Weighty Questions Discussed, Question
Whether Impoſition of Hands in the Separation of a Perſon to the Work of the Miniſtry be neceſſary?
BEfore I come to the Queſtion, give me leave to premiſe a few things.
First, Tho' Gifts are Eſſential to a Miniſter [they muſt be foreign, 1 Tim. 2.2. to whom Timothy muſt commit the things he had heard, &c.] Yet Gifts do not make a Miniſter. I have known ſeveral Gentlemen [they were Scholars indeed] who as to Gifts were as fit for the Miniſtry as moſt Miniſters at this day in England; yet theſe worthy Men did not invade the Office of the Miniſtry, as many illiterate, inferiour, and too many erroneous Mechanicks do now, to the diſgrace of that Function: Had they been grave experienced Chriſtians, as I have known ſome called forth, tryed and ordained by Learned Divines to Places ſuitable, I ſhould not have oppoſed, but encouraged and preferred before many who are called Schollars, but irreligious and ignorant in Soul-Works.
Secondly, Perſons may be inſtrumental to the Converſion of others, and yet not fit for the Miniſtry. I have known ſuch. That Parents, even Mothers, by their godly Education of their Children, may be inſtrumental to the Converſion of their Children: Who will deny it? A notable inſtance I could give of a dying Mother, ſpeaking to a wicked rebellious Son, [ſhe had other Children godly] God bleſſed her Words, that he became a gracious Man.
Thirdly, The Election of the People does not make a Miniſter. Dr. Owen hath ſpoken enough to this:Lib. 2. p. 83. 85. 139. Ʋnto Officers of the Church are required, ſaith he, Election of the People, ſubmitting themſelves unto them in the Lord, and the ſolemn ſetting them apart, by Impoſition of Hands: And after that he writes, that Church Order is defective, that wants the Symbol of Authoritative Ordination, viz. Impoſition of Hands.
And in his Expoſition of the Hebr. l. 3. p. 33. Impoſition of Hands is a Right of ſtanding uſe in the Church, and that wherein Church Order is much concerned.
In his Second Book of the Church, mentioned before, p. 136. he proves there ought to be many Elders in one particular Church. This he proves, 1ſt. from Scripture; 2dly. by Reaſons: one of which he fetches from Impoſition of Hands. Iſ, ſaith he, there be but one Elder only in a Church, upon his Death or Removal, this Impoſition of Hands, muſt either be left unto the People, or be ſupplyed by the Elders of other Churches, or be wholly omitted, all which are Irregular. He did acknowledge the Ordination he had without Impoſition of Hands, when he turned Independant, was defective.
Whether Dr. Owen had his hand in drawing up the Savoy Confeſſion, I know not. But we ſee, upon mature thoughts, when he is leaving the World, he gives his Judgment according to the Holy Scriptures [which ſhould be the only Guide and Rule in the Houſe of God] contrary to that Confeſſion.
Why Impoſition of Hands by Elders of other Churches ſhould be Irregular? he names no Scripture to prove it. But if it be omitted, that Ordination, ſaith he, is irregular, (this we are ſure of from Scripture) that's enough for me. If it be irregular, then 'tis not Due Ordination; for the Rule hath not it's Due given to it. If ſuch Ordination can be valid, to what purpoſe is the Rule? We ſhall have ſtrange things follow if this be admitted, that in Religion, and in the Houſe of God, Acts may be valid which are not conformable to the Word of God. The Word ſaith thus, but theſe Acts anſwer it not.
Pious and Learned Mr. Faldo before his Death, wrote me word, That one of the Brethren againſt Impoſition of Hands was with him, and debated the Queſtion with him; and this eſpecially he ſtuck at, He would not allow the Elders of one particular Church to perform Office-Acts, to thoſe that were not of that Church. Mr. Faldo tells me, He gave him a formal Argument, to prove that it might be, and in many caſes it muſt be admitted. This he deſired to write down, and did ſo, and I believe it will be ſeen by others in this Town of his Opinion: Aud if they will take occaſion to ventilate that Difference Brotherly, it will not be declined by ſome of your and my mind. Thus Mr. Faldo.
What that Argument was Mr. Faldo did not write: I wrote to that Brother, deſiring him to let me know it, but I cannot obtain it; he ſearched for it, but could not find it.
But now, for Impoſition of Hands in ſeparating a Perſon to Office in the Houſe of God, this came in by an expreſs Command of God, Numb. 8.10, 14.
Who are meant by the Sons of Iſrael in the 10th. verſe, is the Queſtion. Mr Pool ſaith, the Firſt-Born, or chief of the Tribes. The ſame Perſons I preſume, might be both, and moſt probable it was ſo.
Firſt, Chark…ni [as Mr. Ainſworth Quotes him, and agrees with him in it] ſaith, They were the Firſt-Born. In this caſe he may be credited as ſoon as any Chriſtian Writer.
Secondly, We read in the three next verſes, 16, 17, 18 the Lord tells Moſes three times, that he had taken the Levites inſtead of the Firſt-born: Hence 'tis, moſt probable, the Firſt-born were they who impoſed Hands on the Levites.
Thirdly, By this Act, ſaith Mr. Pool, they ſignified their transſerring that Right of Miniſtring to God, from the Firſt-born, in whoſe hands it formerly was. Very good: But who ſhould, or who could give away the Firſt-Borns-Right but themſelves? We read, Exod 24.5. Moſes ſent the Young Men of the Sons of Iſrael, and they offered burnt Offerings. Who were theſe Young Men? The Chaldee ſaith, foreign Primogeniti, the Firſt born. Theſe were the Prieſts or Sacrificers, until the Levites had the Prieſthood in their Tribe. So Numb. 3.12. 'Tis certain, the Firſt-born had many Priviledges [tho' Eſau deſpiſe his Eirth-right.] Then the Firſt-born muſt impoſe hands, and give away their Priviledges; but ſhall they who have no right give away another Man's Right?
Fourthly, The Firſt-born were ſeparated, Exod. 13.2. Sanctifie unto me every Firſt-born; in their Sanctification, there was a Separation. Now it is moſt probable, that they who were ſeparated did ſeparate the Levites, and not others. I inſiſt upon this for a Reaſon I ſhall give hereafter; let our Oppoſites give better Reaſons to prove they were not the Firſt born.
As this Practice came into the Church by God's Command, ſo it continued in the Jewiſh Church. Dr. Lightfoot tells us, that ſome Men who gave themſelves to the ſtudy of the Law, became very Learned Men which they might, the Law being in their own Tongue, and did teach, beſide the Prieſts and the Levites: but none without being firſt ordained, and that with impoſition of hands, Dr. Owen affirms the ſame; when the Goſpel-Church was to be erected, the Apoſtles, with whom Chriſt had ſpoken of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, Acts 1.3. when a Deacon was to be ſet apart to his Office, they did it with Impoſition of hands, Acts 6.6. And ſo the Churches practiſed ever afterwards, Acts 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Tim. 5.22. Heb. 6.2. Of which Text more anon.
This was the Practice of the Churches next the Apoſtles, and ever ſince amongſt the Fathers. Papiſts, and Proteſtants, both Lutherans, Calviniſts, Epiſcopal, Preſbyterian, Independents; I never ſaw in my time, Platfor. Ch. Diſe. Cap. 9. Theſ. 4.5.while I was there, nor ever heard ſince I came from New England [tho I have enquired] that any one was ordained to any Office in the Church without Impoſition of hands.
Thus the Synod held there *And approved by the Synod. held at Boſton 1680.1649. tells us, upon theſe Hypotheſes, that the Fraternity is the foreign, of the Power of the Keys; and that Election gives the Eſſence. If there be no Elders, Impoſition of hands may be performed, by ſome of the Brethren, Numb. 8.10. But there is a Difference between the Firſt-born there, and our private Brethren; and good reaſon why they ſhould impoſe Hands, and not our private Men. It was not ſo in the Goſpel-Church: It is Irregular, ſaith Dr. Owen. But by this we ſee how Impoſition of Hands muſt be, and was in Practice.
In the next Theſis: The Fifth, they tell us, In ſuch Churches where there are no Elders, and the Church deſire it, we ſee not why Impoſition of hands may not be performed by the Elders of other Churches. 1 Tim. 4.14. Act. 13.3.Ordinary Officers laid hands upon Officers of many Churches. The Presbytery at Epheſus, laid hands upon Timothy an Evangeliſt. The Presbytery at Antioch, laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas. Theſe Men do not tell us this is their Judgment. but they give us the Holy Scriptures for what they ſay. Whereas, the Savoy Confeſſion gives us not one word of Scripture; but only tells us, where the Eſſence of a Paſtor lyes, without impoſition of hands, which is denyed. I muſt ſay with Tertullian, Non recipio, quod extra Scripturam de tuo inſers. Si Apoſtolicus, cum Apoſtolis ſenti.
