Rule in the House of God contrary to that Confession Why Imposition of Hands by Elders of other Churches should be Irregular he names no Scripture to prove it But if it be omitted that Ordination saith he is irregular this we are sure of from Scripture that 's enough for me If it be irregular then 't is not Due Ordination for the Rule hath not it's Due given to it If such Ordination can be valid to what purpose is the Rule We shall have strange things follow if this be admitted that in Religion and in the House of God Acts may be valid which are not conformable to the Word of God The Word saith thus but these Acts answer it not Pious and Learned Mr. Faldo before his Death wrote me word That one of the Brethren against Imposition of Hands was with him and debated the Question with him and this especially he stuck at He would not allow the Elders of one particular Church to perform Office-Acts to those that were not of that Church Mr. Faldo tells me He gave him a formal Argument to prove that it might be and in many cases it must be admitted This he desired to write down and did so and I believe it will be seen by others in this Town of his Opinion Aud if they will take occasion to ventilate that Difference Brotherly it will not be declined by some of your and my mind Thus Mr. Faldo What that Argument was Mr. Faldo did not write I wrote to that Brother desiring him to let me know it but I cannot obtain it he searched for it but could not find it But now for Imposition of Hands in separating a Person to Office in the House of God this came in by an express Command of God Numb 8.10 14. Who are meant by the Sons of Israel in the 10th verse is the Question Mr Pool saith the First-Born or chief of the Tribes The same Persons I presume might be both and most probable it was so First Charkâ—ni as Mr. Ainsworth Quotes him and agrees with him in it saith They were the First-Born In this case he may be credited as soon as any Christian Writer Secondly We read in the three next verses 16 17 18 the Lord tells Moses three times that he had taken the Levites instead of the First-born Hence 't is most probable the First-born were they who imposed Hands on the Levites Thirdly By this Act saith Mr. Pool they signified their transserring that Right of Ministring to God from the First-born in whose hands it formerly was Very good But who should or who could give away the First-Borns-Right but themselves We read Exod 24.5 Moses sent the Young Men of the Sons of Israel and they offered burnt Offerings Who were these Young Men The Chaldee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primogeniti the First born These were the Priests or Sacrificers until the Levites had the Priesthood in their Tribe So Numb 3.12 'T is certain the First-born had many Priviledges tho' Esau despise his Eirth-right Then the First-born must impose hands and give away their Priviledges but shall they who have no right give away another Man 's Right Fourthly The First-born were separated Exod. 13.2 Sanctifie unto me every First-born in their Sanctification there was a Separation Now it is most probable that they who were separated did separate the Levites and not others I insist upon this for a Reason I shall give hereafter let our Opposites give better Reasons to prove they were not the First born As this Practice came into the Church by God's Command so it continued in the Jewish Church Dr. Lightfoot tells us that some Men who gave themselves to the study of the Law became very Learned Men which they might the Law being in their own Tongue and did teach beside the Priests and the Levites but none without being first ordained and that with imposition of hands Dr. Owen affirms the same when the Gospel-Church was to be erected the Apostles with whom Christ had spoken of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God Acts 1.3 when a Deacon was to be set apart to his Office they did it with Imposition of hands Acts 6.6 And so the Churches practised ever afterwards Acts 13.3 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 Heb. 6.2 Of which Text more anon This was the Practice of the Churches next the Apostles and ever since amongst the Fathers Papists and Protestants both Lutherans Calvinists Episcopal Presbyterian Independents I never saw in my time Platfor Ch. Dise Cap. 9. Thes 4.5 while I was there nor ever heard since I came from New England tho I have enquired that any one was ordained to any Office in the Church without Imposition of hands Thus the Synod held there * And approved by the Synod held at Boston 1680. 1649. tells us upon these Hypotheses that the Fraternity is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Power of the Keys and that Election gives the Essence If there be no Elders Imposition of hands may be performed by some of the Brethren Numb 8.10 But there is a Difference between the First-born there and our private Brethren and good reason why they should impose Hands and not our private Men. It was not so in the Gospel-Church It is Irregular saith Dr. Owen But by this we see how Imposition of Hands must be and was in Practice In the next Thesis The Fifth they tell us In such Churches where there are no Elders and the Church desire it we see not why Imposition of hands may not be performed by the Elders of other Churches 1 Tim. 4.14 Act. 13.3 Ordinary Officers laid hands upon Officers of many Churches The Presbytery at Ephesus laid hands upon Timothy an Evangelist The Presbytery at Antioch laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas These Men do not tell us this is their Judgment but they give us the Holy Scriptures for what they say Whereas the Savoy Confession gives us not one word of Scripture but only tells us where the Essence of a Pastor lyes without imposition of hands which is denyed I must say with Tertullian Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo insers Si Apostolicus cum Apostolis senti I find in the beginning of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland when they came newly out of Popery Imposition of Hands was not judged necessary An. 1560. pag. 26. as I read in the History put out by Mr. Calderwood That Man of God Mr. Robert Bruce whose Name I honour was not ordained thus nor any other way that I can learn as if there were something in him extraordinary though I honour the Man yet we must stick to our Rule and not Mr. Bruce An. 1581. pag. 105. But afterwards they tell us how Ordination is to be performed viz. by Fasting Prayer and Imposition of the Hands of the Eldership After this pag. 383. they make it Indifferent But at a general Assembly An. 1597. pag. 408. it was ordered That
but ordinary Ministers God blesseth their Preaching The Indians some of them are converted gathered into a Church Were they a Church before these Ministers And were they the first Subjects of the Power of the Keys before these Ministers preached to them Let the Scriptures in the Languages that the Spirit of God inspired his Pen-men to write them be sent to a People who never saw them nor heard of them Let this People understand them believe them embrace them give themselves up to them without any Ministry to translate to interpret and to help them to understand and believe I will allow this People to be the Subjectum Primum Secundum Tertium of all the Power of the Keys but rot else Secondly There are others who lay claim to this and impropriate it to themselves as belonging to them only i. e. Bishops as being of a Superior Order above Teaching Elders Thus Bishop Gawden told me it was out of Courtesie that the Bishop admitted Presbyters to impose Hands with them in Ordination Thanks to this Courteous Bishop I thought they had followed the fourth Council of Cartbage But if Presbyters do impose Hands with the Bishop then the Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter in Ordination is gone For Imposition of Hands is the Principal thing in Ordination as I will prove anon because one prays at the Imposition that argues no Superiority of Power in him All Bishops were not of this Bishop Gawden's mind not that Bishop of Peterborough who when he ordained many at one time but then take notice That he did ordain them as Presbyter He spoke not without Reason for no Ministerial Acts in the Church are valid but such Acts as are performed by Ministers of Christ's Institution They who are Officers in the Church by Civil or Ecclesiastical Constitution all their Acts as such signifie nothing But his being a Bishop and so superior to a Presbyter was by no Institution of Christ had only jus Humanum to Warrant his Authority and therefore he did not ordain as such a Bishop but as Presbyter Two I know Mr. Statham as I heard and Mr. Samuel Smith who were then Ordained Mr. Smith spake of it often what the Bishop said to them and â—â—d them take notice of it Had Mr. Smith lived till now he had been about 78 years of Age suppose him to be Ordained about 25 years of Age some by this may guess what the Name of that Bishop was about 58 years past I have often thought of this the meanest Officers in the Common-Wealth be they Rum-bailiffs Ale-Founders yet they must have Law for their Office to Warrant their Actings But that in the House of God there should be such as look upon themselves as the Chiefest Officers in the Church and yet can shew no Law from the Lord of the House to Warrant their Office this is strange what hath jus Humanum to do in the House of God Is not the Wisdom of the Great God Sufficient to know what Officers to appoint in his House but sinful Man must set up Officers and supream Officers too without him Thus Bishop Gawden told me The Bishop is the Supream Officer He should have said the Arch-Bishop in the Church you Presbyters are but the Pipe-staves the Bishop is the Hoop that holds you together An excellent similitude I desired him to tell me who should be the Cooper to knock on this Hoop I doubt I told him the Pope would swear by his Keys that he must and will be the Cooper And Bellarmin will maintain it by his Argument a Simili c. De Romano Pontif. mibi 204. He told me moreover you Presbyters are no more able to manage the Government of the Church of England than David was able to wield ' Saul's Armour The Government of the Church of England is a hard word there needs an Interpreter We poor Presbyters look only to the Government of our particular Flocks whom we feed with the Word and Sacraments over whom God hath made us Bishops Acts 20.17 28. If all the particular Congregations in England supposing them to be visible Saints were so govern'd then by an Induction of particulars it might be so call'd We do not indeed in our Government use Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo Prisons Fines Cutting off Ears these are Saul's Armour but none of Paul's spiritual Weapons 2 Cor. 10.4 with which we are content If it be well examined it will be found that the Zeal of his Government hath been carried out against Consciencious Men who for Doctrin Worship Discipline stick close to the Word of God without admitting any Humane Inventions to justle