The Ancient Christian Religion, Book 4 · Treatise 5
Christianismus Primitivus.
The Fifth TREATISE. THE FOURTH PRINCIPLE OF Christ's Doctrine VINDICATED.
HOw hard a thing it is to bring those sacred Truths of the Gospel, to their due use and estimation in the Church, which have been abused by the corruption of the Ages past, those cannot be ignorant, whose Lot it hath been to labour in that glorious undertaking, which yet is more particularly made manifest at this time, by a late Book intituled, A Treatise of Laying on of Hands. Wherein the Churches adhering to that Principle, are not only represented to the World as founded in Sin, Schism, Error, and Ignorance, by the Author. But the Principle it self also rendred Erronious, *The Principle is this, viz. The promise of the Holy Spirit which God hath made, and Christ obtained for the Church under the New-Testament, and Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands as the way of God for his People wherein to obtain it.and presented to the World with such a robe of Folly put upon it by the vanity of Men in many Ages past, as may expose it to the Mockage of the Ignorant, who know not how to distinguish between Truth, and Mens sinful Adjuncts, wherewith it hath been incumbred; any more than the Souldiers who cloathed Christ in a Purple Robe, and when they had done, derided him. By which kind of dealing, it were easie for the Adversaries of other Truths, as Baptism, and the Table of the Lord, to disgrace them to the World, sith they also have been as much attended with Chrisms, Crossings, Creamings, Exorcisms, Exsufflations, Sponsors, Spittings, Saltings, and Superstitions, or Idolatrous Adoratious, as this despised truth of Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, for the promised Spirit. All which sacred (and in their places precious) Truths shall yet be more fully restored to their Integrity and Estimation in the Churches of Christ, maugre opposition.
His Book consists of two General Parts, the first Historical, shewing the Opinion of other Men concerning the Laying on of Hands. The second Polemical, shewing his own Opinion in opposition to most Men in sundry important Particulars.
1. From the Historical part, with the Title Page, there is somewhat gain'd for the Truth, which he would destroy; whilst he tells us, An Account is given both from Scripture and Antiquity, how it hath been practised in all Ages since Christ. And beginning with the Scripture, he plainly sets down the use of that Service by the Apostles in several places, only he minceth the matter in respect of the end for which they observed it, as hereafter is shewed.
2. He proceeds to other Authorities, about whom he deals not so fair as might be wished▪ and likewise he seems too bold. 1. Not fair: Because he begins with a spurious Author, who would besmear the Truth in question, with Unction, or Chrism, in the first Age; and chiefly he insists upon such Authors, and such passages in those Authors, who express something of their own, or others Vanities, in conjunction of Prayer, and Laying on of Hands, thereby designing (I fear) to make the thing in question, the less acceptable to the Reader. And having done thus, he labours to impeach the Imposition of Hands, (as now contended for) as if Antiquity were not on our side in this Controversie. For the first Testimony of any Credit (in his own Judgment) which is brought by him, is that of Calixtus, (alias Calistus) and having made him the Author of Confirmation, (which indeed he was not) he puts the Mark of Pope upon him, to make the cause he opposes still the more hateful: Whereas, though he were Bishop of the Roman Church about the Year 221, Euseb. Hist. lib. 6. c. 20.yet it is certain, the Popedom (as now commonly understood) had then no being in that Church. True it is, Calistus had his Mistakes, or Errors, as well as other Fathers, and yet some, whom the Author mentions with greater Estimation, had as great (or greater) Mistakes than he. However, all that can fairly be said in this case against Calistus, is, that he helped forward the use of Oyl in the service of Prayer, with the Imposition of Hands; but Laying on of Hands, (called by some Confirmation) was in use in the Churches long before, as now I shall shew.
For sith we have Scriptures, Acts 8. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Acts 19. 6. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Heb. 6. 2. most clearly shewing the practice of Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, for the Promised Spirit, (we shall more fully demonstrate in our second Part) we shall not need to produce any other Witness for that Age; and for the second, we have better evidence than Dynis, or Justin Martyr's Responses. For Tertullian (whom this Author tells us he had quoted, pag. 26. but strangely mistakes himself, having not mentioned him, nor any Sentence out of him) is our Witness for the second Century, in which he lived and flourished in the Year 202, in the profession of Christianity, under Severus, and Antonius, and wrote an Apology about that time for the Christians, and therefore must needs be able to give an account of the usage of the Church in the second Century, his words are these: Tertul. de Baptismo.When we are come out of the Laver, [meaning Baptism] afterward the Hand is laid on by Blessing, [meaning by Prayer] calling upon, and inviting the Holy Ghost. And again, Tertul. de Resurrect.Like as in Baptism the Flesh is washed, that the Soul may be made clean; so in Laying on of Resurrect. Hands the flesh is over-shadowed, that the Soul may be illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, We find in Eusebius expresly, Eusebius lib. 7. cap. 2.Prayer, and Laying on of Hands on Persons to be united to the Church, called, The ANTIENT MANNER, and this was about the middle of this Century, or Age, wherein Turtullian lived, being in the days of Stephen, Bishop of the Roman Church, Anno. 256. and here is not the least mention of Chrysm, *And for the Ʋnction mentioned in Tertul. de Bap. its shewed by the Learned Protestants to be that which was used at Baptism, and not at laying on of Hands.or any vain Ceremony. Sith then that this Service is said to be Ancient at that time, it may well refer to the Apostolical Century, being but about 150 Years upward; however, it's full evidence for the Practice in the second Century, which is sufficient for our present purpose.
These Witnesses may also serve for the third Century, living (as before) both in the second and third, to whom we may add Urban, Bishop of the Roman Church, whose words as cited by the Author, are very harmless words (abating the term Sacrament, &c.) which be these: That the Sacrament of Confirmation be immediately given after Baptism, and that all the F…ful are to wait for the Spirit, by the Imposition of the B. Hands.
Cyprian.Cyprian also, who flourished about the middle of the 3d Cent. gives Testimony to the Practice now contended for, saying, It is to little purpose to lay Hands on them [that returned from Heresie] unless they receive also the Baptism of the Church, for then at the length they may be sanctified perfectly, &c.
For the fourth Century, though enough is done by this Author, to shew they were for Prayer, with Imposition of Hands after Baptism, for the Spirit of Promise; yet sith their Witness may be more clearly set down, I will add somewhat in that behalf.
And how ever Melchiades is *Sure I am, in this Mans days, both Christians and all Men, had free liberty to serve God as they see they ought, this Man not seeking to hinder it, which is not like the Popes of our days. He governed the Roman Church, Anno 312. and it certainly gratifies the Papists too much, to acknowledg Popes to have been ever since the time of Clement, as Mr. D. is pleased to do, pag. 7.Popisied, yet his Doctrine is not so dangerous as pretended: For when he saith, Baptism, and Imposition of Hands, are to be joyned together, he is very consonant to the Apostles Practice, Acts 8. and to their Writings, Heb. 6. 2. And when he saith, The one is not to be done without the other, his meaning may be honest. As if a Man should say, You ought not to observe one Ordinance alone, but keep them all. And his saying, The one is not perfect alone: If he mean, that the perfection of one Ordinance is not such, but that we have need of the rest, all is well enough still; but if he mean Baptism, as such is not perfect without the other, then for my part I think otherwise. But supposing him mistaken in some things touching this Matter, yet sure his Errors were as tollerable as theirs, that would destroy the thing altogether.
Jerom.Jerome (who flourished Anno 390, under Valentinian junior, does not only say, That it is the Custom of the Church, that upon the Baptized Hands should be imposed: But he also saith, It's an observation Apostolical, (which he might well say, Acts 8. Acts 19. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 6.) And plainly saith, It is found in the Acts of the Apostles.
Augustin.Augustine, who lived 395, in the Reign of Theodosius, informs us, That Hands were laid upon Hereticks (returning to the Church) for the uniting of Charity, which is the greatest Gift of the Holy Ghost. Which well agrees with the Author, who brings him in, saying, Imposition of Hands after Baptism was necessary for the Gifts of the Spirit.
Thus much for the Fathers. We shall now observe briesly, what Mr. D. hath brought out of the Councils, touching the point in Controversie.
Conc. Laod.And first, I observe, He fronts his List of them, with the Council of Laodicea, Anno 315, rather than with the Council of Eliberius, which bears Date (even from his own Pen) five Years before the other; the Reason is manifest. For though the first set down speaks not a word of Imposition of Hands, or Confirmation, yet it mentions Chrism; and the other speaks plainly of Imposition of Hands, but mentions not Chrism. Therefore that the Reader might more stumble at the Truth in hand, he hath occasion given to do so by the strange Phrases of the Council of Laodicea; and yet this Author pretends to take up the stumbling-blocks out of the way of God's People.
Well, for matter of Fact: However these Councils may witness for the Imposition of Hands (at least that of Eliberius) in the 3d and 4th Centuries, they living the greatest part of their Time (probably) in the third. That we have much elder Evidence than this, may, I conceive, be fairly collected (yet I will speak under Correction) from the 72 Epistle of Cyprian, written to Stephen, Bishop of the Roman Church, Conc. Elib.about 50 Years before the Council of Eliberius; in which one Reason rendred, why the Council of Carthage before that time had concluded for the Baptizing of returning Hereticks, is grounded upon the unprofitableness of Imposition of Hands without it; which shews that both this Council and Cyprian approved thereof. Now add that forecited out of Eusebius, Cyprian.That in the Days of this writing between Cyprian and Stephen, Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, was called the Ancient Manner, &c. Then we infer, that here were Fathers in this Council with Cyprian, who were sufficient evidence for the Practice contended for, for the second Century. For if there were any at that Council aged 70, or 80 Years, they then had lived so much of their time in the second Century, as to be able to attest of their own knowledg the Practice now called Ancient. And for the first Century, the Scripture is our Canon. So then, we have sufficient evidence from Scripture, and good Antiquity, that this Truth began to be practised in the Apostles Days, and continued in the Churches for four hundred Years together; (not without Corruption creeping into it, I grant, and alas! that was the case of most Truths, as well as of that.)
It were needless to proceed to the following Ages, from which more plenty of Testimonies may be produced, the Church encreasing, and Records being more carefully preserved, than they could be in the first Ages, yet here I will add that notable Testimony of the Council of Mentz, or Moguntine, who saith: †Sacramentum Confirmationis ab initio sola manuum Impositione, exhibitum: Nam cum initio Spiritus Sanctus, ad evidentiorem recentis ad hine fidei Confirmationem signo visibili influerit confirmatis, externa Ʋnctione tum opus non erat.In the beginning, the Sacrament of Confirmation was exhibited only by the Imposition of Hands, the Holy Ghost appearing by evident Signs, there was no need of outward Anointing. The same is testified, Intervil. chap. 16. The Sacrament of Confirmation was celebrated in the beginning only with the Laying on of Hands. And saith Alex. de Hales, The Apostles confirmed with the only Imposition of Hands, without any certain form of Words, or outward Element. Thus the purity of Truth in this, as in other Cases, is evidenced even by those that have not kept it in the Purity thereof. Now whereas I said, this Author was too bold, &c. my meaning is in this, That he so confidently tells us, the Greek Church did reject Imposition of Hands, &c. and that the Waldenses did the like; for such Negatives are hard to be demonstrated. For what if some, or many of them did reject it, yet if many, or some of them did receive it, what then is become of this Negation? That they did reject (or at least many of them) the Popish Sacrament of Confirmation, in respect of divers usages therein, I can readily believe, but that they did reject Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, I see no good reason to believe: Partly, for that we have an account from a great Antiquary of the form of Words, and of the Prayer used by the Greek Church, in their Imposition of Hands, translated out of the Greek Euchologian: foreign, &c. Thou, O Lord, the most Compassionate and Great King of all, graciously impart to this Person, the Gift of thy Holy, Almighty, and Adorable Spirit. *The form of words used in their Confirmation, is so far from a rejection of all that the Papists hold in that Point, that they seem to have too great affinity therewith, viz. Sigillaros primo sclicet unctos unguento Chrismatis & signantes eos dicimus sigillum doni Spiritûs Sancti.Partly, for that some of the Grecian Bishops are certainly found to approve of Prayer, with Laying on of Hands; as Eusebius for example: Who not only Records it (as I shewed before) for the Ancient Manner of the Church, but also reckons it amongst the Errors of Novatus, for that he slighted the Imposition of Hands, for the obtaining the Holy Spirit, lib. 6. chap. 42. From whose neglect, it's like his Followers (whom this Author so highly commends) did also lightly esteem it to their own reproach; and the ill example of Mr. D. and others, in this and former Ages.
