Of Schism, Part 2 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Concerning Impoſition of hands in Ordination.
ALthough our Divines have all I think [unleſs a few riſen up in our days] agreed in the neceſſity of Ordination to a Miniſter; yet they have not all had the ſame thoughts about Impoſition of hands, as if it were neceſſary to Ordination. Moſt have agreed in this, that though they look on it as a Ceremony, an Adjunct, yet it ought to be practiſed, becauſe of the Apoſtolical examples. Our Congregational Brethen in Eſſex caſt it away; and ſome cauſe I have to ſtand upon it, becauſe I therefore refuſed Ordination by them, becauſe they would not Impoſe hands, and ſo it was the longer before I could be Ordained. If I did refuſe upon inſufficient grounds, I am ſure the grounds which were given to me for the contrary were very inſufficient. I loſt the papers, but met with another manner of Antagoniſt ſhortly after Mr. Noyes (a reverend Divine, and my dear friend) of N. England, who hath ſaid more againſt it then I have as yet heard from theſe; what any body elſe have ſaid againſt it in writing I know not unleſs the Author of the Diatribe, &c. whom that worthy Divine Doctor Seaman hath anſwered: I caſt my eye upon it long ſince, but do not now remember any thing Pro, or Con, what there is ſaid, or in any other man. What then I can gather from Scripture and Reaſon I ſhall humbly offer to the Reader, and to Mr. Noyes in anſwer to what he hath ſaid againſt it.
Not many years ſince Humane Ceremonies added to the worſhip of God, how much trouble and miſery they added to the Church, we have not yet forgot. Men wrote and ſpake ſo far as they dared, and ſuffered by reaſon of them. Mens wits are now buſied as much in throwing out of God's worſhip, as theirs were in adding; why then we may not now ſtand up in deſence of God's Ceremonies [if this be but a Ceremony] as they oppoſed Mens Ceremonies, I know not.
Come then to Impoſition, &c. Let us hear a little what other men have ſaid about it: And firſt for great Calvin, whom I hear alledged againſt Impoſition, which I a little wondered at, knowing Calvin had ſpoken ſufficiently for it.
1. Inſtit. l. 4. c. 3. ſ. 16.Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum Impoſitione, quia tamen fuiſſe in perpetuo uſu Apoſtolis videmus, illa tam accurata eorum obſervatio prae cepti vice nobis eſſe debet.
2. Again, Impoſitionem manuum, L. 4. c. 14. ſ. 20.qua Eccleſia Miniſtri, in ſuum munus initiarentur, non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum.
3. Again, L. 4. c. 2. ſ. 16.Et certè utile eſt ejuſmodi ſymbolo Miniſterii dignitatem populo commendari, &c. praeterea non erit inane ſignum, ſi in germanam ſuam originem reſtitutum fuerit-: nam ſi nihil fruſtra ſpiritus Dei in Eccleſia Dei inſtituit, hanc ceremoniam cum ab eo profecta ſit ſentiemus non eſſe inutilem, modo in ſuperſtitioſum uſum nou vertatur. See him again l. 4. c. 19. ſ. 31. Calvins judgment is clear, with his Reaſons for it.
Chemnitius giving us the judgment of the Lutheran Churches, ſaith, Exam. Concil. Trid. p. 221.Nec manuum Impoſitionem vocare Sacramentum gravabimur. I omit Auſtin, who called it ſo long before they were born, in a large ſenſe, not the Popiſh ſenſe. Nos uno verbo dicimus, ſi per Sacramentum jusjurandum, Loc. Com. p. 321.& religioſam, obſtrictionem intelligunt, ſit Ordo ipſorum, per me licet, Sacramentum, quale veteribus erat Sacramentum militare, ſaith Muſculus.
Walaeus ſaith, Loc. Com. l. 1. p. 473.In all the Confeſſions of their Churches [except one or two] it was required, and becauſe the Apoſtles alwayes uſed it, and the Apoſtle gives that precept to Tim. 5.22. Not to lay on hands ſuddenly we ought not to omit it; becauſe in that negative an affirmative is contained that he ſhould Impoſe on worthy perſons; where ſince by a Synecdoche it is taken for the election of a Paſtor, certè pro ritu, vel parte eſſentiali habenda eſt. Thus he.
From the ſame charge to Timothy, Sur. ch. Diſ. p. 2. p. 74.Mr. Hooker ſaith he is willing to follow the rode, when he hath no conſtraining reaſon to goe aſide. It ſeems this Reverend man knew no cauſe why Impoſition ſhould be laid aſide.
The Synod of New England ſay, Platf. ch. Diſ. c. 9.Church-Officers ought to be Ordained with Impoſition of hands.
Here then we have the Fathers, Papiſts, Lutherans, Calviniſts, Epiſcopal, Claſſical, Congregational men, the Churches generally ſince the Apoſtles dayes Impoſing hands in Ordination. We muſt have ſtrong reaſons (as Mr. Hooker ſaith) to lead us afide from theſe Churches. Cuſtome of the Churches Paul uſes to make ſomething of, 1 Cor. 11. I think ſo ſhould we, having eſpecially ſuch Scripture-precedents going before them: I look upon their practice as very weighty.
