4. Mr Hookers Judgment, is▪ that Ordination is not an act of Authority out of Order only. And that therefore it may be performed by Non-Officers. As for that Objection which some have thought weighty. viz. That none can give what himself has not, and that therefore men upon whom hands were never imposed cannot impose hands upon others, it is easily Answered, men may give that which they are •ot formally only virtually the Subjects of A Nation by choosing a King, give him Legal Power. A City by Choosing a Lord Mayor, make him a Magistrate. A Woman by giving her self in Marriage causeth the man to whom she giveth her self to have the Power of an Husband: but no man will be so absurd as to say, that a Woman has formally the power of an Husband. In former Ages the Kings of England in their Charters to Abbots and Bishops (†)gave them power to Ordain Monks and Clerks: But those Kings ⟨p. 100⟩were not themselves Ecclesiastical Officers, or Ordained Notwithstanding all this Discourse, […] far from approving that which ha's been practised in some Churches, who when Neighbour Elders were present, have improved Brethren to impose hands on their Pastors. I think it were better to have an Ordination with Fasting and Prayer only, without any imposition of hands, (as is practised in many Congregations in England) then to have that unnecessary Ceremony performed by Non-Elders. The Old Doctrine of New England, was, That if the Church where Ordination is to be performed has not Elders of its own, they should desire Neighbour Elders to Assist in the Ordination of their Pastor, and that with Imposition of hands as well as with Fasting and Prayer Most true it is, that we read not in the New-Testament of the Imposition of hands by Non-Elders, because then Elders were not wanting to perform that Service and to make use of Non Elders in this affair when Elders might be obtained is not decent, nor approved of by those great Divines that do not absolutely deny the Lawfulness of such a practice. I shall only add, that Daneus, in his Commentary on 1 Tim 5 22. p. 361.
4. Mr Hookers Judgment, is▪ that Ordination is not an act of Authority out of Order only. And that therefore it may be performed by Non-Officers. As for that Objection which some have thought weighty. viz. That none can give what himself has not, and that therefore men upon whom hands were never imposed cannot impose hands upon others, it is easily Answered, men may give that which they are •ot formally only vertually the Subj•cts of A Nation by chusing a King, give him Legal Power. A City by Chusing a Lord Mayor, make him a Magistrate. A Woman by giving her self in Marriage causeth the man to whom she giveth her self to have the Power of an Husband: but no man will be so absurd as to say, that a Woman has formally the power of an Husband. In former Ag•s the Kings of England in their Charters to Abbats and Bishops (†)gave them power to Ordain Monks and Clerks: But those Kings ⟨p. 100⟩were not themselves Ecc•esi•stical Officers, or O•dained Notwithstanding all this Discourse, 〈…〉 far from approving that which ha's been practised in some Churches, who when Neighbour Elders were present, have improved Brethren to impose hands on their Pastors. I think it were better to have an O•dination with Fasting and Prayer only, without any imposition of hands, (as is practised in many Congregations in England) then to have that unnecessary Ceremony performed by Non-Elders. The Old Doctrine of New England, was, That if the Church where Ordination is to be performed has not Elders of its own, they should desire Neighbour Elders to Assist in the Ordination of their Pastor, and that with Imposition of hands as well as with Fasting and Prayer Most true it is, that we read not in the New-Testament of the Imposition of hands by Non-Elders, because then Elders were not wanting to perform that Service and to make use of Non Elders in this affair when Elders might be obtained is not decent, nor approved of by those great Divines that do not absolutely deny the Lawfulness of such a practice. I shall only add, that Daneus, in his Commentary on 1 Tim 5 22. p. 361.
- (†)v. Malmesbury de G•st. Reg. Angl. L. 2. c. 7▪ 8.