Greg. Naz. Theodor.Again, Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoret, both Grecians, are alledged by the said Antiquary, as giving evidence for the Truth in Controversie; calling it, A holy Mystagogy, wherein they that are initiated, receive as in a shadow, the invisible Grace of the most holy Spirit.
I have not the History whence this Author fetches the Testimony concerning the Waldensian Brethren their rejecting Imposition of Hands; nor need much be said to it, sith from the very Passage alledged by him, it appears not that they were Enemies to Prayer, with putting on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, but only of those Vanities wherewith it was incumbred in the Papacy.
For to say nothing of the slender evasion of that Testimony born by some of them to that Truth, alledged pag. 27. which is no better an Argument than if he would prove us his Brethren, not to be of the Baptized Churches, because we presented to King Charles the Second an Apology, or Confession of Faith, wherein we asserted Laying on of Hands, and the General Point, or Christ's Death for all Men; when yet divers of our Christian Brethren, no less fearing God than our selves, do oppose us in both Particulars, and print against us. Yea, in their Addresses to Authorities, do present (perhaps) something contrary to us in these Particulars. What then? Are either they, or we therefore to be accounted none of the Baptized Churches? God forbid. In like manner those called Hussites, are not to be denied to be Waldenses, because of some variation about Imposition of Hands; sith it's evident, such diversities have befallen in one thing or other, the most serious Christians in every Age. But I say, to let this pass,
Perrin.The very passage cited out of Paul Perrin, pag. 329. &c. proves not that for which it is brought, for the things denied in that Sentence, are: First, That the Sacrament of Confirmation was instituted by Christ; meaning the Popish Sacrament, they having occasion only to witness against that. Secondly, That Christ was not Confirmed in his own Person. Meaning in the Popish way of Chrism, &c. Luke 3. 21, 22. Job 6. 27.[For that he prayed, and that the Father (who only could seal him) did seal him with the Holy Ghost immediately after his Baptism, is evident; and so he was Confirmed in his own Person.] Thirdly, That Baptism is perfect without that Sacrament. Hereby only rejecting their conceit that think, or make it an appurtenance of Baptism. That this only is their meaning, is evident. For, say they, God is blasphemed by it. 2. It was introduced by the instigation of the Devil, to seduce the People, and deprive them of the Faith of the Church. 3. To draw them to believe Ceremonies, and the necessity of Bishops. [Meaning doubtless Lord Bishops, &c. and not the Overseers of Christ's poor People.]
But surely, No Man can imagine that those Waldenses were so Madheaded, to say, or think; that Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, for the Spirit of Promise, according to the Example of the Apostles, simply so considered, and as the next priviledg to holy Baptism, was introduced by the Devil! No, himself is not offended thereat, pag. 51. And truly, should the Waldenses have had such a meaning, their Testimony for our Churches Succession, would be very inconsiderable.
Wherefore (to suppose some of them ignorant of what some Churches in this Age do know concerning the simplicity of this Practice, having so continual occasion from the Papist to be scandalized against it) shall this plead for you to follow them in that particular? I tro not. Our Fore-fathers may find that tolerable in the Day of Judgment, which we shall not find so, having the advantages which they were not acquainted with. Wherefore, though it be the unworthy design of this Author, in the Historical part of his Book, to make the Imposition of Hands (as now contended for by his Brethren) to be originally a Papistical, Babylonish, and Antichristian Ceremony, not used by the Greeks, or any other Churches differing from the Papists, (except our late Reformers, some of them) yet this being little more than his bare word; it may be sufficient to ballance him with the Testimony of Dr. Jer. Taylor. Who saith,
Dr. Taylor.That Laying on of Hands, was firmly believed by all the Primitive Church, and became an universal Practice in all Ages; the Latine Church and the Greek always did use it. — It was Ancient, and long before Popery entered into the World; and this Rite hath been more abused by Popery than any thing. And to this Day the Bigots (or Jesuites of the Roman Church) are the greatest Enemies to it, and from them the Presbyterians.
Yea, such is the evidence of this despised Truth, that Mr. Calvin, a Man sufficiently (and yet justly) sharp against Chrism, and such Vanities; yet is constrained to own the primitive use of this Ordinance, (so I call it) and desires once and again it were restored; and because the Author hath not fully set down his words, I will here recite them. Calvin.Such Laying on of Hands (saith he) as is done simply, instead of Blessing, I Praise, and would that it were at this Day restored to the pure use thereof. And again, I would to God we did keep still the manner which I have said, to have been in Old Time. Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 19. S. 4. and S. 13. To whose good desires, we may joyn those of Hommius, and the Leyden Professors, set down by Mr. D. pag. 27. viz. That this business of Confirmation, was drained from Antichristian mixtures, both as to Name, Nature, Matter, Form, Administrator, and Subject also. From all which it's remarkable, That there hath been as holy Breathings after the Restoration of this pretious Truth, as other of the Paths of Righteousness; and therefore the more intollerable it is for this Author, or any other now to oppose themselves against it, being now as graciously restored to its pure Use in many Churches of Christ, as any other Ordinance whatsoever.
So that by this time I hope it is apparent, how little reason the Author had to ask this insinuating Question, pag. 32. Is there not good ground, think you, to suspect the justice and truth of that Cause that cannot otherwise be defended, nor maintained, but by suborned Witnesses, and Knights of the Post? For truly, as these Witnesses are not suborned, but in the rank of Humane Testimonies for matter of Fact very considerable, so neither is it true, that there are no better ways to maintain this Truth, seeing the Divine Authority of this sacred Truth standeth not upon Man, but upon the Word of God; as we have in some former Treatises, and shall now again in our second Part, further demonstrate.
The Second Part.
TO say nothing here of this Author's Exceptions against the grounds and ends for, or from which, others, beside the Baptized Christians, do observe Prayer, with Imposition of Hands. But to leave them to their own defence, we shall consider briefly the force of his Opposition against his Brethren; among whom, respecting the practice of Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands, he very well observes,
First, The Name which we (or rather the Lord) gives this Rite, viz. Laying on of Hands.
Secondly, The Subjects, viz. All Baptized Believers, Men and Women, [Even as God hath made his Promise of the Spirit to both Men and Women.]
Thirdly, The Administrators, viz. The Elders, or Presbyters, [Or Messengers of Christ and his Churches]; who, as they are all Stewards of the Mysteries of God, of which this of Laying on of Hands was one, they must needs be Dispensers of it with the rest.
Fourthly, The end of the Promised Spirit to confirm the Baptized, and orderly to admit into the Church. [To Confirm, only as the Ways of God do; all help to Edifie, and strengthen God's People.]
Fifthly, The time and order in which this is administred, between Baptism and the Supper, or presently after Baptism.
Sixthly, The Principal Ground upon which they assert it, viz. The Scripture, especially from Heb. 6. 2. Acts 8. 17. & 19. 2. 6.
When he comes to oppose us in these Particulars, pag. 40. he inverts the Order here propounded, and begins with the last Particular in the first place; but first he premises several things. And first he is pleased to say,
That we do not affirm, or deliver our opinion upon Heb. 6. 2. with so much Modesty, or Sobriety, as the Presbyterians, or Independents; and the reason is only, because we determine plainly what by Laying on of Hands is meant, Heb. 6. 2. and pass it not only as a probability, or to this purpose.
To this I answer, That this is so far from Insobriety, that there is a necessity that we be positive in this Case; else it must be granted that this first Principle cannot be known, and then it supposes no Man able to teach another which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God. And indeed, upon this Rock hath he run himself, after all his Expositions on Heb. 6. 2. And is forced, pag. 49. to suppose, that he is not able to tell us, what by Laying on of Hands is intended, Heb. 6. 2. and gives this as a reason of his *But alas, its more than a Supposition: for if he do not know infallibly which it is, why doth he not tell us which it is, and why are we counted immodest for shewing positively, unless he arrogate more to himself than he will allow us?Supposition, viz. There are many things in Paul's Epistles, which are hard and difficult to be understood, which (says he) the Ignorant do wrest. Which sentence he hath verified: for not knowing what to say, concerning Heb. 6. 2. certainly, he hath (by saying many things at a venture) exceedingly wrested this place. And first, By supposing this Laying on of Hands, to be one of the hard things in Paul's Epistles; the contrary being most plain: For these Principles, Heb. 6. 1, 2. are opposed to the things that are hard to be uttered, Heb. 5. being also called Milk for Babes, and not strong Meat. As also, because the Hebrew Christians are blamed, for that they might have been (and were not) Teachers of these Principles, but needed to be taught again which were the First Principles. Yea verily, this is to make all things in Christianity hard and difficult: For if the first Rudiments be so, what can be easie?
It is high time therefore for the Author, and others with him, to see the vanity of these pretences, and speedily to consider, that there is as much need to be positive in the business of the Fourth Principle, Heb. 6. 2. as any of the rest; and that a Teacher may with as much ground and credit, plead Ignorance to them all, as to any one of them. And how dangerous it is to make Principles (or any of them) but Probabilities only, a Man that hath but half an Eye may easily perceive. Secondly, He sets down two Principles (as he calls them) to be as a Line to carry us through the Work, *As if the Author's Principles were more Infallible than those in Heb. 6.viz.
1. That to every Ordinance of Christ, there must be some plain positive word of Institution to confirm it.
2. To practise any thing in the Worship of God for an Ordinance of his, without an Institution, is Will-worship and Superstition.
But surely, the first of these Propositions is not taken without some such Exposition as this, viz. That what any Man affirms to be a solemn part of the Worship of God, for the Church of God, it must be warranted by the holy Scriptures without wresting them. But the Author taking the first Proposition in a rigid sense, counts all we say from Heb. 6. 2. as nothing, unless we can shew where it's said, Let all Baptized Believers have Hands laid on them, with as much plainness as it's said, Let all Believers be baptized, and eat the Lord's Supper. But this is very irrational to imagine, that every Institution of Christ must be expressed in the Scripture with equal Plainness; for if they be but found there, it is sufficient. Nay, the very Ordinances he mentions, are not equal in their plainness, in respect of the Individuals that are to partake of them; Precept, and President, being in that behalf much plainer for Baptism than the Lord's Table. Again, The Government of the Church by Messengers, Bishops, and Deacons, &c. is an Institution of Christ. But if I ask for a Precept in terminis, that in the Ordination of these Officers, Prayer and Imposition of Hands, must be used, I dare say he cannot shew it. Neither is he able to shew me any President, that any but the Apostles, laid Hands on Deacons; nor any President at all, of any one Elder of any particular Church, that was ordained by Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands, yet surely there is sufficient in the Scriptures to warrant us in these things respectively. And thus we shall come to consider more particularly, what he hath done to clear the same of Heb. 6. as he promises in his Title Page, and yet in his Lines pretends it cannot be cleared; as I have shewed. Heb. 6. 1, 2.Whilst the most he himself arrives at, or allows us (with his Good-liking) to attain to, is but Probability, pag. 40.
For the ground of our Practice in praying to the Lord, with the Impoposition of Hands, the connexion of the Principles, or the order wherein they are propounded to us, is eminently considerable; because Principles, or first Rudiments of Religion, both in Faith and Practice, (as they are practical) do equally concern Individuals, both in respect of the things so denominated, and the order of them (except in cases of immergency) as is more fully shewed in our S. for Peace, Part the second.
Pag. 41. He denies that there is the least warranty in this Text for the Faith, or Practice of the Church, in praying with the Imposition of Hands, &c. And yet in the next page, he tells us, It is very true, the Doctrine of Laying on of Hands, is here reckoned among the Principles of the Doctrines of Christ: But withal he denies Laying on of Hands on all Baptized Believers to be taught, or practised by Christ; observing from the Waldenses, that John did not lay Hands upon Christ after he baptized him, &c.