with him I say the Zeal has been carried out against those far more than against Whore-mongers Drunkards prophane Swearers Dam'mees c. I can but take notice of Dr. Lightfoot 1 Vol. p. 787 788. that learned Man and Son of the Church of England living in the times of our Persecution who denys Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles And that it is an improbable and unconstant Inference that because there was Subordination between the Apostles and Philip. in Acts 8. that therefore the like is to be reputed betwixt Bishops and other Ministers I have done with this I only aimed at this Teaching Elders may Ordain and we have Divine Authority for it in the Texts before mentioned These we are sure are Officers in the Church by Christs Institution The Lutherans have Bishops yet they deny any inequality jure Divino between Bishops and Presbyters quoad Potestatem Jurisdictionis Therefore Gerrard answering Bellarmin appropriating Ordination to Bishops saith De Minist Eccles p. 261. there is not one tittle in all God's Book that Ordination by Bishops should be valid but by Presbyters should be Null The next thing is it must be performed with Imposition of Hands I named five Scriptures for this before What Dr. Owen saith Ordination of Ministers is one thing Imposition of hands is another differing as the whole and the part I yield it by this whole he must mean totum integrale it cannot be totum universale but we say in Logick suolata qualibet parte tollitur perfectio Integri sed sublata parte principali tollitur integrum Then I say where there is not Imposition of hands there is no Ordination for this Imposition is the principal part and so tollitur Integrum That it is the principal part I prove and this shall be my first Argument 1st The Spirit in the Apostles sets forth the whole Ordinance of Ordination only by Imposition of Hands but never by Fasting and Prayer 1 Tim. 4.14 the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay Hands on no Man suddenly That in those Texts Ordination is meant and not Confirmation nor reception of Penitents nor the Sick I have proved in another Tract so that I insist not upon them Heb. 6.2 This my Brother with whom I now deal denyes to be Ordination but it is meant
belonging to a Person in Authority giving Authority to others as Acts 7.10 and 27 and 35. Matth. 24.45.47 Matth. â—5 21.25 c. What Mr. Ainsworth saith of the First born imposing their hands upon the Levites I think 't is true By this sign they did put the charge and Service of the Church upon them and did Consecrate them to God in their Name So I think the Presbytery in their Imposing of hands do impose the charge the burden the work of the Ministry upon the Persons ordained giving them Authority from the Lord to go forth and Preach and Administer all the Holy things of God with Authority As the Church of Scotland saith It is a mean of Communicating Authority to the person Ordained Well may the Apostle say lay hands upon no Man suddenly See it in a civil Case Numb 27.18 19 20. Joshua must stand before the High-Priest and the whole Congregation Moses must lay his hand upon him a sign of his calling and Ordination to his Office v. 23. Moses did so and gave him his Charge Thus if strangers hearing there is an Ordination come in among you there they may hear Preaching and Prayer but who is the person to be ordained they cannot tell by Preaching and Prayer but when a person is brought forth and the Presbytery Impose their Hands upon him and pray now they may know who the Person is 3dly If Prayer and Fasting be Ordination without Imposition of hands then as oft as Ministers meet together to keep days of Fasting and Prayer and pray for him who is the Pastor of that Church where they meet for increase of grace gifts blessing upon and success in his Work so oft the Man is ordained are not these the Heads you pray for when you Ordain in your way What Heads have you more Not only in the Sacraments but in all Church-Ordinances there is something which visibly shews a difference between that Ordinance and another As the Eyes and Hands lifted up to Heaven in Prayer visibly shew a difference between Prayer and Preaching and so in Preaching from Prayer but according to you there is nothing whereby Ordination differs from other Ordinances Fourthly Acts 13.3 That here in Ordination I meet with seventeen Divines besides Dr. Owen that acknowledge it and the Definition of Ordination is here seen When God commanded them to separate Paul and Barnabas c. He did not tell them how they should separate they knew that before and accordingly did it with Imposition of Hands they had learnt that from Numb 8.10.14 the positive Command where the word separate is used If ever Ordination might have been spared then here for what did this signifie to the poor ignorant Gentiles to whom they were sent that knew nothing of it And if they had told them they were thus Ordained what cared they for it They carried their Credentials with them the power of Miracles to confirm their Doctrine If the Church did Pray and Fast for success upon their Ministry but what need Imposition of Hands Not to confer Gifts they were qualifyed before Paul Acts 9.17 Barnabas Acts 11.24 and for Teachers to Confer Gifts extraordinary we read none They were called to separate by an immediate Command or Call of God So Paul was no Apostle of Men Gal. 1.1 Tho' Men did Ordain yet what they did being by the immediate Call and Command of God he may be said to be an Apostle not of Men or by Men. But this is observable This Ordination is the first that ever was out of Judea Antioch then the chief City of Syria the most powerful City of Asia where the Prefect of the East most where resided called by some the Gentiles Jerusalem Here then in a City of the Gentiles is the Apostle of the Gentiles set apart to the Work of an Apostle among the Gentiles And I cannot tell what use to make of it since as I said the Gentiles neither knew it nor regarded it but it is of use to us to shew us that as the Apostle of the Gentiles was separated to his Work so all Ministers that are the Successors of the Apostles should be separated to their Work that as they were thus separated in the Jewish Church so it should be in the Gentile-Christian Church Object But Paul was an Apostle before Answ 1. I deny its For 1st Then the Text would have called him so The Text tells us there were Prophets and Teachers but he doth not say there were Apostles Surely Paul should have had the Title of his Office if he had been an Apostle as well as the Prophets had 2dly The Lord tells Anantas Acts 9.15 Paul was a chosen Vessel to carry his name among the Gentiles But this was not done till now 3dly Paâ—l was never called an Apostle till after this Acts 14.14 Lastly When the Apostle chargeth Timothy 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no Man the Affirmative Is implyed he ought to lay hands if he sound a Person worthy in mandato negativo Affirmativum continetur Thus I have given you my Definition and proved by several Scriptures now Brother give me your Definition and prove it by Scripture you indeed have not alledged that Acts 14.23 but two others have brought that Text against me â—o prove that Election from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Prayer and Fasting without Inposition of haâ—ds makes a Minister 1st This Text I see by Lutherans and Calvinists is brought to prove the Peoples-right in Election Dr. Owen hath made great Use of it so Dr. Râ—le so Gerhand makes great use of it but when they have done so yet they all tell us a Man is not a Minister as yet but Ordination must be and that as I defined it 2dly I think it is a good rule to help to understand the Scriptures if one Text be obscure and there be clearer â—exts in the Scripture speaking to the same thing Carry the obscure Text to them which are â—lear We have several clear Texts for Ordination with â—mpositioâ— of Hands but not one now that gives the least shadow to prove such an Interpreâ—â—tion as this It falls out very unhappily with some Men saith Dr. Owen in another Case who think they see some peculiar Opinion in some singular Text of Scripture and will not bring their Interpretation of it to the Analogy of Faith and see how contrary it is to the Current of the word in other places 3dly Paul knew how Imposition of Hands in separation to Office came into the Jewish Church by the positive Command of God and how it continued in that Church Secondly He know the Practices of the Apostles Now Thirdly He knew how he himself was separated Fourthly He can tell Timothy how he i. e. Timothy was separated and charge him that he take care how he laid Hands upon others Can any rational Man think that Paul now would in these Churches separate Man to Office without Imposition of Hands I think no Rational
Man will believe it Why then is this Text abused For my part I am for the Peoples Election provided it be carried on regularly and look upon this Imposing of Ministers by Patrons upon the People against their Consent as cursed Tyranny But for my own part giving honour to these worthy Men far more learned than my self I am not satisfyed that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text whatever the Etymology of the word was at first must necessarily note the Act of the People listing up their Hands in Election of their Officers I rather consider how the word is used in that Age or Time when Men write 'T is well known that words in time do vary in their signification from what they did at first Among divers others we have one in Scripture Ethis l. 4. Cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephis 5.4 Aristotle tells us how the Word was first used and who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Man that was facetious pleasant Witty but withal cleanly in his Discourse But afterwards in his time if a Man did seem to be Witty tho' Scurrilous and base he now was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divers such words we have in the Latin and English Tongue Philo and Paul were Contemporaries Philo flourished in Caligula 's Time and wrote before Paul and how Philo useth the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond has given us an account out of his Works Likewise out of Lucian and Maximus Tyrius Where the word is used of single persons so that the word did not in those times signifie the suffrages of the People and the Word in Holy Writ Acts 10.41 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being given to God Plainly carry it that the Word doth not always intend or force the Peoples Suffrage whatever the Etymology of the Word signifles upon which Gerbard lays his stress I have not seen that piece of Mr. Selden but Mr. Ranew told me he had made it clear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had lost that signification these contend for many years before Christ 2dly That Rule which Henry Stephens gives us concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I take to be very true When this word governs an Accusative Case then it signisies