which men profess in subjection to one Lord Jesus Christ being initiated into that profession and so that body by Baptism 2. It is such a body as with its head makes up Christ v. 12. But if one particular Church related to its head be Christ what are all the other how many Christs shall we have For my part I conceive as all true believers make up but one spiritual body to which Christ is a saving and spiritual head so all the particular Churches in the world are but one body visible of which Christ is the Political Head Every true believer is said to be married to Christ and of this Church Paul saith he had espoused them to Christ and are not thousands more but we do not read Rev. 22.17 Brides say Come nor of the Lambs wives ch 21.9 but the Lambs Bride and Wife thus the Catholick visible body is called the Kingdom of Christ not Kingdoms though by reason of the numberless number the Lord bids one Pastour feed you my flock there and another feed you my flock there c. yet but one flock one body these meetings of this great body being in a manner accidental to the Church-Catholick by reason of the numerosity of its members for could we conceive that all the members of this Church could meet in one place and partake of the same numerical ordinances orderly this meeting in several places should cease 3. It is such a body as hath Apostles set in it v. 28. but though the Apostles were officers to this particular Church yet not to this only but to the Catholick 4. It is such a body that the members of it suffer together and rejoyce together v. 26. but this mutual rejoycing and sympathy is not confined to the members of that particular Church I hope the same specifical care though not the same gradual care I think such a distinction may help to understand the 25. v. for I conceive there is some neerer tie to my own members in particular as to my own family and yet to have no care of other members of another Church though I see them in danger of sin or require of me the dispensing of an rdinance regularly c. I think this is not right Then 27. v. what I have said of the great body I say to you who are a similar part of this great body and so called the body of Christ Do ye take heed there be no Schism amongst you Thus that parallel Text Rom. 12.4 5. seems to be meant not of the particular Church of Rome but the Catholick many members but one body When I can see better reasons given me to prove he is discoursing of a particular Church I shall yield to them Q. But how can Schism be in the Catholick-Church visible this must be enquired into though I fail in the opening of it yet what I have said to the Text before will save me A. I must premise some things then come to the answer The Doctor p. 133. Schis speaking of the Catholick-Church saith The saving doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ and obedience through him to God as professed by them is the bond of that union whereby they are made one body But under favour I conceive the Doctor hath expressed only that bond which is between the body and the head but are there no ligaments whereby the joynts of this great body are knit to each other surely if a body there are such the Apostle Eph. 4.16 I think speaks of a bond among the members and by the 11. v. he seems to me to speak of the Catholick-Church-visible from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love Upon which words Zanchy thus Concludere vult Apostolus quod initio proposuerat fovendam esse unitatem hujus corporis mystici per vinculum pacis Ratio quia ita se habet hoc corpus ut nisi quis per fidem vivam amorisque plenam cum Christo conjunctus per fraternam caritatem cum fratribus totaque ecclesia congruenter coagmentatus permà neat is non possit a Christo vel vitam vel alimentum incrementum accipere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Masculus thus Dilectio conglutinat membra Christi and a little before Nihil igitur hic loci est separatis ac divulsis quales quales tandem esse videantur With these agree Beza Charity is the knitting of the limbs together Faith and Love use to be joyned together if the Apostle doth express it as the bond surely we may call it so and thus we have the body united to the head and each member one to another To the preservation of this union saith the Doctor it is required that all those grand and necessary truths of the Gospel without the knowledge where of no man can be saved by Jesus Christ be so far believed as to be outwardly and visibly professed in that variety of ways wherein they are or may be called out thereunto p. 134. To which I add and unto the preservation of that bond of union among the members it 's required that all such Acts which do externally declare this bond of love whereby these members are joyned together as such a body ought carefully and Christianly to be performed when we are regularly called thereunto this bond of Love so much commanded and prayed for by our Head being not confined to a particular Church but extended to the whole Catholick Church his body by which men shew whose Disciples they are Hence then as all such errors which subvert those grand and necessary Truths being received and believed do dissolve the bond of union between the head and the members and declare men to be Apostates So all such Acts as do openly manifest the causeless breach of Love by which the members are united each to other do declare such persons guilty of Schism Apostasie as I conceive properly respecting the Head but Schism the Body Now in reference to this I lay down these Conclusions 1. The members of this great Body in attending upon those ordinances of worship instituted by their Head especially the two Sacraments doe declare that faith in their Head which they professe Open Baptism we finde nothing there but Christ open the Lords Supper we have nothing there but Christ our Head and the grand and necessary Truths which concerne our salvation As the Martyrs sealed up their Confessions by their blood we doe as it were seal up our Profession in partaking of our Lords blood 2. The members of the Church in partaking of the Sacraments doe professedly declare that Union which they have among themselues by love as such a body It is one reason why the Lords Supper is called a Communion and it is one of the ends of the Sacrament Vnio fidelium inter se as
Divines doe unanimously acknowledge upon that 1 Cor. 10.17 Fractio panis est unitatis dilectionis Symbolum saith Pareus Much might be here spoken I know there are other wayes by which Christians manifest their love and so did Heathens in such manner as now is scarcely found amongst Christians but for the manifestation of their love to each other as such a body there is no way that I know of nor no ordinance in which they do so declare it as in this ordinance wherein they though many are one bread 1 Cor. 10.17 3. The Sacraments were not given to a particular Church primarily but to his Catholick-Body the Lord gave them and so are the external pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body That the Sacraments come to be administred in several particular societies I gave the reason before seeming rather to be accidental to the Catholick Church by reason of the numerosity of its members That body which the bread signifies in the Supper is but one body and the members of the Catholick body make but one bread Jesus Christ with his body make one Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 The Sacraments doe shew our union with our Head Christ primarily and the union of the members amongst themselves I know a person who had received wrong from another who lived 40. miles distant this wrong caused a division between this person and the other upon which this person durst not venture to the Supper but kept off till reconciliation was made knowing what the Supper did call for then came to me and joyned in the ordinance I knew not the reason of this person 's holding off so long before If the Sacraments were pledges only of that Love or Communion which is between the members of a particular Church what needed the conscience of this person to have been troubled since the other person had no relation to our Church This was one bred up in the Episcopal way but it were well if others made so much conscience as this person did in this respect 4. Hence then that Church which shall deny to the members of other Churches qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members to be and walking orderly in their particular Churches occasionally desiring communion with the Church fellowship with them in the Sacraments because they are not of their judgments as to Congregational Classical or Episcopal principles and will hold fellowship onely with those who are of their principles I charge that Church with Schism in respect of the Catholick Church by this Act declaring a breach of that bond of union which Christ requires in his Church Object But we may love them and shew our love in other wayes though we doe not this way Answ So doe the Heathen shew love to Heathen and so doe we to Heathen though we will not admit them to communion in a Church-ordinance but that Symbol of your loue to him or them as Christians as members of such a body having union with your Head and union with you also who are of the same body making up one Christ 1 Cor. 12. you deny And whereas one while you dare not deny them to be visible members of Christ being qualified according to the rules for Catholick members and having all the Ordinances and Officers of Christ according to their light in their particular Churches yet now as much as in you lies you declare them to have no union with the Head nor to be parts of the Catholick Body neither the members refused nor consequently the Churches to which they belong being of the same judgment So that while you talk of Love I say as the Apostle Shew me thy faith by thy works so shew me your Ecclesiastical love by Church-fellowship To this opinion of mine Doctor Ames in the place before quoted agreeth fully Haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda c. Thus I conceive Congregational Classical or Episcopal Churches may be guilty of Schism and cause Schism in the Catholick-Church-Visible As for that Doctrine That an Officer of a particular Church must administer an Ordinance to none but his own members This is confuted in the practice of all Churches that I know of and I suppose will not be defended To this I add Suppose there be divers members of several particular Churches who are very zealous for