But I come to argument, laying down firſt my Poſition: Impoſition of hands ought to be uſed in Ordination.
Arg. 1. That form of Ordination which cometh neereſt to the Goſpel-pattern, ought to be uſed.
But Impoſition of hands in Ordination is that form which cometh neereſt to the Goſpelpattern; ergo Impoſition of hands in Ordination ought to be uſed.
The major I ſuppoſe cannot well be denied, eſpecially by thoſe who in the Biſhops days uſe to cry out ſo much, All things muſt be made according to the pattern in the Mount; and why now I pray muſt not things be done according to the pattern of the Goſpel? what do you make of it? that which you may follow, or let alone as you pleaſe? what is ſaid againſt this I ſhall meet with anon.
For the minors bring us forth thoſe rules, or examples which ſhew that men may be ordained, or were ordained without Impoſition of hands: that Church-Officers were ordained with Impoſition, the Texts are known, as before mentioned.
Arg. 2. If the Goſpel expreſſeth the whole Ordinance of Ordination by Impoſition of hands, then Impoſition of hands in Ordination ought to be uſed.
But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Conſequent is true.
The Conſequence is clear; for why ſhould the Apoſtle mention that which is but needleſs, or at leaſt but indifferent to ſet out an ordinance by.
Obj. But it is ſaid, Obj. This was no more then what Paul ſaith at another time, for this cauſe I bow my knee, &c. meaning prayer.
A. 1. Be it ſo, yet this hinders not; Sol. for if Paul ſaith he did bow his knee, I know Paul was ſo honeſt that he would not lye; he did bow his knee ſure enough. So when he faith, Lay hands, &c. I doubt not but Timothy did and ought to Lay hands, &c.
2. There were other geſtures for prayer recorded in the Goſpel beſides kneeling; can you ſhew other Ceremonies or Adjuncts [as you call them] recorded beſides Impoſition in Ordination? If there had been never any other geſture recorded in prayer but kneeling, then we would have concluded we ought to uſe that geſture only; why not then Impoſition of hands in Ordination, ſince none but this is recorded.
3. There may be ſome difference put between Paul's narration, what he did, and Paul's injunction of another, what he ſhould do. Paul might tell them another time that he prayed for them ſtanding; but where doth he order Timothy, or others to ordain without Impoſition?
4. This objection would carry it, as if there were no more in Impoſition of hands in reference to Ordination then in kneeling to prayer: which I will not as yet yield; what I have ſaid before I think will ſhew the contrary, and more I ſhall add.
But the Antecedent is the part I have to prove, which if I can make good, it will make much to ſhew the neceſſity of Ordination, and of Impoſition in it; the Text is well known. 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands on no man ſuddenly: the queſtion is whether Ordination be here meant. I named before the judgement of all ſorts of Divines, ancient and modern, Epiſcopal, Claſſical, Congregational, [yea, of divers of the Papiſts] who agree it is meant of Ordination: this might be enough one would think; but in our days we muſt prove what we ſay; had our Brethren given us reaſons to the contrary, I might have known what to have anſwered to; but I hear of none.
1. This Impoſition cannot have reference to ſick perſons: There's no matter how ſuddenly he laid on hands to cure them; nothing appearing in the context.
2. Nor can it relate to the bleſſing of children; the context hath nothing for it: nor did I ever read that the Apoſtles did uſe this practiſe.
3. Nor can it be meant of the Sacrament of Pennance, as many Papiſts do expound it, though ſome of the moſt learned are againſt it, and rather expound it of Ordination, as before; the context will favour ſomething this notion: but that I have this againſt it.
1. For their Sacrament we reject it; for abſolution of a repenting perſon, before bound under Church-cenſure, this we own; but in Scripture as we have no precept, ſo no example that the Church did uſe to Impoſe hands on a penitent; we read no ſuch thing when the Inceſtuous perſon was looſed, after he had been bound by excommunication; what reaſon then to have it underſtood of that which in Scripture is not to be found; it ſtands with moſt reaſon to expound it with other Scriptures.
2. I ſee Bellarmin and others make little of Impoſition in the Sacrament of Pennance; but in Ordination he makes it an eſſential part: More reaſon then why of this then of that, which hath no other word for it.
3. For the Brethren who oppoſe us, I preſume they will not underſtand it thus; for they give ſo much to the people, in admiſſion of members, that Timothy might well be hindered for laying hands ſuddenly on ſuch: and that 2 Epiſtle to the Corinths, with the practiſe of Antiquity, eſpecially Cyprian will give ſome ground for it.
Had it not been for my firſt reaſon, and the reaſons I have to prove it muſt be meant of Ordination, I ſhould have inclined this way becauſe of v. 20.