I answer, Christ himself being he that was sent of God to Baptize with the Holy Ghost, as the great Author of that Donation from the Father, it was not meet that John should pray for Christ; yet behold the very Order wherein Christ received the Spirit, is very teachable to the Saints, in their waiting upon God for that Heavenly Gift: For when he was Baptized, then he Prayed, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him, being then sealed by God the Father, who also by Voice from Heaven, declared him to be his beloved Son, Mat. 3. 16, 17. Luke 3. 21. John 6. 27. How suitable therefore is it, to the Example of Christ, for all such as are Baptized, speedily to wait upon God for the Gift of his Holy Spirit, with Prayer, and Imposition of Hands, having the Apostles walking in that very Path before us; and God Almighty crowning that Way, by giving a Blessing to his Children, even then sealing them also to the Day of Redemption, by the Spirit of Promise, Acts 19. 6. Ephes. 1. 13. and 4. 30.
But saith he, We find not that Christ taught this Laying on of Hands, &c. To which it were sufficient to say, That we do not find where Christ elther taught, or practised Laying on of Hands on Deacons, or other Officers: All that we find, is, That he lifted up his Hands and blessed his Apostles. And yet who dare doubt, but that the Apostles were taught of God, how to Ordain his Ministers? And there is the same Reason to believe they were taught of God to Pray, with Laying on of Hands, for the Promised Spirit, specially when God so signally owned them in that Undertaking, Acts 8. 17.
He names many Churches, that are not said to have Hands laid on them: And that to be reckoned among their Principles, which is so frivolous an Objection, as I marvel he should use it. He knows there be some Churches who are not said to be Baptized, nor to have the Lord's Table among them, nor any Church save one, to have had Deacons ordained by Laying on of Hands; and yet finding these things Religiously held in some Churches, we safely conclude other Churches had the like. And why may not the Example of two or three Churches, in the case of Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, satisfie, as well as the Example of one Church only in another case?
Page 43. He puts this Objection, Why should Laying on of Hands be reckoned among the beginning Principles, if it was not to be practised by all, &c. Which he answers after this manner: Your Argument is fallacious, as though no Act done upon, or practised by others, might be Matter of Doctrine to us, without being engaged to do the same.
But I reply, That the Argument being used, only with respect to things Fundamental, or the first Principles of Christian Religion, is very sound and concluding, (and therefore not answered nor touched by the Author's extending it to all other Acts, but disingenuously abused) for both the Doctrine and Practice of all the Principles, Heb. 6. 1, 2. belongs equally to all; otherwise it will follow, that the first Churches had the Principles of Religion, both in the Doctrinal and Practical parts, but we must have only the Theory, we must learn them, but not practise them. For thus saith he, pag. 45. Believers must be thought it, (meaning Laying on of Hands) but that they are obliged therefore to practise it, is not here (i. e. in Heb. 6.) or else-where to be found. Surely, this is the way to destroy such Principles as are practical, to leave nothing of them in the Churches now, but talking of them only.
Again, He being pressed by the consideration of Laying on of Hands, as it is Milk for Babes in Christ, undertakes to shew, that some other Laying on of Hands may be that also; and names the Imposition of Hands to heal the Sick, ver. 16, 18.
Answer. Surely he may with as much truth and reason tell us, That the drinking any deadly Poyson, Mark 16. 18. is Milk for Babes in Christ also. This is the effect of Mens stumbling at Truth, they make themselves ridiculous: For who would think that so judicious a Person should make that a Principle, and such an one too as belongs to all Christians equally, as it is a Principle, which indeed scarce belongs to one of ten thousand? Again, Laying on of Hands to heal the Sick, belongs to them that are without (the sick Persons in the Church, having a special Ordinance provided for their comfort in Sickness, Jam. 5.) and therefore not to be called Milk for Babes in the Church. But suppose that Laying on of Hands to heal the Sick, do at all belong to the Church, yet the oldest Christian is as much concerned in it, as the youngest Christian, who being Sick, may seek for Cure that way as well as the other. Neither is this Laying on of Hands properly called Confirmation, as he imagines, pag. 44. for the word was confirmed with Signs, which followed Prayer and Preaching, as well as Laying on of Hands on the Sick; Yea, Prayer, and Laying on of Hands on Baptized Believers, had Signs also following them: so then all these may as properly be called Confirmation, as any one of them, and yet he will not allow Imposition of Hands for the Holy Spirit, to be properly so called. But, Similis simili est ratio. And to conclude this, note further, That seeing Imposition of Hands for the Holy Spirit, is for the obtaining of Spiritual Gifts, and the Imposition of Hands on the Sick, for the exercise of Spiritual Gifts received; the first is even therefore much more like to be Milk for Babes, than the latter.
He further saith, Laying on of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. contains that for the Investiture of Church-Officers; and his reason is, because these Principles are very comprehensive. He saith also, That the Lord's Supper may pass for a beginning-Teaching as well as Baptism. He tells us also, That the Laying on of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. is as plural as Baptism, pag. 43, 50, 51.
1. I answer, To make Imposition of Hands on Deacons, and other Officers, a Principle appertaining to the beginning of a Christian Man, is very absurd: because First-Principles are necessary to the being of Churches; whereas the Imposition of Hands on Officers, presupposes a Church already founded, and, as such, to have made their Election of some to manage their Affairs as a Church; after which Election, the Laying on of Hands to ratifie it, is to be performed.
2. His circumspection in thus expounding Heb. 6. 2. may well be suspected. For doth he indeed make it his work to preach, That Laying on of Hands, which is the next Principle to Baptism, Heb. 6. is the Imposition of Hands on Deacons? &c. Doth he, I say, teach the Babes this, as he teacheth the other five Principles? I believe, if he do so, he is singular. Sure I am, before the Controversy arose, about Laying on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, none of them (that I could ever hear of) said any thing at all about the Imposition of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. And as I have reason to believe, that there is not one Minister in those Churches, not under the Fourth Principle, as by us urged, that doth teach the Babes that they must recieve as that Principle, Heb. 6. that Doctrine touching the Investiture of Church-Officers: so if they did teach thus, I would gladly know the ground of such Doctrine at least from some example in that Case. And I am sure, all the Objections made by them against us, would be far more forceable against themselves.
3. I grant the Principles, Heb. 6. to be very Comprehensive; yet as Principles to be owned by Babes in Christ, I say, they do not contain all Christian Performances. For if so, it would follow that few, or none have yet learned their Principles; and then why the Apostles should make it so strange that the Hebrews should need to be taught these Principles, I can see no reason. So then, the Principles, Heb. 6. 1, 2. may be duly learned, where many things in point of Christian Faith and Practice, are not yet attained. The Foundation I grant, hath relation to the Superstructure, but yet the Foundation may be perfectly laid where the Superstructure is yet wanting. The Seed-time and Planting leads to the Harvest, and time of Fruit, but yet these things are truly separable.
4. To make the Lord's Supper pass for a beginning-Teaching, as well as Baptism, is presumption indeed. The one appertaining only to the New-born, for admission into the Church; the other to the most grown Christian (as well as others) for his Edification. And one would think that he who must have such plain Scripture for what we urge as Beginning-Principles, should not thus vary from his own Rule, when he assigns any thing for such.
5. I fear he is somewhat guilty — of pertinacity, in saying, the Laying on of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. is as plural as Baptisms, seeing he cannot be ignorant how Mr. Fisher hath unvailed that mistake in answer to a Query, wherein I think he was concerned; which, as he terms a grievous and gross mistake, so he shews that the Laying on, Heb. 6. 2. is a substantive of the singular number, both in the Greek and English. And some of the learned and judicious of his own party, have (to my knowledg) confessed that to be an egregious mistake: And sith he gives no reason for his persisting in his former opinion, but barely contradicts his Opponents, it is to me very suspicious, that he hath nothing to defend himself withal, save his Sic volo, sic jubeo.
And here let me note, That seeing Heb. 6. 2. speaks but of one Laying on of Hands, there is a necessity that we determine which it is, else we must confess none can know the First Principles. But to take off the force of our Arguments for the necessity of Imposition of Hands, with prayer for the Holy Spirit, as a Principle in the more compleat Constitution of Christian Churches, he is pleased to ask this Question.
If every one of these Principles in Heb. 6. are so absolutely to be taken in by Babes, and without which we are not to esteem them communicable, what do you say to the Doctrine of Baptisms in the Text, one of the Principles and Foundations of the Gospel? must all be baptized with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and of Sufferings also, or not to be received into Communion?
Answ. 1. The reception of the Holy Spirit, according to the Promise made to the Church, is not a thing in our power; but the means to seek for it, is in our Power. We must believe and pray for the Promise, so must we also believe and wait for the Resurrection, and Eternal Judgment. And so must we believe and expect Sufferings for Christ, else we have not rightly laid the Foundation in respect of the Doctrine of Baptisms. But now, to argue from the things which are in our power to do, to the things which are only in the Power and Disposing of the Almighty, is irrational and dangerous, and may be retorted upon the Author after this manner. Seeing you suppose a Man may be admitted to Communion without two Baptisms of the three, Heb. 6. 2. Why do you make the other so absolutely necessary? Now let him defend himself for that Practical part of the Doctrine of Baptisms, and thereby he will defend me for that Practick part of the Fourth Principle.
2. But if any should deny the Promise of the Spirit, with which all Christians are to pray that they may be Baptized, [contrary to the late dangerous Doctrine of some, who would restrain the Baptism of the Spirit to miraculous Gifts, Operations, or Signs, &c. and perswade us, the Baptism of the Spirit is ceased,] or that shall deny the Doctrine of Sufferings, or Sufferings themselves, as not pertaining to them. Or if any shall teach others to deny these Truths, as you teach others to deny Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, and will needs persist in opposing themselves against all endeavours used to reform and amend them; I say, such may lawfully be denied Communion in the Churches of God. And thus we have considered his several Expositions upon Heb. 6. 2.
Of the Laying on of Hands, 2 Tim. 1. 6.
Neither hath this Author wrote advisedly, pag. 48. where he teacheth that the Imposition of Hands, 2 Tim. 1. 6. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. are both one, for as much as they are evidently distinguished in three respects. As first▪
In respect of the Persons administring them. That in 2 Tim. 1. 6. being performed by Paul only, The Laying on of my Hands. The other by more than he, 1 Tim. 4. 14. The Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery. Surely, if more had acted in the first than Paul himself, he would not have arrogated the whole Service to himself, as if the Blessing received came by what he did, and the rest stood but for Ciphers; no, this is nothing like that humble Apostle, who was less in his own eye than the least of all Saints. Neither can it be proved that he was one of the Presbytery that ordained Timothy, (though he concludes he was) though perhaps he might be one of them.
2. The Gifts are clearly distinguished. Those 2 Tim. 1. 6. being the Gifts which are common to all Saints, as much as to Timothy: Namely, 1. The Spirit of Love, which all that are born of God, do share in by the Holy Ghost, Rom. 5. 5. 2. Power, or Strength, foreign, virtutis, not foreign, potestas, Authority; and this strength all Saints have need of. 3. foreign Sobrietatis, Sobriety, or soundness of Mind, which also every true Christian should have. Hence it's plain, that the Gift of God which Timothy received by the Laying on of Hands, 2 Tim. 1. 6. in every part of it, is that which is common to all Saints; in so much as he that hath not the Spirit of Christ in these respects, may well fear he is none of his.
On the other side, It is evident to all Men that Paul in 1 Tim. 4. 14. speaks of the Ministerial Gift, Authority, or Truth, which was committed to Timothy by the consent of the Prophets, and by the Laying on of the Eldership.
