Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
hand_n bishop_n church_n presbyter_n 4,517 5 10.4419 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A41335 Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the work of the ministry be necessry?, II. Whether it be essential to the right constitution of a particular church, that the teaching elders and the members meet alwayes in one place? : whereunto is added a prediction of Mr. Daniel Rogers, minister in Essex, long before the beheading King Charles I and Arch-Bishop Laud, foretelling that they should not dye a natural death / by Giles Firmin ... Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.; D. R. (Daniel Rogers), 1573-1652. 1692 (1692) Wing F969; ESTC R31512 41,078 37

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

but ordinary Ministers God blesseth their Preaching The Indians some of them are converted gathered into a Church Were they a Church before these Ministers And were they the first Subjects of the Power of the Keys before these Ministers preached to them Let the Scriptures in the Languages that the Spirit of God inspired his Pen-men to write them be sent to a People who never saw them nor heard of them Let this People understand them believe them embrace them give themselves up to them without any Ministry to translate to interpret and to help them to understand and believe I will allow this People to be the Subjectum Primum Secundum Tertium of all the Power of the Keys but rot else Secondly There are others who lay claim to this and impropriate it to themselves as belonging to them only i. e. Bishops as being of a Superior Order above Teaching Elders Thus Bishop Gawden told me it was out of Courtesie that the Bishop admitted Presbyters to impose Hands with them in Ordination Thanks to this Courteous Bishop I thought they had followed the fourth Council of Cartbage But if Presbyters do impose Hands with the Bishop then the Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter in Ordination is gone For Imposition of Hands is the Principal thing in Ordination as I will prove anon because one prays at the Imposition that argues no Superiority of Power in him All Bishops were not of this Bishop Gawden's mind not that Bishop of Peterborough who when he ordained many at one time but then take notice That he did ordain them as Presbyter He spoke not without Reason for no Ministerial Acts in the Church are valid but such Acts as are performed by Ministers of Christ's Institution They who are Officers in the Church by Civil or Ecclesiastical Constitution all their Acts as such signifie nothing But his being a Bishop and so superior to a Presbyter was by no Institution of Christ had only jus Humanum to Warrant his Authority and therefore he did not ordain as such a Bishop but as Presbyter Two I know Mr. Statham as I heard and Mr. Samuel Smith who were then Ordained Mr. Smith spake of it often what the Bishop said to them and ●●d them take notice of it Had Mr. Smith lived till now he had been about 78 years of Age suppose him to be Ordained about 25 years of Age some by this may guess what the Name of that Bishop was about 58 years past I have often thought of this the meanest Officers in the Common-Wealth be they Rum-bailiffs Ale-Founders yet they must have Law for their Office to Warrant their Actings But that in the House of God there should be such as look upon themselves as the Chiefest Officers in the Church and yet can shew no Law from the Lord of the House to Warrant their Office this is strange what hath jus Humanum to do in the House of God Is not the Wisdom of the Great God Sufficient to know what Officers to appoint in his House but sinful Man must set up Officers and supream Officers too without him Thus Bishop Gawden told me The Bishop is the Supream Officer He should have said the Arch-Bishop in the Church you Presbyters are but the Pipe-staves the Bishop is the Hoop that holds you together An excellent similitude I desired him to tell me who should be the Cooper to knock on this Hoop I doubt I told him the Pope would swear by his Keys that he must and will be the Cooper And Bellarmin will maintain it by his Argument a Simili c. De Romano Pontif. mibi 204. He told me moreover you Presbyters are no more able to manage the Government of the Church of England than David was able to wield ' Saul's Armour The Government of the Church of England is a hard word there needs an Interpreter We poor Presbyters look only to the Government of our particular Flocks whom we feed with the Word and Sacraments over whom God hath made us Bishops Acts 20.17 28. If all the particular Congregations in England supposing them to be visible Saints were so govern'd then by an Induction of particulars it might be so call'd We do not indeed in our Government use Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo Prisons Fines Cutting off Ears these are Saul's Armour