I find in the beginning of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, when they came newly out of Popery, Impoſition of Hands was not judged neceſſary; An. 1560. pag. 26.as I read in the Hiſtory put out by Mr. Calderwood. That Man of God, Mr. Robert Bruce [whoſe Name I honour] was not ordained thus, nor any other way, that I can learn, as if there were ſomething in him extraordinary; though I honour the Man, yet we muſt ſtick to our Rule, and not Mr. Bruce. An. 1581. pag. 105.But afterwards, they tell us, how Ordination is to be performed, viz. by Faſting, Prayer, and Impoſition of the Hands of the Elderſhip.
After this, pag. 383. they make it Indifferent.
But at a general Aſſembly, An. 1597. pag. 408.it was ordered, That there be an Uniform Order touching Ordination of Miniſters throughout the whole Realm, and that with Impoſition of Hands; and thus it holds to this day.
Mr. An. 1598. pag. 424.Bruce having preached many Years, would admit of Impoſition of bands for Confirmation, but not for Ordination. Several denyed him to be their lawful Paſtor for want of Impoſition; but others own'd him.
Mr. Bruce accepts of Impoſition for Confirmation; and Mr. Pont impoſes hands upon him.
Firſt, As for Impoſition of Hands for Confirmation, as it is uſed in England, after Baptiſm, I find not one word of it in all the Hiſtory, nor did the Church of Scotland own it, that I find there.
Secondly, All this while, there is not one Scripture brought by thoſe who oppoſed Impoſition: Yet they had taken the Word of God for their only Rule, which is ſo expreſs for Impoſition, &c. which makes me wonder at Mr. Bruce, ſo holy a Man. But if they had no Scripture, had they no Reaſons? Yes, they had one, and but one, and that a pityful one too. Thus, It being laid as a ground, pag. 425.that none can receive Ordination to the Miniſtry, without Impoſition of Hands, and that the Ceremony is proper to Biſhops, it behoved to follow, that none could enter into the Miniſtry, without the Impoſition of the Hands of Biſhops. This is all very ſtrange that Mr. Bruce ſhould admit of Impoſition of Hands for Confirmation, when the Biſhops do appropriate that to themſelves as well as in Ordination.
How many things may be ſaid to this, to ſhew the weakneſs of this ground? Any underſtanding man may eaſily ſee; but I forbear. The Repreſentation of Presbyterian Government, and put out the Year 1690. when Biſhops are turn'd out, tell us in the ſixteenth Section, That Men come into the Miniſtry by Election and Ordination, by laying on of the Hands of the Bresbytery, which is a mean of Communicating Authority to him. Then it ſeems the Church of Scotland, where this ſtir was, can impoſe Hands in Ordination without Biſhops.
By reading this Hiſtory, I find the Government of the Church of Scotland, from the firſt beginning of Reformation, was Presbyterian; wherefore it was no ſmall injury to impoſe upon them Prelatical Biſhops, unleſs they had been of Chriſts Inſtitution, which we are ſure they are not. And that, our firſt Reformers in King Henry the Eights, and in King Edward the Sixth's, did declare, That Epiſcopacy was no diſtinct Order from Bresbytery by Divine Right, but only a prudent Conſtitution of the Civil Magiſtrate, for the better Government of the Church.
SECT. II. The Definition of Ordination.
AS to the word Ordination, I think Greg, de Valen. ſpeaks right; Tom. 4. Diſ. 9. Q. 1. p. 1.the word is taken from the Effect of that Ordinance, Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque Ordine certo Eccleſtaſticae Dignitatis Conſtituit…r. Some are Paſtors, ſome are Teachers, ſome a…e Ruling Elders, ſome are Deacons, they are ſet or placed, foreign, 1 Cor. 1.28. in ſuch an Order in the Houſe of God, by Ordination. Thus it hath paſſed for Currant many hundred Years in the Church, till yeſterday, Election gave the Eſſence, and Ordination was but an Adjunct. I deſire my Brethren but to give me that Adjunct, according to the Word of God, and we ſhall unite, tho' we differ in our Logical Notions.
What ſhould he done where Ordination cannot be had? Something I had to ſay to it, but being none of our Queſtion, I let it alone. It is more material to know what Ordination is, and being it is Eſſential to our Diſcourſe, I will give the Definition of it. This being a ſure Truth, That they who do not give the Definition, they do but mock the Perſon to be ordained, and abuſe the Ordinance, for he is not ordained, Cui convenit Definitio eidem quoque Convenit Definitum: & è Contra, &c.
Ordination then is, the Separation of a Perſon rightly qualified to the work of the Miniſtry, by teaching Elders, with Faſting, Prayer, and Impoſition of Hands.
Something I had thought to have ſpoken about the Qualification [wherein I ſee theſe mens Practices with no content, their way being to debaſe the Miniſtry] but the ſtreſs lying moſt in the Ordiners and Impoſitions of Hands, I ſhall ſpeak to theſe two Heads.
That it belongs to Teaching Elders, Act. 13.3. Tim. 1.4.14. I prove it.
Here the People riſe up, and claim a Right; by Virtue of their being the foreign, of the Power of the Keys: And I have ſeen it practiſed. Two Private Perſons impoſed their Hands upon an Ancient grave Divine, who was ordained, I believe, near 40 Years before in England, &c. They gave him the Eſſence, in giving him a Call, and ſo they gave him the Adjunct. And this being the Opinion of theſe men here, I preſer their Ordination, with Impoſition of Hands, and would own him for a Goſpel Miniſter, before them whom you ordain [as you ſuppoſe] without Impoſition: And if Ordination be no more than Prayer and Faſting, what need of you [according to the Principles of Independency] in another Church. It is not Prayer, Preaching, and Faſting. Tho' I grant Preaching is very comely at ſuch an Ordinance; yet Preaching is not Ingredient into the Ordination: The People can Faſt and Pray as well as you. I obſerved, while the hands of theſe private Perſons were upon the Head of their Paſtor, one of them made ſuch a Prayer as might become any Miniſter, it was ſo appoſite to the buſineſs in hand, that I could but wonder at it; and I believe it was his own Compoſing.
Whether the Fraternity be the firſt Subject of the Power of the Keys; Mr. Nath. Ward uſe to ſay, They were the firſt Subject of the Key-Clog, not the Keys: So they have proved in many Churches, I am ſure.I have ſpoken to it ſeveral Years ſince in another Tract. I add but a few word now.
In the Common Wealth, the People are before the Magiſtrate: In the Church, the Miniſtry is before the People. Thus it began with the Apoſtles, they were firſt, and after them by a continual Succeſſion of the Miniſtry the Church is continued. The Ministry is the Inſtrument in God's Hand, which he uſeth commonly or chiefly, for the bringing in, and building up of his Church, 2 Cor. 6.1. Epheſ. 4.11, 12. The principal Cauſe and the Inſtrument work together, to the producing of the Effect; that then the effect of a Power, ſhould be the firſt Subject of that Power of which 'tis an Effect, is new Logick to me.
Dr. Owen ſaith, The Church is before Ordinary Miniſters.
Anſw. Firſt, But is it before the Miniſtry? Elſe 'tis nothing.
Secondly, The Propoſition is not true, foreign; that faithful and laborious Servant of Chriſt Mr. Eliot [whom I know and honour] Mr. Mahew. Mr. Leverick, with great Labour and Induſtry, get the Indian Language, and preach'd to the Indians; they were but ordinary Miniſters. God bleſſeth their Preaching: The Indians ſome of them are converted, gathered into a Church: Were they a Church before theſe Miniſters? And were they the firſt Subjects of the Power of the Keys, before theſe Miniſters preached to them?
Let the Scriptures, in the Languages, that the Spirit of God inſpired his Pen-men to write them, be ſent to a People who never ſaw them, nor heard of them. Let this People underſtand them, believe them, embrace them, give themſelves up to them without any Miniſtry, to tranſlate, to interpret, and to help them to underſtand and believe; I will allow this People to be the Subjectum Primum, Secundum, Tertium, of all the Power of the Keys, but rot elſe.
Secondly, There are others who lay claim to this, and impropriate it to themſelves, as belonging to them only, i. e. Biſhops, as being of a Superior Order above Teaching Elders: Thus Biſhop Gawden told me, it was out of Courteſie, that the Biſhop admitted Presbyters to impoſe Hands with them in Ordination. Thanks to this Courteous Biſhop. I thought they had followed the fourth Council of Cartbage: But if Presbyters do impoſe Hands with the Biſhop, then the Superiority of the Biſhop above the Presbyter, in Ordination, is gone: For Impoſition of Hands is the Principal thing in Ordination, as I will prove anon, becauſe one prays at the Impoſition; that argues no Superiority of Power in him.
