mr. N. will not deny.] 2. They were to seek out men full of the Holy Ghost and wise∣dom; they were then gifted before Impositi∣on.

2. In Acts 13.3. when the Prophets and Teachers were commanded to Impose hands on Paul and Barnabas, the end was not to confer extraordinary gifts; Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost, Acts 9. when Ananias Imposed hands. The end here was to separate them, &c. the Old Testament-word.

3. Timothy had command to Impose hands [in Ordination I doubt not] 1 Tim. 5.22. But that Timothy conferred extraordinary gifts, is a task for Mr. N. to undertake to prove. Philip was an Evangelist, but it seems he could not do it. Acts 8.15, 17. Peter and John the Apo∣stles did this: besides that all the ordinary Presbyters [for I hope some were ordinary] had extraordinary gifts, seems strange.

4. Timothy is charged to commit the things, &c. to ahle men. 2 Tim. 2.2. So Titus hath order sent him to Ordain men qualified, gifted, such as must be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gain-sayers. So in 1 Tim. 3.2. the Bishop must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what need this caution? For if they by Imposition of hands, could confer extraordinary gifts,

they could make them able, be they never so weak before. As we finde in Acts 8. and Acts 19. when the Apostles after Baptism Imposed hands, they did not look at their ability or inability, they made them able presently.

5. Imposition was in practice before this time under the Old Testament, from whence [as say our Divines] it was translated into the New Testament, Numb. 8.10. But I hope the Israelites did not thereby confer extraordinary gifts, it was one Act in their separation of the Levites.

Now for Timothy, who is the only proof of Mr. N. his Argument. I wish Mr. N. had opened the Text more fully. What was this Prophesie? One thus, He will have Ordina∣tion be in facie Ecclesiae cum prophetiâ, i. e. cum recitatione, & interpretatione verbi Divini de Ministerio Euangelii. But this gives no con∣tent. Zanchy understands that Timothy came by that gift by Prophesie, i.e. Per sacrarum literarum interpretationes quas partim jam inde ab ipsa juventute didicerat, partim ab Apostolo acceperat: * 1.20 Deinde idem Donum confirmatum in eo fuit & aucium per impositionem manuum, cum fuit Ordinatus. If this were all, this would not so confirm Mr. N. his notion: for why may not the Lord increase the gift of a Minister, and confirme it at his Ordination, by means of that Ordinance. If he hath done it, may be not do it still? Let him give me a reason. Nos vero non negamus gratiam. i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 conferri in ordinatione, saith great Chamier. Then Imposition need not be cast

out for this: for Mr. N. must prove it was an extraordinary gift which Timothy had nothing of before, and which this Presbytery by Im∣position conferred; which I think he will not easily do.

Others understand by Prophesie a Revelation made to Paul concerning Timothy. So Beliar∣min, with which the thoughts of most agree, a Revelation made by some Prophets which then were in the Church, by which he was designed to the Ministry, * 1.21 & post ea per Impo∣sitionem mannum fuit in eo confirmatus & quasi investitus, saith Gerhard. And this the Apostle mentions, both for the commendation of Timothy, and for his excuse, being yet so young, and else in regard of years unfit for so great an Office. See Gerh. Ib.

For this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the thoughts of Divines are very various; but the most probable fall under one of these two heads. 1. Either those gracious qualifications by which he was fitted for his work. Or 2. The Docendi officium, the very office and place unto which men through grace are fitted. So Rom. 12.6. This is most generally received. Gerhard takes in both, but doth not reckon extraordinary gifts; he saith, Gratiam docendi, exhortandi, Scripturas interpretandi, contradictores redarguendi. I think he saith truest. Yet as Zanchy before, so I conceive Timothy had some degree of those gifts before, though now more increased and confirmed.

2. But if the gifts were extraordinary, let him tell us how Timothy should stir up extraordinary gifts.

3. Where doth he finde extraordinary gifts conferred by a Presbytery? which is here distinct from Paul, who was an extraordinary Officer. Presbyter is the common word for an ordinary Pastor in the New Testament; and when it is named as distinct from other extraordinary Officers, I know not why it should not be meant of an ordinary Presbyter, and so this Presbytery but ordinary: to say this gift was extraordinary, and the Presbytery extraordinary without sufficient proof will not satisfie a rational man.