4. Nor can it be meant of Confirmation. I have heard our Brethren have thus Interpreted it. But
1. I can ſee no ſhadow of reaſon for this in the context; for the Apoſtle is ſpeaking nothing of Baptiſm, about which time that which men call confirmation was uſed.
2. They muſt then prove that Timothy had power to confer the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, for ſo we find in confirmation they were given, Acts 8, & 9, & 19. Of this more anon.
3. Nor do I ſee what need of that caution ſuddenly; for no matter how ſoon they were confirmed in the faith: they were in the Church already, and to confirm them as faſt as might be was good. Peter in Acts 8. and Paul in Acts 19. did ſuddenly Impoſe hands to this end; good to keep them from Wavering and Apoſtatizing.
4. How did Timothy partake of other mens ſins when he ſought to confirm them ſuddenly?
5. Laying then theſe by, the text muſt needs be meant of Ordination, for I know of no other caſes in which hands were Impoſed in the New ſtament, [nor at all in one caſe, i.e. pennance:] So that it muſt be this, and that I ſhall yet further prove.
1. The Apoſtle from the 17. v. had been diſcourſing about Elders: now it is very ſeaſonable to give ſome word about the making of Elders. So the context holds it fairly out.
2. The Aethiopick Verſion gives it, Ne Conſtituas quenquam ſubitò: This is Ordination plainly.
3. The reaſon why he ſhould be cautious, was leſt he ſhould partake of other mens ſins. Ne reus fias corrupti miniſterii, ſaith Aretius. And it is certain, he that is the cauſe of a corrupt mans coming into the Miniſtry (or inſufficient) may be guilty of much ſin; it is ſo weighty a thing to have the charge of ſouls. Chryſoſtom, *on Iſa. 58.Jerom, Calvin, Chamier, Hemmingius, Cor. a Lap. ſpeak excellently to this reaſon of the caution.
4. As the Apoſtle had taught Timothy in the 3. Chapter what ſhould be the qualification of Biſhops and Deacons, the former of which he had been ſpeaking of in this Chapter, juſt before our Text, it may very well ſuit that Timothy ſhould not ſuddenly ordain men, but firſt ſee whether they were ſo qualified as he had written to him. So much for this Text.
2. A ſecond Text wherein the Scripture expreſſeth Ordination by Impoſition only, is that known place 1 Tim. 4.14. the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. This Text is generally underſtood of the Ordination of Timothy. I never met with any who denied it but one Socinian. But of this Text more anon.
3. A third Text as ſome apprehend, is Heb. 6.2. which Mr. Noyes doth very much oppoſe. I could not at firſt tell what was his meaning to beſtow ſo many lines upon it, but at laſt I thought of Mr. Hooker, whoſe judgement it is likely Mr. N. underſtood; two advantages Mr. N. hath: 1. The multitude of Interpreters who underſtand it of confirmation (as Mr. N. ſaith.) 2. That it followeth Baptiſm.
But firſt, let us ſee if no Divines underſtand it of Ordination, ſo as it is comprehended at leaſt under it. Junius, Pareus, and our Annotations take it largely, and look at Ordination included. Gualter, Toſſanus, Gelleſpio, Dicſon, Johnſon, Jacob. Bullinger of Ordination only, or chiefly. Mr. Cartw. thus, By Impoſition of hands the Apoſtle meaneth no Sacrament, Rhem. Teſt.much leſſe confirmation after Baptiſm; but by Trope, or borrowed ſpeech the Miniſtry of the Church, upon the which hands were laid; which appeareth in that whoſoever believeth not there ought to be a Miniſtry by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Chriſtianity: this is to the point indeed.
Mr. Sur. Ch. Diſ. p. 1. p. 7.Hooker proves that Church Diſcipline is a fundamental point of Religion from hence; thus, Laying on of hands being by a Metonymy of the Adjunct put for Ordination; and Ordination one particular put for the whole of Diſcipline. Having then theſe men [and theſe no babes] on my ſide, I will ſee what reaſon there is why Ordination here muſt not be meant.
For confirmation [which ſo many expound it of] I ſearched amongſt thoſe Proteſtant Divines which I had to find a definition of it in our Proteſtant ſenſe, and why they call it ſo; but I could not find one who gave me ſatisfaction but Chemnitius, Exam. Concil. Trid. de confirmat. The Papiſts definition I knew, and a pretty one it is. That which Chemnitius ſpeaks gave me great content; but I could wiſh ſome body would, prove this is the meaning of Impoſition in this Text, for then we ſhould have one more ſtrong ground for Infant-Baptiſm, as we may gather by Chemnitius opening of confirmation. Caſting my eye on Diodati I ſee he thus expounds it, and hence gathers Infant-Bpatiſm. But this is not ſufficient; we call for proof now. I know Impoſition of hands was after Baptiſm in Scripture, except Act. 9.17. and ſo far as we can learn from Scripture, we find
1. Extraordinary gifts were ever the effect of it. So Acts 8. Acts 9. Acts 19. nor do we find any other end of it; theſe gifts being conveyed in a way above nature, might very well tend to the confirming them in their faith received, and ſo well called confirmation. But in the confirmation we talk of there is no ſuch thing, nor do I ſee why we ſhould call it confirmation.