All Biſhops were not of this Biſhop Gawden's mind; not that Biſhop of Peterborough, who when he ordained many at one time, but then take notice, That he did ordain them as Preſbyter. He ſpoke not without Reaſon; for no Miniſterial Acts in the Church are valid, but ſuch Acts as are performed by Miniſters of Chriſt's, Inſtitution. They who are Officers in the Church by Civil or Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitution, all their Acts as ſuch, ſignifie nothing. But his being a Biſhop, and ſo ſuperior to a Presbyter, was by no Inſtitution of Chriſt, had only jus Humanum to Warrant his Authority, and therefore he did not ordain as ſuch a Biſhop, but as Presbyter. Two I know, Mr. Statham, (as I heard) and Mr. Samuel Smith, who were then Ordained: Mr. Smith ſpake of it often, what the Biſhop ſaid to them, and …d them take notice of it: Had Mr. Smith lived till now, he had been about 78 years of Age; ſuppoſe him to be Ordained about 25 years of Age, ſome by this may gueſs what the Name of that Biſhop was about 58 years paſt. I have often thought of this; the meaneſt Officers in the Common-Wealth, be they Rum-bailiffs, Ale-Founders, yet they muſt have Law for their Office to Warrant their Actings: But that in the Houſe of God there ſhould be ſuch as look upon themſelves as the Chiefeſt Officers in the Church, and yet can ſhew no Law from the Lord of the Houſe to Warrant their Office; this is ſtrange, what hath jus Humanum to do in the Houſe of God? Is not the Wiſdom of the Great God Sufficient to know what Officers to appoint in his Houſe, but ſinful Man muſt ſet up Officers, and ſupream Officers too, without him? Thus Biſhop Gawden told me; The Biſhop is the Supream Officer, [He ſhould have ſaid the Arch-Biſhop] in the Church; you Presbyters are but the Pipe-ſtaves, the Biſhop is the Hoop that holds you together. An excellent ſimilitude; I deſired him to tell me who ſhould be the Cooper to knock on this Hoop, I doubt (I told him) the Pope would ſwear by his Keys, that he muſt and will be the Cooper. And Bellarmin will maintain it by his Argument a Simili, &c. De Romano Pontif. mibi. 204. He told me moreover, you Presbyters are no more able to manage the Government of the Church of England, than David was able to wield' Saul's Armour.
The Government of the Church of England is a hard word, there needs an Interpreter. We poor Presbyters look only to the Government of our particular Flocks, whom we feed with the Word and Sacraments, over whom God hath made us Biſhops, Acts 20.17, 28. If all the particular Congregations in England (ſuppoſing them to be viſible Saints) were ſo govern'd, then by an Induction of particulars, it might be ſo call'd.
We do not indeed in our Government uſe Writs de Excommunicato Capiendo, Priſons, Fines, Cutting off Ears, theſe are Saul's Armour, but none of Paul's ſpiritual Weapons, 2 Cor. 10.4. with which we are content. If it be well examined, it will be found that the Zeal of his Government hath been carried out againſt Conſciencious Men, who for Doctrin, Worſhip, Diſcipline, ſtick cloſe to the Word of God, without admitting any Humane Inventions to juſtle with him; I ſay the Zeal has been carried out againſt thoſe far more than againſt Whore-mongers, Drunkards, prophane Swearers, Dam'mees, &c.
I can but take notice of Dr. Lightfoot, 1 Vol. p. 787, 788.that learned Man and Son of the Church of England, living in the times of our Perſecution, who denys Biſhops to be Succeſſors to the Apoſtles. And that it is an improbable and unconſtant Inference, that becauſe there was Subordination between the Apoſtles and Philip. (in Acts 8.) that therefore the like is to be reputed betwixt Biſhops and other Miniſters.
I have done with this; I only aimed at this; Teaching Elders may Ordain, and we have Divine Authority for it in the Texts before mentioned: Theſe we are ſure are Officers in the Church by Chriſts Inſtitution; The Lutherans have Biſhops, yet they deny any inequality jure Divino, between Biſhops and Presbyters, quoad Poteſtatem Juriſdictionis. Therefore Gerrard anſwering Bellarmin appropriating Ordination to Biſhops ſaith, De Miniſt. Eccleſ. p. 261.there is not one tittle in all God's Book, that Ordination by Biſhops ſhould be valid, but by Presbyters ſhould be Null.
The next thing is, it muſt be performed with Impoſition of Hands: I named five Scriptures for this before.
What Dr. Owen ſaith, Ordination of Miniſters is one thing, Impoſition of hands is another, differing as the whole and the part. I yield it by this whole, he muſt mean totum integrale, it cannot be totum univerſale, but we ſay in Logick, ſuolata qualibet parte tollitur perfectio Integri, ſed ſublata parte principali tollitur integrum. Then I ſay where there is not Impoſition of hands, there is no Ordination, for this Impoſition is the principal part, and ſo tollitur Integrum.
That it is the principal part I prove, and this ſhall be my firſt Argument.
1ſt. The Spirit in the Apoſtles, ſets forth the whole Ordinance of Ordination, only by Impoſition of Hands, but never by Faſting and Prayer, 1 Tim. 4.14. the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay Hands on no Man ſuddenly. That in thoſe Texts Ordination is meant, and not Confirmation, nor reception of Penitents, nor the Sick. I have proved in another Tract, ſo that I inſiſt not upon them. Heb. 6.2. This my Brother with whom I now deal, denyes to be Ordination, but it is meant of Confirmation, and bids me ſee Dr. Owen ſo interpreting it.
I honour the Doctor, and will conſider him when I have firſt proved it is meant of Ordination. If Mens Judgments be worth any thing then for learning and Holineſs, we have very eminent Men for it. Arch-Biſhop Ʋſher, Mr. Cart-wright, Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Thomas Hooker, Gualter, Toſſanus, Bullinger, Gilleſpy Dicſon, Johnſon, Jacob, Theſe underſtand it only of Ordination. Other Divines of Confirmation and Ordination, and *Becauſe my Brother Charges me with my falſe Quotation of Mr. Cart-wright, take his words on Heb. 6.2. By Impoſition of Hands the Apoſtle meaneth no Sacrament, much leſs Confirmation after Baptiſm, but by a Trope or borrowed Speech, the Miniſtry of the Church upon the which Bands were laid, which appeareth in that whoſoever believeth not, there ought to be a Miniſtery by order to Teach and Govern the Church, overthroweth Chriſtianity.Dr. Owen here doth not exclude it.
1ſt. I lay the Foundation for my Proof, in theſe Words, foreign. 1.5. not laying again the Foundation. This then is a Fundamental point. Foundation muſt laſt as long as the Houſe laſts. Confirmation by extraordinary Gifts conveyed in the Impoſition of Hands, do not laſt ſo long as the Church laſts: the Church hath loſt this above Fifteen hundred Years: But the Miniſtry intended in this place, ſhall laſt to the end of the World, Mat. 28.20. till the Body of Chriſt be perfected, Eph. 4.12, 13. Therefore this is the Foundation.
The other Heads of Catechiſm that are join'd with it, muſt laſt to the end of the World. And if Baptiſm, then the Miniſtry, that have the Command from Chriſt, to Teach and Baptiſe, Mat. 28.20.
2dly. Let it be obſerved, that the extraordinary Gifts which were given ſometimes, by Impoſition of Hands; were given firſt to the Jewiſh Chriſtian-Church, and then to the Gentiles, without Impoſition of Hands, Acts 2.2, 3. with Acts 10.44, 45, 46. This is very material. Do you then ſhew us two Texts where the Apoſtles ſeparated Men to the Miniſtry without impoſition of Hands; as extraordinary Gifts were given firſt, both to Jews and Gentiles, without Impoſition of Hands; and to Cornelius and his good Company before Baptiſm. Acts 10.47.
3dly, We have other Scriptures, where Impoſition, &c. is put for Ordination; I named two. Do you name one more where Impoſition of Hands, mentioned alone, is put for Confirmation.
4thly. Impoſition of Hands in Ordination to Office, was before Impoſition of Hands to the Collation of extraordinary gifts, and more frequently mentioned; therefore the more reaſon why it ſhould be ſo underſtood here, and not excluded.
The placing of Impoſition, &c. in the Text-after Baptiſm, does not prove it to be meant of Confirmatton, no more than the placing of Faith in God, after Repentance will prove that Repentance goeth before Faith in God; whereas if a Man do not firſt believe God to be, and ſuch a God as the Word declares him to be; yea, if he do not believe the Reſurrection and the laſt Judgment, he will hardly Repent.
2dly. Cornelius and his Friends, the Gentiles, had thoſe Gifts Conferred before Baptiſm, Acts 10.45, 46, 47, 48.
3dly. Let them prove that all that were Baptized had theſe Gifts Conferred after Baptiſm. This made Dr. O. ſo to expound it, becauſe it follows Baptiſm in the Text.
