Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	answer_v	church_n	scripture_n	1,641	5	5.7721	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85312	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.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1658 (1658)	Wing F958; Thomason E1819_1; ESTC R209761	90,499	170

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 non-conformists 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 membrum 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 When Paul wrote to Timothy he did not charge him that he should not fast and pray suddenly but not Impose hands suddenly Words used which signifie sending setting apart 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 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 But if Chemnitius will plead for more then an indifferency in it I must bar this play to have him come in with Haec exempla I can shew him Haec exempla more clear for Ordination by Imposition c. 2. Hence the consent of the people in 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

nature 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 there 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. 22.2 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 Vnius 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 particular 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 glorious 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

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 When 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 shall 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 of 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 For 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 the 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