but to create Ordain Thus he Now in this Text Acts 14.23 it doth so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in Cor. 2.8.19 which these Men urge to confirm their Opinion there is no accusative Case but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was chosen of the Churches Let me add to this the Syrryack Version I doubt not but that Translator did understand the Etymology of the word as well as any of us now in this verse he renders the word they â—id Constitute or Ordain (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same Syriac word which is used in Tit. 1.5 Ordain Elders But in the 2 Cor. 8.19 there he uses another word to chase (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doubles the Verb as the Hebrews do which the Latin Translation gives thus deligendo delectus sit So the vulgar Translation Constituissent 3dly The Gramatical Construction is more to me than a Criticism when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch v. 22. they returned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Confirming the Souls c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eâ—horting them to continue c. These two were Paul and Barâ—abas's Acts then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paul and Barnabas lifted up their hands if the word must signifie so from the Etymology of the word this was as much their Act as the â—ormer Let any School-Boy construe it tho' the Boy can tell you the Etymology of the word Then we shall have a new â—aâ—hion of ordaining by Ministers fasting praying and listing up their haâ—ds â—esides for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how will that agree with the Peoples listing up their hands what â—air sense shall we make of it But if we take the word as we see it was used in that time and as H. Stephens saith if it governs an accusative case as it doth in this place thâ—n the Sense runs smooth Paul and Barnabas did Constitute or ordain them i. e. the Disciples in the sormer verse Elders in every Church c. 4thly It is certain the Greek Fathers did use their word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Ordination Surely they understood their own Mother tongue as well as we I have observed Chrysostem in all those Texts where Imposition of hands is mentioned he useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerhard confesseth that Chrysostom and other Ecclesiastical Writers do so use it And tho he stick to the Etymology of the word to maintain the Peoples right of Election yet Ordination he saith must be with Imposition of hands therefore he saith in the next word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demum sit mentio in their praying they Imposed hands Thus he As to these Fathers who thus use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had they been against the Election of the People then I should have suspected their Integrity in their use of the Word but the People then had their Election of their Bishops and Presbyters And one thing I took notice of in the 5th Century I read of one Synâ—siâ—s a Man of very good parts who was to be Ordained Bishop of Syrene But when he should be Ordained he did not believe the Resâ—rrection of the Body yet the People who had elected him were so earnest to have him Ordained that Theophilus Alexand. did Ordain him hoping he might believe it afterwards as he did When I read it I thought what a difference there was between those times and ours they could Ordain a Bishop who did not believe one of the Articles of the Apostles Creed as it is called but the Church of England could cast out about eighteen hundred Ministers but for what was it because they did not assent to the Doctrine of the Church of England I heard Mr. Harmar should tell Bishop Reynolds if you can maintain the Discipline of the Church the Dissenters must maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England was it because they were scandalous in their Conversation was it because they were Idle and lazy was it because they did not worship God according to His Word Blessed be God they could charge us with none of these things for what then Let them answer that when they come to appear before their and our Judges They were Church-Men and Bishops that made that Act against us SECT III. NOw to your Reason why you Ordain without Imposition of Hands that which you chieâ—â—y insist upon is this There is neither Scripture Precept noâ— President for ordinary Officers of one Church to impose Hands in the Ordination of an Officer in another Church Answ First What need of such Presidents while Apostles and Evangelists were living Secondly This Argument of yours plainly implies that there is Scripture Precept and President to ordain in another Church so it be without Imposition of
Weighty Questions DISCUSSED I. Whether Imposition of Hands in Separating a Person to the Work of the Ministry be Necessary II. Whether it be Essential to the right Constitution of a particular Church that the Teaching Elders and the Members meet alwayes in One Place Whereunto is added A Prediction of Mr. Daniel Rogers Minister in Essex long before the Beheading King Charles I. and Arch-Bishop Laud foretelling that they should not dye a Natural Death By GILES FIRMIN Author of the Real Christian What thing soever I Command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it Deut. 13.32 LONDON Printed for the Author 1692. To the READER THat Unity among Christian Brethren is a thing not only beautifull in it self but also a Duty greatly incumbent upon them who profess that blessed Name of Christ none that read the Holy Scripture can be ignorant of it yea a Duty so greatly incumbent that they who do not all they can to promote it provided the Authority of the Scriptures be preserved taking care that they neither profess nor practise any thing in the House of God but what is according to the Holy Scriptures lest that Vnity should be hindered they neither shew that respect to the Command of Christ to us nor to the Prayer he made to his Father for this End as become Christians I thought I might have said At that Holy Table where we being many are one bread 1 Cor. 10.17 I do admit Independents Presbyterians Anabaptists Members of the Church of England that are and walk as Christians tho' we differ in Opinion and here Ecclesiastical Vnion is chiefly seen that both in former times and in these dayes I had been as desirous of this Vnity as some other Men. Glad I was when I heard some Brethren of the Independant and Presbyterial Perswasion in London did attempt it their Names were very dear unto me when I heard who they were that laboured in it tho' I knew none of them more glad I was when about four Years since a Copy of the Agreement was sent me to which my Brethren in the Countrey and my self readily consented We expected the same should have been Published but we find another much different from it In particular in the former Ordination was to be performed with Imposition of Hands but in this the Words are left out and these words put in The Person that is Chosen shall be Duely Ordained not expressing what that Due Ordination is However as it is worded I Consent to this and whatever be the different Sentiments I have from others in several things mentioned and more than are mentioned in the Agreement yet I have willingly Subscribed to it and Profess my self a Vnited Brother with all that are Duely Ordained In a small Treatise which some few Years since I published I took Notice of the Apostolical Churches how they were Constituted I named Nine Churches all that I could find in which were several Elders I find not one Church in the Gospel where was but One Pastor Since that Dr. Owen hath taken Notice of it and hath proved by several Scriptures and Reasons that there ought to be many Elders in every particular Church There were three Teaching Elders besides other Officers in his Church this was like a Gospel Church To have but one Pastor to govern is a Novel Opinion he saith and what he adds is true It is difficult if not impossible on supposition of one Elder only in a Church to preserve the Rule of the Church from being Prelatical or Popular As there ought to be many Elders in one Church so I doubt not but the true Primitive Church-Government was by a President with the Presbytery Not a President over more Churches but only one particular Church Not a President superiour in Power over the Presbytery but only Ordinis gratiâ Revel 2.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) The President 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) The President with the Presbytery So Beza and Raynoldus Anglorum Eruditissimus c. saith Didocla Alta. Damas p. 131. the light of Nature directs to this I would willingly have but one Instance given where this Government was ever prejudicial to the Church More I could say I only mention this that tho' in these Points I may differ from my Brethren besides what are mentioned in the Agreement yet it hinders not my Vnion with them What this Due Ordination is our Brethren as I said have not told us Hence the Discussing of this Question falls not under that Prohibition p. 3. that we must not Dispute those different Sentiments For our Sentiments do all agree it must be Due Ordination which if it be not declared what it is we agree and Subscribe to we know not what Before I Subscribed I asked the Brethren whether the Subscribing to this Agreement did debar us from an amicable discussing the Questions wherein we differ they All Answered No. We were not hindered by it We know the different Sentiments before we Subscribe the Agreement and tho' we Dispute them yet our Vnion holds as well as if we did not dispute them The Apostle exhorts 1 Cor. 1.10 and Phil. 2.2 that we be all of one Mind of one Judgment If we must not labour after it to what purpose is the Exhortation Is not the discussing Controverted Questions in a Christian amicable way seeking Light from God and setting up his Ends not our own one way to come to be of one mind which the Apostle exhorts to I am sure it is and could give good proof of it from experience in the Question now disputed If we may not do this then it is as much as to say There are different Sentiments amongst us and shall be so for still I say the End of the Agreement which is Union is preserved As to the Question of Ruling Elders which have continued in the Virgin Churches of the Vaudois from the Apostles dayes and in the Churches of Bohemia The Apostle mentioning only Bishops and Deacons 1 Tim. 3. troubles me where their Work is laid open with much more satisfaction to me than in any Book I have yet seen in England I shall be thankfull to any Brother who will dispute the Question Pro or Con it shall not hinder Vnion As to this Question about Ordination it is to my Knowledge a great hinderance of our Vnion The thing is so clear in several Texts of Scripture how it should be performed and the Practice of the best if not all the Churches since the Apostles times have been accordingly with Imposition of Hands that I have wondered any Man should scruple it I heard of an Ordination in our County of an illiterate Person and that without Imposition of Hands after it was past hearing of another who is a Scholar to be Ordained by the same Persons I wrote to him to desire the Elders that were to Ordain him to give me the Scriptures which did Warrant
