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-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
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
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
not you put in those words which they call verba creantia where some put the very essence of the Ordinance To these I answer Mr. Weems saith In their Churches when they Ordain a Minister they give him the Book of God in his hand to signifie that now he hath power to preach the word as the Priests hand was filled with flesh Numb 3.3 P. 105. Although I do agree with the old non-conformists and other Churches that some such words must be used and by necessary consequence it will be forced as before I spake yet I rather use this because it is my question and that which we have plain Scripture for and so feeling Scripture at my back shall be more able to make good my ground The other party say by this I put the form of Ordination in Imposition for forms distinguish I do not at this time assert what it is but finding it in Scripture I argue against those who leave it out Walaeus we see could not tell whether to call it a Rite or an essential part I know Bellarmin and other Papists look on it as part of the essence of Ordination and if they do so I do not blame them they having Scripture for it as I blame those who leave it out Doctor Owen in his Review of the nature of S. p. 23. tells us that by Ordination of Ministers many upon a mistake understand only the Imposition of hands used therein I have not met with any of this opinion I find none of the Papists speaking thus who make as much of it as any then adds Ordination of Ministers is one thing Imposition of hands is another differing as the whole and the part Enough If a Totum then Totum universale he cannot mean but Totum Integrale then Imposition of hands stands affected to Ordination as membrum to Integrum which is Symbolum causae essentialis then not an Adjunct If it be a part and a principal part then where there is no Imposition there is no Ordination for sublatâ parte principali tollitur Integrum If it be not a principal but less principal yet Ordination is but Imperfect for sublatâ quâlibet parte tollitur perfectio Integri Then let those who are ordained as they say they are without Imposition of hands consider their Ordination and I hope they cannot be offended with me for refusing at best an imperfect ordination when I could have a more perfect Ordination One of their own Ordainers hath spoken enough for me I pray tell us how praying and fasting for a blessing upon a person elected is an Ordinance distinct We Pray and Fast for rain for fair seasons for peace for success in war for health for counsel in great affairs c. But I hope praying and fasting for these ends does not make these several and distinct Ordinances but it seems it should be so as well as praying fasting for a blessing on a person elected makes this a distinct Ordinance prayer and fasting is but one Ordinance by it self used for many ends Moreover we seldom fast and pray nay never I think at a neighbour Congregation but the Ministers use to pray for a blessing upon the Minister of that Congregation then it seems so often we Ordain him this is absurd Also good people fast and pray before election what is it then I know not how they will avoid it but they must confound Election and Ordination which I am sure is contrary to Scripture When Paul wrote to Timothy he did not charge him that he should not fast and pray suddenly but not Impose hands suddenly Words used which signifie sending setting apart appointing to the office with Imposition of hands do distinguish Ordination from other Ordinances 5. The last Argument I shall use will be ad hominem yet I think there is something in it If Satan from a wicked Imitation of God hath made use of Imposition of hands in the consecration of his Ministers then Christians from an obediential Imitation of God ought to use Imposition of hands in the Ordination of Christ's Ministers Satan in his worship hath ever loved to imitate God in his worship As Justin Martyr Apol. 2. and Tertul. Praescrip adv Haeret. both shew how this Ape hath taken example from the worship God had appointed in his house and accordingly appointed the form of his worship So in the consecration of his Priests Livy reports of Numa that hands were Imposed upon his head cum summo sacerdotio initiaretur Why should not we upon another principle stick close then to the examples in the Word since the Divel thinks there is something in it I suppose he took it from the Levites I am not ignorant that some of our Divines though they do use it yet they look upon it as indifferent So Polanus Manuum Impositio est in rerum indifferentium numero Synt. The. l. 9. c. 33. quia a Deo expresse praecepta non est Yet adds Si in aliquibus Ecclesiis Impositio manuum recepta est usitata improbari minime debet cum exemplo Apostolico nitatur Say you so then I think you had no reason to disapprove of it indeed Thus also Chemnitius Exam. Concil Trid. p. 222. his reason Nec enim necessitatem voluâ—runt Apostoli Ecclesiis imponere de quâ ipsi nullum habebant Christi mandatum The summe is we have examples indeed but no commands and therefore indifferent To which I say 1. Then make the rule general What examples soever we have in the word for which we find no commands those examples are but indifferent we may follow or not This must be a certain truth else we shall ask the reason why some examples having no commandment are to be imitated but the examples of Imposition of hands in Ordination are not to be imitated I know all examples are not imitable but I cannot lanch forth in that discourse See what follows Hence 1. Popular election of a Minister is a thing