4. I had another Notion, but was afraid to set it down, lest I should be charged with singu∣larity, as is Mr. N. 't was this, Suppose the gift were extraordinary, yet it should seem to be given 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 4.14. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Tim. 1.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is joyned to both; so that this gift came by Prophesie, as much as by hands. And if withal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comprehends the Ministerium ecclesiasticum to which Timothy was ordained, he being by Prophesie designed to it being young, the Pres∣bytery might well Impose hands with Paul to separate him to his office, as Paul being com∣manded to be separated, &c. Acts 13.3. Here the preposition is changed, it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I knew no hurt in this Notion, nor what fault could be found with it, only (as I said) I feared singularity. But casting my eye upon Diodati I saw he concurred with me in my Notion. By the Imposition of Paul's hands, 2 Tim. 1.16. Timothy received the extraordinary gift. By

the Imposition of the Colledge of Elders hands, 1 Tim. 4.14. He was installed in the Ministry with a publick blessing. Thus he on 2 Tim. 1.6.

Didoclavius, whom reverend Mr. Hooker follows, observed the difference in the phrase, but whether he meant as Mr. Hooker doth I know not. For thus Mr. Hooker,

By gift he understands those gracious abilities which Timothy received by the spirit in way of Prophesie, whence he was fitted to be an Evangelist. It is by the hands of Paul there is a causal vertue under Christ of constitu∣tion: but it is with the hands of the Elder∣ship, as concurring by way of Approbation only.

Thus he. That Paul's hands should causaliter constituere gracious qualifications, and that the hands of the Eldership should onely concur by way of Approbation that Timothy should have such qualifications seems something odd: What need of their concur∣rence or approbation? Nor do I think consti∣tution here is taken in that sense the New Testa∣ment doth use it.

I hope by this time this Argument of Mr. N. used by our Brethren doth not appeare strong enough to remove Imposition: as for the rest of his Arguments I will now take them in order, omitting what is needless.

His first Argument is, Imposition is not war∣ranted in Ordination by Imposition on the Levites. He giveth divers reasons; I can yield to divers things without hurting my cause.

His fift reason, Israel Imposed hands on the

Levites, to signifie that they were to bear their sins, and make attonement for them, Exod. 29.

A. 1. There is no such thing mentioned in the Chapter quoted. In Numb. 18.3. the Levites were not to meddle with the Priests office; no not to sprinkle blood. 2 Chron. 30.16.

2. The 14. verse tells us it was a part of the separation of the Levites: nor do we make this our first warrant.

His fift reason, This was a Jewish Ceremony, and why should this, all other being abrogated, be only reserved.

Let the Apostles give the Answer; Why did they use it? and Paul bid Timothy use it? Let him blame Paul if Imposition upon the Ordained be a Ceremonial Law which took end by the coming of Christ, then the Apostles were injurious unto his death, who translated that Ceremony from the Jews under the Law into the Church under the Gospel, saith Mr. Cartwright, Reply p. 221. More anon.

His second Argument from Heb. 6.2. doth not hold it forth in point of Ordination, but it is a fundamental principle of religion, used figura∣tively for the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is sig∣nified and conferred.

A. Then Mr. N. of all men must not exclude Ordination, in which it conferred extraordi∣nary gifts [as he hath affirmed before] for that time then it must comprehend Ordination; his own Notion confutes himself.

2. I think as he saith [and so in his sixth reason, which I will therefore omit] it was a fundamental principle, and therefore should

stand so long as the Church stands. Let the Reader be pleased to cast his eye upon what I have said concerning the Text before.

His first reason hath there its answer also.

His second and third reasons, I think, aim both at the same thing. Doctrine is added to Baptism, and Imposition, to intimate the doctrine of the Ordinance, not the Ordinance it self was intended: the communication of the Spirit is the thing signified, or the doctrine of Imposition.

A. Is indeed the Doctrine of Baptism here only intended, and not the Ordinance of Bap∣tism it self? I must request him to excuse me, I intend not to give so much advantage to the Socinians. I think the Ordinance is plainly in∣ded, and so is Imposition.

2. Doth not the Apostle then Tautologize? Do not Repentance and Faith comprehend much of the doctrine of Baptism? why should the Ordinance be mentioned if not intended?

3. What error is there if we read the words dividedly, with a Comma betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as do the Tigurin and Aethiopick Ver∣sions. So Oecumenius, Luther, Erasmus, Gagnaeus, as Gerhard saith, and the Greek do not oppose it; Thus Cajetan and Aretius: See their Com∣ments. Then this notion fails, and it will make yet more for my Interpretation.

