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
say if you will mould your Churches according to those in the Scripture and have divers Elders to carry on the Affaires of the Church why then may we not have one Elder among these who may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppose a standing Moderator For in those Churches we find mention made of an Angel in Ephesus and the other Churches which seem to imply as much I answer If you doe not make this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus Presbyter standing Moderator or what other name you will give him a distinct Scriptural Officer from other Presbyters giving to him a power distinct from and superiour to the power of other Preaching Presbyters whence he shall perform some Church-Acts which other preaching Presbyters shall not or cannot perform so that it be no distinct or superiour power but onely order which is contended for I am well content to yield it being ready to goe with others for peace and unities sake till they come to constitute Officers which Christ never did then I say Hold. But for a standing Moderator one that Durante vitâ modo bene se gesserit shall keep that place let him per me licet For 1. In the meetings of Councils there must be one who must rule and order the affairs at those times a President a Moderator must be reason leads us to it to avoid confusion and this is seen in the synodical meetings of Congregational Elders 2. He who is chosen President or Moderator this Session may be the next and the next we may choose him for one year or two years what Scripture text forbids it why may we not twenty 3. I am so far from thinking it is contrary to Scripture that I think it comes neerest to Scripture I may declare my opinion with submission to better judgements for as for the word Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the seven Churches though I cannot agree to that which that ever honoured and learned Davenant doth gather from it namely Determ 42. the superiority of the Bishop above other Presbyters because here was one in the Church of Ephesus c. which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For what Isidore saith of created Angels Angelus est nomen officii non naturae semper sunt spiritus sed cum mittuntur vocantur Angeli I may apply to this if all true preaching Ministers are sent as they are Rom. 10. then they also are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think our Divines have spoken sufficiently to take off this yet with favour I conceive that Christ mentioning an Angel in the singular number and reason telling us what must be in all orderly Meetings Councils to avoid confusion there being divers Elders in one Church who had the care inspection and government of it I conceive those Elders had one who for order sake was a President Moderator though he had not power above them as may be proved by other Scriptures that ordered the transactions when they met nor can I conceive it was so for one Session or two but for his life for ought I can learn he that can let him prove the contrary in that he is taken notice of so in a special manner it should seem he was one that was so more then one or two Sessions 4. I verily conceive that error be not offended I pray if I call it so for I humbly conceive it to be so which so soon crept in of one assuming power above other Presbyters took its first rise upon occasion of this Order God's providence so ordering it to leave his own Servants to their wisedom and wills who freely acting made way at last for his Decrees for if the President or Moderator had shifted and changed every Session I cannot tell which way it was possible a Pope should have risen Obj. Therefore away with your standing Moderator you have spoken enough against it Ans Stay not too fast must I throw away every thing that may be or is abused occasio and causa differ much Diotrephes and so other Ministers may abuse their power shall then a Minister have no power over his people Tollatur abusus maneat usus Obj. But for Ministers power we have Scripture for it plainly so we have not for a constant standing Moderator Ans By Scripture Authority we make Officers who have power from Christ immediately I am not discoursing of the making of a Church-Officer and what power such an Officer should have I disclaim this power and order are two things 2. That Text which before I produced I know not what fairer Interpretation can be given of it I can exclude superiority of power by other Scriptures but why an Interpretation of Scripture which crosses no other Scripture nor sound reason and hath such fair probability from the practise of the most ancient should not be admitted especially when a fairer Interpretation cannot be given for my part I know none I know no reason The most that can be objected against me is matter of Prudence But I conceive 1. that which comes neerest to make peace in the Church and doth not cross the Scripture that is prudence 2. That which comes neerest to Scripture Interpretation having the practice of so many ancient holy Men and Martyrs though I know they went higher to give light to it this I call prudence 3. Time will discover which will have most prudence in it whether a Moderator or President changed every Session or a standing Moderator I think now we are out of danger of making a Pope if his time of ruine be so neer as some think Thus I have delivered my thoughts humbly conceiving that a Church so moulded as there may be divers elders in it and amongst these one chosen for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 president or what you will call him for order sake to abide so constantly come neerest to the plat-form of the Churches in the Scripture and in this there is something of the Congregational something of the Classical and something like the Episcopal way such a Church for the exercise of its power being independent as was the Church in Ephesus But to have one Pastor and it may be twelve men to stand alone and to exercise all Church-power when they may associate I desire to see such a Church in Scripture PART II. CHAP. I. A Plea for Ordination To. 4. Disp 9. q. 1. p. 1. I own no Church Officer which is not ordained Nemo ad ordinariam in ecclesiâ functionem sive ad Diaconatum sive ad Presbyteratum c. admitti debet nisi legitimè electus ordinatus Zanch. 4. praec p. â—77 ALthough I am far from Valentia's judgment making Ordination a Sacrament strictly so called yet in this I think he saith true when he would have the word Ordination to be taken from the effect of that Ordinance Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque Ordine certo ecclesiasticae dignitatis
Chapter we may be satisfied but no where else that I know of These things satisfie me with the judgement of the Church which constantly hath maintained that here were Officers ordained I know much dispute there hath been and is whether this Deacon might not preach and baptize but that is none of my question if here were the ordination of an Officer it serves my turn When I had done casting my eye accidentally upon Bucanus P. 494. Loc. Com. I found him speaking my thoughts and something more who gave me much content in opening the Deacons Office Thus then Deacons come into their office Thus Timothy also came into his office 1 Tim. 4.14 so it is generally understood Out of his Epistles I shall gather more in the next argument Whether Paul and Barnabas were ordained in Acts 13.2 3. is a great question some deny it many affirm it if they were it puts much honour upon that Ordinance and shews more the necessity of this ordinance in men coming to the Ministry Let us see first who they are that own this to be ordination some I have met with and others may know more of this judgement I finde Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. with whom agree others of the Greek Fathers Thus Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 3. s 14. Chemnitius Zanchy Polanus Gualter Officio divinitus simul ab ecclesiâ commislo saith he upon the Text Aretius who infists upon it largely Gerhard Maccovius Malcolmus Waltherus who reconciles this with Gal. 1.1 Ravanel Diodati Our English Annotations Ainsworth upon Numb 8.10 The Synod of N. England who quote this Text to prove Ministers ought to be ordained and that with Imposition of hands Of the Popish party I could name more but I spare them These men are so worthy that their judgement is not easily to be slighted But we have harder work in writing in our days then others had heretofore when the quotation of men was proof sufficient but this will not now serve the turn Thus then Positâ definitione ponitur Definitum But here Ponitur Definitio Ordinationis Ergo. The Papists who make Ordination a Sacrament properly so called contend about the matter for the form they are all agreed that the form Consistit in verbis quibus sufficienter significatur traditio potestatis saith Valen. To the same purpose speaks Bellarm. Convenit inter omnes materiam esse aliquod signum sensibile formam autem esse verba quae dicuntur dum illud signum exhibetur But whether the calix patina cum pane vino be the matter and those words then spoken Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium c. be the form as Valen. and his party or whether the Imposition of hands with these words Accipe potestatem remittendi peccata do compleat the Act so as a man is not ordained till this be done as Bellarm and his party here they are divided Bellarm. will have Imposition of hands to be essential to the Sacrament because else saith he we cannot convince the Hereticks that Ordination is a Sacrament properly so called because we cannot demonstrate in the Scripture any other external symbole of this Sacrament As for the word Sacrament in their sense their cup platter c. we lay them by so for their words which they make the form we lay them by yet I perceive our Brethren do contend for some words which should be used at the laying on the hands of the Eldership For my part I am loth to engage further then I have clear Scripture to back me or necessary consequence from it If we take Ordination at large as this Scripture holds it out and other agree with it it may be thus described Ordination is the separation of a person called to the work of the Ministry by persons in office with fasting prayer and Imposition of hands Thus far this Text will warrant us and it is the fullest that any one Text will afford us Let us see how this sutes with other Scriptures Rom. 1.1 Paul tells the Romans he was called to be an Apostle separated unto the Gospel of God Here is my Authority I do not run before I was sent But when was this done and how this done look to my Text and I doubt not but these Texts answer each to other Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the worke whereunto I have called them v. 2. I have called do you then separate both the words we find here It seems they were not to seek what it was to separate how to go about it they had been acquainted with that work before This phrase separate is the old phrase the Lord used before in his ordaining of old Officers Numb 8.14 Thus shalt thou separate the Levites c. thus how among other things The children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites It was so here with Paul So Deut. 10.8 At that time the Lord separated the Tribe of Levi. So Numb 16.9 a full place The Lord separated Israel from other Nations this was a high favour but in Israel the Lord made another separation and this was higher honour still Seemeth it but a small thing unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you c. Thus we see the Lord keeps the old phrase A person called Paul and Barnabas were so by God immediately and these persons commanded from God immediately to separate to ordain them whence well might Paul say Gal. 1.1 was no Apostle by man For all is here by immediate command from God whatever was done about them was by immediate revelation Whence he saith v. 4. So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost yet they prayed fasted and imposed hands Waltherus Harmo p. 490. speaks more to the clearing of this doubt As Paul then and Barnabas were called immediately so in constituted Churches Ministers are elected By Persons in Office Not every office no mention made â—here of Ruling Elders or Deacons but Teachers at the lowest If the people should claim this power as some do for the people in Numb 8. did impose hands on the Levites I have answered to this Sepa Exam. p. 70 71. I add but this The Apostles did translate Imposition of hands from the old Testament to the New in the Ordination of Ministers but for the peoples imposition of hands we find no such thing With prayer fasting imposition c. Here a question may be moved Whether fasting and prayer did properly belong to the essence of Ordination or whether as in other Ordinances we pray before the Administration of the Ordinance so here was praying for the Lord's grace and blessing upon the person to be ordained but ordination for the essence a distinct thing Some I suppose make it the whole essence their Acts declare it they do nothing else unless preach and others look on imposition of hands but as a common thing among the Jews when they would wish one
