1 Ch. Gov. 262. * In Han. ii. 330. 3 Serm. at the Ordin. of
Deacons, Works, iii. 312. 4 Han. i. 242, 243. 6 Neal's Puritans,
ii. 8. • lb. 179. 7 Ordin. Serm. of liov. J. Sewall, 6. » Divine
Inst. Cong. Churches, 68. • Page 74. ,0 Pages 78—83. " Pages
90—100.
IMPOSITION OF HANDS, by whom? — Richard
Mather, in his Reply to Rutherford, 1 maintains that,
because the Presbytery laid hands on Timothy, it
does not follow that no others may engage in this
ceremony. Trumbull, in his History of Connecticut,*
informs us that Mr. Fitch was ordained at Saybrook
in 1646 by two lay brethren, though Mr. Hooker,



INDEPENDENCY. 197

his theological instructor, was present ; and that they
did the same in 1660, at the ordination of Mr.
Buckingham, though a council was present. The
council considered it an innovation ', but the brethren
were tenacious of what they esteemed their right,
and it could not be prevented without inconvenience.
The same year, Mr. Newton was installed at Milford
by a ruling elder and two brethren, Isaac Chauncy 3
inquires: "Who should ordain when there is no
elder ? Answer, — Who should do it but the church
that called him? . . . The power is in the church to
lay on hands, if necessary, by some brother delegated
and appointed thereto; for foreign ministers cannot
do an authoritative act in that church." — See Or-
dination by the people.
1 In Han. it. 188. * Pages 299, 303. ' Divine Inst. Cong,
Churches, 70.
IMPROVIDENCE disciplinable. — Mitchell ' says
that this is "an offence against nature, justice, and
religion." He asserts that it is disciplinable, accord-
ing to 1 Tim. v. 8, — See Idleness.