As for Dr. Owen's Reaſons againſt Ordination I ſee no reaſon, ſaith he, why the Apoſtle ſhould paſs from the Doctrin of the firſt entrance of Chriſtian Religion, and proceed to the Ordination of Miniſters, omitting the Lords Supper.
2dly. Nor why he ſhould inſert the obſervation of this Rite, or the Doctrine concerning it, in the ſame Order, and under the ſame neceſſity with the other great Fundamentals, &c.
Anſw. 1ſt. And what neceſſity was there of his inſerting extraordinary Gifts, common to godly and ungodly, and which were to expire in a ſhort time amongſt the Fundamentals.
2dly. Goſpel Worſhip is a fundamental point, and it was Chriſts pleaſure to have a Goſpel Miniſtry to carry on that Worſhip to the Worlds End; and under that Rite, the Miniſtry is meant, Epheſ. 4.11.12, 1 Cor. 12.28.
3dly. Under Baptiſm, the Lord's Supper might be comprehended, being the other Sacrament *So Dr. Gouge's Baptiſm Synechdochice is put forboath Sacraments.or being thoſe were the Catechetical Heads, which the Novices learned before they were Baptized and admitted into the Church (as Baptiſm and Repentance went together in John's Baptiſm, Matthew 3.) ſo here Baptiſm and Repentance are mentioned, but for the Lords Supper, they might be further inſtructed after they were in the Church, before they were admitted to it.
4thly. There is not ſuch a neceſſity of Baptiſm, as of Faith and Repentance; yet Baptiſm is mentioned amongſt thoſe Heads.
The Prophets under the Old Teſtament Propheſied of theſe Gifts, that they ſhould be poured out ſaith the Dr.
Anſw. True, but the Prophets do not ſay, they ſhould be conferred by Impoſition of Hands, and ſo be made a Chatachetical Head under the New Teſtament.
2dly. So do ſeveral of the Prophets foretell, what Paſtors the Lord will give to his Church under the time of the Meſſah. But to make an end with Dr. Owen to whom you refer me; He gives us four Caſes in which this Impoſition of Hands was uſed. The Second he mentions was in healing of Diſeaſes, Mark 16.18. &c. This cannot be the meaning here, ſaith he, for this gift was extraordinary, occaſional, Temporary, Proper to ſome.
Upon the ſame grounds, it cannot be meant of Confirmation. For the Gift was Extraordinary, Temporary, Proper to the Apoſtles; Ananias had an immediate Call to it, Acts 9.10, 11.17. Philip had no ſuch power, or Gift in Acts 8. And after the Apoſtles we read of none that could, or did confer Gifts extraordinary by Impoſition of Hands. What he means by occaſional, I know not. I know no word of Healing unleſs People were ſick.
2dly. But I read in the Dr. p. 34. thus, we ſhall allow room alſo for that other expoſition of the Words which is more generally received, (I ſuppoſe he means Ordination) becauſe it complies with the Analogy of Faith: I dare not be peremptory. Then the Dr. is not abſolutely againſt me.
So much for my firſt Argument.
I go on,
2dly. Ordination is an Act of Authority, but Prayer and Faſting are no Acts of Authority. Theſe are the Duties belonging to all Chriſtians. I would deſire no more Bleſſings than many good Women can pray for. Therefore Prayer and Faſting do not make Ordination.
The Major only remains to be proved, Acts 6.3, 6. foreign, whom we may appoint, &c. Tho' the Perſons were qualifyed, tho' elected by the Church, yet they were not in that Order of Deacons, till the Apoſtles put them into it Authoritatively, Impoſing their Hands upon, them. And this is common with all Presbyters, Tit. 1.5. foreign. The ſame word we had before. This word I find ſeveral times in the New Teſtament, belonging to a Perſon in Authority, giving Authority to others, as Acts 7.10. and 27, and 35. Matth. 24.45.47. Matth. …5.21.25, &c.
What Mr. Ainſworth ſaith of the Firſt born impoſing their hands upon the Levites, I think 'tis true: By this ſign, they did put the charge and Service of the Church upon them, and did Conſecrate them to God in their Name. So I think the Presbytery in their Impoſing of hands do impoſe the charge, the burden, the work of the Miniſtry upon the Perſons ordained, giving them Authority from the Lord, to go forth and Preach, and Adminiſter all the Holy things of God with Authority. As the Church of Scotland ſaith, It is a mean of Communicating Authority to the perſon Ordained. Well may the Apoſtle ſay, lay hands upon no Man ſuddenly. See it in a civil Caſe, Numb. 27.18, 19, 20. Joſhua muſt ſtand before the High-Prieſt and the whole Congregation: Moſes muſt lay his hand upon him, a ſign of his calling, and Ordination to his Office. v. 23. Moſes did ſo, and gave him his Charge.
Thus if ſtrangers hearing there is an Ordination come in among you, there they may hear Preaching and Prayer; but who is the perſon to be ordained, they cannot tell by Preaching and Prayer, but when a perſon is brought forth, and the Presbytery Impoſe their Hands upon him and pray, now they may know who the Perſon is.
3dly. If Prayer and Faſting be Ordination without Impoſition of hands, then as oft as Miniſters meet together, to keep days of Faſting and Prayer, and pray for him who is the Paſtor of that Church where they meet, for increaſe of grace, gifts, bleſſing upon and ſucceſs in his Work, ſo oft the Man is ordained; are not theſe the Heads you pray for, when you Ordain in your way? What Heads have you more? Not only in the Sacraments; but in all Church-Ordinances, there is ſomething which viſibly ſhews a difference between that Ordinance and another. As the Eyes and Hands lifted up to Heaven in Prayer, viſibly ſhew a difference between Prayer and Preaching, and ſo in Preaching from Prayer; but according to you there is nothing whereby Ordination differs from other Ordinances.
Fourthly, Acts 13.3. That here in Ordination, I meet with ſeventeen Divines beſides Dr. Owen, that acknowledge it, and the Definition of Ordination is here ſeen. When God commanded them to ſeparate, Paul and Barnabas, &c. He did not tell them how they ſhould ſeparate, they knew that before, and accordingly did it with Impoſition of Hands; they had learnt that from Numb. 8.10.14. the poſitive Command, where the word ſeparate is uſed.
If ever Ordination might have been ſpared, then here; for what did this ſignifie to the poor ignorant Gentiles to whom they were ſent, that knew nothing of it? And if they had told them they were thus Ordained, what cared they for it? They carried their Credentials with them, the power of Miracles, to confirm their Doctrine. If the Church did Pray and Faſt for ſucceſs upon their Miniſtry, but what need Impoſition of Hands? Not to confer Gifts, they were qualifyed before, Paul, Acts 9.17. Barnabas, Acts 11.24. and for Teachers to Confer Gifts extraordinary, we read none. They were called to ſeparate, by an immediate Command or Call of God. So Paul was no Apoſtle of Men, Gal. 1.1. Tho' Men did Ordain, yet what they did, being by the immediate Call and Command of God, he may be ſaid to be an Apoſtle not of Men, or by Men.
But this is obſervable: This Ordination is the firſt that ever was out of Judea. Antioch then the chief City of Syria, the moſt powerful City of Aſia, where the Prefect of the Eaſt moſt where reſided, called by ſome the Gentiles Jeruſalem. Here then in a City of the Gentiles, is the Apoſtle of the Gentiles, ſet apart to the Work of an Apoſtle among the Gentiles. And I cannot tell what uſe to make of it, ſince as I ſaid, the Gentiles neither knew it, nor regarded it, but it is of uſe to us, to ſhew us that as the Apoſtle of the Gentiles was ſeparated to his Work, ſo all Miniſters that are the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, ſhould be ſeparated to their Work; that as they were thus ſeparated in the Jewiſh Church, ſo it ſhould be in the Gentile-Chriſtian Church.
Object. But Paul was an Apoſtle before.
Anſw. 1. I deny its For, 1ſt. Then the Text would have called him ſo. The Text tells us there were Prophets and Teachers, but he doth not ſay there were Apoſtles. Surely Paul ſhould have had the Title of his Office, if he had been an Apoſtle, as well as the Prophets had.
2dly. The Lord tells Anantas, Acts 9.15. Paul was a choſen Veſſel, to carry his name among the Gentiles. But this was not done till now.
3dly. Pa…l was never called an Apoſtle till after this, Acts 14.14.
Laſtly, When the Apoſtle chargeth Timothy 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands ſuddenly on no Man; the Affirmative Is implyed, he ought to lay hands, if he ſound a Perſon worthy; in mandato negativo Affirmativum continetur. Thus I have given you my Definition, and proved by ſeveral Scriptures; now Brother, give me your Definition, and prove it by Scripture; you indeed have not alledged that, Acts 14.23. but two others have brought that Text againſt me, …o prove that Election (from the word foreign) with Prayer and Faſting, without Inpoſition of ha…ds, makes a Miniſter.