Ministers who know them besides being illiterate and persons who neither are ordained nor will be ordained nor I think would sober Ministers ever ordain them These things are not secret but more publikely spoken off then my Book can publish whence their friends are grieved their enemies rejoyce having cause they think to open their mouths against them and to vilifie Reformation besides the hinderance of union in the Churches CHAP. II. Concerning Imposition of hands in Ordination ALthough our Divines have all I think unless a few risen up in our days agreed in the necessity of Ordination to a Minister yet they have not all had the same thoughts about Imposition of hands as if it were necessary to Ordination Most have agreed in this that though they look on it as a Ceremony an Adjunct yet it ought to be practised because of the Apostolical examples Our Congregational Brethen in Essex cast it away and some cause I have to stand upon it because I therefore refused Ordination by them because they would not Impose hands and so it was the longer before I could be Ordained If I did refuse upon insufficient grounds I am sure the grounds which were given to me for the contrary were very insufficient I lost the papers but met with another manner of Antagonist shortly after Mr. Noyes a reverend Divine and my dear friend of N. England who hath said more against it then I have as yet heard from these what any body else have said against it in writing I know not unless the Author of the Diatribe c. whom that worthy Divine Doctor Seaman hath answered I cast my eye upon it long since but do not now remember any thing Pro or Con what there is said or in any other man What then I can gather from Scripture and Reason I shall humbly offer to the Reader and to Mr. Noyes in answer to what he hath said against it Not many years since Humane Ceremonies added to the worship of God how much trouble and misery they added to the Church we have not yet forgot Men wrote and spake so far as they dared and suffered by reason of them Mens wits are now busied as much in throwing out of God's worship as theirs were in adding why then we may not now stand up in desence of God's Ceremonies if this be but a Ceremony as they opposed Mens Ceremonies I know not Come then to Imposition c. Let us hear a little what other men have said about it And first for great Calvin whom I hear alledged against Imposition which I a little wondered at knowing Calvin had spoken sufficiently for it 1. Instit l. 4. c. 3. s 16. Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum Impositione quia tamen fuisse in perpetuo usu Apostolis videmus illa tam accurata eorum observatio prae cepti vice nobis esse debet 2. Again Impositionem manuum L. 4. c. 14. s 20. qua Ecclesia Ministri in suum munus initiarentur non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum 3. Again L. 4. c. 2. s 16. Et certè utile est ejusmodi symbolo Ministerii dignitatem populo commendari c. praeterea non erit inane signum si in germanam suam originem restitutum fuerit nam si nihil frustra spiritus Dei in Ecclesia Dei instituit hanc ceremoniam cum ab eo profecta sit sentiemus non esse inutilem modo in superstitiosum usum nou vertatur See him again l. 4. c. 19. s 31. Calvins judgment is clear with his Reasons for it Chemnitius giving us the judgment of the Lutheran Churches saith Exam. Concil Trid. p. 221. Nec manuum Impositionem vocare Sacramentum gravabimur I omit Austin who called it so long before they were born in a large sense not the Popish sense Nos uno verbo dicimus si per Sacramentum jusjurandum Loc. Com. p. 321. religiosam obstrictionem intelligunt sit Ordo ipsorum per me licet Sacramentum quale veteribus erat Sacramentum militare saith Musculus Walaeus saith Loc. Com. l. 1. p. 473. In all the Confessions of their Churches except one or two it was required and because the Apostles alwayes used it and the Apostle gives that precept to Tim. 5.22 Not to lay on hands suddenly we ought not to omit it because in that negative an affirmative is contained that he should Impose on worthy persons where since by a Synecdoche it is taken for the election of a Pastor certè pro ritu vel parte essentiali habenda est Thus he From the same charge to Timothy Sur. ch Dis p. 2. p. 74. Mr. Hooker saith he is willing to follow the rode when he hath no constraining reason to goe aside It seems this Reverend man knew no cause why Imposition should be laid aside The Synod of New England say Platf ch Dis c. 9. church-Church-Officers ought to be Ordained with Imposition of hands Here then we have the Fathers Papists Lutherans Calvinists Episcopal Classical Congregational men the Churches generally since the Apostles dayes Imposing hands in Ordination We must have strong reasons as Mr. Hooker saith to lead us afide from these Churches Custome of the Churches Paul uses to make something of 1 Cor. 11. I think so should we having especially such Scripture-precedents going before them I look upon their practice as very weighty But I come to argument laying down first my Position Imposition of hands ought to be used in Ordination Arg. 1. That form of Ordination which cometh neerest to the Gospel-pattern ought to be used But Imposition of hands in Ordination is that form which cometh neerest to the Gospel-pattern ergo Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used The major I suppose cannot well be denied especially by those who in the Bishops days use to cry out so much All things must be made according to the pattern in the Mount and why now I pray must not things be done according to the pattern of the Gospel what do you make of it that which you may follow or let alone as you please what is said against this I shall meet with anon For the minors bring us forth those rules or examples which shew that men may be ordained or were ordained without Imposition of hands that Church-Officers were ordained with Imposition the Texts are known as before mentioned Arg. 2. If the Gospel expresseth the whole Ordinance of Ordination by Imposition of hands then Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear for why should the Apostle mention that which is but needless or at least but indifferent to set out an ordinance by Obj. But it is said Obj. This was no more then what Paul saith at another time for this cause I bow my knee c. meaning prayer A. 1. Be it so yet this hinders not Sol. for
or chiefly Mr. Cartw. thus By Imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament Rhem. Test much lesse confirmation after Baptism but by Trope or borrowed speech the Ministry of the Church upon the which hands were laid which appeareth in that whosoever believeth not there ought to be a Ministry by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Christianity this is to the point indeed Mr. Sur. Ch. Dis p. 1. p. 7. Hooker proves that Church Discipline is a fundamental point of Religion from hence thus Laying on of hands being by a Metonymy of the Adjunct put for Ordination and Ordination one particular put for the whole of Discipline Having then these men and these no babes on my side I will see what reason there is why Ordination here must not be meant For confirmation which so many expound it of I searched amongst those Protestant Divines which I had to find a definition of it in our Protestant sense and why they call it so but I could not find one who gave me satisfaction but Chemnitius Exam. Concil Trid. de confirmat The Papists definition I knew and a pretty one it is That which Chemnitius speaks gave me great content but I could wish some body would prove this is the meaning of Imposition in this Text for then we should have one more strong ground for Infant-Baptism as we may gather by Chemnitius opening of confirmation Casting my eye on Diodati I see he thus expounds it and hence gathers Infant-Bpatism But this is not sufficient we call for proof now I know Imposition of hands was after Baptism in Scripture except Act. 9.17 and so far as we can learn from Scripture we find 1. Extraordinary gifts were ever the effect of it So Acts 8. Acts 9. Acts 19. nor do we find any other end of it these gifts being conveyed in a way above nature might very well tend to the confirming them in their faith received and so well called confirmation But in the confirmation we talk of there is no such thing nor do I see why we should call it confirmation 2. The persons who did Impose hands were either Apostles or persons extraordinarily raised We read but of one Ananias Acts 9. I do not find the Evangelists did Impose Hence the Bishops who call themselves the Apostles successors they claime this power and poore Presbyters must not do it at least without leave from them That then which truly deserves the name confirmation is ceased many hundred years since But for the thing it self which our Divines call confirmation as Chemnitius lays it down Instit l. 4. c. 19. s 4. I could heartily wish with Calvin that it were brought into practise only Imposition I think might be left out yet I would not contend with him who did use it rather so then not have the thing practised Musculus speaking of Imposition in confirmation saith The Imposition of the Apostles was of miraculous operation Loc. Com. p. 321. and ceased long since Exemplum illius retinuerunt Episcopi quo magis Apostolorum viderentur esse successores But he speaks nothing against Imposition in Ordination But to the Text let us see why Ordination must be shut out here 1. The key of Interpretation I take to be the word Foundation and principles c. as we Translate So Camerarius Sunt necessaria Dogmata Capita doctrinae Christianae quae enumerantur hoc loco So Chrysostom Now it seems strange to me that a foundation should be lost out of the Church above fifteen hundred years I thought foundations should hold so long as the building lasts take away a foundation the house must be in danger But if this be meant of Ordination then it holds for the Ministry shall hold so long as the Church holds till the body be perfected Eph. 4. But if confirmation and extraordinary gifts which were the only effect so far as we find in Scripture as before I touched then this foundation is gone long since 2. Faith Repentance and Baptism are to last to the end of the world Some of our Divines do from this Text prove against the Socinians that Water-Baptism is an ordinance still to continue because it is put amongst the foundations Chatechetical heads why then the Ministry which is Christ's great ordinance to convert to beget faith which comes by hearing c. and authorized to baptize to the end of the world should not be meant by Imposition Matth. 28.20 but a temporary thing which was to vanish presently I can see no reason 3. That Imposition alone is put for Ordination we have other Scriptures to shew 1 Tim. 5 4. as before but shew us another Text where Imposition alone is put for confirmation 4. Extraordinary gifts were conveyed without Imposition of hands as Act. 2.10 Act. 44.4 why then Imposition should only signifie the Holy Ghost which yet was given without it I am not satisfied 5. Then these Divines must prove that all who were baptized had hands Imposed and extraordinary gifts conferred else the placing after Baptism proves nothing if onely to some baptized persons and pro tempore what is this to prove it meant of confirmation for I hope all baptized ones are to be confirmed in their sense But this will be hard to prove One thing more I shall add when I come to Mr. Noyes why it should be meant of extraordinary gifts Camero gives the strongest reason But yet I hope to an indifferent Reader it doth appear by what I have said that there is no forcing reason why Ordination should be shut out but may at least be fairly implied So much for my second argument Arg. 3. That Act which the Church ever used and that regularly in ordaining of Officers ought to be used in Ordination But Imposition of hands is an Act which the Church ever used and that regularly in ordaining c. Ergo The Major seems so fair that I think no rational man will deny it The Minor is clear the Church under the Old Testament used this act Numb 8.10 Upon which verse Mr. Ainsworth thus speaketh This rite was kept at the Ordination of Officers both in the Old Testament and in the New Acts 6.6 13.3 By this sign they did put the charge and service of the Church upon them c. Then why it ought not still to be used I know not Mr. Ains was a man learned holy and far from Popery or idle Ceremonies Arg. 4. Let us suppose Prayer and Fasting to be of the essence of Ordination as say our Brethren If Prayer and Fasting without Imposition do not difference Ordination from another Ordinance then Imposition of hands ought to be used in Ordination But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The reason of the Consequence is because every Ordinance hath something in it whereby it is distinguished from others so must this have something Here I lie open to two Objections Some will say Why do
