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.
LONDON, Printed by T. C. for Nathanael Webb, and William Grantham, at the Bear in Paul's Church-yard, neer the little North door of Pauls, 1658.
EIther we have dealt hypocritically with God and man, or elſe the Diviſions in theſe poore Churches have lain upon the hearts of the godly in England as an afflicting evil. The Civil Power have ſeemed to be ſo ſenſible of this evil, that more then once it hath been numbred amongst the cauſes in their Orders for our Solemn and Publike Humiliations; if our Faſt-days, Prayers, Sermons, Books, &c. may be believed, then the breaches in our Churches have broken our comforts. For my part I have cauſe to take ſhame, and to ask pardon of God that this ſin which hath wrought ſo much evil, and brought ſuch diſhonour to Chriſt, have no more affected me; it is for them whoſe hearts are moſt divided from ſelf, and united to God, to be indeed affected and afflicted with Diviſions in the Church. I look on it as an act of a grown Chriſtian, whoſe Intereſt in Chriſt is well cleared, and his heart walking cloſe with God, to be really taken up with the publike Intereſt of Chriſt. I will not meaſure other mens hearts by my own, but I muſt ſay for my ſelf, the good Lord pardon my hypocriſie in this point, for to be affected as become Chriſtians for Diviſions among Chriſtians, I find it a hard matter, whatever words ſeem to affirm.
Could I joy in my ſelf, I ſhould be glad that I lived to ſee the day when the Lord put it into two or three of your hearts to try what might be done for the healing of our breaches, and thereupon to call ſome of your Brethren together to ſee if we could agree ſo far that we might Aſſociate together, as ſome of our Brethren in other Countries have done: and let me leave this upon record, ſo long as this poor Script ſhall laſt, for the honour of the Presbyterial Brethren, as they were the firſt movers for peace, ſo they have bidden fair for peace; had our Congregational Brethren [whoſe perſons, gifts, and graces I deſire to honour and love] been but anſwerable, we might have had cauſe to have joyned together in praiſes for our healing, as we have had, and ſtill have cauſe to mourn for our breaches.
It is not to be forgotten how the good hand of God went along with us; for though we were men of different principles who were choſen to draw up the agreement, and we met neer twenty times before we could finiſh, yet no unbrotherly claſhing was heard amongst us; but ſo ſoon as we ſaw each others principles to be fixed, preſently we were called off from Diſputing, and the next words were, Come, let us ſee how we can Accommodate; let the bleſſing of Matth. 5.9. fall upon ſuch hearts.
Were it true that uniting with our Brethren in this Aſſociation, were a dividing of our hearts from God, as one of our Congregational Brethren did intimate in a Sermon of his upon Hoſ. 10.2. then I wonder not though he ſo ſoon deſerted us, and that others ſtand off from us. For this he ſaid was one note of the heart divided from God, when the heart did not fully come up to God: and under this head brought in ſuch who did faſhion and mould themſelves in State and Church according to the Mode of the Times, though contrary to their own principles and light, croſs to [or laying by] the Inſtitutions of Chriſt, when as the Text ſaith, Jer. 15.19. If thou ſeparate the precious from the vile, &c. our Brothers aim was underſtood by divers in the Congregation, and unto him I ſhall return this anſwer.
If he means I have gone contrary to my own principles and light, he is miſtaken extreamly. If he meant he and other Congregational men muſt do ſo if they Aſſociate, how can this poſſibly be, when it was one of our foundations we laid for agreement, and it was profeſſed again and again, that we went not about to take any man off from his Principles? I wiſh our Brother had inſtanced what Inſtitution of Chriſt we croſſed or laid by.
For the Scripture he alledged, let us ſee how this ſuits our caſe; the Presbyterial Brethren do not indeed ſeparate as do he and others, but doth he therefore upon this Text ſtand off? I finde five ſeveral expoſitions of the words, and very few who take the word Precious for to relate to Perſons. But I will give my Brother that ſenſe, Let it be meant of Perſons,The Arabick word which the Tranſlator render Honeſtus Golius renders generoſus, nobilis. And the other (Dalilon) abjectus, vllis contemptus. as Piſcator thinks it moſt proper, becauſe〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉alibi de perſona tantùm dicitur. And ſo the Interlineary gloſs. Now the queſtion is, 1. Who are meant by Precious? 2. How Jeremiah was to ſeparate theſe Precious from the Vile.
For the firſt, thoſe who do Interpret it of Perſons do all underſtand real Saints; and here ſtanding ſo in oppoſition to others it muſt needs be meant ſo. Obj. If he will ſay, that doth not follow; for all Iſrael were called holy, and that in as high a word as precious. I anſwer, The Lord ſpeaks of theſe who were called holy, and yet here commands the ſeparation of the Precious from the Vile; therefore it muſt be meant of real Saints. I could ſay more but ſpare.
2. For the ſecond, How did he ſeparate, either by Doctrine, or Diſcipline. Not by Diſcipline [which muſt ſerve my Brothers purpoſe.] For
Firſt, To ſeparate real Saints from vile by Diſcipline is a hard work indeed, and ſuch a task as the Lord never put his Miniſters to; who knew mens hearts? then the Congregational Brethren muſt look to it that all their members are real Saints.
1. But if my Brother ſaith, by precious real Saints are not meant but viſible, though not ſo really. [Beſides that all were called holy.] This my Brother muſt prove, and then tell us what he means by a viſible Saint. But however ſeparation by Diſcipline cannot be meant. For
2. Jeremiah then had a ſtrange task, for he had no particular Church as we; and for him to ſeparate all viſible Saints from the vile in the Jewiſh Church by Diſcipline were a ſtrange and impoſſible work.
3. Jeremiah a ſingle Prieſt could not do it; as all that know the Jewiſh governments will confeſs.
4. But put caſe it were ſo, yet this hinders not his Aſſociating with our Brethren, who deſire him but to Aſſociate, where they do ſeparate the precious from the vile by Diſcipline.
Since then this ſeparation was Doctrinal, as all Divines upon the Text acknowledge, then whether the Prebyterial Brethren [very many of them at leaſt] do not ſeparate as well as himſelf, I deſire my Brother to conſider. For the laſt words which he alſo uſed, Let them return to thee, but return not thou unto them. Doth my Brother indeed parallel our Aſſociated Brethren with thoſe who are meant by them? Let the Presbyterial Brethren return to the Congregational, not they to them: I ſhould not have dared to have made ſuch a parallel.
I ſhall only put this Brother in mind what he then ſaid againſt thoſe who dare depart from ſtanding Commandments, and deſire him to conſider whether he never read of a ſtanding (to uſe his own words). Commandment, repeated again and again, that we ſhould follow the things which make for peace, and whether he, with our Brethren who ſtand off, have anſwered that Commandment, ſober Congregational men ſhall judge.
Let me leave with our Brethren a few lines which I received a few weaks ſince from that learned and godly Divine Mr. Norton, [Teacher of the Church in Boſton in N. England] in a Letter to me. The Aſſociation you mention amongſt the Miniſters we much rejoyce in, I never thought it better then human, but oftentimes worſe, that the Presbyterian and Congregational men cannot cloſe together in Brotherly Communion. The power of godlineſs intereſt us in the affections of the godly, above the notions of either of them conſidered apart therefrom. I believe the Congregational way to be the truth: yet I think better of many Presbyterians then of many Congregational men. 'Tis no wonder if Independents are unruly, for I diſtinguiſh between Independents and Congregational men; or rather ſuch [call themſelves as they pleaſe] that will not acknowledge the rule of the Presbytery, and the order of Councils Thus far this reverend and great Divine. I am ſure our Aſſociation reaches no higher then a Council.
As for our Brethren who will not Aſſociate till they ſee the Civil Magiſtrate ſet his ſtamp of Authority upon this way of Aſſociation, whatever the late Inſtrument made by the Parliament allows us, though they ſee Anabaptiſts and Congregational Churches, and other Aſſociated Counties to exerciſe Diſcipline without any ſcruple, though they would quarrel with an Eraſtian Magiſtrate, that ſhould deny any ſuch power to belong to Churches, yea, though ſome of theſe can ſuſpend from the Lord's Supper whom they pleaſe, we muſt leave theſe to their own wiſedom, and deſire them to convince the Magiſtrate ſo that he may be able to ſee clearly that the government of the Church is either Epiſcopal, Claſſical, or Congregational, and ſo ſtabliſh one; or if the Magiſtrate be not ſo clear in either, but yet willing to favour any of theſe, the perſons being godly and peaceable, [as he doth] then let theſe Brethren conſider whether the want of Church-Diſcipline be a fault to be charged moſt upon the Magiſtrate or upon themſelves.
To return to you then [Fathers and Brethren] in a few words. Hitherto God hath brought us; the worke we have engaged in is to moſt [if not all of us] new, and ſuch a work as many of thoſe who have been exerciſed in it, have ſo often miſcarried in, that the Ordinance of Diſcipline hath ſuffered much diſhonour: and that which adds to the difficulty, we ſet to it in ſuch times wherein the Miniſtry is ſo much reviled by Sectaries, and as to this work much contemned by the Gentry, and our Epiſcopal Divines; one of which [and whom I honour] ſaid to me, That we were no more fit to manage the government of the Church of England then David Saul's Armour. We boaſt not of our fitneſs, but for the government of the Church by ſuch Biſhops [though I highly reverence ſome of them] they have no ſuch cauſe to boaſt, as witneſs the Churches they have left us miſerably overgrown with ignorance and profanneſs; had we ſo many hundreds [or thouſands] of pounds per annum, ſuch honour and regal power to ſtick to us as had they, I hope the Churches might be governed as well as they were before, and be purged a little from that ignorance and profaneneſs which now we find them in.
But we muſt go to our work without Saul's Armour. I am ſenſible how much wiſedom and prudence this work calls for; all my comfort is, Chriſt of God is made to us wiſedom, &c. 1 Cor. 1. I take care for nothing but for Faith, Humility, and Prayer, to fetch this wiſedom from our King and Head, and leave the ſucceſs to him who did inſtitute this Ordinance.
Mr. Giles Firmin. Viz. 1. Stabliſhing againſt Shaking, being a diſcovery of the Quakers.
2. The Power of the Civil Magiſtrate in matters of Religion vindicated, and the extent of it determined. By Mr. Stephen Marſhall, publiſhed by his own Copy ſince his death, with notes upon it.
SEveral definitions of Schiſm both ancient and modern the Doctor recites, none of which give him content. Auſtin [he ſaith] ſuited his definition directly to the cauſe he had in hand againſt the Donatiſts: for the reſt they do not ſatisfie him; then offers his definition, being the definition which agrees with Scripture, to which he appeals, and eſteems this appeal to be neceſſary and reaſonable. I am of the Doctor's mind, and wiſh we had kept there all this time; for while ſome men made Providence their Bible, others make Antiquity theirs, they have made us by woful experience know the evil effects of walking by ſuch Canons. Providences & antiquity are excellent things to confirm us when they have clear Scriptures ſtand before them as Figures before Cyphers; and if men would redu•e their2 actions and diſputes to this Head, by which one day we ſhal be judged, Rom. 2. [and not by Providences or Antiquity] as we might have ſpared many of our troubles, ſo we might ſooner come to the cloſing up of our breaches, which I perceive is one part of the Doctors aim, but I can hardly believe will ever effect the Cure: For ſuppoſe he can convince men that this ſeparation from Churches is not Schiſm in the preciſe notion [as he often mentions] of Scripture; yet if they apprehend it to be ſomething elſe as bad, and it may be worſe, his book will prove ineffectual to the healing of our wounds.
Thus then he defines Schiſin, p. 51, 52. It is a cauſeleſſe difference or diviſion amongſt the members of any particular Church that meet together, or ought ſo to do, for the worſhip of God and celebration of the ſame numerical ordinances to the diſturbance of the order appointed by Jeſus Chriſt, and contrary to that exerciſe of love in wiſedom and mutual forbearance which is required of them.
Two things I gather from this definition, and the Doctors diſcourſe in his Books.
1. That he confines Schiſm to a particular Church onely.
2. If Diviſions in a particular Church grow ſo high that divers of the members doe cauſeleſly make a Separation from the Church, holding Communion with themſelves apart, that this is not Schiſm in the preciſe notion, however for diſputation-ſake againſt the Romaniſts and the Epiſcopal-men he may yield it to be ſo. The withdrawing from any Church or Society whatever3 upon the plea of its corruption, be it true of falſe, with a mind and reſolution to ſerve God in the due obſervation of Church Inſtitutions, according to that light which men have received, is no where called Schiſm, p. 46, & 77. And Rev. p. 83.
It is not called Schiſm, ergo it is not Schiſm. Will the conſequence hold, if the plea be falſe? What is it called? I pray. Welfare an erroneous conſcience; but ſuppoſe upon a falſe plea ſuch a conſcience ſhould raiſe diviſions in a Church, according to the definition, without ſeparating from the Church; were it Schiſm or not?
I thought by one paſſage in the Doctor's Pre-view, p. 54. I had miſtaken him; for thus he ſpeaks to Mr. C. If he ſuppoſe that I deny that to be Schiſm where there is a ſeparation, and that becauſe there is a ſeparation, as though Schiſm were in its whole nature excluſive of all ſeparation, and loſt its being when ſeparation enſued; he hath taken my mind as rightly as he hath done the whole deſign of my book. But adds withall, Becauſe this is not proved, I ſhall deſire him not to make uſe of it for the future, as though it were ſo. Theſe words I did not obſerve till I had done.
1. If Schiſm in its whole nature will include cauſeleſs ſeparation from a particular Church, and this according to Scripture warrant, then the falſe plea of an erroneous conſcience for cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church, upon pretence of ſerving God in his Inſtitutions, according to its light, muſt be Schiſm whether it4 be called ſo or not, unleſs you can tell us how elſe it is called.
2. Why then doth the Doctor paſs by the definition of Schiſm ſo generally received? for he knows this is the thing which hath given that great offence, ſeparation from true Churches; and that which muſt ſatisfie here muſt be to prove that all this ſeparation is juſt and warrantable by Scripture; and if ſo, I know not who can charge theſe men with Schiſm, nor any thing elſe in ſo ſeparating: ſo that there was no need of departing from the definition generally received, and giving a new one, of which I know no uſe: unleſs, Firſt, To ſhew there can be no Schiſm in the Catholick Church: And ſecondly, To ſhew that Church-Members may be guilty of Schiſm, though they do not ſeparate into parties, and ſo ſhew that our Churches are more guilty of Schiſm then we are aware of, which I believe to be true; but this will bring no honour I doubt to ſome Congregational Churches. Alas, what Schiſms have we known? this is ſo common a thing that a Divine whom I know, [and ſo doth the Doctor] once a high Congregational man, ſuffered much under that name, for whom my principles were not ſtrait enough, [but now he looks on me as erroneous, and too ſtrait, though I am the ſame I was then] being now turned about, and againſt all Congregational Churches, ſaith this of them, they will all break in pieces and come to nothing.
3. Let the Reader be pleaſed to obſerve theſe paſſages in his books, then judge if I miſtake him.
51. In the ſame book where he ſpeaks ſo to Mr. C. who had ſaid there was a ſeparation into parties in the Church of Corinth; this the Doctor ſtifly denies, p. 70. and in p. 62. ſaith, The Schiſm the Apoſtle rebuked conſiſted in Diviſion in it, and not in ſeparation from it. Then in p. 72. What that Schiſm was from which he dehorts them, he declares only in the inſtance of the Church of Corinth; and thence is the meaſure of it to be taken in reference to all dehorted from it.
Hence then we muſt dehort men from diviſions in the Church, as being Schiſm, the meaſure allows it; but we muſt not dehort them from cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church as being Schiſm, becauſe that only inſtance, which is the meaſure, doth not call it Schiſm. If that inſtance be the meaſure, what then doth not punctually agree with it is not Schiſm.
2. In his book of Schiſm, p. 42. To this Q. [If any one now ſhall ſay, will you conclude becauſe this evil mentioned by the Apoſtle is Schiſm, therefore nothing elſe is ſo?] he ſaith, I anſwer, that having before aſſerted this to be the chiefe and only ſeat of the doctrine of Schiſm, I am inclinable ſo to do. This inſtance is the only ſeat of the doctrine of Schiſm; but this inſtance ſpeaketh only of diviſion in the Church, not of ſeparation from it, ſaith he.
3. P. 193. Ib. Take it for a particular Church of Chriſt, I deny that ſeparation from a particular Church, as ſuch, as meerly ſeparation, is Schiſm, or ought to be ſo eſteemed; though perhaps ſuch ſeparation may proceed from Schiſm, and be alſo attended with other evils.
6Who ever ſaid that meer ſeparation, ſeparating all moral conſiderations from it, juſt or unjuſt, was Schiſm? we are ſpeaking of an unjuſt or cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church, is that Schiſm? No, it ſeems.
Before this cauſeleſs ſeparation, there was diviſion moſt likely in the Church, and this is allowed to be Schiſm; this Schiſm at laſt produces ſeparation cauſeleſly, but this ſeparation is not Schiſm, nor muſt be ſo eſteemed, he ſaith. Compare this with his ſpeech to Mr. C.
4. The Doctor ſeems to define the whole nature of Schiſm, It is a cauſeleſs diviſion among members, &c. meeting together for the celebration of the ſame numerical ordinances, &c.
Had he thought there might be ſchiſmatical acts beſides this Act in Corinth. viz. Cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church which was not here, (he ſaith) then his work was only to deſcribe what was this Schiſm the Apoſtle reproves, and ſo ſhould have ſaid, This Schiſm was a cauſeleſs diviſion, &c.
But he defines, Schiſm is, &c. And this agreeth with the Title of his Book, which promiſeth to ſhew us the True nature of Schiſm, [hitherto miſtaken it ſeems by all Divines] and that definition the Doctor only embraceth; and for others he can own them againſt the Romaniſts ex abundanti•but no definition hath given the true nature of it but his. Nor doth the Doctor find fault with other mens definitions, becauſe they miſtooke this particular act of Schiſm in Corinth, [which it may be they never intended, but to give the whole nature7 of the ſin, as Logicians ſhould doe, and the true definition of the ſin will fetch in all particular Acts] but he looks upon them all as not giving the true nature of Schiſm according to the preciſe notion of Scripture.
What then the Doctor means by his words to Mr. Ca. I know not; theſe grounds I have laid down will clear that I am not miſtaken in what I gather from him.
I ſee in his Rev. p. 85. he finds fault with Mr. Ca. becauſe he had ſaid that he delivered himſelf obſcurely. But Mr. Ca. is not the firſt man whom I have heard complain of obſcurity in his book, but divers others; I could ſet down their expreſſions, but forbear. In ſeveral places I obſerve things are not clear, and ſhould have taken ſome things in the ſame ſenſe Mr. Ca. hath done, for which the Doctor blames him. The Doctor then muſt pardon us though poor country-Miniſters are not ſo quick of underſtanding to find out his meaning.
So far then as I underſtand the Doctor, I am not in divers things ſatisfied, and in particular not with his definition, which I doe not look upon as Logical. For, one rule of Definition is this. Definitio ne-ſit anguſtior, neve latior ſuo definito, but the Doctors definition is anguſtior ſuo definito. Therefore not logical.It is anguſtior in two reſpects. 1. It takes not in cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church, which I doubt not may be Schiſm. 2. It takes not in the Schiſm in the Catholick Church. The Doctor ſaith there can be none. Whether there8 can be no Schiſm from the Catholick Church, is a harder queſtion, it would ſeem rather to be Apoſtacie, as ſaith the Doctor; yet I do almoſt think we may ſuppoſe Schiſm to be from the Catholick Church. But that there is Schiſm in the Catholick Church, I doubt not. Now if theſe two can be made good, then the Doctors definition is not logical. Every definition muſt exhaurire totam naturam [ſpecificam ſaltem] ſui definiti, elſe not adequate, nor reciprocal, which muſt be.
1. Then, Cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church may be Schiſm. Why I put in the word, May, I ſhall give the reaſon afterwards.
But it may be the Doctor may ſay,That definition of Schiſm which onely agreeth with Scripture, that, and that onely, is the true definition of Schiſm. But ſuch is mine. Ergo
The Minor [which I ſhall deny] he proves from this inſtance of the Church in Corinth. Where is no mention made of Separation from a Church, there was onely Diviſion in a Church.
The word Onely I put into the propoſition [and the Doctor himſelf ſpeaks as much, Here is the chief and onely ſeat of the doctrine of Schiſm, p. 42.] elſe though I yield ſuch a definition agrees with a particular inſtance, yet it agreeth not with the whole ſpecifical nature of the fin which we are enquiring into, and therefore not logical. Doth every Scripture-inſtance give a full definition of the fin forbidden? The Command ſaith Thou ſhalt not ſteal, in Exod. 922.2. I finde mention made of a thief breaking in, &c. to which Chriſt alludes Mat. 24.43. Suppoſe there were no other inſtance of theft in all the Scripture, ſhall I now goe ſet forth a book about the true nature of theft, and goe to this Inſtance, and there ground my Definition, and ſay, Theft is an illegal and violent breaking into a mans houſe and taking away goods againſt the owners will, and ſay nothing elſe can be Theft in the preciſe notion of Scripture, becauſe the Scripture-inſtance calls nothing elſe theft? This were ſtrange. Is not robbing at Sea theft, though no ſuch inſtance is found in Scripture? That definition given, Furtum eſt ablatio injuſta rei alienae invito domino, will fetch in all theft. It is true, every particular Act of any ſin forbidden hath the ſpecifical nature of that ſin in it: If a man take my goods unjuſtly, whether it be at ſea, or on the high-way, out of my houſe openly or privately, and ſeveral other ways, all theſe have the ſpecifical nature of theft in them, and theft is predicated of them; we doe not make ſeveral definitions of theft becauſe there are ſeveral Acts: Ʋnius rei una tantum eſt definitio. There may be divers degrees of the ſame ſin [as there is of Schiſm] yet gradus non variant ſpeciem. But we do not uſe to goe to particular Acts of any ſin, and out of ſuch an Act fetch the definition of the ſin confining the ſpecifical nature [which is more large] to that individual or ſingular Act.
So here. There is a command given, 1 Cor. 12.25. There muſt be no Schiſm in the body. Now if I would define Schiſm, muſt I goe to a particular10 inſtance, and give a definition of the fi•from that, and ſay this is Schiſm, and nothing elſe, Diviſion in a Church, but no cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church, becauſe there is no inſtance given where ſuch ſeparation is called Schiſm; as if we had particular inſtances in Scripture of all the acts of ſins forbidden in the ten commandements. It is true, that is Schiſm [i. e. the cauſeleffe Diviſion in the Church of Corinth, though they did not ſeparate from it into parties, whether they did or no, I paſſe not] which here the Apoſtle reproves: But is nothing elſe Schiſm? Put caſe the diviſion had riſen ſo high that Cephas and his company had ſeparated from Apollos and his company, and held communion apart by themſelves, had not this been Schiſm? give a reaſon.
Object. Such ſeparation is not called Schiſm? Anſw. It cannot be called ſo unleſſe it were; the Doctor ſays it was not; we cannot expect the Scripture to give names to Acts as done, when they are not done. But ex hypotheſi, I ask the queſtion, if it had been ſo [as it is now common with us] that Cephas had ſeparated cauſeleſly, had it not been Schiſm? Certainly if Racha and thou fool be breaches of the ſixt Command, then if one adde to his word blows and wounds unjuſtly, that man is guilty of killing alſo: So if Cephas and his company will adde Separation to Diviſion, and that unjuſtly, let Cephas pretend what he will, it is Schiſm.
There are divers profeſſors in theſe dayes, have been and would be eſteemed glorious11 ones ſtill, who are ſo ſpiritual that they live above Ordinances [a carnal and wicked ſpirituality] they have their grounds and pleas why they do ſo, but we find no ſuch Inſtance in all the Scripture, of men upon the plea of ſpiritualneſs to live above them. Now to which command ſhall we reduce this ſin, certainly a ſin it is; if I can find a command where the Lord hath inſtituted his external worſhip, and commanded all to attend upon it, thither I reduce it, to the ſecond.
So if men, though godly [for I know not but they have ſin, and the Devil may abuſe them] will cauſeleſly ſeparate, though they think not ſo, but plead this or that, becauſe I find no ſuch Inſtance in the Scripture, that men upon ſuch pleas have ſeparated, yet cauſeleſſe ſeparation is a ſin oppoſite to the Ʋnion commanded; and I think Schiſm and Ʋnion are oppoſite.
If the Doctor then will give me [a poor Countrey-Miniſter] leave, I will humbly propound the way I would take to find out the definition of Schiſm. I ſee it is a ſin, and offen-five to Chriſt, 1 Cor. 12.25. Now what is oppoſite to this, what is the affirmative precept? Ʋnion of the members amongſt themſelves. This is the thing often commanded, the thing Chriſts heart ſeemed to be fixed upon, John 17. when he was leaving the world, and that ſuch Union as thereby the world may know whoſe diſciples we are, as the Dr. p. 54. then I conceive Schiſm may be thus defined,Schiſm defined.Schiſm is the ſolution of that Unity which Chriſt our Head requireth in his Viſible Body.12I am not in this place critical about the words Ʋnion or Ʋnity; the Reader hath my meaning. I think the Dr. will not oppoſe this, for I find him enquiring exactly into the Ʋnion of the Inviſible and Viſible Church, &c. For the Inviſible Church of Chriſt, there can be no Schiſm, ſaith the Doctor; hence I put it not in. It muſt be in his viſible body, there I take in the Catholick Church [which I look on as moſt properly his Body-viſible] and alſo particular Churches. I take this definition to be reciprocal, I do not call to mind any ſchiſmatical Act but it will comprehend it, whether it be Schiſm in a Church, or from a Church; in the Catholick or particular Churches: and yet my ground is Scriptural alſo, though I go not to a particular inſtance.