but none of Paul's spiritual Weapons 2 Cor. 10.4 with which we are content If it be well examined it will be found that the Zeal of his Government hath been carried out against Consciencious Men who for Doctrin Worship Discipline stick close to the Word of God without admitting any Humane Inventions to justle with him I say the Zeal has been carried out against those far more than against Whore-mongers Drunkards prophane Swearers Dam'mees c. I can but take notice of Dr. Lightfoot 1 Vol. p. 787 788. that learned Man and Son of the Church of England living in the times of our Persecution who denys Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles And that it is an improbable and unconstant Inference that because there was Subordination between the Apostles and Philip. in Acts 8. that therefore the like is to be reputed betwixt Bishops and other Ministers I have done with this I only aimed at this Teaching Elders may Ordain and we have Divine Authority for it in the Texts before mentioned These we are sure are Officers in the Church by Christs Institution The Lutherans have Bishops yet they deny any inequality jure Divino between Bishops and Presbyters quoad Potestatem Jurisdictionis Therefore Gerrard answering Bellarmin appropriating Ordination to Bishops saith De Minist Eccles p. 261. there is not one tittle in all God's Book that Ordination by Bishops should be valid but by Presbyters should be Null The next thing is it must be performed with Imposition of Hands I named five Scriptures for this before What Dr. Owen saith Ordination of Ministers is one thing Imposition of hands is another differing as the whole and the part I yield it by this whole he must mean totum integrale it cannot be totum universale but we say in Logick suolata qualibet parte tollitur perfectio Integri sed sublata parte principali tollitur integrum Then I say where there is not Imposition of hands there is no Ordination for this Imposition is the principal part and so tollitur Integrum That it is the principal part I prove and this shall be my first Argument 1st The Spirit in the Apostles sets forth the whole Ordinance of Ordination only by Imposition of Hands but never by Fasting and Prayer 1 Tim. 4.14 the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay Hands on no Man suddenly That in those Texts Ordination is meant and not Confirmation nor reception of Penitents nor the Sick I have proved in another Tract so that I insist not upon them Heb. 6.2 This my Brother with whom I now deal denyes to be Ordination but it is meant
Man will believe it Why then is this Text abused For my part I am for the Peoples Election provided it be carried on regularly and look upon this Imposing of Ministers by Patrons upon the People against their Consent as cursed Tyranny But for my own part giving honour to these worthy Men far more learned than my self I am not satisfyed that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text whatever the Etymology of the word was at first must necessarily note the Act of the People listing up their Hands in Election of their Officers I rather consider how the word is used in that Age or Time when Men write 'T is well known that words in time do vary in their signification from what they did at first Among divers others we have one in Scripture Ethis l. 4. Cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephis 5.4 Aristotle tells us how the Word was first used and who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Man that was facetious pleasant Witty but withal cleanly in his Discourse But afterwards in his time if a Man did seem to be Witty tho' Scurrilous and base he now was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divers such words we have in the Latin and English Tongue Philo and Paul were Contemporaries Philo flourished in Caligula 's Time and wrote before Paul and how Philo useth the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond has given us an account out of his Works Likewise out of Lucian and Maximus Tyrius Where the word is used of single persons so that the word did not in those times signifie the suffrages of the People and the Word in Holy Writ Acts 10.41 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being given to God Plainly carry it that the Word doth not always intend or force the Peoples Suffrage whatever the Etymology of the Word signifles upon which Gerbard lays his stress I have not seen that piece of Mr. Selden but Mr. Ranew told me he had made it clear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had lost that signification these contend for many years before Christ 2dly That Rule which Henry Stephens gives us concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I take to be very true When this word governs an Accusative Case then it signisies but to create Ordain Thus he Now in this Text Acts 14.23 it doth so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in