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the verse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 22. this being the last act of Paul and Barnabas when they had confirmed and exhorted the Disciples in v. 22. Ordained them Elders in v. 23. they commended them all Pastors and people to God I see Calvin Piscator Cor. a Lap. agree with me making no question of this Interpretation for they pass it over as granted And Musculus speaks my mind clearly Ergo jejunantes orantes quod in coetu fidelium fieri solebat ordinarunt Presbyteros a fidelibus electos observe he puts a difference between election and ordination in this verse post eam ordinationem commendaverunt ecclesiam Domino discesserunt 3. That Text in Acts 20.32 confutes this notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text to the 2. Aor voc med and we shall find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 14.23 Now the Apostle did not ordain these he calls them Elders and Bishops before and so they were but now taking his leave of them he commended them to God and so he did in Acts 14. departing from the Churches he commended them to God in whom they had believed 4. I cannot yet be convinced but that ordination is an act of authoritative power but commending of a person to God in prayer is no act of such power 5. The Scripture gives us another definition of Ordination as I shall shew afterwards ergo this is not the true definition Thus then I have made it clear that gifts and popular election are not sufficient to constitute a Minister if the Scripture may be judge we may make use of other civil officers to illustrate it more Keck pol. The Athenian Senators were sworn though the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So are our Magistrates take a Constable though the Town hath chosen him to that office yet if he shall act as a Constable before he be sworn he is a trespassor and a man may have an Action against him for his so doing There is much reason why the popular election should give the essence here but there is no such reason why it should to a Minister yet here we find in civil officers more then election before they can act I pray let us have order in the Church as well This being dispatched now it will necessarily follow that Ordination is necessary to the constitution of a Minister though I should say no more it is but little I intend to say or need to say for the reason I gave before Arg. 1. First Conformity to the rules of God's house in things pertaining to his house is necessary Ordination of Ministers Stewards pertaining to the house is conformity to the rules of the house of God ergo Ordination of Ministers is necessary The major if any deny they must take away the authority of the Scriptures leave men to their own phantasies which no holy man ever dare say so that I doubt not but that will stand The minor if any deny it must be upon one of these two grounds 1. Either denying that we have any positive rules because we have none but examples which shews how Ministers came in to office But if those examples of Apostles commissioned by Christ to order his house having such a promise of his presence with them be not rules to us then we have no rules at all left for officers coming into his house which were strange defect of wisedom to impute to Christ that he should have a house and no order in it and contrary to the old Church which had rules exactly for their officers coming in Nor must popular election be ever more pleaded for Or 2. They must deny it because officers were made without any ordination which is the thing I desire to see proved from Scripture If we observe the practise of the Apostles after they had received the promise of the Spirit and were now fitted and sent forth to act with that Spirit guiding them we find that thus they did set Deacons in the house of God Acts 6.6 Obj. But it is objected That here was no ordination to any office at all there were persons before who did this work that we suppose the Deacons should these men were appointed only for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessity in v. 3. that is to end that difference which arose in v. 1. 1. A. It is true there were some who did distribute the goods of the Church to the poor c. who those were I think Chap. 4. v. ult will tell us They laid the money at the Apostles feet Whence it is clear to me that the Apostles had this burden upon them also compare the verse with chap. 6.2 and this they found a great hinderance to them in their preaching work so that both they could not tend whence by the Spirit they were guided to Institute the Deacon Upon search I find other men of my mind a Inst l. 4. c. 3.9 Calvin b Exam. Con. Trid. p. 217. Chemnitius c In 4. praec p. 766. Zanch. with more whom I could mention 2. The Apostles do not say v. 2. to leave the word of God decide differences but serve Tables which they saw hindered them and one they saw they must neglect or perform not well as we see complaint made whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 3. must answer to that which the Apostles could not attend to in v. 2. which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. As the Church-Members consist of bodies as well as souls which bodies must be provided for by others if they have not of their own to uphold them and since God hath given in charge that collections should be made for the poor Since also there are divers things which belong to the worship of God and things about the Church which must have money to buy them and to answer for them hence it stands with right reason that an Officer be chosen and authorized to be the Church-Treasurer to take in these collections and moneys and by these to serve the poors Table the Lord's Table I conceive they had their Love-feasts at that time also and why they should not attend upon the Minister at the Administration of the Lord's Supper I know not In N. England the Deacons also bring in to the Elders Table they are not troubled as we are here to send to every bodies house in particular for our due 4. It is clear by 1 Tim. 3. and Phil. 1.1 there was such an Officer as a Deacon and that distinct from the Bishop I wonder what was the work of this Deacon being an Officer not the Bishops I am sure then he should not have been distinguish'd from the Bishop neither are the same qualifications in every point required of him that are of the Bishop When or where had this Officer his original I think in this
well or pray for them or bless them after their manner they laid their hands on their heads and so imposition is now laid aside A. But stay a little 1. Are you certain that these prayed while they imposed hands in ordination I do not see how you will force it out of the Text nor can you force it from Acts 6.6 the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Aor 1. Whence the Syriack and Arabick Translations with which Piscator and others agree render the words and when they had prayed they laid hands plainly signifying that the prayers went before imposition nor I am sure will this Text help them for what I pray Did they impose hands all the while they fasted and prayed surely their armes were very weary to lie upon their heads a whole day whence it is more probable after that day was well spent in fasting and prayer then they imposed hands Then the Jews common custome doth not make imposition so silly a thing 2. In the consecration of the Levites and so of the Priests where we find Imposition we find no mention of prayer at all that I see much less at their Imposition if it were it was not the essence of the ordinance so far as I can learn I know divers of God's things must be esteemed as slight things if our heads must be judges But I think Tertul. spake excellently De paeniten Audaciam existimo de bono divini praecepti disputare neque enim quia bonum est idcirco auscultare debemus sed quia Deus praecepit c. 3. Ordination is the authorizing of a person to his work So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 6.3 plainly imply Both H. Stephens and Scapula agree that the word signifies * Constituo sic Constituere Regem vel Creare H. Stephens Ib. praeficio Hinc praefectus to put in authority to give rule to ordain a Ruler So these Texts Acts 7.10.27 Luc. 12.42 make it clear with other Texts H. Stephens Thes To. 1. p. 1768. quoting of these Texts Matth. c. 24. cap. 25. Acts 6. Luc. 12. where the word is used saith Quibus in locis non constituere solum sed praeficere verti potest Sur. Ch. Dis p. 3. p. 9. quidem aptiùs To this reverend Hooker agreeth The Lord Christ in his Kingly care conceived it necessary for the honour of the place and the execution of the work of a Deacon to appoint choise men and solemn Ordination to authorize them to the work c. But then how Prayer doth properly carry any thing of this nature in it I do not apprehend define prayer and see how it suits with authorizing nothing like it to beg and to authorize are not the same Unless we look on Ordination as the consecration of a man to God then a prayer may be part of the essence 4. If you ask me what is then truly I find it hard to answer it is plain to me it is not that which some cry up so and content themselves with dissenting from their brethren Imposition of hands I am sure is in the Text and must come into Ordination I find that the old Non-conformists speaking first of the election of a Minister in which the help of neighbouring Ministers must be required then add After that he is to be ordained by the laying on of the hands of the eldership with these words pronounced by the Minister thereunto appointed According to this lawful calling agreeable to the word of God whereby thou art chosen Pastor In the name of God stand thou charged with the Pastoral charge of this people over which the Holy Ghost hath made thee Overseer to govern the flock of God which he hath purchased with his blood When I read these words it made me call to mind the manner of the ordination of two Deacons in N. England about sixteen years fince which was the last ordination I saw or can remember any thing of my memory may fail me in some circumstance but as I do remember it was very little different from this The Pastor and the Teacher Imposed hands and then said We do in the name of Christ ordain thee N.N. Mat. 10.5 Mark 3.14 Luc. 9.2 Christ called ordained sent his Disciples forth to preach with power and authority he in his own name we in his name surely Christ used words suitable naming the person Deacon of this Church c. then what duties the Scripture puts upon the Deacon they framed into a handsome form when they had so done a short prayer they made their hands being still upon the Deacons head According to the form of the Non-conformists and the Church in N. England there is something appears like authorizing of a person to his work Now if the question be whether this be lawful or not where have we warrant for this that words were thus used in the primitive times is plain enough to those who read Hierom Ambrose Austin For Scripture this is plain though some of these words be not set down in the Scripture yet if there be an authorizing appointing Acts 6.3 a separating setting apart Acts 13. Some words must be spoken that must signifie so much and what breach of rule it is to say we ordain or set apart being the person is now setting apart the thing is doing For using the name of Christ I hope it is he who hath given Pastors and Teachers to his Church and from him doth the person now ordaining receive his power immediately It was not the Kingdom of Heaven gave Peter the keys I do not say the form of Ordination lies in these words I am not willing to make that the formalis ratio of an ordinance which I have not expresse Scripture for I would not give my adversary so much advantage yet Reason tells that prayer alone or imposition of hands alone or both without words suitable cannot make an Ordination but Christ gave Peter immediately the keys of the Kingdom of heaven under his authority in his name they must act For the other words applying to the person ordaining what duties the Scriptures do charge such an office withal I hope this ought to be else it were a raw business So that by necessary consequence from Scripture I cannot well see how these things can be denied who can prove the Apostles did not use some such words though they be not set down A sending Rom. 10. Setting apart Appointing there must be and is then give us that which shew and expresse these words they were rational men and the Spirit purely rational which guided them whence we may well conceive something was spoken which answered the Scriptural expressions and so long as we hold to them I can see no harm but that rather ought to be Let others speak more rationally who oppose this and leaving out imposition of hands with these expressions shew what you do which doth carry in it the authorizing of
a man to his work I am sure there is more reason for this and Scripture will more look to us in it then there is for that magisterial power which congregational Ministers not Christ that we can find in Scripture give to the people to keep men as they please from being admitted into the Church and hence against their Pastors qualified men are kept out For the Objections which are made against this Text for Ordination I find these 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