1. Hence then let us ſee whether cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church be not properly Schiſm. Let us ſee what unity the Lord required of this Church; was it onely that inward love and forbearance [which the Doctor mentions] which by their diviſions the Apoſtle ſaw they had broken? Did he not alſo require that they ſhould, as with reverence towards him, ſo with love one to another mutually and joyntly attend upon their Head in all his holy worſhip and ordiuances, Sacraments, &c. [The Doctors definition ſaith as much, Numerical Ordinances, &c.] If then Cephas and his company had cauſeleſly made the diviſion, and upon this ſeparate from the reſt, and not joyn with them in the Supper [wherein they ſhew themſelves to be One bread, Chap. 10.17. ] and other Ordinances,13 dinances, did they not manifeſtly ſhew a breach of that unity which the Lord required? muſt I not ſay, Cephas, you and your company are highly guilty of Schiſm? let the Reader judge. Thus then ſtands the argument.
If cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church be a ſolution of that unity God requireth in his body, then cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church is Schiſm.
But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, the Conſequent is true. The Conſequence is clear.
2. In caſe theſe who made the Diviſion in Corinth had ſeparated from the other members, the Doctor grants it had been a greater ſin, Rev. p. 68. Since then we muſt not call it Schiſm, let the Doctor give us another Scripture name for that ſin; let him ſet down the oppoſite affirmative precept, and ſee if Union will not be found in it. I doubt he will hardly find another Scripture-name, for I think he will hardly find in all the Bible where godly men, or ſuch as appeared ſo, dared ever to make a cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church. To ſay it is Apoſtacie, no ſtay; I will ſuppoſe thoſe members who thus divide, to be perſons ſound in the main points of faith, in their converſation viſibly godly, ſuch as maintain the Ordinances of God amongſt themſelves [the very caſe of divers of ours] but corprution and errour in this point hath divided Cephas and his company; now here is no Apoſtaſie: And though it be a Church guilty of Schiſm, and ſo far a ſchiſmatical Church, yet a true Church. Hence I ſaid a cauſeleſſe ſeparation, &c may14 be Schiſm, i. e. ſuppoſing they hold to what before I mentioned, elſe it fell from the faith, &c. it had been Apoſtacy, and not properly Schiſm, unleſs you will ſay both. Hence
The conſequence is clear, becauſe it partakes of the nature of no ſin, as of Schiſm: [provided thoſe who ſeparate be ſuch as before I mentioned.]
3. Since the Doctor makes this inſtance the only ſeat of the doctrine of Schiſm, and tieth us up ſo ſtreightly to it, I was thinking whether it would not hence follow that there can be no Schiſm in any Church but onely in ſuch Churches as do exactly anſwer this inſtance; & hence Schiſm muſt be only in ſuch Churches where there are diverſity of Officers, extraordinary gifts, differences about meats, &c. thus I hope moſt Churches are uncapable of Schiſm; and that ſin will hardly be found in our days. It may be he will ſay, by conſequence it will follow where there are cauſeleſs differences, where the form of the ſin is found, there is the ſin of Schiſm, though Churches do not anſwer Corinth.
But what the Doctor ſaith, that the Scripture doth not call cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church Schiſm. So I can ſay, this Scripture inſtance,15 calls that only Schiſm, where ſome were for Cephas, others for Apollos, &c.
But further, let us enquire into the form of the ſin where it is. In the diviſion amongst the members to the diſturbance of the order in the worſhip of God, &c. I wiſh the Doctor had told us how that order was diſturbed; ſome things he doth mention, but whether all the diſorder in the worſhip of God be recorded, I know not; and that which is recorded admits of ſome queſtions to be reſolved before we can clearly underſtand it. As for the diſturbance of the order, I ſuppoſe he doth not make that the form of the ſin of Schiſm, nor part of it; I look on it rather as a conſequent of the Schiſm, therefore not the form; neither do I look on Order and Schiſm properly as contrary, where Ʋnum uni tantum opponitur, they do not cominus inter ſe pugnare per proximas formas. Nor am I certain that there was ever Schiſm where yet ſome diſorder have been found. I cannot tell that there was Schiſm amongſt the Prophets. 1 Cor. 14. but ſome diſorder there was in the exerciſe of their gifts, as it ſhould ſeem by the laſt Verſe, the Apoſtle calls for order.
Eccleſiaſtical union cauſeleſly diſſolved, I take to be the form of Schiſm; this is it by which Schiſm is id quod eſt. If then the Doctor will allow that Schiſm may be in Churches by conſequence, though the cauſes be not ſuch as were in Corinth, northe Churches parallel to Corinth in all things, becauſe there is the form of that ſin which was in Corinth called Schiſm; then if canſeleſs ſeparation from a Church, be Eccleſiaſtical16 union cauſeleſly diſſolved, there muſt needs by conſequence be Schiſm alſo, for poſita forma ponitur formatum.
4. The Doctor tells us the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is not uſed in the Scripture for ſeceſſion, or ſeparation into parties. Diviſion it doth ſignifie, but doth the propriety of the word forbid it to ſignifie Diviſion into parties? in an Eccleſiaſtical ſenſe it is uſed only in this particular example, (he ſaith) therefore it can ſignifie no other. I ſuppoſe the Syriack Tranſlator was not of the Doctor's mind, for he uſeth that word in the 11. ch. 18. & 12. ch. 25. which comes from the ſame root with Peleg. Gen. 10.25. Whence Peleg had his name the text tells us, and I think there was diviſion into many parties: the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in its primitive ſignification will carry a diviſion into parts. Matth. 27.51. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I grant the Septuagint**Other Greek Verſions I have not to ſee. do not uſe the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in 1 Kin. 11.11, 31. yet why the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉might not be tranſlated by〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and ſignifie what〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth, I know not. I conceive〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is of a larger ſignification then〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉but comprehends what〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth. This appears,
1. By the Learned, who as they render〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉by findo, ſcindo, ſo they render〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉findere, ſcindere, qui pannum aut aliquod ejuſmodi continuum dirumpit, &c. Buxt. Schind. Pagn. Merc. hence as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is rendered ſciſſura, ſo the 70. in v. 30, & 31, render〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſciſſurae. So the vulgar render〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉31. Nor doth〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉always ſignifie the rending of a thing into parts [in oppoſition to the Doctor's notion]17 more then〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For among the Phyſitians a rupture in a membrane, the rending of a Muſcle, they call〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though the part be not ſeparated from the body; ſo Gorraeus.
2. Becauſe〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the Old Teſtament is uſed and applied to ſuch things as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the New Teſtament, as to the rending of cloaths here, and in divers other Texts. So is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉John 19.24. Matth. 27.51. Luke 5.36. John 21.11. ſo that though the Hebrews have two other words which the learned render ſcindere, findere, yet none [I conceive] anſwer〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉as this doth.
There may be ſomething in this that the Arabick in the 11. v. uſe that Verb,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whence the Noune in 1 Cor. 12.25. comes. Whence I think we may properly ſay there was a great Schiſm in the Church and Commonwealth of Iſrael, and here was ſeparation with a witneſs.
To ſearch over other Divines to ſee what they had ſaid about Schiſm I thought it in vain, becauſe the Doctor had laid a bar againſt them all, they are all miſtaken, and ſo their authority is worth nothing; but when I had done, two men came into my mind, who were neer to the Doctor's principles, being Congregational men, and therefore had need to look to themſelves in their definition of Schiſm, men of great renown for learning and piety, Dr. Ames, and our Mr. Norton in N. E. in anſwer to the Q. Quid eſt ſchiſma? I find Ames thus anſwers, Schiſma dicitur a ſcindendo, & eſt ſciſſio, ſeparatio, disjunctio, aut diſſolutio Ʋnionis illius quae debet inter Chriſtianos obſervari. I was18 neerer to the Doctor's definition then I was aware of; but then he adds, Quia autem haec ſciſſio maxime perficitur, & apparet in debita Communione Eccleſiaſtica recuſanda, idcirco illa ſeparatio per appropriationem ſingularem, recte vocatur Schiſma; thus he.
Mr. Norton thus, Schiſma eſt illicita ſeparatio a Communione Eccleſiae; ſemper grande malum. I will look no further, theſe are ſufficient.
Now for the Catholick-Church, I am to prove there may be Schiſm in it. For my groundwork I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25. That there ſhould be no Schiſm in the body.
The Antecedent is to be proved. That by the body is meant the Church, the Doctor yields, Schiſ. p. 147. but what Church he ſpeaks of is not evident; the difference he ſpeaks of in the individual perſons of the Church, is not in reſpect of office, power, and Authority, but gifts and graces, and uſefulneſs on that account; thus he. But I had thought that by Apoſtles, Prophets, Teachers, Helps, Governments, v. 28. he had properly ſpoken of office, power, and authority: are gifts and graces meant by theſe words? very ſtrange. But to come to our Text.
If the Church be here meant, then it is either the Church inviſible or viſible. But not the inviſible, that the Chapter clears; and the Doctor ſaith, It's impoſſible Schiſm ſhould be in the inviſible Church.
19If viſible, then either the Catholick, or a particular Church; but not a particular: Ergo
This I grant, that by body in one Text, v. 27. a particular Church is mentioned, becauſe the Apoſtle applies what he had been ſpeaking of before to this particular Church, being a ſimilar part of the Church-Catholick, as our Mr. Norton, and other Divines in the definition of a particular Church; [though ſome Phyſitians make different definitions, as we reſpect the matter or form of a ſimilar part, yet I content my ſelf with that definition which is commonly given.] What duties are enjoyned the Catholick-Church, or what ſins are forbidden, theſe concern every particular Church; for Chriſt giveth his Laws to the Catholick-Church primarily, no particular Church hath a ſpecial law given to it as ſuch: whence well may the Apoſtle apply his ſpeech to this particular Church; but that the Apoſtle was not diſcourſing of a particular Church, in viewing over the Chapter theſe arguments perſwade me.
1. It is ſuch a body into which we are all baptized, v. 13. but are we baptized into a particular Church? is that the one body the Apoſtle means? Let the Doctor ſpeak, Rev. p. 134. I am ſo far from confining Baptiſm ſubjectively to a particular Congregation, that I do not believe that any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized. As much he ſeems to intimate, Schiſ. p. 133. in his anſwer to this queſtion, wherein conſiſts the unity of the Catholick-Church? 20A. It is ſummoned up in Eph. 4.5. one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm. It is the unity of the doctrine of faith which men profeſs, in ſubjection to one Lord, Jeſus Chriſt, being initiated into that profeſſion [and ſo that body] by Baptiſm.
2. It is ſuch a body as with its head makes up Chriſt, v. 12. But if one particular Church related to its head be Chriſt, what are all the other? how many Chriſts ſhall we have? For my part I conceive, as all true believers make up but one ſpiritual body, to which Chriſt is a ſaving and ſpiritual head; ſo all the particular Churches in the world are but one body viſible, of which Chriſt is the Political Head. Every true believer is ſaid to be married to Chriſt, and of this Church, Paul ſaith, he had eſpouſed them to Chriſt, and are not thouſands more? but we do not read Rev. 22.17. Brides ſay Come; nor of the Lambs wives, ch. 21.9. but the Lambs Bride and Wife: thus the Catholick viſible body is called the Kingdom of Chriſt, not Kingdoms; though by reaſon of the numberleſs number, the Lord bids one Paſtour, feed you my flock there, and another, feed you my flock there, &c. yet but one flock, one body; theſe meetings of this great body being in a manner accidental to the Church-Catholick, by reaſon of the numeroſity of its members, for could we conceive that all the members of this Church could meet in one place, and partake of the ſame numerical ordinances orderly, this meeting in ſeveral places ſhould ceaſe.
213. It is ſuch a body as hath Apoſtles ſet in it, v. 28. but though the Apoſtles were officers to this particular Church, yet not to this only, but to the Catholick.
4. It is ſuch a body that the members of it ſuffer together, and rejoyce together, v. 26. but this mutual rejoycing and ſympathy, is not confined to the members of that particular Church, I hope? the ſame ſpecifical care, though not the ſame gradual care, I think ſuch a diſtinction may help to underſtand the 25. v. for I conceive there is ſome neerer tie to my own members in particular, as to my own family, and yet to have no care of other members of another Church, though I ſee them in danger of ſin, or require of me the diſpenſing of an rdinance, (regularly) &c. I think this is not right. Then 27. v. what I have ſaid of the great body, I ſay to you who are a ſimilar part of this great body, and ſo called the body of Chriſt, Do ye take heed there be no Schiſm amongſt you.
Thus that parallel Text, Rom. 12.4, 5. ſeems to be meant not of the particular Church of Rome, but the Catholick; many members, but one body.
When I can ſee better reaſons given me to prove he is diſcourſing of a particular Church, I ſhall yield to them.
Q. But how can Schiſm be in the Catholick-Church viſible? this muſt be enquired into, though I fail in the opening of it, yet what I have ſaid to the Text before will ſave me.
22A. I muſt premiſe ſome things, then come to the anſwer. The Doctor p. 133. Schiſ. ſpeaking of the Catholick-Church, ſaith, The ſaving doctrine of ſalvation by Jeſus Chriſt, and obedience through him to God, as profeſſed by them, is the bond of that union whereby they are made one body. But [under favour] I conceive the Doctor hath expreſſed only that bond which is between the body and the head; but are there no ligaments whereby the joynts of this great body are knit to each other? ſurely if a body, there are ſuch; the Apoſtle Eph. 4.16. I think ſpeaks of a bond among the members; and by the 11. v. he ſeems to me to ſpeak of the Catholick-Church-viſible, from whom the whole body fitly joyned together, and compacted by that which every joynt ſupplieth, according to the effectual working in the meaſure of every part maketh increaſe of the body unto the edifying of it ſelf in love. Upon which words Zanchy thus, Concludere vult Apoſtolus quod initio propoſuerat, fovendam eſſe unitatem hujus corporis myſtici per vinculum pacis: Ratio, quia ita ſe habet hoc corpus, ut niſi quis per fidem vivam amoriſque plenam cum Chriſto conjunctus, & per fraternam caritatem cum fratribus totaque eccleſia congruenter coagmentatus permàneat, is non poſſit a Chriſto vel vitam vel alimentum & incrementum accipere. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chryſoſt. Maſculus thus, Dilectio conglutinat membra Chriſti; and a little before Nihil igitur hic loci eſt ſeparatis ac divulſis, quales quales tandem eſſe videantur. With theſe agree Beza. 23Charity is the knitting of the limbs together. Faith and Love uſe to be joyned together; if the Apoſtle doth expreſs it as the bond, ſurely we may call it ſo; and thus we have the body united to the head, and each member one to another.
To the preſervation of this union [ſaith the Doctor] it is required that all thoſe grand and neceſſary truths of the Goſpel, without the knowledge where of no man can be ſaved by Jeſus Chriſt, be ſo far believed, as to be outwardly and viſibly profeſſed, in that variety of ways wherein they are, or may be called out thereunto, p. 134. To which I add; and unto the preſervation of that bond of union among the members, it's required that all ſuch Acts which do externally declare this bond of love whereby theſe members are joyned together, as ſuch a body, ought carefully and Chriſtianly to be performed, when we are regularly called thereunto; this bond of Love ſo much commanded and prayed for by our Head, being not confined to a particular Church, but extended to the whole Catholick Church his body, by which men ſhew whoſe Diſciples they are.
Hence then as all ſuch errors which ſubvert thoſe grand and neceſſary Truths, being received and believed, do diſſolve the bond of union between the head and the members, and declare men to be Apoſtates; So all ſuch Acts as do openly manifeſt the cauſeleſs breach of Love, by which the members are united each to other, do declare ſuch perſons guilty of Schiſm. Apoſtaſie [as I conceive] properly24 reſpecting the Head, but Schiſm the Body. Now in reference to this I lay down theſe Concluſions.
1. The members of this great Body in attending upon thoſe ordinances of worſhip inſtituted by their Head, eſpecially the two Sacraments, doe declare that faith in their Head which they profeſſe. Open Baptiſm, we finde nothing there but Chriſt; open the Lords Supper, we have nothing there but Chriſt our Head, and the grand and neceſſary Truths which concerne our ſalvation: As the Martyrs ſealed up their Confeſſions by their blood, we doe, as it were, ſeal up our Profeſſion in partaking of our Lords blood.
2. The members of the Church in partaking of the Sacraments doe profeſſedly declare that Union which they have among themſelues by love, as ſuch a body. It is one reaſon why the Lords Supper is called a Communion, and it is one of the ends of the Sacrament, Ʋnio fidelium inter ſe, as Divines doe unanimouſly acknowledge upon that, 1 Cor. 10.17. Fractio panis eſt unitatis & dilectionis Symbolum, ſaith Pareus. Much might be here ſpoken. I know there are other wayes by which Chriſtians manifeſt their love, and ſo did Heathens in ſuch manner as now is ſcarcely found amongſt Chriſtians; but for the manifeſtation of their love to each other as ſuch a body, there is no way that I know of, nor no ordinance in which they do ſo declare it as in this ordinance, wherein they, though many, are one bread, 1 Cor. 10.17.
3. The Sacraments were not given to a particular25 Church primarily, but to his Catholick-Body the Lord gave them; and ſo are the external pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body. That the Sacraments come to be adminiſtred in ſeveral particular ſocieties, I gave the reaſon before, ſeeming rather to be accidental to the Catholick Church, by reaſon of the numeroſity of its members. That body which the bread ſignifies in the Supper is but one body, and the members of the Catholick body make but one bread. Jeſus Chriſt with his body make one Chriſt, 1 Cor. 12.12. The Sacraments doe ſhew our union with our Head Chriſt primarily, and the union of the members amongſt themſelves. I know a perſon who had received wrong from another who lived 40. miles diſtant: this wrong cauſed a diviſion between this perſon and the other, upon which this perſon durſt not venture to the Supper, but kept off till reconciliation was made, knowing what the Supper did call for, then came to me and joyned in the ordinance; I knew not the reaſon of this perſon's holding off ſo long before. If the Sacraments were pledges only of that Love or Communion which is between the members of a particular Church, what needed the conſcience of this perſon to have been troubled, ſince the other perſon had no relation to our Church. This was one bred up in the Epiſcopal way, but it were well if others made ſo much conſcience as this perſon did in this reſpect.
4. Hence then that Church which ſhall deny to the members of other Churches [qualified26 as the Doctor requires Catholick members to be, and walking orderly in their particular Churches] occaſionally deſiring communion with the Church, fellowſhip with them in the Sacraments, becauſe they are not of their judgments as to Congregational, Claſſical, or Epiſcopal principles, and will hold fellowſhip onely with thoſe who are of their principles, I charge that Church with Schiſm in reſpect of the Catholick Church, by this Act declaring a breach of that bond of union which Chriſt requires in his Church.
Object. But we may love them, and ſhew our love in other wayes, though we doe not this way.
Anſw. So doe the Heathen ſhew love to Heathen, and ſo doe we to Heathen, though we will not admit them to communion in a Church-ordinance; but that Symbol of your loue to him or them as Chriſtians, as members of ſuch a body having union with your Head, and union with you alſo who are of the ſame body making up one Chriſt, 1 Cor. 12. you deny. And whereas one while you dare not deny them to be viſible members of Chriſt, being qualified according to the rules for Catholick members, and having all the Ordinances and Officers of Chriſt according to their light in their particular Churches; yet now as much as in you lies you declare them to have no union with the Head, nor to be parts of the Catholick Body, neither the members refuſed, nor conſequently the Churches to which they belong being of the ſame judgment. So that while you talk of Love, I ſay as the Apoſtle, Shew me thy27 faith by thy works; ſo ſhew me your Eccleſiaſtical love by Church-fellowſhip. To this opinion of mine Doctor Ames in the place before quoted agreeth fully. Haec ſciſſio maxime perficitur & apparet in debita communione Eccleſiaſtica recuſanda, &c.
Thus I conceive Congregational, Claſſical, or Epiſcopal Churches may be guilty of Schiſm, and cauſe Schiſm in the Catholick-Church-Viſible.
As for that Doctrine, That an Officer of a particular Church muſt adminiſter an Ordinance to none but his own members. This is confuted in the practice of all Churches that I know of, and I ſuppoſe will not be defended.
To this I add: Suppoſe there be divers members of ſeveral particular Churches, who are very zealous for Propheſying, and they muſt have their liberty to propheſie, whether they have abilities or not; the Churches conceive that the gift of Propheſying, being extraordinary, is ceaſed, therefore will allow no ſuch liberty. Theſe are ſo ſet for their Propheſying, that they make Diviſions in the Churches, and at laſt ſeparate from them all, and make up one Church by themſelves; they are qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members; they have all the ordinances and officers of Chriſt among them; whence I cannot deny but here is a Church, but yet they refuſe communion with all other Churches in the world, unleſs of their opinion, neither give nor take, though deſired; and there are no other Churches in the world28 of their opinion or practice. Now this Church I cannot charge with Apoſtaſie from the Head, but with ſeparation from the Catholick Church, and ſo is guilty of Schiſm. If it be ſaid this Church is a part of the Catholick Church, how then ſeparate from it? It's true, elſe it were not Schiſm, but Apoſtaſie; but as it ſeparates from all other Churches cauſeleſly, in that ſenſe I ſpeak.
Hitherto of the Doctors Definition. As for his Deſign to free All the Congregational Churches from the imputation of Schiſm, though we ſuppoſe Schiſm to be a cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church, I had rather wave that then goe about to prove the contrary, and that partly becauſe of the honour which I bear to many of theſe brethren; partly becauſe I know not the practices of all Congregational Churches: I cannot be of Mr. Ca. mind, if by the title of his book [as I find it quoted by the Doctor, for I never ſaw Mr. Cawdrey] Independencie is great Schiſm, he means that congregational principles will neceſſarily conclude a man a Schiſmatick. Certainly from the principles as our Divines in New-England hold them forth, ſuch a neceſſity of Schiſm will not be forced; but whether all in England can quit themſelves I doubt it. What ſome may think of me who find me in Mr. Edwards gang amongſt the Independents, and now read this, I know not. Poſſibly they wil ſay either Mr. Edwards wrote what was falſe, or that I am changed from my principles [as ſome have ſaid] but I aſſure the Reader, I am not gone back, nor advanced one ſtep29 in theſe controverſies, from what I ever manifeſted in thoſe times when thoſe letters were ſent to Mr. Edwards.
I intend not to follow the Dr. in all that he hath written, but to come to the point preſently. In p. 263. the Dr. tells us He dare boldly ſay, the holy Ghoſt hath commanded a Schiſm from a congregation that is not reformed, will not, nor cannot reform it ſelf. with p. 262. 1 Tim. 6.5. 2 Tim. 3.5. Hoſ. 4.12. If the Dr. apply theſe Texts to our ſeparations which ſome congregational Churches make, I queſtion whether they will carry the thing he produces them for. But to be ſhort: I will not ſay the Holy Ghoſt commands Schiſm, but Separation in ſome caſes he doth; therein I agree with the Doctor, and accordingly practice [different from my brethren] but it is onely within my own congregation, denying to admit thoſe who are, as Mr. Vines calls the generality of the people in this Land, Bruits for their knowledge, and beaſts for their lives, and ſo will be unto the ſeals of the covenant of grace. Sacram. p. 152.So I have made a ſeparation in the congregation, but not from the congregation. Had I read that the Apoſtles had ſtood upon the reality of grace in their admiſſion into Church-fellowſhip, I would have been as ſtrict as ſome brethren ſay they are; but becauſe I find it not in their practice, I look on it as mens adding to the Word, and ſo let it alone.
But our queſtion is not whether any Separation, but whether ſuch a Separation be commanded as thus. Here is a Church where are30 many corrupt members, that is true; but withall here are 1. many real and viſible Saints. 2. A Paſtor godly, ſound in doctrine, and able for his work, preaching Chriſt ſoundly. 3. The Ordinances in themſelves clear from humane mixtures. 4. Though here are corrupt members, yet when the Lords Supper is celebrated, they are ſeparated, not admitted, but there is a pure lump. 5. The Church is not puffed up, but rather grieved that there are ſo many corrupt members amongſt them, but according to their light, they being ſo many, know not how to caſt them out, left there by other mens ſins, but bear this evil with complaint and prayer to God for healing.
Yet notwithſtanding a few of theſe Viſible Saints, the minor part be ſure [we obſerve] ſhall make ſeparation, not onely from the corrupt members, but from the major part of the godly and viſible Saints, from that godly Paſtor, having no communion with theſe, no not in the Supper where they are a pure lump; and yet this minor part have not done their part to reform theſe corrupt members. If the Holy Ghoſt hath commanded ſuch a Separation, I pray Doctor quote the texts where we may find it. I fear he will hardly find three texts for ſuch a Separation; yet I know where ſuch Separations are, and of theſe men complain. If he cannot produce Scriptures, he hath ſaid nothing to many of our Separations.
The Dr. I perceive ſpeaks much of original Inſtitution and primitive Conſtitution of Churches; but I ſhall deſire him to ſhew us the Scriptures where the Apoſtles did uſe to goe to ſeveral31 Congregations where indeed were divers corrupt members, but withal many godly, at leaſt viſible Saints, who had walked before with their godly Paſtors in conſtant attendance upon and ſubjection to the Ordinances of Chriſt; and there the Apoſtles did pick out ſome of the beſt of the members, and leaving the Paſtor and others grieved, weakened, and thus did conſtitute Churches: I cannot remember any Scripture which ſhews this was their practice, whence I doubt this kind of conſtitution is not ſo old, but rather had its original ſince 1640. As for Parochial Precincis, I ſhall ſpeak to them hereafter.
Object. But why then doe not theſe godly Paſtors and viſible Saints you ſpeak of, ſeparate the profane and groſſely ignorant from their Congregations, but ſinfully retain them, or at leaſt ſuffer them to abide with them? If they did ſo, they ſhould not be troubled with godly mens ſeparating from them; they ſweep not the Lords houſe.
Anſw. Whether godly men would not ſeparate then I cannot tell: If the Apoſtles rules of admiſſion were ſufficient to guide us, there might be more hopes they would not. But when men ſet up rules themſelves, and all men muſt come to their rules and wayes, they would be as apt to ſeparate from thoſe whom the Apoſtles would admit, I think they would be almoſt as eager for ſeparation as now.
