Instance in the Scripture that men upon such pleas have separated yet causelesse separation is a sin opposite to the Vnion commanded and I think Schism and Vnion are opposite If the Doctor then will give me a poor Countrey-Minister leave I will humbly propound the way I would take to find out the definition of Schism I see it is a sin and offen-five to Christ 1 Cor. 12.25 Now what is opposite to this what is the affirmative precept Vnion of the members amongst themselves This is the thing often commanded the thing Christs heart seemed to be fixed upon John 17. when he was leaving the world and that such Union as thereby the world may know whose disciples we are as the Dr. p. 54. then I conceive Schism may be thus defined Schism defined Schism is the solution of that Unity which Christ our Head requireth in his Visible Body I am not in this place critical about the words Vnion or Vnity the Reader hath my meaning I think the Dr. will not oppose this for I find him enquiring exactly into the Vnion of the Invisible and Visible Church c. For the Invisible Church of Christ there can be no Schism saith the Doctor hence I put it not in It must be in his visible body there I take in the Catholick Church which I look on as most properly his Body-visible and also particular Churches I take this definition to be reciprocal I do not call to mind any schismatical Act but it will comprehend it whether it be Schism in a Church or from a Church in the Catholick or particular Churches and yet my ground is Scriptural also though I go not to a particular instance 1. Hence then let us see whether causelesse separation from a Church be not properly Schism Let us see what unity the Lord required of this Church was it onely that inward love and forbearance which the Doctor mentions which by their divisions the Apostle saw they had broken Did he not also require that they should as with reverence towards him so with love one to another mutually and joyntly attend upon their Head in all his holy worship and ordiuances Sacraments c. The Doctors definition saith as much Numerical Ordinances c. If then Cephas and his company had causelesly made the division and upon this separate from the rest and not joyn with them in the Supper wherein they shew themselves to be One bread Chap. 10.17 and other Ordinances dinances did they not manifestly shew a breach of that unity which the Lord required must I not say Cephas you and your company are highly guilty of Schism let the Reader judge Thus then stands the argument If causelesse separation from a Church be a solution of that unity God requireth in his body then causelesse separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear 2. In case these who made the Division in Corinth had separated from the other members the Doctor grants it had been a greater sin Rev. p. 68. Since then we must not call it Schism let the Doctor give us another Scripture name for that sin let him set down the opposite affirmative precept and see if Union will not be found in it I doubt he will hardly find another Scripture-name for I think he will hardly find in all the Bible where godly men or such as appeared so dared ever to make a causelesse separation from a Church To say it is Apostacie no stay I will suppose those members who thus divide to be persons sound in the main points of faith in their conversation visibly godly such as maintain the Ordinances of God amongst themselves the very case of divers of ours but corprution and errour in this point hath divided Cephas and his company now here is no Apostasie And though it be a Church guilty of Schism and so far a schismatical Church yet a true Church Hence I said a causelesse separation c may be Schism i. e. supposing they hold to what before I mentioned else it fell from the faith c. it had been Apostacy and not properly Schism unless you will say both Hence If causeless separation from a Church hath no other name given it in Scripture nor can rationally be referred to any other head then Schism then causeless separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The consequence is clear because it partakes of the nature of no sin as of Schism provided those who separate be such as before I mentioned 3. Since the Doctor makes this instance the only seat of the doctrine of Schism and tieth us up so streightly to it I was thinking whether it would not hence follow that there can be no Schism in any Church but onely in such Churches as do exactly answer this instance hence Schism must be only in such Churches where there are diversity of Officers extraordinary gifts differences about meats c. thus I hope most Churches are uncapable of Schism and that sin will hardly be found in our days It may be he will say by consequence it will follow where there are causeless differences where the form of the sin is found there is the sin of Schism though Churches do not answer Corinth But what the Doctor saith that the Scripture doth not call causeless separation from a Church Schism So I can say this Scripture instance calls that only Schism where some were for Cephas others for Apollos c. But further let us enquire into the form of the sin where it is In the division amongst the members to the disturbance of the order in the worship of God c. I wish the Doctor had told us how that order was disturbed some things he doth mention but whether all the disorder in the worship of God be recorded I know not and that which is recorded admits of some questions to be resolved before we can clearly understand it As for the disturbance of the order I suppose he doth not make that the form of the sin of Schism nor part of it I look on it rather as a consequent of the Schism therefore not the form neither do I look on Order and Schism properly as contrary where Vnum uni tantum opponitur they do not cominus inter se pugnare per proximas formas Nor am I certain that there was ever Schism where yet some disorder have been found I cannot tell that there was Schism amongst the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. but some disorder there was in the exercise of their gifts as it should seem by the last Verse the Apostle calls for order Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved I take to be the form of Schism this is it by which Schism is id quod est If then the Doctor will allow that Schism may be in Churches by consequence though the causes be not such as were in Corinth northe
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