indifferent I regard not whether I be elected or not we have some examples though none such as our popular elections indeed but we find no command that the plebs should choose their Minister Chemnitius had been pleading for popular election and to prove it brings in some examples out of the New Testament when he had done he adds Haec exempla Apostolicae Historiae clarè ostendunt electionem pertinere ad universam Ecclesiam certo quodam modo ut suae in electione seu vocatione sint partes Presbyterii populi But if Chemnitius will plead for more then an indifferency in it I must bar this play to have him come in with Haec exempla I can shew him Haec exempla more clear for Ordination by Imposition c. 2. Hence the consent of the people in admissions for which I know neither example nor command and excommunications of members is but indifferent for the latter though it may be conceived we have an example yet
OF SCHISM PAROCHIAL CONGREGATIONS IN ENGLAND AND Ordination by Imposition of Hands Wherein Dr. Owen's Discovery of the True Nature of Schism is briefly and friendly examined together with Mr. Noyes of New England his Arguments against Imposition of hands in Ordination By GILES FIRMIN Sometime of New England now Pastor of the Church at Shalford in Essex 1 Cor. 12.25 That there should be no Schism in the body 1 Chron. 15.13 The Lord our God made a breach upon us for that we sought him not after the due order LONDON Printed by T. C. for Nathanael Webb and William Grantham at the Bear in Paul's Church-yard neer the little North door of Pauls 1658. To the Reverend the Associated Ministers in the County of Essex Fathers and Brethren EIther we have dealt hypocritically with God and man or else the Divisions in these poore Churches have lain upon the hearts of the godly in England as an afflicting evil The Civil Power have seemed to be so sensible of this evil that more then once it hath been numbred amongst the causes in their Orders for our Solemn and Publike Humiliations if our Fast-days Prayers Sermons Books c. may be believed then the breaches in our Churches have broken our comforts For my part I have cause to take shame and to ask pardon of God that this sin which hath wrought so much evil and brought such dishonour to Christ have no more affected me it is for them whose hearts are most divided from self and united to God to be indeed affected and afflicted with Divisions in the Church I look on it as an act of a grown Christian whose Interest in Christ is well cleared and his heart walking close with God to be really taken up with the publike Interest of Christ I will not measure other mens hearts by my own but I must say for my self the good Lord pardon my hypocrisie in this point for to be affected as become Christians for Divisions among Christians I find it a hard matter whatever words seem to affirm Could I joy in my self I should be glad that I lived to see the day when the Lord put it into two or three of your hearts to try what might be done for the healing of our breaches and thereupon to call some of your Brethren together to see if we could agree so far that we might Associate together as some of our Brethren in other Countries have done and let me leave this upon record so long as this poor Script shall last for the honour of the Presbyterial Brethren as they were the first movers for peace so they have bidden fair for peace had our Congregational Brethren whose persons gifts and graces I desire to honour and love been but answerable we might have had cause to have joyned together in praises for our healing as we have had and still have cause to mourn for our breaches It is not to be forgotten how the good hand of God went along with us for though we were men of different principles who were chosen to draw up the agreement and we met neer twenty times before we could finish yet no unbrotherly clashing was heard amongst us but so soon as we saw each others principles to be fixed presently we were called off from Disputing and the next words were Come let us see how we can Accommodate let the blessing of Matth. 5.9 fall upon such hearts Were it true that uniting with our Brethren in this Association were a dividing of our hearts from God as one of our Congregational Brethren did intimate in a Sermon of his upon Hos 10.2 then I wonder not though he so soon deserted us and that others stand off from us For this he said was one note of the heart divided from God when the heart did not fully come up to God and under this head brought in such who did fashion and mould themselves in State and Church according to the Mode of the Times though contrary to their own principles and light cross to or laying by the Institutions of Christ when as the Text saith Jer. 15.19 If thou separate the precious from the vile c. our Brothers aim was understood by divers in the Congregation and unto him I shall return this answer If he means I have gone contrary to my own principles and light he is mistaken extreamly If he meant he and other Congregational men must do so if they Associate how can this possibly be when it was one of our foundations we laid for agreement and it was professed again and again that we went not about to take any man off from his Principles I wish our Brother had instanced what Institution of Christ we crossed or laid by For the Scripture he alledged let us see how this suits our case the Presbyterial Brethren do not indeed separate as do he and others but doth he therefore upon this Text stand off I finde five several expositions of the words and very few who take the word Precious for to relate to Persons But I will give my Brother that sense Let it be meant of Persons The Arabick word which the Translator render Honestus Golius renders generosus