Whether thoſe Paſtors and Saints viſible doe ſinfully ſuffer ſuch in their Churches, and ſo are blame-worthy, I diſpute not; but as to the32 preſent ſtate of theſe Churches left ſuch by the negligence & ſin of thoſe who uſurped the power over them, whence ſome will ſcarce own them for Churches, and others plead ſo much for ſeparation from them, ſomething may be fairly offered, which may plead for them. True it is, men of great grace, great gifts, great purſes, great courage, great favour with great men, having the chiefeſt perſons in a Town on their ſides [which laſt was my advantage in this ſmall village] may doe more towards the reformation of their particular congregations, then other men can doe who are not ſo advantaged. Magiſterial and Curſt Divines, who being aloft every way, conſider not the tentations of men below them, are not ſuch honourable men with me as ſome others are. Thoſe men who have lien in pickle in the brine of varieties of tentations twenty years, have known by experience the evils of debts, poverty joyned to great family-charges, low gifts, deſperate workings of ſpiritual and fleſhly corruptions, ſenſe of guilt; theſe are the men who ſhall write practical books for me; theſe, I doubt not, will write low, and ſpeak low; theſe will feel their brethrens temptations. But to the point.
1. Theſe men doe ſeparate at the Lords Supper, and there allow them no communion. This is attained with much difficulty in our dayes; we know they contend much for it.
2. The moſt they doe is, they admit their children to Baptiſm, which conſidered in themſelves are not profane; and were Baptiſm adminiſtred by that latitude which the Apoſtles33 did adminiſter it, I doubt not but many may be admitted to it.
Now in that this is all the priviledge they have, more then theſe men who ſeparate will allow them, the queſtion is, whether there be nothing conſiderable to ſway men to this practice.
1. It is a queſtion diſputable, whether the immediate Parents onely can give title; whether the Grandfather, or Grandmother, being in covenant, may not help to give title to a grandchild. Upon this account divers adminiſter Baptiſm.
2. There is a queſtion, whether if others under the covenant will undertake the education of ſuch children, may they not be baptized? [as our Mr. Norton conceives they may.]
3. There are eminent Divines who maintain, that though the Parents be excommunicated, yet the child of ſuch ought to be baptized, Zanch. Perkins, and divers whom I could name. Now if this be true, then though all theſe were excommunicated, which is the moſt thoſe who ſeparate can deſire, yet their children ſhould be baptized, which is all the priviledge theſe men have though not excommunicated, and which thoſe who ſeparate can ſtumble at. For the reſt of the Ordinances we admit Indians to, I hope they will not deny them admiſſion to thoſe.
I omit that great queſtion, whether Baptiſm be not a Regenerating Ordinance, which divers Learned men abroad and at home doe maintain, and have Scriptures which ſpeak very fairly34 for them, ſo much, as I can ſcarcely be ſatisfied with the anſwers our Divines have given to thoſe texts they bring.
Now though I have not ſo much light to carry me in any of theſe opinions, and convince me fully of their truth; yet I ſee ſo much argument for them, that I am very tender towards thoſe who goe upon theſe grounds, whatever arguments I have againſt them which carry me another way; and were I a private member of one of thoſe Churches where there were ſo many thoſe viſible Saints, an able godly Paſtor, and the Supper kept as I ſaid, I ſhould not dare to ſeparate from it as others doe.
I might adde to this how ſome Miniſters, though they doe baptize, yet they deal roundly firſt with the Parents, and ſo as ſome will come no more at them for Baptiſm. And one, an Epiſcopal Divine of eminent note, hath refuſed to adminiſter Baptiſm to the children of ſuch parents as he found ſottiſhly ignorant, but ſent them back firſt to learn the principles of Religion, and aſſent to them.
So that had theſe who ſeparate ſtuck cloſe to their Miniſters, and encouraged them in thus dealing with thoſe ſcandalous perſons in private, they might have done more towards reformation then now they have done.
3. There were divers corrupt members in Corinth, and their children baptized; for ought I know a fault might be in the Officers, and better part, but no command to ſeparate from the Officers.
4. Should all the godly Miniſters in England35 ſeparate, as theſe men would have us, and goe by their rules in admiſſion of Church-members, I queſtion whether there would be a godly Miniſter left in England, the common people would not bear it. And verily for godly Miniſters to ſuffer death in things ſo diſputable, wherein holy men and Martyrs before did walk without any ſcruple, having ſo much probability from Scripture [as that argument of Circumciſion, with the reſt before mentioned] but yet more, to ſuffer for rules which themſelves made, & not the Apoſtles, this is a hard chapter; thoſe who are ſo free of their lives may take their courſe. I will bleſſe the Lord if he ſhall pleaſe to aſſiſt me with grace to lay down my life for him [if he ſhall call me to it] in things where I am confident I know his mind, and the Scriptures are ſo clear that I need not doubt, and in the mean time thank God I meet with ſuch as will bear with me in things wherein I differ from them of leſſe concernment, arguments caſting me on that ſide, but not without great ſcruples on the other ſide. I hear great words from ſome of theſe, they will not practice any thing but what they are ready to lay down their lives for. I dare not ſpeak ſuch great words.
5. Theſe men who thus ſeparate, when as yet there is nothing but the baptizing of their Infants they can object againſt, yet allow in their Churches, and think we are bound to allow ſuch who deny all Infant-Baptiſm, and will call the Anabaptiſtical Churches true Churches. Theſe who caſt off all the Infant-poſterity of36 Abraham from Church-memberſhip: theſe men muſt be admitted to the Supper, and what not: the others are debarred from the Supper, but their Infants baptized, which of theſe two is the worſt I wonder? for my part I would rather baptize the child of a wicked man, profeſſing Chriſt in words, then not baptize the child of a godly man; more reaſon and Scripture may be alledged for it. Whence me thinks the Doctor, being ſuch a ſtrong Champion for Toleration, may allow unto the Presbyterial Brethren ſome benefit of his opinion: for Toleration is Malorum, and if this be evil, I preſume he looks on the Anabaptiſtical opinion as evil alſo; and if this muſt be tolerated in Churches, and doth not weaken the purity of the Church, why the other ſhould not have ſome allowance I know not.
I know no underſtanding man that is againſt Toleration ſimply, he that will allow none is not fit to live in theſe times; but how far we are bound to Tolerate, is a hard queſtion.
To conclude,Reſpon. ad Apol. 168. I ſhall only ſee what our Mr. Norton, a man who in ſome caſes allows ſeparation from a true Church, and one that in the Congregational way is Theologus cum primis nobilis, to that queſtion how is ſeceſſion to be made from a true Church? anſwers thus.
1. Not without due vſe of all means to remove the impurities. I am ſure amongſt thoſe means this is one, for theſe to bear witneſs againſt the ſcandalous members, and labour in their places to get them removed regularly; thoſe then who never deal with any of theſe in a37 Church-way, who will not bear witneſs againſt them to the Elderſhip, but when their Paſtor have asked them, Will you prove againſt theſe. &c. anſwer, No, not they. Theſe uſe means well, yet ſuch ſeparate.
Alſo how ſome of the Congregational Miniſters, who have had their hands in theſe ſeparations, have uſed all means, when as they never went to the Miniſters; when they encouraged the people in their ſeparation to ſpeak with them, I know not. I have heard two Miniſters of note complain of this unkind dealing.
2. Not preſently, but they muſt uſe prudence, patience, and long-ſuffering. Thoſe Miniſters and Churches who have found theſe in thoſe who ſeparated from them, may teſtifie for them if they can.
3. Without condemning of the Ch••ch, but acknowledging it from whence this ſeceſſion is made. It were well if we could get ſo much from many of theſe, to acknowledge any to be true Churches but ſuch as are in their gathered [as they call it] way.
4. Communion ſtill continued with ſuch a Church in things lawful. [Separation from the Lutheran**Yet Calovius in his anſwer to Jo. Crocius, tells us we differ from them in ten Articles, and above thirty Controverſies. p. 33. Churches he will not allow, though we ought not to communicate with them in the Supper.]
But our men, 1. will not communicate with the Church from which they have ſeparated at the Lords Supper where the doctrine is ſound, and the perſons admitted as pure as any Congregational Church that I know of.
2. No, nor will ſome of them ſo much as38 hear the officer from whom they have ſeparated, though ſound and godly, but rather ſet up a Tradeſman to propheſie in the abſence of their own Miniſter, and before they had a Miniſter, exerciſe their gifts amongſt themſelves, rather then hear their former Miniſter.
Certainly if ſome Congregational Churches in England be not guilty of Schiſm, there was never any Schiſm in this world.
Thus I have given my reaſons why I am not ſatisfied with all which the Doctor hath delivered concerning Schiſm, though with a great part of it I am abundantly; men of more learning then I am may give more, only this I I may and do add: it is a trouble to me that I have cauſe in any point to appear croſs to the Doctor, with whom I have had ſo much inward familiarity, whom I have ſo entirely loved and honoured, and do ſtill both honour and love.
I took it for granted that our Congregational brethren did look on the Parochial Congregations where they came, and have gathered Churches as true Churches before they came there, and ſo did not lay new foundations, or gather Churches where there were none before, only the Congregations being over-grown with perſons groſly ignorant and ſcandalous for want of Catechizing and Diſcipline, they did ſegregate ſuch perſons from Church-Communion, till they got ſo much as might declare them to be viſible Saints. But one of theſe Miniſters tell me I am miſtaken: if I be, then I underſtand not our brethren all this while, nor do I know when I ſhall: for my part I have ever profeſſed, I looked on the Parochial Congregations as a true Church before I came to it, though over-grown [as before I ſaid:] Thoſe who were here and elected me to be their officer, I look on my ſelf as having ſufficient authority over them by their election; thoſe who have come into Town ſince, I do require their owning of me for their officer [knowing that government here is founded upon conſent] and ſubjection to all ordinances, if they demand the ordinances of me; ſo far I go along with our brethren. That many Parochial40 Congregations are true Churches, I doubt not, though the Presbyterial brethren have not proceeded ſo far as others have done, and therefore the Congregational Brethren may ſafely have communion with them. Some things let me premiſe, and then I will give one argument or two.
1. The want of ſome ordinances in a Church deſtroys not the truth of the Church. Then there can be no homogeneal Church; our brethren I hope will not allow the Fraternity being deſtitute of officers to baptize, &c. but yet a homogeneal Church they maintain; much might be ſpoken here, but I forbear. Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline which ſome alledge, as being wanting in theſe Parochial Churches, do not therefore deny them to be true Churches, [which yet in part they had, for ſuſpenſion it is well known.] The Rod is not of the eſſence of the family, though the children may do ill where it is wanting. Feaſt of Tabernacles, Neh. 8.17. was long wanting.
2. An officer uſurping power in a Church, doth not deſtroy the truth of the Church. Diotrephes took more then was due. The Biſhops were but Miniſters, and did miniſterial work, if they took more power then the Lord gave them, yet that doth not hinder the truth of the Churches. What ſhall be ſaid then to the Biſhops in the primitve Churches; I wiſh I had as much zeal and love to Chriſt as they had.
3. Though many members be corrupt in doctrine and manners, yet they do not take away the truth of a Church. Corinth had too41 many of theſe, and the officers might be faulty in tolerating of them, but yet a true Church; and I hardly think that Paul would have refuſed communion with the Church. I doubt not but other Churches alſo had bad members. The Churches which lived under Heatheniſh perſecution were true Churches; yet there are foul ſcandalous ſins reported of ſome of the members.
4. Reality of grace, though deſireable, O very deſireable, yet is not abſolutely requiſite to the making of a viſible Church; though I think it is hard to find ſuch a Church, yet I know not but according to the rules we muſt go by in admitting of Church-members, there may be a true viſible Church where there is not one real true Saint. Dare any Congregational Miniſter avouch the true grace of all the members of his Church? will any Church excommunicate a perſon for want of true grace? Did the Apoſtles when they admitted members ſearch narrowly for the truth of grace?
5. I had almoſt ſaid, It is as great a fault to keep out viſible repenting believers willing to ſubject to all ordinances, as it is to tolerate wicked perſons in a Church. If the Presbyterial brethren are guilty of the latter, the Congregational are guilty of the former. I think it as great a faultto ſin againſt the lenity of Chriſt, as againſt the ſeverity of Chriſt. It is true, theſe wicked ones are a diſhonour to Chriſt, leaven to the lump, [but yet ſuſpended from the Lord's Supper] and they have not that means applied which might help to their ſouls ſalvation; but it is42 that which theſe Miniſters would gladly reach if they could, they alledge the words of the Apoſtle, their authority is for edification, not deſtruction. On the other ſide, to keep out thoſe who viſibly appear like Chriſtians, when men have power to take in, is to hinder theſe from being levened with true grace, a great offence to the godly, diſcouragement of ſouls, and Magiſterially to ſet up Rules which the Lord never appointed. Who blame Biſhops for ſetting up their poſts by God's poſts? I know the word viſible Believer is a contentious word, but I underſtand one plainly thus; Here is one that hath a competent knowledg of thoſe grounds which are eſſential to ſalvation, and believes them. His eſtate by nature he underſtandeth, and profeſſeth he believeth in the Lord Jeſus for life and ſalvation; his converſation doth not confute his profeſſion; worſhips God in his family, and ſubjects to all Chriſt's Ordinances; [for the private conferences of Chriſtians and private faſtings, which ſometimes they have, though this were deſireable to have them frequent them, yet theſe [in ſuch a manner] being free-will offerings, I dare not tie up men to theſe, or elſe debar them] if he hath been ſcandalous, he declareth his repentance, cordially ſo far as charity can judge, and proves it by ſome time, would the Apoſtles have debarred ſuch a perſon from the Church? but [I ſpeak what I know] perſons who go thus far, and further, cannot yet be admitted to Church-fellowſhip.
Some would have us go to Rev. 21.15. and43 Rev. 11.2. to ſee the rules for Churches. What they have drawn from hence I know not; I have beſtowed ſo much pains in reading of men upon the Revelation, and find ſo little content in all that I read [great Hooker of N.E. would ſay, he would never forfeit his credit in undertaking thoſe Scriptures where he could not make Demonſtration] that now I regard nothing which is ſaid upon it. One Text which I obſerved as I was reading through it in my courſe, gave me more ſettlement then all I had read. But alas good men, do they carry us to their Symbolical Divinity to prove what they would have? this will not prevail with judicious men. I think the Apoſtolical practices muſt be our Reed to meaſure by; if you have precepts given where the qualification of perſons admitable to Church-fellowſhip are ſet down higher then I have ſet them down, I would be thankful if any one would ſhew me them. As for Rev. 21. I confeſs there is a golden Text, but I think they draw a leaden argument from it to our Church-fellowſhip. The fift Monarchy dreams have not as yet infatuated us; that time is not yet come.
6. Parochial bounding of Churches doth not detract from the truth of Churches; it doth not hinder the purity, much leſs the entity of a Church.
Vicinity of members is requiſite for mutual inſpection, convenient meeting for celebration of ordinances, but it adds nothing to the eſſence of a Church; particular Churches muſt be bounded ſomewhere.
44When the Law enjoyned men to keep their own pariſh Churches, it was but to prevent diſorder, that people ſhould be bound to attend ordinarily at that place, and not run up and down where they liſted. If the Miniſter were godly the Law helped him, and it is likely that this hath turned as well to the good of that people, which elſe would not have ſo attended upon that Miniſtery which was powerful and ſearching; if the Miniſter were ungodly, it was but the denying of ſome outward accommodation in that pariſh, and ſo remove to a godly Miniſter. By vertue of the Law then every one did implicitely chooſe that Miniſter to be his where he came, which as I ſaid, was as well for the good as the hurt of people; if men had no mind to the Miniſter, they might chooſe whither they would go into that Pariſh or not: thoſe who were godly in the Pariſh, and had a good Miniſter, they were not offended at the Law: whence this Parochial bounding ſhould be looked upon as ſuch an Antichriſtian buſineſs I cannot imagine.
The chiefeſt inconveniency is by reaſon of the building of the place for Aſſembling in divers places upon the skirts of Towns; yet in N. E. perſons who live at farms three miles or more from the place of their Aſſembling in their own pariſh, go conſtantly to that place, when as they might joyn to another Church much neerer in another Town.
But let us ſee what we ſhall do when Pariſh bounds are broken down: Vicinity is requiſite, this is agreed upon by all, how then ſhall45 we agree upon Vicinity? what will this Church call Vicinity? I doubt if there be a rich perſon who would joyn, and the Officer with members have a mind to him, they will ſtretch vicinity very largely to fetch him in. Some of our brethren oppoſe Parochial boundings, becauſe they are ſo great, I doubt our brethren will not bring their Vicinity into a narrower compaſs; nay, we ſee how far they go for members: ſhould we go about to alter Pariſhes, I think few would be pleaſed in the manner of doing it, nor will agree upon Vicinity: wherefore I think we had better bear with ſome inconveniences, then while we ſeek to mend them create worſe.
7. In reducing of Churches to purity the Miniſter cannot do it alone; he muſt know the members impurity, it muſt be proved to him by witneſſes; let Churches be gathered, or whatever you call them, this muſt be done before perſons can be excommunicated. But how do theſe members who find fault with Miniſters do this? One who came to his Miniſter and was very urgent to have him thus ſeclude wicked perſons from the Sacraments, when the Miniſter asked him whether he would come and bear witneſs againſt them, anſwered, ſo he might leave himſelf not worth a groat; but yet could ſeparate from his Miniſter: is this right? Theſe things premiſed, now to an Argument.
Arg. 1. Where there are the eſſential cauſes of a Church [matter and form] there is a true Church.
But in many Parochial Congregations of46 England, there are the eſſential cauſes of a Church.
Ergo many Parochial congregations in England are true Churches.
The Major deny who can. Poſitis cauſis eſſentialibus ponitur effectus. For the Minor, I prove that thus.
Where there are perſons ſound in the faith, and viſibly conformable to the rules of the Goſpel in their practice, there is the matter of a Church.
Where theſe perſons doe conſent together to worſhip God in all his ordinances [Mr. Burroughs ſaith, all the ordinances ſo far as they know] with Officers duely qualified, and for ſubſtance orderly called, there is the form of a Church.
But thus it is in many Parochial congregations in England.
For the matter I ſuppoſe we will not deny it, there are ſuch for viſible appearance as true as thoſe that are in congregational Churches. If it be asked, How many Pariſhes are there that have ſuch perſons, ſufficient in number to make a Church? That is none of my queſtion to anſwer; but this I can ſay according to our brethrens practice, who make eight [or fewer] to be ſufficient to the firſt founding of a Church; there will be divers Pariſhes found to have that number without queſtion.
For the form, I have put in enough; the covenanting or conſenting, our brethren make the form: But I have put in the Officer, and ſo make it an Organical Church.
47For the Officer, if the quarrel be with his qualification, I think none dare deny but for perſonal graces, and Miniſterial abilities, there are abundance ſuch Miniſters in ſeveral Pariſhes.
For their call, elected by the people, and ordained by a Presbyterie very ſolemnly. If the Epiſcopal ordination be queſtioned, I have anſwered to it before [as alſo in my Book againſt the Separation] however I think there is as much cauſe to queſtion their ordination who are ordained by the people when Elders were preſent, or with others, onely praying after election, as there is to queſtion Ordination by a Biſhop and his Clergy. But what doe our brethren cavilling againſt that, when they have Election, which is the eſſence of the call, as themſelves affirm? I think God hath witneſſed for them that they were true Miniſters, in going forth with them, and giving ſuch ſucceſſe to their Miniſtry, as I think our congregational brethren have not found ſince they came to queſtion and caſt off Epiſcopal Ordination [if any doe ſo.] I doubt if the congregational Miniſters had no more members of their Churches then they have converted ſince they have ſo much cried down Pariſhes and Epiſcopal Ordination, they would have very thin Churches. I doe not think the Lord did it therefore, becauſe of their Epiſcopal Ordination; yet I think the Lords appearing ſo much in thoſe days over now he doth in converting-work, ſhould teach us much tenderneſs in theſe dayes, and not to walk ſo highly as ſome doe.
If the objection be about the conſenting, the48 election of the people declare it explicitely, and their conſtant attendance upon ſuch a Miniſter in all the ordinances of God, declares their conſent implicitely. No Congregational Divine makes the form of a Church to conſiſt in the expliciteneſs of a covenant, but affirm that an implicite covenant preſerves the true nature of the Church. So Mr. Hooker Sur. Ch. Diſ. part. 1. pag. 47, 48. So Mr. Norton Reſp. ad Apol. p. 22, 28. So the Synod of New-England, Cap. 4. S. 4.
Arg. 2. If there be as much for ſubſtance in many Parochial congregations as there was in Corinth, to make it a true Church, then many Parochial congregations are true Churches.
But the Antecedent is true; Ergo the Conſequent is true.
The Conſequence is clear; for the Church of Corinth was a true Church I hope. For the Antecedent, 1. It's true, we have not many preaching officers in one Pariſh, as had that Church [which I conceive did not all meet in the ſame place for Church-worſhip, but in divers.] 2. Nor have we extraordinary Prophets, as were in that Church [though our brethren ſtrangely make thoſe a proof for their private members Propheſying [as they call it] yea and are ſo highly carried in their notions, that if their Paſtor be abſent, though there be another Miniſter preach in the Town, they will not go to hear him, but a Tradeſman muſt Propheſie [what this implies who ſeeth not] if a Paſtor be dead, and the people goe to another congregation, the Paſtor whereof is of their own principles,49 theſe have been charged by one of our Eſſex Independent Miniſters with irregular walking, for not ſtaying at home and Propheſying [a ſin certainly againſt the eleventh commandement.] 3. Nor have we other extraordinary gifts, as that Church had. 4. Nor have we men ordained by the Apoſtles. 5. Nor called by the Apoſtles; for if theſe things doe weaken my argument, then they doe as well cut off the congregational Churches to be true Churches.
But if the Church of Corinth had perſons called by the Word, ſome whereof were real Saints, and ſome onely viſible; ſo have we. If they had perſons Officers, who held out the faith of the Goſpel in their teaching ſoundly; ſo have we, as ſound as they did or could doe, if not ſounder, ſuch as build not hay nor ſtubble, &c. If they had the Ordinances of Chriſt; ſo have we. If they conſented to worſhip God, &c. ſo doe ours. Theſe are the Eſſentials of that Church. The Eſſence is perpetually the ſame, but Ʋnaquaequeres vera dicitur a ſua naturâ & eſſentiâ. If we have corrupt and erroneous members, ſo had they: Ours debarr'd, ſuſpended from the Lords Table [a great part of Church-diſcipline] but that their corrupt members were ſo, I think will not eaſily be proved; a great fault in the Officers, who it ſeemes did not regard diſcipline ſcarce at all, 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. & 13.2. Paul threatens, that he will not ſpare. Our Churches come to this by the oppreſſion of the Hierarchy, the Miniſters elſe would have exerciſed Diſcipline; but thoſe had50 none to overtop them, and yet were negligent. How to get their Churches purer the Miniſtry find it hard; to excommunicate a multitude our congregational brethren ſay, no; to ſeparate from the reſt our claſſical brethren are not clear, they quote the Text, 2 Cor. 10.8. Their authority is given for edification, not deſtruction. They muſt doe what they can by degrees, which they are reſolved upon, and deſerve to be encouraged by all.
More Arguments I could give [as from the nullity of all the Ordinances which elſe muſt follow. Alſo, I wonder whether our congregational Miniſters were converted in Parochial, or congregational Churches.] But I forbear.
Hence then that congregational brethren may aſſociate with the claſſical, to me there is no queſtion, though my practice is ſomething different from the claſſical brethren; yet what they allow is ſo candid, that I am rather thankful to them that they are ſo willing to aſſociate with me.
That we way hold communion with a Church ſo far as we are intangled in no ſin, I think was never denied; but ſo may we with the claſſical brethren: For what though they baptize all, and all of them do not [though ſome do, and more endeavour it] bring their people to an explicite engagement; yet they deſire us not to have communion with all their members, but with their compleat members, i. e. thoſe whom they admit to all Ordinances; and I am ſure thoſe, according to the rules drawn up, would have gone for good Church-members in the Apoſtles51 days, and, I think, ſhould now; ſo that we are called to aſſociate onely with thoſe who are as good members as our own.
As for their Baptizing of the Infants of ſuch whom they debar from the Lords table; though their arguments doe not convince men [no not good Mr. Blake, that man who now I hear is with God; if he had, I would have poofeſſed it to the world. I doe more admire to ſee what anſwers ſo learned a man gives; but that I have profeſſed in my Epiſtle to the Reader that I would meddle no more with the queſtion, I find it very eaſie to take off [at leaſt in my apprehenſion] what he hath ſaid, had but he caſt the major propoſition in p. 97. thus [which he knew was my Scope.] Such as for manifeſt unworthineſs de jure ought, and de facto are debarr'd from the Lords Table, &c. To this I have ſpoken before.Then ſee how his anſwer from Infants takes me off; but I ſhall adde no more. Now though he hath not ſatisfied me] yet I look on the Arguments as more valid to prove the Infants of thoſe ſcandalous perſons ſhould be baptized, then are their arguments who caſt out the Infants of repenting and believing parents from Baptiſm and the Church; yet theſe our congregational brethren make no ſcruple to communicate with, and to have ſuch members in their Churches.
Are all the members of congregational Churches ſuch as they ought to be viſibly? I doubt it. Some are as offenſive as many in Parochial Churches. Should we therefore refuſe communion one with another becauſe of52 ſuch? Would Paul have done it at Corinth?
As for taking members out of other Pariſhes, which our brethren ſtand upon ſo ſtiffely, and without which there will be no Aſſociation, this hath been the old breaking principle, and reſolved it ſeems they are to hold it.