Prophesying and they must have their liberty to prophesie whether they have abilities or not the Churches conceive that the gift of Prophesying being extraordinary is ceased therefore will allow no such liberty These are so set for their Prophesying that they make Divisions in the Churches and at last separate from them all and make up one Church by themselves they are qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members they have all the ordinances and officers of Christ among them whence I cannot deny but here is a Church but yet they refuse communion with all other Churches in the world unless of their opinion neither give nor take though desired and there are no other Churches in the world of their opinion or practice Now this Church I cannot charge with Apostasie from the Head but with separation from the Catholick Church and so is guilty of Schism If it be said this Church is a part of the Catholick Church how then separate from it It 's true else it were not Schism but Apostasie but as it separates from all other Churches causelesly in that sense I speak Hitherto of the Doctors Definition As for his Design to free All the Congregational Churches from the imputation of Schism though we suppose Schism to be a causelesse separation from a Church I had rather wave that then goe about to prove the contrary and that partly because of the honour which I bear to many of these brethren partly because I know not the practices of all Congregational Churches I cannot be of Mr. Ca. mind if by the title of his book as I find it quoted by the Doctor for I never saw Mr. Cawdrey Independencie is great Schism he means that congregational principles will necessarily conclude a man a Schismatick Certainly from the principles as our Divines in New-England hold them forth such a necessity of Schism will not be forced but whether all in England can quit themselves I doubt it What some may think of me who find me in Mr. Edwards gang amongst the Independents and now read this I know not Possibly they wil say either Mr. Edwards wrote what was false or that I am changed from my principles as some have said but I assure the Reader I am not gone back nor advanced one step in these controversies from what I ever manifested in those times when those letters were sent to Mr. Edwards I intend not to follow the Dr. in all that he hath written but to come to the point presently In p. 263. the Dr. tells us He dare boldly say the holy Ghost hath commanded a
nature of the sin as Logicians should doe and the true definition of the sin will fetch in all particular Acts but he looks upon them all as not giving the true nature of Schism according to the precise notion of Scripture What then the Doctor means by his words to Mr. Ca. I know not these grounds I have laid down will clear that I am not mistaken in what I gather from him I see in his Rev. p. 85. he finds fault with Mr. Ca. because he had said that he delivered himself obscurely But Mr. Ca. is not the first man whom I have heard complain of obscurity in his book but divers others I could set down their expressions but forbear In several places I observe things are not clear and should have taken some things in the same sense Mr. Ca. hath done for which the Doctor blames him The Doctor then must pardon us though poor country-Ministers are not so quick of understanding to find out his meaning So far then as I understand the Doctor I am not in divers things satisfied and in particular not with his definition which I doe not look upon as Logical For one rule of Definition is this Definitio ne-sit angustior neve latior suo definito but the Doctors definition is angustior suo definito Therefore not logical It is angustior in two respects 1. It takes not in causelesse separation from a Church which I doubt not may be Schism 2. It takes not in the Schism in the Catholick Church The Doctor saith there can be none Whether there can be no Schism from the Catholick Church is a harder question it would seem rather to be Apostacie as saith the Doctor yet I do almost think we may suppose Schism to be from the Catholick Church But that there is Schism in the Catholick Church I doubt not Now if these two can be made good then the Doctors definition is not logical Every definition must exhaurire totam naturam specificam saltem sui definiti else not adequate nor reciprocal which must be 1. Then Causeless separation from a Church may be Schism Why I put in the word May I shall give the reason afterwards But it may be the Doctor may say That definition of Schism which onely agreeth with Scripture that and that onely is the true definition of Schism But such is mine Ergo The Minor which I shall deny he proves from this instance of the Church in Corinth Where is no mention made of Separation from a Church there was onely Division in a Church The word Onely I put into the proposition and the Doctor himself speaks as much Here is the chief and onely seat of the doctrine of Schism p. 42. else though I yield such a definition agrees with a particular instance yet it agreeth not with the whole specifical nature of the fin which we are enquiring into and therefore not logical Doth every Scripture-instance give a full definition of the fin forbidden The Command saith Thou shalt not steal in Exod. 22.2 I finde mention made of a thief breaking in c. to which Christ alludes Mat. 24.43 Suppose there were no other instance of theft in all the Scripture shall I now goe set forth a book about the true nature of theft and goe to this Instance and there ground my Definition and say Theft is an illegal and violent breaking into a mans house and taking away goods against the owners will and say nothing else can be Theft in the precise notion of Scripture because the Scripture-instance calls nothing else theft This were strange Is not robbing at Sea theft though no such instance is found in Scripture That definition given Furtum est ablatio injusta rei alienae invito domino will fetch in all theft It is true every particular Act of any sin forbidden hath the specifical nature of that sin in it If a man take my goods unjustly whether it be at sea or on the high-way out of my house openly or privately and several other ways all these have the specifical nature of theft in them and theft is predicated of them we doe not make several definitions of theft because there are several Acts Vnius rei una tantum est definitio There may be divers degrees of the same sin as there is of Schism yet gradus non variant speciem But we do not use to goe to particular Acts of any sin and out of such an Act fetch the definition of the sin confining the specifical nature which is more large to that individual or singular Act. So here There is a command given 1 Cor. 12.25 There must be no Schism in the body Now if I would define Schism must I goe to a particular instance and give a definition of the fiâ— from that and say this is Schism and nothing else Division in a Church but no causelesse separation from a Church because there is no instance given where such separation is called Schism as if we had particular instances in Scripture of all the acts of sins forbidden in the ten commandements It is true that is Schism i. e. the causeleffe Division in the Church of Corinth though they did not separate from it into parties whether they did or no I passe not which here the Apostle reproves But is nothing else Schism Put case the division had risen so high that Cephas and his company had separated from Apollos and his company and held communion apart by themselves had not this been Schism give a reason Object Such separation is not called Schism Answ It cannot be called so unlesse it were the Doctor says it was not we cannot expect the Scripture to give names to Acts as done when they are not done But ex hypothesi I ask the question if it had been so as it is now common with us that Cephas had separated causelesly had it not been Schism Certainly if Racha and thou fool be breaches of the sixt Command then if one adde to his word blows and wounds unjustly that man is guilty of killing also So if Cephas and his company will adde Separation to Division and that unjustly let Cephas pretend what he will it is Schism There are divers professors in these dayes have been and would be esteemed glorious ones still who are so spiritual that they live above Ordinances a carnal and wicked spirituality they have their grounds and pleas why they do so but we find no such Instance in all the Scripture of men upon the plea of spiritualness to live above them Now to which command shall we reduce this sin certainly a sin it is if I can find a command where the Lord hath instituted his external worship and commanded all to attend upon it thither I reduce it to the second So if men though godly for I know not but they have sin and the Devil may abuse them will causelesly separate though they think not so but plead this or that because I find no such
the Ordinances we admit Indians to I hope they will not deny them admission to those I omit that great question whether Baptism be not a Regenerating Ordinance which divers Learned men abroad and at home doe maintain and have Scriptures which speak very fairly for them so much as I can scarcely be satisfied with the answers our Divines have given to those texts they bring Now though I have not so much light to carry me in any of these opinions and convince me fully of their truth yet I see so much argument for them that I am very tender towards those who goe upon these grounds whatever arguments I have against them which carry me another way and were I a private member of one of those Churches where there were so many those visible Saints an able godly Pastor and the Supper kept as I said I should not dare to separate from it as others doe I might adde to this how some Ministers though they doe baptize yet they deal roundly first with the Parents and so as some will come no more at them for Baptism And one an Episcopal Divine of eminent note hath refused to administer Baptism to the children of such parents as he found sottishly ignorant but sent them back first to learn the principles of Religion and assent to them So that had these who separate stuck close to their Ministers and encouraged them in thus dealing with those scandalous persons in private they might have done more towards reformation then now they have done 3. There were divers corrupt members in Corinth and their children baptized for ought I know a fault might be in the Officers and better part but no