Weighty Questions Discussed, Title page – To the reader
Weighty Queſtions DISCUSSED:
I. Whether Impoſition of Hands in Separating a Perſon to the Work of the Miniſtry be Neceſſary?
II. Whether it be Eſſential to the right Conſtitution of a particular Church, that the Teaching Elders and the Members meet alwayes in One Place?
Whereunto is added A Prediction of Mr. Daniel Rogers, Miniſter in Eſſex, long before the Beheading King Charles I. and Arch-Biſhop Laud, foretelling that they ſhould not dye a Natural Death.
By GILES FIRMIN, Author of the Real Chriſtian.
What thing ſoever I Command you, obſerve to do it, thou ſhalt not add thereto, nor diminiſh from it, Deut. 13.32.
LONDON, Printed for the Author. 1692.
To the READER.
THat Unity among Chriſtian Brethren is a thing not only beautifull in it ſelf, but alſo a Duty greatly incumbent upon them who profeſs that bleſſed Name of Chriſt, none that read the Holy Scripture can be ignorant of it; yea, a Duty ſo greatly incumbent, that they who do not all they can to promote it [provided the Authority of the Scriptures be preſerved] taking care that they neither profeſs nor practiſe any thing in the Houſe of God, but what is according to the Holy Scriptures, leſt that Ʋnity ſhould be hindered, they neither ſhew that reſpect to the Command of Chriſt to us, nor to the Prayer he made to his Father for this End, as become Chriſtians.
I thought I might have ſaid, At that Holy Table, where we being many are one bread, 1 Cor. 10.17. I do admit Independents, Presbyterians & Anabaptiſts, Members of the Church of England, that are, and walk as Chriſtians, tho' we differ in Opinion, and here Eccleſiaſtical Ʋnion is chiefly ſeen.that both in former times, and in theſe dayes, I had been as deſirous of this Ʋnity as ſome other Men. Glad I was when I heard ſome Brethren of the Independant and Presbyterial Perſwaſion in London did attempt it; their Names were very dear unto me, when I heard who they were that laboured in it, tho' I knew none of them; more glad I was, when about four Years ſince a Copy of the Agreement was ſent me, to which my Brethren in the Countrey and my ſelf readily conſented: We expected the ſame ſhould have been Publiſhed, but we find another much different from it. In particular, in the former, Ordination was to be performed with Impoſition of Hands, but in this the Words are left out, and theſe words put in, The Perſon that is Choſen, ſhall be Duely Ordained; not expreſſing what that Due Ordination is: However, as it is worded, I Conſent to this; and whatever be the different Sentiments I have from others, in ſeveral things mentioned [and more than are mentioned] in the Agreement, yet I have willingly Subſcribed to it, and Profeſs my ſelf a Ʋnited Brother with all that are Duely Ordained.
In a ſmall Treatiſe which ſome few Years ſince I publiſhed, I took Notice of the Apoſtolical Churches how they were Conſtituted, I named Nine Churches, all that I could find, in which were ſeveral Elders: I find not one Church in the Goſpel where was but One Paſtor.
Since that, Dr. Owen hath taken Notice of it, and hath proved by ſeveral Scriptures and Reaſons, that there ought to be many Elders in every particular Church. [There were three Teaching Elders, beſides other Officers, in his Church, this was like a Goſpel Church.] To have but one Paſtor to govern, is a Novel Opinion, he ſaith; and what he adds is true, It is difficult, if not impoſſible, on ſuppoſition of one Elder only in a Church, to preſerve the Rule of the Church from being Prelatical or Popular.
As there ought to be many Elders in one Church, ſo I doubt not but the true Primitive Church-Government was by a Preſident with the Presbytery. Not a Preſident over more Churches, but only one particular Church. Not a Preſident ſuperiour in Power over the Presbytery, but only Ordinis gratiâ, Revel. 2.18. foreign. (a)The Preſident.24. foreign, (b)The Preſident with the Presbytery. So Beza, and Raynoldus Anglorum Eruditiſſimus, &c. ſaith Didocla. Alta. Damaſ. p. 131.the light of Nature directs to this. I would willingly have but one Inſtance given, where this Government was ever prejudicial to the Church. More I could ſay: I only mention this, that tho' in theſe Points I may differ from my Brethren, beſides what are mentioned in the Agreement, yet it hinders not my Ʋnion with them.