Cor. 2.8.19 which these Men urge to confirm their Opinion there is no accusative Case but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was chosen of the Churches Let me add to this the Syrryack Version I doubt not but that Translator did understand the Etymology of the word as well as any of us now in this verse he renders the word they ●id Constitute or Ordain (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same Syriac word which is used in Tit. 1.5 Ordain Elders But in the 2 Cor. 8.19 there he uses another word to chase (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doubles the Verb as the Hebrews do which the Latin Translation gives thus deligendo delectus sit So the vulgar Translation Constituissent 3dly The Gramatical Construction is more to me than a Criticism when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch v. 22. they returned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Confirming the Souls c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 E●horting them to continue c. These two were Paul and Bar●abas's Acts then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paul and Barnabas lifted up their hands if the word must signifie so from the Etymology of the word this was as much their Act as the ●ormer Let any School-Boy construe it tho' the Boy can tell you the Etymology of the word Then we shall have a new ●a●hion of ordaining by Ministers fasting praying and listing up their ha●ds ●esides for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how will that agree with the Peoples listing up their hands what ●air sense shall we make of it But if we take the word as we see it was used in that time and as H. Stephens saith if it governs an accusative case as it doth in this place th●n the Sense runs smooth Paul and Barnabas did Constitute or ordain them i. e. the Disciples in the sormer verse Elders in every Church c. 4thly It is certain the Greek Fathers did use their word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Ordination Surely they understood their own Mother tongue as well as we I have observed Chrysostem in all those Texts where Imposition of hands is mentioned he useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerhard confesseth that Chrysostom and other Ecclesiastical Writers do so use it And tho he stick to the Etymology of the word to maintain the Peoples right of Election yet Ordination he saith must be with Imposition of hands therefore he saith in the next word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demum sit mentio in their praying they Imposed hands Thus he As to these Fathers who thus use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had they been against the Election of the People then I should have suspected their Integrity in their use of the Word but the People then had their Election of their Bishops and Presbyters And one thing I took notice of in the 5th Century I read of one Syn●si●s a Man of very good parts who was to be Ordained Bishop of Syrene But when he should be Ordained he did not believe the Res●rrection of the Body yet the People who had elected him were so earnest to have him Ordained that Theophilus Alexand. did Ordain him hoping he might believe it afterwards as he did When I read it I thought what a difference there was between those times and ours they could Ordain a Bishop who did not believe one of the Articles of the Apostles Creed as it is called but the Church of England could cast out about eighteen hundred Ministers but for what was it because they did not assent to the Doctrine of the Church of England I heard Mr. Harmar should tell Bishop Reynolds if you can maintain the Discipline of the Church the Dissenters must maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England was it because they were scandalous in their Conversation was it because they were Idle and lazy was it because they did not worship God according to His Word Blessed be God they could charge us with none of these things for what then Let them answer that when they come to appear before their and our Judges They were Church-Men and Bishops that made that Act against us SECT III. NOw to your Reason why you Ordain without Imposition of Hands that which you chie●●y insist upon is this There is neither Scripture Precept no● President for ordinary Officers of one Church to impose Hands in the Ordination of an Officer in another Church Answ First What need of such Presidents while Apostles and Evangelists were living Secondly This Argument of yours plainly implies that there is Scripture Precept and President to ordain in another Church so it be without Imposition of