there be an Uniform Order touching Ordination of Ministers throughout the whole Realm and that with Imposition of Hands and thus it holds to this day Mr. An. 1598. pag. 424. Bruce having preached many Years would admit of Imposition of bands for Confirmation but not for Ordination Several denyed him to be their lawful Pastor for want of Imposition but others own'd him Mr. Bruce accepts of Imposition for Confirmation and Mr. Pont imposes hands upon him First As for Imposition of Hands for Confirmation as it is used in England after Baptism I find not one word of it in all the History nor did the Church of Scotland own it that I find there Secondly All this while there is not one Scripture brought by those who opposed Imposition Yet they had taken the Word of God for their only Rule which is so express for Imposition c. which makes me wonder at Mr. Bruce so holy a Man But if they had no Scripture had they no Reasons Yes they had one and but one and that a pityful one too Thus It being laid as a ground pag. 425. that none can receive Ordination to the Ministry without Imposition of Hands and that the Ceremony is proper to Bishops it behoved to follow that none could enter into the Ministry without the Imposition of the Hands of Bishops This is all very strange that Mr. Bruce should admit of Imposition of Hands for Confirmation when the Bishops do appropriate that to themselves as well as in Ordination How many things may be said to this to shew the weakness of this ground Any understanding man may easily see but I forbear The Representation of Presbyterian Government and put out the Year 1690. when Bishops are turn'd out tell us in the sixteenth Section That Men come into the Ministry by Election and Ordination by laying on of the Hands of the Bresbytery which is a mean of Communicating Authority to him Then it seems the Church of Scotland where this stir was can impose Hands in Ordination without Bishops By reading this History I find the Government of the Church of Scotland from the first beginning of Reformation was Presbyterian wherefore it was no small injury to impose upon them Prelatical Bishops unless they had been of Christs Institution which we are sure they are not And that our first Reformers in King Henry the Eights and in King Edward the Sixth's did declare That Episcopacy was no distinct Order from Bresbytery by Divine Right but only a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrate for the better Government of the Church SECT II. The Definition of Ordination AS to the word Ordination I think Greg de Valen. speaks right Tom. 4. Dis 9. Q. 1. p. 1. the word is taken from the Effect of that Ordinance Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque Ordine certo Ecclestasticae Dignitatis Constituitâ—r Some are Pastors some are Teachers some aâ—e Ruling Elders some are Deacons they are set or placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 1.28 in such an Order in the House of God by Ordination Thus it hath passed for Currant many hundred Years in the Church till yesterday Election gave the Essence and Ordination was but an Adjunct I desire my Brethren but to give me that Adjunct according to the Word of God and we shall unite tho' we differ in our Logical Notions What should he done where Ordination cannot be had Something I had to say to it but being none of our Question I let it alone It is more material to know what Ordination is and being it is Essential to our Discourse I will give the Definition of it This being a sure Truth That they who do not give the Definition they do but mock the Person to be ordained and abuse the Ordinance for he is not ordained Cui convenit Definitio eidem quoque Convenit Definitum è Contra c. Ordination then is the Separation of a Person rightly qualified to the work of the Ministry by teaching Elders with Fasting Prayer and Imposition of Hands Something I had thought to have spoken about the Qualification wherein I see these mens Practices with no content their way being to debase the Ministry but the stress lying most in the Ordiners and Impositions of Hands I shall speak to these two Heads That it belongs to Teaching Elders Act. 13.3 Tim. 1.4.14 I prove it Here the People rise up and claim a Right by Virtue of their being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Power of the Keys And I have seen it practised Two Private Persons imposed their Hands upon an Ancient grave Divine who was ordained I believe near 40 Years before in England c. They gave him the Essence in giving him a Call and so they gave him the Adjunct And this being the Opinion of these men here I preser their Ordination with Imposition of Hands and would own him for a Gospel Minister before them whom you ordain as you suppose without Imposition And if Ordination be no more than Prayer and Fasting what need of you according to the Principles of Independency in another Church It is not Prayer Preaching and Fasting Tho' I grant Preaching is very comely at such an Ordinance yet Preaching is not Ingredient into the Ordination The People can Fast and Pray as well as you I observed while the hands of these private Persons were upon the Head of their Pastor one of them made such a Prayer as might become any Minister it was so apposite to the business in hand that I could but wonder at it and I believe it was his own Composing Whether the Fraternity be the first Subject of the Power of the Keys Mr. Nath. Ward use to say They were the first Subject of the Key-Clog not the Keys So they have proved in many Churches I am sure I have spoken to it several Years since in another Tract I add but a few word now In the Common Wealth the People are before the Magistrate In the Church the Ministry is before the People Thus it began with the Apostles they were first and after them by a continual Succession of the Ministry the Church is continued The Ministry is the Instrument in God's Hand which he useth commonly or chiefly for the bringing in and building up of his Church 2 Cor. 6.1 Ephes 4.11 12. The principal Cause and the Instrument work together to the producing of the Effect that then the effect of a Power should be the first Subject of that Power of which 't is an Effect is new Logick to me Dr. Owen saith The Church is before Ordinary Ministers Answ First But is it before the Ministry Else 't is nothing Secondly The Proposition is not true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that faithful and laborious Servant of Christ Mr. Eliot whom I know and honour Mr. Mahew Mr. Leverick with great Labour and Industry get the Indian Language and preach'd to the Indians they were
of Confirmation and bids me see Dr. Owen so interpreting it I honour the Doctor and will consider him when I have first proved it is meant of Ordination If Mens Judgments be worth any thing then for learning and Holiness we have very eminent Men for it Arch-Bishop Vsher Mr. Cart-wright Dr. Lightfoot Mr. Thomas Hooker Gualter Tossanus Bullinger Gillespy Dicson Johnson Jacob These understand it only of Ordination Other Divines of Confirmation and Ordination and * Because my Brother Charges me with my false Quotation of Mr. Cart-wright take his words on Heb. 6.2 By Imposition of Hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament much less Confirmation after Baptism but by a Trope or borrowed Speech the Ministry of the Church upon the which Bands were laid which appeareth in that whosoever believeth not there ought to be a Ministery by order to Teach and Govern the Church overthroweth Christianity Dr. Owen here doth not exclude it 1st I lay the Foundation for my Proof in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1.5 not laying again the Foundation This then is a Fundamental point Foundation must last as long as the House lasts Confirmation by extraordinary Gifts conveyed in the Imposition of Hands do not last so long as the Church lasts the Church hath lost this above Fifteen hundred Years But the Ministry intended in this place shall last to the end of the World Mat. 28.20 till the Body of Christ be perfected Eph. 4.12 13. Therefore this is the Foundation The other Heads of Catechism that are join'd with it must last to the end of the World And if Baptism then the Ministry that have the Command from Christ to Teach and Baptise Mat. 28.20 2dly Let it be observed that the extraordinary Gifts which were given sometimes by Imposition of Hands were given first to the Jewish Christian-Church and then to the Gentiles without Imposition of Hands Acts 2.2 3. with Acts 10.44 45 46. This is very material Do you then shew us two Texts where the Apostles separated Men to the Ministry without imposition of Hands as extraordinary Gifts were given first both to Jews and Gentiles without Imposition of Hands and to Cornelius and his good Company before Baptism Acts 10.47 3dly We have other Scriptures where Imposition c. is put for Ordination I named two Do you name one more where Imposition of Hands mentioned alone is put for Confirmation 4thly Imposition of Hands in Ordination to Office was before Imposition of Hands to the Collation of extraordinary gifts and more frequently mentioned therefore the more reason why it should be so understood here and not excluded The placing of Imposition c. in the Text-after Baptism does not prove it to be meant of Confirmatton no more than the placing of Faith in God after Repentance will prove that Repentance goeth before Faith in God whereas if a Man do not first believe God to be and such a God as the Word declares him to be yea if he do not believe the Resurrection and the last Judgment he will hardly Repent 2dly Cornelius and his Friends the Gentiles had those Gifts Conferred before Baptism Acts 10.45 46 47 48. 