In what caſes, and upon what conditions it ſhall be allowed, our claſſical brethren have declared, and I think ſufficiently to give a heart that loves peace, ſatisfaction. For my own part I care not if the thing be yielded; I think I might make as good a ſhift as another, and have had tentations ſtrong this way: but I did never yet take up ſuch a practice, not out of any conſcience to the Pariſh bounds, but becauſe I have to be that unworthy principle which hath chiefly kindled the fire in this poor Church. Should I have done it, becauſe I looked on my way more pure then my neighbour-Miniſters? I knew the impurity of my own heart, and looked on my Neighbour-Miniſter as more godly; if I ſhould think more highly of my own parts, I knew my own weakneſſe, and might juſtly fear leſt God ſhould blaſt the little I had. But
1. I hope our brethren doe not think it a ſin for a Miniſter to keep to his own Pariſh, if they doe, let us hear them prove it. I have heard it reported by a very ſerious Chriſtian, that one of our brethren ſhould affirm that Chriſtians were bound to come out of their Parochial wayes, and to joyn in Church-fellowſhip after the congregating manner, elſe they did partake of the mark of the Beaſt. I write it as well as I can remember it, but becauſe I heard it not with my own ears,53 firſt I doe not ſo fully believe the truth of it; yet there are good reaſons why I ſhould believe it: I had ſomething to ſay, but at preſent let it alone.
2. I am ſure Paul ſaid, All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient, 1 Cor. 6.12. Is not this a rule for us? grant the thing to be lawful, that is, it might be done without any breach of Gods Law [though not commanded to doe it] yet I am ſure it is not expedient for us to doe it, becauſe we ſee it is that which hath broken and doth break the peace of our Churches; but the peace of Churches ought to be very precious to us. If we be commanded to follow peace with all men, then I hope to follow after, and endeavour the peace of the Churches, is a duty of great weight.
But this is looked upon as the Miniſters weakneſs, that this ſhould break peace.
1. Be it ſo that it is their weakneſſe, then let others ſhew their ſtrength in bearing with their weakneſſe, ſince they have no command to take people from other good Miniſters. Thoſe who are ſtrong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.
2. But I doubt there is ſtrong reaſon for this weakneſſe. For 1. This grieves the heart of a godly brother, to have thoſe in whom lies his chiefeſt comfort taken from him; if you take away my comfort, there is reaſon why I ſhould be grieved: would you not have a godly perſon to be a comfort to the Miniſter?
2. It weakens the hands of that good Miniſter in endeavours to reform. Who will ſtand54 by him if the godly be gone from him? Thoſe commonly who are taken out of other Pariſhes are not of the pooreſt ſort.
3. When a place hath wanted a Miniſter, it hath been a cauſe of ſuch diſcouragement to godly Miniſters, that a godly man will not readily come into ſuch a Pariſh, becauſe the congregational men have taken out the good people, or ſome of them, it may be the chief out of the Pariſh, and ſo the Pariſh lie deſtitute of a Miniſter a long time, and at laſt muſt get ſuch as they can; and thus the ſouls of others are endangered. As for their returning of ſuch to that Miniſter in caſe he will come, we know their judgment by their practiſes. When Pariſhes have had good Miniſters, this hath helped to remove them. That practice then which ſo diſcourageth good Miniſters, as it cauſeth their removal, and hinders others from coming into place, I doe not look at this as a light matter, but a practice intolerable in the Churches. Though this be not ſo bad as is the practice of ſome by me, yet in effect it comes to the ſame. Two ſmall Pariſhes lying ſo as they may eaſily joyn, and would; but thoſe in them who had a ſhew of Religion turn'd to the Separation, whence no godly Miniſter cares for coming among them, but there the people lie year after year, no Miniſter to regard them, no Ordinances: who knowes what God might have done for the ſouls of ſome of them, had the profeſſing party held cloſe, and encouraged a godly Miniſter to come amongſt them, whereas now for divers years they have had none, nor are like55 to have. This practice of our brethren comes to the ſame in concluſion, if they thus take away the good people out of other Pariſhes.
4. What weakneſſe ſoever this is in them, I doubt our ſtrong men would not take it well, to have another come and take away their people from them. Something I heard hiſce auribus what one ſaid when a Miniſter would have come into another Pariſh by, and took away ſome of his people. Thoſe who are eminent in parts, and have their people ſure to them, may ſay Let them goe; but what they would doe if the thing ſhould be practiſed, I know not: But however 'tis good to weigh things in the ſcales of reaſon; and if ſo, I think it a juſt matter of grief, and ſo of offence to good Miniſters, againſt their free conſent to take away any of their people. So much for weakneſs.
3. The congregational brethren being leſſe in number by ten, if not twenty parts, compared with the number of other Miniſters, and thoſe godly, one would think it ſhould be a mercy ſufficient that they live in ſuch a Nation as this quietly; having the freedome of their conſciences, let them reform what they can in their own places. The Magiſtrate doth countenance the Miniſters, though of different judgments, and ſo numerous, yet willing to aſſociate, and ſhew brotherly communion. For my part, I look on it as a great mercy [had I a heart to anſwer it] though I doe not goe and fleet the cream of my neighbours congregations becauſe they are not of my judgment.
This is ſpoken in reference to our Aſſociating,56 which if it were but yielded, there were hopes of cloſure: Nor do I ſee any reaſon why our brethren ſhould ſo much ſtand upon it; for I think their gathering of one Church out of divers true Churches is almoſt at an end; for thoſe who have a mind to ſeparate, affect no Churches rather then Congregational Churches.
As for ſuch to whom the brethren have offered the Agreement for peace, and they refuſe to aſſociate with their brethren without any Scriptural reaſon given why they ſo refuſe [a great care having been taken of croſſing of mens principles which were not plainly againſt Scripture, and might ſtand with peace and ſobriety] but rather affect to ſtand alone: if any in their Pariſhes ſhall deſire to joyn with any of the Aſſociated Churches, I know no reaſon why our hands ſhould be ſo bound up that we ſhould not receive them; but others muſt take from us, eſpecially if they be ſuch who have a right to the Lords Supper, but did not, nor will communicate with ſuch a congregation, becauſe they require that of them which the Word doth not, before they will admit them. This I conceive were great bondage, that a Miniſter with three or four men ſhall ſet up a way of admiſſion to the Lords Supper, which all muſt come to; the thing it ſelf may be good, but not required to a Church-ſtate, nor the receiving of the Supper; and that all muſt ſtoop to this, or have no Supper there; and becauſe of Parochial bounds they muſt have it no where elſe. Men may be of different judgments from mine, but that57 ſhall never hinder communion, if they be otherwiſe qualified, and yield but to what is neceſſary to a Church-ſtate, in which men, though of different perſwaſions other wayes, yet all agree, be they Epiſcopal, Claſſical, or Congregational, unleſſe ſome of theſe laſt make an explicite covenant the form of the Church, which I ſee ſome of our brethren do here in England: Elſe what means that paſſage of a brother, But it will by us be expected [ſatis pro imperio] that you leave the brethren and godly (yet ungathered) free who have voluntarily come under no engagement explicitely with your Pariſh ways ſince the fall of Prelacie. I could quote another who carries it more cloſely. Then it ſeems all thoſe Chriſtians who before this walked with their godly Paſtors in conſtant attendance upon, and ſubjection to all Ordinances, muſt now come under an explicite covenant, or what?
For my part, I ſaid before, it was not any conſcience to Pariſh bounds which hath kept me from receiving of perſons from other Pariſhes, but deſire of peace: But if men will refuſe terms of peace ſo drawn up with ſo much tenderneſs, as I think can well be deſired, I ſhall receive thoſe who ſhall deſire to joyn with me, and reſign them up again when there comes a man who will embrace peace with his brethren: I do not look upon our rules binding me further then our Aſſociations.
OUr Brethren in Cumberland [with whom our Brethren in Eſſex agree] conceive That in the exerciſe of Diſcipline,Aſſoc. Cumb. p. 3. it is not only the moſt ſafe courſe, but alſo moſt conducing to brotherly union and ſatisfaction, that particular Churches carry on as much of their work with joynt and mutual aſſiſtance as they can with conveniencie and edification, and as little as may be to ſtand diſtinctly by themſelves, and apart from each other.
This ſome of our congregational brethren look upon, as cutting off congregational liberty by the middle. But I conceive not ſo, they put in the words Conveniencie and Edification; nor is their intent [ſo far as I apprehend] to null the power of particular Churches, but onely to be aſſiſtant to each other in the wiſe managing of ſo great an Ordinance: and Bleſſed be God [ſay I.] that ſuch Aſſiſtance may be had.
That Church-Diſcipline is an Inſtitution of Chriſt, I doe not at all queſtion. That the cutting off a member from a Church is a thing of great weight, I do not alſo queſtion. [Chirurgeons, though able, when they come to the Amputation of a natural member, love to call in all the help they can.] And as certain I am that through the abuſe and ill maniging of this Solemn Ordinance, it hath almoſt loſt its glory. This hath not been the fault of the Pope and the Hierarchy; but I wiſh I could ſay that ſome59 congregational Churches had not expoſed it to contempt through their indiſcreet carriages in this Ordinance; I know of more then two or three of theſe Churches in which this fault will be found. In Ipſwich in N. E. where thoſe two worthy men Mr. Nathaniel Rogers [Paſtor] and Mr. Norton [Teacher] had the managing of this Ordinance, they carried on the work with ſo much prudence and long-ſuffering [the cauſe did permit it] before they came to the execution of it, and with ſo much Majeſty and Terrour when they came to the Sentence, that the hearts of all the members [I think] were ſtruck with fear, and many eyes could not but let drop tears; the Ordinance had ſomething of the majeſty of the Ordainer in it. If we could carry on this Ordinance thus, we might recover the glory of it.
What particular Churches may do when no Aſſiſtance can be had, is one thing; what they ought to doe when it may be had, is another. Doctor Ames is a man who favours particular Churches enough, yet ſaith,Medul. C. 39. S. 27. Eccleſiae tamen particulares, ut earum communio poſtulat, naturae lumen, & aequitas regularum, & exemplorum Scripturae docent, poſſunt, ac ſaepiſſimè etiam debent Confaederationem, aut Conſociationem mutuam inter ſe inire, in Claſſibus & Synodis, ut communi conſenſu & ſubſidio mutuo utantur, quantum commodè fieri poteſt, in iis praeſertim quae ſunt majoris momenti, &c.
Furthermore, becauſe the brethren ſtand ſo much upon the power of particular Churches, I deſire [as I have divers years profeſſed my diſſatisfaction60 ſatisfaction in this point] they would pleaſe to clear it from the N. T. where they find ſuch particular Churches as ours are in theſe ſmall Villages, conſiſting of one Paſtor, and a few members, being ſo near to other Churches as ours are, and might unite if they would; yet that ſuch particular Churches kept themſelves diſtinct, and exerciſed all power within themſelves, without any dependance upon, or conſociation with other Churches. If Scriptureexamples be any thing to us, I think they will not prove it. I could never yet underſtand the reaſon of this conſequence. The Churches in Jeruſalem, in Rome, in Corinth, in Epheſus, &c. were independent for the execution of their power; Ergo, every particular Church in a ſmall Village with one Paſtor, and a few members, is independent for the execution of all Church-power.
I pray let us conſider whether it will not more anſwer the Scripture-patterns, to have divers of our ſmaller Villages to unite, and make up but One Church, though every Miniſter continue in his ſtation, taking care eſpecially [though not onely] of thoſe who live within his own Pariſh, and to preach to theſe, adminiſter Sacraments, exhort, rebuke, &c. as he findeth cauſe. But yet as to the exerciſe of all Churchpower, they are but One Church. I dare ſay it will come neerer to the Scripture, then doth the practice of the Churches as now they ſtand. Our brethren yield the Church at Jeruſalem to be but One Church; but that this Church met alwaies for all Ordinances in one place, who61 can imagine? Though the Apoſtles went up to the Temple to Preach, yet that was as well for the ſake of others who came to the Temple, and not yet converted; the Apoſtles went to meet with them, they did not goe to meet with the Apoſtles. But we doe not read that they went thither to adminiſter the Lords Supper. Where they could find a room for five thouſand perſons to receive the Supper together, I cannot tell; to throw away ones reaſon in matters of practice is hard: what a long time muſt they be adminiſtring? though others did help, yet they muſt have room to paſſe to and fro to carry the elements, that at laſt we muſt have a vaſt place.
Moſt Divines that I read agree, that by breaking of bread, Acts 2.42. is meant the Lords Supper: I doe not ſee that Beza hath many followers. Why then by breaking of bread, v. 46. ſhould not be meant the Lords Supper alſo, and their eating meat with gladneſs their Lovefeaſts which attended the Supper, I ſee no reaſon, though I know many Divines doe not underſtand it as in 42.
That it is the phraſe whereby the Lords Supper is ſet forth in the New Teſtament, is yielded, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. & Cap. 11. and ſo in the 42. v. of this Chap. Once in Luke 24.30, 35. we find it meant of an ordinary ſupper, the text doth clear it, though ſome Papiſts would draw it to the Sacrament under one element, yet other Papiſts deny it here.
It's true, we find this phraſe once in the Old Teſtament, Iſa. 58.7. to be underſtood of the62 giving of Alms to the poor; but there is difference between theſe phraſes, Breaking bread to the hungry, and this Breaking bread: we doe not find the words to the hungry, or ſuch like, added in the New Teſtament. If this be yielded, then they did break bread Domatim, as Beza.
Corn. a Lap. thus interprets the Text of the Euchariſt, and ſaith that doth not hinder that they did break Domatim, quia creſcoute numero fidelium, per varias domos eos diſtribuere, in iiſque Euchariſtiam celebrare oportebat. In this ſenſe alſo Chemnitius takes the words,Exam. Conc. Trid. p. 95. not troubling himſelf with that queſtion, an ad veritatem Euchariſtiae requiratur peculiaris qualitas loci? He draws his anſwer from the example of Chriſt and the Apoſtles: Nec Apoſtoli peculiares habuerunt Baſilicas; ſed ſicut perſeverabant in doctrina Apoſtolorum, & oratione, quando in privatis domibus colligebantur, ita etiam per domos frangebant panem. Although Lormus be againſt this interpretation himſelf [his reaſon inſufficient;] yet he acknowledges Antoninus to underſtand it of the Lords Supper, qui ait eſſe communem opinionem; ſo Gagneius, Baronius, Boderianus, &c. as Lorinus quotes. Thus I doubt not but it was in Rome, Epheſus, and Corinth, where were many Officers, and much people, Acts 18.10. They met in ſeveral places for Preaching and Sacraments; yet theſe were but one Church. That Text 1 Cor. 14.34. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. ſeems to carry it fairly: There were divers of theſe Aſſemblies in Corinth which he calls Churches;63 and yet in another ſenſe it is the Church of Corinth. As for the words〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, how Calvin and others interpret them is well known, with whom agree the Arab. Verſion, Acts 2.44. ſo that I ſay no more to them.
Now if theſe did thus meet as before, why may not we as well meet in our ſeveral Pariſhes, and yet be but one Church, and the Miniſters Elders in common to that One Church? ſo may we have divers Elders in One Church, as had theſe Churches. Our Pariſhes lie ſo, that thoſe who dwell in the next Pariſhes are as well known to Miniſters as many of their own; they dwell much neerer to places of Aſſembling for the worſhip of God, then doe many in our own Pariſhes; and for number, we may joyn divers of our Pariſhes together before we ſhall have ſo many compleat members to all Ordinances as were in Jeruſalem, Rome, or Corinth. Such a Church as this I could willingly call (in one ſenſe) an Independent Church. Dr. Owen (a congregational Divine) was once very near this opinion in his Country Eſſay for the practice of Church-government. P. 59.He would have the extreams of the Diviſion not be above 8, or 10 miles, ſo the center not more then 4, or 5 miles from any part of it, &c. though in ſome things we ſhall differ, yet not in what I aim at. For ought I can ſee this would come neereſt to Scripture, and for the benefits of it.
1. If any Miniſter die, here are Miniſters ſtill left in the ſame Church to ordain another in his room [the people electing] and to try him before election.
642. The matters of Juriſdiction are carried on with the counſel and aſſiſtance of divers; where is hoped to be more ſafety, and the Ordinance of Excommunication more ſolemn.
3. If any Miniſter be ſcandalous, here is a way for his Excommunication. Things now may be carried on as they were in thoſe Churches which we finde in the New Teſtament, where there were many Elders; and divers queſtions which have troubled the Churches, about the peoples ordaining of a Miniſter, Excommunication of their Miniſter, &c. avoided. And thus our brethrens trouble about Pariſhbounds is alſo avoided in great part. The greateſt difficulty I find is this, that we are divided about the qualification, of Church-members, which they in Jeruſalem, Corinth, &c. were not. Certainly there were and are common rules for all Churches to goe by, or elſe they could not have agreed more then we. If the Lord had left it to the liberty of every Miniſter to require what qualifications he pleaſed, then confuſion and diviſion muſt neceſſarily have been always in the Church. Is it ſo hard then to find out theſe Rules? Were we to Preach to Heathen, and they underſtanding the doctrines of ſalvation, did profeſſe their aſſents unto thoſe Doctrines, their conſent to take Chriſt for their Saviour and Lord, their ſorrow for and renouncing of their former wicked ways, giving up themſelves to Chriſt, his ways and ordinances, ſurely ſuch as theſe we muſt admit and baptize; if not, give us a Text where the Apoſtles refuſed ſuch. If after Baptiſm they viſibly anſwered65 their profeſſion then made, they were continued members, and had fellowſhip in all Church-priviledges, I think ſo. Let us come thus far, and we ſhall agree for many; thoſe among us who apparently bely the profeſſion made at Baptiſm, let them either be brought to repentance, or ſecluded. [That is my opinion, and I think all would have it ſo, who would reform the Church.]
2. However the congregational brethren, who doe agree in qualifications, and dwell thus neer, may unite into one Church; and ſo may others.
3. Since our brethren who look on all their Pariſhes as Church-members, doe not yet require of us ſo to judge of them, and deſire us onely to Aſſociate with them in giving communion to ſuch as are qualified according as they have ſet down [the qualifications certainly being ſtrict enough for Church-members, if not too ſtrict, if we goe to the rigour of them, ſo as congregational Churches will not anſwer in all points] why may we not unite with them ſo far? Theſe things I propound willing to receive ſome light; but as to what the Claſſical brethren require, it is no more then N. E. Divines doe allow and practice in their Councils. Certainly ſince we know our ſelves to be men ſubject to infirmities, corruptions, tentations, many, if not moſt now unacquainted with the exerciſe of Church-Diſcipline, a weighty Ordinance, the glory of it almoſt loſt, one would think no Chriſtian Miniſter ſhould deſire to ſtand alone, but be moſt willing to take in all66 aſſiſtance he could, and not eſteem it a needleſs troubling of himſelf [as ſay ſome of our brethren] but rather a mercie that he may have help from his neighbouring Miniſters.
If any man will go further with me, and ſay, if you will mould your Churches according to thoſe in the Scripture, and have divers Elders to carry on the Affaires of the Church, why then may we not have one Elder among theſe, who may be a〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſuppoſe a ſtanding Moderator? For in thoſe Churches we find mention made of an Angel in Epheſus and the other Churches, which ſeem to imply as much.
I anſwer. If you doe not make this〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉primus Presbyter, ſtanding Moderator [or what other name you will give him] a diſtinct Scriptural Officer from other Presbyters, giving to him a power diſtinct from and ſuperiour to the power of other Preaching Presbyters, whence he ſhall perform ſome Church-Acts which other preaching Presbyters ſhall not or cannot perform, ſo that it be no diſtinct or ſuperiour power, but onely order which is contended for, I am well content to yield it, being ready to goe with others for peace and unities ſake, till they come to conſtitute Officers which Chriſt never did, then I ſay Hold. But for a ſtanding Moderator, one that Durante vitâ modo bene ſe geſſerit, ſhall keep that place, let him, per me licet. For,
1. In the meetings of Councils there muſt be one who muſt rule and order the affairs at thoſe times; a Preſident, a Moderator muſt be, reaſon leads us to it to avoid confuſion: and this is ſeen in the ſynodical meetings of Congregational Elders.
672. He who is choſen Preſident or Moderator this Seſſion may be the next, and the next; we may chooſe him for one year, or two years, what Scripture text forbids it? why may we not twenty?
3. I am ſo far from thinking it is contrary to Scripture, that I think it comes neereſt to Scripture. [I may declare my opinion with ſubmiſſion to better judgements] for as for the word Angel mentioned in the Epiſtles to the ſeven Churches, though I cannot agree to that which that ever honoured and learned Davenant doth gather from it, namely,Determ. 42. the ſuperiority of the Biſhop above other Presbyters, becauſe here was one in the Church of Epheſus, &c. which〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is called〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For what Iſidore ſaith of created Angels, Angelus eſt nomen officii non naturae, ſemper ſunt ſpiritus ſed cum mittuntur vocantur Angeli, I may apply to this, if all true preaching Miniſters are ſent, as they are, Rom. 10. then they alſo are〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I think our Divines have ſpoken ſufficiently to take off this; yet [with favour] I conceive that Chriſt mentioning an Angel in the ſingular number, and reaſon telling us what muſt be in all orderly Meetings & Councils to avoid confuſion, there being divers Elders in one Church, who had the care, inſpection, and government of it; I conceive thoſe Elders had one who for order ſake was a Preſident, Moderator, [though he had not power above them, as may be proved by other Scriptures] that ordered the tranſactions when they met; nor can I conceive it was ſo,68 for one Seſſion or two, but for his life for ought I can learn, he that can, let him prove the contrary? in that he is taken notice of ſo in a ſpecial manner, it ſhould ſeem he was one that was ſo more then one or two Seſſions.
4. I verily conceive that error [be not offended, I pray, if I call it ſo, for I humbly conceive it to be ſo] which ſo ſoon crept in, of one aſſuming power above other Presbyters, took its firſt riſe upon occaſion of this Order. God's providence ſo ordering it to leave his own Servants to their wiſedom and wills, who freely acting made way at laſt for his Decrees: for if the Preſident or Moderator had ſhifted and changed every Seſſion, I cannot tell which way it was poſſible a Pope ſhould have riſen.
Obj. Therefore away with your ſtanding Moderator, you have ſpoken enough againſt it.
Anſ. Stay, not too faſt; muſt I throw away every thing that may be or is abuſed? occaſio and cauſa differ much. Diotrephes, and ſo other Miniſters may abuſe their power; ſhall then a Miniſter have no power over his people? Tollatur abuſus, maneat uſus.
Obj. But for Miniſters power we have Scripture for it plainly, ſo we have not for a conſtant ſtanding Moderator.
Anſ. By Scripture Authority we make Officers, who have power from Chriſt immediately. I am not diſcourſing of the making of a Church-Officer, and what power ſuch an Officer ſhould have, I diſclaim this; power and order are two things.
692. That Text which before I produced, I know not what fairer Interpretation can be given of it. I can exclude ſuperiority of power by other Scriptures, but why an Interpretation of Scripture which croſſes no other Scripture, nor ſound reaſon, and hath ſuch fair probability from the practiſe of the moſt ancient, ſhould not be admitted [eſpecially when a fairer Interpretation cannot be given [for my part I know none] I know no reaſon.
The moſt that can be objected againſt me is matter of Prudence. But I conceive 1. that which comes neereſt to make peace in the Church, and doth not croſs the Scripture, that is prudence. 2. That which comes neereſt to Scripture Interpretation, having the practice of ſo many ancient holy Men and Martyrs [though I know they went higher] to give light to it, this I call prudence. 3. Time will diſcover which will have moſt prudence in it, whether a Moderator or Preſident changed every Seſſion, or a ſtanding Moderator. I think now we are out of danger of making a Pope, if his time of ruine be ſo neer as ſome think.
Thus I have delivered my thoughts, humbly conceiving that a Church ſo moulded as there may be divers elders in it, and amongſt theſe one choſen for a〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉preſident, [or what you will call him] for order ſake, to abide ſo conſtantly, come neereſt to the plat-form of the Churches in the Scripture; and in this there is ſomething of the Congregational, ſomething of the Claſſical, and ſomething like the Epiſcopal way; ſuch a Church for the exerciſe of its70 power, being independent, as was the Church in Epheſus. But to have one Paſtor, and it may be twelve men to ſtand alone, and to exerciſe all Church-power when they may aſſociate, I deſire to ſee ſuch a Church in Scripture.
ALthough I am far from Valentia's judgment, making Ordination a Sacrament [ſtrictly ſo called;] yet in this I think he ſaith true, when he would have the word Ordination to be taken from the effect of that Ordinance, Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque Ordine certo eccleſiaſticae dignitatis conſtitutiur. Thus ſome are Paſtors, ſome ruling Elders, ſome are Deacons, they are in ſuch an Order in the Church when they are Ordained. This hath been the judgement, and accordingly the practice of the Church for many hundred years; till yeſterday Ordination was made but an Adjunct of a Miniſters call [popular election being made the eſſential cauſe:] and to day Ordination is thrown out; no wonder, for Adjunctum poteſt abeſſe, &c.
71This cloathing of God's things with our Logical notions, (though I know Logick is a general Art) and by them to raiſe one thing above another, one muſt be cried up, the other ſlighted, when both have the ſame Divine ſtamp upon them, I utterly miſlike, and think it too much boldneſs. Hath the Scripture made ſuch compariſon between theſe, as between Ceremonial and Moral worſhip? We blame the Socinians becauſe they adhere not to Divine Teſtimony, but will try all things at the bar of their reaſon, and ſo approve or diſapprove: and are they blameleſs, who when they have Divine Teſtimony and reaſon alſo for two things, yet they will call this but an Adjunct, (when as that Adjunct hath more and clearer Scriptures for to prove it) and the other an eſſential cauſe (which hath fewer Scriptures, and thoſe not ſo clear to ſpeak for it) and ſo neglect the Adjunct? what are theſe notions to our practiſe? to which God's Adjuncts (if you call them ſo) are eſſential.
A few words then for Ordination (my chief aim being at Impoſition of hands in Ordination, and ſo I will make the more haſte over this.)