command to separate from the Officers 4. Should all the godly Ministers in England separate as these men would have us and goe by their rules in admission of Church-members I question whether there would be a godly Minister left in England the common people would not bear it And verily for godly Ministers to suffer death in things so disputable wherein holy men and Martyrs before did walk without any scruple having so much probability from Scripture as that argument of Circumcision with the rest before mentioned but yet more to suffer for rules which themselves made not the Apostles this is a hard chapter those who are so free of their lives may take their course I will blesse the Lord if he shall please to assist me with grace to lay down my life for him if he shall call me to it in things where I am confident I know his mind and the Scriptures are so clear that I need not doubt and in the mean time thank God I meet with such as will bear with me in things wherein I differ from them of lesse concernment arguments casting me on that side but not without great scruples on the other side I hear great words from some of these they will not practice any thing but what they are ready to lay down their lives for I dare not speak such great words 5. These men who thus separate when as yet there is nothing but the baptizing of their Infants they can object against yet allow in their Churches and think we are bound to allow such who deny all Infant-Baptism and will call the Anabaptistical Churches true Churches These who cast off all the Infant-posterity of Abraham from Church-membership these men must be admitted to the Supper and what not the others are debarred from the Supper but their Infants baptized which of these two is the worst I wonder for my part I would rather baptize the child of a wicked man professing Christ in words then not baptize the child of a godly man more reason and Scripture may be alledged for it Whence me thinks the Doctor being such a strong Champion for Toleration may allow unto the Presbyterial Brethren some benefit of his opinion for Toleration is Malorum and if this be evil I presume he looks on the Anabaptistical opinion as evil also and if this must be tolerated in Churches and doth not weaken the purity of the Church why the other should not have some allowance I know not I know no understanding man that is against Toleration simply he that will allow none is not fit to live in these times but how far we are bound to Tolerate is a hard question To conclude Respon ad Apol. 168. I shall only see what our Mr. Norton a man who in some cases allows separation from a true Church and one that in the Congregational way is Theologus cum primis nobilis to that question how is secession to be made from a true Church answers thus 1. Not without due vse of all means to remove the impurities I am sure amongst those means this is one for these to bear witness against the scandalous members and labour in their places to get them removed regularly those then who never deal with any of these in a Church-way who will not bear witness against them to the Eldership but when their Pastor have asked them Will you prove against these c. answer No not they These use means well yet such separate Also how some of the Congregational Ministers who have had their hands in these separations have used all means when as they never went to the Ministers when they encouraged the people in their separation to speak with them I know not I have heard two Ministers of note complain of this unkind dealing 2. Not presently but they must use prudence patience and long-suffering Those Ministers and Churches who have found these in those who separated from them may testifie for them if they can 3. Without condemning of the Châ—â—ch but acknowledging it from whence this secession is made It were well if we could get so much from many of these to acknowledge any to be true Churches but such as are in their gathered as they call it way 4. Communion still continued with such a Church in things lawful Separation from the Lutheran * Yet Calovius in his answer to Jo. Crocius tells us we differ from them in ten Articles and above thirty Controversies p. 33. Churches he will not allow though we ought not to communicate with them in the Supper But our men 1. will not communicate with the Church from which they have separated at the Lords Supper where the doctrine is sound and the persons admitted as pure as any Congregational Church that I know of 2. No nor will some of them so much as hear the officer from whom they have separated though sound and godly but rather set up a Tradesman to prophesie in the absence of their own Minister and before they had a Minister exercise their gifts amongst themselves rather then hear their former Minister Certainly if some Congregational Churches in England be not guilty of Schism there was never any Schism in this world Thus I have given my reasons why I am not satisfied with all which the
I had But 1. I hope our brethren doe not think it a sin for a Minister to keep to his own Parish if they doe let us hear them prove it I have heard it reported by a very serious Christian that one of our brethren should affirm that Christians were bound to come out of their Parochial wayes and to joyn in Church-fellowship after the congregating manner else they did partake of the mark of the Beast I write it as well as I can remember it but because I heard it not with my own ears first I doe not so fully believe the truth of it yet there are good reasons why I should believe it I had something to say but at present let it alone 2. I am sure Paul said All things are lawful to me but all things are not expedient 1 Cor. 6.12 Is not this a rule for us grant the thing to be lawful that is it might be done without any breach of Gods Law though not commanded to doe it yet I am sure it is not expedient for us to doe it because we see it is that which hath broken and doth break the peace of our Churches but the peace of Churches ought to be very precious to us If we be commanded to follow peace with all men then I hope to follow after and endeavour the peace of the Churches is a duty of great weight But this is looked upon as the Ministers weakness that this should break peace 1. Be it so that it is their weaknesse then let others shew their strength in bearing with their weaknesse since they have no command to take people from other good Ministers Those who are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak 2. But I doubt there is strong reason for this weaknesse For 1. This grieves the heart of a godly brother to have those in whom lies his chiefest comfort taken from him if you take away my comfort there is reason why I should be grieved would you not have a godly person to be a comfort to the Minister 2. It weakens the hands of that good Minister in endeavours to reform Who will stand by him if the godly be gone from him Those commonly who are taken out of other Parishes are not of the poorest sort 3. When a place hath wanted a Minister it hath been a cause of such discouragement to godly Ministers that a godly man will not readily come into such a Parish because the congregational men have taken out the good people or some of them it may be the chief out of the Parish and so the Parish lie destitute of a Minister a long time and at last must get such as they can and thus the souls of others are endangered As for their returning of such to that Minister in case he will come we know their judgment by their practises When Parishes have had good Ministers this hath helped to remove them That practice then which so discourageth good Ministers as it causeth their removal and hinders others from coming into place I doe not look at this as a light matter but a practice intolerable in the Churches Though this be not so bad as is the practice of some by me yet in effect it comes to the same Two small Parishes lying so as they may easily joyn and would but those in them who had a shew of Religion turn'd to the Separation whence no godly Minister cares for coming among them but there the people lie year after year no Minister to regard them no Ordinances who knowes what God might have done for the souls of some of them had the professing party held close and encouraged a godly Minister to come amongst them whereas now for divers years they have had none nor are like to have This practice of our brethren comes to the same in conclusion if they thus take away the good people out of other Parishes 4. What weaknesse soever this is in them I doubt our strong men would not take it well to have another come and take away their people from them Something I heard hisce auribus what one said when a Minister would have come into another Parish by and took away some of his people Those who are eminent in parts and have their people sure to them may say Let them goe but what they would doe if the thing should be practised I know not But however 't is good to weigh things in the scales of reason and if so I think it a just matter of grief and so of offence to good Ministers against their free consent to take away any of their people So much for weakness 3. The congregational brethren being lesse in number by ten if not twenty parts compared with the number of other Ministers and those godly one would think it should be a mercy sufficient that they live in such a Nation as this quietly having the freedome of their consciences let them reform what they can in their own places The Magistrate doth countenance the Ministers though of different judgments and so numerous yet willing to associate and shew brotherly communion For my part I look on it as a great mercy had I a heart to answer it though I doe not goe and fleet the cream of my neighbours congregations because they are not of my judgment This is spoken in reference to our Associating which if it were but yielded there were hopes of closure Nor do I see any reason why our brethren should so much stand upon it for I think their gathering of one Church out of divers true Churches is almost at an end for those who have a mind to separate affect no Churches rather then Congregational Churches As for such to whom the brethren have offered the Agreement for peace and they refuse to associate with their brethren without any Scriptural reason given why they so refuse a great care having been taken of crossing of mens principles which were not plainly against Scripture and might stand with peace and sobriety but rather affect to stand alone if any in their Parishes shall desire to joyn with any of the Associated Churches I know no reason why our hands should be so bound up that we should not receive them but others must take from us especially if they be such who have a right to the Lords Supper but did not nor will communicate with such a congregation because they require that of them which the Word doth not before they will admit them This I conceive were great bondage that a Minister with three or four men shall set up a way of admission to the Lords Supper which all must come to the thing it self may be good but not required to a Church-state nor the receiving of the Supper and that all must stoop to this or have no Supper there and because of Parochial bounds they must have it no where else Men may be of different judgments from mine but that shall never hinder communion if they be