4. But let us suppose the Doctrine of Impo∣sition be here intended: Yet as Aretius saith well in loc. De hac ceremonia admonebantur Neophyti, quandoquidem tum in frequenti erat usu, quid illa esset, cur instituta, quibus, & per

quos imponerentur manus: item ad quid condu∣ceret discebant Fidei Tyrones. Very good: must not then the Neophyti answer, Hands were Im∣posed in Ordination of Church Officers? If we come to teach ours this head of Catechism, and they must answer according to Mr. N. his notion, they may well say, What is this to us? how is it a foundation to us, the thing is ceased so many hundred years since? [besides what I have before said.] But according to our Interpretation, we both open the Doctrine, we use the thing, and it remains as yet a Foundation to us. The old holy non-confor∣mists tell us how they look upon the Mini∣stry: there was an objection made, We have been taught heretofore that Discipline is an essential part of the Gospel and matter of Faith. To this they answer,

That Discipline of the Church [being ge∣nerally understood] is a matter of Faith, and an essential mark of the Church, I hope our Brethren will not deny; for Discipline comprehendeth not only the Administration of the Keys, but Ordination and Imposition of hands: but without Ordination there are no Preachers, Rom. 10.15. and without Preaching there is no belief, v. 14. Where∣fore without some part of Discipline it cannot be denied but that the Church is no Church, Faith no Faith. Thus they.

This suites Mr. Hooker's exposition of our Text.

5. If the confirmation and increasing of or∣dinary gifts be the Spirit's work, then still it may hold, as Zanch. and Chamier before.

His fourth and fifth reasons are answered before: onely whereas he saith, Imposition is added as an explicative adjunct of Baptism. It should seem no [besides what have been said] there being so few heads enumerated, it's un∣likely the Apostle would add an Adjunct to this ordinance, [which I think he cannot prove was alwayes at Baptisme.] I thinke also this crosseth the former head, wherein he said, Not Baptisme, but the Doctrine of Baptisme is in∣tended.

His seventh it is interpreted in the next, v. 4, 5. Illumination answers to repentance, Taste of the heavenly gift to Faith, the participation of the Holy Ghost to the doctrine of Imposition and Bap∣tisme, the tasting of the good word to the resur∣rection.

A. This doth not please. Illumination, as most understand the word belonging to the Intellectual part, and repentance to the heart, do not seem to answer. I know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 1. v. if the word be taken strictly as the word sounds belongs to the minde, but so as it's Act is perfected in the heart; it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Syriack render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 otherwise; and that Baptisme is taken for Illumination among the Ancients, according to the Syriack who knows not; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 94. So Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 1. p. 93, 95. So Greg. Naz. Orat. 40.

2. Mr. N. saith, Justifying Faith is signified in Baptisme, then not in the word Faith ex∣pressed in the Text, then Faith must be taken

in a large sense, and this will rather answer to Illumination then repentance.

3. How doth Resurrection answer to the Taste of the good word; when as Resurrection is a terrible word to most. The good word of pro∣mise rather, the promise contains good.

4. Why doth he make one word to answer Baptism and Imposition, when they were divided in the Text; and Mr. N. hath not yet proved that they went always together.

5. Why may not the participation of the Holy Ghost have respect also to such gifts as are given now in our days? for do we not observe [with trembling] how some lose their gifts, even eminent gifts, profession, and so fall away, as never more return? should it be tied up only to extraordinary gifts [which I do not believe] yet those were given in Ordination, as Mr. N. saith, so that for that time Imposition must be comprehended.

His eighth: Imposition is made a principle from which it was necessary an Apostate should fall if finally: but it is not necessary that one should be instructed touching the office of the Ministry: one may be saved, and yet be ignorant in the point of Ordination, and one may fall away finally though ignorant in this respect.

A. I know not what he means by the Apo∣states falling from the principle. He doth not mean, I suppose, that a man must have first those extraordinary gifts, and so fall from them, else not an Apostate; there are too many Apostates yet never reached those gifts.

2. One may be saved as well though he doth

not understand the extraordinary gifts con∣ferred by Imposition. I presume Mr. N. doth not think the Apostles conferred the Holy Ghost in a gracious saving way by Imposition.

3. It is one thing for a person to be ignorant of Ordination, another to be ignorant of that which Ordination holds out; of what necessity the Ministry is, Mr. Cartwright and the Non-Conformists [before mentioned] tell us. So the Scripture. But Mr. Hooker takes it in a larger sense.

4. I think there are few Apostates who have been ignorant of the Ministry; for those who have been ignorant of this, never came to so much as the Text expresses; then they cannot fall away from what they never had.

His ninth: If we should understand the do∣cirine of the Ministry by Imposition, then we must exclude the Administration of Baptisme in the principle of Baptisme, because Baptisme in this consideration belongeth unto the Ministry, and therefore cannot [unless it signifie the doctrine of Baptisme onely] be a distinct principle from Im∣position. And if we make Baptisme it selfe toge∣ther with the doctrine which it holds forth a di∣stinct principle, and the doctrine of Imposition together with the Administration of it in Ordi∣nation another distinct principle, to what principle shall we refer the Lord's Supper.