1ſt. This Text I ſee by Lutherans and Calviniſts, is brought to prove the Peoples-right in Election; Dr. Owen hath made great Uſe of it, ſo Dr. R…le, ſo Gerhand, makes great uſe of it; but when they have done ſo, yet they all tell us, a Man is not a Miniſter as yet, but Ordination muſt be, and that as I defined it.
2dly. I think it is a good rule to help to underſtand the Scriptures, if one Text be obſcure, and there be clearer …exts in the Scripture ſpeaking to the ſame thing: Carry the obſcure Text to them, which are …lear. We have ſeveral clear Texts for Ordination with …mpoſitio… of Hands, but not one now that gives the leaſt ſhadow to prove ſuch an Interpre…tion as this. It falls out very unhappily with ſome Men, ſaith Dr. Owen in another Caſe, who think they ſee ſome peculiar Opinion, in ſome ſingular Text of Scripture, and will not bring their Interpretation of it to the Analogy of Faith, and ſee how contrary it is to the Current of the word in other places.
3dly. Paul knew how Impoſition of Hands in ſeparation to Office, came into the Jewiſh Church, by the poſitive Command of God, and how it continued in that Church. Secondly, He know the Practices of the Apoſtles. Now, Thirdly, He knew how he himſelf was ſeparated. Fourthly, He can tell Timothy how he, i. e. Timothy, was ſeparated, and charge him that he take care how he laid Hands upon others. Can any rational Man think, that Paul now would in theſe Churches, ſeparate Man to Office without Impoſition of Hands? I think no Rational Man will believe it. Why then is this Text abuſed?
For my part I am for the Peoples Election, provided it be carried on regularly; and look upon this Impoſing of Miniſters by Patrons upon the People againſt their Conſent, as curſed Tyranny.
But for my own part (giving honour to theſe worthy Men, far more learned than my ſelf) I am not ſatisfyed, that this foreign in this Text, whatever the Etymology of the word was at firſt, muſt neceſſarily note the Act of the People liſting up their Hands in Election of their Officers. I rather conſider how the word is uſed, in that Age or Time when Men write. 'Tis well known that words in time do vary in their ſignification from what they did at firſt. Among divers others, we have one in Scripture, Ethis. l. 4. Cap. 14.foreign, Ephiſ. 5.4. Ariſtotle tells us how the Word was firſt uſed, and who was foreign, a Man that was facetious, pleaſant, Witty, but withal cleanly in his Diſcourſe: But afterwards in his time, if a Man did ſeem to be Witty, tho' Scurrilous and baſe, he now was foreign. Divers ſuch words we have in the Latin, and Engliſh Tongue. Philo and Paul were Contemporaries, Philo flouriſhed in Caligula's Time, and wrote before Paul.and how Philo uſeth the Word foreign. Dr. Hammond, has given us an account out of his Works. Likewiſe out of Lucian, and Maximus Tyrius. Where the word is uſed of ſingle perſons, ſo that the word did not in thoſe times ſignifie the ſuffrages of the People, and the Word in Holy Writ, Acts 10.41. foreign being given to God: Plainly carry it, that the Word doth not always intend or force the Peoples Suffrage, whatever the Etymology of the Word ſignifles, upon which Gerbard lays his ſtreſs. I have not ſeen that piece of Mr. Selden, but Mr. Ranew told me he had made it clear that foreign had loſt that ſignification theſe contend for, many years before Chriſt.
2dly. That Rule which Henry Stephens gives us, concerning foreign; I take to be very true; When this word governs an Accuſative Caſe, then it ſigniſies but to create, Ordain. Thus he Now in this Text, Acts 14.23. it doth ſo, foreign. But in Cor. 2.8.19. which theſe Men urge to confirm their Opinion, there is no accuſative Caſe, but foreign. He was choſen of the Churches. Let me add to this, the Syrryack Verſion: I doubt not but that Tranſlator did underſtand the Etymology of the word as well as any of us; now in this verſe he renders the word they …id Conſtitute, or Ordain (a)foreignthe very ſame Syriac word, which is uſed in Tit. 1.5. Ordain Elders. But in the 2 Cor. 8.19. there he uſes another word, to chaſe, (b)foreignand doubles the Verb, as the Hebrews do, which the Latin Tranſlation gives thus, deligendo delectus ſit. So the vulgar Tranſlation, Conſtituiſſent.
3dly, The Gramatical Conſtruction is more to me than a Criticiſm: when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, v. 22. they returned, foreign, Confirming the Souls, &c. foreign, E…horting them to continue, &c. Theſe two were Paul and Bar…abas's Acts, then foreign, Paul and Barnabas lifted up their hands, if the word muſt ſignifie ſo from the Etymology of the word, this was as much their Act as the …ormer. Let any School-Boy conſtrue it, tho' the Boy can tell you the Etymology of the word. Then we ſhall have a new …a…hion of ordaining, by Miniſters faſting, praying, and liſting up their ha…ds. …eſides, for the word foreign, how will that agree with the Peoples liſting up their hands, what …air ſenſe ſhall we make of it? But if we take the word as we ſee it was uſed in that time, and as H. Stephens ſaith, if it governs an accuſative caſe, as it doth in this place, th…n the Senſe runs ſmooth, Paul and Barnabas did Conſtitute or ordain them. (i. e. the Diſciples in the ſormer verſe) Elders in every Church, &c.
4thly. It is certain the Greek Fathers did uſe their word foreign for Ordination: Surely they underſtood their own Mother tongue as well as we. I have obſerved Chryſoſtem in all thoſe Texts where Impoſition of hands is mentioned; he uſeth foreign. Gerhard confeſſeth that Chryſoſtom and other Eccleſiaſtical Writers, do ſo uſe it. And tho he ſtick to the Etymology of the word to maintain the Peoples right of Election, yet Ordination he ſaith muſt be with Impoſition of hands, therefore he ſaith in the next word foreign demum ſit mentio, in their praying, they Impoſed hands. Thus he.
As to theſe Fathers who thus uſe the word foreign, had they been againſt the Election of the People, then I ſhould have ſuſpected their Integrity in their uſe of the Word, but the People then had their Election of their Biſhops and Presbyters. And one thing I took notice of in the 5th. Century; I read of one Syn…ſi…s, a Man of very good parts, who was to be Ordained Biſhop of Syrene: But when he ſhould be Ordained, he did not believe the Reſ…rrection of the Body, yet the People who had elected him, were ſo earneſt to have him Ordained, that Theophilus Alexand. did Ordain him, hoping he might believe it afterwards; as he did. When I read it, I thought what a difference there was between thoſe times and ours, they could Ordain a Biſhop, who did not believe one of the Articles of the Apoſtles Creed (as it is called) but the Church of England could caſt out about eighteen hundred Miniſters, but for what? was it becauſe they did not aſſent to the Doctrine of the Church of England? I heard Mr. Harmar ſhould tell Biſhop Reynolds, if you can maintain the Diſcipline of the Church, the Diſſenters muſt maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England) was it becauſe they were ſcandalous in their Converſation? was it becauſe they were Idle and lazy? was it becauſe they did not worſhip God according to His Word? Bleſſed be God, they could charge us with none of theſe things, for what then? Let them anſwer that when they come to appear before their and our Judges. They were Church-Men and Biſhops that made that Act againſt us.
SECT. III.
NOw to your Reaſon, why you Ordain without Impoſition of Hands, that which you chie…y inſiſt upon is this.
There is neither Scripture, Precept, no… Preſident, for ordinary Officers, of one. Church, to impoſe Hands in the Ordination of an Officer in another Church Anſw. Firſt, What need of ſuch Preſidents, while Apoſtles and Evangeliſts were living? Secondly, This Argument of yours plainly implies, that there is Scripture Precept, and Preſident, to ordain in another Church, ſo it be without Impoſition of Hands: It lyes upon you to ſhew, where that Precept or Preſident is. I know no ſuch Texts; you acted, did you act in Faith; that you acted according to God, and were well-pleaſing to God, in your ordaining without Impoſition of Hands? Then ſhew us that Divine Teſtimony upon which your Faith for ſo acting, is grounded: You never gave me one as yet; and if you cannot do it, your Faith in this Act is but vain. If there be any thing I do in the Houſe of God, for which I cannot give either Precept, Preſident, neceſſary Conſequence, from Scripture or light of Nature, I will lay by that Act, I will not trouble the Peace of the Church, nor hinder Union with my Brethren, by keeping up ſuch Practices.