2. The perſons who did Impoſe hands, were either Apoſtles, or perſons extraordinarily raiſed. We read but of one Ananias, Acts 9. I do not find the Evangeliſts did Impoſe. Hence the Biſhops, who call themſelves the Apoſtles ſucceſſors, they claime this power, and poore Presbyters muſt not do it [at leaſt without leave from them.]
That then which truly deſerves the name confirmation, is ceaſed many hundred years ſince. But for the thing it ſelf, which our Divines call confirmation, as Chemnitius lays it down, Inſtit. l. 4. c. 19. ſ. 4.I could heartily wiſh with Calvin that it were brought into practiſe, only Impoſition, I think, might be left out; yet I would not contend with him who did uſe it, rather ſo, then not have the thing practiſed. Muſculus ſpeaking of Impoſition in confirmation, ſaith, The Impoſition of the Apoſtles was of miraculous operation, Loc. Com. p. 321.and ceaſed long ſince: Exemplum illius retinuerunt Epiſcopi, quo magis Apoſtolorum viderentur eſſe ſucceſſores. But he ſpeaks nothing againſt Impoſition in Ordination.
But to the Text; let us ſee why Ordination muſt be ſhut out here.
1. The key of Interpretation I take to be the word Foundation and principles, &c. (as we Tranſlate.) So Camerarius, Sunt neceſſaria Dogmata & Capita doctrinae Chriſtianae quae enumerantur hoc loco. So Chryſoſtom. Now it ſeems ſtrange to me that a foundation ſhould be loſt out of the Church above fifteen hundred years. I thought foundations ſhould hold ſo long as the building laſts; take away a foundation the houſe muſt be in danger. But if this be meant of Ordination, then it holds; for the Miniſtry ſhall hold ſo long as the Church holds; till the body be perfected, Eph. 4. But if confirmation, and extraordinary gifts, which were the only effect, ſo far as we find in Scripture, [as before I touched] then this foundation is gone long ſince.
2. Faith, Repentance, and Baptiſm, are to laſt to the end of the world. Some of our Divines do from this Text prove againſt the Socinians that Water-Baptiſm is an ordinance ſtill to continue, becauſe it is put amongſt the foundations, Chatechetical heads; why then the Miniſtry, which is Chriſt's great ordinance, to convert, to beget faith, [which comes by hearing, &c.] and authorized to baptize to the end of the world, ſhould not be meant by Impoſition, Matth. 28.20.but a temporary thing which was to vaniſh preſently, I can ſee no reaſon.
3. That Impoſition alone is put for Ordination we have other Scriptures to ſhew. 1 Tim. 5, & 4. [as before] but ſhew us another Text where Impoſition alone is put for confirmation.
4. Extraordinary gifts were conveyed without Impoſition of hands: as Act. 2.10. & Act. 44.4. why then Impoſition ſhould only ſignifie the Holy Ghoſt, which yet was given without it, I am not ſatisfied.
5. Then theſe Divines muſt prove, that all who were baptized had hands Impoſed, and extraordinary gifts conferred, elſe the placing after Baptiſm proves nothing; if onelyonly to ſome baptized perſons and pro tempore, what is this to prove it meant of confirmation; for I hope all baptized ones are to be confirmed in their ſenſe. But this will be hard to prove.
One thing more I ſhall add when I come to Mr. Noyes, why it ſhould be meant of extraordinary gifts; Camero gives the ſtrongeſt reaſon. But yet I hope to an indifferent Reader, it doth appear by what I have ſaid, that there is no forcing reaſon why Ordination ſhould be ſhut out, but may at leaſt be fairly implied. So much for my ſecond argument.
Arg. 3. That Act which the Church ever uſed [and that regularly] in ordaining of Officers, ought to be uſed in Ordination.
But Impoſition of hands is an Act which the Church ever uſed [and that regularly] in ordaining, &c. Ergo
The Major ſeems ſo fair, that I think no rational man will deny it. The Minor is clear; the Church under the Old Teſtament uſed this act. Numb. 8.10. Upon which verſe Mr. Ainſworth thus ſpeaketh, This rite was kept at the Ordination of Officers, both in the Old Teſtament and in the New. Acts 6.6. & 13.3. By this ſign they did put the charge and ſervice of the Church upon them, &c. Then why it ought not ſtill to be uſed, I know not. Mr. Ainſ. was a man learned, holy, and far from Popery, or idle Ceremonies.
Arg. 4. Let us ſuppoſe Prayer and Faſting to be of the eſſence of Ordination [as ſay our Brethren.]
If Prayer and Faſting without Impoſition do not difference Ordination from another Ordinance, then Impoſition of hands ought to be uſed in Ordination.