nobilis And the other Dalilon abjectus vllis contemptus as Piscator thinks it most proper because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alibi de persona tantùm dicitur And so the Interlineary gloss Now the question is 1. Who are meant by Precious 2. How Jeremiah was to separate these Precious from the Vile For the first those who do Interpret it of Persons do all understand real Saints and here standing so in opposition to others it must needs be meant so Obj. If he will say that doth not follow for all Israel were called holy and that in as high a word as precious I answer The Lord speaks of these who were called holy and yet here commands the separation of the Precious from the Vile therefore it must be meant of real Saints I could say more but spare 2. For the second How did he separate either by Doctrine or Discipline Not by Discipline which must serve my Brothers purpose For First To separate real Saints from vile by Discipline is a hard work indeed and such a task as the Lord never put his Ministers to who knew mens hearts then the Congregational Brethren must look to it that all their members are real Saints 1. But if my Brother saith by precious real Saints are not meant but visible though not so really Besides that all were called holy This my Brother must prove and then tell us what he means by a visible Saint But however separation by Discipline cannot be meant For 2. Jeremiah then had a strange task for he had no particular Church as we and for him to separate all visible Saints from the vile in the Jewish Church by Discipline were a strange and impossible work 3. Jeremiah a single Priest could not do it as all that know the Jewish governments will
confess 4. But put case it were so yet this hinders not his Associating with our Brethren who desire him but to Associate where they do separate the precious from the vile by Discipline Since then this separation was Doctrinal as all Divines upon the Text acknowledge then whether the Prebyterial Brethren very many of them at least do not separate as well as himself I desire my Brother to consider For the last words which he also used Let them return to thee but return not thou unto them Doth my Brother indeed parallel our Associated Brethren with those who are meant by them Let the Presbyterial Brethren return to the Congregational not they to them I should not have dared to have made such a parallel I shall only put this Brother in mind what he then said against those who dare depart from standing Commandments and desire him to consider whether he never read of a standing to use his own words Commandment repeated again and again that we should follow the things which make for peace and whether he with our Brethren who stand off have answered that Commandment sober Congregational men shall judge Let me leave with our Brethren a few lines which I received a few weaks since from that learned and godly Divine Mr. Norton Teacher of the Church in Boston in N. England in a Letter to me The Association you mention amongst the Ministers we much rejoyce in I never thought it better then human but oftentimes worse that the Presbyterian and Congregational men cannot close together in Brotherly Communion The power of godliness interest us in the affections of the godly above the notions of either of them considered apart therefrom I believe the Congregational way to be the truth yet I think better of many Presbyterians then of many Congregational men 'T is no wonder if Independents are unruly for I distinguish between Independents and Congregational men or rather such call themselves as they please that will not acknowledge the rule of the Presbytery and the order of Councils Thus far this reverend and great Divine I am sure our Association reaches no higher then a Council As for our Brethren who will not Associate till they see the Civil Magistrate set his stamp of Authority upon this way of Association whatever the late Instrument made by the Parliament allows us though they see Anabaptists and Congregational Churches and other Associated Counties to exercise Discipline without any scruple though they would quarrel with an Erastian Magistrate that should deny any such power to belong to Churches yea though some of these can suspend from the Lord's Supper whom they please we must leave these to their own wisedom and desire them to convince the Magistrate so that he may be able to see clearly that the government of the Church is either Episcopal Classical or Congregational and so stablish one or if the Magistrate be not so clear in either but yet willing to favour any of these the persons being godly and peaceable as he doth then let these Brethren consider whether the want of Church-Discipline be a fault to be charged most upon the Magistrate or upon themselves To return to you then Fathers and Brethren in a few words Hitherto God hath brought us the worke we have engaged in is to most if not all of us new and such a work as many of those who have been exercised in it have so often miscarried in that the Ordinance of Discipline hath suffered much dishonour and that which adds to the difficulty we set to it in such times wherein the Ministry is so much reviled by Sectaries and as to this work much contemned by the Gentry and our Episcopal Divines one of which and whom I honour said to me That we were no more fit to manage the government of the Church of England then David Saul 's Armour We boast not of our fitness but for the government of the Church by such Bishops though I highly reverence some of them they have no such cause to boast as witness the Churches they have left us miserably overgrown with ignorance and profanness had we so many hundreds or thousands of pounds per annum such honour and regal