true nature of the Church So Mr. Hooker Sur. Ch. Dis part 1. pag. 47 48. So Mr. Norton Resp ad Apol. p. 22 28. So the Synod of New-England Cap. 4. S. 4. Arg. 2. If there be as much for substance in many Parochial congregations as there was in Corinth to make it a true Church then many Parochial congregations are true Churches But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear for the Church of Corinth was a true Church I hope For the Antecedent 1. It 's true we have not many preaching officers in one Parish as had that Church which I conceive did not all meet in the same place for Church-worship but in divers 2. Nor have we extraordinary Prophets as were in that Church though our brethren strangely make those a proof for their private members Prophesying as they call it yea and are so highly carried in their notions that if their Pastor be absent though there be another Minister preach in the Town they will not go to hear him but a Tradesman must Prophesie what this implies who seeth not if a Pastor be dead and the people goe to another congregation the Pastor whereof is of their own principles these have been charged by one of our Essex Independent Ministers with irregular walking for not staying at home and Prophesying a sin certainly against the eleventh commandement 3. Nor have we other extraordinary gifts as that Church had 4. Nor have we men ordained by the Apostles 5. Nor called by the Apostles for if these things doe weaken my argument then they doe as well cut off the congregational Churches to be true Churches But if the Church of Corinth had persons called by the Word some whereof were real Saints and some onely visible so have we If they had persons Officers who held out the faith of the Gospel in their teaching soundly so have we as sound as they did or could doe if not sounder such as build not hay nor stubble c. If they had the Ordinances of Christ so have we If they consented to worship God c. so doe ours These are the Essentials of that Church The Essence is perpetually the same but Vnaquaeque res vera dicitur a sua naturâ essentiâ If we have corrupt and erroneous members so had they Ours debarr'd suspended from the Lords Table a great part of Church-discipline but that their corrupt members were so I think will not easily be proved a great fault in the Officers who it seemes did not regard discipline scarce at all 2 Cor. 12.20 21. 13.2 Paul threatens that he will not spare Our Churches come to this by the oppression of the Hierarchy the Ministers else would have exercised Discipline but those had none to overtop them and yet were negligent How to get their Churches purer the Ministry find it hard to excommunicate a multitude our congregational brethren say no to separate from the rest our classical brethren are not clear they quote the Text 2 Cor. 10.8 Their authority is given for edification not destruction They must doe what they can by degrees which they are resolved upon and deserve to be encouraged by all More Arguments I could give as from the nullity of all the Ordinances which else must follow Also I wonder whether our congregational Ministers were converted in Parochial or congregational Churches But I forbear Hence then that congregational brethren may associate with the classical to me there is no question though my practice is something different from the classical brethren yet what they allow is so candid that I am rather thankful to them that they are so willing to associate with me That we way hold communion with a Church so far as we are intangled in no sin I think was never denied but so may we with the classical brethren For what though they baptize all and all of them do not though some do and more endeavour it bring their people to an explicite engagement yet they desire us not to have communion with all their members but with their compleat members i. e. those whom they admit to all Ordinances and I am sure those according to the rules drawn up would have gone for good Church-members in the Apostles days and I think should now so that we are called to associate onely with those who are as good members as our own As for their Baptizing of the Infants of such whom they debar from the Lords table though their arguments doe not convince men no not good Mr. Blake that man who now I hear is with God if he had I would have poofessed it to the world I doe more admire to see what answers so learned a man gives but that I have professed in my Epistle to the Reader that I would meddle no more with the question I find it very easie to take off at least in my apprehension what he hath said had but he cast the major proposition in p. 97. thus which he knew was my Scope Such as for manifest unworthiness de jure ought and de facto are debarr'd from the Lords Table c. To this I have spoken before Then see how his answer from Infants takes me off but I shall adde no more Now though he hath not satisfied me yet I look on the Arguments as more valid to prove the Infants of those scandalous persons should be baptized then are their arguments who cast out the Infants of repenting and believing parents from Baptism and the Church yet these our congregational brethren make no scruple to communicate with and to have such members in their Churches Are all the members of congregational Churches such as they ought to be visibly I doubt it Some are as offensive as many in Parochial Churches Should we therefore refuse communion one with another because of such Would Paul have done it at Corinth As for taking members out of other Parishes which our brethren stand upon so stiffely and without which there will be no Association this hath been the old breaking principle and resolved it seems they are to hold it In what cases and upon what conditions it shall be allowed our classical brethren have declared and I think sufficiently to give a heart that loves peace satisfaction For my own part I care not if the thing be yielded I think I might make as good a shift as another and have had tentations strong this way but I did never yet take up such a practice not out of any conscience to the Parish bounds but because I have to be that unworthy principle which hath chiefly kindled the fire in this poor Church Should I have done it because I looked on my way more pure then my neighbour-Ministers I knew the impurity of my own heart and looked on my Neighbour-Minister as more godly if I should think more highly of my own parts I knew my own weaknesse and might justly fear lest God should blast the little
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