But the Antecedent is true, ergo the Conſequent is true.
The reaſon of the Conſequence is, becauſe every Ordinance hath ſomething in it whereby it is diſtinguiſhed from others; ſo muſt this have ſomething.
Here I lie open to two Objections. Some will ſay, Why do not you put in thoſe words which they call verba creantia, where ſome put the very eſſence of the Ordinance? To theſe I anſwer, Mr. Weems ſaith, In their Churches when they Ordain a Miniſter they give him the Book of God in his hand, to ſignifie that now he hath power to preach the word, as the Prieſts hand was filled with fleſh Numb. 3.3. P. 105.Although I do agree with the old nonconformiſts, and other Churches, that ſome ſuch words muſt be uſed, and by neceſſary conſequence it will be forced, [as before I ſpake] yet I rather uſe this, becauſe it is my queſtion, and that which we have plain Scripture for, and ſo feeling Scripture at my back, ſhall be more able to make good my ground.
The other party ſay, by this I put the form of Ordination in Impoſition; for forms diſtinguiſh. I do not at this time aſſert what it is, but finding it in Scripture, I argue againſt thoſe who leave it out. Walaeus we ſee could not tell whether to call it a Rite, or an eſſential part. I know Bellarmin and other Papiſts look on it as part of the eſſence of Ordination, and if they do ſo, I do not blame them [they having Scripture for it] as I blame thoſe who leave it out.
Doctor Owen in his Review of the nature of S. p. 23. tells us that by Ordination of Miniſters, many upon a miſtake underſtand only the Impoſition of hands uſed therein. [I have not met with any of this opinion; I find none of the Papiſts ſpeaking thus, who make as much of it as any] then adds, Ordination of Miniſters is one thing, Impoſition of hands is another, differing as the whole and the part. Enough.
If a Totum, then Totum univerſale he cannot mean, but Totum Integrale: then Impoſition of hands ſtands affected to Ordination as membrum to Integrum, which is Symbolum cauſae eſſentialis; then not an Adjunct. If it be a part, and a principal part, then where there is no Impoſition there is no Ordination, for ſublatâ parte principali, tollitur Integrum. If it be not a principal, but leſs principal, yet Ordination is but Imperfect; for ſublatâ quâlibet parte tollitur perfectio Integri. Then let thoſe who are ordained [as they ſay they are] without Impoſition of hands, conſider their Ordination, and I hope they cannot be offended with me for refuſing (at beſt) an imperfect ordination, when I could have a more perfect Ordination. One of their own Ordainers hath ſpoken enough for me.
I pray tell us how praying and faſting for a bleſſing upon a perſon elected, is an Ordinance diſtinct. We Pray and Faſt for rain, for fair ſeaſons, for peace, for ſucceſs in war, for health, for counſel in great affairs, &c. But I hope praying and faſting for theſe ends does not make theſe ſeveral and diſtinct Ordinances; but it ſeems it ſhould be ſo, as well as praying & faſting for a bleſſing on a perſon elected makes this a diſtinct Ordinance; prayer and faſting is but one Ordinance by it ſelf uſed for many ends.
Moreover, we ſeldom faſt and pray [nay, never I think] at a neighbour Congregation, but the Miniſters uſe to pray for a bleſſing upon the Miniſter of that Congregation, then it ſeems ſo often we Ordain him; this is abſurd.
Alſo good people faſt and pray before election, what is it then? I know not how they will avoid it, but they muſt confound Election and Ordination, which I am ſure is contrary to Scripture.
When Paul wrote to Timothy, he did not charge him that he ſhould not faſt and pray ſuddenly, but not Impoſe hands ſuddenly. Words uſed which ſignifie ſending, ſetting apart, appointing to the office with Impoſition of hands; do diſtinguiſh Ordination from other Ordinances.
5. The laſt Argument I ſhall uſe will be ad hominem, yet I think there is ſomething in it.
If Satan from a wicked Imitation of God hath made uſe of Impoſition of hands in the conſecration of his Miniſters, then Chriſtians, from an obediential Imitation of God, ought to uſe Impoſition of hands in the Ordination of Chriſt's Miniſters.
Satan in his worſhip hath ever loved to imitate God in his worſhip. As Juſtin Martyr, Apol. 2. and Tertul. Praeſcrip. adv. Haeret. both ſhew how this Ape hath taken example from the worſhip God had appointed in his houſe, and accordingly appointed the form of his worſhip. So in the conſecration of his Prieſts, Livy reports of Numa that hands were Impoſed upon his head, cum ſummo ſacerdotio initiaretur. Why ſhould not we upon another principle ſtick cloſe then to the examples in the Word, ſince the Divel thinks there is ſomething in it, I ſuppoſe he took it from the Levites.