power to stick to us as had they I hope the Churches might be governed as well as they were before and be purged a little from that ignorance and profaneness which now we find them in But we must go to our work without Saul's Armour I am sensible how much wisedom and prudence this work calls for all my comfort is Christ of God is made to us wisedom c. 1 Cor. 1. I take care for nothing but for Faith Humility and Prayer to fetch this wisedom from our King and Head and leave the success to him who did institute this Ordinance Your fellow labourer in the worke of the Gospel GILES FIRMIN Shalford 2. of the 2. Month 1658. An Advertisement of two Books lately published by this Author Mr. Giles Firmin Viz. 1. Stablishing against Shaking being a discovery of the Quakers 2. The Power of the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion vindicated and the extent of it determined By Mr. Stephen Marshall published by his own Copy since his death with notes upon it CHAP. I. A brief and friendly examination of Dr. Owen 's discovery of the Nature of Schism SEveral definitions of Schism both ancient and modern the Doctor recites none of which give him content Austin he saith suited his definition directly to the cause he had in hand against the Donatists for the rest they do not satisfie him then offers his definition being the definition which agrees with Scripture to which he appeals and esteems this appeal to be necessary and reasonable I am of the Doctor 's mind and wish we had kept there all this time for while some men made Providence their Bible others make Antiquity theirs they have made us by woful experience know the evil effects of walking by such Canons Providences antiquity are excellent things to confirm us when they have clear Scriptures stand before them as Figures before Cyphers and if men would reduâ—e their actions and disputes to this Head by which one day we shal be judged Rom. 2. and not by Providences or Antiquity as we might have spared many of our troubles so we might sooner come to the closing up of our breaches which I perceive is one part of the Doctors aim but I can hardly believe will ever effect the Cure For suppose he can convince men that this separation from Churches is not Schism in the precise notion as he often mentions of Scripture yet if they apprehend it to be something else as bad and it may be worse his book will prove ineffectual to the healing of our wounds Thus then he defines Schisin p. 51 52. It is a causelesse difference or division amongst the members of any particular Church that meet together or ought so to do for the worship of God and
Churches parallel to Corinth in all things because there is the form of that sin which was in Corinth called Schism then if canseless separation from a Church be Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved there must needs by consequence be Schism also for posita forma ponitur formatum 4. The Doctor tells us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used in the Scripture for secession or separation into parties Division it doth signifie but doth the propriety of the word forbid it to signifie Division into parties in an Ecclesiastical sense it is used only in this particular example he saith therefore it can signifie no other I suppose the Syriack Translator was not of the Doctor 's mind for he useth that word in the 11. ch 18. 12. ch 25. which comes from the same root with Peleg Gen. 10.25 Whence Peleg had his name the text tells us and I think there was division into many parties the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primitive signification will carry a division into parts Matth. 27.51 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant the Septuagint * Other Greek Versions I have not to see do not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Kin. 11.11 31. yet why the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not be translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifie what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth I know not I conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but comprehends what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth This appears 1. By the Learned who as they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by findo scindo so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 findere scindere qui pannum aut aliquod ejusmodi continuum dirumpit c. Buxt Schind Pagn Merc. hence as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered scissura so the 70. in v. 30 31 render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scissurae So the vulgar render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 31. Nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifie the rending of a thing into parts in opposition to the Doctor 's notion more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For among the Physitians a rupture in a membrane the rending of a Muscle they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the part be not separated from the body so Gorraeus 2. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament is used and applied to such things as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament as to the rending of cloaths here and in divers other Texts So is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 19.24 Matth. 