otherwise qualified and yield but to what is necessary to a Church-state in which men though of different perswasions other wayes yet all agree be they Episcopal Classical or Congregational unlesse some of these last make an explicite covenant the form of the Church which I see some of our brethren do here in England Else what means that passage of a brother But it will by us be expected satis pro imperio that you leave the brethren and godly yet ungathered free who have voluntarily come under no engagement explicitely with your Parish ways since the fall of Prelacie I could quote another who carries it more closely Then it seems all those Christians who before this walked with their godly Pastors in constant attendance upon and subjection to all Ordinances must now come under an explicite covenant or what For my part I said before it was not any conscience to Parish bounds which hath kept me from receiving of persons from other Parishes but desire of peace But if men will refuse terms of peace so drawn up with so much tenderness as I think can well be desired I shall receive those who shall desire to joyn with me and resign them up again when there comes a man who will embrace peace with his brethren I do not look upon our rules binding me further then our Associations CHAP. III. Of Association of Churches OUr Brethren in Cumberland with whom our Brethren in Essex agree conceive That in the exercise of Discipline Assoc Cumb. p. 3. it is not only the most safe course but also most conducing to brotherly union and satisfaction that particular Churches carry on as much of their work with joynt and mutual assistance as they can with conveniencie and edification and as little as may be to stand distinctly by themselves and apart from each other This some of our congregational brethren look upon as cutting off congregational liberty by the middle But I conceive not so they put in the words Conveniencie and Edification nor is their intent so far as I apprehend to null the power of particular Churches but onely to be assistant to each other in the wise managing of so great an Ordinance and Blessed be God say I. that such Assistance may be had That Church-Discipline is an Institution of Christ I doe not at all question That the cutting off a member from a Church is a thing of great weight I do not also question Chirurgeons though able when they come to the Amputation of a natural member love to call in all the help they can And as certain I am that through the abuse and ill maniging of this Solemn Ordinance it hath almost lost its glory This hath not been the fault of the Pope and the Hierarchy but I wish I could say that some congregational Churches had not exposed it to contempt through their indiscreet carriages in this Ordinance I know of more then two or three of these Churches in which this fault will be found In Ipswich in N. E. where those two worthy men Mr. Nathaniel Rogers Pastor and Mr. Norton Teacher had the managing of this Ordinance they carried on the work with so much prudence and long-suffering the cause did permit it before they came to the execution of it and with so much Majesty and Terrour when they came to the Sentence that the hearts of all the members I think were struck with fear and many eyes could not but let drop tears the Ordinance had something of the majesty of the Ordainer in it If we could carry on this Ordinance thus we might recover the glory of it What particular Churches may do when no Assistance can be had is one thing what they ought to doe when it may be had is another Doctor Ames is a man who favours particular Churches enough yet saith Medul C. 39. S. 27. Ecclesiae tamen particulares ut earum communio postulat naturae lumen aequitas regularum exemplorum Scripturae docent possunt ac saepissimè etiam debent Confaederationem aut Consociationem mutuam inter se inire in Classibus Synodis ut communi consensu subsidio mutuo utantur quantum commodè fieri potest in iis praesertim quae sunt majoris momenti c. Furthermore because the brethren stand so much upon the power of particular Churches I desire as I have divers years professed my dissatisfaction satisfaction in this point they would please to clear it from the N. T. where they find such particular Churches as ours are in these small Villages consisting of one Pastor and a few members being so near to other Churches as ours are and might unite if they would yet that such particular Churches kept themselves distinct and exercised all power within themselves without any dependance upon or consociation with other Churches If Scripture-examples be any thing to us I think they will not prove it I could never yet understand the reason of this consequence The Churches in Jerusalem in Rome in Corinth in Ephesus c. were independent for the execution of their power Ergo every particular Church in a small Village with one Pastor and a few members is independent for the execution of all Church-power I pray let us consider whether it will not more answer the Scripture-patterns to have divers of our smaller Villages to unite and make up but One Church though every Minister continue in his station taking care especially though not onely of those who live within his own Parish and to preach to these administer Sacraments exhort rebuke c. as he findeth cause But yet as to the exercise of all Church-power they are but One Church I dare say it will come neerer to the Scripture then doth the practice of the Churches as now they stand Our brethren yield the Church at Jerusalem to be but One Church but that this Church met alwaies for all Ordinances in one place who can imagine Though the Apostles went up to the Temple to Preach yet that was as well for the sake of others who came to the Temple and not yet converted the Apostles went to meet with them they did not goe to meet with the Apostles But we doe not read that they went thither to administer the Lords Supper Where they could find a room for five thousand persons to receive the Supper together I cannot tell to throw away ones reason in matters of practice is hard what a long time must they be administring though others did help yet they must have room to passe to and fro to carry the elements that at last we must have a vast place Most Divines that I read agree that by breaking of bread Acts 2.42 is meant the Lords Supper I doe not see that Beza hath many followers Why then by breaking of bread v. 46. should not be meant the Lords Supper also and their eating meat with gladness their Love-feasts which attended the Supper I see no reason though I know
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
Ministers who know them besides being illiterate and persons who neither are ordained nor will be ordained nor I think would sober Ministers ever ordain them These things are not secret but more publikely spoken off then my Book can publish whence their friends are grieved their enemies rejoyce having cause they think to open their mouths against them and to vilifie Reformation besides the hinderance of union in the Churches CHAP. II. Concerning Imposition of hands in Ordination ALthough our Divines have all I think unless a few risen up in our days agreed in the necessity of Ordination to a Minister yet they have not all had the same thoughts about Imposition of hands as if it were necessary to Ordination Most have agreed in this that though they look on it as a Ceremony an Adjunct yet it ought to be practised because of the Apostolical examples Our Congregational Brethen in Essex cast it away and some cause I have to stand upon it because I therefore refused Ordination by them because they would not Impose hands and so it was the longer before I could be Ordained If I did refuse upon insufficient grounds I am sure the grounds which were given to me for the contrary were very insufficient I lost the papers but met with another manner of Antagonist shortly after Mr. Noyes a reverend Divine and my dear friend of N. England who hath said more against it then I have as yet heard from these what any body else have said against it in writing I know not unless the Author of the Diatribe c. whom that worthy Divine Doctor Seaman hath answered I cast my eye upon it long since but do not now remember any thing Pro or Con what there is said or in any other man What then I can gather from Scripture and Reason I shall humbly offer to the Reader and to Mr. Noyes in answer to what he hath said against it Not many years since Humane Ceremonies added to the worship of God how much trouble and misery they added to the Church we have not yet forgot Men wrote and spake so far as they dared and suffered by reason of them Mens wits are now busied as much in throwing out of God's worship as theirs were in adding why then we may not now stand up in desence of God's Ceremonies if this be but a Ceremony as they opposed Mens Ceremonies I know not Come then to Imposition c. Let us hear a little what other men have said about it And first for great Calvin whom I hear alledged against Imposition which I a little wondered at knowing Calvin had spoken sufficiently for it 1. Instit l. 4. c. 3. s 16. Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum Impositione quia tamen fuisse in perpetuo usu Apostolis videmus illa tam accurata eorum observatio prae cepti vice nobis esse debet 2. Again Impositionem manuum L. 4. c. 14. s 20. qua Ecclesia Ministri in suum munus initiarentur non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum 3. Again L. 4. c. 2. s 16. Et certè utile est ejusmodi symbolo Ministerii dignitatem populo commendari c. praeterea non erit inane signum si in germanam suam originem restitutum fuerit nam si nihil frustra spiritus Dei in Ecclesia Dei instituit hanc ceremoniam cum ab eo profecta sit sentiemus non esse inutilem modo in superstitiosum usum nou vertatur See him again l. 4. c. 19. s 31. Calvins judgment is clear with his Reasons for it Chemnitius giving us the judgment of the Lutheran Churches saith Exam. Concil Trid. p. 221. Nec manuum Impositionem vocare Sacramentum gravabimur I omit Austin who called it so long before they were born in a large sense not the Popish sense Nos uno verbo dicimus si per Sacramentum jusjurandum Loc. Com. p. 321. religiosam obstrictionem intelligunt sit Ordo ipsorum per me licet Sacramentum quale veteribus erat Sacramentum militare saith Musculus Walaeus saith Loc. Com. l. 1. p. 473. In all the Confessions of their Churches except one or two it was required and because the Apostles alwayes used it and the Apostle gives that precept to Tim. 5.22 Not to lay on hands suddenly we ought not to omit it because in that negative an affirmative is contained that he should Impose on worthy persons where since by a Synecdoche it is taken for the election of a Pastor certè pro ritu vel parte essentiali habenda est Thus he From the same charge to Timothy Sur. ch Dis p. 2. p. 74. Mr. Hooker saith he is willing to follow the rode when he hath no constraining reason to goe aside It seems this Reverend man knew no cause why Imposition should be laid aside The Synod of New England say Platf ch Dis c. 9. Church-Officers ought to be Ordained with Imposition of hands Here then we have the Fathers Papists Lutherans Calvinists Episcopal Classical Congregational men the Churches generally since the Apostles dayes Imposing hands in Ordination We must have strong reasons as Mr. Hooker saith to lead us afide from these Churches Custome of the Churches Paul uses to make something of 1 Cor. 11. I think so should we having especially such Scripture-precedents going before them I look upon their practice as very weighty But I come to argument laying down first my Position Imposition of hands ought to be used in Ordination Arg. 1. That form of Ordination which cometh neerest to the Gospel-pattern ought to be used But Imposition of hands in Ordination is that form which cometh neerest to the Gospel-pattern ergo Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used The major I suppose cannot well be denied especially by those who in the Bishops days use to cry out so much All things must be made according to the pattern in the Mount and why now I pray must not things be done according to the pattern of the Gospel what do you make of it that which you may follow or let alone as you please what is said against this I shall meet with anon For the minors bring us forth those rules or examples which shew that men may be ordained or were ordained without Imposition of hands that Church-Officers were ordained with Imposition the Texts are known as before mentioned Arg. 2. If the Gospel expresseth the whole Ordinance of Ordination by Imposition of hands then Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear for why should the Apostle mention that which is but needless or at least but indifferent to set out an ordinance by Obj. But it is said Obj. This was no more then what Paul saith at another time for this cause I bow my knee c. meaning prayer A. 1. Be it so yet this hinders not Sol. for
if Paul saith he did bow his knee I know Paul was so honest that he would not lye he did bow his knee sure enough So when he faith Lay hands c. I doubt not but Timothy did and ought to Lay hands c. 2. There were other gestures for prayer recorded in the Gospel besides kneeling can you shew other Ceremonies or Adjuncts as you call them recorded besides Imposition in Ordination If there had been never any other gesture recorded in prayer but kneeling then we would have concluded we ought to use that gesture only why not then Imposition of hands in Ordination since none but this is recorded 3. There may be some difference put between Paul's narration what he did and Paul's injunction of another what he should do Paul might tell them another time that he prayed for them standing but where doth he order Timothy or others to ordain without Imposition 4. This objection would carry it as if there were no more in Imposition of hands in reference to Ordination then in kneeling to prayer which I will not as yet yield what I have said before I think will shew the contrary and more I shall add But the Antecedent is the part I have to prove which if I can make good it will make much to shew the necessity of Ordination and of Imposition in it the Text is well known 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands on no man suddenly the question is whether Ordination be here meant I named before the judgement of all sorts of Divines ancient and modern Episcopal Classical Congregational yea of divers of the Papists who agree it is meant of Ordination this might be enough one would think but in our days we must prove what we say had our Brethren given us reasons to the contrary I might have known what to have answered to but I hear of none 1. This Imposition cannot have reference to sick persons There 's no matter how suddenly he laid on hands to cure them nothing appearing in the context 2. Nor can it relate to the blessing of children the context hath nothing for it nor did I ever read that the Apostles did use this practise 3. Nor can it be meant of the Sacrament of Pennance as many Papists do expound it though some of the most learned are against it and rather expound it of Ordination as before the context will favour something this notion but that I have this against it 1. For their Sacrament we reject it for absolution of a repenting person before bound under Church-censure this we own but in Scripture as we have no precept so no example that the Church did use to Impose hands on a penitent we read no such thing when the Incestuous person was loosed after he had been bound by excommunication what reason then to have it understood of that which in Scripture is not to be found it stands with most reason to expound it with other Scriptures 2. I see Bellarmin and others make little of Imposition in the Sacrament of Pennance but in Ordination he makes it an essential part More reason then why of this then of that which hath no other word for it 3. For the Brethren who oppose us I presume they will not understand it thus for they give so much to the people in admission of members that Timothy might well be hindered for laying hands suddenly on such and that 2 Epistle to the Corinths with the practise of Antiquity especially Cyprian will give some ground for it Had it not been for my first reason and the reasons I have to prove it must be meant of Ordination I should have inclined this way because of v. 20. 4. Nor can it be meant of Confirmation I have heard our Brethren have thus Interpreted it But 1. I can see no shadow of reason for this in the context for the Apostle is speaking nothing of Baptism about which time that which men call confirmation was used 2. They must then prove that Timothy had power to confer the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost for so we find in confirmation they were given Acts 8 9 19. Of this more anon 3. Nor do I see what need of that caution suddenly for no matter how soon they were confirmed in the faith they were in the Church already and to confirm them as fast as might be was good Peter in Acts 8. and Paul in Acts 19. did suddenly Impose hands to this end good to keep them from Wavering and Apostatizing 4. How did Timothy partake of other mens sins when he sought to confirm them suddenly 5. Laying then these by the text must needs be meant of Ordination for I know of no other cases in which hands were Imposed in the New stament nor at all in one case i.e. pennance So that it must be this and that I shall yet further prove 1. The Apostle from the 17. v. had been discoursing about Elders now it is very seasonable to give some word about the making of Elders So the context holds it fairly out 2. The Aethiopick Version gives it Ne Constituas quenquam subitò This is Ordination plainly 3. The reason why he should be cautious was lest he should partake of other mens sins Ne reus fias corrupti ministerii saith Aretius And it is certain he that is the cause of a corrupt mans coming into the Ministry or insufficient may be guilty of much sin it is so weighty a thing to have the charge of souls Chrysostom * on Isa 58. Jerom Calvin Chamier Hemmingius Cor. a Lap. speak excellently to this reason of the caution 4. As the Apostle had taught Timothy in the 3. Chapter what should be the qualification of Bishops and Deacons the former of which he had been speaking of in this Chapter just before our Text it may very well suit that Timothy should not suddenly ordain men but first see whether they were so qualified as he had written to him So much for this Text. 2. A second Text wherein the Scripture expresseth Ordination by Imposition only is that known place 1 Tim. 4.14 the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery This Text is generally understood of the Ordination of Timothy I never met with any who denied it but one Socinian But of this Text more anon 3. A third Text as some apprehend is Heb. 6.2 which Mr. Noyes doth very much oppose I could not at first tell what was his meaning to bestow so many lines upon it but at last I thought of Mr. Hooker whose judgement it is likely Mr. N. understood two advantages Mr. N. hath 1. The multitude of Interpreters who understand it of confirmation as Mr. N. saith 2. That it followeth Baptism But first let us see if no Divines understand it of Ordination so as it is comprehended at least under it Junius Pareus and our Annotations take it largely and look at Ordination included Gualter Tossanus Gellespio Dicson Johnson Jacob. Bullinger of Ordination only