I am not ignorant that ſome of our Divines, though they do uſe it, yet they look upon it as indifferent. So Polanus, Manuum Impoſitio eſt in rerum indifferentium numero, Synt. The. l. 9. c. 33.quia a Deo expreſſe praecepta non est. Yet adds Si in aliquibus Eccleſiis Impoſitio manuum recepta eſt & uſitata, improbari minime debet, cum exemplo Apoſtolico nitatur. Say you ſo? then I think you had no reaſon to diſapprove of it indeed. Thus alſo Chemnitius; Exam. Concil Trid. p. 222.his reaſon, Nec enim neceſſitatem volu…runt [Apoſtoli] Eccleſiis imponere de quâ ipſi nullum habebant Chriſti mandatum.
The ſumme is, we have examples indeed but no commands, and therefore indifferent. To which I ſay,
1. Then make the rule general; What examples ſoever we have in the word, for which we find no commands, thoſe examples are but indifferent, we may follow or not. This muſt be a certain truth, elſe we ſhall ask the reaſon, why ſome examples having no commandment are to be imitated, but the examples of Impoſition of hands in Ordination are not to be imitated? [I know all examples are not imitable, but I cannot lanch forth in that diſcourſe] See what follows. Hence
1. Popular election of a Miniſter is a thing indifferent. I regard not whether I be elected or not; we have ſome examples [though none ſuch as our popular elections] indeed, but we find no command, that the plebs ſhould chooſe their Miniſter.
Chemnitius had been pleading for popular election, and to prove it brings in ſome examples out of the New Teſtament; when he had done, he adds Haec exempla Apoſtolicae Hiſtoriae clarè oſtendunt electionem pertinere ad univerſam Eccleſiam, certo quodam modo ut ſuae in electione ſeu vocatione ſint partes & Presbyterii & populi.
But if Chemnitius will plead for more then an indifferency in it, I muſt bar this play, to have him come in with Haec exempla. I can ſhew him Haec exempla more clear for Ordination by Impoſition, &c.
2. Hence the conſent of the people in admiſſions [for which I know neither example nor command] and excommunications of members is but indifferent; for the latter though it may be conceived we have an example, yet no command.
3. Hence there is no Independent Church: with divers more things which I would draw from hence.
2. I anſwer, if Impoſition of hands carry thoſe five things in it which Chemnitius, Ib. p. 221. tells us, then I know no reaſon why he ſhould call it an indifferent thing. At the end of that paragraph he is ſtill ſpeaking of Impoſition, as I think, and ſaith Nititur mandato, &c. having quoted Acts 13.3. See Zanchy 4. praec. p. 785, 786.
Doctor Owen in his Review [before quoted] p. 23, 24. ſaith, For that part of Ordination which conſiſts in the Impoſition of hands by the Presbytery [where it may be obtained according to the mind of Chriſt] I am alſo very remote from managing any oppoſition to it. I think it neceſſary by vertue of precept; and that to be continued in a way of ſucceſſion. It is I ſay according to the mind of Chriſt, that he who is to be ordained unto office in any Church receive Impoſition of hands from the Elders of that Church, if there be any therein. But what, I pray, if there be no Elders, what is the mind of Chriſt then that they muſt be ordained without it? here the Doctor conceals his judgement; but I can help the Reader to underſtand his judgement [if he have not changed it] he would have Ordained me with Impoſition of hands [and there were no Elders in our Church to do it] if the other Miniſter would have Impoſed hands alſo. Then ſtill I had reaſon to refuſe an Ordination where ſomething of a precept was left out, unleſs a Scripture can be brought to prove that the neceſſity of it by vertue of precept ceaſes where there are no Elders in the Church. This Scripture is deſired.
3. If it be indifferent, then it may be uſed; there can be no ſin in uſing it; we have an Apoſtolical example for it, Confitente, Polano. Then
1. This will give a man more ſatisfaction, as to his Ordination whether it were regular or not, when he finds it anſwer the Apoſtolical examples. I would not have that ſcruple to lie upon me about my own Ordination, whether it were valid or not, becauſe I had Impoſition, for much.
2. This will tend more to union; for now there is an occaſion of difference for want of this.
3. It is great and juſt matter of offence to the Epiſcopal party, who in ſome caſes do allow Presbyters may Ordain, but whether Ordination can be without Impoſition of hands, I do not know they are reſolved for the affirmative. Things then which tend to union, and taking of offences and ſcruples out of mens minds, if they may be done, and no ſin in ſo doing, I think ought to be done.
4. Impoſition of hands, which we conceive Apoſtolical men, directed by the Spirit of God, tranſlated from the Old Teſtament to the New, had an expreſs command for it in the ſeparation of Levites to their office, Numb. 8.10. it was not indifferent then, why now?