What this Due Ordination is, our Brethren, as I ſaid, have not told us. Hence the Diſcuſſing of this Queſtion, falls not under that Prohibition, p. 3. that we muſt not Diſpute thoſe different Sentiments: For our Sentiments do all agree it muſt be Due Ordination; which if it be not declared what it is, we agree and Subſcribe to we know not what.
Before I Subſcribed, I asked the Brethren whether the Subſcribing to this Agreement did debar us from an amicable diſcuſſing the Queſtions wherein we differ? they All Anſwered, No. We were not hindered by it. We know the different Sentiments, before we Subſcribe the Agreement, and tho' we Diſpute them, yet our Ʋnion holds as well as if we did not diſpute them.
The Apoſtle exhorts, 1 Cor. 1.10 and Phil. 2.2. that we be all of one Mind, of one Judgment. If we muſt not labour after it, to what purpoſe is the Exhortation? Is not the diſcuſſing Controverted Queſtions in a Chriſtian amicable way, ſeeking Light from God, and ſetting up his Ends, [not our own] one way to come to be of one mind, which the Apoſtle exhorts to? I am ſure it is, and could give good proof of it from experience, in the Queſtion now diſputed. If we may not do this, then it is as much as to ſay, There are different Sentiments amongſt us, and ſhall be ſo; for ſtill, I ſay, the End of the Agreement, which is Union, is preſerved.
As to the Queſtion of Ruling Elders, which have continued in the Virgin Churches of the Vaudois from the Apoſtles dayes, and in the Churches of Bohemia, The Apoſtle mentioning only Biſhops and Deacons, 1 Tim. 3. troubles me.where their Work is laid open with much more ſatisfaction to me, than in any Book I have yet ſeen in England. I ſhall be thankfull to any Brother who will diſpute the Queſtion Pro or Con, it ſhall not hinder Ʋnion.
As to this Queſtion about Ordination, it is to my Knowledge a great hinderance of our Ʋnion: The thing is ſo clear in ſeveral Texts of Scripture, how it ſhould be performed, and the Practice of the beſt, if not all the Churches ſince the Apoſtles times, have been accordingly with Impoſition of Hands, that I have wondered any Man ſhould ſcruple it.
I heard of an Ordination in our County of an illiterate Perſon, and that without Impoſition of Hands; after it was paſt, hearing of another [who is a Scholar] to be Ordained by the ſame Perſons, I wrote to him, to deſire the Elders that were to Ordain him, to give me the Scriptures which did Warrant them to Ordain without Impoſition of Hands: One of them undertook it, a Perſon whoſe Gifts and Graces I honour. For Scriptures he gave me none: Whether his Reaſons be Cogent, the ſequel ſhall declare.
That Diminiſhing from the Word is as great a Sin as Addition to the Word, none can deny; the Text is expreſly againſt them both, Deut. 12.32. and ch. 4.2. both offer an Affront to the Wiſdom of the …aw-giver: Addition charges him with Defect: Diminiſhing charges him with ſuperfluity, appointing things needleſs and vain.
Grant it, that Impoſition of Hands in Ordination be but a Ceremony, yet it is God's Ceremony, appointed firſt by his expreſs Command, Numb. 8.10, 14.Not to conferr Gifts, as ſome would have it, but to Separate to Office. If you then could deny Communion with the Church of England, becauſe of their Addition of Humane Doctrinal Ceremonies to the Worſhip of God [I doubt not but this was one Cauſe among others,] may we not then queſtion our Communion with you, in your Adminiſtring of the Holy things, for throwing out God's Ceremony.