there be an Uniform Order touching Ordination of Ministers throughout the whole Realm and that with Imposition of Hands and thus it holds to this day Mr. An. 1598. pag. 424. Bruce having preached many Years would admit of Imposition of bands for Confirmation but not for Ordination Several denyed him to be their lawful Pastor for want of Imposition but others own'd him Mr. Bruce accepts of Imposition for Confirmation and Mr. Pont imposes hands upon him First As for Imposition of Hands for Confirmation as it is used in England after Baptism I find not one word of it in all the History nor did the Church of Scotland own it that I find there Secondly All this while there is not one Scripture brought by those who opposed Imposition Yet they had taken the Word of God for their only Rule which is so express for Imposition c. which makes me wonder at Mr. Bruce so holy a Man But if they had no Scripture had they no Reasons Yes they had one and but one and that a pityful one too Thus It being laid as a ground pag. 425. that none can receive Ordination to the Ministry without Imposition of Hands and that the Ceremony is proper to Bishops it behoved to follow that none could enter into the Ministry without the Imposition of the Hands of Bishops This is all very strange that Mr. Bruce should admit of Imposition of Hands for Confirmation when the Bishops do appropriate that to themselves as well as in Ordination How many things may be said to this to shew the weakness of this ground Any understanding man may easily see but I forbear The Representation of Presbyterian Government and put out the Year 1690. when Bishops are turn'd out tell us in the sixteenth Section That Men come into the Ministry by Election and Ordination by laying on of the Hands of the Bresbytery which is a mean of Communicating Authority to him Then it seems the Church of Scotland where this stir was can impose Hands in Ordination without Bishops By reading this History I find the Government of the Church of Scotland from the first beginning of Reformation was Presbyterian wherefore it was no small injury to impose upon them Prelatical Bishops unless they had been of Christs Institution which we are sure they are not And that our first Reformers in King Henry the Eights and in King Edward the Sixth's did declare That Episcopacy was no distinct Order from Bresbytery by Divine Right but only a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrate for the better Government of the Church SECT II. The Definition of Ordination AS to the word Ordination I think Greg de Valen. speaks right Tom. 4. Dis 9. Q. 1. p. 1. the word is taken from the Effect of that Ordinance Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque Ordine certo Ecclestasticae Dignitatis Constituit●r Some are Pastors some are Teachers some a●e Ruling Elders some are Deacons they are set or placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 1.28 in such an Order in the House of God by Ordination Thus it hath passed for Currant many hundred Years in the Church till yesterday Election gave the Essence and Ordination was but an Adjunct I desire my Brethren but to give me that Adjunct according to the Word of God and we shall unite tho' we differ in our Logical Notions What should he done where Ordination cannot be had Something I had to say to it but being none of our Question I let it alone It is more material to know what Ordination is and being it is Essential to our Discourse I will give the Definition of it This being a sure Truth That they who do not give the Definition they do but mock the Person to be ordained and abuse the Ordinance for he is not ordained Cui convenit Definitio eidem quoque Convenit Definitum è Contra c. Ordination then is the Separation of a Person rightly qualified to the work of the Ministry by teaching Elders with Fasting Prayer and Imposition of Hands Something I had thought to have spoken about the Qualification wherein I see these mens Practices with no content their way being to debase the Ministry but the stress lying most in the Ordiners and Impositions of Hands I shall speak to these two Heads That it belongs to Teaching Elders Act. 13.3 Tim. 1.4.14 I prove it Here the People rise up and claim a Right by Virtue of their being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Power of the Keys And I have seen it practised Two Private Persons imposed their Hands upon an Ancient grave Divine who was ordained I believe near 40 Years before in England c. They gave him the Essence in giving him a Call and so they gave him the Adjunct And this being the Opinion of these men here I preser their Ordination with Imposition of Hands and would own him for a Gospel Minister before them whom you ordain as you suppose without Imposition And if Ordination be no more than Prayer and Fasting what need of you according to the Principles of Independency in another Church It is not Prayer Preaching and Fasting Tho' I grant Preaching is very comely at such an Ordinance yet Preaching is not Ingredient into the Ordination The People can Fast and Pray as well as you I observed while the hands of these private Persons were upon the Head of their Pastor one of them made