officers known but by their actions To say That though the brethren doe the same things yet they doe them not as their Officers is to say nothing How shall we know that If any man may make a warrant and that warrant is as valid as the Justices how shall a man know who is Justice the name may differ but not the power Ergo not the office 2. We finde divers promises made to the Church of Gods giving Officers Jer. 3.15 23.4 Ezek. 34.25 Isa 30.20 But if every body may do the officers acts then God seems to make promises of good to his Church which are needlesse a great shew of mercy but no mercy indeed There is no need no use of the things promised what would this impute to God 3. Our Divines have maintained against the Papists that Matth. 28.19 was spoken to the Apostles and the Ministers of the word their successors and the context will force it I think if he spoke to the eleven Apostles v. 16. And though the Lords Supper is not there mentioned yet surely it was there included there is par ratio Let any man bring a proof from Scripture or antiquity that ever any but an officer did administer the Lords Supper Docete baptizate Matth. 28.19 Haec dicuntur solis Apostolis Ministris verbi certum est haec non fuisse dicta hominibus privatis Bell. ener co 3. p. 342 In Actis Apostolorum nihil omnino legitur de privatis Christianis absque speciali revelatione baptizantibus saith Learned Ames 4. The Church-officers under the Old Testament had such acts peculiar to them as none but they could doe It were strange that Christ should institute Officers under the New Testament and they should have nothing proper to them 5. If this be true then all the body is an Eye The foot may say to the eye though you are placed above and I below yet I doe the same acts you doe and it is not the place but the organ and the action which makes an eye It is not the place but the actions shew the Officer that member which seeth is the eye place it where you will if all see then all are eyes But the Apostle denieth the whole body to be an eye 1 Cor. 12. 6. Church-officers are called Stewards â—verseers Preachers Ambassadors Rulers We would think it strange men would not bear it in civil acts to have every body doe the acts which belong to these Relations as much order I hope in Gods house as in other houses or States He is every where a God of order but this was spoken in reference to his House especially I intend to add no more arguments to prove the necessity of Ordinantion I have onely two objections to answer which two eminent Divines made against me maintaining the necessity of Ordination Obj. 1. We read of no Ordination but it was performed either by extraordinary persons or at least some such were present when they died who know where they left the power The Bishop Presbyter Fraternity each of these challenge the power but who knows to whom it belongs Answ The first part of the objection cutts off Ordination wholly and that is chiefly aimed at The second part doth seem to yield it could we but finde who should Administer it To the first part I answer 1. It 's no wonder though we finde extraordinary persons in the administration of this Ordinance when they were in Being In the first beginnings these must ordain or none we have but the histories of planting of Churches in the New Testament where none were before and this was done by persons extraordinary 2. All that extraordinary persons did I hope did not die with them What is there more extraordinary in Ordination then in Preaching why must not Preaching die as well as ordination to Preaching The action is no more then may be performed by ordinary Ministers If it be said as I know it is they conveyed gifts in Ordination I shall answer this when I come to Mr. Noyes 3. How shall we prove that there were Ministers elected without the presence acting guidance and consent of extraordinary officers I think no man can prove there were any so chosen by the examples we have of the peoples choise for extraordinary persons were ever present and we finde they acted By the same reason throw away Election which this Divine would hardly doe Walaeus To. 2. p. 51. Nullum etiam occurret exemplum in toto Novo Testamento nec in primitiva Ecclesia quae Apostolorum aetatem excepit ullam ullius ordinarii Doctor is Electionem in ulla Ecclesia peractam fuisse sine consensu consilio aliquorum saltem Doctroum This pincheth 4. Were the Churches so blinde that they could not see this to be an extraordinary thing and that to die with these officers Would the extraordinary officers admit ordinary Presbyters to joyn with them in that work which was proper to them as extraordinary officers But that they did so the Epist to Timo. doth plainly carry it and was no doubt the ground of that Canon 3. in Concil Carth. 4. where Presbyters were to impose hands with the Bishop 5. Were the Epistles to Timothy and Titus writ to them as extraordinary officers I know when Timothy is called upon to do the work of an Evangelist this was proper to him as such an officer but I think laying aside that which was proper to them as Evangelists which did not consist in the administration of any Ordinance those Epistles were written to Ministers They must preach the Word be instant in season and out of season c. as well as Timothy and why not I pray commit the things 2 Tim. 2.2 c. 2 Tim. 2.2 lay hands on none suddenly as well as Timothy What extraordinary matter is in this above the other 6. Shall persons come into the Ministry untried whether they be fit or unfit sound or heretical No by no meanes this is judged a dangerous thing Men must be tried and that by those who are able to judge as now we have Commissioners But what Scripture-rule have you for this If you leave out the Epistles to Timothy and Titus 1 Tim. 3.10 I doubt you will hardly finde any in Scripture but Timothy and Titus were extraordinary persons and what have we to doe with their Epistles but if you will make use of those Epistles to mainain your trial of men it was a Commissioner that made this objection against me give us leave to make use of the same Epistles to prove our Ordination of Ministers those who are able to do the one I hope are as able to do the other For the second part of the Objection I little regard that As for the Fraternty let the people bring forth their Charter and shew us where the great Lord gave them this power Against this I have argued a little I intended but a little in my book against the Separatists p.
70 c. For the Bishop and the Presbyter it must first be proved that these are distinct officers jure divino or else the contest is vain this is not a question for me to handle in this place but I can safely say this there must be more brought from Divine writ then I see is yet brought to prove it or else I can acknowledge no such thing I suppose Bishop Davenant in his Determination upon the question hath summed up what can be brought from Scripture but that will not doe yet he there in some cases will allow Presbyters to ordain and I think our case is as weighty as any Anselm the Popish Canterburian Arch-Bishop in his Comment upon Titus 1. Though I see much of it is taken out of Jerom gave me enough to quiet my thoughts about this question such lines from his pen took much with me considering the Scriptures he brought I am sure he that made the objection did not own any such distinction I think no sober Bishop did ever yet deny the Ordinations in the French Dutch and Scottish Churches to be valid The second Objection was made by another reverend Divine when I passed the Commissioners He put this question to me Whether I judged Ordination necessary to the Constitution of a Minister I answered Yes if it could be had He asked me to which command I would refer Ordination I answered to the second To which he assenting added Cultus naturalis could not nor must be laid aside but Cultus Institutus might rather then Cultus naturalis should God will have mercy not sacrifice in such a case but if I would say Ordination was necessary and might now be had then I must own it by succession and consequently maintain the Church of Rome to be a true Church Some words then passed but time cut us off To this reverend Divine I shall now give a further answer A. The first part of the speech saith no more then we allow onely when Ordination cannot be had I think it is not then properly laid aside 2. Preaching take the word strictly as it is the act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be referred to the first Commandment I conceive but to the second nor do I see our Divines make it a part of Cultus naturalis 3. This notion will cut off popular election as well as Ordination if preaching belongs to Cultus naturalis for that must not be laid aside saith this Divine I hope popular election doth not belong to the first Commandment then election is as unnecessary and if men may preach without Election and Ordination we shall have brave work Preaching here is put for all other Ordinances where then is the essence of a Minister according to his owne notion But the last part of his speech was that where he put the most strength which yet hath been often answered that I might well spare my pains something I answered then and now will add more 1. Divers of our Congregational Divines of which this reverend Divine is one conceive and practise accordingly the Fraternity to have power of Ordination and if so then if election may be had Ordination may be had so shall it not need be laid aside nor shall we need trouble our selves about Rome that dispute rather may be laid aside I desired an Answer of him what he thought of it but he would give me none 2. But suppose his judgement be contrary According to this argument Ordination which we are sure was once an Ordinance of God and I have before proved it must be utterly lost unless with the Seekers we gape for some Apostles again For this argument of Succession may ever be urged and will be as strong to the worlds end as now But why must the Church lose an Ordinance If the argument be so strong against Ordination is it not as strong against any thing else that came through Rome Rome is no true Church ergo nothing that comes through Rome is valid What will be next Mr. Ainsw and other Separatists zealous enough against Rome would not say so of Baptism therefore admitted of no re-baptizing Nor would Mr. Johnson upon the same ground admit of re-ordination one was as valid as the other 3. If God hath so far owned the Ministry of England as to work with it to the conversion of many soundly and others visibly whence there are numbers to elect Ministers I doubt not but he will as well own the Ordination of Ministers by them though they had some accidental corruptions adhering to their own Ordination for the substance true If he hath not owned the Ministry how came our Brethren to gather Churches here some few years since those who elected them to office I believe very few of them if any in some places were converted by Ministers who were not ordained because they must have their Ordination by succession c. I pray where is there a Ministry in the world which God hath more owned 4. Let it be as this Divine saith because Cultus institutus may be laid aside Ordination may be also c. Let us see whither this will go then official preaching pardon the expression for I think all preaching properly so called is official Baptism the Lord's Supper Discipline may be all laid aside upon the same account for these belong to Cultus Institutus so the whole second Commandment lost which way shall we come to these for fear of Rome will he say that the Churches and those without Ordinances it seems may choose their Pastors suppose Wickliff Luther Zuinglius men gifted and raised extraordinarily and election giving the essence to a Ministers call these may now preach baptize c. so the second Commandment is saved else I know not which way he can save it though they be not ordained may not the same Ministers as well Ordain other Ministers Ordination belonging to the same Commandment surely no rational man can oppose it this he must yield to or else the whole instituted worship of God must be lost out of the Church as well as Ordination But if election will help then I hope most of the godly Ministry in England may ordain for they have been elected by the people men qualified and whom God hath blessed in their work more or less though they have more then election in their own esteem that hinders not they have that which you think can authorize them to preach baptize c. then to ordain as well and those who are ordained by such no doubt but may Ordain again so Rome and Succession trouble us not Ames grants that Wickliff Med. The. l. 1. c. 33. s 39. Luther Zuinglius may not unfitly be called extraordinary Ministers joyning some of our famous Martyrs with them and gives three reasons for the assertion the last is Quia ordine tum temporis perturbato collapso necesse habuerunt non nulla tentare praeter ordinem commune So Syn. Pur. The. D.