or chiefly Mr. Cartw. thus By Imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament Rhem. Test much lesse confirmation after Baptism but by Trope or borrowed speech the Ministry of the Church upon the which hands were laid which appeareth in that whosoever believeth not there ought to be a Ministry by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Christianity this is to the point indeed Mr. Sur. Ch. Dis p. 1. p. 7. Hooker proves that Church Discipline is a fundamental point of Religion from hence thus Laying on of hands being by a Metonymy of the Adjunct put for Ordination and Ordination one particular put for the whole of Discipline Having then these men and these no babes on my side I will see what reason there is why Ordination here must not be meant For confirmation which so many expound it of I searched amongst those Protestant Divines which I had to find a definition of it in our Protestant sense and why they call it so but I could not find one who gave me satisfaction but Chemnitius Exam. Concil Trid. de confirmat The Papists definition I knew and a pretty one it is That which Chemnitius speaks gave me great content but I could wish some body would prove this is the meaning of Imposition in this Text for then we should have one more strong ground for Infant-Baptism as we may gather by Chemnitius opening of confirmation Casting my eye on Diodati I see he thus expounds it and hence gathers Infant-Bpatism But this is not sufficient we call for proof now I know Imposition of hands was after Baptism in Scripture except Act. 9.17 and so far as we can learn from Scripture we find 1. Extraordinary gifts were ever the effect of it So Acts 8. Acts 9. Acts 19. nor do we find any other end of it these gifts being conveyed in a way above nature might very well tend to the confirming them in their faith received and so well called confirmation But in the confirmation we talk of there is no such thing nor do I see why we should call it confirmation 2. The persons who did Impose hands were either Apostles or persons extraordinarily raised We read but of one Ananias Acts 9. I do not find the Evangelists did Impose Hence the Bishops who call themselves the Apostles successors they claime this power and poore Presbyters must not do it at least without leave from them That then which truly deserves the name confirmation is ceased many hundred years since But for the thing it self which our Divines call confirmation as Chemnitius lays it down Instit l. 4. c. 19. s 4. I could heartily wish with Calvin that it were brought into practise only Imposition I think might be left out yet I would not contend with him who did use it rather so then not have the thing practised Musculus speaking of Imposition in confirmation saith The Imposition of the Apostles was of miraculous operation Loc. Com. p. 321. and ceased long since Exemplum illius retinuerunt Episcopi quo magis Apostolorum viderentur esse successores But he speaks nothing against Imposition in Ordination But to the Text let us see why Ordination must be shut out here 1. The key of Interpretation I take to be the word Foundation and principles c. as we Translate So Camerarius Sunt necessaria Dogmata Capita doctrinae Christianae quae enumerantur hoc loco So Chrysostom Now it seems strange to me that a foundation should be lost out of the Church above fifteen hundred years I thought foundations should hold so long as the building lasts take away a foundation the house must be in danger But if this be meant of Ordination then it holds for the Ministry shall hold so long as the Church holds till the body be perfected Eph. 4. But if confirmation and extraordinary gifts which were the only effect so far as we find in Scripture as before I touched then this foundation is gone long since 2. Faith Repentance and Baptism are to last to the end of the world Some of our Divines do from this Text prove against the Socinians that Water-Baptism is an ordinance still to continue because it is put amongst the foundations Chatechetical heads why then the Ministry which is Christ's great ordinance to convert to beget faith which comes by hearing c. and authorized to baptize to the end of the world should not be meant by Imposition Matth. 28.20 but a temporary thing which was to vanish presently I can see no reason 3. That Imposition alone is put for Ordination we have other Scriptures to shew 1 Tim. 5 4. as before but shew us another Text where Imposition alone is put for confirmation 4. Extraordinary gifts were conveyed without Imposition of hands as Act. 2.10 Act. 44.4 why then Imposition should only signifie the Holy Ghost which yet was given without it I am not satisfied 5. Then these Divines must prove that all who were baptized had hands Imposed and extraordinary gifts conferred else the placing after Baptism proves nothing if onely to some baptized persons and pro tempore what is this to prove it meant of confirmation for I hope all baptized ones are to be confirmed in their sense But this will be hard to prove One thing more I shall add when I come to Mr. Noyes why it should be meant of extraordinary gifts Camero gives the strongest reason But yet I hope to an indifferent Reader it doth appear by what I have said that there is no forcing reason why Ordination should be shut out but may at least be fairly implied So much for my second argument Arg. 3. That Act which the Church ever used and that regularly in ordaining of Officers ought to be used in Ordination But Imposition of hands is an Act which the Church ever used and that regularly in ordaining c. Ergo The Major seems so fair that I think no rational man will deny it The Minor is clear the Church under the Old Testament used this act Numb 8.10 Upon which verse Mr. Ainsworth thus speaketh This rite was kept at the Ordination of Officers both in the Old Testament and in the New Acts 6.6 13.3 By this sign they did put the charge and service of the Church upon them c. Then why it ought not still to be used I know not Mr. Ains was a man learned holy and far from Popery or idle Ceremonies Arg. 4. Let us suppose Prayer and Fasting to be of the essence of Ordination as say our Brethren If Prayer and Fasting without Imposition do not difference Ordination from another Ordinance then Imposition of hands ought to be used in Ordination But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The reason of the Consequence is because every Ordinance hath something in it whereby it is distinguished from others so must this have something Here I lie open to two Objections Some will say Why do
no command 3. Hence there is no Independent Church with divers more things which I would draw from hence 2. I answer if Imposition of hands carry those five things in it which Chemnitius Ib. p. 221. tells us then I know no reason why he should call it an indifferent thing At the end of that paragraph he is still speaking of Imposition as I think and saith Nititur mandato c. having quoted Acts 13.3 See Zanchy 4. praec p. 785 786. Doctor Owen in his Review before quoted p. 23 24. saith For that part of Ordination which consists in the Imposition of hands by the Presbytery where it may be obtained according to the mind of Christ I am also very remote from managing any opposition to it I think it necessary by vertue of precept and that to be continued in a way of succession It is I say according to the mind of Christ that he who is to be ordained unto office in any Church receive Imposition of hands from the Elders of that Church if there be any therein But what I pray if there be no Elders what is the mind of Christ then that they must be ordained without it here the Doctor conceals his judgement but I can help the Reader to understand his judgement if he have not changed it he would have Ordained me with Imposition of hands and there were no Elders in our Church to do it if the other Minister would have Imposed hands also Then still I had reason to refuse an Ordination where something of a precept was left out unless a Scripture can be brought to prove that the necessity of it by vertue of precept ceases where there are no Elders in the Church This Scripture is desired 3. If it be indifferent then it may be used there can be no sin in using it we have an Apostolical example for it Confitente Polano Then 1. This will give a man more satisfaction as to his Ordination whether it were regular or not when he finds it answer the Apostolical examples I would not have that scruple to lie upon me about my own Ordination whether it were valid or not because I had Imposition for much 2. This will tend more to union for now there is an occasion of difference for want of this 3. It is great and just matter of offence to the Episcopal party who in some cases do allow Presbyters may Ordain but whether Ordination can be without Imposition of hands I do not know they are resolved for the affirmative Things then which tend to union and taking of offences and scruples out of mens minds if they may be done and no sin in so doing I think ought to be done 4. Imposition of hands which we conceive Apostolical men directed by the Spirit of God translated from the Old Testament to the New had an express command for it in the separation of Levites to their office Numb 8.10 it was not indifferent then why now 5. When the Apostle gives Timothy this charge Lay hands suddenly on no man and when the Lord commanded them to separate Paul they answer the command by Imposition Acts 13. I am mistaken if we find not a precept here If Timothy hath a rule for the modification of his Act and that Act for ought we can find constantly used in this part of Instituted worship I think the Act it self must needs be commanded For acts in themselves civil and used amongst men even Heathens as being customes of Nations if we find the Scriptures many hundred years after their civil use to add a modification to such Acts whether we are bound to such Acts where there is no such national customes I much question The thing the Lord intends in them be it humility hospitality love we are bound to that 's true but I suppose not to the meer civil acts of other Nations but from hence to cast out Imposition I cannot yield to it For 1. I cannot find that it was their custome to separate men in Civil States to the Office of a Magistrate by Imposition of hands and that God took this up from them Joshua indeed was thus appointed to his office but by a command from God Numb 27.18 but where doe we find this civil custome before thus to lay hands on Magistrates 2. The thing the Scripture intends in the civil Acts of Nations we may shew and exercise though we follow not the civil customes of other Nations but this being an Act belonging to Instituted worship I know not how the thing it self is performed at least not perfectly without it Deut. 34.9 As for Joshua though the spirit of the Lord was given in a larger measure at this Imposition yet this was not the only end intended for then Moses might have Imposed his hands in a private Tent and not before all the Congregation and there give him his charge v. 22 23. but Moses did by this Act declare the Designation and Ordination of Joshua to his