3dly Let them prove that all that were Baptized had these Gifts Conferred after Baptism This made Dr. O. so to expound it because it follows Baptism in the Text. As for Dr. Owen's Reasons against Ordination I see no reason saith he why the Apostle should pass from the Doctrin of the first entrance of Christian Religion and proceed to the Ordination of Ministers omitting the Lords Supper 2dly Nor why he should insert the observation of this Rite or the Doctrine concerning it in the same Order and under the same necessity with the other great Fundamentals c. Answ 1st And what necessity was there of his inserting extraordinary Gifts common to godly and ungodly and which were to expire in a short time amongst the Fundamentals 2dly Gospel Worship is a fundamental point and it was Christs pleasure to have a Gospel Ministry to carry on that Worship to the Worlds End and under that Rite the Ministry is meant Ephes 4.11.12 1 Cor. 12.28 3dly Under Baptism the Lord's Supper might be comprehended being the other Sacrament * So Dr. Gouge 's Baptism Synechdochice is put forboath Sacraments or being those were the Catechetical Heads which the Novices learned before they were Baptized and admitted into the Church as Baptism and Repentance went together in John's Baptism Matthew 3. so here Baptism and Repentance are mentioned but for the Lords Supper they might be further instructed after they were in the Church before they were admitted to it 4thly There is not such a necessity of Baptism as of Faith and Repentance yet Baptism is mentioned amongst those Heads The Prophets under the Old Testament Prophesied of these Gifts that they should be poured out saith the Dr. Answ True but the Prophets do not say they should be conferred by Imposition of Hands and so be made a Chatachetical Head under the New Testament 2dly So do several of the Prophets foretell what Pastors the Lord will give to his Church under the time of the Messah But to make an end with Dr. Owen to whom you refer me He gives us four Cases in which this Imposition of Hands was used The Second he mentions was in healing of Diseases Mark 16.18 c. This cannot be the meaning here saith he for this gift was extraordinary occasional Temporary Proper to some Upon the same grounds it cannot be meant of Confirmation For the Gift was Extraordinary Temporary Proper to the Apostles Ananias had an immediate Call to it Acts 9.10 11.17 Philip had no such power or Gift in Acts 8. And after the Apostles we read of none that could or did confer Gifts extraordinary by Imposition of Hands What he means by occasional I know not I know no word of Healing unless People were sick 2dly But I read in the Dr. p. 34. thus we shall allow room also for that other exposition of the Words which is more generally received I suppose he means Ordination because it complies with the Analogy of Faith I dare not be peremptory Then the Dr. is not absolutely against me So much for my first Argument I go on 2dly Ordination is an Act of Authority but Prayer and Fasting are no Acts of Authority These are the Duties belonging to all Christians I would desire no more Blessings than many good Women can pray for Therefore Prayer and Fasting do not make Ordination The Major only remains to be proved Acts 6.3 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom we may appoint c. Tho' the Persons were qualifyed tho' elected by the Church yet they were not in that Order of Deacons till the Apostles put them into it Authoritatively Imposing their Hands upon them And this is common with all Presbyters Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same word we had before This word I find several times in the New Testament
Hands It lyes upon you to shew where that Precept or President is I know no such Texts you acted did you act in Faith that you acted according to God and were well-pleasing to God in your ordaining without Imposition of Hands Then shew us that Divine Testimony upon which your Faith for so acting is grounded You never gave me one as yet and if you cannot do it your Faith in this Act is but vain If there be any thing I do in the House of God for which I cannot give either Precept President necessary Consequence from Scripture or light of Nature I will lay by that Act I will not trouble the Peace of the Church nor hinder Union with my Brethren by keeping up such Practices Thirdly The Apostles did not constitute Churches as you do with one single Pastor c. In Nine Churches we find several Teachers but not one with a single Teacher In a Young Church at Antioch Act. 13.2 3. There were three Teachers to separate Paul and Barnabas There is an Errour then in your Constitution and that does not justifie your Error in Ordination Fourthly Give me a President where the Pastor of one Church did so much as preach or pray in another Church if you cannot then we must not so much as preach or pray in another Church But you have called me and others to preach in your Church To this you answered me You could well do that from Matth. 28.19 go teach all Nations if so then in other Churches Answ First Set by Presidents then it seems you can find none Secondly I may deny your Coâ—seqâ—ence at â—â—ast according to some Independent Principles unless I preach as a gifted Brother To preach to the Nations who were Heathens and to preach in an Independâ—nt Church differ I may preach to Heathen as a Minister of Christ but in an Independent Church as a giâ—ted Brother I wish we knew the first Author of this Distinction that we might scratch his Cranium for so witty an Invention What your judgment is as to this distinction Lib. 2. p. 101. I cannot tell But I am of Dr. Owens mind If I did not think my self boâ—nd saith he to Preach as a Minister and as a Minister Authorized in all places and on all occasions wheâ— I am called thereunto I think I should never preach much more in this world Fisthly If that Text will warrant me to preach in another Church it will warrant me to Baptize in another Church if there be need and I am called to it They are joined together and if I may put forth two Acts of Authority I may also put forth a third If there wants a Pastor and I am called to join with others to separate him to his Office we will do it according to the Word with Fasting Prayer and Imposition of Hands without which 't is not Ordination We do not give him the Deficition Sixthly Since then we are come to consequence from Scripture I gave you a Scripture 1 Cor. 12.12 The Body is one and hath many Members c. He does not mean that particular Church of Corinth is that one Body he adds so is Christ v. 13. Jews and Gentiles make up that one Body v. 25. The Members of this one Body must have the same care one of another Does the Apostle tye up his Discourse to the Church of Corinth that the Members of that Church should have care one of another and if one of their Members did â—â—â—â—er v. 26. all the rest of the Members of Corinth suffer with them but for other Churches take no care of them If they suffer you need not suffer with them Certainly this was not the Apostles meaning I look upon all particular Churches to be Members of that one Body It is such a Church in which Christ hath set Apostles Prophets c. v. 28. It is such a Church where some are as Eyes others as Ears some as Feet some as Hands verses 15 16. Therefore he speaks of the Visible Church If every particular Church were the Body of Christ how many Bodies should Christ have But he hath but one Body as the 12th verse and Ephes 4.4 12. tell us Since thâ—n all particular Churches are but Members of that one Body and the Lord hath commanded the Members to have care one of another Surely the Lord hath not confined the Ministerial Power of a Pastor to his own particular Church so that if a Neighbour-Church have no Pastor that the Pastors near to this Church may not help that Church to a Pastor and in that way which his Word hath declared Your Practice testifieth it for you would make the Person to be ordained and others believe you ordain in another Church and this is an Act of Authority but not as you perform it nor according to God's Word and so it is no Ordination There is a difference between a Ministers helping another Church destitute of an Officer in seeding them with the Word and Sacraments a joyning with others in the Ordination of a Pastor to them and exercising Discipline in that Church in case of Scandal The Church hath some Power to help it self in this Case tho no Pastor For instance a Pastor of a Church not far from us in the time of Persecution leaves England goes beyond-Sea many miles this Church had none to seed them they desired help of their Neighbour Ministers who accordingly did afford them help some preached some baptized their Infants and others Administred the Lord's Supper to them One of the Church fell very foully being seduced by another Professor the Scandal very great so that the Hearts of good People very sad but our Enemies rejoyced it made such a noise in the Country many miles about us that the like I believe have not been known in these Parts I was desired to preach there when I had done my Sermon a Writing was delivered to me wherein the Church desired me to declare to the Congregation which was then very great being no Sermon in the publick place their abâ—orrency of such Acts and withal desired me to inform them what was their Duty what they ought to do in such a Case as this I gave them my thoughts thus You are but a Homogeneal Body and so have no power to Excommunicate that being an Act of Authority nor have I any power to call the person to an account and excommunicate But yet this you may do since the person was admitted into Church-Fellowship and Communion with your consent she having fallen so foully dishonoured God so greatly and opened the mouths of Men against Godliness you should first meet together and humble your Souls before God that there should be such Dishonour brought to his Name by one of your Church Then First You have the Lord's Supper Administred sometimes amongst you there you may deny Communion with her Secondly You have times when your Church only meet together for Prayer mutual Conference c. You
may there deny her Communion also but when you meet publickly with others there you should not deny but she may be present at Prayer being it is natural Worship tho she were actually excommunicated and rendred as a Heathen I have seen the Indians present with us at Prayer and Preaching tho' as yet they had not embraced Christianity Thirdly As for the Civil Familiarity you had with her before you ought to suspend that too 2 Thess 3.14 and verse 6. yet having a care of her being in a poor condition that she do not perish Fourthly You may choose three or sour of your chief Members and send them to her to make her know the Determination of the Church and that the Church doth this in the Name of the Lord Jesus The Church did so the effects of it was the clamours of the People ceased the Mouths of them who before were opened against us were silent and now they rather sound sault with me that I was too sharp upon the Person offending the effect was a relenting and humbling of her self before God in the publick Congregation to the satisfaction of the Church she is now dead but the Church having then their Pastor absolved her before she died and it was a comfort to her her Absolntion was without money By this I see were this Ordinance of Church Discipline carried on according to the word of God which hath been so fearfully abused we should need no Writ de Excommunicato capiendo I did but add a sew words what the case of such a person was under this Sentence and it struck an awe in the hearts of Carnal People To return to my Brother To what I have said from the one body in the Corinth 12. That the Pastors of Churches may help other Churches where there are none and they call to help them you answer me This is all you have to say and there is little in it Answ No not all Brother I gave you your own Text whereby you proved that Pastors of other Churches may joyn with you in days of Fasting and Prayer and preaching and