3. From the Scope of the Apostle in these places respectively. For in 1 Tim. 4. 14. Paul is clearly in hand with the matters of Timothy's Office, ver. 11. to the end. But in 2 Tim. 1. 6. he speaks to him as he might have spoke to any other Christian, Man, or Woman; for finding him under some Temptation and Fears, he comforts him, by telling him he hoped his Faith was unfeigned; and supports him against Fear, by noting, that it was not the effect of the Spirit which God gave him by the putting on of his Hands, and therefore exhorts him not to be ashamed of the Testimony of the Lord, nor of Paul the Lord's Prisoner, but to be a partaker of the Affliction according to the Power of God. Then he moves him to consider how free the Grace of God was, by which he is saved, and not to be valued by the Works of Righteousness which he had done; and thus he speaks from ver. 1. to ver. 13. and then begins to treat of the business of his Office, the whole Matter and Contexture of the former part of the Chapter, being such as touched not his Office, but his State as a Christian. This Text being duly considered, helps more to the opening Heb. 6. 2. than any other place, in this respect, viz. For that it plainly shews the common Graces of the Spirit were as really the end of Prayer, with the Imposition of Hands, as the Gifts which are notified by many.
Nor is it material which some object in this Case, that foreign is interpreted elsewhere of Miraculous Gifts, &c. Because, 1. If the Interpreter had so done, he had forsaken the proper scope of the Apostle, whose business being to support Timothy against Fear, &c. the Spirit of inward grace and fortitude, was most suitable to be insisted on to that purpose. 2. Because the word foreign, is frequently used to express inward Strength, or fortitude of Mind: For example, 1 Cor. 12. 10. foreign, potens sum, I am strong, or when I am weak, then I am strong, Ephes. 6. 10. foreign, Confortamini in Domino, be strong in the Lord.
Of the meaning of Acts 8. 15, 17. & 19. 2, 6.
How clear places these are that the Apostles prayed with Laying on of Hands for the newly Baptized indifferently, even for both Men and Women, that they might receive the Spirit of Promise; and that as generally as Baptism it self was performed in the Cities of Samaria, and Ephesus, and by consequence first at Jerusalem, and so in other places also. I need say but little in this place, having fully spoken to these things, in my S. for Peace, and Pedo-Bapt. Apol. which are yet unanswered; yet I shall endeavour to shew the Mistakes of the Author concerning them. And first,
He will needs suppose Peter and John to perform Prayer, with Imposition of Hands at Samaria, by virtue of their extraordinary Gifts, not being willing to allow their Office as Ministers, or Apostles, to have any thing to do with that Action: but this is far from truth. For if extraordinary Gifts had sufficiently capacitated Men to do this Work, without Ministerial Authority, Philip the Deacon, being eminently gifted that way, might have imposed Hands for the Promised Spirit, as well as Peter and John; yet he meddles not with this Service at all, neither his Office as a Deacon, nor his Gifts to do Wonders, impowering him thereto in his own Judgment: For had he been otherwise minded, or understood his priviledg to be such as he supposed it to be, he had opportunity and occasion enough to do that Work, as well as any other. But his forbearance is an argument he knew, it did not belong to his Ministry in an ordinary way, sith there was a Ministry to be had, to whom that and other things for the settlement of the Church, did more properly belong. Wherefore we must needs reject that passage, pag. 6. where he tells us, The Administrator of Laying on of Hands, was any gifted Believer, &c. By which conceit, even Women, from whom extraordinary Gifts are not withheld, might administer this Service.
But that this was an act of Office, appears partly by what is already said, and partly for that the Church at Jerusalem sent not Gifted Brethren only, but Men endowed with Authority, to set in order such things as were wanting in that Church; which though much prepared for settlement by the labours of Philip, yet cannot rationally be supposed to be so settled as was meet; for it is said, Only they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And the first thing we hear they do for them, is to pray they may receive the Holy Ghost, &c. And this they did for them all, both Men and Women, as is in part granted by Mr. D. whilst he grants it to be performed upon those on whom the Holy Ghost was not fallen; and saith the Text, He was fallen on none of them. Yet he would make an exception of some of them, because Simon was found in the Gall of bitterness. But this corruption appearing not till after the service of Prayer, with Laying on of Hands, was performed, it concludes not at all but that Simon might be included in the Prayer of the Apostles, and have Hands laid on him also; yea, and receive of those Gifts too, seeing God doth not withhold them from Hypocrites. And beside, the words of Peter denying him to have any part or lot in that Matter, refer to the Administration of the Ordinance, and not to his submission to it; Give me this Power also, that on whomsoever I lay my Hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. In this Matter Peter denies Simon to have any part.
Furthermore, He doth certainly mistake Acts 19. 2. in saying the Twelve Disciples at Ephesus were of the Church, whereas the Scripture and Reason, do both inform us they could not be Imbodied with the Church there as yet, because they are now said to be found, and called certain Disciples, the words implying they were hitherto unknown: For otherwise, Why should they be said to be found by Paul, more than the whole Church, if indeed they had been a part of the Church? Again, Their great ignorance of the Holy Ghost, shews plainly they were not united to the Body, or Church at Ephesus, where doubtless Aquila and Priscilla, had not been wanting to teach the Way of the Lord perfectly. And lastly, Their being baptized again, shews plainly they were not of the Church: *You see, I do adhere to the Ancient Exposition of this place, rather than to our late Curtail'd Expositions made by the Pedo-Baptists, who because they are unwilling to mend their Errors in Baptism, would fain have Paul to be of their mind, but they should remember that Reformation or amendment is no Error.For if they had, why must not the Church also be baptized again as well as they?
Now therefore, let it be considered, That had there been 120 instead of these twelve Persons, in the same case with themselves, the Question of the Apostle, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? had concern'd them all; and then he must be but a partial Minister that would refuse to pray for all, seeing all wanted the same Blessing, and had equal right to it by virtue of the same Promise. And that Paul had an eye to the Promise, as it is general, is most plain, by his next Question; Unto what then were ye baptized? As if he should say, your very Baptism, if it be right, did inform you of, and intitle to the Promise of the Holy Ghost, into whose Name also ye ought to be baptized.
Thus, I trust, we have sufficiently cleared the first Ground of our Religious observation of Prayer, with the Imposition of Hands for the Promised Spirit. 1. From the consideration of the Nature, Order, or Connexion of the Principles, as they are contained and propounded, Heb. 6. 1, 2. 2. From the care of the Apostles, in seeking to God in the use of this †So I call it, for five Causes, 1. Because of Prayer, the Moral part. 2. Because of Imposition of Hands, the Ritual part. 3. Because of the Promise to which it refers, as the Blessing signified by it. 4. Because it is placed among the Fundamentals of Religion or called a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ. 5. Because it will bear the denomination of an Ordinance, as well as Imposition of Hands on Deacons, or other Officers of Christs Church.Ordinance, that the Churches might enjoy the benefit of the Promise of the Holy Spirit, which they knew belonged to them, as they were the called of the Lord. And because the nature and extent of that great Gospel-Promise is a weighty consideration, whereupon to ground the practice of Prayer, with the Imposition of Hands, and without which the Practice would be very insignificant; I shall therefore add something, to shew the perpetual right of the Church to that blessed Promise, even to the end of the World. For it is remarkable, That those that oppose us in the Fourth Principle, deal much after the manner of the Quakers in their opposing Baptism, hammering only upon the Practick part, which they can easily despise; but when the more Spiritual part of these Ordinances is considered, this takes off the Courage of the most confident Opposer.
Of the second Ground of the Practice of Prayer, and Laying on of Hands; to wit, the Promise of the Spirit, and the Churches Right to it, to the end of the World.
The Author is pleased to say, pag. 47. That in neither of those two places [meaning Acts 8. Acts 19.] can we find that there was a Laying on of Hands immediately after Baptism, nor with any certainty upon all and every Member of the Church. Nor to such an end as can be attainable in after Times.
Answ. 1. But though he cannot find the two first, yet many have found them there: Unless by the word immediately, he would be more curious than wise, for that this Service was performed, Acts 8. within a short time after, and as soon as they had a fit opportunity to do it, is plain enough, ver. 15, 16, 17. And for Acts 19. 5. 'tis said, When they heard this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And in the very next words, 'tis said, When Paul had laid his Hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.
And that the same Individuals said to be Baptized, are as clearly found to have Hands imposed, and Prayer made for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, is so very plain, that nothing but exceeding weakness, or great perversness can hinder any Man from seeing it. And whether the end for which Prayer, with Imposition of Hands can now be attained, is the Business now to be considered.
And if it cannot, the reason is, for that the Promise made to the Church then, is since taken away de jure, so that we may not lawfully ask it. For Men not having the Promise, is no Argument: James 4. 2, 3. — Ye have not, because ye ask not; ye ask and have not, because ye ask amiss.
Now, that the gracious Promise of the Holy Spirit (at least) as it belonged to the Members of the Church in the Primitive Times, and that in every part of it, from the time of its first effusion upon the Day of Penticost, Acts 2. doth belong to the Church throughout all Ages, to the end of the World; I hope hath been evinced to the satisfaction of such as desire to know the Truth, in the second part of the 2d Book.*But Note that we have proved that the Promised Spirit is truly received where the Sealing Graces are received, though Gifts be not received, and the Promise being received, the end of Imposition of Hands is received: See our Sigh for Peace.
Beside, The Cloud of Witnesses, ‖Some of which I will here insert in a Column by themselves. John 14. 16, 17. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth. John 7. 38. He that believeth on me — out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of Living Water, — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on his Name should receive. Acts 2. 23. Therefore being by the right Hand of the Father exalted, and having received of the Father the Promise of the Spirit, he hath shed forth that which you now see and hear. Acts 2. 38, 39. For the Promise is to you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call, ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Eph. 4. 4, 11. There is one Body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling. — And he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, — till we all come to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Ephes. 4. 30. — The Holy Spirit of God, by which ye are sealed to the Day of Redemption. 1. Cor. 31. Covet earnestly the best Gifts. — Covet to Prophesie, and forbid not to speak with Tongues. We Prophesie in part, — but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. Gal. 3. 13, 14. Christ hath redeemed us, — that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that they might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith. Isa. 59. 21. As for me, this is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord, My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put into thy Mouth, shall not depart out of thy Mouth, nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed, from hence forth for ever.which the holy Scriptures do afford in this Case, we shall more particularly consider what the Apostle hath offered, 1 Cor. 12. 13, 14. Chapters. And 1. Whereas it is his designed Subject, to discourse of the Gifts of the Spirit: So he doth inform us, that God hath set those Gifts in his Church, i. e. hath placed and fixed that one Spirit (whose operations are divers, or many) in that one Body, not for a few days only, and then to leave her as a Body without a Spirit for ever after, in respect of SPIRITUAL GIFTS, but to abide there as in his Temple, both by Gifts and Graces, even the same, which Christ by virtue of his Ascention obtained; when He ascended on High; which Gifts are given to the Church for the Work of the Ministry, for the edification of the Body, till the whole be compleated.
What shall I say? The Scriptures are evidence sufficient that this Ordinance is of Divine Institution, is from Heaven. The Promise which it leads to, is Perpetual and Universal, it belongs to the whole Body. There is one Body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your Calling.
Neither is there any reason for the Author to be astonished, (as he pretends, pag. 35.) because we urge him to produce better Evidence for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper; or clearer Precept, or President for the Ordination of Officers by Prayer, and Laying on of Hands, than we are able to produce in our Case; nor need he count this a thing either unreasonable, or dangerous, &c.
For how should this be dangerous? May not the grounds of one Practice be examined as well as another? Or why unreasonable? Are not our Brethren bound to stand to their Principles one time as well as another? Or will they impose Principles to lead us through the whole Work, and not be lead by them themselves?
For my part, I am fully satisfied there is sufficient ground in holy Scripture for Womens coming to the Table of the Lord; and for the Ordination of Church Officers by Prayer, and Laying on of Hands. And I do solemnly profess, to dislike any Principle, or Practice in Religion, which cannot fairly be demonstrated by the Evidence of holy Scripture: But yet, this I must needs say, That there is as clear (if not clearer) grounds for the Fourth Principle, as we hold it, as there is for either of the other Points, specially the latter. For first, Womens receiving at the Lord's Table, it is gathered by a rational deduction from the holy Scripture, as appears by Mr. D. pag. 54. wherein he hath done well, as others in the same Case have done before him: Yet should any Man use his own Weapons against him, which he uses against his Brethren, they might worst him, because of his Inconsistency, though his Cause be good.