such a Prayer as might become any Minister it was so apposite to the business in hand that I could but wonder at it and I believe it was his own Composing Whether the Fraternity be the first Subject of the Power of the Keys Mr. Nath. Ward use to say They were the first Subject of the Key-Clog not the Keys So they have proved in many Churches I am sure I have spoken to it several Years since in another Tract I add but a few word now In the Common Wealth the People are before the Magistrate In the Church the Ministry is before the People Thus it began with the Apostles they were first and after them by a continual Succession of the Ministry the Church is continued The Ministry is the Instrument in God's Hand which he useth commonly or chiefly for the bringing in and building up of his Church 2 Cor. 6.1 Ephes 4.11 12. The principal Cause and the Instrument work together to the producing of the Effect that then the effect of a Power should be the first Subject of that Power of which 't is an Effect is new Logick to me Dr. Owen saith The Church is before Ordinary Ministers Answ First But is it before the Ministry Else 't is nothing Secondly The Proposition is not true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that faithful and laborious Servant of Christ Mr. Eliot whom I know and honour Mr. Mahew Mr. Leverick with great Labour and Industry get the Indian Language and preach'd to the Indians they were
of Confirmation and bids me see Dr. Owen so interpreting it I honour the Doctor and will consider him when I have first proved it is meant of Ordination If Mens Judgments be worth any thing then for learning and Holiness we have very eminent Men for it Arch-Bishop Vsher Mr. Cart-wright Dr. Lightfoot Mr. Thomas Hooker Gualter Tossanus Bullinger Gillespy Dicson Johnson Jacob These understand it only of Ordination Other Divines of Confirmation and Ordination and * Because my Brother Charges me with my false Quotation of Mr. Cart-wright take his words on Heb. 6.2 By Imposition of Hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament much less Confirmation after Baptism but by a Trope or borrowed Speech the Ministry of the Church upon the which Bands were laid which appeareth in that whosoever believeth not there ought to be a Ministery by order to Teach and Govern the Church overthroweth Christianity Dr. Owen here doth not exclude it 1st I lay the Foundation for my Proof in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1.5 not laying again the Foundation This then is a Fundamental point Foundation must last as long as the House lasts Confirmation by extraordinary Gifts conveyed in the Imposition of Hands do not last so long as the Church lasts the Church hath lost this above Fifteen hundred Years But the Ministry intended in this place shall last to the end of the World Mat. 28.20 till the Body of Christ be perfected Eph. 4.12 13. Therefore this is the Foundation The other Heads of Catechism that are join'd with it must last to the end of the World And if Baptism then the Ministry that have the Command from Christ to Teach and Baptise Mat. 28.20 2dly Let it be observed that the extraordinary Gifts which were given sometimes by Imposition of Hands were given first to the Jewish Christian-Church and then to the Gentiles without Imposition of Hands Acts 2.2 3. with Acts 10.44 45 46. This is very material Do you then shew us two Texts where the Apostles separated Men to the Ministry without imposition of Hands as extraordinary Gifts were given first both to Jews and Gentiles without Imposition of Hands and to Cornelius and his good Company before Baptism Acts 10.47 3dly We have other Scriptures where Imposition c. is put for Ordination I named two Do you name one more where Imposition of Hands mentioned alone is put for Confirmation 4thly Imposition of Hands in Ordination to Office was before Imposition of Hands to the Collation of extraordinary gifts and more frequently mentioned therefore the more reason why it should be so understood here and not excluded The placing of Imposition c. in the Text-after Baptism does not prove it to be meant of Confirmatton no more than the placing of Faith in God after Repentance will prove that Repentance goeth before Faith in God whereas if a Man do not first believe God to be and such a God as the Word declares him to be yea if he do not believe the Resurrection and the last Judgment he will hardly Repent 2dly Cornelius and his Friends the Gentiles had those Gifts Conferred before Baptism Acts 10.45 46 47 48. 