Office before the whole Congregation So it is in Ordaining of Ministers 3. If it were a Jewish custome and upon that account only used why should Paul command Timothy a Greek to use it and that in Ordination of Officers to Gentile-Churches where no such custome was From these grounds I do not yet look upon Imposition as being a thing indifferent but I look at Ordination without it at least as irregular and let me speak my mind freely I would rather chose to be ordained by a Bishop and Presbyters which many cry out upon as Antichristian then be Ordained by any other without Imposition Now let us see what Mr. Noyes hath written against it I shall begin at his third Argument against it because that strikes at the examples in Scripture and is the very Argument our Brethren here now use and indeed if that can be made good I shall not much stand upon Imposition He saith Those examples are not a warrant for us because they were either extraordinary persons as Apostles or extraordinary Presbyters or they were extraordinarily raised who did Impose hands To that of Timothy he saith It conferred an extraordinary and sensible gift All extraordinary it seems but by this we shall not lose only Imposition but Ordination also which yet Mr. N. owns the same objection was against Ordination as we saw before and certainly if Mr. N. takes away those Texts which speak of Imposition I know of few Texts he will find to prove his Ordination I desire Mr. N. would give us strong proof for Ordination leaving out those Texts so that we shall have nothing left but election and I think he will hardly prove any election wherein extraordinary persons had not their hand so at last lose all But how doth he prove these Imposed hands quà extraordinary persons The example in Timothy the Presbytery which laid hands on him and Acts 13.3 he foresaw would be alledged to these two he lays in answer aforehand telling us they were
Reader be pleased to cast his eye upon what I have said concerning the Text before His first reason hath there its answer also His second and third reasons I think aim both at the same thing Doctrine is added to Baptism and Imposition to intimate the doctrine of the Ordinance not the Ordinance it self was intended the communication of the Spirit is the thing signified or the doctrine of Imposition A. Is indeed the Doctrine of Baptism here only intended and not the Ordinance of Baptism it self I must request him to excuse me I intend not to give so much advantage to the Socinians I think the Ordinance is plainly inded and so is Imposition 2. Doth not the Apostle then Tautologize Do not Repentance and Faith comprehend much of the doctrine of Baptism why should the Ordinance be mentioned if not intended 3. What error is there if we read the words dividedly with a Comma betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as do the Tigurin and Aethiopick Versions So Oecumenius Luther Erasmus Gagnaeus as Gerhard saith and the Greek do not oppose it Thus Cajetan and Aretius See their Comments Then this notion fails and it will make yet more for my Interpretation 4. But let us suppose the Doctrine of Imposition be here intended Yet as Aretius saith well in loc De hac ceremonia admonebantur Neophyti quandoquidem tum in frequenti erat usu quid illa esset cur instituta quibus per quos imponerentur manus item ad quid conduceret discebant Fidei Tyrones Very good must not then the Neophyti answer Hands were Imposed in Ordination of Church Officers If we come to teach ours this head of Catechism and they must answer according to Mr. N. his notion they may well say What is this to us how is it a foundation to us the thing is ceased so many hundred years since besides what I have before said But according to our Interpretation we both open the Doctrine we use the thing and it remains as yet a Foundation to us The old holy non-conformists tell us how they look upon the Ministry there was an objection made We have been taught heretofore that Discipline is an essential part of the Gospel and matter of Faith To this they answer That Discipline of the Church being generally understood is a matter of Faith and an essential mark of the Church I hope our Brethren will not deny for Discipline comprehendeth not only the Administration of the Keys but Ordination and Imposition of hands but without Ordination there are no Preachers Rom. 10.15 and without Preaching there is no belief v. 14. Wherefore without some part of Discipline it cannot be denied but that the Church is no Church Faith no Faith Thus they This suites Mr. Hooker's exposition of our Text. 5. If the confirmation and increasing of ordinary gifts be the Spirit 's work then still it may hold as Zanch. and Chamier before His fourth and fifth reasons are answered before onely whereas he saith Imposition is added as an explicative adjunct of Baptism It should seem no besides what have been said there being so few heads enumerated it 's unlikely the Apostle would add an Adjunct to this ordinance which I think he cannot prove was alwayes at Baptisme I thinke also this crosseth the former head wherein he said Not Baptisme but the Doctrine of Baptisme is intended His seventh it is interpreted in the next v. 4 5. Illumination answers to repentance Taste of the heavenly gift to Faith the participation of the Holy Ghost to the doctrine of Imposition and Baptisme the tasting of the good word to the resurrection A. This doth not please Illumination as most understand the word belonging to the Intellectual part and repentance to the heart do not seem to answer I know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 1. v. if the word be taken strictly as the word sounds belongs to the minde but so as it's Act is perfected in the heart it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Syriack render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise and that Baptisme is taken for Illumination among the Ancients according to the Syriack who knows not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Just Mart. Apol. 2. p. 94. So Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 1. p. 93 95. So Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. 2. Mr. N. saith Justifying Faith is signified in Baptisme then not in the word Faith expressed in the Text then Faith must be taken in a large sense and this will rather answer to Illumination then repentance 3. How doth Resurrection answer to the Taste of the good word when as Resurrection is a terrible word to most The good word of promise rather the promise contains good 4. Why doth he make one word to answer Baptism and Imposition when they were divided in the Text and Mr. N. hath not yet proved that they went always together 5. Why may not the participation of the Holy Ghost have respect also to such gifts as are given now in our days for do we not observe with trembling how some lose their gifts even eminent gifts profession and so fall away as never more return should it be tied up only to extraordinary gifts which I do not believe yet those were given in Ordination as Mr. N. saith so that for that time Imposition must be comprehended His eighth Imposition is made a principle from which it was necessary an Apostate should fall if finally but it is not necessary that one should be instructed touching the office of the Ministry one may be saved and yet be ignorant in the point of Ordination and one may fall away finally though ignorant in this respect A. I know not what he means by the Apostates falling from the principle He doth not mean I suppose that a man must have first those extraordinary gifts and so fall from them else not an Apostate there are too many Apostates yet never reached those gifts 2. One may be saved as well though he doth not understand the extraordinary gifts conferred by Imposition I presume Mr. N. doth not think the Apostles conferred the Holy Ghost in a gracious saving way by Imposition 3. It is one thing for a person to be ignorant of Ordination another to be ignorant of that which Ordination holds out of what necessity the Ministry is Mr. Cartwright and the Non-Conformists before mentioned tell us So the Scripture But Mr. Hooker takes it in a larger sense 4. I think there are few Apostates who have been ignorant of the Ministry for those who have been ignorant of this never came to so much as the Text expresses then they cannot fall away from what they never had His ninth If we should understand the docirine of the Ministry by Imposition then we must exclude the Administration of Baptisme in the principle of Baptisme because Baptisme in this consideration belongeth unto the Ministry and therefore cannot unless it signifie the doctrine of Baptisme onely be a distinct principle from Imposition And if we
make Baptisme it selfe together with the doctrine which it holds forth a distinct principle and the doctrine of Imposition together with the Administration of it in Ordination another distinct principle to what principle shall we refer the Lord's Supper If I mistake Mr. N. in what he would have I must craye pardon I wish he had been more clear but as I understand him so I answer The Lord's Supper being of the same nature with Baptism a signe to represent a seale to confirm an instrument to convey c. as say our old Catechisms well may it be referred to Baptisme As for Baptisme it being 1. An Ordinance so long practised before by John 2. The initiating Sacrament 3. Answering all those Baptismes the Hebrews knew well 4. At this time greatly esteemed and practised 5. The spirit fore-seeing our times wherein that Ordinance would be slighted and cast out as now it is no wonder though this be expresly set down to which the other is fitly referred If the Lord's Supper be referred to Baptisme as there is reason why it should and the Ministry which will include Preaching and Discipline be understood in Imposition of hands then we may have in these few heads the summe of those Doctrines which are necessary to salvation and a visible Church in the Ordinances and Officers held forth His tenth Interpreters apply this to confirmation not all I named some before that are of another opinion But if we should lose this Text yet we have not lost our cause His third Argument I answered first His fourth is also as good as answered this it is If we must remove Imposition from converts from prayers for the sick if from any why not all the extraordinary gift ceaseth in respect of Ordination as well as in respect of other Administrations The strength of the Argument lying upon the extraordinary gift this is answered before Then he meets with an Objection It may be a sacred sign in Ordination to signifie the consecration of a person to administer holy things or if he had pleased to have added to shew the Designation the Separation the Appointing of this person to his office As the Congregation saw Joshua and knew him appointed to his office when Moses imposed hands and charged him To this he answers 1. It was not of this use in the consecration of Priests and Levites A. Why not he should have told us of what use it was not to confer extraordinary gifts I am sure Omitting what might be said let Peter Martyr speak for the rest of our Divines Loc. Com. de Voca administ He reciting the several rites of the old consecration both of Priests and Levites saith Haec externa ratio eo valuit ut populus intelligeret eos esse jam ministros sibi designatos a Deo sublatis autem istis umbris nobis nihil relinquitur nisi Impositio manuum Thus also Zanc. 4. praec p. 785. 