if so then in Ordaining 2dly I gave you the Texts of Scripture whereby the Synod of N. England proved they might ordain in another Church with Imposition of hands You tell me you deny a Political-visible Catholick Church Answ So do I. If I said but little I am sure you say too much How doth it follow Because we may help neighbour Churches when they call us to help them with Pastors in a Gospel way Therefore I must own a Political visible Catholick Church I gave you instance before how Churches may help to purge themselves from seandalous persons tho they have no Officers If there be a Family by us where are several Children Parents both dead and there is none that takes care of them to help them to food It is one thing for me to go to the House and help them with food another thing to cast one of the Children out of the House if it be cross refractory and will not be reclaimed by counsel Thecase is the same here twenty or forty Elders may meet to give Counsel in a Case leaving the Execution to the Church whence the Case depends You tell me Ministers are not set over the whole Church their Power may be refused in other Congregations Answ But they do not refuse their Power when they Call for it and desire to help them in their want I limit the Power of Elders to other Churches to the Call of those Churches being in want They are not therefore set over the whole Church When you with the two other Ministers they go for such did separate that illiterate Person to the Work of the Ministry did you Act as Officers or as private Brethren If you acted as private Brethren then I am sure he is no Minister the Brethren of the same Society had more right than you If you acted as Officers then it seems you could not put forth Official Power in another Church To separate to an Office is an Act of Authority Whom we may appaint not the People Act. 6.3 You tell me the 13 Acts 3. is no Platform for us unless we have an immediate Command from God to Ordain Men. Answ The immediate Command was in the separating Paul and Barnabas to the Work of their Apostleship The Command was not to Teach them how they should separate the Lord saith only Separate c. they knew how they should separate before The Synod of New-England and Dr. Owen were much mistaken who quote this Text for Ordination by Impostion of Hands But to this Text I have spoken before As to what you say That Gifts were then Conserred with the Imposition of Hands Answ The end when the Lord first Commanded it was not to Conferr Giâ—ts but to separate Numb 8.10 14. so Acts 13.3 Separate we Paul c. 2. The Savoy Consession is against you if there be Elders in the same Church it calls for Imposition of Hands 3. Paul and Barnabas were Gifted before as I named the Texts 4. The Deacons were Gifted before their Ordination Acts 6.3 5. Paul then needed not to have given that Caution to Timothy 2 Tim. 2.2 that they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom he Committed the Gospel-Doctrine for Timothy by the Imposing Hands might Conferr Gifts and make them able or fit Men for the Work 6. As to what you gather from 1 Tim. 4.14 for your Proof that Text you know admits of Controversie As whether Timothy was not first Ordained a Presbyter and asterwards an Evangelist Whether Paul's Imposition and the Presbyters were both at the same time c. but this is certain laying the 1 Tim. 1.18 and 2 Tim. 1.6 together with this Text there was something extraordinary as to Timothy's Gifts in which the Presâ—â—teries Imposition had no share the Propositions differ it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the putting on of my Hands See Didoclavius Altare Damos p. 161. Thus Gillospy Misc p. 101. but 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the laâ—ine oâ— of the Hands of toâ— Presbitery after Prophecy So that when Paul and the Presbytery did both impose Hands the Gift was conveyed as Paul saith by my Hands But as to â—â—s Office to a Potestative Authoritative Mission the Imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery did concâ—rr with Paâ—â—'s You tell me I must own Succission and those polluted Hands c. Answ Your Argument speaks thus If you will have no Ordination without Imposition of Hands according to Scripture then you must own Succession So I will Was Imposition of Hands in Ordination an Invention of Rome or an Institution of God the Papists can prove their Act in this Point by Scripture so cannot you 2. Mr. Robinson Mr. Johnson tho' rigid old Separates yet worthy Men made light of this Argument because it was God's own Appoinement 3. You had best throw away Baptism because their polluted Hands do
not to a Deacon Whom We may appoint over this Bâ—sitess Acts 6.3 say the Apostles It was not their Election that did Constitute them Deacons but the Apostles Authoritatively kppointing them over this Businâ—â—s We appoint not Yâ—â— appoint As Pharaoh appointed Joseph Governour over Egypt Acts 7.10 the same Word the Act of Authority 3. A Man whom God hath qualified may be Ordained to the Work of the Ministry tho' there he no People to Elect him As if one having gotten the Language of some Heathens he may go and Preach among them and if God bless his Ministry he may Baptize them if there be lent one or two at one time as Philip did the Eunuch and as the Aposles Paul and Bounabas who were Ordained before they were sent sorth to the Gentiles of which we see no need as I said before they carrying their Credentials with them the Power of Miracles but that Man cannot Baptize unless he be Ordained he is not in Authority before he be Ordained So that true Qualisication and Fitness for the Ministry and Authoritative Separation to the Ministry makes A Minister Election of the People makes him their Minister 4. Tho' I deny Election to give the Essence yet suppose Election to be an Ingredient into it where two things meet together to the Constitution of an Officer Subjection and Authority certainly Authority gives the Essence more than Sabmission thus Dr. Owen the People Electing Sabmit themselves and Dr. Ames * Bellar. enera to 2. p. 87. before him answering Bellarmin who made it strange that Sheep should choose their Shepherd Yes saith Dr. Ames rational Sheep may choose their Shepherd not by Jurisdiction but by Sabjection 5. The Scriptures which are for Ordination by Imposition of Hands are more in number and far more clear than those for Election the first Text which they bring for Election Acts 1.15 this differs much from curs for our Election is with Subjection to him whom the People Elect But this was not so Did Peter the Pope will be angry if you tell him so and the other Apostles sabject themselves to him whom they Chose 2ly It was choosing one of their own Order not one above them so does not Popular Election 3ly Tho' Peter did speak to all present yet it does not appear that all present did choose but the Apostles for they could tell best who had accompanied them all the time the Lord Jesus went in and out among them V. 21 22. Surely all that were present could not tell who those were as the Apostles 4ly They gave forth their Lotts V. 26. 5ly They Prayed to the Lord to shew whether of these two Thou hast chosen 24. Is this Text clear for Popular Election The 6 Acts 3. is the clearest for Election but not of a Pastor The 14 Acts 23. is much Controverted and these are all I meet with for Popular Election But for the other we have First God's own Institution Secondly We have five Scriptures more in the New Testament which are plain for it which makes me wonder how it came about that any Men of Learning should put so much upon Election that it should give the Essence to a Minister 6. The Peoples Election gives the Essence to a Minister What without his Acâ—â—ptation No sure If ten Churches choose a Man he may resuse them every one he may have Reasons for it Where then is the Essence their Election gives my Acceptation is every whit as essential to my being a Minister as their Election why then is the Causality given to their Election To be a Minister to them that they may demand of me and I be bound to administer all Ordinances to them by way of Office I grant here their Election and my Acceptation are essential But to be A Minister hath other Causes where Popular Election hath no Cansality That a People must subject themselves to a Minister and persorm all the Duties the Word of Go I require to a Minister and yet not choose him is Tyranny fit for Rome not for the Church of Christ This Notion of Popular Election giving the Essence to a Minister is the ground of that Witty Distinction of a Minister's Preaching if he Preach to his People that Chose him then he Preaches as a Minisler but if in another Church then as a Cisted Brother And hence they must not Administer the Sacraments in another Church tho' there be need and the Church desire he must not Act as a Minister beyond them who gave him the Essence of a Minister And this they would prove or illustrate from a Mayor of a Corporation who out of his Corporation hath no Power Ans 1. In a Kingdom or Corporation 't is sufficient there be a People first of whom neither the King nor the Mayor are Causes in the least in the Church 't is not sufficient there be a People but such a People viz. Visible Saints of whom God hath Ordained the Ministry to be in his Hand the Instrument to make them such So that the Ministry is first and an Instrumental Cause to make them a People as such 2. The Work of a Mayor is to Govern only A Minister hath other Work to feed with Word and Sacraments which they may do when called to it where they cannot Govern as I shew'd before 3. The Catholick visible Church made up of particular visible Churches is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 4.4 1 Cor. 12.12 and we are all Members of that one Body and the Members are bound to help one another else 't is contrary to the Light of Nature 1 Cor. 12.25 But where do you read that all Corporations and Kingdoms make one Body of Christ 4. I think Pastors and Teachers are Ministers the Apostle calls himself and others so Ministers 1 Cor. 3.5 The Apostles were Catholick Pastors to the Catholick Church * 2 Cor. 11.28 The Care of all the Churches Actu primo secundo depended upon the Call of no Church to Act in that Church al. Acts of Power yet Ministers Hence we say the Ministry †1 Tim. 1.12 2 Tim. 4.5 Col. 4.17 not â—he Pastorship I then a Man be a Pastor of such a Church both Actu primo secundo yet he is a Minister and doth habitually actu primo bear a respect to the Catholick Church and may perform the Acts of a Minister to another Church that is in want and cannot at present help themselves and call upon him to help for as he is a Minister that Church which Called him was no Cause of that What disserence is there between the Acts of a Pastor and a Minister because I read one saying He may Preath as a Minister which is better than a Gisted Brother but not as a Pastor This giving the Keye to the Fraternity as the first Subject of them hath brought in that Sin which Mr. Whan that Emitrent Servant of Christ and my former Pastor calls Koraism * See
