Instance in the Scripture that men upon such pleas have separated yet causelesse separation is a sin opposite to the Vnion commanded and I think Schism and Vnion 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 Vnion 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 I am not in this place critical about the words Vnion or Vnity the Reader hath my meaning I think the Dr. will not oppose this for I find him enquiring exactly into the Vnion 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 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 may 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 If causeless separation from a Church hath no other name given it in Scripture nor can rationally be referred to any other head then Schism then causeless separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true 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 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 Vnum 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 Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved there must needs by consequence be Schism also for posita forma ponitur formatum 4. The Doctor tells us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 its primitive signification will carry a division into parts Matth. 27.51 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant the Septuagint * Other Greek Versions I have not to see do not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Kin. 11.11 31. yet why the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not be translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifie what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth I know not I conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but comprehends what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth This appears 1. By the Learned who as they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by findo scindo so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 findere scindere qui pannum aut aliquod ejusmodi continuum dirumpit c. Buxt Schind Pagn Merc. hence as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered scissura so the 70. in v. 30 31 render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scissurae So the vulgar render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 31. Nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifie the rending of a thing into parts in opposition to the Doctor 's notion more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For among the Physitians a rupture in a membrane the rending of a Muscle they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the part be not separated from the body so Gorraeus 2. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament is used and applied to such things as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament as to the rending of cloaths here and in divers other Texts So is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this doth There may be something in this that the Arabick in the 11. v. use that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Vnionis illius quae debet inter Christianos observari I was 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 ground-work I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25 That there should be no Schism in the body If by the body in this text be meant the Catholick-Church visible then Schism may be in the Catholick-Church visible But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequence cannot be denied 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 If 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 A. It is summoned up in Eph. 4.5 one Lord one Faith one Baptism It is the unity of the doctrine of faith
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 particular 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 qualified 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 thy 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 world 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 step 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
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 1 Cor. 12.25 That there should be no Schism in the body 1 Chron. 15.13 The Lord our God made a breach upon us for that we sought him not after the due order 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. To the Reverend the Associated Ministers in the County of Essex Fathers and Brethren 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 'T is 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 Your fellow labourer in the worke of the Gospel GILES FIRMIN Shalford 2. of the 2. Month 1658. An Advertisement of two Books lately published by this Author 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 CHAP. I. A brief and friendly examination of Dr. Owen 's discovery of the Nature of Schism 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 reduâ—e their 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
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
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 CHAP. III. Of Association of Churches 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 some 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 dissatisfaction 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 Scripture-examples 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 Church-power 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 who 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 Love-feasts which attended the Supper I see no reason though I know
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. This 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 had of mens lives Chrysost in loc and so of their abilities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 have 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 providential 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 Some mens gifts lie more in building up then in bringing home are they not therefore sent 4.
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. All 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no mention made of the Fraternity doing it did constitute Elders he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 the 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 If 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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 Obj. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 disceret 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 the 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 whence 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 therefore 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
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 nothing 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. speaks 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 of 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 Free-grace 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 of 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 off 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
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 to confirm an instrument to convey c. as say our old Catechisms well may it be referred to Baptisme As for Baptisme it being 1. An Ordinance so long practised before by John 2. The initiating Sacrament 3. Answering all those Baptismes the Hebrews knew well 4. At this time greatly esteemed and practised 5. The spirit fore-seeing our times wherein that 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 the consecration of a person to administer holy things or if he had pleased to have added to shew the Designation the Separation the Appointing of this person to his office As the Congregation saw Joshua and knew him 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 FINIS Errata 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Joseph Caryl The 24th of the 6th Moneth 1657.