27.51 Luke 5.36 John 21.11 so that though the Hebrews have two other words which the learned render scindere findere yet none I conceive answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this doth There may be something in this that the Arabick in the 11. v. use that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the Noune in 1 Cor. 12.25 comes Whence I think we may properly say there was a great Schism in the Church and Commonwealth of Israel and here was separation with a witness To search over other Divines to see what they had said about Schism I thought it in vain because the Doctor had laid a bar against them all they are all mistaken and so their authority is worth nothing but when I had done two men came into my mind who were neer to the Doctor 's principles being Congregational men and therefore had need to look to themselves in their definition of Schism men of great renown for learning and piety Dr. Ames and our Mr. Norton in N. E. in answer to the Q. Quid est schisma I find Ames thus answers Schisma dicitur a scindendo est scissio separatio disjunctio aut dissolutio Vnionis illius quae debet inter Christianos observari I was neerer to the Doctor 's definition then I was aware of but then he adds Quia autem haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita Communione Ecclesiastica recusanda idcirco illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recte vocatur Schisma thus he Mr. Norton thus Schisma est illicita separatio a Communione Ecclesiae semper grande malum I will look no further these are sufficient Now for the Catholick-Church I am to prove there may be Schism in it For my ground-work I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25 That there should be no Schism in the body If by the body in this text be meant the Catholick-Church visible then Schism may be in the Catholick-Church visible But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequence cannot be denied The Antecedent is to be proved That by the body is meant the Church the Doctor yields Schis p. 147. but what Church he speaks of is not evident the difference he speaks of in the individual persons of the Church is not in respect of office power and Authority but gifts and graces and usefulness on that account thus he But I had thought that by Apostles Prophets Teachers Helps Governments v. 28. he had properly spoken of office power and authority are gifts and graces meant by these words very strange But to come to our Text. If the Church be here meant then it is either the Church invisible or visible But not the invisible that the Chapter clears and the Doctor saith It 's impossible Schism should be in the invisible Church If visible then either the Catholick or a particular Church but not a particular Ergo This I grant that by body in one Text v. 27. a particular Church is mentioned because the Apostle applies what he had been speaking of before to this particular Church being a similar part of the Church-Catholick as our Mr. Norton and other Divines in the definition of a particular Church though some Physitians make different definitions as we respect the matter or form of a similar part yet I content my self with that definition which is commonly given What duties are enjoyned the Catholick-Church or what sins are forbidden these concern every particular Church for Christ giveth his Laws to the Catholick-Church primarily no particular Church hath a special law given to it as such whence well may the Apostle apply his speech to this particular Church but that the Apostle was not discoursing of a particular Church in viewing over the Chapter these arguments perswade me 1. It is such a body into which we are all baptized v. 13. but are we baptized into a particular Church is that the one body the Apostle means Let the Doctor speak Rev. p. 134. I am so far from confining Baptism subjectively to a particular Congregation that I do not believe that any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized As much he seems to intimate Schis p. 133. in his answer to this question wherein consists the unity of the Catholick-Church A. It is summoned up in Eph. 4.5 one Lord one Faith one Baptism It is the unity of the doctrine of faith
Schism from a congregation that is not reformed will not nor cannot reform it self with p. 262. 1 Tim. 6.5 2 Tim. 3.5 Hos 4.12 If the Dr. apply these Texts to our separations which some congregational Churches make I question whether they will carry the thing he produces them for But to be short I will not say the Holy Ghost commands Schism but Separation in some cases he doth therein I agree with the Doctor and accordingly practice different from my brethren but it is onely within my own congregation denying to admit those who are as Mr. Vines calls the generality of the people in this Land Bruits for their knowledge and beasts for their lives and so will be unto the seals of the covenant of grace Sacram. p. 152. So I have made a separation in the congregation but not from the congregation Had I read that the Apostles had stood upon the reality of grace in their admission into Church-fellowship I would have been as strict as some brethren say they are but because I find it not in their practice I look on it as mens adding to the Word and so let it alone But our question is not whether any Separation but whether such a Separation be commanded as thus Here is a Church where are many corrupt members that is true but withall here are 1. many real and visible Saints 2. A Pastor godly sound in doctrine and able for his work preaching Christ soundly 3. The Ordinances in themselves clear from humane mixtures 4. Though here are corrupt members yet when the Lords Supper is celebrated they are separated not admitted but there is a pure lump 5. The Church is not puffed up but rather grieved that there are so many corrupt members amongst them but according to their light they being so many know not how to cast them out left there by other mens sins but bear this evil with complaint and prayer to God for healing Yet notwithstanding a few of these Visible Saints the minor part be sure we observe shall make separation not onely