3dly Let them prove that all that were Baptized had these Gifts Conferred after Baptism This made Dr. O. so to expound it because it follows Baptism in the Text. As for Dr. Owen's Reasons against Ordination I see no reason saith he why the Apostle should pass from the Doctrin of the first entrance of Christian Religion and proceed to the Ordination of Ministers omitting the Lords Supper 2dly Nor why he should insert the observation of this Rite or the Doctrine concerning it in the same Order and under the same necessity with the other great Fundamentals c. Answ 1st And what necessity was there of his inserting extraordinary Gifts common to godly and ungodly and which were to expire in a short time amongst the Fundamentals 2dly Gospel Worship is a fundamental point and it was Christs pleasure to have a Gospel Ministry to carry on that Worship to the Worlds End and under that Rite the Ministry is meant Ephes 4.11.12 1 Cor. 12.28 3dly Under Baptism the Lord's Supper might be comprehended being the other Sacrament * So Dr. Gouge 's Baptism Synechdochice is put forboath Sacraments or being those were the Catechetical Heads which the Novices learned before they were Baptized and admitted into the Church as Baptism and Repentance went together in John's Baptism Matthew 3. so here Baptism and Repentance are mentioned but for the Lords Supper they might be further instructed after they were in the Church before they were admitted to it 4thly There is not such a necessity of Baptism as of Faith and Repentance yet Baptism is mentioned amongst those Heads The Prophets under the Old Testament Prophesied of these Gifts that they should be poured out saith the Dr. Answ True but the Prophets do not say they should be conferred by Imposition of Hands and so be made a Chatachetical Head under the New Testament 2dly So do several of the Prophets foretell what Pastors the Lord will give to his Church under the time of the Messah But to make an end with Dr. Owen to whom you refer me He gives us four Cases in which this Imposition of Hands was used The Second he mentions was in healing of Diseases Mark 16.18 c. This cannot be the meaning here saith he for this gift was extraordinary occasional Temporary Proper to some Upon the same grounds it cannot be meant of Confirmation For the Gift was Extraordinary Temporary Proper to the Apostles Ananias had an immediate Call to it Acts 9.10 11.17 Philip had no such power or Gift in Acts 8. And after the Apostles we read of none that could or did confer Gifts extraordinary by Imposition of Hands What he means by occasional I know not I know no word of Healing unless People were sick 2dly But I read in the Dr. p. 34. thus we shall allow room also for that other exposition of the Words which is more generally received I suppose he means Ordination because it complies with the Analogy of Faith I dare not be peremptory Then the Dr. is not absolutely against me So much for my first Argument I go on 2dly Ordination is an Act of Authority but Prayer and Fasting are no Acts of Authority These are the Duties belonging to all Christians I would desire no more Blessings than many good Women can pray for Therefore Prayer and Fasting do not make Ordination The Major only remains to be proved Acts 6.3 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom we may appoint c. Tho' the Persons were qualifyed tho' elected by the Church yet they were not in that Order of Deacons till the Apostles put them into it Authoritatively Imposing their Hands upon them And this is common with all Presbyters Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same word we had before This word I find several times in the New Testament
may there deny her Communion also but when you meet publickly with others there you should not deny but she may be present at Prayer being it is natural Worship tho she were actually excommunicated and rendred as a Heathen I have seen the Indians present with us at Prayer and Preaching tho' as yet they had not embraced Christianity Thirdly As for the Civil Familiarity you had with her before you ought to suspend that too 2 Thess 3.14 and verse 6. yet having a care of her being in a poor condition that she do not perish Fourthly You may choose three or sour of your chief Members and send them to her to make her know the Determination of the Church and that the Church doth this in the Name of the Lord Jesus The Church did so the effects of it was the clamours of the People ceased the Mouths of them who before were opened against us were silent and now they rather sound sault with me that I was too sharp upon the Person offending the effect was a relenting and humbling of her self before God in the publick Congregation to the satisfaction of the Church she is now dead but the Church having then their Pastor absolved her before she died and it was a comfort to her her Absolntion was without money By this I see were this Ordinance of Church Discipline carried on according to the word of God which hath been so fearfully abused we should need no Writ de Excommunicato capiendo I did but add a sew words what the case of such a person was under this Sentence and it struck an awe in the hearts of Carnal People To return to my Brother To what I have said from the one body in the Corinth 12. That the Pastors of Churches