5. When the Apoſtle gives Timothy this charge, Lay hands ſuddenly on no man; and when the Lord commanded them to ſeparate Paul, they anſwer the command by Impoſition Acts 13. I am miſtaken if we find not a precept here. If Timothy hath a rule for the modification of his Act, and that Act, for ought we can find, conſtantly uſed in this part of Inſtituted worſhip, I think the Act it ſelf muſt needs be commanded. For acts in themſelves civil, and uſed amongſt men, even Heathens, as being cuſtomes of Nations, if we find the Scriptures many hundred years after their civil uſe, to add a modification to ſuch Acts, whether we are bound to ſuch Acts where there is no ſuch national cuſtomes, I much queſtion. The thing the Lord intends in them, be it humility, hoſpitality, love, we are bound to, that's true; but I ſuppoſe not to the meer civil acts of other Nations, but from hence to caſt out Impoſition, I cannot yield to it. For
1. I cannot find that it was their cuſtome to ſeparate men in Civil States to the Office of a Magiſtrate by Impoſition of hands, and that God took this up from them. Joſhua indeed was thus appointed to his office, but by a command from God, Numb. 27.18. but where doe we find this civil cuſtome before, thus to lay hands on Magiſtrates?
2. The thing the Scripture intends in the civil Acts of Nations we may ſhew and exerciſe, though we follow not the civil cuſtomes of other Nations; but this being an Act belonging to Inſtituted worſhip, I know not how the thing it ſelf is performed [at leaſt not perfectly] without it. Deut. 34.9.As for Joſhua, though the ſpirit of the Lord was given in a larger meaſure at this Impoſition, yet this was not the only end intended, for then Moſes might have Impoſed his hands in a private Tent, and not before all the Congregation, and there give him his charge, v. 22, 23. but Moſes did by this Act declare the Deſignation and Ordination of Joſhua to his Office before the whole Congregation. So it is in Ordaining of Miniſters.
3. If it were a Jewiſh cuſtome, and upon that account only uſed, why ſhould Paul command Timothy a Greek to uſe it, and that in Ordination of Officers to Gentile-Churches where no ſuch cuſtome was?
From theſe grounds I do not yet look upon Impoſition as being a thing indifferent; but I look at Ordination without it, at leaſt as irregular: and let me ſpeak my mind freely, I would rather choſe to be ordained by a Biſhop and Presbyters [which many cry out upon as Antichriſtian] then be Ordained by any other without Impoſition.
Now let us ſee what Mr. Noyes hath written againſt it. I ſhall begin at his third Argument againſt it, becauſe that ſtrikes at the examples in Scripture, and is the very Argument our Brethren here now uſe, and indeed if that can be made good, I ſhall not much ſtand upon Impoſition. He ſaith,
Thoſe examples are not a warrant for us, becauſe they were either extraordinary perſons [as Apoſtles] or extraordinary Presbyters, or they were extraordinarily raiſed who did Impoſe hands.
To that of Timothy he ſaith, It conferred an extraordinary and ſenſible gift.
All extraordinary it ſeems, but by this we ſhall not loſe only Impoſition but Ordination alſo, which yet Mr. N. owns: the ſame objection was againſt Ordination, as we ſaw before; and certainly if Mr. N. takes away thoſe Texts which ſpeak of Impoſition, I know of few Texts he will find to prove his Ordination. I deſire Mr. N. would give us ſtrong proof for Ordination, leaving out thoſe Texts: ſo that we ſhall have nothing left but election, and I think he will hardly prove any election, wherein extraordinary perſons had not their hand: ſo at laſt loſe all.
But how doth he prove theſe Impoſed hands quà extraordinary perſons? The example in Timothy [the Presbytery which laid hands on him] and Acts 13.3. he foreſaw would be alledged; to theſe two he lays in anſwer aforehand, telling us they were extraordinary Preſbyters.
A. Say what Presbyters and prove; the extraordinary Presbyters are enumerated. 1. The Synod of N.E. Mr. Hooker, nor a thouſand more ever thought of any ſuch thing; the Synod conceive it was the Presbytery of Epheſus which Impoſed hands on Timothy. Junius conceives it was the Presbytery of Derbe and Lyſtra where Paul took him, Eccleſ. p. 1960.Acts 16.2. Chryſoſtom indeed thinks they were Biſhops, for Presbyters could not ordain Biſhops, ſaith he. Mr. N. doth not believe Chryſoſtom I know, nor do I believe they were extraordinary Presbyters.
2. I wonder the Biſhops of old, and our latter Biſhops did not hit of this notion, but that both according to the Canons of old, and ſo of our Biſhops, Presbyters were admitted to joyn in Ordination with the Biſhop; I queſtion not but the Canons were grounde… upon this Presbytery which Impoſed with Paul upon Timothy: but if Mr. N. notion be true, it might have been eaſily ſaid, thoſe were extraordinary Presbyters, ſo theſe ordinary Presbyters have no power in Ordination.
For Acts 13. he ſaith, theſe ſeem to be extraordinary Elders. 1. Partly by their Ambulatory courſe [ordinary Elders are no where deſcribed by the title of Doctors only.] 2. Partly becauſe it is evident ſome of them were extraordinary Prophets, yet they are all put together as equal.
A. 1. How will Mr. N. prove that all the Prophets and Teachers which were in the Church of Antioch uſed that ambulatory courſe? had not this Church a ſetled Presbytery? that were ſtrange; how was it in Corinth?