many Divines doe not understand it as in 42. That it is the phrase whereby the Lords Supper is set forth in the New Testament is yielded Acts 20.7 1 Cor. 10.16 Cap. 11. and so in the 42. v. of this Chap. Once in Luke 24.30 35. we find it meant of an ordinary supper the text doth clear it though some Papists would draw it to the Sacrament under one element yet other Papists deny it here It 's true we find this phrase once in the Old Testament Isa 58.7 to be understood of the giving of Alms to the poor but there is difference between these phrases Breaking bread to the hungry and this Breaking bread we doe not find the words to the hungry or such like added in the New Testament If this be yielded then they did break bread Domatim as Beza Corn. a Lap. thus interprets the Text of the Eucharist and saith that doth not hinder that they did break Domatim quia crescoute numero fidelium per varias domos eos distribuere in iisque Eucharistiam celebrare oportebat In this sense also Chemnitius takes the words Exam. Conc. Trid. p. 95. not troubling himself with that question an ad veritatem Eucharistiae requiratur peculiaris qualitas loci He draws his answer from the example of Christ and the Apostles Nec Apostoli peculiares habuerunt Basilicas sed sicut perseverabant in doctrina Apostolorum oratione quando in privatis domibus colligebantur ita etiam per domos frangebant panem Although Lormus be against this interpretation himself his reason insufficient yet he acknowledges Antoninus to understand it of the Lords Supper qui ait esse communem opinionem so Gagneius Baronius Boderianus c. as Lorinus quotes Thus I doubt not but it was in Rome Ephesus and Corinth where were many Officers and much people Acts 18.10 They met in several places for Preaching and Sacraments yet these were but one Church That Text 1 Cor. 14.34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. seems to carry it fairly There were divers of these Assemblies in Corinth which he calls Churches and yet in another sense it is the Church of Corinth As for the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how Calvin and others interpret them is well known with whom agree the Arab. Version Acts 2.44 so that I say no more to them Now if these did thus meet as before why may not we as well meet in our several Parishes and yet be but one Church and the Ministers Elders in common to that One Church so may we have divers Elders in One Church as had these Churches Our Parishes lie so that those who dwell in the next Parishes are as well known to Ministers as many of their own they dwell much neerer to places of Assembling for the worship of God then doe many in our own Parishes and for number we may joyn divers of our Parishes together before we shall have so many compleat members to all Ordinances as were in Jerusalem Rome or Corinth Such a Church as this I could willingly call in one sense an Independent Church Dr. Owen a congregational Divine was once very near this opinion in his Country Essay for the practice of Church-government P. 59. He would have the extreams of the Division not be above 8 or 10 miles so the center not more then 4 or 5 miles from any part of it c. though in some things we shall differ yet not in what I aim at For ought I can see this would come neerest to Scripture and for the benefits of it 1. If any Minister die here are Ministers still left in the same Church to ordain another in his room the people electing and to try him before election 2. The matters of Jurisdiction are carried on with the counsel and assistance of divers where is hoped to be more safety and the Ordinance of Excommunication more solemn 3. If any Minister be scandalous here is a way for his Excommunication Things now may be carried on as they were in those Churches which we finde in the New Testament where there were many Elders and divers questions which have troubled the Churches about the peoples ordaining of a Minister Excommunication of their Minister c. avoided And thus our brethrens trouble about Parish-bounds is also avoided in great part The greatest difficulty I find is this that we are divided about the qualification of Church-members which they in Jerusalem Corinth c. were not Certainly there were and are common rules for all Churches to goe by or else they could not have agreed more then we If the Lord had left it to the liberty of every Minister to require what qualifications he pleased then confusion and division must necessarily have been always in the Church Is it so hard then to find out these Rules Were we to Preach to Heathen and they understanding the doctrines of salvation did professe their assents unto those Doctrines their consent to take Christ for their Saviour and Lord their sorrow for and renouncing of their former wicked ways giving up themselves to Christ his ways and ordinances surely such as these we must admit and baptize if not give us a Text where the Apostles refused such If after Baptism they visibly answered their profession then made they were continued members and had fellowship in all Church-priviledges I think so Let us come thus far and we shall agree for many those among us who apparently bely the profession made at Baptism let them either be brought to repentance or secluded That is my opinion and I think all would have it so who would reform the Church 2. However the congregational brethren who doe agree in qualifications and dwell thus neer may unite into one Church and so may others 3. Since our brethren who look on all their Parishes as Church-members doe not yet require of us so to judge of them and desire us onely to Associate with them in giving communion to such as are qualified according as they have set down the qualifications certainly being strict enough for Church-members if not too strict if we goe to the rigour of them so as congregational Churches will not answer in all points why may we not unite with them so far These things I propound willing to receive some light but as to what the Classical brethren require it is no more then N. E. Divines doe allow and practice in their Councils Certainly since we know our selves to be men subject to infirmities corruptions tentations many if not most now unacquainted with the exercise of Church-Discipline a weighty Ordinance the glory of it almost lost one would think no Christian Minister should desire to stand alone but be most willing to take in all assistance he could and not esteem it a needless troubling of himself as say some of our brethren but rather a mercie that he may have help from his neighbouring Ministers If any man will go further with me and
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
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.
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