Q. Whether gifts and popular election be ſufficient to conſtitute a Miniſter without Ordination?
Where, firſt, by a Miniſter I underſtand not one who exerciſeth for the trial of his gifts, before he be ordained; for if Timothy muſt commit the things, &c. to faithful men,2 Tim. 2.2. 1 Tim. 5.22. and ſuch as are able to teach others. If he muſt lay hands on no man ſuddenly, then good proof muſt be had72 of mens lives,Chryſoſt. in loc. and ſo of their abilities. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But by a Miniſter I underſtand one who doth Officially and Authoritatively Preach, adminiſter Sacraments, govern the Church, ordain others, (though the latter ſeems to be a begging of the queſtion.)
2. Neither is the queſtion what may be done in a caſe extraordinary when Ordination cannot be had, this our Divines have ſpoken to ſufficiently;Loc. com. p. 748. Synop. pur. Theol. Diſ. 42. S. 39, 43, 44. I could quote divers, but I will mention only Peter Martyr, who ſhall ſpeak for all the reſt. Quando adhuc extructa non eſt eccleſia, & homines Chriſtianae religionis ignari ſunt, quicunque ibi fortè fortunâ fuerint qui Chriſtum probe norint, illum tenentur annunciare, neque ordinatio eſt expectanda ubi haberi non poteſt: quod eſt intelligendum, ſi omnino ei deſit copia Ordinantium; nam ſi aliquos poſſit accedere qui ſe uſitato more ordinent Manus imponendo, non debet Ordinationem negligere. Then adds a little after, Quae a Deo fiunt extra ordinem, admirari debemus, non ſemper imitari. But this is none of our caſe. Theſe things being premiſſed, I undertake the Negative.
1. Gifts are not ſufficient. A perſon gifted is the material cauſe of a Miniſter, the formal as yet is wanting. Heb. 5.It was ſaid of old, No man taketh this honour to himſelf, but he that is called of God. But if he be gifted he may take it, may he not? No; the Text allows it not. I let the Socinians alone to thoſe who have73 anſwered them: I only add, it was the office not the honour that did look to Chriſt. Our happineſs lies in this, that he is our High Prieſt, performs that office in our behalf, not in the honour that attends the office (at leaſt not primarily.) Chriſt hath his call, Iſa. 42.6. Paul hath his call, Rom. 1.1. A Miniſter muſt be able to ſay he was called to the office. Sur. ch. diſ. p. 3. p. 9. p. 2. p. 42, 45.Reverend Hooker calls it an Anabaptiſtical Frenſy to meddle with the Acts of a Church Officer without a call: and in another place he ſaith, All ſuch Acts are void, and of none effect, though men have gifts.
I know Ames is much againſt the the common Interpretation of that text, Rom. 10.15. upon which I perceive generally our Divines have grounded that Miſſio poteſtativa, which they make the ſubſtance, eſſence, and formal act of Ordination. But Ames ſaith,Bell. ener. To. 2. p. 82. Miſſio nuſquam in Scriptura ſignificat vocationem ordinariam, qua per homines in aliquem derivatur: neque ſua ſignificatione notat actum aliquem hominum vocantium hominem ordinaria ratione vocandum. Supple, a Deo, ſaith Cajetan. I intend not to meddle with what the Doctor hath ſaid (though to me the Apoſtle plainly intimates, there can be no preaching without ſending, but then I would ask, How ſhall I know whether my ſelf or another be ſent of God?) but I will rather examine what the Author of the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉&c. (who makes Ordination not eſſential to the call of a Miniſter) hath commented upon it. The ſending which the Apoſtle means is not a Miniſterial or Eccleſiaſtical ſending, but a providential74 ſending by giving men gifts, and working with them in their uſe and exerciſe. He gives reaſons, of which afterwards.
1. Then it ſeems Eccleſiaſtical ſending is not providential ſending. Hath God no act of providence in the ſending of a Miniſter, when he is ſent by Miniſters? I thought providential ſending (as the more general) had comprehended under it Miniſterial ſending, but this Author oppoſeth them not this but that.
2. I thought God's preſence working with men in the exerciſe of their gifts, let them be ſent providentially or eccleſiaſtially had been a diſtinct thing from his ſending them; that to ſend is one thing, and to work with a perſon ſent is another. So to give gifts is one thing, but to ſend a gifted man another: if not, but gifting be ſending, then Election is as needleſs as Ordination; for why? I am ſent providentially becauſe I am gifted: but that Author is ſtiff for popular Election.
3. But what if God doth not pleaſe to work in the exerciſe of gifts to breed faith? are not therefore ſuch perſons ſent? it muſt not be ſo by this Interpretation. The Prophets of God did little or no good that we read of, yet 2 Chron. 36.15. God ſaith he ſent them: till they found the Lord working they were not fent. It's poſſible they might preach half a year or more before they did convert one; it ſeems all that time they were not ſent becauſe God did not work with their gifts. Iſa. 6. the Prophet had a commiſſion not to breed faith, yet ſent; this will trouble ſome good Miniſters. 75Some mens gifts lie more in building up then in bringing home, are they not therefore ſent?
4. Then it ſeems if God make me an inſtrument to beget faith in any, I muſt not look at it as the fruit of God's ſending me Eccleſiaſtically (as he hath appointed Paſtors and Teachers for the gathering and building up his Church) but only as I was ſent providentially, and ſo have no comfort quatenus an Officer.
5. Doth God's ſending by giving gifts, and Miniſterial ſending oppoſe each other? in one ſenſe indeed he may make gifts and Ordination oppoſites, for they do differre re & ratione: but if he conſider them in their affection to a Miniſter, they are eſſential cauſes conſtituting the ſame effect, the Miniſterial fending following God's gifting.
His Reaſons. 1. Elſe none can be an inſtrument of converſion but a Preacher ſent.
A. The great ſtanding Ordinance which God hath appointed to breed faith inſtrumentally, is the Miniſtry Eccleſiaſtically fent: and I think Eph. 4.11, 12, 13. will prove it; though God hath not tied up himſelf ſo as to uſe no other means, but this is his common way. Fox Mart. Vol. 1 p. 299.Waldus when his neighbour that was walking with him fell down dead, began to live ſpiritually; here was no body ſent providentially with gifts. I have heard of ſome perſons who were adult, that could neither hear nor ſpeak, yet ſo far as in charity we might judge by ſome of their outward geſtures in reference to holy things, they might have76 grace; yet faith ordinarily comes by hearing. I knew a good Chriſtian, in conference with a ſick perſon, another ſtanding by the beds-ſide and hearing the conference, he who was now ſeventy years old began to live; the Chriſtians gifts not fit for a Miniſter; but what then? doth not God ordinarily convert by gifted men? Divers inſtances might be given which would make as much againſt providential ſending by gifts, as Eccleſiaſtical ſending.
2. Reaſon. No man can be ſure whether he hath faith or no, till he be ſure his faith was wrought in him by a Miniſter lawfully called.
A. The former anſwer ſerves here; we tie not men to this; the old man I mentioned before, and Waldus, might upon his grounds as much queſtion the truth of their faith, becauſe not wrought by men providentially ſent with gifts.
I could give another anſwer, but I leave this.
2. As gifts alone are not ſufficient, ſo neither are gifts and popular election ſufficient.
Let theſe men bring forth their Scriptures and ſhew us where theſe two have conſtituted a Miniſter. There are but three Texts brought to prove popular election, and none of them will do it. Not Acts 1. for (beſides divers things which might be ſaid) they did not elect an Apoſtle, when they had nominated two, they could not tell which was the Apoſtle till God choſe. Cartw. Reply, p. 204.The Church choſe no Apoſtle, but only chooſe two, of the which one was taken by the Lord to be an Apoſtle. Cartw. So Calvin Inſt. l. 4. c. 3. ſ. 13.
77Acts 6. will not prove it; there was Ordination beſides election, (though ſome deny here as any officer at all ordained, of which anon.)
Acts 14. I find a Text much inſiſted upon: ſome from hence would gather that a man may be a Miniſter without Ordination, that popular election is ſufficient; which they ground upon the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: others of our Congregationall Brethren here in England, who will allow Ordination as an Adjunct to the call, they find it here in the verſe; which thus they define. Ordination is a recommending a perſon (choſen) to God, by faſting and prayer.
〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉that carries the popular election; then with faſting and prayer they commended them to God; here is Ordination, and that without impoſition of hands. I will examine both theſe heads.
Firſt, for〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉I am confident that thoſe learned Divines, who have made moſt uſe of this word to prove the peoples power to elect their Miniſter, did never think that this popular election did conſtitute a Miniſter without Ordination, when it might be had; their writings prove it. Neither did ever intend to prove and warrant ſuch elections as our people make, namely, that without any dependance upon the judgement and aſſiſtance of godly and learned Divines to help them, to chooſe whom they liſt upon their own heads. Mr. Cartwright hath ſpoken enough, and with heat ſufficient for the peoples priviledge from this word, yet how far he was from78 approving ſuch elections we may conceive by his words to the Rhemiſts. Rhem. 14. Teſt. Act. 22.It may be underſtood how truly you ſpeak, as if we ſo commended the Churches election, as we ſhut out the Biſhops ordination, which we do not only give unto them, but make them alſo the chief and directors in election, (Scripture Biſhops we mean.) And thus in other place. Thus Ames alſo, Med. The. C. 39. Theſ. 31.
If what our ancient Divines have ſaid will not give content, I will come a little neerer.
1. It's certain the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉relates to Paul and Barnabas; thoſe who did〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the 22. v. doe〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the 23. v. elſe we muſt go look for our Grammar, which Luke did and could write ſure enough.
If then the word muſt be reſtrained to election, I am ſure Paul and Barnabas did elect; this the Grammar will force, which is a ſurer rule then a Criticiſm to bring the people in.
2. If〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉muſt relate to the people, then let us ſee what ſenſe we ſhall make of it. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the people chooſing by lifting up their hands,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Elders,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: I think it ſhould rather have been〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſurely they chooſe for themſelves not the Apoſtles, then it would have run more ſmoothly for popular election; but it is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉eſt eligere proprio ſuffragio, non per ſuffragia ab aliis data.
3. It is certain what we call Ordination, the Greeks call〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it is uſed in reference to the conſtitution of an Officer: this is plain enough to him who will read Chryſoſtome,79 who I ſee in all theſe places where Impoſition of hands is uſed in the Text in the Ordination of a Church-Officer in his Comment upon the Text, uſeth always the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See him on Acts 13.3, & 4 where three times he uſes this word. I will name no more but Acts 6.6. upon thoſe words〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thus he ſpeaks. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus I have obſerved Baſil to uſe the word; It's ſtrange theſe Greek Fathers ſhould not underſtand their mother-tongue. Had Chryſoſtom been againſt the peoples Election, I ſhould have ſuſpected ſomething; but I find him contrary. That the word muſt needs imply the peoples Election, Acts 10.41. is well known to oppoſe it.
The Syriack Tranſlation confirms this; for they render the word, Et conſtituerunt. The ſame verb, and in the ſame conjugation which Paul uſeth, 1 Tit. 5. But if it were the peoples〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which did conſtitute Officers, certainly Paul needed not to have left Titus there to doe that, which they could doe without him, and did though he were there; to leave Titus onely to contribute an Adjunct when the people have given the Eſſence, I could never receive this conceit.
The Arabick alſo refers the Act to the Apoſtles, Et deſignarunt eis manibus ſuis in ſingulis Eccleſiis Presbyteros. And by this the Impoſition o•hands is plainly implyed. &c.
80All things conſidered, I do much more queſtion whether any thing can be brought from this word to prove popular Election, then I doe believe popular Election conſtitutes a Miniſter. To have a Miniſter impoſed upon godly people, or a true Viſible Church without their conſent, I look on it as great tyranny. This was not the primitive practice;Ep. ad Cor. p 57. for Clemens ſaith when the Apoſtles, or other〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉[no mention made of the Fraternity doing it] did conſtitute Elders, he adds〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet I do not think that the people elect tanquam ex authoritate,Electio non cogit. they doe eligere, non per jurisdictionem, ſed per ſubjectionem, ſaith Ames. This power the people have, that no man ſhal have power over them unleſſe they conſent to ſubject unto him; but what is this to their having ſo much power over him, as to make him a Miniſter? To be their Miniſter, and to be a Miniſter are two things. If no Authority be put forth in the peoples Election, there is none put forth in Ordination (ſure:) if it be but an Adjunct, certainly the Adjunct ſhould moſt properly belong to them who give the Eſſence, then Miniſters come into Office without any Authoritative Act put forth; faſting and prayer [common to all Chriſtians] which they make Ordination, is no Act of Authority.
It is ſtrange Doctrine to me, that a Miniſter ſhould be a Miniſter onely in that congregation which elected him. Mr Noyes tells us, That the Elders of one Church have power to act in all Churches upon mtreaty;P 48. and yet tells us the81 power of the Keyes is originally and eſſentially in the body of the members, that they give the Keys:p. 10. p. 11. that Election is the Eſſence of the Call; which doctrine I cannot yet receive. I queſtion not but every true Miniſter bears relation to the Church Catholick; were now the Catholick Church reduced to ſix particular Churches, if members came to my congregation out of all thoſe ſix, I would not queſtion to adminiſter the Lords Supper to them all at one time, and this our brethren deny not; but why muſt I perform an official act to them to whom I bear no relation? If I ſhould goe with my people into any one of theſe ſix congregations, then I hope I may adminiſter there alſo; this I ſuppoſe may be allowed; for why may not I as well adminiſter there as in my own place? I hope they will not tye up Churches to places, ſo as the place makes the difference. I know what men argue from the Analogy of a Mayor in a Corporation, which is no proof, but only illuſtration; and if our brethren can find out that Chriſt hath one Catholick Civil Common-wealth which makes up his body, as we can find he hath a Catholick Church which is his body, then the Analogy will have more force. But I muſt break off from this diſcourſe, though I had ſomething more to have ſaid to this.
I doubt not but in ſome caſes a man may be Ordained, and Authoritatively ſent forth to preach the Goſpel and baptize without popular election preceding. What Athanaſius did with Frumentius is well known, and ſo others whom I ſpare to name.
82If this be true,Loc. Com. p. 199. then popular election gives not the Eſſence. Muſculus, though he had pleaded for that priviledge of the people in the Apoſtolical Primitive Churches, yet again ſhews that that cuſtome cannot be profitable to the Churches now; and therefore in their Churches the people did not elect.
So much for the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I know no other Texts that can be brought for popular election. Our brethren doe allow Ordination beſides Election; but whether that be Ordination which they call Ordination, is the queſtion: being I am now upon the Text, and think it is that which they build upon (for I know no other) I will briefly examine, and ſo return to this Text no more.
1. It is true, that when a Miniſter is to be ordained, the Church doth ſolemnly ſeek the Lord by faſting and prayer for his grace and bleſſing upon the perſon to be ordained, which ſhews the weight of the office, and of Ordination to it; but commending here doth not relate to their faſting and prayer, but is diſtinct. Faſting and prayer relates to their Ordination. Cor. a Lap. ſaith, here is a Hiſterologia: Oratio enim & jejunium praemiſſum fuit ordinationi presbyterorum,Intex. ut in. Cap. 13. v. 2, 3. Therefore Luke uſeth the Aoriſt〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. poſtquam oraſſent q.d. cum poſt orationem & jejunium conſtituiſſent eis Presbyteros. Nor is that the main buſineſs of Ordination, to commend a man to God, this Text will not force it, as in the next I ſhall clear. 〈…〉ordinationis proprius eſt collatio proteſtatis docendi & ſacramenta adminiſtrandi,83 ad illum ordinatio per ſe dirigitur,De Miniſ. Eccleſ. p. 182. eundemque perpetuo & infallibiliter conſequitur: ſaith Gerhard, with whom agrees the ſtream of Divines, and the practiſe of the Churches in N. England: For though a man may teach for the trial of his gifts in order to office half a year, a whole year, yet he adminiſters no Sacraments till he be ordained. Sepa. Exa. p. 54, 55.I have ſpoken more to this in my Book againſt the ſeparation.
2. This Text ſerves not our brethrens turns; for if ſo, then All thoſe whom the Apoſtles here commended to God the Apoſtles ordained.
But the Apoſtles did not ordain all thoſe whom they commended to God: ergo, ordination is not a commending, &c.
The major is plain; for Definitio & Definitum reciprocantur. Our brethren will ſay, but the commending of perſons choſen, &c. will be ordination by this Text. No; for the laſt words ſhew whom they commended; The Believing Diſciples. The whole Churches; they commended them to God in whom they had believed. Now believing is not the next cauſe of a perſons being ordained, but they did commend them to God quatenus believers. The method of Ordination is thus, 1. A Believer. 2. A Perſon gifted. 3. A Perſon elected (in conſtituted Churches.) 4. Ordained. Women did believe, and they were commended to God as well as any other. So that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉anſwers to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the verſe; and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉relates to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in v. 22. this being the laſt act of Paul and Barnabas, when they had confirmed and84 exhorted the Diſciples in v. 22. Ordained them Elders in v. 23. they commended them all Paſtors and people to God. I ſee Calvin, Piſcator, Cor. a Lap. agree with me, making no queſtion of this Interpretation, for they paſs it over as granted. And Muſculus ſpeaks my mind clearly, Ergo jejunantes & orantes, quod in coetu fidelium fieri ſolebat, ordinarunt Presbyteros a fidelibus electos (obſerve, he puts a difference between election and ordination in this verſe) & poſt eam ordinationem, commendaverunt eccleſiam Domino & diſceſſerunt.
3. That Text in Acts 20.32. confutes this notion. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Follow〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in this Text to the 2. Aor. voc. med. and we ſhall find〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in Acts 14.23. Now the Apoſtle did not ordain theſe, he calls them Elders and Biſhops before, and ſo they were; but now taking his leave of them, he commended them to God; and ſo he did in Acts 14. departing from the Churches he commended them to God in whom they had believed.
4. I cannot yet be convinced, but that ordination is an act of authoritative power; but commending of a perſon to God in prayer is no act of ſuch power.
5. The Scripture gives us another definition of Ordination, as I ſhall ſhew afterwards, ergo this is not the true definition.
Thus then I have made it clear, that gifts and popular election are not ſufficient to conſtitute a Miniſter, (if the Scripture may be judge) we may make uſe of other civil officers85 to illuſtrate it more. Keck. pol.The Athenian Senators were ſworn, though the people did〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So are our Magiſtrates: take a Conſtable, though the Town hath choſen him to that office, yet if he ſhall act as a Conſtable before he be ſworn, he is a treſpaſſor, and a man may have an Action againſt him for his ſo doing.
There is much reaſon why the popular election ſhould give the eſſence here, but there is no ſuch reaſon why it ſhould to a Miniſter; yet here we find in civil officers more then election before they can act. I pray let us have order in the Church as well.
This being diſpatched, now it will neceſſarily follow that Ordination is neceſſary to the conſtitution of a Miniſter, though I ſhould ſay no more: it is but little I intend to ſay, (or need to ſay) for the reaſon I gave before.
Arg. 1. Firſt, Conformity to the rules of God's houſe in things pertaining to his houſe is neceſſary.
Ordination of Miniſters, Stewards (pertaining to the houſe) is conformity to the rules of the houſe of God: ergo Ordination of Miniſters is neceſſary.
The major, if any deny, they muſt take away the authority of the Scriptures, leave men to their own phantaſies, which no holy man ever dare ſay, ſo that I doubt not but that will ſtand. The minor, if any deny, it muſt be upon one of theſe two grounds. 1. Either denying that we have any poſitive rules, becauſe we have none but examples, which ſhews how Miniſters came in to office. But if thoſe examples of86 Apoſtles commiſſioned by Chriſt to order his houſe, having ſuch a promiſe of his preſence with them, be not rules to us, then we have no rules at all left for officers coming into his houſe, which were ſtrange defect of wiſedom to impute to Chriſt, that he ſhould have a houſe and no order in it; and contrary to the old Church, which had rules exactly for their officers coming in. Nor muſt popular election be ever more pleaded for. Or
2. They muſt deny it, becauſe officers were made without any ordination, which is the thing. I deſire to ſee proved from Scripture. If we obſerve the practiſe of the Apoſtles after they had received the promiſe of the Spirit, and were now fitted and ſent forth to act with that Spirit guiding them, we find that thus they did ſet Deacons in the houſe of God, Acts 6.6.
Obj. But it is objected, That here was no ordination to any office at all; there were perſons before who did this work that we ſuppoſe the Deacons ſhould; theſe men were appointed only for that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, neceſſity, in v. 3. that is, to end that difference which aroſe in v. 1.
1. A. It is true, there were ſome who did diſtribute the goods of the Church to the poor, &c. who thoſe were I think Chap. 4. v. ult. will tell us: They laid the money at the Apoſtles feet. Whence it is clear to me that the Apoſtles had this burden upon them alſo; compare the verſe with chap. 6.2. and this they found a great hinderance to them in their preaching work ſo that both they could not tend; whence by the Spirit they were guided to Inſtitute the87 Deacon. Upon ſearch I find other men of my mind. aaInſt. l. 4. c. 3.9.Calvin. bbExam. Con. Trid. p. 217.Chemnitius. ccIn 4. praec. p. 766.Zanch. with more whom I could mention.
2. The Apoſtles do not ſay v. 2. to leave the word of God & decide differences, but ſerve Tables, which they ſaw hindered them, and one they ſaw they muſt neglect, or perform not well, as we ſee complaint made; whence〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in v. 3. muſt anſwer to that which the Apoſtles could not attend to in v. 2. which was〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
3. As the Church-Members conſiſt of bodies as well as ſouls, which bodies muſt be provided for by others if they have not of their own to uphold them; and ſince God hath given in charge that collections ſhould be made for the poor. Since alſo there are divers things which belong to the worſhip of God, and things about the Church, which muſt have money to buy them, and to anſwer for them; hence it ſtands with right reaſon that an Officer be choſen and authorized to be the Church-Treaſurer, to take in theſe collections and moneys, and by theſe to ſerve the poors Table, the Lord's Table, (I conceive they had their Love-feaſts at that time alſo) and why they ſhould not attend upon the Miniſter at the Adminiſtration of the Lord's Supper I know not. In N. England the Deacons alſo bring in to the Elders Table, they are not troubled as we are here to ſend to every bodies houſe in particular for our due.
4. It is clear by 1 Tim. 3. and Phil. 1.1. there was ſuch an Officer as a Deacon, and that88 diſtinct from the Biſhop. I wonder what was the work of this Deacon being an Officer, not the Biſhops I am ſure, then he ſhould not have been diſtinguiſh'd from the Biſhop; neither are the ſame qualifications in every point required of him that are of the Biſhop. When or where had this Officer his original? I think in this Chapter we may be ſatisfied, but no where elſe that I know of.
Theſe things ſatisfie me, with the judgement of the Church, which conſtantly hath maintained that here were Officers ordained. I know much diſpute there hath been and is whether this Deacon might not preach and baptize: but that is none of my queſtion; if here were the ordination of an Officer it ſerves my turn. When I had done, caſting my eye accidentally upon Bucanus. P. 494.Loc. Com. I found him ſpeaking my thoughts, and ſomething more, who gave me much content in opening the Deacons Office.
Thus then Deacons come into their office.
Thus Timothy alſo came into his office, 1 Tim. 4.14. ſo it is generally underſtood. Out of his Epiſtles I ſhall gather more in the next argument.
Whether Paul and Barnabas were ordained in Acts 13.2, 3. is a great queſtion, ſome deny it, many affirm it: if they were, it puts much honour upon that Ordinance, and ſhews more the neceſſity of this ordinance in men coming to the Miniſtry. Let us ſee firſt who they are that own this to be ordination, ſome I have met with, and others may know more; of this89 judgement I finde Chryſoſtome,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉[obſerve the word] 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. with whom agree others of the Greek Fathers. Thus Calvin. Inſt. l. 4. c. 3. ſ. 14. Chemnitius, Zanchy, Polanus, Gualter (Officio divinitus ſimul & ab eccleſiâ commiſlo, ſaith he upon the Text) Aretius (who infiſts upon it largely.) Gerhard, Maccovius, Malcolmus, Waltherus, (who reconciles this with Gal. 1.1.) Ravanel Diodati, Our Engliſh Annotations, Ainſworth (upon Numb. 8.10.) The Synod of N. England, who quote this Text to prove Miniſters ought to be ordained, and that with Impoſition of hands. Of the Popiſh party I could name more, but I ſpare them. Theſe men are ſo worthy, that their judgement is not eaſily to be ſlighted.
But we have harder work in writing in our days then others had heretofore, when the quotation of men was proof ſufficient, but this will not now ſerve the turn. Thus then
But here Ponitur Definitio Ordinationis: Ergo. The Papiſts, who make Ordination a Sacrament (properly ſo called) contend about the matter; for the form they are all agreed, that the form Conſiſtit in verbis, quibus ſufficienter ſignificatur traditio poteſtatis, ſaith Valen. To the ſame purpoſe ſpeaks Bellarm. Convenit inter omnes, materiam eſſe aliquod ſignum ſenſibile, formam autem eſſe verba quae dicuntur, dum illud ſignum exhibetur. But whether the calix & patina cum pane & vino be the matter, and thoſe words then ſpoken, Accipe poteſtatem offerendi90 ſacrificium, &c. be the form, as Valen. and his party, or whether the Impoſition of hands, with theſe words, Accipe poteſtatem remittendi peccata do compleat the Act, ſo as a man is not ordained till this be done, as Bellarm. and his party; here they are divided. Bellarm. will have Impoſition of hands to be eſſential to the Sacrament, becauſe elſe, ſaith he, we cannot convince the Hereticks, that Ordination is a Sacrament properly ſo called, becauſe we cannot demonſtrate in the Scripture any other external ſymbole of this Sacrament. As for the word Sacrament in their ſenſe, their cup, platter, &c. we lay them by; ſo for their words, which they make the form, we lay them by: yet I perceive our Brethren do contend for ſome words which ſhould be uſed at the laying on the hands of the Elderſhip.