2. In all the Scripture, there is no express command to lay Hands on Deacons, nor any example that Prayer was used at all in their Ordination, nor that any but Apostles ordained such Officers, and but one Example for that neither; and for Elders of particular Congregations, not one example that Hands were imposed on them, or Prayer used in the act of their Ordination, nor any plain Precept for so doing (as is said before). Yet this Author is satisfied in these things, and thinks 2 Tim. 5. 22. a full precept for Imposing Hands upon Officers, (howbeit his Brethren, no less judicious than himself, believe no such thing, as is seen in their Search for Schism). And to speak as it is, this place is an express Prohibition to lay Hands on any Man suddenly. And though it may hence be inferred, that Hands ought to be laid on some Men deliberately; yet this is a Consequence, and when so much is granted, he is yet to prove that this is meant of Officers (for some think otherwise) and here he must use our Logick, from Heb. 6. 2. It can be no other, Ergo it must be that on Officers. And his Antecedent must be demonstrated by Reason, with which he may easily satisfie me. But if another will not be satisfied with him, I cannot help him; because he denies the same Reason in our Case, which he makes use of in his own.
By this it may appear, how little cause he had to be grieved at us, as if we should slight the Wisdom, or Authority of Christ; or as if we should think we had not sufficient direction in the Scripture, for all parts of God's Worship; for we do cordially believe these holy Directions to be sufficient: Yet as one of the Ancients truly said, these things are so penned, As that he that will learn, may learn; and he that will cavil, may find occasion. And the truth is, those are they whose arguings do render these Directions insufficient, who destroy, or condemn the same reason in another, which they allow in themselves, specially when they become Pertinacious.
Sufficient therefore is that which hath been said, if not to convert them (in this particular) yet to leave them without excuse.
But to the residue, who have stumbled at this Truth, either through our default, in not asserting this Truth as was meet; or their own, in not duly considering what we say, or through those unhappy Divisions which have fallen out, through the heats of Men, intemperately Zealous on either side; I say to those, I now address my self;
Declaring in all faithfulness, that though the Truth in question is to me as dear as other Truths, (and therefore am resolved; what in me is, to defend it with the rest) yet I stand ready to abate whatsoever, upon a fair Trial, may appear too harsh, or any way justly offensive as to the business of Separation; not doubting (though I was unconcern'd in the original of the Division) that he hath too much cause to complain of some, whose unkindness to their Brethren, in the ill management of a good Cause might prejudice the Truth it self; but withal, I must tell him, he was too short in that he did not also blame some of his own Party, whose Impatience and Imprudence, too much provoked to that Division, which by all means should have been prevented. And let me be faithful to him, in remembring him of the saying, Medice cura teipsum: For he that blames another for making unnatural Separations, should remember, that he that judges another, and doth the same thing, is in danger of the Judgment of God.
The Conclusion.
Finally, I am resolved to meet my Opposite (after all this Conflict) in that friendly and moderate Passage wherein at length he delivers himself, saying, Pag. 51. We are not offended at a Practice of that kind, be it Lifting up, or Laying on of Hands, provided it be not urged as a thing of absolute necessity.
To which, I say, Let the Spirit of opposition to the Practice of Prayer with Imposition of Hands for the Spirit of God, but be laid aside, that the Truth may grow as God shall enlighten his People in it; and then let an Expedient be concluded, for settling all the Churches concern'd in such a state, as may comport with the Peace of the whole, and the Prosperity of every part.
A Defence of the Office of Subordinate Apostles of Christ, or Messengers of his Churches, and the perpetuity of his Ministry by Divine Institution, for the more orderly Promulgation of the Gospel, and the better settlement of Churches to the end of the World.
SEeing all sorts of Christians do allow of an Itinerate, or Travelling Ministry, as necessary to promulgate, publish, or preach the Gospel where it is not known, and to strengthen the Churches of God, specially where there is a Paucity, or Insufficiency of Instruments; it may therefore seem strange that any should give occasion to write a defence of that which themselves do allow; and yet so it falleth out at this time, through some mistake, partly about the Titles, or Appellations prefixed, and partly about the nature of the Institution of this Ministry, whether it be Divine, or of Humane Prudence only?
But surely, for Men to strain more at the word Apostle, [as some do at the word Bishop] than at the Work, or Office signified thereby, is no other thing (as I conceive) than groundless Humility, or hypocritical Subtilty; seeing it is evident, that these Titles are as lowly, as any that can be given to suit with the Matter thereby intended: [Apostle] signifying a Messenger, or Sent: [Bishop] importing an Overseer.
Therefore that I may avoid this Humour, I will not fear to call Old things by their old names, and therefore shall call the Officers of Christ's Church by the same names which the Wisdom of God hath given them; not to make Men proud, but rather humble, being fitted as a memento concerning the Work, which by their Office they stand engaged to do.
What the meaning of the other Scruple should be, which supposes the Office of Messengers or Apostles, as aforesaid, to be only of humane Prudence, and not of Divine Institution, is to me very suspicious, being in effect to make all the Offices in the Church of Christ to be no Divine Institutes, which yet I hope will not be hastily asserted; however, it is by us here affirmed, That the Office of Messengers or Apostles, as aforesaid, is of Divine Institution, in the same manner as the Office of Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, and not otherwise.
Wherefore, albeit we do say, that as other Officers in the Church have Successors, so the Apostles also have some to succeed them, yet our meaning is not that they, to wit, the chief Apostles, have any to succeed them in all the parts of their Office; because there were some things in their Office extraordinary and temporary, and some things ordinary and fixed; the latter are the things by us to be insisted upon only, but for the former we say,
In what respect there are now no Apostles.That it is certainly a very sinful and impious thing for any to pretend to any Power or Office Apostolical like that of the Twelve, or others of that Dignity, in respect
1. Of their immediate Mission, which was so much like the Mission of our great Apostle Christ himself, that he saith, As my Father sent me, so send I you.
2. They learned their Doctrine either from the sacred Lips of the Lord Christ, or received it by infallible Revelation of the Holy Ghost, and were not taught it by Man, Mat. 28. 19, 20 Gal. 1. 1. 2 Tim. 1. 13.as Timothy and other their Successors were, Heb. 2. 3. — so great Salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him, 1 John 1. 1, 5. That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled the Word of Life, — that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you. Gal. 1. 11, 12. But I certifie you, Brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me, was not after Man: for I neither received it of Man, neither was I taught it, but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
3. They were to lay an Infallible Foundation, and to deliver Rules for Government, which all other Teachers are to build upon, and to observe as their Pattern and Standard, by which to try other Doctrines and Spirits; 1 Cor. 3. 10. — As a wise Master builder I have laid the Foundation, and another buildeth thereon. 1 John 4. 6. He that knoweth God, heareth us; he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Error.
4. They were necessarily endowed with the Gift of Tongues, Miracles, Signs, or mighty Deeds, to demonstrate that they were sent of God, and that their Doctrine was from Heaven: Luke 24. 49. But tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem, until ye be endowed with Power from on high. 2 Cor. 12. 12. Truly the Signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in Signs, Wonders, and mighty Deeds. Heb. 2. 4. God also bearing them witness with divers Signs, Miracles, and Gifts of the Holy Ghost. In these and the like respects, the chief Apostles can have none to succeed them; for if they had, then must their Words and Writings have the same force and authority; and thus we should still be receiving new Oracles, and so never know when the whole Counsel of God is made known to us. Howbeit this we do say,
In what respect there are …w Apostles.That God hath given to his Church, a Ministry of Messengers or Apostles, (though much inferior) yet truly to succeed the first Apostles, in such things as were ordinary and fixed to that Office: As,
1. In respect of lawful Power, or Authority, to preach the Gospel in all Places, at all Times, to all Persons, as occasion and opportunity by God's Providence shall be given them. Mark 16. 15. Mat. 28. 19, 20.
2. Unwearied diligence in teaching and strengthning both Pastors and Churches, (chiefly those which are but newly setled in the Faith) in all the Counsel of God; and by labouring to perfect that which is lacking concerning the Faith of any Churches. Act. 20. 31. Act. 19. 1, — 6. 2 Cor. 11. 28. 2 Pet. 1. 12, 13, 14, 15. Tit. 1. 5.
3. In being set for a Defence of the Gospel, or Doctrine once delivered, against false Apostles, or such as would introduce false Doctrines, Phil. 1. 16, 17. 1 Tim. 1. 3. and also to strengthen the hands of particular Pastors against Usurpers, or such as despise the Ministers of Christ, 3 Epist. John 5. 1 Tim. 1. 17. Gal. 4. 17, 18.
Now that the chief Apostles have some to succed them in the Apostleship, as we have affirmed, in these and the like Services, as we have now declared: Will appear,
1. From a due consideration of the perpetuity of every part of that Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 15, 16.
2. From the duration of these Spiritual Gifts which our Lord obtained, and gave to his Church by virtue of his Ascension.
3. From the Order and State of the Primitive Churches, their having such Apostles or Messengers, and the non-abrogation thereof, by good authority to this day.
4. From the Practice of those who most question the being of a Ministry of Messengers, or Apostles, in the Churches at this day.
5. From the State of the World, their necessity to be taught the Truth as it is in Jesus, and the danger they lie under by means of false Apostles.
First from the Commission, Mat. 28. Mark 16. It is very evident that it is the Will of God that the Nations be taught, and that the Gospel should be preached to every Creature: so that we must of necessity stick to one thing out of three, and that is, Either some body in special are bound to preach the Gospel to those that are without, to the Nations that know it not; or else that all Christians are equally bound to perform this Work, if capable, in respect of Gifts; or else that this Work ended with the Apostles.
The last of these will not be said by any that considers, how the making void any one branch of that Commission, as not obliging the Church, or any Person in it, is in effect to make the whole Commission void; for seeing there is nothing more plain, than that this Commission did once impower a Ministry of Messengers or Apostles to preach the Gospel to the Nations; if this great part of the Commission shall be supposed to be vanished, and no Man bound thereby to preach the Gospel, how can any Man, with shew of Truth or Reason, pretend any Power by virtue of this Commission to baptize, sith both works are commanded, as it were, in one breath? Neither can the Church be truly said to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded his Apostles, if they do not observe this great Work, to preach the Gospel to the World, by Men endowed with fit Power to do it.
Nor can it rationally be said that this Work belongs to every Gifted Christian alike, because the imployment of the Gospel consists in divers Offices; and all such Members have not the same Office, meer Gifts do not (in any ordinary way) make Men Officers in any part of the Ministry; and that the Teaching, Mat. 28. and the Preaching, Mark 16. is a preaching, not by virtue of Gift only, but by Office or Authority also, cannot be denied; and doubtless as this Work of preaching the Gospel to the World, or those that are without, requires the greatest Abilities, so it requires the greatest Care, that none do enter into that Ministry without fit Qualifications, and Authority to go forth to plant, and settle Churches, according to the Pattern of the first and best Apostles, Phil. 3. 17. But they that would have this Work no Man's concern, by virtue of Office, (and no Officer in the Church, as such, is bound to do this Work, unless he be an Apostle or Messenger) whilst such deny the being of a Ministry of this nature, they contradict themselves, in sending Men about this great Affair; or if they be not sent, then we demand how they can preach? And the Answer must be silence for ought I can say, sith extraordinary Missions are not by wise Men pretended.
Objection. Against what is said from the Commission, it is objected, 1. That this place contains the Authority, by which all that are Christ's Ministers do preach or officiate in any ministerial capacity. 2. Others more wise (as themselves believe) tell us this place gives no such Authority at all, to any Ministers of Christ, but this Commission was only for the Apostles, to whom it was first delivered, &c.
Answer. To the first Objection I answer, by granting what is said to be very true; but saying withal, That this confirms rather than weakens that which we have for the Messengers Office; for here our Lord being invested with all Power, in Heaven and in Earth, gives a Commission for preaching the Gospel, baptizing the Converts, and for teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he commanded to the end of the World; and hitherto we have believed that no Power Ministerial, contained in this Commission, died with the Apostles: and therefore the second Objection appears, levissimus fructus ingenii, like some light or undigested Matter; for how should any solid Christian once imagin that any thing here commanded, is not obliging to the Church? especially the Objectors, who, whilst they hold that here is a Commission for baptizing to the end of the World, they can with no fairness deny a Commission here also for teaching them who are to be baptized; otherwise they must inform us when this mischief befel this Commission, Mat. 28. that it lost its force, for enabling us to preach to the Nations, and yet kept full power to enable us to baptize Disciples.