2. He saith It is not of this use in Ordination of Deacons A. I shall only give him Mr. Hooker's words Sur. Chu p. 3. p. 9. The Lord Christ in his Infinite wisedome and Kingly care conceived it necessary for the honour of the place and execution of the work of a Deacon to appoint choise men solemn Ordination to Authorize them to the work If a Deacon be only the Treasurer of the Church he had need be designed and authorized to it but Mr. Noyes who writeth against ruling Elders giving all their work to the Deacon p. 23. had more cause to allow of it Let him shew us Deacons in Scripture ordained without Imposition of hands FINIS Errata PAge 3. line 16. read review p. 13. l. 7. r. Christ p. 14. l. 2. r. if p. 16. in the Syriack word put Tau in the place of Ae. p. 21. l. 17. r. Ordinance p. 22. l. 31. r. Musculus p. 38. l. 17. r. 1. p. 39. l. 19. r. Congregation p. 49. l. 10. r. from being p. 51. l. 6. r. me p. 52. l. 15. after have r. judged this p. 63. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 79. The Arabick words have neither the Vowels nor Orthographical notes placed right the words should be wasamou lahom with elif quiescens placed after Sin p. 80. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 92. l. 34. r. others p. 93. l. 20. r. think p. 102. l. 30. r. committing p. 103. l. 1. r. 1. Titus p. 114. l. 24. r. communem p. 121. l. 8. r. ecclesiae p. 130. l. 19. r. words p. 138. l. 24. after had r. no. Some few other faults in the Greek and pointing but the judicious Reader will soon correct them THe Admission of persons baptized in their infancy without due Tryal of their Faith growth in Christ when grown in years to a full participation of all Church-Privileges Ordinances hath caused great confusion in the Administration of holy things And therefore I conceive the Learned Author of this Elaborate exercitation hath deserved well of the Churches by clearing the way of those Admissions from Scripture-grounds and the concurrent Testimonies of many both Antient and Modern writers As also by discovering and removing those Popish additions and pollutions which by several steps and degrees have crept into it And if what he hath offered in this Essay come not up to the Judgement and Practice of the best constituted Churches yet this ingenuous and pious overture holds out more than most Churches have hitherto attained and may provoke the zeal of many to hold out what they have attained as more commodious for and perfective of the much-desired and longed-for restauration of the Churches to their privitive purity both in separating the pretious from the vile and in uniting the pretious into a more beautiful and beneficial Order among themselves These considerations have confirmed me in giving not only License to the publishing but thanks to the Publisher of this discourse of Confirmation Joseph Caryl The 24th of the 6th Moneth 1657.
Ecclesiae cum prophetiâ i. e. cum recitatione interpretatione verbi Divini de Ministerio Euangelii But this gives no content Zanchy understands that Timothy came by that gift by Prophesie i.e. Per sacrarum literarum interpretationes quas partim jam inde ab ipsa juventute didicerat partim ab Apostolo acceperat The Leyden Profes understand Prophesie as doth Zanch. Disp 42. S 37. Deinde idem Donum confirmatum in eo fuit aucium per impositionem manuum cum fuit Ordinatus If this were all this would not so confirm Mr. N. his notion for why may not the Lord increase the gift of a Minister and confirme it at his Ordination by means of that Ordinance If he hath done it may be not do it still Let him give me a reason Nos vero non negamus gratiam i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conferri in ordinatione saith great Chamier Then Imposition need not be cast out for this for Mr. N. must prove it was an extraordinary gift which Timothy had nothing of before and which this Presbytery by Imposition conferred which I think he will not easily do Others understand by Prophesie a Revelation made to Paul concerning Timothy So Beliarmin with which the thoughts of most agree a Revelation made by some Prophets which then were in the Church by which he was designed to the Ministry In Loc. post ea per Impositionem mannum fuit in eo confirmatus quasi investitus saith Gerhard And this the Apostle mentions both for the commendation of Timothy and for his excuse being yet so young and else in regard of years unfit for so great an Office See Gerh. Ib. For this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thoughts of Divines are very various but the most probable fall under one of these two heads 1. Either those gracious qualifications by which he was fitted for his work Or 2. The Docendi officium the very office and place unto which men through grace are fitted So Rom. 12.6 This is most generally received Gerhard takes in both but doth not reckon extraordinary gifts he saith Gratiam docendi exhortandi Scripturas interpretandi contradictores redarguendi I think he saith truest Yet as Zanchy before so I conceive Timothy had some degree of those gifts before though now more increased and confirmed 2. But if the gifts were extraordinary let him tell us how Timothy should stir up extraordinary gifts 3. Where doth he finde extraordinary gifts conferred by a Presbytery which is here distinct from Paul who was an extraordinary Officer Presbyter is the common word for an ordinary Pastor in the New Testament and when it is named as distinct from other extraordinary Officers I know not why it should not be meant of an ordinary Presbyter and so this Presbytery but ordinary to say this gift was extraordinary and the Presbytery extraordinary without sufficient proof will not satisfie a rational man 4. I had another Notion but was afraid to set it down lest I should be charged with singularity as is Mr. N. 't was this Suppose the gift were extraordinary yet it should seem to be given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 1.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned to both so that this gift came by Prophesie as much as by hands And if withal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehends the Ministerium ecclesiasticum to which Timothy was ordained he being by Prophesie designed to it being young the Presbytery might well Impose hands with Paul to separate him to his office as Paul being commanded to be separated c. Acts 13.3 Here the preposition is changed it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I knew no hurt in this Notion nor what fault could be found with it only as I said I feared singularity But casting my eye upon Diodati I saw he concurred with me in my Notion By the Imposition of Paul's hands 2 Tim. 1.16 Timothy received the extraordinary gift By the Imposition of the Colledge of Elders hands 1 Tim. 4.14 He was installed in the Ministry with a publick blessing Thus he on 2 Tim. 1.6 Didoclavius whom reverend Mr. Hooker follows observed the difference in the phrase but whether he meant as Mr. Hooker doth I know not For thus Mr. Hooker By gift he understands those gracious abilities which Timothy received by the spirit in way of Prophesie whence he was fitted to be an Evangelist It is by the hands of Paul there is a causal vertue under Christ of constitution but it is with the hands of the Eldership as concurring by way of Approbation only Thus he That Paul's hands should causaliter constituere gracious qualifications and that the hands of the Eldership should onely concur by way of Approbation that Timothy should have such qualifications seems something odd What need of their concurrence or approbation Nor do I think constitution here is taken in that sense the New Testament doth use it I hope by this time this Argument of Mr. N. used by our Brethren doth not appeare strong enough to remove Imposition as for the rest of his Arguments I will now take them in order omitting what is needless His first Argument is Imposition is not warranted in Ordination by Imposition on the Levites He giveth divers reasons I can yield to divers things without hurting my cause His fift reason Israel Imposed hands on the Levites to signifie that they were to bear their sins and make attonement for them Exod. 29. A. 1. There is no such thing mentioned in the Chapter quoted In Numb 18.3 the Levites were not to meddle with the Priests office no not to sprinkle blood 2 Chron. 30.16 2. The 14. verse tells us it was a part of the separation of the Levites nor do we make this our first warrant His fift reason This was a Jewish Ceremony and why should this all other being abrogated be only reserved Let the Apostles give the Answer Why did they use it and Paul bid Timothy use it Let him blame Paul if Imposition upon the Ordained be a Ceremonial Law which took end by the coming of Christ then the Apostles were injurious unto his death who translated that Ceremony from the Jews under the Law into the Church under the Gospel saith Mr. Cartwright Reply p. 221. More anon His second Argument from Heb. 6.2 doth not hold it forth in point of Ordination but it is a fundamental principle of religion used figuratively for the gift of the Holy Ghost which is signified and conferred A. Then Mr. N. of all men must not exclude Ordination in which it conferred extraordinary gifts as he hath affirmed before for that time then it must comprehend Ordination his own Notion confutes himself 2. I think as he saith and so in his sixth reason which I will therefore omit it was a fundamental principle and therefore should stand so long as the Church stands Let the