For my part I am loth to engage further then I have clear Scripture to back me, or neceſſary conſequence from it. If we take Ordination at large, as this Scripture holds it out, and other agree with it, it may be thus deſcribed. Ordination is the ſeparation of a perſon called to the work of the Miniſtry, by perſons in office with faſting, prayer, and Impoſition of hands: Thus far this Text will warrant us; and it is the fulleſt that any one Text will afford us. Let us ſee how this ſutes with other Scriptures. Rom. 1.1. Paul tells the Romans, he was called to be an Apoſtle, ſeparated unto the Goſpel of God. Here is my Authority, I do not run before I was ſent. But when was this done? and how this done? look to my Text, and I doubt91 not but theſe Texts anſwer each to other. Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the worke whereunto I have called them, v. 2. I have called, do you then ſeparate: both the words we find here. It ſeems they were not to ſeek what it was to ſeparate, how to go about it, they had been acquainted with that work before. This phraſe ſeparate is the old phraſe the Lord uſed before in his ordaining of old Officers. Numb. 8.14. Thus ſhalt thou ſeparate the Levites, &c. thus, how? among other things; The children of Iſrael ſhall put their hands upon the Levites. It was ſo here with Paul. So Deut. 10.8. At that time the Lord ſeparated the Tribe of Levi. So Numb. 16.9. a full place. The Lord ſeparated Iſrael from other Nations, this was a high favour; but in Iſrael the Lord made another ſeparation, and this was higher honour ſtill. Seemeth it but a ſmall thing unto you that the God of Iſrael hath ſeparated you, &c. Thus we ſee the Lord keeps the old phraſe.
A perſon called. Paul and Barnabas were ſo, by God immediately, and theſe perſons commanded from God immediately to ſeparate to ordain them: whence well might Paul ſay, Gal. 1.1. was no Apoſtle by man. For all is here by immediate command from God; whatever was done about them was by immediate revelation. Whence he ſaith v. 4. So they being ſent forth by the Holy Ghoſt: yet they prayed, faſted, and impoſed hands. Waltherus, Harmo, p. 490. ſpeaks more to the clearing of this doubt. As Paul then and Barnabas were called immediately, ſo in conſtituted Churches Miniſters are elected.
92By Perſons in Office. Not every office; no mention made•here of Ruling Elders or Deacons, but Teachers at the loweſt.
If the people ſhould claim this power as ſome do, for the people in Numb. 8. did impoſe hands on the Levites, I have anſwered to this. Sepa. Exam. p. 70, 71. I add but this, The Apoſtles did tranſlate Impoſition of hands from the old Teſtament to the New in the Ordination of Miniſters; but for the peoples impoſition of hands, we find no ſuch thing.
With prayer, faſting, impoſition, &c. Here a queſtion may be moved, Whether faſting and prayer did properly belong to the eſſence of Ordination? or whether as in other Ordinances we pray before the Adminiſtration of the Ordinance, ſo here was praying for the Lord's grace and bleſſing upon the perſon to be ordained, but ordination for the eſſence a diſtinct thing?
Some I ſuppoſe make it the whole eſſence, their Acts declare it, they do nothing elſe (unleſs preach) and others look on impoſition of hands but as a common thing among the Jews, when they would wiſh one well, or pray for them, or bleſs them after their manner, they laid their hands on their heads, and ſo impoſition is now laid aſide.
A. But ſtay a little, 1. Are you certain that theſe prayed while they impoſed hands in ordination? I do not ſee how you will force it out of the Text: nor can you force it from Acts 6.6. the word is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Aor. 1. Whence the Syriack and Arabick Tranſlations (with which Piſcator and others agree)93 render the words, and when they had prayed they laid hands, plainly ſignifying that the prayers went before impoſition; nor I am ſure will this Text help them; for what, I pray, Did they impoſe hands all the while they faſted and prayed? ſurely their armes were very weary to lie upon their heads a whole day; whence it is more probable after that day was well ſpent in faſting and prayer, then they impoſed hands. Then the Jews common cuſtome doth not make impoſition ſo ſilly a thing.
2. In the conſecration of the Levites (and ſo of the Prieſts) where we find Impoſition, we find no mention of prayer at all (that I ſee) much leſs at their Impoſition; if it were, it was not the eſſence of the ordinance, ſo far as I can learn; I know divers of God's things muſt be eſteemed as ſlight things, if our heads muſt be judges. But I think Tertul. ſpake excellently:De paeniten. Audaciam exiſtimo de bono divini praecepti diſputare: neque enim quia bonum est idcirco auſcultare debemus, ſed quia Deus praecepit, &c.
3. Ordination is the authorizing of a perſon to his work: So the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 6.3. plainly imply. Both H. Stephens, and Scapula, agree that the word ſignifies**Conſtituo, ſic Conſtituere Regem. vel Creare. H. Stephens, Ib. praeficio. [Hinc praefectus] to put in authority, to give rule, to ordain a Ruler. So theſe Texts, Acts 7.10.27. Luc. 12.42. make it clear, with other Texts. H. Stephens, Theſ. To. 1. p. 1768. quoting of theſe Texts, Matth. c. 24. & cap. 25. Acts 6. Luc. 12. where the word is uſed, ſaith, Quibus94 in locis, non conſtituere ſolum, ſed & praeficere verti poteſt,Sur. Ch. Diſ. p. 3. p. 9. & quidem aptiùs. To this reverend Hooker agreeth. The Lord Chriſt in his Kingly care conceived it neceſſary for the honour of the place, and the execution of the work of a Deacon, to appoint choiſe men and ſolemn Ordination to authorize them to the work, &c. But then how Prayer doth properly carry any thing of this nature in it I do not apprehend: define prayer, and ſee how it ſuits with authorizing, nothing like it; to beg and to authorize are not the ſame. Unleſs we look on Ordination as the conſecration of a man to God, then a prayer may be part of the eſſence.
4. If you ask me what is then? truly I find it hard to anſwer; it is plain to me, it is not that which ſome cry up ſo, and content themſelves with, diſſenting from their brethren. Impoſition of hands I am ſure is in the Text, and muſt come into Ordination. I find that the old Non-conformiſts, ſpeaking firſt of the election of a Miniſter, in which the help of neighbouring Miniſters muſt be required; then add, After that he is to be ordained by the laying on of the hands of the elderſhip, with theſe words pronounced by the Miniſter thereunto appointed, [According to this lawful calling, agreeable to the word of God, whereby thou art choſen Paſtor, In the name of God, ſtand thou charged with the Paſtoral charge of this people over which the Holy Ghoſt hath made thee Overſeer, to govern the flock of God which he hath purchaſed with his blood.]
When I read theſe words, it made me call95 to mind the manner of the ordination of two Deacons in N. England about ſixteen years fince, which was the laſt ordination I ſaw, or can remember any thing of; my memory may fail me in ſome circumſtance, but as I do remember it was very little different from this.
The Paſtor and the Teacher Impoſed hands, and then ſaid, We do in the name of Chriſt ordain thee N.N.Mat. 10.5. Mark 3.14. Luc. 9.2. Chriſt called, ordained, ſent his Diſciples forth to preach with power and authority, he in his own name, we in his name, ſurely Chriſt uſed words ſuitable. (naming the perſon) Deacon of this Church, &c. then what duties the Scripture puts upon the Deacon they framed into a handſome form; when they had ſo done, a ſhort prayer they made, their hands being ſtill upon the Deacons head.
According to the form of the Non-conformiſts and the Church in N. England, there is ſomething appears like authorizing of a perſon to his work. Now if the queſtion be whether this be lawful or not? where have we warrant for this? that words were thus uſed in the primitive times, is plain enough to thoſe who read Hierom, Ambroſe, Auſtin. For Scripture this is plain, though ſome of theſe words be not ſet down in the Scripture, yet if there be an authorizing, appointing, Acts 6.3. a ſeparating, ſetting apart, Acts 13. Some words muſt be ſpoken that muſt ſignifie ſo much, and what breach of rule it is to ſay, we ordain, or ſet apart, being the perſon is now ſetting apart, the thing is doing? For uſing the name of Chriſt, I hope it is he who hath given Paſtors and Teachers to his Church, and from him doth the perſon now ordaining receive his power immediately, (It was not the Kingdom96 of Heaven gave Peter the keys,I do not ſay the form of Ordination lies in theſe words, I am not willing to make that the formalis ratio of an ordinance, which I have not expreſſe Scripture for, I would not give my adverſary ſo much advantage; yet Reaſon tells that prayer alone, or impoſition of hands alone, or both without words ſuitable cannot make an Ordination. but Chriſt gave Peter immediately the keys of the Kingdom of heaven) under his authority, in his name they muſt act. For the other words applying to the perſon ordaining, what duties the Scriptures do charge ſuch an office withal; I hope this ought to be, elſe it were a raw buſineſs. So that by neceſſary conſequence from Scripture I cannot well ſee how theſe things can be denied; who can prove the Apoſtles did not uſe ſome ſuch words, though they be not ſet down. A ſending, Rom. 10. Setting apart, Appointing there muſt be and is; then give us that which ſhew and expreſſe theſe words: they were rational men, and the Spirit purely rational which guided them, whence we may well conceive ſomething was ſpoken which anſwered the Scriptural expreſſions; and ſo long as we hold to them I can ſee no harm, but that rather ought to be. Let others ſpeak more rationally who oppoſe this; and leaving out impoſition of hands, with theſe expreſſions, ſhew what you do, which doth carry in it the authorizing of a man to his work. I am ſure there is more reaſon for this, and Scripture will more look to us in it, then there is for that magiſterial power which congregational Miniſters (not Chriſt, that we can find in Scripture) give to the people to keep men as they pleaſe from being admitted into the Church; and hence againſt their Paſtors, qualified men are kept out.
For the Objections which are made againſt this Text for Ordination, I find theſe.
97Obj. 1. Some conceive there is no ordination here, becauſe he doth not ſay, to the office, but for the work whereunto I have called them, v. 2.
A. By the ſame reaſon you may ſay, there was no ordination in Acts 6. becauſe the Apoſtles in v. 3. do not uſe the word office, but〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But I am confident thoſe Divines who uſe this argument, do acknowledge there was Ordination.
2. If a perſon be ſeparated to the work of an officer, I think he is ſeparated to the office which that work belongs to.
Q. But what office was it to which they were now ſeparated?
A. To be Apoſtles to the Gentiles: this I conceive was the buſineſs, and if we follow them in this and the next Chapters, we ſhall find what was the office. I think verſe 15. of Chapter 9. is now fulfilled: the Lord told Ananias that Paul was a choſen veſſel to bear his name amongst the Gentiles; and now is Paul ordained to it, and not before. This was a great worke indeed, to have the Gentiles brought into the Church; there was need of ſome ſolemn act to prove their commiſſion. Obſerve verſe 46. of this Chapter, Paul ſays to the Jews, Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Thus Chryſoſtom twice, it was〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which I think ſignifies Munus Apoſtolicum. And thus moſt Divines I meet with affirm.
Obj. 2. Paul was made an Apoſtle before, Acts 9.
A. Prove that; the Text holdeth forth no ſuch thing. Aretius ſaith, that in Acts 9. Paul was not ſent to the Gentiles, but to Ananias, a quo diſceret98 diſcenda. And Mr. Noyes denieth that Paul was an Apoſtle in this Chapter 13. but thinks he was an Evangeliſt.
2. Paul was a Preacher before (and ſo had his authoritative miſſion I doubt not.) Our Divines in their Comments upon the 1. v. reckon up five eminent perſons amongſt thoſe Prophets and Teachers mentioned [and this runs moſt ſmoothly] Saul muſt be one of thoſe, or elſe five will not be found. Had Saul been then an Apoſtle, then it ſhould have been there were in the Church at Antioch an Apoſtle, Prophets, and Teachers: but Luke doth not mention an Apoſtle, which ſure he would, ſince he doth inferiour officers. For my part I conceive Paul was a Prophet; partly becauſe he was filled with the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 9.17. [Paul had there an authoritative miſſion to preach] as I conceive the Prophets mentioned were extraordinary perſons, and their gifts ſuch for ought any thing I could ever ſee to the contrary as yet: partly becauſe I find Prophets did go from one Church to another, according as there was cauſe, being men ſo extraordinarily fitted for ſervice. Thus Judas and Silas, chap. 15.32. being Prophets were ſent, &c. thus Chap. 11.27. Prophets came from Jeruſalem to Antioch. Thus we find Paul and Barnabas joyned and ſent together, Chapter 11.30. and 12.25. and theſe two abode together a whole year at Antioch, Chap. 11.26. But that he was an Apoſtle before now, I ſee nothing to force it. Paul then being one of theſe, and now called to an higher office, this doth not prove Re-ordination to the99 ſame office: any perſon in office, and called to a higher office, ought to be ordained to it, though he was ordained to an inferiour office before. Re-ordination to the ſame office I know no warrant for.
3. After Chriſts Aſcenſion Apoſtles were not choſen in ſuch a private way as that Acts 9. would hold out. We find Matthias, Acts 1. choſen in a publick and ſolemn manner, God declaring his choiſe. So here in Acts 13. in a publick meeting Paul is called and ſeparated in a ſolemn manner.
Obj. 3. If Paul were ordained an Apoſtle, then the greater was bleſſed of the leſſer: his Apoſtolical power and order was given by them who themſelves had not Apoſtolical power, being but Prophets and Teachers.
A. 1. They were not commanded to bleſs, but ſeparate. Ordination and bleſſing differ very much; we might as well ſay, Why ſhould the leſs ſeparate the greater? ſo we find it here, and it is in vain to diſpute againſt it if God will have it ſo; but this was extraordinary.
2. Paul's Apoſtolical power he received from him who commanded him to be ſeparated, that is, the Holy Ghoſt, yet he is pleaſed to command theſe to ſeparate him to it; and ſurely ſuch perſons who ordain others by vertue of an immediate command and revelation from God, though their office be inferiour to the perſons ordained, yet this immediate command and revelation will countervail the act of others who are equal in office. They acted all by an immediate and extraordinary revelation; whence100 Paul might well ſay it was by the will of God not of man, that he was an Apoſtle; hence the Text ſaith, v. 4. they were ſent forth by the Holy Ghoſt. The call was from the Holy Ghoſt, the command to ſeparate them was from the Holy Ghoſt.
3. That Barnabas was made an Apoſtle now, I think will not be denied: that he was an Apoſtle, Chap. 14. v. 14. tells us, which when the Apoſtles Barnabas and Paul, &c. Thus Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. p. 373, & 375. mentioning ſome of the writings of Barnabas calls him〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉twice. Thus Hierom, Catal. Script. Eccleſ. ſaith of him, Barnabas was ordained Apoſtle of the Gentales with Paul. Others I. could quote, who call him the Apoſtle Barnabas. But that Barnabas was an Apoſtle before now I think none will ſay; for the Text is clear againſt him. Why then Paul ſhould not now be made an Apoſtle alſo, I ſee no reaſon, as well as Barnabas. Hierom ſaith〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
4. If Paul were ſeparated before to the office of an Apoſtle, what need he be ſeparated now again: I know no inſtance in Scripture where men were twice ſeparated to the ſame office.
Corn. a Lap. upon the Text, ſpeaks thus, Saulus jam ab initio ſuae converſionis, a Deo deſignatus & auctoratus erat Apoſtolus Gentium. Acts 9.15. Sed in actu primo & ſecretè, hìc in actu ſecundo & publicè deſignatur Apoſtolus.
Mr. Noyes, who writes againſt impoſtion of hands, finding it uſed in this place, ſaith, Paul was indeed called out of courſe, and therefore101 God may by this ſign with many other commend Paul to the Church as an Apoſtle of Chriſt. Yet but an Evangeliſt as yet with him. See Waltherus Harmon. p. 490. Alſo Aretius upon the Text.
Arg. 2. If Chriſt hath committed power to Miniſters to ordain Miniſters, then Ordination is neceſſary to a Miniſter. But the Antecedent is true; ergo the Conſequent is true.
The Conſequence is clear; for to what end was the power committed if it need not be executed; it is to accuſe Chriſt of want of wiſedom to give a needleſs power to officers, to command them to do a thing, and order them ſtrictly in doing of it, if men may come into office without it. If I have a power committed to me to preach, and baptize, then ſome are bound to hear and to be baptized. So in this.
1. For the Antecedent, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands on no man ſuddenly. p. 2. p. 50.In quo praecepto non ſolum exemplum ſed mandatum continetur, ſaith Walaeus. That Ordination is here meant, there is ſuch a unanimous conſent of the Church, that I think there is no queſtion of it. Thus the Fathers, Lutherans, Calviniſts, Epiſcopal,**Synod. N. E. platf. ch. p. 11. M. Hooker Sur Ch. Diſp. p. 2. p. 74. Claſſical, and Congregational: yea, though divers of the Papiſts do underſtand their Sacrament of Pennance, yet Anſelm, Cajetan, Cor. a Lap. Juſtin, Salmeron, underſtand it rather of Ordination. But I muſt meet with this Text again, and then I will prove it muſt be meant of Ordination.
2. 2 Tim. 2.2. few Interpreters that I ſee touch that which I aim at, i.e. How did Timothy102 commit? or what was it for him to commit? &c. The things which we had heard [not Traditions, as the Papiſts hence gather, for Quae Apoſtolus Timotheo viva voce tradidit,Gerh. in loc. ſunt eadem cum illis quae ſcriptis conſignavit] he muſt commit: To whom? They muſt be faithful mon, and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉able to teaach others. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chryſoſtom upon this Text, and Cartwright in his Comment upon the ſpeech of Chriſt to Nicodemus, would make us believe it is not ſo eaſie a matter to be a Miniſter as our vain heads in theſe days take it to be. But ſtill how did Timothy commit theſe? was it by teaching or preaching to them? ſo he did commit them to weak men and women as well as able men: was it by writing theſe? ſo the whole Church had them committed. This is clear, the men muſt be able before the things be committed: his teaching might help them to be able; but being qualified and able, how doth he commit them? Surely by laying on of hands, i.e. ordaining of them, and thus ſeparating them to the work of the Miniſtry, he doth indeed commit them. If this Interpretation do not pleaſe, give me a better. After much ſearching I found one or two go my way. Non ſolum fideliter eos doceas, ſed etiam poteſtatem alios docendi ipſis conferas; this is Commenting in Gerh. opinion. Magna cura eligendus eſt Doctor, ſaith Ambroſe in loc. If you lay hold of eligendus, pray take it in a large ſenſe as Ambroſe doth, and it was Timothy's election. Anſelm, and Bullinger incline alſo this way.
103The 3 Titus 5. Titus is left in Crete to Conſtitute or Ordain Elders. I doe not remember that Clemens uſes any other word, but either〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [ſignifying the ſame] in his Epiſt. ad Corin. when he ſpeaks of the Apoſtles ordaining of Officers. Doubtleſs [ſaith Muſculus] as Paul left Titus to ordain,Loc. Com. p. 198. ſo Titus kept the method Paul uſed, i. e. election, prayer, and impoſition of hands. Thoſe then that come into the Miniſtry in Crete, they muſt be ordained. In vain were thoſe words to Timothy and Titus, if ordination were ſuch a needleſs thing: Timothy and Titus alſo being Churchofficers, where is this popular election that is ſo much cried up to give the Eſſence? One would think the Apoſtle ſhould have given ſtrict command to the people to look to their Election, becauſe it gave the Eſſence; but not be ſo exact with Timothy and Titus, who gave but an adjunct; who can deny the adjunct, or of what force is it when the eſſence is given before? Timothy and Titus might well ſay, nay Paul, We are clear, we muſt not ordain whom we will,See ſepar, exam. p. 55. ad 59. but whom the people will, to whom they give the eſſence; if an unworthy fellow be choſen, let the fault lie where it doth, it cannot on us; if we gave the eſſence it were true indeed: whether we will ordain them or not, that hinders not, for they have the eſſence; then act they may ſure enough without us.
Arg. 3. It is neceſſary that he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Miniſter, ſhould ſhew true Authority by which he doth them.
But he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a104 Miniſter without Ordination, cannot ſhew true Authority by which he doth them.
Ergo Ordination is neceſſary to a Miniſter.
The Major is plain, it holds in all Acts of Authority, elſe a man is an uſurper. By what authority doſt thou theſe things? ſaid they to Chriſt; the queſtion was rational: if Chriſt had not Authority, he would not have done them.
Minor. He who ſhews true Authority for his Miniſterial Acts, muſt ſhew Scripture-authority.
But he that performs Miniſterial Acts without Ordination, cannot ſhew Scripture-authority. Ergo.
The major is plain. The minor, if any deny, let them produce their Scripture-authorities. He who is ſufficiently qualified, elected [ſuppoſing there is a Church already] and ordained, this man I am ſure may ſhew his Authority: But he that is not Ordained, cannot ſhew it, I know no Scripture to warrant it. Let our queſtion be attended.
I have heard it affirmed, and that ſtrongly, from a perſon of no ſmall abilities, that the Fraternity may Preach, Baptize, adminiſten the Supper as well as the Paſtor; the common Scriptures urged by this wilde generation, and Acts 10.48. were alledged. I never heard that the Papiſts, or our Biſhops, would allow any private man to baptize in a Church where there were Miniſters preſent; this text would force it, if theſe men argue right, provided they can prove that theſe brethren were private105 men, and Peter not extraordinarily guided; which yet they have not done. But a little further.
1. It was granted there are Church-Officers, and ſhall be till the body be perfected, Eph. 4. If ſo, then theſe Officers have ſome things ſo proper to them, that they are not common to others: But if all men may preach, baptize, adminiſter the Supper, there is nothing proper to the Officers: if any thing, it muſt be government; which firſt is by many denied: But if it be yielded, why may they not take this alſo as well as the reſt? but if Church-officers have nothing proper to them, how are they officers? That officers have ſomething proper to them, I think none can deuy, the nature of the thing will carry it in all Officers: If all can make warrants, &c. where is the office of a Juſtice? and thus in other offices, what is common to all, is proper to none: how are officers known but by their actions?
To ſay, That though the brethren doe the ſame things, yet they doe them not as their Officers, is to ſay nothing. How ſhall we know that? If any man may make a warrant, and that warrant is as valid as the Juſtices, how ſhall a man know who is Juſtice? the name may differ, but not the power, Ergo, not the office.
2. We finde divers promiſes made to the Church of Gods giving Officers, Jer. 3.15. & 23.4. Ezek. 34.25. Iſa. 30.20. But if every body may do the officers acts, then God ſeems to make promiſes of good to his Church, which are needleſſe; a great ſhew of mercy, but no106 mercy indeed. There is no need, no uſe of the things promiſed, what would this impute to God?
3. Our Divines have maintained againſt the Papiſts that Matth. 28.19. was ſpoken to the Apoſtles, and the Miniſters of the word their ſucceſſors, and the context will force it, I think, if he ſpoke to the eleven Apoſtles, v. 16. And though the Lords Supper is not there mentioned, yet ſurely it was there included, there is par ratio. Let any man bring a proof from Scripture or antiquity, that ever any but an officer did adminiſter the Lords Supper. Docete, baptizate, Matth. 28.19. Haec dicuntur ſolis Apoſtolis & Miniſtris verbi; certum eſt haec non fuiſſe dicta hominibus privatis. Bell. ener. co. 3. p. 342In Actis Apoſtolorum nihil omnino legitur de privatis Chriſtianis abſque ſpeciali revelatione baptizantibus, ſaith Learned Ames.
4. The Church-officers under the Old Teſtament had ſuch acts peculiar to them, as none but they could doe: It were ſtrange that Chriſt ſhould inſtitute Officers under the New Teſtament, and they ſhould have nothing proper to them.
5. If this be true, then all the body is an Eye. The foot may ſay to the eye, though you are placed above, and I below, yet I doe the ſame acts you doe; and it is not the place, but the organ and the action which makes an eye. It is not the place, but the actions ſhew the Officer; that member which ſeeth is the eye, place it where you will; if all ſee, then all are eyes. But the Apoſtle denieth the whole body to be an eye, 1 Cor. 12.
1076. Church-officers are called Stewards,•verſeers, Preachers, Ambaſſadors, Rulers. We would think it ſtrange, men would not bear it in civil acts, to have every body doe the acts which belong to theſe Relations; as much order I hope in Gods houſe, as in other houſes or States. He is every where a God of order, but this was ſpoken in reference to his Houſe eſpecially.
I intend to add no more arguments to prove the neceſſity of Ordinantion: I have onely two objections to anſwer, which two eminent Divines made againſt me, maintaining the neceſſity of Ordination.
Obj. 1. We read of no Ordination but it was performed either by extraordinary perſons, or at leaſt ſome ſuch were preſent when they died who know where they left the power. The Biſhop, Presbyter, Fraternity, each of theſe challenge the power, but who knows to whom it belongs?
Anſw. The firſt part of the objection cutts off Ordination wholly [and that is chiefly aimed at:] The ſecond part doth ſeem to yield it, could we but finde who ſhould Adminiſter it.
To the firſt part I anſwer.
1. It's no wonder though we finde extraordinary perſons in the adminiſtration of this Ordinance when they were in Being. In the firſt beginnings theſe muſt ordain, or none: we have but the hiſtories of planting of Churches in the New Teſtament, where none were before; and this was done by perſons extraordinary.
1082. All that extraordinary perſons did, I hope did not die with them. What is there more extraordinary in Ordination then in Preaching? why muſt not Preaching die as well as ordination to Preaching? The action is no more then may be performed by ordinary Miniſters.
If it be ſaid (as I know it is) they conveyed gifts in Ordination, I ſhall anſwer this when I come to Mr. Noyes.