2. That there is such a Ministry of Messengers or Apostles as we have defined, of right remaining to the Church to the end of the World, is yet more evident, from the fixedness of the Gifts bestowed on the Church through the ascension of Christ, Ephes. 4. When he ascended up on high — he gave Gifts — and he gave some Apostles and some Prophets, &c. — till we all come to the unity of the Faith, &c. See 1 Cor. 12. 28. Here we observe the Gift of God's Spirit is that which fits Men for the Ministry; this Ministry so fitted, is fixed in the Church to the end of the World; part of this Ministry are Apostles, and therefore to continue in the Church to the end of the World. Diodat takes the word Apostles here in a strict sense, yet grants that the Ministry here spoken of, is to remain in the Church till the end of the World: I conceive he had been more consistant, if he had here taken the word Apostles largely, as he doth elsewhere, namely in Rom. 16. 7. & 2 Cor. 8. 23. Phil. 2. 25. where, as he grants the Title of Apostle to have been given to many beside the chief Apostles, so he interprets it to intimate a larger ministerial or pastoral Authority, than is committed to particular Elders.
However, the Text Ephes. 4. gives being to the Ministry of Apostles in the Church of Christ, till the whole Church be perfected, as clearly as to Pastors and Teachers; and a Man may as soon deprive the Church of the latter, as of the former; but in vain are the attempts of Men to deprive her of either.
Our third Argument is taken from the Order of the Primitive Churches, who certainly had many Apostles, beside those which were Foundation-Layers, and Master-Builders, such were Andronicus and Junia, Rom. 16. 7. who are said to be Men of Note among the Apostles. Assemb. Divines, on Rom. 6. 17. The word Apostles (say they) is ascribed not to the twelve alone, but in a larger sense to other Doctors and Ministers of the Church. Dr. Ham. on Rom. 16. foreign signifies primarily that Office whereto the 12 were set apart by Christ immediately, and so Paul and Barnabas; secondarily, it belongs to others that receive the like Commission from the 12, or from Paul, &c.By Apostles here some do understand the LXX, and that these two were of note among them; however they were Apostles, and Men of note in that Ministry: for, it is a strange Interpretation, to turn the words thus, They were noted by the Apostles, being a plain perversion of the Text from its native sense.
Of this sort of Ministers, in all probability (and 'tis the Opinion of some Interpreters), were those mentioned in 3 Ep. John, who are said to go forth for the Names sake of Christ, taking nothing of the Gentiles; whom Gaius is commended for courteously entertaining, and Diotrephes reproved for rejecting. For, had not these Brethren been sent to preach, I see not how John should sharply reprehend them that received them not, nor stir up Gaius to bring them on their Journey whithersoever they would go. But John's care of them, and his holding them in reputation, and defending them against Opposers of their Ministry, and there-withal their forsaking all for the Name of Christ, preaching freely to the Gentiles that they might be saved, shews that they were the Ministers and Messengers of Christ, and the Churches: otherwise if they ran before they were sent, they could not manage the great Affairs of the Gospel among the Gentiles; Dr. Hammond on 3 Ep. John, calls these brethren the Ministers of Christ. But they were not Pastors of particular Churches. Ergo, Itinerate Ministers or Messengers of Christ, and the Churches.nor doth their being termed Brethren only, argue that they were not in ministerial capacity; for we find the same phrase used concerning those that are expresly called the Apostles or Messengers of the Churches, and the Glory of Christ, 2 Cor. 8. 23. foreign.
To say those Brethren, 2 Cor. 8. were Messengers or Apostles, only as they were sent with contribution from the Gentile Churches to the Church at Jerusalem (as some would have it) is a very cold Exposition, (and justly slighted by our best Expositors). For first it cannot be proved that they were employed in that business at all; or if it could, how should they for this service be called the Glory of Christ? Surely this Character must refer to their being intrusted with better Treasure than Silver or Gold, sith either Brethren or Sisters, of very ordinary capacity, (if faithful) might have been sent with earthly Treasure.
Epaphroditus is not only called the Apostle or Messenger of the Church at Philippi, but Paul's Companion also, and fellow-Souldier: which shews that though he might bring the Churches Bounty to Paul, yet this did not confer upon him the title of Apostle, sith he had a greater Imployment which better deserved that Title, even to War in the Holy Warfare of the Gospel, as Paul himself did.
Of this sort of Ministers of the Gospel were Barnabas, Luke, Mark, Sylas, *Some take Silus and Silvanus to he the same Man, but it is uncertain, wherefore I note both.Silvanus, Tichicus, Trophimus, and Apollos; as appears by their being frequently Fellow-Travellers, and Fellow-Labourers in the Gospel with the Apostles; concerning whom I argue thus.
These Persons were Ministers of the Gospel, and not gifted Brethren only; but they were not Ministers of particular Churches. Therefore their Office was general, and by consequence Messengers or Apostles. The Major is true, otherwise they ran before they were sent; and then how could they Preach? Rom. 10. or be Fellow-Labourers with Paul? The Minor is out of doubt, because of their unfixedness in respect of place, (as before we have said) being frequent Travellers through sundry Countries upon the Business of the Gospel; and some of them are expresly called the Apostles of Christ; 1 Thess. 1. 1. Here Silvanus is joined with Paul, as speaking by this Epistle to the Thessalonians. And Chap. 2. 6. it is thus said, Nor of Men sought we glory, when we might have been burthensome, as the Apostles of Christ. Here Silvanus is as openly called an Apostle of Christ, as Paul himself: Of this Opinion was the Assembly of Divines, see their *Their words are these, We might have taken upon us, and exercised our Apostolical Authority, as might befit the Ambassadors of Christ, yet we took a contrary course.Annotations.
Timotheus is evidently a Minister of the same Order, as appears from the place even now alleaged, in which as Paul and Silvanus, so also Timotheus is expresly called an Apostle of Christ; which is yet further evident, from the tenor of those Epistles which Paul sent to him, 1 Tim. 1. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, — that thou shouldst warn some that they teach no other Doctrine, so do. Now had Timothy's Charge been only at Ephesus, as the Pastor of that Church only, there had been no need to beseech him to abide there, it being not unknown to him, that it was by all means needful for particular Pastors, to reside near their respective Congregations, and not to go to Forreign Countries to manage the Affairs of other Churches: But evident it is that Timothy was Paul's Fellow-Traveller in divers Countries, and frequently sent by him to sundry Churches, from the time he was called to go forth with the Apostle, till Paul sent for the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, which was not long before he was a Prisoner; see to this purpose Act. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4. & 17. 25. & 18. 5. & 19. 22. & 24. 4, 10, 18.
And though in a certain Postscript added to 2 Ep. to Timothy, he is called the first Bishop of the Church at Ephesus; yet this cannot be true, seeing the Church at Ephesus had Bishops, Acts 20. even when Timothy was a Fellow-Traveller with the Apostle Paul in divers Countries. Nor are the Ancients positive in this Matter, for I find Eusebius only saying, That it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Grete, but he affirms it not. But this we know is plain, that Timothy's care was as much for other Churches as that at Ephesus, Phil. 2. 19, 20. I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus unto you, — for I have no Man like minded, who will naturally care for your state. — But ye know the proof of him, that as a Son with the Father he hath served with me in the Gospel. Finally, I could shew that in the Writings of the Ancients, Timotheus was frequently called Timothy the Apostle; and so was Clement, and divers others; *Theodoret saith these called Bishops, were in the first times called Apostles. D. Hammond.and why this Appellation should now be thought strange by any that have considered these things, I cannot easily imagin. But to proceed;
Of Titus the same consideration may be had, seeing he was left in Crete to set in order things that were wanting, and to ordain Elders in every Church; plainly shewing, that his Power in the Affairs of the Gospel, and his Care for the Churches, was the same for every Church that it was for any of them, which is a far different Charge from that which was given to the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, Acts 20. for they are not bid to look to all the Churches in Asia, but only to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops or Overseers. Neither was Titus his care for the Churches in Crete only, for Paul calls him his Partner and Fellow helper concerning the Church at Corinth, 2 Cor. 8. 23.
Of the same import is that place, Gal. 1. 18, 19. I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter. — but other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's Brother. Here James the Lord's Brother is called an Apostle, and yet he was not one of the Twelve, for that James is called the Son of Alpheus, Mat. 10. 3. and of this mind is Eusebius. Jerom indeed would sometimes make these two the same Man, yet other-whiles he calls him decimum tertium Apostolum, i. e. the thirteenth Apostle. But that James the Lord's Brother was not one of the Twelve, may be collected from 1 Cor. 15. 5, to 8. our Lord is said to appear, first to Cephas, then to the Twelve; after that he was seen of James, then of all the Apostles. Here we see James distinguished from the Twelve Apostles, and the Twelve are distinguished from all the Apostles. By all the Apostles therefore are meant (probably) the Seventy, whom Jesus sent forth by two and two, to the places whither himself would go, who were sent forth with these words, foreign, I Apostolize, or send you, &c. Luke 10. 3. and these became famous Preachers and Officers in the Church after the Ascension of our Lord, as Eusebius and others have intimated in their Writings. We see then partly, from evident places of Scripture, and partly from rational demonstration of the places which probably hold forth such things, that the Primitive Churches were endowed with a Ministry of many Messengers or Apostles, beside those who were the Foundation-Layers, and Master-Builders in the Church of Christ.
The sum of that which hath been said, from the State or Order of the first Churches, lieth in this Syllogism.
The first Churches had a Ministry of many Apostles or Messengers, beside the chief Apostles.
This Ministry was never taken away, or de jure made to cease.
Therefore the Church of Christ hath, or ought to have, such a Ministry of Apostles or Messengers to the end of the World.
Objection. Against this it is objected, That though it be true, that the Primitive Churches had a Ministry of Messengers or Apostles, beside the chief Apostles; and that the Church ought now to send her Ministers to preach to the World to gather and settle Churches, &c. yet it is denied that either the former or latter Messengers of the Churches, are or were the Apostles †The twelve Apostles and Paul are here excepted.of Christ, or that they were, or any other are, Messengers or Apostles by Divine Institution.
To this Objection I answer, Mat. 16. 18. Heb. 3. 6.That as the Church is of Divine Institution by Christ, so are all her Officers; in whose Name she sends them forth, and not in her own Name, or in the Name of any other Creature, and so of no humane Institution, nor to act in their Ministry by humane Authority.
2. We have shewed some of those Inferior Apostles of Christ, from 1 Thess. 2. 6. which may be further evinced from 2 Cor. 5. where Timothy is called in conjunction with the Apostle Paul, an Ambassador of Christ, [now then we are Ambassadors for Christ]: and it's granted by the Learned, that foreign, here rendred Legatione, or Ambassador, is a word of the same import with that of Apostle: Hence the Argument is, If Timothy was an Ambassador for Christ, then he was an Apostle or Messenger of Christ. But, &c. Ergo,
3. That this Office is of Divine Institution, may appear thus; It is either of Divine or Humane Institution; not of Humane, Ergo, of Divine Institution. Or thus,
If any other Offices in the Church (as Bishops, Elders, or Deacons) be of Divine Institution, then the Office of Subordinate Messengers or Apostles (such as Timothy and Titus) is of Divine Institution also. But, &c. Ergo.
If any deny the Minor, he is too far gone in Error to be disputed with by me. And for the consequence of the Major, 'tis thus demonstrated.
Such as by virtue of their Office are to ordain others to Offices that are Divine, must themselves have an Office that is Divine: But Timothy and Titus, and other such Messengers, are to ordain others, by virtue of their Office, to Offices which are Divine.
Ergo, They had, and ought themselves, to have an Office which is Divine.
That Timothy and Titus were, by virtue of their Office, to ordain Bishops and Deacons, is evident enough by those Epistles which the Apostle Paul wrote to them respectively. And that they should do this, and have no Divine Authority, is not to be imagined; sith here they were not upon an immergency, (which may alter the case) but in the ordinary course of the exercise of their Ministerial Authority in the Churches of Christ.