It is one thing to hold Communion with a Perſon as a Chriſtian [which I can do with all my Soul] another thing to hold Communion with the ſame Perſon as a Miniſter, diſpenſing the Holy things of God: For when, as in Separation to Office, God's Ceremony expreſſed in five or ſix Scriptures, is left out, have you not given us juſt Cauſe, ſetting by the Authority of God in thoſe Scriptures, to queſtion the lawfulneſs of your Miniſtry? O why do our Brethren lay ſuch Blocks in our way, to hinder that which the Lord hath ſo Commanded, and we ſo earneſtly deſire and ſeek after, Unity?
I have ſpoken with ſome Ordained thus, and they told me they would have been Ordained with Impoſition of Hands, and expected it, but they who did it, refuſed it; the more trouble have they made in the Church.
They who come into the Goſpel-Miniſtry, muſt come in according to Goſpel-Order. God ſtands upon his Order, 1 Chron. 15.13. God made a Breach upon us, for that we ſought him not after Due Order. How ſevere was the Holy Law-giver then; but there was not Due Order, nor is here Due Ordination: God is the ſame God ſtill, the God of Order as well as then. The Scriptures are plain in this Point; why are not we as plain? what need have we of other words them what we find in the Scriptures?
If Impoſition of Hands were but an indifferent thing, or but a circumſtance of the Action: I could Anſwer my ſelf: But it will appear to be that in which Separation to Office is principally made, and in which only it is ſeen.
That godly and learned Men may err as well by Diminiſhing from the Word, as ſuch have done in Adding to the Word, I know nothing against it, they are but Men: But theſe Men who [as I judge] diminiſh from the Word, would not therefore Ʋnite, and hold Communion with them in Worſhip, where theſe Additions were, becauſe they were godly and learned Men. We have our Rule to look to, not Men, further than they walk according to that Rule.
If the Reader meet with the Word Independent, I deſire him not to be offended, for this Diſcourſe between my Brother and my ſelf, was before the Agreement of the Ʋnited Brethren came forth; yet the word may be uſed ſano ſenſu well enough: For I doubt not a particular Church duely …ganized, walking regularly, may Execute all the Power of the Keys within it ſelf, without dependency upon any other Churches.
As to the End of my publiſhing this Treatiſe, my Conſcience bears me Witneſs before the Lord, I aim but at theſe two things.
1. To remove that Block, if I could, which hinders our hearty Union: I know it offends many of our Brethren; beſides, it gives advantage to them who obſerve our Practices to ſpeak againſt us, and that juſtly.
2. To keep up the Authority of the Scriptures, which are ſo plain in this Caſe, that if we will own Ordination without Impoſition of Hands to be Due Ordination, then the Authority of five or ſix Scriptures is ſet by.
I know no other ground of our Sufferings, but our maintaining of the Authority of the Scriptures, while Men would be Impoſing upon us ſuch things in the Houſe and Worſhip of God, which if the Queſtions were truly ſtated [which they never did] have no footing or ground in the Holy Scriptures, but were their Addition to them, as if the Wiſdom of God in the Scriptures were defective.
If we ſuffered then for the Authority of the Scriptures, while Men added to them, we will not give away their Authority now while men diminiſh from them. Where ſhall we End if this be the Practice?
As to the Second Queſtion, I ſeek Light.
1. To have but one Paſtor or Teaching Elder in a Church, agrees neither with the Holy Scripture nor ſound Reaſon. Good Mr. Faldo was troubled about it, I underſtand by his Letter to me.
2. The Poverty of the Churches generally is ſuch, that very few can maintain One, then not more.
3. Complaints have been made by ſome Members of Churches, that their Paſtors have not proceeded rightly againſt them, and they had no help.
4. If then the Holy Scriptures have not declared that the Officers and Members of a Church muſt meet alwayes in One Place, then all Church-work may be carried on, which as now we ſtand, cannot be. I begg of the Father of Lights to Guide Ʋs.
The Unworthieſt of the United Brethren, GILES FIRMIN.