Mâ— Quick's Sermo aâ— Mr. Faldo 's Funâ—ral p. 22. What Mr. Qâ—ick writes I am both an Eye and Ear-witness to About fitty sour Years since he Preached on Mar. 2.5 in Boston in New-England and did think-the Pâ—â—â—â—-man had Faith because Christ tells him his Sins were forgiven but no Forgiveness without Faith up rose one first forsooth he was not satisfied then another after him then Mr. Cotton our Teacher he took up our Pastor's Case and defended it and ten one after another fell upon him Tho' the Text does not say when Jesus saw his but their Faith it doth not follow but the Palsie-man might be included in the word their and his Faith put them on both the Bearers and Palsie-man had Faith This was too common in that Church though the most publick where Seamen and all Strangers came Sir Henry Vane was the Man that did embolden them when Ministers had done Preaching he would find Questions to put to them though they were Strangers Second Question AReverend Author out of a Book composed as he tells us by several Bishops and great Doctors and approved by Authority in King Henry the Eighth's dayes hath Collected these Propositions First That a Parochial or Congregational-Church Government is accordint to the Church of England jure Divino Secondly That the Diocesan or National Government is jure Hamano Thirdly That Protestants except some obscure Writer assert Particular Churches to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church-Government Among whom saith he there are these differences 1. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from the Congregational about the Extent of particular Churches i. e. the Congregational concludes there must be no more than are capable of Personal Communion The former make a greater extent and give too great advantage to Papacy 2. They differ concerning the Nature of Discipline the Congregational being esteemed an Espouser of a Democracy the Presbyterian of an Aristocracy the Episcopal of Monarchy But Maccovius a Theol. Polem p. 161. Keckerman b Syst Theol. p. 3. mention another Aristo Democratical and Dr. Ames c Medul Theol. p. 1. c. 33. thes 20. seems to be of the same judgment Fourthly All Protestants agree in afferting the Independency of particular Churches Thus far my Author That we may understand one another clearly Suppose we then that all the Christians in England that dwell in their several Parishes were such as deserved the Name of Visible Saints these meet every Lords-Day in their Parish-Church as they call it to Worship God where there is but one Pastor Lecturers and Readers are but in few Parishes in the Countrey nor have they any Power in Church-Government 1. Are these the particular Churches you mean by the words Parochial and Congregational I suppose my Brother means so 2. Is every such particular Church the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Power of the Keys 3. Are all these Independert my Brother hath said it First I desire my Brother would Name one such Church which the Apostles did Constitute but with one Teaching Elder or Paster Secondly How you may perswade the Pastor to admit the People to be Rulers with them I cannot tell but I doubt we should have a Monarclical-Government set up in every Parish in England which you say the Bishops espouse Mr. Norton as acute and Learned Divine as New-England had being at a Meeting of about forty Elders one that was newly come into the Countrey was reading to the Elders what his Judgment was about Church-Government He would have it to be Democratical quoting Morellus several times What have we to do with Morâ—llus said Mr. Norton to me if I cannot prove the Government of the Church to be Presbyterial I will give up our Cause Thirdly If all these particular Churches be Independent I fear we should have wild doings Experience have proved it already At this day we see woful effects of it If there be one or two Gentlemen of Purse Piety and Parts that stick close to the Minister and awe the People things may go on quietly else if there be but two Self-conceited pragmatical Fellows as I have known you should soon see what will become of your Parochial-government Fourthly Suppose the Pastor be foully scandalized by some of his Church one or more how shall the Government be carryed on shall he be Plaintiff and Judge in his own Case I have known a Case where a Pastor had great Offence given I propounded the Case to Dr. Owen * And Mr. Faldo whether that Pastor should proceed according to Matth. 18.15 16 he told me by no means when he heard my Reason We shall meet with hard Cases if we come to set to Government indeed Fifthly Suppose the Pastor himself grow scandalous how shall Government be carried on now Sixthly Good Men and Ministers are subject to Passions and Infirmities whence it is not fit the Government of the Church should be Committed to One alone Seventhly To Govern will is a Gist by it self a Man may be a good Preacher but no good Governoâ—r Eighthly When our Lord sent out the Apostles and the Seventy only to Preâ—â—â— he sent them out by two and two Mar. 6.7 Lâ—k 10.1 Now a single Paster undertakes all Ninthly The Jewish Synagogues bad several Elders to carry on the Government in one of their Synagogues and we but one 〈◊〉 vident Oâ—â—li quam Oâ—ulâ—s It is true our Pastor with his People may truely be called a Church as that Woman who had no Arms but held bee Pen between her Toes and so wrote 〈◊〉 have seen of her Writing 〈◊〉 may well be said to be Animal rationale a râ—â—ioâ—â—â— Creature but had God made the Wâ—â—an so at first the Woman had not been a 〈…〉 to Man So here is a Company of Vâ—â—ible Stints one Paâ—â—or here is Preaching Prayer Administration of Sacraments and in some Cases Excresse of Discipline so that it is a true Church but not such a Church as the Aposlles sent by Christ did Conâ—â—itute 〈◊〉 to answer all ends of a Church 't is imperfect defective and our Duty is to write after that Copy the Apostles of Christ have set us Dr. Owen hath proved there ought to be many Elders in every Church 2d Part of the Church p. 138. by Scriptures and Reasons I think sufficiently Soon after the Apostles in the Primitive Churches Mr. Clarkson in his Discourse against Diocesan Churches his first Book p. 5.21 hath shown there were more Presbyters in every Church than were necessary In those Virgin Churches in the Valleys of Piedmont which were never desiled with Popery but kept pure from the Apostles dayes where I find Ordination was with Imposition of Hands contrary to our Men I read in their low Condition seven Elders made a Classis they carryed on their Government by joint Councils they had their Consistories and 140 Pastors heretofore in a Synod Whence this one Teaching Elder or a single Pastor in a Church is a
Novâ—l thing different from the Apostles and the Practices of the best Churches The last time I was with Dr. Owen discoursing with him about Church-Government he was saying to me I would sain know whether the Government of the House of God be likely to be most prevalent being carryed on by one single Pastor or by many Elders met together and Acting in the Name of the Lord I think the Question may be easily Answered and in Order to it I state the Question Quest Whether unto the right Constitution of a particular Gospel-Church it be Necessary that all the Officers and Members of the Church do meet together in one place at one time to Celebrate all the Institutions of Christ The Learned Dr. Owen having changed his Opinion from what it was when he wrote his Countrey Essay for the practice of Church-Government p. 5â— when he would have the extream of the Division not above eight or ten Miles so the Center not more than four or five Miles from any part of it c. He now tells us To manisest that Assemblies of the whole Church at once and in one place for the Celebration of Divine Worship is of the Essence of a Church without which it hath no real Being the Lord appointed the Males which were the Circumcised Church should appear in one place three times a Year Exod. 23 14. Deut. 16.16 I did not think that Place being but a Subject and Time an Adjunct should be Essential to a Church yea so as no real Being without them Neither am I satisfied with this Proof For their Meetings three times a Year were to perform three particular Services proper to the Jews and that but once a Year and that day the Law appointed and no other we have no such Appointments under the Gospel The Lord's Supper which answers the Paslover was Celebrated every Lords-Day in the Primitive Churches 2ly Only the Males appeared then We think Women and Children as well as then Children are Members of the Church and ought to appear with the Males to Worship God every Lords-Day 3ly When they were in Jerusalem the Metropolis of the Kingdom how did their eating the Passover in a thousand it may be two thousand several Houses answer our Partaking of the Lords Supper at one Table in one particular Church we should have so many Churches The other Feasts were proper to them Nor could they meet in the Court all at one time to Worship God there being in David's time 1 Chron. 21.5 6. one Million five hundred and seventy thousand men besides the Tribes of Benjamin and Lâ—â—i that drew Sword The Dr. tells us 1st Book p. 87. 353. The Members of such a Church may and ought to meet occasionally in distinct Assemblies especialty in times of Persecution for Prayer Preading of the Word mutual Exhortation c. And in another place The constant meeting in one place is not best for Edisication Since he mentions Preaching of the Word I suppose he means their Officers are with them to Preach to them and why not then as well to Administer the Lords Supper as to Preach one Scripture against it I would gladly see To Baptize they do not question There were three Teaching Elders in Dr. Owen's Church the only Church that I know of in England that came up to the Apostolical Pattern these three might meet together with their Members in times of Persecution especially in three distinct Assembles consequently Places to Pray to Preach to Baptize and to Administer the Lords Supper for any thing I know out of God's Word Then may not we meet in distinct Assemblies to such Ends and yet be but one particular Church as his was but for other Ends we may meet in one place So in the Countrey Villages we may have many Elders in one particular Church as he saith there ought to be else I know not how we shall do for Churches in the Countrey But to come to the Question If the whole Church meeting together in one place and at one time be essential to a Church and it hath no real â—eing without it then it must be proved 1. Either from Divine Precept Or 2. From the Examples of the Churches planted by the Apostles Or 3. From forcing Reasons drawn from the Ends of Worship For the first I see none named but Example is the Proof and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned in the Acts and Corinthians are the Corner-stone of this Building five times pious and learned Amts quotes these words * Vol. 2. p. 