4. Our fourth Argument is taken from the practice of our Brethren, who question the Being of Messengers, as a Ministry remaining in the Church at this day. For, do they not frequently send forth Men to act Authoritatively, both in preaching to the World, and setting things in order in remote Congregations, to exercise Discipline by Excommunication of Offenders, and remitting the Penitent; by ordaining them Elders, and dispensing to them the Holy Mysteries or Ordinances? As these things cannot be denied, so we may justly require how it comes to pass that they do thus, if indeed the Church hath none to act in the capacity of Messengers or Apostles, as we have defined? sith it cannot be proved, neither do our Brethren affirm, That Elders of particular Churches have equal Power, or any Power as Elders in other Churches: Neither is it in the Power of any Congregation to take the Pastor of another Church from them, nor may any Church impose their Pastor upon another Church: wherefore, unless there be a Ministry remaining in the Church, which is related by virtue of their Commission to all Churches indifferently, we may perceive what confusion is like to ensue.
For, if those who go to preach to the World, cannot justifie their Calling, as being inabled with lawful Power from God, and his Church; how shall they comfort themselves in their Undertakings, or answer Opposers when questioned, concerning their Commission, especially in such places where the Holy Scriptures are received? sith all that read may know, that as the Gospel is to be preached, so those that go forth as Ministers thereof, must be sent, either by immediate Mission from Heaven, or some mediate Mission from him by his Church, which none can pretend to, who deny the Office of Messengers, because other Officers are not by virtue of their Office, to go out into the World to teach the Nations, to plant Churches in remote Countries, or to settle the Affairs of remote Congregations.
If now to that which we have said, it should be replied, That such Churches as want Elders, and are distinct from one another, may allow by consent, that the Elders of one Church do act as Elders in another, &c.
To this we rejoyn, saying, This is sooner said than proved: for seeing Officers have their Commission at what time they are ordained, it cannot be that they should have their Power, de jure, made either less or greater, by the consent or non-consent of any Person or Persons whatsoever, unless it be by conferring another Office upon him; nor can that be done, but by another Ordination.
Again, it would be understood how long the Power given by our Brethren, to Elders of one Church, to act as Elders in another Church, doth remain? Whether they thence-forth stand equally engaged to oversee those Churches as the Church who first called them to serve as Pastors? And also how many Churches such Elders may act in as Pastors by consent? whether two only, or ten, or an hundred, and ad infinitum? Surely, if once they give particular Pastors power to act as Pastors in more Congregations than they were at the time of their Ordination appointed to over-see, they can never bound their Power; And then what Messenger of the Church did ever exceed them in that respect? And further, if our Brethren can give their Pastors power to act as Pastors in many Churches for a Month, or a Year; then why not for five or ten Years, yea, for term of life, the occasion still being the same? And how much comes this short of the Power committed to any Messenger in the World at this day? Wherefore seeing your Brethren do exercise as great Authority in sending Men to Preach, or to exercise Ministerial Authority in the Churches of Christ as we do, it is strange they should dislike us for calling those Officers by such a Name as the Scriptures give them, rather than by such a Name as is exclusive of that Power which of necessity they put into exercise, whether they minister to the World, or to the Churches.
True it is, Peter calls himself an Elder, and that he was an Elder in one Church as well as in another; but this was because he had an Office which was comprehensive of all Offices in the Church. And hence it is that we find the Apostles sometimes performing the Office of Deacons, when it might be done without let to the preaching of the Word, Acts 6. 2. Gal. 2. 9, 10. But though it be true, the greater does thus contain the less, yet the less does not contain the greater, for it's evident that the Office of a Pastor of a particular Congregation, and a Charge to Teach all Nations, and to Oversee all Churches, are things inconsistent to the same Person.
What may or ought to be done in Preaching the Gospel by Persons gifted in the Church, as a general Duty or Priviledg, it is not my business here to discourse, but only to shew what is the true intent of the Offices which he hath ordained in his Church: otherwise it were easie to shew, That God hath not only provided a liberty in his Church for the modest exercise of the Gifts of his Spirit, that the Church may be edified; But also when by his Providence any Gifted Disciples are exposed to remote Places, or otherwise called to testifie their Faith, they may then lawfully Evangelize or Preach the Gospel, as is evident both from Holy Scripture, Act. 8. 4, 5. and other very Ancient Authors. See Socrates Scholasticus, l. 1. c. 15, 16.
5. Our last Argument is from the state of the World, in respect of their continual need to be taught the Gospel in the ancient purity thereof, and the rather, because of false Apostles which are gone out into the World, and do corrupt the Word by sundry Artifices, to the hindrance of the Salvation of Mankind.
The World is God's Harvest, where-into he is pleased to send his Labourers; and the Church is commanded to Pray, that the Lord of the Harvest would send forth more and painful Labourers into his Harvest, Luke 10. Now these Labourers (at least generally) must be such as are in Ministerial Capacity to Preach the Gospel; and they can no way so well be understood of any particular Function in the Ministry, as that of Messengers, partly for that the other Ministers are bound to particular Churches, (as is shewed before) partly for that our Saviour gave this direction to his Church, upon the occasion of sending forth an Inferior Order of Apostles or Messengers, to wit, the Seventy. *Which may serve to give some light to the Divine Institution of the Office which we contend for, seeing those that are given to the Ministry at the Prayer of the Church, are here said to be sent by the Lord, and they that are sent by the Lord into his Harvest, are sent by Divine Authority.And hence I argue, If it be the Duty of the Church in all Ages, to pray to the Lord that he would send forth such a Ministry into the World, there is not any room left for any to doubt of the continuance of such an Office, as that of Messengers or Apostles, as by us asserted; for that very clause of being sent, and that as Lambs in the midst of Wolves, doth still more familiarly inform us what manner of Ministers these Labourers are. A necessity thereof lieth upon the Church to dispose of her Members to that needful Work, as the Lord vouchsafes to fit them for it, lest otherwise she be like those which make many Prayers, for that they never intend to do, but rather to hinder the doing thereof.
It is certain the Church hath no power to cause the World to come to her Assemblies; and yet considering that the Gospel is for the Illumination of all, it must needs be, that God should yet have his Ambassadors to beseech the World in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God; even as one Fruit of Christ's Ascension, is a Gift for the Rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell among them, Psal. 68. 18. which being compared with Ephes. 4. may very well be interpreted of a gifted Ministry, to turn rebellious Sinners from Darkness to Light, and from the Power of Satan to God. To which agrees John 16. 8. where our Lord doth assure his Disciples, that when he should send the Holy Ghost, he should convince the World of Sin, of Righteousness, and of Judgment; and this no doubt, as he should operate or work upon Men by the Ministry of the Word; which Promise either ended with that Age (which is absurd to think) or else remains to this day, it supposes a Ministry to hold forth to the World the everlasting Gospel, for the Obedience of Faith, such I mean as are bound by their Office, as Debtor to the Wise and Unwise, to preach to them that are without.
There is no doubt but Satan hath his Apostles in the World at this day, as well as in times past, 2 Cor. 11. It were strange if our Lord should have none to withstand them, with an Are they Apostles? So am I; as well as with an Are they Bishops or Elders? so am I. And it's observable Paul did not deny the Appellation of Apostle to others beside himself, and the chief Apostles; whereas had it been unlawful to be called so, he had a ready way to discover them to be Deceivers, even by their saying their professing themselves Apostles, was proof sufficient; but this Argument he never mentions, but vindicates himself, by shewing he was not inferior to them, no, not to the chief Apostle. The Church, Rev. 2. 2. is not commended for denying any to be Apostles beside the Foundation-Layers, but for trying them which said they were Apostles, and were not, and found them Lyars. And like as if any shall arise, saying, I am Christ; his very saying so would be the best evidence he is a Lyar, (seeing there is one only Lord Jesus Christ); so, if there were no more Apostles than the Twelve, &c. it were one of the easiest things in the World to discover a false Apostle, because his saying he was an Apostle, would be the badg to know him for a Deceiver.
Finally; The Gospel must be preached in all the World, for a Witness to all Nations, and then shall the end come, Matth. 24. 14. which supposes the being of a Ministry, whose Work it is to Preach to all Nations, even to the end of the World, Rev. 14. A Ministry must go forth to preach the Gospel to every Nation, Kindred, Tongue, and People, immediately before great Babylon's fall; so then, though darkness hath much prevailed since the first publication of the Gospel, yet Light shall rise out of obscurity, and the Earth shall still be enlightned. The Wisdom of God, said he, would send Prophets and Apostles, Luke 11. 49. which is interpreted of wise Men and Scribes, Matth. 23. 34. and that they should be persecuted and slain. This Prophecy was not so amply fulfilled by the Jewish Nation; but that Mystery Babylon shall bear a part in the fulfilling of it, Rev. 18. 20. which doth further shew a succession of Apostles, after the Jewish Nation had done their worst to those whom God sent unto them.
Object. The Signs of Apostles are Wonders and mighty Deeds: these Signs are not found, Ergo there are no Apostles.
Answ. This Objection is deceitful, because it distinguisheth not between the chief and subordinate Apostles. Signs were a necessary concomitant to the Office of the chief Apostles, because they were to deliver New Oracles, and to abrogate Old ones; but the inferior Apostles needed no such Signs: nor do we read of any mighty Deeds done by Timothy and Titus, who yet were Apostles of the Order which we contend for.
2. Though we hold it unsafe to say Miraculous Gifts are so ceased, as that the Church may in no case ask them, yet we say, If Men should shew Signs to prove themselves Apostles, it would now rather prove them Deceivers.
Object. If there be any Messengers or Apostles in these days, shew us the Men and that sufficeth us, less than this will not satisfie.
Answ. Ezra 5. 4. What are the Names of the Men that make this Building? or, what would it profit you to tell you their Names?
2. Is not this curiosity the Filum certissium, or leading Thread, to call in question your Bishops, Pastors, Deacons, yea in fine, your Church it self?
3. Therefore let the Office contended for he granted or denied upon the grounds of Holy Scriptures, and not asserted because of the eminency, or rejected because of the meanness of the Persons concern'd in this Vocation.
Object. If there be any such Apostles as you contend for, why do they not magnifie their Office, and impose themselves upon the Churches where they come?
Answ. 1. Although he that gave this Ministry, hath endowed them with Power and Capacity to serve his Churches, yet have they no dominion over their Faith, to force themselves upon them whether they will or no, especially such Churches as they never planted: For Paul (that great Apostle) hath taught them more modestly, 1 Cor. 9. 2. 2 Cor. 10. 12, to 17.
2. These Messengers, or Apostles, do magnifie their Office in defending it against Gain-sayers, and by doing what they can, in the Services they are obliged to by it; and when Diotrephes hath learned more modesty than to reject them, they may be more serviceable than now they are.
Object. But do you not give to these Ministers, or Messengers, a superintendency over Bishops or Elders? And may not this in time lead to the setting up Arch-Bishops, or some Anti-christian Usurpation?
Answ. 1. There is no better way to prevent such Usurpation, than by preserving the Ministry by us contended for, because it preserves all particular Churches Right to send forth such Ministers as there is occasion for them so to do, and no one Church is herein priviledged above another.
2. We give them no more superintendency than Timothy and Titus had, whose care was for the Churches indifferently, so that their preheminence was only a degree of Honour, (not of Power) in being greater Servants than others, as Christ taught them, He that is greatest, let him be your Servant.
3. The necessity of this Ministry lieth in three things chiefly; 1. To plant Churches where there is none. 2. To set in order such Churches as want Officers to order their Affairs. And, 3. To assist faithful Pastors, or Churches, against Usurpers, and those that trouble the Peace of particular Churches by false Doctrines, 3 Ep. John v. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 3.
Object. But do you not give the sole Power of Ordination to your Messengers, or Apostles?
Answ. In no wise: for though we say they only are in a regular capacity to ordain Elders in Congregations newly planted, which have no Officers; yet where the Churches have an Eldership, there they are in a capacity to ordain their own Officers; yea, they may ordain and send forth Messengers, 1 Tim. 4. 14.