42. S. 41 42 50. 5. Carry the objection to our first Reformers where it should seem to have most strength what godly man is there who calls to mind Cranmer Latimer Hooper Ridly Philpot Bradford c. persons upon whom this objection would fall as to their own Ministry and their ordaining of others that would not be ashamed of himself should he null their Ministry and as some though this Divine abhors it I believe whose mouths are full of 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
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
which men profess in subjection to one Lord Jesus Christ being initiated into that profession and so that body by Baptism 2. It is such a body as with its head makes up Christ v. 12. But if one particular Church related to its head be Christ what are all the other how many Christs shall we have For my part I conceive as all true believers make up but one spiritual body to which Christ is a saving and spiritual head so all the particular Churches in the world are but one body visible of which Christ is the Political Head Every true believer is said to be married to Christ and of this Church Paul saith he had espoused them to Christ and are not thousands more but we do not read Rev. 22.17 Brides say Come nor of the Lambs wives ch 21.9 but the Lambs Bride and Wife thus the Catholick visible body is called the Kingdom of Christ not Kingdoms though by reason of the numberless number the Lord bids one Pastour feed you my flock there and another feed you my flock there c. yet but one flock one body these meetings of this great body being in a manner accidental to the Church-Catholick by reason of the numerosity of its members for could we conceive that all the members of this Church could meet in one place and partake of the same numerical ordinances orderly this meeting in several places should cease 3. It is such a body as hath Apostles set in it v. 28. but though the Apostles were officers to this particular Church yet not to this only but to the Catholick 4. It is such a body that the members of it suffer together and rejoyce together v. 26. but this mutual rejoycing and sympathy is not confined to the members of that particular Church I hope the same specifical care though not the same gradual care I think such a distinction may help to understand the 25. v. for I conceive there is some neerer tie to my own members in particular as to my own family and yet to have no care of other members of another Church though I see them in danger of sin or require of me the dispensing of an rdinance regularly c. I think this is not right Then 27. v. what I have said of the great body I say to you who are a similar part of this great body and so called the body of Christ Do ye take heed there be no Schism amongst you Thus that parallel Text Rom. 12.4 5. seems to be meant not of the particular Church of Rome but the Catholick many members but one body When I can see better reasons given me to prove he is discoursing of a particular Church I shall yield to them Q. But how can Schism be in the Catholick-Church visible this must be enquired into though I fail in the opening of it yet what I have said to the Text before will save me A. I must premise some things then come to the answer The Doctor p. 133. Schis speaking of the Catholick-Church saith The saving doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ and obedience through him to God as professed by them is the bond of that union whereby they are made one body But under favour I conceive the Doctor hath expressed only that bond which is between the body and the head but are there no ligaments whereby the joynts of this great body are knit to each other surely if a body there are such the Apostle Eph. 4.16 I think speaks of a bond among the members and by the 11. v. he seems to me to speak of the Catholick-Church-visible from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love Upon which words Zanchy thus Concludere vult Apostolus quod initio proposuerat fovendam esse unitatem hujus corporis mystici per vinculum pacis Ratio quia ita se habet hoc corpus ut nisi quis per fidem vivam amorisque plenam cum Christo conjunctus per fraternam caritatem cum fratribus totaque ecclesia congruenter coagmentatus permà neat is non possit a Christo vel vitam vel alimentum incrementum accipere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Masculus thus Dilectio conglutinat membra Christi and a little before Nihil igitur hic loci est separatis ac divulsis quales quales tandem esse videantur With these agree Beza Charity is the knitting of the limbs together Faith and Love use to be joyned together if the Apostle doth express it as the bond surely we may call it so and thus we have the body united to the head and each member one to another To the preservation of this union saith the Doctor it is required that all those grand and necessary truths of the Gospel without the knowledge where of no man can be saved by Jesus Christ be so far believed as to be outwardly and visibly professed in that variety of ways wherein they are or may be called out thereunto p. 134. To which I add and unto the preservation of that bond of union among the members it 's required that all such Acts which do externally declare this bond of love whereby these members are joyned together as such a body ought carefully and Christianly to be performed when we are regularly called thereunto this bond of Love so much commanded and prayed for by our Head being not confined to a particular Church but extended to the whole Catholick Church his body by which men shew whose Disciples they are Hence then as all such errors which subvert those grand and necessary Truths being received and believed do dissolve the bond of union between the head and the members and declare men to be Apostates So all such Acts as do openly manifest the causeless breach of Love by which the members are united each to other do declare such persons guilty of Schism Apostasie as I conceive properly respecting the Head but Schism the Body Now in reference to this I lay down these Conclusions 1. The members of this great Body in attending upon those ordinances of worship instituted by their Head especially the two Sacraments doe declare that faith in their Head which they professe Open Baptism we finde nothing there but Christ open the Lords Supper we have nothing there but Christ our Head and the grand and necessary Truths which concerne our salvation As the Martyrs sealed up their Confessions by their blood we doe as it were seal up our Profession in partaking of our Lords blood 2. The members of the Church in partaking of the Sacraments doe professedly declare that Union which they have among themselues by love as such a body It is one reason why the Lords Supper is called a Communion and it is one of the ends of the Sacrament Vnio fidelium inter se as
Divines doe unanimously acknowledge upon that 1 Cor. 10.17 Fractio panis est unitatis dilectionis Symbolum saith Pareus Much might be here spoken I know there are other wayes by which Christians manifest their love and so did Heathens in such manner as now is scarcely found amongst Christians but for the manifestation of their love to each other as such a body there is no way that I know of nor no ordinance in which they do so declare it as in this ordinance wherein they though many are one bread 1 Cor. 10.17 3. The Sacraments were not given to a 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
the Ordinances we admit Indians to I hope they will not deny them admission to those I omit that great question whether Baptism be not a Regenerating Ordinance which divers Learned men abroad and at home doe maintain and have Scriptures which speak very fairly for them so much as I can scarcely be satisfied with the answers our Divines have given to those texts they bring Now though I have not so much light to carry me in any of these opinions and convince me fully of their truth yet I see so much argument for them that I am very tender towards those who goe upon these grounds whatever arguments I have against them which carry me another way and were I a private member of one of those Churches where there were so many those visible Saints an able godly Pastor and the Supper kept as I said I should not dare to separate from it as others doe I might adde to this how some Ministers though they doe baptize yet they deal roundly first with the Parents and so as some will come no more at them for Baptism And one an Episcopal Divine of eminent note hath refused to administer Baptism to the children of such parents as he found sottishly ignorant but sent them back first to learn the principles of Religion and assent to them So that had these who separate stuck close to their Ministers and encouraged them in thus dealing with those scandalous persons in private they might have done more towards reformation then now they have done 3. There were divers corrupt members in Corinth and their children baptized for ought I know a fault might be in the Officers and better part but no command to separate from the Officers 4. Should all the godly Ministers in England separate as these men would have us and goe by their rules in admission of Church-members I question whether there would be a godly Minister left in England the common people would not bear it And verily for godly Ministers to suffer death in things so disputable wherein holy men and Martyrs before did walk without any scruple having so much probability from Scripture as that argument of Circumcision with the rest before mentioned but yet more to suffer for rules which themselves made not the Apostles this is a hard chapter those who are so free of their lives may take their course I will blesse the Lord if he shall please to assist me with grace to lay down my life for him if he shall call me to it in things where I am confident I know his mind and the Scriptures are so clear that I need not doubt and in the mean time thank God I meet with such as will bear with me in things wherein I differ from them of lesse concernment arguments casting me on that side but not without great scruples on the other side I hear great words from some of these they will not practice any thing but what they are ready to lay down their lives for I dare not speak such great words 5. These men who thus separate when as yet there is nothing but the baptizing of their Infants they can object against yet allow in their Churches and think we are bound to allow such who deny all Infant-Baptism and will call the Anabaptistical Churches true Churches These who cast off all the Infant-posterity of Abraham from Church-membership these men must be admitted to the Supper and what not the others are debarred from the Supper but their Infants baptized which of these two is the worst I wonder for my part I would rather baptize the child of a wicked man professing Christ in words then not baptize the child of a godly man more reason and Scripture may be alledged for it Whence me thinks the Doctor being such a strong Champion for Toleration may allow unto the Presbyterial Brethren some benefit of his opinion for Toleration is Malorum and if this be evil I presume he looks on the Anabaptistical opinion as evil also and if this must be tolerated in Churches and doth not weaken the purity of the Church why the other should not have some allowance I know not I know no understanding man that is against Toleration simply he that will allow none is not fit to live in these times but how far we are bound to Tolerate is a hard question To conclude Respon ad Apol. 168. I shall only see what our Mr. Norton a man who in some cases allows separation from a true Church and one that in the Congregational way is Theologus cum primis nobilis to that question how is secession to be made from a true Church answers thus 1. Not without due vse of all means to remove the impurities I am sure amongst those means this is one for these to bear witness against the scandalous members and labour in their places to get them removed regularly those then who never deal with any of these in a Church-way who will not bear witness against them to the Eldership but when their Pastor have asked them Will you prove against these c. answer No not they These use means well yet such separate Also how some of the Congregational Ministers who have had their hands in these separations have used all means when as they never went to the Ministers when they encouraged the people in their separation to speak with them I know not I have heard two Ministers of note complain of this unkind dealing 2. Not presently but they must use prudence patience and long-suffering Those Ministers and Churches who have found these in those who separated from them may testifie for them if they can 3. Without condemning of the Châ—â—ch but acknowledging it from whence this secession is made It were well if we could get so much from many of these to acknowledge any to be true Churches but such as are in their gathered as they call it way 4. Communion still continued with such a Church in things lawful Separation from the Lutheran * Yet Calovius in his answer to Jo. Crocius tells us we differ from them in ten Articles and above thirty Controversies p. 33. Churches he will not allow though we ought not to communicate with them in the Supper But our men 1. will not communicate with the Church from which they have separated at the Lords Supper where the doctrine is sound and the persons admitted as pure as any Congregational Church that I know of 2. No nor will some of them so much as hear the officer from whom they have separated though sound and godly but rather set up a Tradesman to prophesie in the absence of their own Minister and before they had a Minister exercise their gifts amongst themselves rather then hear their former Minister Certainly if some Congregational Churches in England be not guilty of Schism there was never any Schism in this world Thus I have given my reasons why I am not satisfied with all which the