from the corrupt members but from the major part of the godly and visible Saints from that godly Pastor having no communion with these no not in the Supper where they are a pure lump and yet this minor part have not done their part to reform these corrupt members If the Holy Ghost hath commanded such a Separation I pray Doctor quote the texts where we may find it I fear he will hardly find three texts for such a Separation yet I know where such Separations are and of these men complain If he cannot produce Scriptures he hath said nothing to many of our Separations The Dr. I perceive speaks much of original Institution and primitive Constitution of Churches but I shall desire him to shew us the Scriptures where the Apostles did use to goe to several Congregations where indeed were divers corrupt members but withal many godly at least visible Saints who had walked before with their godly Pastors in constant attendance upon and subjection to the Ordinances of Christ and there the Apostles did pick out some of the best of the members and leaving the Pastor and others grieved weakened and thus did constitute Churches I cannot remember any Scripture which shews this was their practice whence I doubt this kind of constitution is not so old but rather had its original since 1640. As for Parochial Precincis I shall speak to them hereafter Object But why then doe not these godly Pastors and visible Saints you speak of separate the profane and grossely ignorant from their Congregations but sinfully retain them or at least suffer them to abide with them If they did so they should not be troubled with godly mens separating from them they sweep not the Lords house Answ Whether godly men would not separate then I cannot tell If the Apostles rules of admission were sufficient to guide us there might be more hopes they would not But when men set up rules themselves and all men must come to their rules and wayes they would be as apt to separate from those whom the Apostles would admit I think they would be almost as eager for separation as now Whether those Pastors and Saints visible doe sinfully suffer such in their Churches and so are blame-worthy I dispute not but as to the present state of these Churches left such by the negligence sin of those who usurped the power over them whence some will scarce own them for Churches and others plead so much for separation from them something may be fairly offered which may plead for them True it is men of great grace great gifts great purses great courage great favour with great men having the chiefest persons in a Town on their sides which last was my advantage in this small village may doe more towards the reformation of their particular congregations then other men can doe who are not so advantaged Magisterial and Curst Divines who being aloft every way consider not the tentations of men below them are not such honourable men with me as some others are Those men who have lien in pickle in the brine of varieties of tentations twenty years have known by experience the evils of debts poverty joyned to great family-charges low gifts desperate workings of spiritual and fleshly corruptions sense of guilt these are the men who shall write practical books for me these I doubt not will write low and speak low these will feel their brethrens temptations But to the point 1. These men doe separate at the Lords Supper and there allow them no communion This is attained with much difficulty in our dayes we know they contend much for it 2. The most they doe is they admit their children to Baptism which considered in themselves are not profane and were Baptism administred by that latitude which the Apostles did administer it I doubt not but many may be admitted to it Now in that this is all the priviledge they have more then these men who separate will allow them the question is whether there be nothing considerable to sway men to this practice 1. It is a question disputable whether the immediate Parents onely can give title whether the Grandfather or Grandmother being in covenant may not help to give title to a grandchild Upon this account divers administer Baptism 2. There is a question whether if others under the covenant will undertake the education of such children may they not be baptized as our Mr. Norton conceives they may 3. There are eminent Divines who maintain that though the Parents be excommunicated yet the child of such ought to be baptized Zanch. Perkins and divers whom I could name Now if this be true then though all these were excommunicated which is the most those who separate can desire yet their children should be baptized which is all the priviledge these men have though not excommunicated and which those who separate can stumble at For the rest of
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
otherwise qualified and yield but to what is necessary to a Church-state in which men though of different perswasions other wayes yet all agree be they Episcopal Classical or Congregational unlesse some of these last make an explicite covenant the form of the Church which I see some of our brethren do here in England Else what means that passage of a brother But it will by us be expected satis pro imperio that you leave the brethren and godly yet ungathered free who have voluntarily come under no engagement explicitely with your Parish ways since the fall of Prelacie I could quote another who carries it more closely Then it seems all those Christians who before this walked with their godly Pastors in constant attendance upon and subjection to all Ordinances must now come under an explicite covenant or what For my part I said before it was not any conscience to Parish bounds which hath kept me from receiving of persons from other