3. How ſhall we prove that there were Miniſters elected without the preſence, acting, guidance, and conſent of extraordinary officers? I think no man can prove there were any ſo choſen, by the examples we have of the peoples choiſe; for extraordinary perſons were ever preſent, and we finde they acted. By the ſame reaſon throw away Election, which this Divine would hardly doe,Walaeus To. 2. p. 51. Nullum etiam occurret exemplum in toto Novo Teſtamento, nec in primitiva Eccleſia quae Apoſtolorum aetatem excepit, ullam ullius ordinarii Doctor is Electionem in ulla Eccleſia peractam fuiſſe, ſine conſenſu & conſilio aliquorum ſaltem Doctroum. This pincheth.
4. Were the Churches ſo blinde, that they could not ſee this to be an extraordinary thing, and that to die with theſe officers? Would the extraordinary officers admit ordinary Presbyters to joyn with them in that work which was proper to them as extraordinary officers. But that they did ſo, the Epiſt. to Timo. doth plainly carry it, and was, no doubt, the ground of that Canon. 3. in Concil. Carth. 4. where Presbyters were to impoſe hands with the Biſhop.
1095. Were the Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus writ to them as extraordinary officers? I know when Timothy is called upon to do the work of an Evangeliſt, this was proper to him as ſuch an officer; but I think, laying aſide that which was proper to them as Evangeliſts [which did not conſiſt in the adminiſtration of any Ordinance] thoſe Epiſtles were written to Miniſters. They muſt preach the Word, be inſtant in ſeaſon and out of ſeaſon, &c. as well as Timothy; and why not I pray commit the things,2 Tim. 2.2. &c. 2 Tim. 2.2. lay hands on none ſuddenly, as well as Timothy? What extraordinary matter is in this above the other?
6. Shall perſons come into the Miniſtry untried whether they be fit or unfit, ſound or heretical? No, by no meanes, this is judged a dangerous thing. Men muſt be tried, and that by thoſe who are able to judge [as now we have Commiſſioners.] But what Scripturerule have you for this? If you leave out the Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus, 1 Tim. 3.10. I doubt you will hardly finde any in Scripture: but Timothy and Titus were extraordinary perſons, and what have we to doe with their Epiſtles? but if you will make uſe of thoſe Epiſtles to mainain your trial of men [it was a Commiſſioner that made this objection againſt me] give us leave to make uſe of the ſame Epiſtles to prove our Ordination of Miniſters; thoſe who are able to do the one, I hope are as able to do the other.
For the ſecond part of the Objection, I little regard that. As for the Fraternty, let the110 people bring forth their Charter, and ſhew us where the great Lord gave them this power. Againſt this I have argued a little [I intended but a little] in my book againſt the Separatiſts, p. 70, &c.
For the Biſhop and the Presbyter it muſt firſt be proved that theſe are diſtinct officers jure divino, or elſe the conteſt is vain: this is not a queſtion for me to handle in this place, but I can ſafely ſay this, there muſt be more brought from Divine writ then I ſee is yet brought to prove it, or elſe I can acknowledge no ſuch thing. I ſuppoſe Biſhop Davenant in his Determination upon the queſtion, hath ſummed up what can be brought from Scripture, but that will not doe: yet he there in ſome caſes will allow Presbyters to ordain, and I think our caſe is as weighty as any. Anſelm, the Popiſh Canterburian Arch-Biſhop, in his Comment upon Titus 1. [Though I ſee much of it is taken out of Jerom] gave me enough to quiet my thoughts about this queſtion; ſuch lines from his pen took much with me conſidering the Scriptures he brought. I am ſure he that made the objection did not own any ſuch diſtinction. I think no ſober Biſhop did ever yet deny the Ordinations in the French, Dutch, and Scottiſh Churches to be valid.
The ſecond Objection was made by another reverend Divine, when I paſſed the Commiſſioners; He put this queſtion to me, Whether I judged Ordination neceſſary to the Conſtitution of a Miniſter? I anſwered, Yes, if it could be had. He asked me to which command I would111 refer Ordination? I anſwered, to the ſecond. To which he aſſenting added, Cultus naturalis could not, nor muſt be laid aſide; but Cultus Inſtitutus might rather then Cultus naturalis ſhould: God will have mercy, not ſacrifice in ſuch a caſe; but if I would ſay Ordination was neceſſary and might now be had, then I muſt own it by ſucceſſion, and conſequently maintain the Church of Rome to be a true Church. Some words then paſſed, but time cut us off.
To this reverend Divine I ſhall now give a further anſwer:
A. The firſt part of the ſpeech ſaith no more then we allow, onely when Ordination cannot be had, I think it is not then properly laid aſide.
2. Preaching, take the word ſtrictly, as it is the act〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is not to be referred to the firſt Commandment (I conceive) but to the ſecond; nor do I ſee our Divines make it a part of Cultus naturalis.
3. This notion will cut off popular election, as well as Ordination, if preaching belongs to Cultus naturalis, for that muſt not be laid aſide, ſaith this Divine; I hope popular election doth not belong to the firſt Commandment; then election is as unneceſſary, and if men may preach without Election and Ordination we ſhall have brave work. [Preaching here is put for all other Ordinances] where then is the eſſence of a Miniſter according to his owne notion?
But the laſt part of his ſpeech was that where he put the moſt ſtrength, which yet hath112 been often anſwered, that I might well ſpare my pains: ſomething I anſwered then, and now will add more.
1. Divers of our Congregational Divines [of which this reverend Divine is one] conceive [and practiſe accordingly] the Fraternity to have power of Ordination; and if ſo, then if election may be had, Ordination may be had; ſo ſhall it not need be laid aſide, nor ſhall we need trouble our ſelves about Rome, that diſpute rather may be laid aſide. I deſired an Anſwer of him what he thought of it, but he would give me none.
2. But ſuppoſe his judgement be contrary: According to this argument Ordination, which we are ſure was once an Ordinance of God, [and I have before proved it] muſt be utterly loſt, [unleſs with the Seekers we gape for ſome Apoſtles again] For this argument of Succeſſion may ever be urged, and will be as ſtrong to the worlds end as now. But why muſt the Church loſe an Ordinance? If the argument be ſo ſtrong againſt Ordination, is it not as ſtrong againſt any thing elſe that came through Rome?
Rome is no true Church, ergo nothing that comes through Rome is valid. What will be next? Mr. Ainſw. and other Separatiſts zealous enough againſt Rome, would not ſay ſo of Baptiſm, therefore admitted of no re-baptizing. Nor would Mr. Johnſon upon the ſame ground admit of re-ordination; one was as valid as the other.
3. If God hath ſo far owned the Miniſtry of113 England, as to work with it to the converſion of many ſoundly, and others viſibly, whence there are numbers to elect Miniſters, I doubt not but he will as well own the Ordination of Miniſters by them, though they had ſome accidental corruptions adhering to their own Ordination [for the ſubſtance true.] If he hath not owned the Miniſtry, how came our Brethren to gather Churches here ſome few years ſince, thoſe who elected them to office, I believe very few of them [if any in ſome places] were converted by Miniſters who were not ordained, becauſe they muſt have their Ordination by ſucceſſion, &c. I pray where is there a Miniſtry in the world which God hath more owned?
4. Let it be as this Divine ſaith, becauſe Cultus inſtitutus may be laid aſide, Ordination may be alſo, &c. Let us ſee whither this will go; then official preaching [pardon the expreſſion, for I think all preaching, properly ſo called, is official] Baptiſm, the Lord's Supper, Diſcipline, may be all laid aſide upon the ſame account, for theſe belong to Cultus Inſtitutus, ſo the whole ſecond Commandment loſt; which way ſhall we come to theſe for fear of Rome? will he ſay, that the Churches [and thoſe without Ordinances, it ſeems] may chooſe their Paſtors [ſuppoſe Wickliff, Luther, Zuinglius, men gifted and raiſed extraordinarily] and election giving the eſſence to a Miniſters call, theſe may now preach, baptize, &c. [ſo the ſecond Commandment is ſaved, elſe I know not which way he can ſave it] though they be not ordained;114 may not the ſame Miniſters as well Ordain other Miniſters, Ordination belonging to the ſame Commandment? ſurely no rational man can oppoſe it; this he muſt yield to, or elſe the whole inſtituted worſhip of God muſt be loſt out of the Church as well as Ordination. But if election will help, then I hope moſt of the godly Miniſtry in England may ordain, for they have been elected by the people, men qualified, and whom God hath bleſſed in their work more or leſs: though they have more then election in their own eſteem, that hinders not; they have that which you think can authorize them to preach, baptize, &c. then to ordain as well; and thoſe who are ordained by ſuch, no doubt but may Ordain again; ſo Rome and Succeſſion trouble us not. Ames grants that Wickliff,Med. The. l. 1. c. 33. ſ. 39. Luther, Zuinglius, may not unfitly be called extraordinary Miniſters, joyning ſome of our famous Martyrs with them, and gives three reaſons for the aſſertion; the laſt is, Quia ordine tum temporis perturbato & collapſo, neceſſe habuerunt non nulla tentare praeter ordinem commune. So Syn. Pur. The. D. 42. S. 41, 42, 50.
5. Carry the objection to our firſt Reformers, where it ſhould ſeem to have moſt ſtrength, what godly man is there who calls to mind Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Ridly, Philpot, Bradford, &c. perſons upon whom this objection would fall, as to their own Miniſtry, and their ordaining of others, that would not be aſhamed of himſelf, ſhould he null their Miniſtry, and as ſome [though this Divine abhors it I believe] whoſe mouths are full of nothing115 but Antichriſtian, call theſe Antichriſtian Miniſters, becauſe ordained by Popiſh men. Thou who calleſt theſe Antichriſtian Miniſters, riſe up with them in the morning, anſwer them in holineſs, go to the priſons with them, and from thence to the ſtake and burn with them for the ſake of Chriſt: grant it they were ordained as the objection runs, after inlightning they threw off Popery, but their Ordination they held, being no Popiſh Invention, they go on ſtill to preach, baptize, &c. and ordain others; Why not? when theſe men were ordained by ſuch men, they had a Miniſterial charge put upon them, ſet apart to the work of the Miniſtry to diſpenſe the things of Chriſt, not of Mahomet, or ſuch like. While they were in the dark they acted ſuperſtitiouſly, afterwards more purely; the corruptions they reformed, the ſubſtance they kept [and ſo our Divines now] Will not the mercy of God pardon this, and keep his ſacrifice ſtill in his Church? I doubt not but he will. The uſual diſtinctions made 1. Between a perſon and his office. 2. Between the ſubſtance of an ordinance and the accidental corruptions of it. 3. Between what cometh through Rome, [being Chriſt's Inſtitutions] and what cometh from Rome, being their own Inventions; theſe diſtinctions will ſoon anſwer the objection.
6. To. 2. p. 66.Learned Ames in his anſwer to Bellarmin urging this, Eccleſia nullo modo poteſt eſſe ſine Paſtoribus & Epiſcopis: illi ſoli ſunt veri Epiſcopi qui ab Apoſtolis per legitimam ſucceſſionem & Ordinationem deſcendiſſe oſtenduntur, &c. ſpeaks116 thus, Ab Apoſtolis deſcenderunt ownes illi Paſtores qui ſecundum canones Apoſtolicos in Scripturis traditos ſunt in eccleſia conſtituti. 4. Horum perpetua ſucceſſio ab Apoſtolis & Apoſtolicis viris non eſt neceſſariò oſtendenda ex hiſtoriarum humanarum incertis teſtimoniis, ſed ex promiſſione illa Chriſti, qua ſpoſpondit ſe per omnes aetates excitaturum operarios ad ſalutem electorum procurandam. 5. Ordinandi poteſtas quoad jus cuique eccleſiae particulari eſt a Deo conceſſa. Now for his laſt. 6. Paſtores hunc in modunt deſcendentes, & juſto jure ordinatos habemus nos per Dei gratiam in omnibus eccleſiis ex voto noſtro conſtitutis. If any ſhould take hold of the laſt words, and ſuppoſe the Doctor means, gathered Churches in which the people did ordain, ſurely they wrong the Doctor much. I wonder how many ſuch Churches there were when the Doctor wrote? neither had the Doctor anſwered Bellarmin, who oppoſes all Miniſters not ordained by the Roman power, but had fallen off from Rome: then the Doctor muſt own the ordination of the Reformed Miniſters, elſe he ſaid nothing to the Jeſuit. I wiſh this Divine would anſwer Bellarmin better. Doctor Ames uſes to be eſteemed of amongſt Congregational men.
7. For Rome being a true Church: it is well known that Rome is more corrupt now in Doctrine then it was when our firſt Reformers fell off; what difference there is between the former and latter School-men who knows not? ſo that Rome is not now what it was then, when our men had their Ordination from thence. But may we not ſay as our brethren do of117 Pariſh-Congregations, they will not deny [the moſt underſtanding and ſober of them] but that in many pariſhes there are true Churches, though they will not ſay the whole pariſh is a true Church, according to the conſtitution. So there is a true Church under the Romiſh juriſdiction, though we do not ſay Rome is a true Church.
But what ſhall we ſay to ſuch a people where the true God, and the Trinity, with the Attributes of God; Jeſus Chriſt in his divine and human nature; the ſatisfaction and price of Chriſt as the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification**See Bellar. de Juſtif. l 1. c. 2. & l. 2. c. 5. and pardon; The Scriptures; All the ordinances of God; The doctrine of the Freegrace of God in oppoſition to mans proud free-will [O excellent Bradwardin, and Alvarez; &c. are owned, defended, believed] where there are perſons who walk according to Scripture rules in a great degree: what ſhall we ſay? is here no Church?
If our State have been rightly guided when they made the Act to Tolerate thoſe who own One God, Chriſt, and Scriptures, then a Church in Rome may be owned, where theſe and many other truths are maintained, more ſoundly then they will be by many of our tolerated perſons: yea, it were well if all the members of Congregated Churches in England were as ſound in thoſe truths [before mentioned] and as holy in their converſations as are divers who live under Rome.
As for the Pope, were it no more but bare government, compared with the carriage of118 many Church-members, I may ſay as Learned Mr. Norton of N. England, in his Epiſtle to the General Court, Is there no medium between Boniface and Morellius, between Papacy and Anarchy, Babylon and Babel? &c. both are naught, the Peoples Anarchy as well as the Popes Tyranny; and his Tyranny will not ſooner deny a Church there [as to Diſcipline] then Anarchy doth in theſe members: we ſee the effect, how many men in England have turned Papiſts, ſince they ſaw theſe carriages in the Churches.
But again, What mean thoſe Texts, Come out of her my people, Rev. 18.4. if there be no Church there? The womans flying into the wilderneſs, Rel. 12.6. take it as Mr. Mead, or as Pareus, yet it will argue a true Church to have been under Rome. The witneſſes propheſied 1260. days, during the time of the womans being in the wilderneſs they were to feed her; this muſt needs fall under the time before the Reformation, begin it when you will.
More I could ſay, but I think this is ſufficient to prove that Ordination may and ought ſtill to be continued notwithſtanding Rome, and that it is neceſſary to a Miniſter. And ſince both theſe objections are made againſt me by Commiſſioners [though I would hope more Diſputandi gratiâ, then being indeed oppoſite to my Theſis, I ſay I would be glad to hope ſo] and ſince this Script may poſſibly fall into ſome of their hands, I wiſh humbly [and I know I could have hundreds of godly Miniſters to joyn with me] they would pleaſe to take off119 that offence, which I conceive is juſtly given to the moſt part of the godly Miniſtry in England, when they ſee them let into the Miniſtry perſons illiterate, and ſome blame-worthy in their converſations [as I am informed by godly Miniſters who know them] beſides being illiterate, and perſons who neither are ordained, nor will be ordained, nor I think would ſober Miniſters ever ordain them. Theſe things are not ſecret, but more publikely ſpoken off then my Book can publiſh; whence their friends are grieved, their enemies rejoyce, having cauſe they think to open their mouths againſt them, and to vilifie Reformation, beſides the hinderance of union in the Churches.
ALthough our Divines have all I think [unleſs a few riſen up in our days] agreed in the neceſſity of Ordination to a Miniſter; yet they have not all had the ſame thoughts about Impoſition of hands, as if it were neceſſary to Ordination. Moſt have agreed in this, that though they look on it as a Ceremony, an Adjunct, yet it ought to be practiſed, becauſe of the Apoſtolical examples. Our Congregational Brethen in Eſſex caſt it away; and ſome cauſe I have to ſtand upon it, becauſe I therefore refuſed Ordination by them, becauſe they would120 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 Scripture and Reaſon I ſhall humbly offer to the Reader, and to Mr. Noyes in anſwer to what he hath ſaid againſt it.
Not many years ſince Humane Ceremonies added to the worſhip of God, how much trouble and miſery they added to the Church, we have not yet forgot. Men wrote and 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 Ceremonies, 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 againſt Impoſition, which I a little wondered at,121 knowing Calvin had ſpoken ſufficiently for it.
1. Inſtit. l. 4. c. 3. ſ. 16.Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum Impoſitione, quia tamen fuiſſe in perpetuo uſu Apoſtolis videmus, illa tam accurata eorum obſervatio prae cepti vice nobis eſſe debet.
2. Again, Impoſitionem manuum,L. 4. c. 14. ſ. 20. qua Eccleſia Miniſtri, in ſuum munus initiarentur, non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum.
3. Again,L. 4. c. 2. ſ. 16. Et certè utile eſt ejuſmodi ſymbolo Miniſterii dignitatem populo commendari, &c. praeterea non erit inane ſignum, ſi in germanam ſuam originem reſtitutum fuerit -: nam ſi nihil fruſtra ſpiritus Dei in Eccleſia Dei inſtituit, hanc ceremoniam cum ab eo profecta ſit ſentiemus non eſſe inutilem, modo in ſuperſtitioſum uſum nou vertatur. See him again l. 4. c. 19. ſ. 31. Calvins judgment is clear, with his Reaſons for it.
Chemnitius giving us the judgment of the Lutheran Churches, ſaith,Exam. Concil. Trid. p. 221. Nec manuum Impoſitionem vocare Sacramentum gravabimur. I omit Auſtin, who called it ſo long before they were born, in a large ſenſe, not the Popiſh ſenſe. Nos uno verbo dicimus, ſi per Sacramentum jusjurandum,Loc. Com. p. 321. & religioſam, obſtrictionem intelligunt, ſit Ordo ipſorum, per me licet, Sacramentum, quale veteribus erat Sacramentum militare, ſaith Muſculus.
Walaeus ſaith,Loc. Com. l. 1. p. 473.In all the Confeſſions of their Churches [except one or two] it was required, and becauſe the Apoſtles alwayes uſed it, and the Apoſtle gives that precept to Tim. 5.22. Not to lay on hands ſuddenly we122 ought not to omit it; becauſe in that negative an affirmative is contained that he ſhould Impoſe on worthy perſons; where ſince by a Synecdoche it is taken for the election of a Paſtor, certè pro ritu, vel parte eſſentiali habenda eſt. Thus he.
From the ſame charge to Timothy,Sur. ch. Diſ. p. 2. p. 74. Mr. Hooker ſaith he is willing to follow the rode, when he hath no conſtraining reaſon to goe aſide. It ſeems this Reverend man knew no cauſe why Impoſition ſhould be laid aſide.
The Synod of New England ſay,Platf. ch. Diſ. c. 9. Church-Officers ought to be Ordained with Impoſition of hands.
Here then we have the Fathers, Papiſts, Lutherans, Calviniſts, Epiſcopal, Claſſical, Congregational 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 ſomething of, 1 Cor. 11. I think ſo ſhould we, having eſpecially ſuch Scripture-precedents going before them: I look upon their practice as very weighty.
But I come to argument, laying down firſt my Poſition: Impoſition of hands ought to be uſed in Ordination.
Arg. 1. That form of Ordination which cometh neereſt to the Goſpel-pattern, ought to be uſed.
But Impoſition of hands in Ordination is that form which cometh neereſt to the Goſpelpattern; ergo Impoſition of hands in Ordination ought to be uſed.
123The 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 according to the pattern in the Mount; and why now I pray muſt not things be done according to the pattern of the Goſpel? what do you make of it? that which you may follow, or let alone as you pleaſe? what is ſaid againſt this I ſhall meet with anon.
For the minors bring us forth thoſe rules, or examples which ſhew that men may be ordained, or were ordained without Impoſition of hands: that Church-Officers were ordained with Impoſition, the Texts are known, as before mentioned.
Arg. 2. If the Goſpel expreſſeth the whole Ordinance of Ordination by Impoſition of hands, then Impoſition of hands in Ordination ought to be uſed.
But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Conſequent is true.
The Conſequence is clear; for why ſhould the Apoſtle mention that which is but needleſs, or at leaſt but indifferent to ſet out an ordinance by.
Obj. But it is ſaid,Obj. This was no more 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.
1242. There were other geſtures for prayer recorded 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 between Paul's narration, what he did, and Paul's injunction of another, what he ſhould do. Paul might tell them another time that he prayed for them ſtanding; but where doth he order Timothy, or others to ordain without Impoſition?
4. This objection would carry it, as if there were no more in Impoſition of hands in reference to Ordination then in kneeling to prayer: which I will not as yet yield; what I have ſaid before I think will 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 queſtion is whether Ordination be here meant. I named before the judgement of all ſorts of Divines, ancient and modern, Epiſcopal, Claſſical, Congregational, [yea, of divers of the Papiſts] who agree it is meant of Ordination: this might be enough one would think; but in our days we muſt prove what we ſay; had our Brethren given us reaſons to the contrary, I125 might have known what to have anſwered to; but I hear of none.
1. This Impoſition cannot have reference to ſick perſons: There's no matter how ſuddenly he laid on hands to cure them; nothing appearing in the context.
2. Nor can it relate to the bleſſing of children; the context hath nothing for it: nor did I ever read that the Apoſtles did uſe this practiſe.
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 before; the context will favour ſomething this notion: but that I have this againſt it.
1. For their Sacrament we reject it; for abſolution of a repenting perſon, before bound under Church-cenſure, this we own; but in Scripture as we have no precept, ſo no example that the Church did uſe to Impoſe hands on a penitent; we read no ſuch thing when the Inceſtuous perſon was looſed, after he had been bound by excommunication; what reaſon then to have it underſtood of that which in Scripture is not to be found; it ſtands with moſt reaſon to expound it with other Scriptures.
2. I ſee Bellarmin and others make little of Impoſition in the Sacrament of 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 give126 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 Apoſtatizing.
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 New127 ſtament, [nor at all in one caſe, i.e. pennance:] So that it muſt be this, and that I ſhall yet further prove.
1. The Apoſtle from the 17. v. had been diſcourſing about Elders: now it is very ſeaſonable to give ſome word about the making of Elders. So the context holds it fairly out.
2. The Aethiopick Verſion gives it, Ne Conſtituas quenquam ſubitò: This is Ordination plainly.
3. The reaſon why he ſhould be cautious, was leſt he ſhould partake of other 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,**on Iſa. 58. Jerom, Calvin, Chamier, Hemmingius, Cor. a Lap. ſpeak excellently to this reaſon of the caution.
4. As the Apoſtle had taught Timothy in the 3. Chapter what ſhould be the qualification of Biſhops and Deacons, the former of which he had been ſpeaking of in this Chapter, juſt before our Text, it may very well ſuit that Timothy ſhould not ſuddenly ordain men, but firſt ſee whether they were ſo qualified as he had written to him. So much for this Text.
2. A ſecond Text wherein the Scripture expreſſeth Ordination by Impoſition only, is that known place 1 Tim. 4.14. the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. This Text is generally underſtood of the Ordination of Timothy. I never met with any who denied it but one128 Socinian. But of this Text more anon.
3. A third Text as ſome apprehend, is Heb. 6.2. which Mr. Noyes doth very much oppoſe. I could not at firſt tell what was his meaning to beſtow ſo many lines upon it, but at laſt I thought of Mr. Hooker, whoſe judgement it is likely Mr. N. underſtood; two advantages Mr. N. hath: 1. The multitude of Interpreters who underſtand it of confirmation (as Mr. N. ſaith.) 2. That it followeth Baptiſm.
But firſt, let us ſee if no Divines underſtand it of Ordination, ſo as it is comprehended at leaſt under it. Junius, Pareus, and our Annotations take it largely, and look at Ordination included. Gualter, Toſſanus, Gelleſpio, Dicſon, Johnſon, Jacob. Bullinger of Ordination only, or chiefly. Mr. Cartw. thus, By Impoſition of hands the Apoſtle meaneth no Sacrament,Rhem. Teſt. 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.Sur. Ch. Diſ. p. 1. p. 7. Hooker proves that Church Diſcipline is a fundamental point of Religion from hence; thus, Laying on of hands being by a Metonymy of the Adjunct put for Ordination; and Ordination one particular put for the whole of Diſcipline. Having then theſe men [and theſe no babes] on my ſide, I will ſee what reaſon there is why Ordination here muſt not be meant.
For confirmation [which ſo many expound129 it of] I ſearched amongſt thoſe Proteſtant Divines which I had to find a definition of it in our Proteſtant ſenſe, and why they call it ſo; but I could not find one who gave me ſatisfaction but Chemnitius, Exam. Concil. Trid. de confirmat. The Papiſts definition I knew, and a pretty one it is. That which Chemnitius ſpeaks gave me great content; but I could wiſh ſome body would, prove this is the meaning of Impoſition in this Text, for then we ſhould have one more ſtrong ground for Infant-Baptiſm, as we may gather by Chemnitius opening of confirmation. Caſting my eye on Diodati I ſee he thus expounds it, and hence gathers Infant-Bpatiſm. But this is not ſufficient; we call for proof now. I know Impoſition of hands was after Baptiſm in Scripture, except Act. 9.17. and ſo far as we can learn from Scripture, we find
1. Extraordinary gifts were ever the effect of it. So Acts 8. Acts 9. Acts 19. nor do we find any other end of it; theſe gifts being conveyed in a way above nature, might very well tend to the confirming them in their faith received, and ſo well called confirmation. But in the confirmation we talk of there is no ſuch thing, nor do I ſee why we ſhould call it confirmation.