Doctor hath delivered concerning Schism though with a great part of it I am abundantly men of more learning then I am may give more only this I I may and do add it is a trouble to me that I have cause in any point to appear cross to the Doctor with whom I have had so much inward familiarity whom I have so entirely loved and honoured and do still both honour and love CHAP. II. Concerning the Parochial Congregations in England I took it for granted that our Congregational brethren did look on the Parochial Congregations where they came and have gathered Churches as true Churches before they came there and so did not lay new foundations or gather Churches where there were none before only the Congregations being over-grown with persons grosly ignorant and scandalous for want of Catechizing and Discipline they did segregate such persons from Church-Communion till they got so much as might declare them to be visible Saints But one of these Ministers tell me I am mistaken if I be then I understand not our brethren all this while nor do I know when I shall for my part I have ever professed I looked on the Parochial Congregations as a true Church before I came to it though over-grown as before I said Those who were here and elected me to be their officer I look on my self as having sufficient authority over them by their election those who have come into Town since I do require their owning of me for their officer knowing that government here is founded upon consent and subjection to all ordinances if they demand the ordinances of me so far I go along with our brethren That many Parochial Congregations are true Churches I doubt not though the Presbyterial brethren have not proceeded so far as others have done and therefore the Congregational Brethren may safely have communion with them Some things let me premise and then I will give one argument or two 1. The want of some ordinances in a Church destroys not the truth of the Church Then there can be no homogeneal Church our brethren I hope will not allow the Fraternity being destitute of officers to baptize c. but yet a homogeneal Church they maintain much might be spoken here but I forbear Ecclesiastical Discipline which some alledge as being wanting in these Parochial Churches do not therefore deny them to be true Churches which yet in part they had for suspension it is well known The Rod is not of the essence of the family though the children may do ill where it is wanting Feast of Tabernacles Neh. 8.17 was long wanting 2. An officer usurping power in a Church doth not destroy the truth of the Church Diotrephes took more then was due The Bishops were but Ministers and did ministerial work if they took more power then the Lord gave them yet that doth not hinder the truth of the Churches What shall be said then to the Bishops in the primitve Churches I wish I had as much zeal and love to Christ as they had 3. Though many members be corrupt in doctrine and manners yet they do not take away the truth of a Church Corinth had too many of these and the officers might be faulty in tolerating of them but yet a true Church and I hardly think that Paul would have refused communion with the Church I doubt not but other Churches also had bad members The Churches which lived under Heathenish persecution were true Churches yet there are foul scandalous sins reported of some of the members 4. Reality of grace though desireable O very desireable yet is not absolutely requisite to the making of a visible Church though I think it is hard to find such a Church yet I know not but according to the rules we must go by in admitting of Church-members there may be a true visible Church where there is not one real true Saint Dare any Congregational Minister avouch the true grace of all the members of his Church will any Church excommunicate a person for want of true grace Did the Apostles when they admitted members search narrowly for the truth of grace 5. I had almost said It is as great a fault to keep out visible repenting believers willing to subject to all ordinances as it is to tolerate wicked persons in a Church If the Presbyterial brethren are guilty of the latter the Congregational are guilty of the former I think it as great a faultto sin against the lenity of Christ as against the severity of Christ It is true these wicked ones are a dishonour to Christ leaven to the lump but yet suspended from the Lord's Supper and they have not that means applied which might help to their souls salvation but it is that which these Ministers would gladly reach if they could they alledge the words of the Apostle their authority is for edification not destruction On the other side to keep out those who visibly appear like Christians when men have power to take in is to hinder these from being levened with true grace a great offence to the godly discouragement of souls and Magisterially to set up Rules which the Lord never appointed Who blame Bishops for setting up their posts by God's posts I know the word visible Believer is a contentious word but I understand one plainly thus Here is one that hath a competent knowledg of those grounds which are essential to salvation and believes them His estate by nature he understandeth and professeth he believeth in the Lord Jesus for life and salvation his conversation doth not confute his profession worships God in his family and subjects to all Christ's Ordinances for the private conferences of Christians and private fastings which sometimes they have though this were desireable to have them frequent them yet these in such a manner being free-will offerings I dare not tie up men to these or else debar them if he hath been scandalous he declareth his repentance cordially so far as charity can judge and proves it by some time would the Apostles have debarred such a person from the Church but I speak what I know persons who go thus far and further cannot yet be admitted to Church-fellowship Some would have us go to Rev. 21.15 and Rev. 11.2 to see the rules for Churches What they have drawn from hence I know not I have bestowed so much pains in reading of men upon the Revelation and find so little content in all that I read great Hooker of N.E. would say he would never forfeit his credit in undertaking those Scriptures where he could not make Demonstration that now I regard nothing which is said upon it One Text which I observed as I was reading through it in my course gave me more settlement then all I had read But alas good men do they carry us to their Symbolical Divinity to prove what they would have this will not prevail with judicious men I think the Apostolical practices must be our Reed to measure by
true nature of the Church So Mr. Hooker Sur. Ch. Dis part 1. pag. 47 48. So Mr. Norton Resp ad Apol. p. 22 28. So the Synod of New-England Cap. 4. S. 4. Arg. 2. If there be as much for substance in many Parochial congregations as there was in Corinth to make it a true Church then many Parochial congregations are true Churches But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear for the Church of Corinth was a true Church I hope For the Antecedent 1. It 's true we have not many preaching officers in one Parish as had that Church which I conceive did not all meet in the same place for Church-worship but in divers 2. Nor have we extraordinary Prophets as were in that Church though our brethren strangely make those a proof for their private members Prophesying as they call it yea and are so highly carried in their notions that if their Pastor be absent though there be another Minister preach in the Town they will not go to hear him but a Tradesman must Prophesie what this implies who seeth not if a Pastor be dead and the people goe to another congregation the Pastor whereof is of their own principles these have been charged by one of our Essex Independent Ministers with irregular walking for not staying at home and Prophesying a sin certainly against the eleventh commandement 3. Nor have we other extraordinary gifts as that Church had 4. Nor have we men ordained by the Apostles 5. Nor called by the Apostles for if these things doe weaken my argument then they doe as well cut off the congregational Churches to be true Churches But if the Church of Corinth had persons called by the Word some whereof were real Saints and some onely visible so have we If they had persons Officers who held out the faith of the Gospel in their teaching soundly so have we as sound as they did or could doe if not sounder such as build not hay nor stubble c. If they had the Ordinances of Christ so have we If they consented to worship God c. so doe ours These are the Essentials of that Church The Essence is perpetually the same but Vnaquaeque res vera dicitur a sua naturâ essentiâ If we have corrupt and erroneous members so had they Ours debarr'd suspended from the Lords Table a great part of Church-discipline but that their corrupt members were so I think will not easily be proved a great fault in the Officers who it seemes did not regard discipline scarce at all 2 Cor. 12.20 21. 13.2 Paul threatens that he will not spare Our Churches come to this by the oppression of the Hierarchy the Ministers else would have exercised Discipline but those had none to overtop them and yet were negligent How to get their Churches purer the Ministry find it hard to excommunicate a multitude our congregational brethren say no to separate from the rest our classical brethren are not clear they quote the Text 2 Cor. 10.8 Their authority is given for edification not destruction They must doe what they can by degrees which they are resolved upon and deserve to be encouraged by all More Arguments I could give as from the nullity of all the Ordinances which else must follow Also I wonder whether our congregational Ministers were converted in Parochial or congregational Churches But I forbear Hence then that congregational brethren may associate with the classical to me there is no question though my practice is something different from the classical brethren yet what they allow is so candid that I am rather thankful to them that they are so willing to associate with me That we way hold communion with a Church so far as we are intangled in no sin I think was never denied but so may we with the classical brethren For what though they baptize all and all of them do not though some do and more endeavour it bring their people to an explicite engagement yet they desire us not to have communion with all their members but with their compleat members i. e. those whom they admit to all Ordinances and I am sure those according to the rules drawn up would have gone for good Church-members in the Apostles days and I think should now so that we are called to associate onely with those who are as good members as our own As for their Baptizing of the Infants of such whom they debar from the Lords table though their arguments doe not convince men no not good Mr. Blake that man who now I hear is with God if he had I would have poofessed it to the world I doe more admire to see what answers so learned a man gives but that I have professed in my Epistle to the Reader that I would meddle no more with the question I find it very easie to take off at least in my apprehension what he hath said had but he cast the major proposition in p. 97. thus which he knew was my Scope Such as for manifest unworthiness de jure ought and de facto are debarr'd from the Lords Table c. To this I have spoken before Then see how his answer from Infants takes me off but I shall adde no more Now though he hath not satisfied me yet I look on the Arguments as more valid to prove the Infants of those scandalous persons should be baptized then are their arguments who cast out the Infants of repenting and believing parents from Baptism and the Church yet these our congregational brethren make no scruple to communicate with and to have such members in their Churches Are all the members of congregational Churches such as they ought to be visibly I doubt it Some are as offensive as many in Parochial Churches Should we therefore refuse communion one with another because of such Would Paul have done it at Corinth As for taking members out of other Parishes which our brethren stand upon so stiffely and without which there will be no Association this hath been the old breaking principle and resolved it seems they are to hold it In what cases and upon what conditions it shall be allowed our classical brethren have declared and I think sufficiently to give a heart that loves peace satisfaction For my own part I care not if the thing be yielded I think I might make as good a shift as another and have had tentations strong this way but I did never yet take up such a practice not out of any conscience to the Parish bounds but because I have to be that unworthy principle which hath chiefly kindled the fire in this poor Church Should I have done it because I looked on my way more pure then my neighbour-Ministers I knew the impurity of my own heart and looked on my Neighbour-Minister as more godly if I should think more highly of my own parts I knew my own weaknesse and might justly fear lest God should blast the little
many Divines doe not understand it as in 42. That it is the phrase whereby the Lords Supper is set forth in the New Testament is yielded Acts 20.7 1 Cor. 10.16 Cap. 11. and so in the 42. v. of this Chap. Once in Luke 24.30 35. we find it meant of an ordinary supper the text doth clear it though some Papists would draw it to the Sacrament under one element yet other Papists deny it here It 's true we find this phrase once in the Old Testament Isa 58.7 to be understood of the giving of Alms to the poor but there is difference between these phrases Breaking bread to the hungry and this Breaking bread we doe not find the words to the hungry or such like added in the New Testament If this be yielded then they did break bread Domatim as Beza Corn. a Lap. thus interprets the Text of the Eucharist and saith that doth not hinder that they did break Domatim quia crescoute numero fidelium per varias domos eos distribuere in iisque Eucharistiam celebrare oportebat In this sense also Chemnitius takes the words Exam. Conc. Trid. p. 95. not troubling himself with that question an ad veritatem Eucharistiae requiratur peculiaris qualitas loci He draws his answer from the example of Christ and the Apostles Nec Apostoli peculiares habuerunt Basilicas sed sicut perseverabant in doctrina Apostolorum oratione quando in privatis domibus colligebantur ita etiam per domos frangebant panem Although Lormus be against this interpretation himself his reason insufficient yet he acknowledges Antoninus to understand it of the Lords Supper qui ait esse communem opinionem so Gagneius Baronius Boderianus c. as Lorinus quotes Thus I doubt not but it was in Rome Ephesus and Corinth where were many Officers and much people Acts 18.10 They met in several places for Preaching and Sacraments yet these were but one Church That Text 1 Cor. 14.34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. seems to carry it fairly There were divers of these Assemblies in Corinth which he calls Churches and yet in another sense it is the Church of Corinth As for the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how Calvin and others interpret them is well known with whom agree the Arab. Version Acts 2.44 so that I say no more to them Now if these did thus meet as before why may not we as well meet in our several Parishes and yet be but one Church and the Ministers Elders in common to that One Church so may we have divers Elders in One Church as had these Churches Our Parishes lie so that those who dwell in the next Parishes are as well known to Ministers as many of their own they dwell much neerer to places of Assembling for the worship of God then doe many in our own Parishes and for number we may joyn divers of our Parishes together before we shall have so many compleat members to all Ordinances as were in Jerusalem Rome or Corinth Such a Church as this I could willingly call in one sense an Independent Church Dr. Owen a congregational Divine was once very near this opinion in his Country Essay for the practice of Church-government P. 59. He would have the extreams of the Division