Parishes but desire of peace But if men will refuse terms of peace so drawn up with so much tenderness as I think can well be desired I shall receive those who shall desire to joyn with me and resign them up again when there comes a man who will embrace peace with his brethren I do not look upon our rules binding me further then our Associations CHAP. III. Of Association of Churches OUr Brethren in Cumberland with whom our Brethren in Essex agree conceive That in the exercise of Discipline Assoc Cumb. p. 3. it is not only the most safe course but also most conducing to brotherly union and satisfaction that particular Churches carry on as much of their work with joynt and mutual assistance as they can with conveniencie and edification and as little as may be to stand distinctly by themselves and apart from each other This some of our congregational brethren look upon as cutting off congregational liberty by the middle But I conceive not so they put in the words Conveniencie and Edification nor is their intent so far as I apprehend to null the power of particular Churches but onely to be assistant to each other in the wise managing of so great an Ordinance and Blessed be God say I. that such Assistance may be had That Church-Discipline is an Institution of Christ I doe not at all question That the cutting off a member from a Church is a thing of great weight I do not also question Chirurgeons though able when they come to the Amputation of a natural member love to call in all the help they can And as certain I am that through the abuse and ill maniging of this Solemn Ordinance it hath almost lost its glory This hath not been the fault of the Pope and the Hierarchy but I wish I could say that some congregational Churches had not exposed it to contempt through their indiscreet carriages in this Ordinance I know of more then two or three of these Churches in which this fault will be found In Ipswich in N. E. where those two worthy men Mr. Nathaniel Rogers Pastor and Mr. Norton Teacher had the managing of this Ordinance they carried on the work with so much prudence and long-suffering the cause did permit it before they came to the execution of it and with so much Majesty and Terrour when they came to the Sentence that the hearts of all the members I think were struck with fear and many eyes could not but let drop tears the Ordinance had something of the majesty of the Ordainer in it If we could carry on this Ordinance thus we might recover the glory of it What particular Churches may do when no Assistance can be had is one thing what they ought to doe when it may be had is another Doctor Ames is a man who favours particular Churches enough yet saith Medul C. 39. S. 27. Ecclesiae tamen particulares ut earum communio postulat naturae lumen aequitas regularum exemplorum Scripturae docent possunt ac saepissimè etiam debent Confaederationem aut Consociationem mutuam inter se inire in Classibus Synodis ut communi consensu subsidio mutuo utantur quantum commodè fieri potest in iis praesertim quae sunt majoris momenti c. Furthermore because the brethren stand so much upon the power of particular Churches I desire as I have divers years professed my dissatisfaction satisfaction in this point they would please to clear it from the N. T. where they find such particular Churches as ours are in these small Villages consisting of one Pastor and a few members being so near to other Churches as ours are and might unite if they would yet that such particular Churches kept themselves distinct and exercised all power within themselves without any dependance upon or consociation with other Churches If Scripture-examples be any thing to us I think they will not prove it I could never yet understand the reason of this consequence The Churches in Jerusalem in Rome in Corinth in Ephesus c. were independent for the execution of their power Ergo every particular Church in a small Village with one Pastor and a few members is independent for the execution of all church-Church-power I pray let us consider whether it will not more answer the Scripture-patterns to have divers of our smaller Villages to unite and make up but One Church though every Minister continue in his station taking care especially though not onely of those who live within his own Parish and to preach to these administer Sacraments exhort rebuke c. as he findeth cause But yet as to the exercise of all church-Church-power they are but One Church I dare say it will come neerer to the Scripture then doth the practice of the Churches as now they stand Our brethren yield the Church at Jerusalem to be but One Church but that this Church met alwaies for all Ordinances in one place who can imagine Though the Apostles went up to the Temple to Preach yet that was as well for the sake of others who came to the Temple and not yet converted the Apostles went to meet with them they did not goe to meet with the Apostles But we doe not read that they went thither to administer the Lords Supper Where they could find a room for five thousand persons to receive the Supper together I cannot tell to throw away ones reason in matters of practice is hard what a long time must they be administring though others did help yet they must have room to passe to and fro to carry the elements that at last we must have a vast place Most Divines that I read agree that by breaking of bread Acts 2.42 is meant the Lords Supper I doe not see that Beza hath many followers Why then by breaking of bread v. 46. should not be meant the Lords Supper also and their eating meat with gladness their Love-feasts which attended the Supper I see no reason though I know
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
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.