Thirdly, The Apoſtles did not conſtitute Churches as you do, with one ſingle Paſtor, &c. In Nine Churches we find ſeveral Teachers, but not one with a ſingle Teacher. In a Young Church at Antioch, Act. 13.2, 3. There were three Teachers to ſeparate Paul and Barnabas. There is an Errour then in your Conſtitution, and that does not juſtifie your Error in Ordination.
Fourthly, Give me a Preſident, where the Paſtor of one Church did ſo much as preach or pray in another Church; if you cannot, then we muſt not ſo much as preach or pray in another Church: But you have called me and others to preach in your Church.
To this you anſwered me, You could well do that, from Matth. 28.19. go teach all Nations; if ſo, then in other Churches.
Anſw. Firſt, Set by Preſidents then, it ſeems you can find none.
Secondly, I may deny your Co…ſeq…ence, at …aſt according to ſome Independent Principles, unleſs I preach as a gifted Brother. To preach to the Nations who were Heathens, and to preach in an Independ…nt Church, differ. I may preach to Heathen as a Miniſter of Chriſt, but in an Independent Church, as a gi…ted Brother. I wiſh we knew the firſt Author of this Diſtinction, that we might ſcratch his Cranium, for ſo witty an Invention.
What your judgment is as to this diſtinction, Lib. 2. p. 101.I cannot tell. But I am of Dr. Owens mind: If I did not think my ſelf bo…nd, ſaith he, to Preach as a Miniſter, and as a Miniſter Authorized in all places, and on all occaſions, whe… I am called thereunto, I think I ſhould never preach much more in this world.
Fiſthly, If that Text will warrant me to preach in another Church, it will warrant me to Baptize in another Church, if there be need, and I am called to it. They are joined together; and if I may put forth two Acts of Authority, I may alſo put forth a third: If there wants a Paſtor, and I am called to join with others to ſeparate him to his Office, we will do it according to the Word, with Faſting, Prayer, and Impoſition of Hands, without which 'tis not Ordination: We do not give him the Deficition.
Sixthly, Since then we are come to conſequence from Scripture; I gave you a Scripture, 1 Cor. 12.12 The Body is one, and hath many Members, &c. He does not mean that particular Church of Corinth, is that one Body: he adds, ſo is Chriſt, v. 13. Jews and Gentiles make up that one Body. v. 25. The Members of this one Body, muſt have the ſame care one of another. Does the Apoſtle tye up his Diſcourſe to the Church of Corinth, that the Members of that Church ſhould have care one of another? and if one of their Members did …er, v. 26. all the reſt of the Members of Corinth ſuffer with them, but for other Churches take no care of them: If they ſuffer, you need not ſuffer with them. Certainly, this was not the Apoſtles meaning. I look upon all particular Churches to be Members of that one Body: It is ſuch a Church, in which Christ hath ſet Apoſtles, Prophets, &c. v. 28. It is ſuch a Church, where ſome are as Eyes, others as Ears; ſome as Feet, ſome as Hands, verſes 15, 16. Therefore he ſpeaks of the Viſible Church. If every particular Church were the Body of Chriſt, how many Bodies ſhould Chriſt have? But he hath but one Body, as the 12th. verſe, and Epheſ. 4.4, 12. tell us. Since th…n all particular Churches are but Members of that one Body, and the Lord hath commanded the Members to have care one of another. Surely, the Lord hath not confined the Miniſterial Power of a Paſtor, to his own particular Church; ſo that if a Neighbour-Church have no Paſtor, that the Paſtors near to this Church may not help that Church to a Paſtor, and in that way which his Word hath declared. Your Practice teſtifieth it; for you would make the Perſon to be ordained, and others believe, you ordain in another Church; and this is an Act of Authority, but not as you perform it, nor according to God's Word, and ſo it is no Ordination.
There is a difference between a Miniſters helping another Church deſtitute of an Officer, in ſeeding them with the Word and Sacraments, a joyning with others in the Ordination of a Paſtor to them, and exerciſing Diſcipline in that Church, in caſe of Scandal. The Church hath ſome Power to help it ſelf in this Caſe, tho no Paſtor.
For inſtance, a Paſtor of a Church not far from us in the time of Perſecution leaves England, goes beyond-Sea many miles; this Church had none to ſeed them: they deſired help of their Neighbour Miniſters, who accordingly did afford them help; ſome preached, ſome baptized their Infants, and others Adminiſtred the Lord's Supper to them. One of the Church fell very foully, being ſeduced by another Profeſſor; the Scandal very great, ſo that the Hearts of good People very ſad, but our Enemies rejoyced; it made ſuch a noiſe in the Country, many miles about us, that the like I believe have not been known in theſe Parts. I was deſired to preach there; when I had done my Sermon, a Writing was delivered to me, wherein the Church deſired me to declare to the Congregation [which was then very great, being no Sermon in the publick place] their ab…orrency of ſuch Acts, and withal deſired me to inform them what was their Duty, what they ought to do in ſuch a Caſe as this. I gave them my thoughts thus: You are but a Homogeneal Body, and ſo have no power to Excommunicate, that being an Act of Authority; nor have I any power to call the perſon to an account, and excommunicate: But yet this you may do, ſince the perſon was admitted into Church-Fellowſhip and Communion with your conſent, ſhe having fallen ſo foully, diſhonoured God ſo greatly, and opened the mouths of Men againſt Godlineſs, you ſhould firſt meet together, and humble your Souls before God, that there ſhould be ſuch Diſhonour brought to his Name, by one of your Church. Then, Firſt, You have the Lord's Supper Adminiſtred ſometimes amongſt you; there you may deny Communion with her. Secondly, You have times when your Church only meet together, for Prayer, mutual Conference, &c. You may there deny her Communion alſo; but when you meet publickly with others, there you ſhould not deny, but ſhe may be preſent at Prayer, being it is natural Worſhip; tho ſhe were actually excommunicated, and rendred as a Heathen; I have ſeen the Indians preſent with us, at Prayer, and Preaching, tho' as yet they had not embraced Chriſtianity. Thirdly, As for the Civil Familiarity you had with her before, you ought to ſuſpend that too, 2 Theſſ. 3.14. and verſe 6. yet having a care of her, being in a poor condition, that ſhe do not periſh. Fourthly, You may chooſe three or ſour of your chief Members, and ſend them to her, to make her know, the Determination, of the Church, and that the Church doth this, in the Name of the Lord Jeſus.
The Church did ſo, the effects of it was, the clamours of the People ceaſed; the Mouths of them who before were opened againſt us, were ſilent, and now they rather ſound ſault with me, that I was too ſharp upon the Perſon offending, the effect was a relenting, and humbling of her ſelf before God in the publick Congregation, to the ſatisfaction of the Church, ſhe is now dead, but the Church having then their Paſtor, abſolved her before ſhe died: and it was a comfort to her: her Abſolntion was without money.
By this I ſee, were this Ordinance of Church Diſcipline carried on according to the word of God (which hath been ſo fearfully abuſed) we ſhould need no Writ de Excommunicato capiendo: I did but add a ſew words, what the caſe of ſuch a perſon was under this Sentence, and it ſtruck an awe in the hearts of Carnal People.
To return to my Brother. To what I have ſaid from the one body in the Corinth. 12. That the Paſtors of Churches may help other Churches, where there are none, and they call to help them, you anſwer me.
This is all you have to ſay, and there is little in it.
Anſw. No, not all, Brother; I gave you your own Text, whereby you proved that Paſtors of other Churches may joyn with you in days of Faſting and Prayer, and preaching; and if ſo then in Ordaining.
2dly. I gave you the Texts of Scripture, whereby the Synod of N. England proved, they might ordain in another Church, with Impoſition of hands.
You tell me, you deny a Political-viſible Catholick Church.
Anſw. So do I. If I ſaid but little, I am ſure you ſay too much. How doth it follow? Becauſe we may help neighbour Churches, when they call us to help them with Paſtors in a Goſpel way. Therefore I muſt own a Political, viſible, Catholick Church. I gave you inſtance before, how Churches may help to purge themſelves from ſeandalous perſons, tho they have no Officers. If there be a Family by us where are ſeveral Children Parents both dead, and there is none that takes care of them to help them to food: It is one thing for me to go to the Houſe, and help them with food, another thing to caſt one of the Children out of the Houſe, if it be croſs, refractory, and will not be reclaimed by counſel. Thecaſe is the ſame here; twenty or forty Elders may meet to give Counſel in a Caſe, leaving the Execution to the Church whence the Caſe depends.
You tell me, Miniſters are not ſet over the whole Church, their Power may be refuſed in other Congregations.
Anſw. But they do not refuſe their Power, when they Call for it, and deſire to help them in their want. I limit the Power of Elders to other Churches, to the Call of thoſe Churches, being in want. They are not therefore ſet over the whole Church.