not be above 8 or 10 miles so the center not more then 4 or 5 miles from any part of it c. though in some things we shall differ yet not in what I aim at For ought I can see this would come neerest to Scripture and for the benefits of it 1. If any Minister die here are Ministers still left in the same Church to ordain another in his room the people electing and to try him before election 2. The matters of Jurisdiction are carried on with the counsel and assistance of divers where is hoped to be more safety and the Ordinance of Excommunication more solemn 3. If any Minister be scandalous here is a way for his Excommunication Things now may be carried on as they were in those Churches which we finde in the New Testament where there were many Elders and divers questions which have troubled the Churches about the peoples ordaining of a Minister Excommunication of their Minister c. avoided And thus our brethrens trouble about Parish-bounds is also avoided in great part The greatest difficulty I find is this that we are divided about the qualification of Church-members which they in Jerusalem Corinth c. were not Certainly there were and are common rules for all Churches to goe by or else they could not have agreed more then we If the Lord had left it to the liberty of every Minister to require what qualifications he pleased then confusion and division must necessarily have been always in the Church Is it so hard then to find out these Rules Were we to Preach to Heathen and they understanding the doctrines of salvation did professe their assents unto those Doctrines their consent to take Christ for their Saviour and Lord their sorrow for and renouncing of their former wicked ways giving up themselves to Christ his ways and ordinances surely such as these we must admit and baptize if not give us a Text where the Apostles refused such If after Baptism they visibly answered their profession then made they were continued members and had fellowship in all Church-priviledges I think so Let us come thus far and we shall agree for many those among us who apparently bely the profession made at Baptism let them either be brought to repentance or secluded That is my opinion and I think all would have it so who would reform the Church 2. However the congregational brethren who doe agree in qualifications and dwell thus neer may unite into one Church and so may others 3. Since our brethren who look on all their Parishes as Church-members doe not yet require of us so to judge of them and desire us onely to Associate with them in giving communion to such as are qualified according as they have set down the qualifications certainly being strict enough for Church-members if not too strict if we goe to the rigour of them so as congregational Churches will not answer in all points why may we not unite with them so far These things I propound willing to receive some light but as to what the Classical brethren require it is no more then N. E. Divines doe allow and practice in their Councils Certainly since we know our selves to be men subject to infirmities corruptions tentations many if not most now unacquainted with the exercise of Church-Discipline a weighty Ordinance the glory of it almost lost one would think no Christian Minister should desire to stand alone but be most willing to take in all assistance he could and not esteem it a needless troubling of himself as say some of our brethren but rather a mercie that he may have help from his neighbouring Ministers If any man will go further with me and
Then it seems if God make me an instrument to beget faith in any I must not look at it as the fruit of God's sending me Ecclesiastically as he hath appointed Pastors and Teachers for the gathering and building up his Church but only as I was sent providentially and so have no comfort quatenus an Officer 5. Doth God's sending by giving gifts and Ministerial sending oppose each other in one sense indeed he may make gifts and Ordination opposites for they do differre re ratione but if he consider them in their affection to a Minister they are essential causes constituting the same effect the Ministerial fending following God's gifting His Reasons 1. Else none can be an instrument of conversion but a Preacher sent A. The great standing Ordinance which God hath appointed to breed faith instrumentally is the Ministry Ecclesiastically fent and I think Eph. 4.11 12 13. will prove it though God hath not tied up himself so as to use no other means but this is his common way Fox Mart. Vol. 1 p. 299. Waldus when his neighbour that was walking with him fell down dead began to live spiritually here was no body sent providentially with gifts I have heard of some persons who were adult that could neither hear nor speak yet so far as in charity we might judge by some of their outward gestures in reference to holy things they might have grace yet faith ordinarily comes by hearing I knew a good Christian in conference with a sick person another standing by the beds-side and hearing the conference he who was now seventy years old began to live the Christians gifts not fit for a Minister but what then doth not God ordinarily convert by gifted men Divers instances might be given which would make as much against providential sending by gifts as Ecclesiastical sending 2. Reason No man can be sure whether he hath faith or no till he be sure his faith was wrought in him by a Minister lawfully called A. The former answer serves here we tie not men to this the old man I mentioned before and Waldus might upon his grounds as much question the truth of their faith because not wrought by men providentially sent with gifts I could give another answer but I leave this 2. As gifts alone are not sufficient so neither are gifts and popular election sufficient Let these men bring forth their Scriptures and shew us where these two have constituted a Minister There are but three Texts brought to prove popular election and none of them will do it Not Acts 1. for besides divers things which might be said they did not elect an Apostle when they had nominated two they could not tell which was the Apostle till God chose Cartw. Reply p. 204. The Church chose no Apostle but only choose two of the which one was taken by the Lord to be an Apostle Cartw. So Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 3. s 13. Acts 6. will not prove it there was Ordination besides election though some deny here as any officer at all ordained of which anon Acts 14. I find a Text much insisted upon some from hence would gather that a man may be a Minister without Ordination that popular election is sufficient which they ground upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others of our Congregationall Brethren here in England who will allow Ordination as an Adjunct to the call they find it here in the verse which thus they define Ordination is a recommending a person chosen to God by fasting and prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that carries the popular election then with fasting and prayer they commended them to God here is Ordination and that without imposition of hands I will examine both these heads First for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am confident that those learned Divines who have made most use of this word to prove the peoples power to elect their Minister did never think that this popular election did constitute a Minister without Ordination when it might be had their writings prove it Neither did ever intend to prove and warrant such elections as our people make namely that without any dependance upon the judgement and assistance of godly and learned Divines to help them to choose whom they list upon their own heads Mr. Cartwright hath spoken enough and with heat sufficient for the peoples priviledge from this word yet how far he was from approving such elections we may conceive by his words to the Rhemists Rhem. 14. Test Act. 22. It may be understood how truly you speak as if we so commended the Churches election as we shut out the Bishops ordination which we do not only give unto them but make them also the chief and directors in election Scripture Bishops we mean And thus in other place Thus Ames also Med. The. C. 39. Thes 31. If what our ancient Divines have said will not give content I will come a little neerer 1. It 's certain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to Paul and Barnabas those who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 22. v. doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 23. v. else we must go look for our Grammar which Luke did and could write sure enough If then the word must be restrained to election I am sure Paul and Barnabas did elect this the Grammar will force which is a surer rule then a Criticism to bring the people in 2. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must relate to the people then let us see what sense we shall make of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people choosing by lifting up their hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it should rather have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surely they choose for themselves not the Apostles then it would have run more smoothly for popular election but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est eligere proprio suffragio non per suffragia ab aliis data 3. It is certain what we call Ordination the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is used in reference to the constitution of an Officer this is plain enough to him who will read Chrysostome who I see in all these places where Imposition of hands is used in the Text in the Ordination of a Church-Officer in his Comment upon the Text useth always the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See him on Acts 13.3 4 where three times he uses this word I will name no more but Acts 6.6 upon those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus I have observed Basil to use the word It 's strange these Greek Fathers should not understand their mother-tongue Had Chrysostom been against the peoples Election I should have suspected something but I find him contrary That the word must needs imply the peoples Election Acts 10.41 is well known to oppose it The Syriack Translation confirms this for they
no command 3. Hence there is no Independent Church with divers more things which I would draw from hence 2. I answer if Imposition of hands carry those five things in it which Chemnitius Ib. p. 221. tells us then I know no reason why he should call it an indifferent thing At the end of that paragraph he is still speaking of Imposition as I think and saith Nititur mandato c. having quoted Acts 13.3 See Zanchy 4. praec p. 785 786. Doctor Owen in his Review before quoted p. 23 24. saith For that part of Ordination which consists in the Imposition of hands by the Presbytery where it may be obtained according to the mind of Christ I am also very remote from managing any opposition to it I think it necessary by vertue of precept and that to be continued in a way of succession It is I say according to the mind of Christ that he who is to be ordained unto office in any Church receive Imposition of hands from the Elders of that Church if there be any therein But what I pray if there be no Elders what is the mind of Christ then that they must be ordained without it here the Doctor conceals his judgement but I can help the Reader to understand his judgement if he have not changed it he would have Ordained me with Imposition of hands and there were no Elders in our Church to do it if the other Minister would have Imposed hands also Then still I had reason to refuse an Ordination where something of a precept was left out unless a Scripture can be brought to prove that the necessity of it by vertue of precept ceases where there are no Elders in the Church This Scripture is desired 3. If it be indifferent then it may be used there can be no sin in using it we have an Apostolical example for it Confitente Polano Then 1. This will give a man more satisfaction as to his Ordination whether it were regular or not when he finds it answer the Apostolical examples I would not have that scruple to lie upon me about my own Ordination whether it were valid or not because I had Imposition for much 2. This will tend more to union for now there is an occasion of difference for want of this 3. It is great and just matter of offence to the Episcopal party who in some cases do allow Presbyters may Ordain but whether Ordination can be without Imposition of hands I do not know they are resolved for the affirmative Things then which tend to union and taking of offences and scruples out of mens minds if they may be done and no sin in so doing I think ought to be done 4. Imposition of hands which we conceive Apostolical men directed by the Spirit of God translated from the Old Testament to the New had an express command for it in the separation of Levites to their office Numb 8.10 it was not indifferent then why now 5. When the Apostle gives Timothy this charge Lay hands suddenly on no man and when the Lord commanded them to separate Paul they answer the command by Imposition Acts 13. I am mistaken if we find not a precept here If Timothy hath a rule for the modification of his Act and that Act for ought we can find constantly used in this part of Instituted worship I think the Act it self must needs be commanded For acts in themselves civil and used amongst men even Heathens as being customes of Nations if we find the Scriptures many hundred years after their civil use to add a modification to such Acts whether we are bound to such Acts where there is no such national customes I much question The thing the Lord intends in them be it humility hospitality love we are bound to that 's true but I suppose not to the meer civil acts of other Nations but from hence to cast out Imposition I cannot yield to it For 1. I cannot find that it was their custome to separate men in Civil States to the Office of a Magistrate by Imposition of hands and that God took this up from them Joshua indeed was thus appointed to his office but by a command from God Numb 27.18 but where doe we find this civil custome before thus to lay hands on Magistrates 2. The thing the Scripture intends in the civil Acts of Nations we may shew and exercise though we follow not the civil customes of other Nations but this being an Act belonging to Instituted worship I know not how the thing it self is performed at least not perfectly without it Deut. 34.9 As for Joshua though the spirit of the Lord was given in a larger measure at this Imposition yet this was not the only end intended for then Moses might have Imposed his hands in a private Tent and not before all the Congregation and there give him his charge v. 22 23. but Moses did by this Act declare the Designation and Ordination of Joshua to his Office before the whole Congregation So it is in Ordaining of Ministers 3. If it were a Jewish custome and upon that account only used why should Paul command Timothy a Greek to use it and that in Ordination of Officers to Gentile-Churches where no such custome was From these grounds I do not yet look upon Imposition as being a thing indifferent but I look at Ordination without it at least as irregular and let me speak my mind freely I would rather chose to be ordained by a Bishop and Presbyters which many cry out upon as Antichristian then be Ordained by any other without Imposition Now let us see what Mr. Noyes hath written against it I shall begin at his third Argument against it because that strikes at the examples in Scripture and is the very Argument our Brethren here now use and indeed if that can be made good I shall not much stand upon Imposition He saith Those examples are not a warrant for us because they were either extraordinary persons as Apostles or extraordinary Presbyters or they were extraordinarily raised who did Impose hands To that of Timothy he saith It conferred an extraordinary and sensible gift All extraordinary it seems but by this we shall not lose only Imposition but Ordination also which yet Mr. N. owns the same objection was against Ordination as we saw before and certainly if Mr. N. takes away those Texts which speak of Imposition I know of few Texts he will find to prove his Ordination I desire Mr. N. would give us strong proof for Ordination leaving out those Texts so that we shall have nothing left but election and I think he will hardly prove any election wherein extraordinary persons had not their hand so at last lose all But how doth he prove these Imposed hands quà extraordinary persons The example in Timothy the Presbytery which laid hands on him and Acts 13.3 he foresaw would be alledged to these two he lays in answer aforehand telling us they were