If I mistake Mr. N. in what he would have, I must craye pardon; I wish he had been more clear, but as I understand him, so I answer. The Lord's Supper being of the same nature with Baptism; a signe to represent, a seale to

confirm, an instrument to convey, &c. [as say our old Catechisms] well may it be referred to Baptisme. As for Baptisme, it being 1. An Ordinance so long practised before by John. 2. The initiating Sacrament. 3. Answering all those Baptismes the Hebrews knew well. 4. At this time greatly esteemed and practised. 5. The spirit fore-seeing our times wherein that Ordi∣nance would be slighted and cast out, as now it is, no wonder though this be expresly set down, to which the other is fitly referred.

If the Lord's Supper be referred to Baptisme [as there is reason why it should] and the Ministry [which will include Preaching and Discipline] be understood in Imposition of hands, then we may have in these few heads the summe of those Doctrines which are ne∣cessary to salvation and a visible Church in the Ordinances and Officers held forth.

His tenth: Interpreters apply this to con∣firmation, not all, I named some before that are of another opinion. But if we should lose this Text, yet we have not lost our cause.

His third Argument I answered first.

His fourth is also as good as answered: this it is, If we must remove Imposition from converts, from prayers for the sick, if from any, why not all; the extraordinary gift ceaseth in respect of Ordination, as well as in respect of other Admi∣nistrations. The strength of the Argument lying upon the extraordinary gift, this is an∣swered before.

Then he meets with an Objection.

It may be a sacred sign in Ordination to signifie the

consecration of a person to administer holy things;

or if he had pleased to have added to shew the Designation, the Separation, the Appointing of this person to his office. As the Congregation saw Joshua and knew him ap∣pointed to his office when Moses imposed hands and charged him.]

To this he answers, 1. It was not of this use in the consecration of Priests and Levites.

A. Why not? he should have told us of what use it was, not to confer extraordinary gifts I am sure. Omitting what might be said, let Peter Martyr speak for the rest of our Divines. * 1.22 He reciting the several rites of the old conse∣cration both of Priests and Levites, saith, Haec externa ratio eo valuit ut populus intelligeret eos esse jam ministros sibi designatos a Deo: sublatis autem istis umbris nobis nihil relinquitur nisi Impositio manuum. Thus also Zanc. 4. praec. p. 785.

2. He saith It is not of this use in Ordination of Deacons.

A. I shall only give him Mr. Hooker's words, * 1.23 The Lord Christ in his Infinite wisedome and Kingly care conceived it necessary for the honour of the place, and execution of the work of a Deacon to appoint choise men, & solemn Ordina∣tion to Authorize them to the work. If a Deacon be only the Treasurer of the Church, he had need be designed and authorized to it; but Mr. Noyes, who writeth against ruling Elders, giving all their work to the Deacon, * 1.24 had more cause to allow of it. Let him shew us Deacons in Scripture ordained without Imposition of hands.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Instit. l. 4. c. 3. s. 16.
• * 1.2

  L. 4. c. 14. s. 20.
• * 1.3

  L. 4. c. 2. s. 16.
• * 1.4

  Exam. Concil. Trid. p. 221.
• * 1.5

  Loc. Com. p. 321.
• * 1.6

  Loc. Com. l. 1. p. 473.
• * 1.7

  Sur. ch. Dis. p. 2. p. 74.
• * 1.8

  Platf. ch. Dis. c. 9.
• * 1.9

  on Isa. 58.
• * 1.10

  Rhem. Test.
• * 1.11

  Sur. Ch. Dis. p. 1. p. 7.
• * 1.12

  Instit. l. 4. c. 19. s. 4.
• * 1.13

  Loc. Com. p. 321.
• * 1.14

  Matth. 28.20.
• * 1.15

  Mr. Weems saith, In their Churches when they Or∣dain a Mi∣nister they give him the Book of God in his hand, to signifie that now he hath power to preach the word, as the Priests hand was filled with flesh Numb. 3.3. P. 105.
• * 1.16

  Synt. The. l. 9. c. 33.
• * 1.17

  Exam. Concil Trid. p. 222.
• * 1.18

  Deut. 34.9.
• * 1.19

  Eccles. p. 1960.
• * 1.20

  The Ley∣den Pro∣fes. un∣derstand Prophesie as doth Zanch. Disp. 42. S 37.
• * 1.21

  In Loc.
• * 1.22

  Loc. Com. de. Voca. administ.
• * 1.23

  Sur. Chu. p. 3. p. 9.
• * 1.24

  p. 23.