755. Dr. Lightsoot hath spoken very clearly to these words against it I grant where there are many Elders and much People dwelling so that they can meet conveniently in one place to carry on all Church-work as was the Case of all the Churches we read of in the Gospel being in Cities there is a particular Church without any question So I yield to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I wish these Men who are so rigid for one place had but the experience in themselves which I have observ'd in others Precious Christians who had no Coaches nor Horses to carry them but crasie Bodies yet longing for the Ordinances which they might have had if my Notion might prevail within two Stones cast but for this Notion of the One Place they must Travel two Miles they do so but when they come home at Night they are so spent and tired that to Bed they must goe the next day came Complaining to me they had lost the Benefit of the Ordinances they could mind nothing but their Pain Many Christians having infirm Bodies must nor enjoy the Ordinances at all when they might have them the next door Hath God no respect to the Bodies of his People As to the Examples he brings the Question is Whether there were no more Christians in these Cities than could meet in one place if not then 't is no more than I have yielded before for these had many Elders in them to carry on all Church-work which the Dr. faith ought to be and is the thing I stand upon from the Apostolical Constitution of Churches But if his Argument from Examples be so Cogent then he must bring us Examples out of these Cities where there were more Christians than could meet in one place at one time and so were forced to meet in more places and these made more distinct Churches If these Examples can be brought then I yield the Question from Examples But if no such Examples can be brought as I am sure there is not one in all the Gospel then the Argument from Examples falls and is of no force Obj. If they did meet in distinct places they were and must be distinct Churches Answ But his Proof is all from Example and that implies there were such Churches de facto else there could be no Example 2. I deny the Consequence for tho' a Number of Christians did swarm out of the first Church
yet they might have but one Teaching Elder and so could not carry on all Church-work and there ought to be many Elders in one Church saith the Dr. be they six or seven Congregations it comes to the same I have heard that in Lantashire there is one great Parish Church and several Chappels belong unto it in which Ministers Preach and Administer the Lords Supper which do shadow out what I aim at As to the Examples which are brought Mede and Fuller Men of great Learning tell us that in the first Century Christians had a room Dedicated and Appropriated to the Worship of God what their Design is I leave yet they tell us it was but a room in some private Disciples House Nor in the second Century had they publick Places to meet in say our Homilies against Idolatry lib. 2. p. 66. The Lord tells Paul Acts 18.10 I have much People in Corinth How much so much as may meet in one place in a private Disciple's House when their Tables for their Love-Feasts c. are set This is much honour to the Text. Several of the Fathers understand the word Church in 1 Corinth 11.18 to be meant the place where the Church met Continâ—ns pro Continento and I think it may be so well understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these were the Church of the believing Corinthians that met together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church The Church here is opposed to their own Houses v. 22. then I know nothing against it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 14 chap. 34. may be so understood Let your Women keep silence in the Churches not in the Church as in the 18th V. but Churches so that they met in more places than one in Corinth yet but one Church 2 Cor. 2.1 Our last Annotator Translate the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 20th V. for the same thing not the same place and I think his Reason is good and I have wondered that Learned Men should render the words so in Acts 2.44 Dr. Lightfoot saith the words cannot be so rendered and gives other significations of the words that they will not prove the Question As for the Church in Ephesus which is another Example brought Paul continued there three Years Acts 20.31 The reason of his stay a great and essectual door is opened 1 Cor. 16.8 9. The Word of God grew mightily Acts 19.20 It grew so that they dare venture to burn the Books that were of Value among the Ephesians before the face of the People valued at eight hundred Pounds the least Acts 19.19 Both Jews and Gentiles came in Acts 19.10 17. And how many Christians have we now in Ephesus so many as may meet in one room in a private Disciples House Paul's great door and his word mightily had better been spared for this is but a disgrace to the Text. As for what Jâ—stin Martyr writes that the Christians in the Towns and Villages met on the Sunday 1. How many were there in the Villages 2. Had they any Pastor in the Villages 3. How far were these Villages from the Towns Justin Martyr saith nothing to these Heads Come lower to the Year 252. when the Quarrel was between Cornelius and Novatianus Cornelius in his Epistle to Fabius faith of Novatianâ—s He was Ignorant there ought to be but one Bishop in that Church of Rome in which were forty six Presbyters seven Deacons c. A little Digression One Bishop in Rome Was not Rome a Metropolis where the Seat of the Emperor was but then it should have been Arch-Bishop but Cornelius saith one Bishop in that Church of Rome And to this day we call the Pope the Bishop of Rome not Arch-Bishop of Rome Simple Bishop can content Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and Cornelius Bishop of Rome which two Cities caused bloody Battels which of them should be the Empress of the World How they then can be esteem'd Men of Truth we may easily judge that dare Preach and Print the seven Angels of the seven Churches in Asia were seven Arch-Bishops when one hundred and sixty Years after those Churches there was no Arch-Bishop in those great Cities But to goe on concerning the Church of Jerusalem I Consent to what he saith and let it stand for our Rule to Act by of it Dr. Owen thus writes This Church of Jerusalem thus called and collected out of the Church of the Jews was the Rule and Pattern of the Disposing of all the Disciples of Christ into Church Societies in Obidience to his Command throughout the World Catechis p. 85. let this stand How many thousands of Disciples did belong to this Church of Jerusalem we cannot tell but this we find Acts 4.4 there were five thousand at that time and Acts 5.14 Multitudes of Men and Women now were added to those five thousand In the 6 Act. 7. we read the Number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly I suppose no Man will say these were such as we read of 2 Act. 5.9 Strangers if they were yet it hurts not me they were all of this Church and we know Members of Independent Churches in London lived forty Miles distant from them Here was Prayer Preaching Administration of both Sacraments Election and Ordination of Officers Terrible Discipline if I might so call it upon Ananias and Saphira But was all this in one place No sure when there were but the three thousand added they Brake Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2.46 Beza and Grotius speak fully to my purpose as to the distinct places and that by Breaking of Bread the Lords Supper is intended as in the 42 v. the Salmur Divines A Lapide Dr. Hammond Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter and others whom I mention not do all agree Nor do I think there is any Man will say they did all partake of the Lords Supper in one House at one time much less then afterwards Thus was their Preaching Act. 5.42 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is certain then they met in several distinct places both to Preach and Administer the Sacrament yet but one Church How long it was between the day of Pentecost and Stephen's Death I know not but so long thus was their Practice and had been longer if that Persecution had not befallen them If then the meeting in one place had been so essential to a Church as the Dr. makes it we should have seen it here Surely the Apostles with whom our Lord had been speaking concerning the things pertaining to his Kingdom 1 Act. 3. so lately would not do any thing contra-essential to a Church Yea here was matter ready prepared for several particular Churches meeting in several distinct places for Divine Worship had the Lord pleased to have declared that it was his Will that meeting in every such distinct place should make a particular Church and so have given a Pattern how all particular Churches should be Constituted Here wanted nothing I say but the Declaration of his Will We have heard in the time of our Persecution that several thousands of the Scots met in one Field to Administer and partake of the Lords Supper Tho' it was not a House it was a Place yet we do not read that ever the Apostles did so much as once call all the Church together into one place to Administer the Lords Supper that they might leave one Example at least that in every Church there must be but One Table or one Altar as some call it which they might easily have done had one place in their Judgment men guided by the Spirit been so essential to a Church as some make it now Many thousands of particular Churches make up One Body of Christ Why then so many particular Congregations where the Members of one Congregation are known to the others as there may be Elders sufficient to carry on all Church-work may not make one particular Church I know not It is certain that where only one Pastor with a Parochial Congregation make a Church all the Ends of Churches cannot be attained not only Reason but Experience also hath sufficiently proved it Where a Congregation is so far remote from others and so poor that it cannot maintain one Pastor well such a People must do as well as they can but where Congregations are nearer tho' they be poor as I know sew that are not yet they may Coalesce into one Church to attain all Church-Ends so far as our Performance of Duties to those Ends may conduce Suppose there were seven Teaching Elders in a particular Church there is but One of these that Pray Preach Administer the Sacraments Order the Singing at one time all the rest put forth no Official Act but are Attendants as the Private Brethren But if these seven were in seven Congregations every one is at work performing these Acts. As for other Official Acts as Exercise of Discipline Ordination Election of Officers c. they may all meet together and Act jointly and thus it was in our Mother Church in Jerusalem which is more to me than all that is said for One Place One Altar One Bishop I cannot call to mind any Church-End but may be attained as well this way as if they met in one place alwayes and better FINIS