Object. But who shall deal with, or correct those Messengers, if they shall fall into Errors in Life or Doctrine?
Answ. 1. It is meet every Christian (and so every Minister) be a Member of some particular Church, and this Church is the most proper Judg to execute Justice (as far as it concerns the Church) against such Offenders.
2. Any true Church may lawfully anathematize, or hold in execration an Angel, or an Apostle of the greatest dignity, if they prevaricate in Doctrine, Gal. 1. And therefore these subordinate Messengers may be dealt with accordingly, if they deserve it.
To conclude; The sum of that which we have said, is this, That as God hath given to his Church a fixed Ministry of Bishops, Elders, Pastors, &c. to take the care of particular Churches; so he hath given her a travelling Ministry, unfixed, in respect of particular Societies, to whom it pertains, by virtue of their Ministry or Office, to take all occasions to cause the Light of the Glorious Gospel to shine unto such as sit in Darkness, to plant Churches, to confirm or settle them in the Faith, to visit and comfort those who have believed through Grace.
And when we say the Messengers are unfixed, in respect of particular Societies, our meaning is not thereby to deny, but that for the more convenient management of the great Affairs of the Gospel, they may divide themselves into divers parts, and accordingly be called the Messengers of such Countries, as with whom they most frequently converse of the Gospel, Gal. 2. 9.
In Asia we read of seven Messengers, and those related to seven Churches, in seven principal Cities in that Country: yet it may not be doubted, but that there were many Churches, and scattered Disciples in Country Villages, and so many Elders also in Asia; yea, in these very Churches which are particularly named: for in the Church of Ephesus there were divers Bishops long before John wrote these Epistles from the Isle of Patmos, Acts 20. 17, 28.
It is true, the Ancients call these seven Messengers Bishops, or chief Ministers; But then we know by Bishops, they mean ordinarily such as had the care of many particular Societies or Churches: Thus they make Timothy a Bishop, yet confess him to be a Preacher of the Gospel throughout Hellas in Achaia, and from Ephesus unto Illiricum.
Titus they make Bishop of Crete, yet such an one as preached the Gospel in all that Country, which was very large. And our Modern Writers call him and Timothy, Evangelists, which they say, was an Office much inferior to that of Apostles; and so say we, if by Apostle be understood the chief Apostles: However the difference between us is not great, lying more in the name of the Office, than the Office it self.
Silvanus also is by some Writers made Bishop of Thessalonica; but the Scripture, as we have seen, calls him, and other such Ministers as he was, Apostles. Now, whether it be more safe to call these Travelling-Ministers of Christ Bishops, after the manner of Men, or Messengers, or Apostles, after the manner of the Holy Scriptures, is the business for the sober and unprejudiced Reader to consider: which that he may the better do, I shall note briefly what is granted by the Learned in this particular.
1. And first, Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 24. calls Mark an Apostle; When Nero (saith he) had reigned eight years, first after Mark the Apostle, and Evangelist Anianus took the Government of the Church of Alexandria.
2. Anonim. in Photius, calls Timothy, foreign, Timothy the Apostle, and Theodoret calls him, foreign, the Asian Apostle.
3. The same Theod. calls Titus, foreign, The Apostle of the Cretians.
4. He also calls Epaphroditus an Apostle, foreign, &c.
5. Clem. Alexandrinus, calls Clement, Paul's Companion, foreign, The Apostle Clemens.
6. Chrysostom terms Ignatius, (who lived in the first Century) both Bishop and Apostle.
And saith Dr. Hammond, (out of whom these Collections are taken) Irenaeus informs us, that the followers of Marcus contemned the very Apostles in respect of themselves, which he expounds of the Bishops, or Apostles, which were in the time of Irenaeus, who flourished, Anno 175.
Now saith Theodoret, in process of time, they left the Name of Apostles to them that were immediately sent by Christ, and imposed the Name of Bishops on those that had been anciently called Apostles.
Hence it is evident, the Office, in respect of the very Name and Authority, which now we assert, continued in the Church unquestionable for about two hundred years; and by what Authority that Title so suitable to the Office was taken away, and another imposed (as is confessed) instead thereof, may admit of consideration.
For when the Churches had thus deprived themselves of their subordinate Messengers, or Apostles of Christ and his Churches, then were they constrained to set up Diocesan-Bishops, Lord-Bishops, Arch-Bishops, &c. For seeing the word Bishop was formerly used to express the Office of particular Pastors, or Elders, (as Jerom. Episcopum & Presbyterum unum esse); and yet having given divers of their Bishops the government of whole Countries, or many Churches, they were forced to dev…se distinctions of their own, to know one sort of Bishops from another. Nor can this miscarriage or disorder be rightly reformed, till the good old way of the Primitive Churches be re-assumed to the Glory of God, and better settlement of the Churches, which is the real and only design of this Treatise.
A POSTSCRIPT, In Answer to three Queries, received from a Judicious Friend in London, since the finishing the precedent Work.
Question 1.
WHether there be Messengers or Apostles of Christ to exercise a Ministerial Authority in the Churches of Christ, by Divine Institution, to continue to the end of the World?
Answer.
This Query doth not deny a Ministry of Messengers to be sent to preach the Gospel where it is not known; to plant Churches where there is none; to ordain Elders in Churches remote, and to assist in dispensing the Holy Mysteries, &c. for it is known the Enquirer allows of this.
The Question therefore is only about the Nature of their Office, (viz.) Whether it be of Divine Institution, or of Humane Prudence only?
To which I Answer, 1. Negatively, This Ministry is not of Humane Prudence only; because no Men, or Society of Men, meerly as such, though endued with much prudence, are in any capacity to transact Affairs of the Church of God, specially those that relate to the Ministry, 1 Cor. 2. 12, 13, 14. 1 Tim. 2. 2.
2. I say, this Ministry is of Divine Institution, because the whole Ministerial Authority, which the Church hath received as such, is of Divine Institution; yea, the very Church her self is of Divine Institution; and therefore said to be built up a Spiritual House to offer Spiritual Sacrifices; called also an Holy Nation, a Royal Priesthood; the Temple of the Holy Ghost, which also is Holy: The House of the Son of God, dignified above the House or Church under Moses, which yet was an Holy People, and their Ordinances Divine, specially those that concern'd the Ministry of that Church, Numb. 3. 3, 9, 10, &c. Sith therefore I suppose it will not be denied that the Offices in the Jewish Church were of Divine Institution, it were strange that the Church of Christ should only enjoy a Ministry jure humano, or of humane Prudence only: for albeit this Question doth only suppose the Itinerating Ministry, or Messengers of Christ and his Church, to be of humane Prudence, yet it's well known there is the same opinion of the Office of Elders, Deacons, &c. and the Messengers Office is only made the Mark to shoot at, whilst yet the rest do stand or fall with it, as to the nature of their Institution. From the Premises therefore I shall offer this Argument.
The Ministry of the Jewish Church was of Divine Institution. Ergo, The Ministry of the Church of Christ is of Divine Institution.
That the Ministry of the Jewish Church was of Divine Institution, (though said to be but carnal in respect of that which was more glorious) will not (I think) be denied, and so the Antecedent is certain. That the Consequence is good, is evident, because the Ministry of the Church of Christ is more excellent than the Legal Ministry. And to this very purpose doth the Apostle argue, 2 Cor. 3. the whole Chapter, compared with the latter part of the 2d Chap. and the beginning of the 4th Chap. And as he most clearly sets out the Glory, both of the Ministration, and the Ministers of the Gospel, to be such as that; that of the Law had no Glory in respect of the other, the Ministers of Christ being Ministers, not of the Letter, but of the Spirit, &c. So it is very remarkable, that he gives this Character and Commendation to the subsequent Ministers, as well as to himself, viz. to Timotheus, whom he joyns with himself in the dedication of the Epistle, 2 Cor. 1. 1. and likewise personates him frequently with himself in the greatest part of the Epistle, and particularly in Chap. 4. 1. Therefore seeing We have this Ministry, as we have received Mercy, we faint not; otherwise they must both have fainted under those pressures which did attend them.
And here we have a full Argument for the Divine Institution of Timothy's *Note, It hath been told me, in words at length, that Timoth & Titus their office, was not of Divine Institution; which is a dangerous Error.Office, (who was a Messenger) and consequently of all such Ministers as he was. The Argument is this;
Such Messengers, or Subordinate Apostles, as have received their Ministry [not their Gifts only] of the Lord, are Ministers by Divine Institution. But Timothy, and all such Messengers or Apostles as he was, have received their Ministry of the Lord; Ergo, such Messengers or Apostles as he was, are Ministers by Divine Institution.
This Argument à pari between the Institution of the Legal and Gospel Ministry might be abundantly improved; but I speak to wise Men, I hope a word to them will suffice.
Argument 2. from 1 Cor. 4. 1.
Those that are to be accounted Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, they are Ministers by Divine Institution: but the Subordinate Ministers, such as Sosthenus, Apollo, and Timotheus, are to be accounted Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Ergo, as they are such Ministers, they are of Divine Institution.
If any deny the Major, he sights against Paul himself: and for the Minor, it is evident Paul includes such with himself as were his Companions, or Fellow-helpers, calling them also Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, and that in conjunction with himself, as a Steward or Minister; and that Timothy and Sosthenus were his *Though it's certain he was some degrees above them.Companions, doth appear 1 Cor. 1. 1. & 4. 17. whom also he calls Apostles, vers. 9, 10, 11, 12. For surely as they were his Companions, of whom he saith, to this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and labour, working with our hands, &c. so vers. 9. he expresly calls the same Persons Apostles, and that in conjunction with himself also, (though they were much inferior to him); so that we conclude these Subordinate Ministers of Christ, Stewards of God's Mysteries, Messengers or Apostles, had this their Ministry by Divine Inspiration.
As for Apollo and Cephas, (who also are included in 1 Cor. 4. 1.) it appeareth not that they were Paul's Companions at this time; and so all things said concerning the other that were with him, cannot be so applicable to them; yet that they are included also in the Ministerial Appellations, is not hard to be demonstrated.
Question 2.
Whether you are such [Messengers] or Apostles? This you must answer before any one is bound to obey you.
Answer.
The Apostle Paul was constrained to become a Fool, 2 Cor. 12. 11. and it is no marvel if such as are not worthy to loose the latchet of his Shoes, be constrained, by the unfriendly dealing of some of their Brethren, to come into the same predicament. And therefore (leaving others to do as they see cause) I here expose my self to your contempt, (if so it must be), and I am the rather content to do this; for that I am the last, and therefore the least of all my Father's Children in this Nation, (that I know of) called to this so much despised Employment. Thus I am become a Fool; but ye have compelled me.
Question 3.
Whether all Churches of Christ are bound to receive you as such? or whether any Church is guilty of Sin, if they refuse to receive you? By being bound or guilty, I mean, by virtue of some Divine Institution antecedaneous to any Compact or Agreement of their own, &c.
Answer 1.
That such Messengers, as Timothy, Titus, Sosthenus, and Apollo, and consequently our selves, if such ought to be received by the Churches generally as Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a Man, (viz. every Christian Man) so account of us, &c. Nor know I any agreement of their own necessary, antecedaneously, save the knowledg of the same Truth in this particular. But the Churches, ignorant of the Mind of God in this particular, are to be instructed in it; which being faithfully performed, I say the Churches which shall then reject such Servants of Christ, do sin, and are to be blamed as Diotrephes was, who would neither receive such Brethren himself, nor suffer them that would, 3 Ep. John; And it were well if he had none in this Age to follow his ill Example.
2. Yet in this Answer these things are to be considered; 1. That they bring the Doctrine of Christ, 2 Epist. John vers. 10. And that they either are such whose praise is so in the Church as not to need, or else that they have Letters of Commendation from the Church of Christ, for *Viz. The Companions of Paul as well as himself.some do not need such Letters, 2 Cor. 3. 1. Yet others had such Letters to the same Church, Acts 18. 27. However, for the greater security of the Churches, such Testimonials are expedient for all, and necessary in remote places.
3. How far the Justification of this Ministry is Divine, and so obliging to the Churches, may be considered from what hath been said before.