When you with the two other Miniſters [they go for ſuch] did ſeparate that illiterate Perſon to the Work of the Miniſtry, did you Act as Officers or as private Brethren? If you acted as private Brethren, then I am ſure he is no Miniſter; the Brethren of the ſame Society had more right than you. If you acted as Officers, then it ſeems you could not put forth Official Power in another Church. To ſeparate to an Office, is an Act of Authority. Whom we may appaint, [not the People] Act. 6.3.
You tell me, the 13 Acts 3. is no Platform for us, unleſs we have an immediate Command from God to Ordain Men.
Anſw. The immediate Command was in the ſeparating Paul and Barnabas to the Work of their Apoſtleſhip. The Command was not to Teach them how they ſhould ſeparate; the Lord ſaith only, Separate, &c. they knew how they ſhould ſeparate before. The Synod of New-England and Dr. Owen were much miſtaken, who quote this Text for Ordination by Impoſtion of Hands: But to this Text I have ſpoken before.
As to what you ſay, That Gifts were then Conſerred with the Impoſition of Hands.
Anſw. The end when the Lord firſt Commanded it, was not to Conferr Gi…ts, but to ſeparate, Numb. 8.10, 14. ſo Acts 13.3. Separate we Paul, &c.
2. The Savoy Conſeſſion is againſt you, if there be Elders in the ſame Church, it calls for Impoſition of Hands.
3. Paul and Barnabas were Gifted before, as I named the Texts.
4. The Deacons were Gifted before their Ordination, Acts 6.3.
5. Paul then needed not to have given that Caution to Timothy, 2 Tim. 2.2. that they be foreign, to whom he Committed the Goſpel-Doctrine; for Timothy by the Impoſing Hands might Conferr Gifts, and make them able, or fit Men for the Work.
6. As to what you gather from 1 Tim. 4.14. for your Proof, that Text you know admits of Controverſie: As whether Timothy was not firſt Ordained a Presbyter, and aſterwards an Evangeliſt? Whether Paul's Impoſition and the Presbyters were both at the ſame time? &c. but this is certain, laying the 1 Tim. 1.18. and 2 Tim. 1.6. together with this Text, there was ſomething extraordinary as to Timothy's Gifts, in which the Pres…teries Impoſition had no ſhare; the Propoſitions differ, it is foreign, by the putting on of my Hands; See Didoclavius Altare Damoſ. p. 161. Thus Gilloſpy Miſc. p. 101.but 'tis foreign, with the la…ine o… of the Hands of to… Presbitery, after Prophecy. So that when Paul and the Presbytery did both impoſe Hands, the Gift was conveyed as Paul ſaith, by my Hands. But as to …s Office to a Poteſtative, Authoritative Miſſion, the Impoſition of the Hands of the Presbytery did conc…rr with Pa… 's.
You tell me, I muſt own Succiſſion, and thoſe polluted Hands, &c.
Anſw. Your Argument ſpeaks thus, If you will have no Ordination without Impoſition of Hands, according to Scripture, then you muſt own Succeſſion. So I will: Was Impoſition of Hands in Ordination, an Invention of Rome, or an Inſtitution of God? the Papiſts can prove their Act in this Point by Scripture, ſo cannot you.
2. Mr. Robinſon, Mr. Johnſon, tho' rigid old Separates, yet worthy Men, made light of this Argument, becauſe it was God's own Appoinement
3. You had beſt throw away Baptiſm, becauſe their polluted Hands do adminiſter it.
4. This concerns the firſt Reformers. We receive our Ordination from godly and learned men, who hate and have caſt off whatever is Romiſh, but not the Holy S…ripture, becauſe they paſs through Rome to us.
As to the Text you quote, Phil 3.16. When eunto we have already attained, &c. this is nothing to our Caſe, nor will it heal.
Several there were who did believe in Chriſt, and embraced the Goſpel, but were not ſo clear in the total Abolition of the Ceremonial …aw, as Rom. 14. ſhews: But however ſince they had believed in Chriſt, and embraced the Goſpel, walk according to that Rule unto which you have attained, God will reveal more in time: The Caſe is nothing like. You have attained to Faſting and Prayer in Ordination, but not to Impoſition of Hands. But Faſting and Prayer we uſe and may uſe in twenty Caſes, but theſe Caſes do not make twenty diſtinct Ordinances, though we Faſt and Pray: It is but one Ordinance. But Separation to the Work of the Miniſtry is a diſtinct Ordinance.
Secondly, They were to walk by the ſame Rule: But by what Rule do you walk? for the Rule is with I…poſition of Hands, according to which you do not walk.
SECT. IV.
AFter I had done with this Brother, there came to my Hand a little Book, put out by another Brother, who writes thus, All Church-Officers are made by Ordination, and Ordained alike; [is there no difference between Acts 6.6. and Acts; 3.3?] and that Ordination is not Impoſition of Hands; and if the moſt be made of it, it's but a Ceremony annexed, which is now obſolete.
It's But a Ceremony: Whoſe Ceremony is it? Did Man or God Inſtitute it? If it be God's, methinks it is not com…y for a Creature to caſt a ſlighting But upon any of his Inſtitutions. What was the whole Ceremonial Law? yea, What is Water in Baptiſm, Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper, ſetting by the Authority of him who did Inſtitute them? the Image of a King ſtamped upon a Farthing, tho' but a Farthing, who dare refuſe it?
Though it be but a Ceremony, yet being God's Inſtitution and Command, there is,
1. Neceſſitas Praecepti anne…ed to it, and it is Diſobedience to his Inſtitution to Omit it. The Spirit is pleaſed three times to ſet forth the whole Work of Ordination by this Ceremony [as you call it] alone.
2. There is …c…ſſitas Medii, in this ſenſe, viz To the ſending forth of a Perſon to Preach and Adminiſter all Ordinances in God's Houſe with Authority. Dr. Owen rightly calls it, The Symbol of Auth…itati… O…i…nation. Our Bre…hren of Scotland call it, a Medi…m, of Co…nicating Auth…ity to the Perſon Or…ained. When the Presbytery Praying and Impoſing Hands, do in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, the King of his Church, Separate a Man to the Work of the Miniſtry, the Act carries Authority in it. By the Impoſing their Hands, they do Impoſe the Charge, the Burden, the Work of the Miniſtry upon the Perſon in the Name of the Lord. Perſons in Authority do in the Name of the Lord Convey Authority.
The Apoſtle bids Timothy, 2 Tim 2.2. foreign Com… the things &c. the Perſons muſt be firſt foreign, fit to Teach other, … Men, before he Commits them, this is plain. But then how doth Terothy Commit the thines to them, when he finds them ſuch? [foreign … Commendatur depoſitum …andum, & ſuo tempor… red…e…, Ear…us. So the Sitia…k, D…ſuit in ſidem alle…jus.] That it is an Act of Authority, Luk. 12.48. is plain. Timothy does not Commit them by Election, that is the Act of the People you tell us; he could not do it by Conſerring Gifts, he had no ſuch Power: Beſides, he muſt ſee they be ſuch before he Commits them. He did not do it by Prayer for them, any might have ſo Committed as well as T…mothy, and Prayer is no Act of Authority; but when T…y Prays and Im…ſes Hands to ſeparate them to the Work of the Miniſtry, which Pa… charged him not to do it ſ…ddenly, 1 Tim. 5.22. Now he Commits them: Now Separation to the Work is ſeen, and not before. So that when the Presbytery do foreign, they do foreign.
After I had done, I met with Mr. Gilleſp…s upon the Text, Miſ…tl. p. 52. which he ſaith is a conſiderable Text againſt the So…inians and Anabaptiſts, What work theſe Gifted Brethren have made in Churches, we ſee to our ſhame.[which this Practice of our Brethren, and crying up Oiſted Brethrens Preaching, have not a little ſtrengthned, to the bringing in of Conſuſion and Diſorder into the Church, as we ſee at this day, to the ſhame of Reformation] and he gives the ſence of the Text as I have done, for Ordination, which in another place he ſaith muſt be with Impoſition of Hands.
As to his ſaying that it is a Coremony now Obſo…ete:
I thought the Word Obtolete did connote a thing out of Date, out of Uſe, worn thred-bare; but Impoſition of Hands in Ordination, hath been uſed in the Jewiſh Church and the Chriſtian Church in all Ages to this day, among all Churches; ſo that if it be obſolete, it muſt be only among ſome few Independents of yeſterdays ſtanding, and is this ſufficient to make it obſolete?
One Word about Popular Election, becauſe I ſee it is that which gives the Eſſence to a Miniſter in ſome Mens Opinion.
I am for the Peoples Election, provided it be regularly carryed on; but that it makes a Miniſter, I cannot yield to that.