2. The perſons who did Impoſe hands, were either Apoſtles, or perſons extraordinarily raiſed. We read but of one Ananias, Acts 9. I do not find the Evangeliſts did Impoſe. Hence the Biſhops, who call themſelves the Apoſtles ſucceſſors, they claime this power, and poore Presbyters muſt not do it [at leaſt without leave from them.]
130That then which truly deſerves the name confirmation, is ceaſed many hundred years ſince. But for the thing it ſelf, which our Divines call confirmation, as Chemnitius lays it down,Inſtit. l. 4. c. 19. ſ. 4. I could heartily wiſh with Calvin that it were brought into practiſe, only Impoſition, I think, might be left out; yet I would not contend with him who did uſe it, rather ſo, then not have the thing practiſed. Muſculus ſpeaking of Impoſition in confirmation, ſaith, The Impoſition of the Apoſtles was of miraculous operation,Loc. Com. p. 321. and ceaſed long ſince: Exemplum illius retinuerunt Epiſcopi, quo magis Apoſtolorum viderentur eſſe ſucceſſores. But he ſpeaks nothing againſt Impoſition in Ordination.
But to the Text; let us ſee why Ordination muſt be ſhut out here.
1. The key of Interpretation I take to be the word Foundation and principles, &c. (as we Tranſlate.) So Camerarius, Sunt neceſſaria Dogmata & Capita doctrinae Chriſtianae quae enumerantur hoc loco. So Chryſoſtom. Now it ſeems ſtrange to me that a foundation ſhould be loſt out of the Church above fifteen hundred years. I thought foundations ſhould hold ſo long as the building laſts; take away a foundation the houſe muſt be in danger. But if this be meant of Ordination, then it holds; for the Miniſtry ſhall hold ſo long as the Church holds; till the body be perfected, Eph. 4. But if confirmation, and extraordinary gifts, which were the only effect, ſo far as we find in Scripture, [as before I touched] then this foundation is gone long ſince.
1312. Faith, Repentance, and Baptiſm, are to laſt to the end of the world. Some of our Divines do from this Text prove againſt the Socinians that Water-Baptiſm is an ordinance ſtill to continue, becauſe it is put amongſt the foundations, Chatechetical heads; why then the Miniſtry, which is Chriſt's great ordinance, to convert, to beget faith, [which comes by hearing, &c.] and authorized to baptize to the end of the world, ſhould not be meant by Impoſition,Matth. 28.20. but a temporary thing which was to vaniſh preſently, I can ſee no reaſon.
3. That Impoſition alone is put for Ordination we have other Scriptures to ſhew. 1 Tim. 5, & 4. [as before] but ſhew us another Text where Impoſition alone is put for confirmation.
4. Extraordinary gifts were conveyed without Impoſition of hands: as Act. 2.10. & Act. 44.4. why then Impoſition ſhould only 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 extraordinary 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 extraordinary gifts; Camero gives the ſtrongeſt reaſon. But yet I hope to an indifferent Reader, it132 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 ordaining, &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 Ordinance, then Impoſition of hands ought to be uſed in Ordination.
But the Antecedent is true, ergo the Conſequent is true.
The reaſon of the Conſequence is, becauſe every Ordinance hath ſomething in it whereby it is diſtinguiſhed from others; ſo muſt this have ſomething.
133Here I lie open to two Objections. Some will ſay, Why do not you put in thoſe words which they call verba creantia, where ſome put the very eſſence of the Ordinance? To theſe I anſwer,Mr. Weems ſaith, In their Churches when they Ordain a Miniſter they give him the Book of God in his hand, to ſignifie that now he hath power to preach the word, as the Prieſts hand was filled with fleſh Numb. 3.3. P. 105. Although I do agree with the old nonconformiſts, and other Churches, that ſome ſuch words muſt be uſed, and by neceſſary conſequence 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 diſtinguiſh. I do not at this time aſſert what it is, but finding it in Scripture, I argue againſt thoſe who leave it out. Walaeus we ſee could not tell whether to call it a Rite, or an eſſential part. I know Bellarmin and other Papiſts look on it as part of the eſſence of Ordination, and if they do ſo, I do not blame them [they having Scripture for it] as I blame thoſe who leave it out.
Doctor Owen in his Review of the nature of S. p. 23. tells us that by Ordination of Miniſters, many upon a miſtake underſtand only the Impoſition of hands uſed therein. [I have not met with any of this opinion; I find none of the Papiſts ſpeaking thus, who make as much of it as any] then adds, Ordination of Miniſters is one thing, Impoſition of hands is another, differing as the whole and the part. Enough.
If a Totum, then Totum univerſale he cannot mean, but Totum Integrale: then Impoſition of hands ſtands affected to Ordination as membrum134 to Integrum, which is Symbolum cauſae eſſentialis; then not an Adjunct. If it be a part, and a principal part, then where there is no Impoſition there is no Ordination, for ſublatâ parte principali, tollitur Integrum. If it be not a principal, but leſs principal, yet Ordination is but Imperfect; for ſublatâ quâlibet parte tollitur perfectio Integri. Then let thoſe who are ordained [as they ſay they are] without Impoſition of hands, conſider their Ordination, and I hope they cannot be offended with me for refuſing (at beſt) an imperfect ordination, when I could have a more perfect Ordination. One of their own Ordainers hath ſpoken enough for me.
I pray tell us how praying and faſting for a bleſſing upon a perſon elected, is an Ordinance diſtinct. We Pray and Faſt for rain, for fair ſeaſons, for peace, for ſucceſs in war, for health, for counſel in great affairs, &c. But I hope praying and faſting for theſe ends does not make theſe ſeveral and diſtinct Ordinances; but it ſeems it ſhould be ſo, as well as praying & faſting for a bleſſing on a perſon elected makes this a diſtinct Ordinance; prayer and faſting is but one Ordinance by 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 election, what is it then? I know not how they will avoid it, but they muſt confound Election and Ordination, which I am ſure is contrary to Scripture.
135When 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, appointing to the office with Impoſition of hands; do diſtinguiſh Ordination from other Ordinances.
5. The laſt Argument I ſhall uſe will be ad hominem, yet I think there is ſomething in it.
If Satan from a wicked Imitation of God hath made uſe of Impoſition of hands in the conſecration of his Miniſters, 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 imitate 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,Synt. The. l. 9. c. 33. quia a Deo expreſſe praecepta non est. Yet adds Si in aliquibus Eccleſiis Impoſitio manuum recepta eſt & uſitata,136 improbari minime debet, cum exemplo Apoſtolico nitatur. Say you ſo? then I think you had no reaſon to diſapprove of it indeed. Thus alſo Chemnitius;Exam. Concil Trid. p. 222. 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 examples ſoever we have in the word, for which we find no commands, thoſe examples are but indifferent, we may follow or not. This muſt be a certain truth, elſe we ſhall ask the reaſon, why ſome examples having no commandment are to be imitated, but the examples of Impoſition of hands in Ordination are not to be imitated? [I know all examples are not imitable, but I cannot lanch forth in that diſcourſe] See what follows. Hence
1. Popular election of a Miniſter is a thing indifferent. I regard not whether I be elected or not; we have ſome examples [though none ſuch as our popular elections] indeed, but we find no command, that the plebs ſhould chooſe their Miniſter.
Chemnitius had been pleading for popular election, and to prove it brings in ſome examples out of the New Teſtament; when he had done, he adds Haec exempla Apoſtolicae Hiſtoriae clarè oſtendunt electionem pertinere ad univerſam Eccleſiam, certo quodam modo ut ſuae in electione ſeu vocatione ſint partes & Presbyterii & populi.
137But 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 admiſſions [for which I know neither example nor command] and excommunications of members is but indifferent; for the latter though it may be conceived we have an example, yet no command.
3. Hence there is no Independent Church: with divers more things which I would draw from hence.
2. I anſwer, if Impoſition of hands carry thoſe five things in it which Chemnitius, Ib. p. 221. tells us, then I know no reaſon why he ſhould call it an indifferent thing. At the end of that paragraph he is ſtill ſpeaking of Impoſition, as I think, and ſaith Nititur mandato, &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 neceſſary by vertue of precept; and that to be continued in a way of ſucceſſion. It is I ſay according to the mind of Chriſt, that he who is to be ordained unto office in any Church receive Impoſition of hands from the Elders of that Church, if there be any therein. But what, I pray, if there be no138 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 examples. I would not have that ſcruple to lie upon me about my own Ordination, whether it were valid or not, becauſe I had Impoſition, for much.
2. This will tend more to union; for now there is an occaſion of difference for want of this.
3. It is great and juſt matter of offence to the Epiſcopal party, who in ſome caſes do allow Presbyters may Ordain, but whether Ordination can be without Impoſition of hands, I do not know they are reſolved for the affirmative. Things then which tend to union, and139 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 ſeparation of Levites to their office, Numb. 8.10. it was not indifferent then, why now?
5. When the Apoſtle gives Timothy this charge, Lay hands ſuddenly on no man; and when the Lord commanded them to ſeparate Paul, they anſwer the command by Impoſition Acts 13. I am miſtaken if we find not a precept here. If Timothy hath a rule for the modification of his Act, and that Act, for ought we can find, conſtantly 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 Nations, if we find the Scriptures many hundred years after their civil uſe, to add a modification to ſuch Acts, whether we are bound to ſuch Acts where there is no ſuch national 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 indeed140 was thus appointed to his office, but by a command 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 exerciſe, 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. Deut. 34.9.As for Joſhua, though the ſpirit of the Lord was given in a larger meaſure at this Impoſition, yet this was not the only end intended, for then Moſes might have Impoſed his hands in a private Tent, and not before all the Congregation, and there give him his charge, v. 22, 23. but Moſes did by this Act declare the Deſignation and Ordination of Joſhua to his Office before the whole Congregation. So it is in Ordaining of Miniſters.
3. If it were a Jewiſh cuſtome, and upon that account only uſed, why ſhould Paul command Timothy a Greek to uſe it, and that in Ordination of Officers to Gentile-Churches where no ſuch 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 irregular: 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 Argument141 againſt it, becauſe that ſtrikes at the examples in Scripture, and is the very Argument our Brethren here now uſe, and indeed if that can be made good, I ſhall not much ſtand upon Impoſition. He ſaith,
Thoſe examples are not a warrant for us, becauſe they were either extraordinary perſons [as Apoſtles] or extraordinary Presbyters, or they were extraordinarily raiſed who did Impoſe hands.
To that of Timothy he ſaith, It conferred an extraordinary and ſenſible gift.
All extraordinary it ſeems, but by this we ſhall not loſe only Impoſition but Ordination alſo, which yet Mr. N. owns: the ſame objection was againſt Ordination, as we ſaw before; and certainly if Mr. N. takes away thoſe Texts which ſpeak of Impoſition, I know of few Texts he will find to prove his Ordination. I deſire Mr. N. would give us ſtrong proof for Ordination, leaving out thoſe Texts: ſo that we ſhall have nothing left but election, and I think he will hardly prove any election, wherein extraordinary perſons had not their hand: ſo at laſt loſe all.
But how doth he prove theſe Impoſed hands quà extraordinary perſons? The example in Timothy [the Presbytery which laid hands on him] and Acts 13.3. he foreſaw would be alledged; to theſe two he lays in anſwer aforehand, telling us they were extraordinary Preſbyters.
A. Say what Presbyters and prove; the extraordinary Presbyters are enumerated. 1. The Synod of N.E. Mr. Hooker, nor a thouſand more ever thought of any ſuch thing; the Synod142 conceive it was the Presbytery of Epheſus which Impoſed hands on Timothy. Junius conceives it was the Presbytery of Derbe and Lyſtra where Paul took him,Eccleſ. p. 1960. Acts 16.2. Chryſoſtom indeed thinks they were Biſhops, for Presbyters could not ordain Biſhops, ſaith he. Mr. N. doth not believe Chryſoſtom I know, nor do I believe they were extraordinary Presbyters.
2. I wonder the Biſhops of old, and our latter Biſhops did not hit of this notion, but that both according to the Canons of old, and ſo of our Biſhops, Presbyters were admitted to 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 extraordinary 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 extraordinary Prophets, yet they are all put together as equal.
A. 1. How will Mr. N. prove that all the Prophets and Teachers which were in the Church of Antioch uſed that ambulatory courſe? had not this Church a ſetled Presbytery? that were ſtrange; how was it in Corinth?
2. Teachers, when taken diſtinct from other Officers, [as here] I think uſe to ſignifie ordinary and ſetled Officers. Why doth Mr. N.143 ſay that ordinary Elders are nowhere deſcribed by the title of Doctors only? What difference between〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉here, and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Eph. 4.11. there as here, diſtinct from Prophets. So I think〈…〉〈 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 impoſing 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 Evangeliſt.
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.
144But 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 extraordinary perſons did Impoſe, becauſe there was an extraordinary and ſenſible gift conferred on Timothy: and thus much he inſinuateth in his fourth Argument. The extraordinary gift ceaſeth in reſpect of Ordination; ergo it muſt be removed, as from prayers for the ſick and converts, &c.
A. This is ſomewhat like, and this I have heard urged; I know nothing to take off Impoſition but this, if it can be proved. If Mr. N. can carry this, he ſhall carry me: But how proves he this? Thus; it had this effect upon Timothy, ergo. What? it had the ſame upon all, and this was the end of Impoſition. But this Mr. N. muſt prove: If I can prove the contrary, then I muſt tell Mr. N. to argue a particulari145 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 wiſedom; they were then gifted before Impoſition.
2. In Acts 13.3. when the Prophets and Teachers were commanded to Impoſe hands on Paul and Barnabas, the end was not to confer extraordinary gifts; Paul was filled with the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 9. when Ananias Impoſed hands. The end here was to ſeparate them, &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 Apoſtles did this: beſides that all the ordinary Presbyters [for I hope ſome were ordinary] had extraordinary gifts, ſeems ſtrange.
4. Timothy is charged to commit the things, &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 〉what need this caution? For if they by Impoſition of hands, could confer extraordinary gifts,146 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 Ordination be in facie Eccleſiae cum prophetiâ, i. e. cum recitatione, & interpretatione verbi Divini de Miniſterio Euangelii. But this gives no content. Zanchy underſtands that Timothy came by that gift by Propheſie, i.e. Per ſacrarum literarum interpretationes quas partim jam inde ab ipſa juventute didicerat, partim ab Apoſtolo acceperat:The Leyden Profeſ. underſtand Propheſie as doth Zanch. Diſp. 42. S 37. Deinde idem Donum confirmatum in eo fuit & aucium per impoſitionem manuum, cum fuit Ordinatus. If this were all, this would not ſo confirm Mr. N. his notion: for why may not the Lord increaſe the gift of a Miniſter, and 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 〉conferri in ordinatione, ſaith great Chamier. Then Impoſition need not be caſt147 out for this: for Mr. N. muſt prove it was an extraordinary gift which Timothy had nothing of before, and which this Presbytery by Impoſition conferred; which I think he will not eaſily do.
Others underſtand by Propheſie a Revelation made to Paul concerning Timothy. So Beliarmin, with which the thoughts of moſt agree, a Revelation made by ſome Prophets which then were in the Church, by which he was deſigned to the Miniſtry,In Loc. & poſt ea per Impoſitionem mannum fuit in eo confirmatus & quaſi inveſtitus, ſaith Gerhard. And this the Apoſtle mentions, both for the commendation of Timothy, and for his excuſe, being yet ſo young, and elſe in regard of years unfit for ſo great an Office. See Gerh. Ib.
For this〈…〉〈 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.
1483. 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 ſingularity, as is Mr. N. 't was this, Suppoſe the gift were extraordinary, yet it ſhould ſeem to be given〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 4.14. And〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Tim. 1.6. 〈…〉〈 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 〉comprehends the Miniſterium eccleſiaſticum to which Timothy was ordained, he being by Propheſie deſigned to it being young, the Preſbytery might well Impoſe hands with Paul to ſeparate him to his office, as Paul being commanded to be ſeparated, &c. Acts 13.3. Here the prepoſition is changed, it is not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but〈…〉〈 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. By149 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 conſtitution: but it is with the hands of the Elderſhip, as concurring by way of Approbation only.Thus he. That Paul's hands ſhould cauſaliter conſtituere gracious qualifications, and that the hands of the Elderſhip ſhould onely concur by way of Approbation that Timothy ſhould have ſuch qualifications ſeems ſomething odd: What need of their concurrence or approbation? Nor do I think conſtitution here is taken in that ſenſe the New Teſtament doth uſe it.
I hope by this time this Argument of Mr. N. uſed by our Brethren doth not 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 warranted in Ordination by Impoſition on the Levites. He giveth divers reaſons; I can yield to divers things without hurting my cauſe.
His fift reaſon, Iſrael Impoſed hands on the150 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 figuratively for the gift of the Holy Ghoſt, which is ſignified and conferred.
A. Then Mr. N. of all men muſt not exclude Ordination, in which it conferred extraordinary gifts [as he hath affirmed before] for that time 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 ſhould151 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 Baptiſm 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 inded, 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 〉, as do the Tigurin and Aethiopick Verſions. So Oecumenius, Luther, Eraſmus, Gagnaeus, as Gerhard ſaith, and the Greek do not oppoſe it; Thus Cajetan and Aretius: See their Comments. Then this notion fails, and it will make yet more for my Interpretation.
4. But let us ſuppoſe the Doctrine of Impoſition be here intended: Yet as Aretius ſaith well in loc. De hac ceremonia admonebantur Neophyti, quandoquidem tum in frequenti erat uſu, quid illa eſſet, cur inſtituta, quibus, & per152 quos imponerentur manus: item ad quid conduceret diſcebant Fidei Tyrones. Very good: muſt not then the Neophyti anſwer, Hands were Impoſed in Ordination of Church Officers? If we come to teach ours this head of Catechiſm, and they muſt anſwer according to Mr. N. his notion, they may well ſay, What is this to us? how is it a foundation to us, the thing is ceaſed ſo many hundred years ſince? [beſides what I have before ſaid.] But according to our Interpretation, we both open the Doctrine, we uſe the thing, and it remains as yet a Foundation to us. The old holy non-conformiſts tell us how they look upon the Miniſtry: there was an objection made, We have been taught heretofore that Diſcipline is an eſſential part of the Goſpel and matter of Faith. To this they anſwer,
That Diſcipline of the Church [being generally underſtood] is a matter of Faith, and an eſſential mark of the Church, I hope our Brethren will not deny; for Diſcipline comprehendeth not only the Adminiſtration of the Keys, but Ordination and Impoſition of hands: but without Ordination there are no Preachers, Rom. 10.15. and without Preaching there is no belief, v. 14. Wherefore without ſome part of Diſcipline it cannot be denied but that the Church is no Church, Faith no Faith. Thus they.This ſuites Mr. Hooker's expoſition of our Text.
5. If the confirmation and increaſing of ordinary gifts be the Spirit's work, then ſtill it may hold, as Zanch. and Chamier before.
153His 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 unlikely 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 intended.
His ſeventh it is interpreted in the next, v. 4, 5. Illumination anſwers to repentance, Taſte of the heavenly gift to Faith, the participation of the Holy Ghoſt to the doctrine of Impoſition and Baptiſme, the taſting of the good word to the reſurrection.
A. This doth not pleaſe. Illumination, as moſt underſtand the word belonging to the Intellectual part, and repentance to the heart, do not ſeem to anſwer. I know〈…〉〈 in 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 〉. The Syriack render〈…〉〈 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 〉, &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 expreſſed in the Text, then Faith muſt be taken154 in a large ſenſe, and this will rather anſwer to Illumination then repentance.
3. How doth Reſurrection anſwer to the Taſte of the good word; when as Reſurrection is a terrible word to moſt. The good word of promiſe rather, the promiſe contains good.
4. Why doth he make one word to anſwer Baptiſm and Impoſition, when they were divided in the Text; and Mr. N. hath not yet proved that they went always together.
5. Why may not the participation of the Holy Ghoſt have reſpect alſo to ſuch gifts as are given now in our days? for do we not obſerve [with trembling] how ſome loſe their gifts, even eminent gifts, profeſſion, and ſo fall away, as never more return? ſhould it be tied up only to extraordinary gifts [which I do not believe] yet thoſe were given in Ordination, as Mr. N. ſaith, ſo that for that time Impoſition muſt be comprehended.
His eighth: Impoſition is made a principle from which it was neceſſary an Apoſtate ſhould fall if finally: but it is not neceſſary that one ſhould be inſtructed touching the office of the Miniſtry: one may be ſaved, and yet be ignorant in the point of Ordination, and one may fall away finally though ignorant in this reſpect.
A. I know not what he means by the Apoſtates falling from the principle. He doth not mean, I ſuppoſe, that a man muſt have firſt thoſe extraordinary gifts, and ſo fall from them, elſe not an Apoſtate; there are too many Apoſtates yet never reached thoſe gifts.
2. One may be ſaved as well though he doth155 not underſtand the extraordinary gifts conferred by Impoſition. I preſume Mr. N. doth not think the Apoſtles conferred the Holy Ghoſt in a gracious ſaving way by Impoſition.
3. It is one thing for a perſon to be ignorant of Ordination, another to be ignorant of that which Ordination holds out; of what neceſſity the Miniſtry is, Mr. Cartwright and the Non-Conformiſts [before mentioned] tell us. So the Scripture. But Mr. Hooker takes it in a larger ſenſe.
4. I think there are few Apoſtates who have been ignorant of the Miniſtry; for thoſe who have been ignorant of this, never came to ſo much as the Text expreſſes; then they cannot fall away from what they never had.
His ninth: If we ſhould underſtand the docirine of the Miniſtry by Impoſition, 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 Impoſition. And if we make Baptiſme it ſelfe together with the doctrine which it holds forth a diſtinct principle, and the doctrine of Impoſition together with the Adminiſtration of it in Ordination another diſtinct principle, to what principle ſhall we refer the Lord's Supper.
If I miſtake Mr. N. in what he would have, I muſt craye pardon; I wiſh he had been more clear, but as I underſtand him, ſo I anſwer. The Lord's Supper being of the ſame nature with Baptiſm; a ſigne to repreſent, a ſeale to156 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 Ordinance 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 neceſſary to ſalvation and a viſible Church in the Ordinances and Officers held forth.
His tenth: Interpreters apply this to confirmation, not all, I named ſome before that are of another opinion. But if we ſhould loſe this Text, yet we have not loſt our cauſe.
His third Argument I anſwered firſt.
His fourth is alſo as good as anſwered: this it is, If we muſt remove Impoſition from converts, from prayers for the ſick, if from any, why not all; the extraordinary gift ceaſeth in reſpect of Ordination, as well as in reſpect of other Adminiſtrations. The ſtrength of the Argument lying upon the extraordinary gift, this is anſwered before.
Then he meets with an Objection. It may be a ſacred ſign in Ordination to ſignifie the157 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 appointed to his office when Moſes impoſed hands and charged him.]
To this he anſwers, 1. It was not of this uſe in the conſecration of Prieſts and Levites.
A. Why not? he ſhould have told us of what uſe it was, not to confer extraordinary gifts I am ſure. Omitting what might be ſaid, let Peter Martyr ſpeak for the reſt of our Divines. Loc. Com. de. Voca. adminiſt.He reciting the ſeveral rites of the old conſecration both of Prieſts and Levites, ſaith, Haec externa ratio eo valuit ut populus intelligeret eos eſſe jam miniſtros ſibi deſignatos a Deo: ſublatis autem iſtis umbris nobis nihil relinquitur niſi Impoſitio manuum. Thus alſo Zanc. 4. praec. p. 785.
2. He ſaith It is not of this uſe in Ordination of Deacons.
A. I ſhall only give him Mr. Hooker's words,Sur. Chu. p. 3. p. 9. The Lord Chriſt in his Infinite 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 Ordination 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,p. 23. had more cauſe to allow of it. Let him ſhew us Deacons in Scripture ordained without Impoſition of hands.
PAge 3. line 16. read review. p. 13. l. 7. r. Chriſt. p. 14. l. 2. r. if. p. 16. in the Syriack word put Tau in the place of Ae. p. 21. l. 17. r. Ordinance. p. 22. l. 31. r. Muſculus. p. 38. l. 17. r. 1. p. 39. l. 19. r. Congregation. p. 49. l. 10. r. from being. p. 51. l. 6. r. me. p. 52. l. 15. after have r. judged this. p. 63. l. 2. r. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 79. The Arabick words have neither the Vowels nor Orthographical notes placed right; the words ſhould be waſamou lahom, with elif quieſcens placed after Sin. p. 80. l. 12. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 92. l. 34. r. others. p. 93. l. 20. r. think. p. 102. l. 30. r. committing. p. 103. l. 1. r. 1. Titus. p. 114. l. 24. r. communem. p. 121. l. 8. r. eccleſiae. p. 130. l. 19. r. words. p. 138. l. 24. after had r. no.
Some few other faults in the Greek, and pointing, but the judicious Reader will ſoon correct them.
THe Admiſſion of perſons baptized in their infancy, without due Tryal of their Faith & growth in Chriſt, when grown in years, to a full participation of all Church-Privileges & Ordinances, hath cauſed great confuſion in the Adminiſtration of holy things; And therefore, I conceive, the Learned Author of this Elaborate exercitation hath deſerved well of the Churches, by clearing the way of thoſe Admiſſions from Scripture-grounds, and the concurrent Teſtimonies of many, both Antient and Modern writers; As alſo, by diſcovering and removing thoſe Popiſh additions and pollutions which by ſeveral ſteps and degrees have crept into it. And if what he hath offered in this Eſſay come not up to the Judgement and Practice of the beſt conſtituted Churches; yet this ingenuous and pious overture holds out more than moſt Churches have hitherto attained, and may provoke the zeal of many to hold out what they have attained, as more commodious for, and perfective of the much-deſired and longed-for reſtauration of the Churches to their privitive purity, both in ſeparating the pretious from the vile, and in uniting the pretious into a more beautiful and beneficial Order among themſelves. Theſe conſiderations have confirmed me in giving not only Licenſe to the publiſhing, but thanks to the Publiſher of this diſcourſe of Confirmation.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A85312)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 170413)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 227:E1819[1])
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.