extraordinary Presbyters A. Say what Presbyters and prove the extraordinary Presbyters are enumerated 1. The Synod of N.E. Mr. Hooker nor a thousand more ever thought of any such thing the Synod conceive it was the Presbytery of Ephesus which Imposed hands on Timothy Junius conceives it was the Presbytery of Derbe and Lystra where Paul took him Eccles p. 1960. Acts 16.2 Chrysostom indeed thinks they were Bishops for Presbyters could not ordain Bishops saith he Mr. N. doth not believe Chrysostom I know nor do I believe they were extraordinary Presbyters 2. I wonder the Bishops of old and our latter Bishops did not hit of this notion but that both according to the Canons of old and so of our Bishops Presbyters were admitted to joyn in Ordination with the Bishop I question not but the Canons were grounde◠upon this Presbytery which Imposed with Paul upon Timothy but if Mr. N. notion be true it might have been easily said those were extraordinary Presbyters so these ordinary Presbyters have no power in Ordination For Acts 13. he saith these seem to be extraordinary Elders 1. Partly by their Ambulatory course ordinary Elders are no where described by the title of Doctors only 2. Partly because it is evident some of them were extraordinary Prophets yet they are all put together as equal A. 1. How will Mr. N. prove that all the Prophets and Teachers which were in the Church of Antioch used that ambulatory course had not this Church a setled Presbytery that were strange how was it in Corinth 2. Teachers when taken distinct from other Officers as here I think use to signifie ordinary and setled Officers Why doth Mr. N. say that ordinary Elders are nowhere described by the title of Doctors only What difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 4.11 there as here distinct from Prophets So I think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12.28 else we must find no ordinary preaching Elders there 3. Though there were some extraordinary Officers there yet that hinders not but the whole teaching Presbytery of Antioch might joyn in the separation of Paul and so in imposing of hands how will Mr. N. prove the Teachers were excluded neither doth it follow because they are numbred together therefore they were equal Prophets here as in other Texts are named before and as distinct from Teachers But ordinary Presbyters might not impose upon extraordinary Presbyters this I think he would have but have you a Scripture-rule which forbids it what if God will have it so If Paul were now made the Apostle of the Gentiles as all that I see but Mr. N. do acknowledge then though only the Prophets had Imposed yet here inferiour officers imposed on superiour for Apostles were superiour to Prophets 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 and I hope by the same reason a Presbytery might impose on Timotby an Evangelist Thus Mr. Hooker and the Synod of N.E. say Presbyters not extraordinary imposed hands on Timothy an Evangelist To say inferiour may not impose when the Text saith these did Impose and it lieth upon Mr. N. to prove which were excluded is flatly to deny the Text. But Mr. N. saith He was no Apostle yet and his proof is because the Apostles long after this time gave him the right hand of fellowship A. 1. If there were no Apostles at Antioch now as doubtless there were none for then they would have been mentioned as well as inferiour Officers then Apostles could not now give him the right hand of fellowship 2. Why should their right hand of fellowship make him an Apostle that I suppose he doth not mean he was one before they gave him the right hand it is so in inferiour Officers Paul saith he was called to be an Apostle Rom. 1.1 What when they gave him the right hand of fellowship or here where God saith so I have called him Mr. N. in this is singular and his proofs not sufficient He further proveth that they as extraordinary persons did Impose because there was an extraordinary and sensible gift conferred on Timothy and thus much he insinuateth in his fourth Argument The extraordinary gift ceaseth in respect of Ordination ergo it must be removed as from prayers for the sick and converts c. A. This is somewhat like and this I have heard urged I know nothing to take off Imposition but this if it can be proved If Mr. N. can carry this he shall carry me But how proves he this Thus it had this effect upon Timothy ergo What it had the same upon all and this was the end of Imposition But this Mr. N. must prove If I can prove the contrary then I must tell Mr. N. to argue a particulari ad universale is none of the best Logick But of Timothy more anon 1. The Apostles Acts 6. when they Imposed hands did it not to confer such gifts For 1. They say plainly it was to appoint them v. 3. to such a work i. e. they were made Deacons I think Mr. N. will not deny 2. They were to seek out men full of the Holy Ghost and wisedom they were then gifted before Imposition 2. In Acts 13.3 when the Prophets and Teachers were commanded to Impose hands on Paul and Barnabas the end was not to confer extraordinary gifts Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost Acts 9. when Ananias Imposed hands The end here was to separate them c. the Old Testament-word 3. Timothy had command to Impose hands in Ordination I doubt not 1 Tim. 5.22 But that Timothy conferred extraordinary gifts is a task for Mr. N. to undertake to prove Philip was an Evangelist but it seems he could not do it Acts 8.15 17. Peter and John the Apostles did this besides that all the ordinary Presbyters for I hope some were ordinary had extraordinary gifts seems strange 4. Timothy is charged to commit the things c. to ahle men 2 Tim. 2.2 So Titus hath order sent him to Ordain men qualified gifted such as must be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gain-sayers So in 1 Tim. 3.2 the Bishop must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what need this caution For if they by Imposition of hands could confer extraordinary gifts they could make them able be they never so weak before As we finde in Acts 8. and Acts 19. when the Apostles after Baptism Imposed hands they did not look at their ability or inability they made them able presently 5. Imposition was in practice before this time under the Old Testament from whence as say our Divines it was translated into the New Testament Numb 8.10 But I hope the Israelites did not thereby confer extraordinary gifts it was one Act in their separation of the Levites Now for Timothy who is the only proof of Mr. N. his Argument I wish Mr. N. had opened the Text more fully What was this Prophesie One thus He will have Ordination be in facie