Mr. Eliot and thoſe I mention'd before, Preach to the Indians, God works with their Miniſtry, brings ſome to the Faith in Chriſt, they are formed into a Church, they chooſe Mr. Eliot *Suppoſe it had been ſo.to be their Miniſter, ſo then their Election makes Mr. Eliot a Miniſter; is not this pretty Logick, the Effect give the Eſſence to the Cauſe. If the People be viſible Saints, they are ordinarily the Effect of the Miniſtry [tho' not of that particular Miniſter whom they chooſe it may be] as Miniſters are ſaid to be foreign, and foreign, Workers together with God, 1 Cor. 3.6. 2 Cor. 6.1.Inſtruments in his Hand.
2. If the Election of a Deacon do not give the Eſſence to a Deacon, then the Election of a Miniſter doe not give the Eſſence to a Miniſter, but the Antecedent is true, Ergo.
Unto all Church-Officers Election gives the Eſſence [as they ſay] and no wonder if the People be the firſt Subject of the Power of the Keys, as it is in theſe Mens Opinion; then if it doth not give the Eſſence to a Deacon, then not to another Officer, nay, much leſs to a Miniſter; for the People may be more able to judge of an Officer to ſerve Tables, than they are able to judge of the Abilities and Soundneſs of a Man to be choſen a Miniſter: But it did not to a Deacon. Whom We may appoint over this B…ſiteſs, Acts 6.3. ſay the Apoſtles. It was not their Election that did Conſtitute them Deacons, but the Apoſtles Authoritatively kppointing them over this Buſin…s. We appoint, not Y… appoint. As Pharaoh appointed Joſeph Governour over Egypt, Acts 7.10. the ſame Word, the Act of Authority.
3. A Man whom God hath qualified, may be Ordained to the Work of the Miniſtry, tho' there he no People to Elect him: As if one having gotten the Language of ſome Heathens, he may go and Preach among them, and if God bleſs his Miniſtry he may Baptize them, if there be lent one or two at one time, as Philip did the Eunuch, and as the Apoſles Paul and Bounabas, who were Ordained before they were ſent ſorth to the Gentiles, [of which we ſee no need, as I ſaid before, they carrying their Credentials with them, the Power of Miracles] but that Man cannot Baptize unleſs he be Ordained, he is not in Authority before he be Ordained.
So that true Qualiſication and Fitneſs for the Miniſtry, and Authoritative Separation to the Miniſtry makes A Miniſter: Election of the People makes him their Miniſter.
4. Tho' I deny Election to give the Eſſence, yet ſuppoſe Election to be an Ingredient into it; where two things meet together to the Conſtitution of an Officer, Subjection and Authority, certainly Authority gives the Eſſence more than Sabmiſſion; thus Dr. Owen, the People Electing Sabmit themſelves; and Dr. Ames *Bellar. enera. to. 2. p. 87.before him, anſwering Bellarmin, who made it ſtrange, that Sheep ſhould chooſe their Shepherd: Yes, ſaith Dr. Ames, rational Sheep may chooſe their Shepherd, not by Juriſdiction, but by Sabjection.
5. The Scriptures which are for Ordination by Impoſition of Hands are more in number, and far more clear than thoſe for Election; the firſt Text which they bring for Election, Acts 1.15. this differs much from curs, for our Election is with Subjection to him whom the People Elect: But this was not ſo. Did Peter [the Pope will be angry if you tell him ſo] and the other Apoſtles ſabject themſelves to him whom they Choſe? 2ly. It was chooſing one of their own Order, not one above them, ſo does not Popular Election. 3ly. Tho' Peter did ſpeak to all preſent, yet it does not appear that all preſent did chooſe, but the Apoſtles, for they could tell beſt, who had accompanied them all the time the Lord Jeſus went in and out among them, V. 21, 22. Surely all that were preſent could not tell who thoſe were as the Apoſtles. 4ly. They gave forth their Lotts, V. 26. 5ly: They Prayed to the Lord, to ſhew whether of theſe two Thou haſt choſen, 24. Is this Text clear for Popular Election?
The 6 Acts 3. is the cleareſt for Election, but not of a Paſtor. The 14 Acts 23. is much Controverted, and theſe are all I meet with for Popular Election. But for the other, we have Firſt, God's own Inſtitution. Secondly, We have five Scriptures more in the New Teſtament, which are plain for it, which makes me wonder how it came about that any Men of Learning ſhould put ſo much upon Election, that it ſhould give the Eſſence to a Miniſter.
6. The Peoples Election gives the Eſſence to a Miniſter: What, without his Ac…ptation? No ſure. If ten Churches chooſe a Man, he may reſuſe them every one, he may have Reaſons for it; Where then is the Eſſence their Election gives? my Acceptation is every whit as eſſential to my being a Miniſter, as their Election; why then is the Cauſality given to their Election? To be a Miniſter to them, that they may demand of me, and I be bound to adminiſter all Ordinances to them, by way of Office, I grant here their Election and my Acceptation are eſſential: But to be A Miniſter, hath other Cauſes, where Popular Election hath no Canſality.
That a People muſt ſubject themſelves to a Miniſter, and perſorm all the Duties the Word of Go I require to a Miniſter, and yet not chooſe him, is Tyranny fit for Rome, not for the Church of Chriſt.
This Notion of Popular Election giving the Eſſence to a Miniſter, is the ground of that Witty Diſtinction of a Miniſter's Preaching; if he Preach to his People that Choſe him, then he Preaches as a Miniſler, but if in another Church, then as a Ciſted Brother. And hence they muſt not Adminiſter the Sacraments in another Church, tho' there be need, and the Church deſire; he muſt not Act as a Miniſter beyond them who gave him the Eſſence of a Miniſter: And this they would prove or illuſtrate from a Mayor of a Corporation, who out of his Corporation hath no Power.
Anſ. 1. In a Kingdom or Corporation 'tis ſufficient there be a People firſt, of whom neither the King nor the Mayor are Cauſes in the leaſt; in the Church 'tis not ſufficient there be a People, but ſuch a People, viz. Viſible Saints, of whom God hath Ordained the Miniſtry, to be in his Hand the Inſtrument to make them ſuch. So that the Miniſtry is firſt, and an Inſtrumental Cauſe to make them a People as ſuch.
2. The Work of a Mayor is to Govern only. A Miniſter hath other Work, to feed with Word and Sacraments, which they may do, when called to it, where they cannot Govern, as I ſhew'd before.
3. The Catholick viſible Church, made up of particular viſible Churches, is called foreign, Epheſ. 4.4. 1 Cor. 12.12. and we are all Members of that one Body, and the Members are bound to help one another, elſe 'tis contrary to the Light of Nature, 1 Cor. 12.25. But where do you read that all Corporations and Kingdoms make one Body of Chriſt.
4. I think Paſtors and Teachers are Miniſters; the Apoſtle calls himſelf and others ſo, Miniſters, 1 Cor. 3.5. The Apoſtles were Catholick Paſtors to the Catholick Church *2 Cor. 11.28. The Care of all the Churches.Actu primo & ſecundo depended upon the Call of no Church to Act in that Church al. Acts of Power, yet Miniſters. Hence we ſay the Miniſtry †1 Tim. 1.12. 2 Tim. 4.5. Col. 4.17., not …he Paſtorſhip. I then a Man be a Paſtor of ſuch a Church, both Actu primo & ſecundo, yet he is a Miniſter, and doth habitually actu primo, bear a reſpect to the Catholick Church, and may perform the Acts of a Miniſter to another Church that is in want, and cannot at preſent help themſelves, and call upon him to help; for as he is a Miniſter, that Church which Called him was no Cauſe of that.
What diſſerence is there between the Acts of a Paſtor and a Miniſter? becauſe I read one ſaying. He may Preath as a Miniſter, [which is better than a Giſted Brother] but not as a Paſtor.
This giving the Keye to the Fraternity, as the firſt Subject of them, hath brought in that Sin which Mr. Whan [that Emitrent Servant of Chriſt, and my former Paſtor] calls Koraiſm. *See M…. Quick's Sermo. a… Mr. Faldo's Fun… ral, p. 22.What Mr. Q…ick writes I am both an Eye and Ear-witneſs to: About fitty ſour Years ſince he Preached on Mar. 2.5. in Boſton in New-England, and did think-the P…-man had Faith, becauſe Chriſt tells him, his Sins were forgiven, but no Forgiveneſs without Faith; up roſe one firſt, forſooth he was not ſatisfied, then another after him, then Mr. Cotton our Teacher he took up our Paſtor's Caſe, and defended it, and ten, one after another, fell upon him: Tho' the Text does not ſay, when Jeſus ſaw his, but their Faith, it doth not follow but the Palſie-man might be included in the word their; and his Faith put them on, both the Bearers and Palſie-man had Faith. This was too common in that Church, though the moſt publick, where Seamen and all Strangers came. Sir Henry Vane was the Man that did embolden them, when Miniſters had done Preaching, he would find Queſtions to put to them, though they were Strangers.