Ecclesiae cum prophetiâ i. e. cum recitatione interpretatione verbi Divini de Ministerio Euangelii But this gives no content Zanchy understands that Timothy came by that gift by Prophesie i.e. Per sacrarum literarum interpretationes quas partim jam inde ab ipsa juventute didicerat partim ab Apostolo acceperat The Leyden Profes understand Prophesie as doth Zanch. Disp 42. S 37. Deinde idem Donum confirmatum in eo fuit aucium per impositionem manuum cum fuit Ordinatus If this were all this would not so confirm Mr. N. his notion for why may not the Lord increase the gift of a Minister and confirme it at his Ordination by means of that Ordinance If he hath done it may be not do it still Let him give me a reason Nos vero non negamus gratiam i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conferri in ordinatione saith great Chamier Then Imposition need not be cast out for this for Mr. N. must prove it was an extraordinary gift which Timothy had nothing of before and which this Presbytery by Imposition conferred which I think he will not easily do Others understand by Prophesie a Revelation made to Paul concerning Timothy So Beliarmin with which the thoughts of most agree a Revelation made by some Prophets which then were in the Church by which he was designed to the Ministry In Loc. post ea per Impositionem mannum fuit in eo confirmatus quasi investitus saith Gerhard And this the Apostle mentions both for the commendation of Timothy and for his excuse being yet so young and else in regard of years unfit for so great an Office See Gerh. Ib. For this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thoughts of Divines are very various but the most probable fall under one of these two heads 1. Either those gracious qualifications by which he was fitted for his work Or 2. The Docendi officium the very office and place unto which men through grace are fitted So Rom. 12.6 This is most generally received Gerhard takes in both but doth not reckon extraordinary gifts he saith Gratiam docendi exhortandi Scripturas interpretandi contradictores redarguendi I think he saith truest Yet as Zanchy before so I conceive Timothy had some degree of those gifts before though now more increased and confirmed 2. But if the gifts were extraordinary let him tell us how Timothy should stir up extraordinary gifts 3. Where doth he finde extraordinary gifts conferred by a Presbytery which is here distinct from Paul who was an extraordinary Officer Presbyter is the common word for an ordinary Pastor in the New Testament and when it is named as distinct from other extraordinary Officers I know not why it should not be meant of an ordinary Presbyter and so this Presbytery but ordinary to say this gift was extraordinary and the Presbytery extraordinary without sufficient proof will not satisfie a rational man 4. I had another Notion but was afraid to set it down lest I should be charged with singularity as is Mr. N. 't was this Suppose the gift were extraordinary yet it should seem to be given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 1.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned to both so that this gift came by Prophesie as much as by hands And if withal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehends the Ministerium ecclesiasticum to which Timothy was ordained he being by Prophesie designed to it being young the Presbytery might well Impose hands with Paul to separate him to his office as Paul being commanded to be separated c. Acts 13.3 Here the preposition is changed it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I knew no hurt in this Notion nor what fault could be found with it only as I said I feared singularity But casting my eye upon Diodati I saw he concurred with me in my Notion By the Imposition of Paul's hands 2 Tim. 1.16 Timothy received the extraordinary gift By the Imposition of the Colledge of Elders hands 1 Tim. 4.14 He was installed in the Ministry with a publick blessing Thus he on 2 Tim. 1.6 Didoclavius whom reverend Mr. Hooker follows observed the difference in the phrase but whether he meant as Mr. Hooker doth I know not For thus Mr. Hooker By gift he understands those gracious abilities which Timothy received by the spirit in way of Prophesie whence he was fitted to be an Evangelist It is by the hands of Paul there is a causal vertue under Christ of constitution but it is with the hands of the Eldership as concurring by way of Approbation only Thus he That Paul's hands should causaliter constituere gracious qualifications and that the hands of the Eldership should onely concur by way of Approbation that Timothy should have such qualifications seems something odd What need of their concurrence or approbation Nor do I think constitution here is taken in that sense the New Testament doth use it I hope by this time this Argument of Mr. N. used by our Brethren doth not appeare strong enough to remove Imposition as for the rest of his Arguments I will now take them in order omitting what is needless His first Argument is Imposition is not warranted in Ordination by Imposition on the Levites He giveth divers reasons I can yield to divers things without hurting my cause His fift reason Israel Imposed hands on the Levites to signifie that they were to bear their sins and make attonement for them Exod. 29. A. 1. There is no such thing mentioned in the Chapter quoted In Numb 18.3 the Levites were not to meddle with the Priests office no not to sprinkle blood 2 Chron. 30.16 2. The 14. verse tells us it was a part of the separation of the Levites nor do we make this our first warrant His fift reason This was a Jewish Ceremony and why should this all other being abrogated be only reserved Let the Apostles give the Answer Why did they use it and Paul bid Timothy use it Let him blame Paul if Imposition upon the Ordained be a Ceremonial Law which took end by the coming of Christ then the Apostles were injurious unto his death who translated that Ceremony from the Jews under the Law into the Church under the Gospel saith Mr. Cartwright Reply p. 221. More anon His second Argument from Heb. 6.2 doth not hold it forth in point of Ordination but it is a fundamental principle of religion used figuratively for the gift of the Holy Ghost which is signified and conferred A. Then Mr. N. of all men must not exclude Ordination in which it conferred extraordinary gifts as he hath affirmed before for that time then it must comprehend Ordination his own Notion confutes himself 2. I think as he saith and so in his sixth reason which I will therefore omit it was a fundamental principle and therefore should stand so long as the Church stands Let the
Reader be pleased to cast his eye upon what I have said concerning the Text before His first reason hath there its answer also His second and third reasons I think aim both at the same thing Doctrine is added to Baptism and Imposition to intimate the doctrine of the Ordinance not the Ordinance it self was intended the communication of the Spirit is the thing signified or the doctrine of Imposition A. Is indeed the Doctrine of Baptism here only intended and not the Ordinance of Baptism it self I must request him to excuse me I intend not to give so much advantage to the Socinians I think the Ordinance is plainly inded and so is Imposition 2. Doth not the Apostle then Tautologize Do not Repentance and Faith comprehend much of the doctrine of Baptism why should the Ordinance be mentioned if not intended 3. What error is there if we read the words dividedly with a Comma betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as do the Tigurin and Aethiopick Versions So Oecumenius Luther Erasmus Gagnaeus as Gerhard saith and the Greek do not oppose it Thus Cajetan and Aretius See their Comments Then this notion fails and it will make yet more for my Interpretation 4. But let us suppose the Doctrine of Imposition be here intended Yet as Aretius saith well in loc De hac ceremonia admonebantur Neophyti quandoquidem tum in frequenti erat usu quid illa esset cur instituta quibus per quos imponerentur manus item ad quid conduceret discebant Fidei Tyrones Very good must not then the Neophyti answer Hands were Imposed in Ordination of Church Officers If we come to teach ours this head of Catechism and they must answer according to Mr. N. his notion they may well say What is this to us how is it a foundation to us the thing is ceased so many hundred years since besides what I have before said But according to our Interpretation we both open the Doctrine we use the thing and it remains as yet a Foundation to us The old holy non-conformists tell us how they look upon the Ministry there was an objection made We have been taught heretofore that Discipline is an essential part of the Gospel and matter of Faith To this they answer That Discipline of the Church being generally understood is a matter of Faith and an essential mark of the Church I hope our Brethren will not deny for Discipline comprehendeth not only the Administration of the Keys but Ordination and Imposition of hands but without Ordination there are no Preachers Rom. 10.15 and without Preaching there is no belief v. 14. Wherefore without some part of Discipline it cannot be denied but that the Church is no Church Faith no Faith Thus they This suites Mr. Hooker's exposition of our Text. 5. If the confirmation and increasing of ordinary gifts be the Spirit 's work then still it may hold as Zanch. and Chamier before His fourth and fifth reasons are answered before onely whereas he saith Imposition is added as an explicative adjunct of Baptism It should seem no besides what have been said there being so few heads enumerated it 's unlikely the Apostle would add an Adjunct to this ordinance which I think he cannot prove was alwayes at Baptisme I thinke also this crosseth the former head wherein he said Not Baptisme but the Doctrine of Baptisme is intended His seventh it is interpreted in the next v. 4 5. Illumination answers to repentance Taste of the heavenly gift to Faith the participation of the Holy Ghost to the doctrine of Imposition and Baptisme the tasting of the good word to the resurrection A. This doth not please Illumination as most understand the word belonging to the Intellectual part and repentance to the heart do not seem to answer I know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 1. v. if the word be taken strictly as the word sounds belongs to the minde but so as it's Act is perfected in the heart it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Syriack render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise and that Baptisme is taken for Illumination among the Ancients according to the Syriack who knows not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Just Mart. Apol. 2. p. 94. So Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 1. p. 93 95. So Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. 2. Mr. N. saith Justifying Faith is signified in Baptisme then not in the word Faith expressed in the Text then Faith must be taken in a large sense and this will rather answer to Illumination then repentance 3. How doth Resurrection answer to the Taste of the good word when as Resurrection is a terrible word to most The good word of promise rather the promise contains good 4. Why doth he make one word to answer Baptism and Imposition when they were divided in the Text and Mr. N. hath not yet proved that they went always together 5. Why may not the participation of the Holy Ghost have respect also to such gifts as are given now in our days for do we not observe with trembling how some lose their gifts even eminent gifts profession and so fall away as never more return should it be tied up only to extraordinary gifts which I do not believe yet those were given in Ordination as Mr. N. saith so that for that time Imposition must be comprehended His eighth Imposition is made a principle from which it was necessary an Apostate should fall if finally but it is not necessary that one should be instructed touching the office of the Ministry one may be saved and yet be ignorant in the point of Ordination and one may fall away finally though ignorant in this respect A. I know not what he means by the Apostates falling from the principle He doth not mean I suppose that a man must have first those extraordinary gifts and so fall from them else not an Apostate there are too many Apostates yet never reached those gifts 2. One may be saved as well though he doth not understand the extraordinary gifts conferred by Imposition I presume Mr. N. doth not think the Apostles conferred the Holy Ghost in a gracious saving way by Imposition 3. It is one thing for a person to be ignorant of Ordination another to be ignorant of that which Ordination holds out of what necessity the Ministry is Mr. Cartwright and the Non-Conformists before mentioned tell us So the Scripture But Mr. Hooker takes it in a larger sense 4. I think there are few Apostates who have been ignorant of the Ministry for those who have been ignorant of this never came to so much as the Text expresses then they cannot fall away from what they never had His ninth If we should understand the docirine of the Ministry by Imposition then we must exclude the Administration of Baptisme in the principle of Baptisme because Baptisme in this consideration belongeth unto the Ministry and therefore cannot unless it signifie the doctrine of Baptisme onely be a distinct principle from Imposition And if we