may help other Churches where there are none and they call to help them you answer me This is all you have to say and there is little in it Answ No not all Brother I gave you your own Text whereby you proved that Pastors of other Churches may joyn with you in days of Fasting and Prayer and preaching and if so then in Ordaining 2dly I gave you the Texts of Scripture whereby the Synod of N. England proved they might ordain in another Church with Imposition of hands You tell me you deny a Political-visible Catholick Church Answ So do I. If I said but little I am sure you say too much How doth it follow Because we may help neighbour Churches when they call us to help them with Pastors in a Gospel way Therefore I must own a Political visible Catholick Church I gave you instance before how Churches may help to purge themselves from seandalous persons tho they have no Officers If there be a Family by us where are several Children Parents both dead and there is none that takes care of them to help them to food It is one thing for me to go to the House and help them with food another thing to cast one of the Children out of the House if it be cross refractory and will not be reclaimed by counsel Thecase is the same here twenty or forty Elders may meet to give Counsel in a Case leaving the Execution to the Church whence the Case depends You tell me Ministers are not set over the whole Church their Power may be refused in other Congregations Answ But they do not refuse their Power when they Call for it and desire to help them in their want I limit the Power of Elders to other Churches to the Call of those Churches being in want They are not therefore set over the whole Church When you with the two other Ministers they go for such did separate that illiterate Person to the Work of the Ministry did you Act as Officers or as private Brethren If you acted as private Brethren then I am sure he is no Minister the Brethren of the same Society had more right than you If you acted as Officers then it seems you could not put forth Official Power in another Church To separate to an Office is an Act of Authority Whom we may appaint not the People Act. 6.3 You tell me the 13 Acts 3. is no Platform for us unless we have an immediate Command from God to Ordain Men. Answ The immediate Command was in the separating Paul and Barnabas to the Work of their Apostleship The Command was not to Teach them how they should separate the Lord saith only Separate c. they knew how they should separate before The Synod of New-England and Dr. Owen were much mistaken who quote this Text for Ordination by Impostion of Hands But to this Text I have spoken before As to what you say That Gifts were then Conserred with the Imposition of Hands Answ The end when the Lord first Commanded it was not to Conferr Gi●ts but to separate Numb 8.10 14. so Acts 13.3 Separate we Paul c. 2. The Savoy Consession is against you if there be Elders in the same Church it calls for Imposition of Hands 3. Paul and Barnabas were Gifted before as I named the Texts 4. The Deacons were Gifted before their Ordination Acts 6.3 5. Paul then needed not to have given that Caution to Timothy 2 Tim. 2.2 that they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom he Committed the Gospel-Doctrine for Timothy by the Imposing Hands might Conferr Gifts and make them able or fit Men for the Work 6. As to what you gather from 1 Tim. 4.14 for your Proof that Text you know admits of Controversie As whether Timothy was not first Ordained a Presbyter and asterwards an Evangelist Whether Paul's Imposition and the Presbyters were both at the same time c. but this is certain laying the 1 Tim. 1.18 and 2 Tim. 1.6 together with this Text there was something extraordinary as to Timothy's Gifts in which the Pres●●teries Imposition had no share the Propositions differ it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the putting on of my Hands See Didoclavius Altare Damos p. 161. Thus Gillospy Misc p. 101. but 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the la●ine o● of the Hands of to● Presbitery after Prophecy So that when Paul and the Presbytery did both impose Hands the Gift was conveyed as Paul saith by my Hands But as to ●●s Office to a Potestative Authoritative Mission the Imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery did conc●rr with Pa●●'s You tell me I must own Succission and those polluted Hands c. Answ Your Argument speaks thus If you will have no Ordination without Imposition of Hands according to Scripture then you must own Succession So I will Was Imposition of Hands in Ordination an Invention of Rome or an Institution of God the Papists can prove their Act in this Point by Scripture so cannot you 2. Mr. Robinson Mr. Johnson tho' rigid old Separates yet worthy Men made light of this Argument because it was God's own Appoinement 3. You had best throw away Baptism because their polluted Hands do