2. Teachers, when taken diſtinct from other Officers, [as here] I think uſe to ſignifie ordinary and ſetled Officers. Why doth Mr. N. ſay that ordinary Elders are nowhere deſcribed by the title of Doctors only? What difference between foreign here, and foreign Eph. 4.11. there as here, diſtinct from Prophets. So I think foreign 1 Cor. 12.28. elſe we muſt find no ordinary preaching Elders there.
3. Though there were ſome extraordinary Officers there, yet that hinders not, but the whole teaching Presbytery of Antioch might joyn in the ſeparation of Paul, and ſo in impoſing of hands: how will Mr. N. prove the Teachers were excluded; neither doth it follow, becauſe they are numbred together therefore they were equal. Prophets here [as in other Texts] are named before, and as diſtinct from Teachers.
But ordinary Presbyters might not impoſe upon extraordinary Presbyters, this I think he would have; but have you a Scripture-rule which forbids it? what if God will have it ſo. If Paul were now made the Apoſtle of the Gentiles, as all that I ſee but Mr. N. do acknowledge, then though only the Prophets had Impoſed, yet here inferiour officers impoſed on ſuperiour: for Apoſtles were ſuperiour to Prophets, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. and I hope by the ſame reaſon a Presbytery might impoſe on Timotby an Evangeliſt.
Thus Mr. Hooker and the Synod of N.E. ſay Presbyters [not extraordinary] impoſed hands on Timothy an Evangeliſt.
To ſay inferiour may not impoſe, when the Text ſaith, theſe did Impoſe, [and it lieth upon Mr. N. to prove which were excluded] is flatly to deny the Text.
But Mr. N. ſaith, He was no Apoſtle yet, and his proof is, becauſe the Apoſtles long after this time gave him the right hand of fellowſhip.
A. 1. If there were no Apoſtles at Antioch now [as doubtleſs there were none, for then they would have been mentioned as well as inferiour Officers] then Apoſtles could not now give him the right hand of fellowſhip.
2. Why ſhould their right hand of fellowſhip make him an Apoſtle? that I ſuppoſe he doth not mean; he was one before they gave him the right hand [it is ſo in inferiour Officers.] Paul ſaith he was called to be an Apoſtle, Rom. 1.1. What, when they gave him the right hand of fellowſhip? or here where God ſaith ſo? I have called him. Mr. N. in this is ſingular, and his proofs not ſufficient.
He further proveth that they as extraordinary perſons did Impoſe, becauſe there was an extraordinary and ſenſible gift conferred on Timothy: and thus much he inſinuateth in his fourth Argument. The extraordinary gift ceaſeth in reſpect of Ordination; ergo it muſt be removed, as from prayers for the ſick and converts, &c.
A. This is ſomewhat like, and this I have heard urged; I know nothing to take off Impoſition but this, if it can be proved. If Mr. N. can carry this, he ſhall carry me: But how proves he this? Thus; it had this effect upon Timothy, ergo. What? it had the ſame upon all, and this was the end of Impoſition. But this Mr. N. muſt prove: If I can prove the contrary, then I muſt tell Mr. N. to argue a particulari ad univerſale is none of the beſt Logick. But of Timothy more anon.
1. The Apoſtles Acts 6. when they Impoſed hands, did it not to confer ſuch gifts. For 1. They ſay plainly it was to appoint them, v. 3. to ſuch a work, i. e. they were made Deacons [I think Mr. N. will not deny.] 2. They were to ſeek out men full of the Holy Ghoſt and wiſedom; they were then gifted before Impoſition.
2. In Acts 13.3. when the Prophets and Teachers were commanded to Impoſe hands on Paul and Barnabas, the end was not to confer extraordinary gifts; Paul was filled with the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 9. when Ananias Impoſed hands. The end here was to ſeparate them, &c. the Old Teſtament-word.
3. Timothy had command to Impoſe hands [in Ordination I doubt not] 1 Tim. 5.22. But that Timothy conferred extraordinary gifts, is a task for Mr. N. to undertake to prove. Philip was an Evangeliſt, but it ſeems he could not do it. Acts 8.15, 17. Peter and John the Apoſtles did this: beſides that all the ordinary Presbyters [for I hope ſome were ordinary] had extraordinary gifts, ſeems ſtrange.
4. Timothy is charged to commit the things, &c. to ahle men. 2 Tim. 2.2. So Titus hath order ſent him to Ordain men qualified, gifted, ſuch as muſt be able by ſound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gain-ſayers. So in 1 Tim. 3.2. the Biſhop muſt be foreign what need this caution? For if they by Impoſition of hands, could confer extraordinary gifts, they could make them able, be they never ſo weak before. As we finde in Acts 8. and Acts 19. when the Apoſtles after Baptiſm Impoſed hands, they did not look at their ability or inability, they made them able preſently.
5. Impoſition was in practice before this time under the Old Teſtament, from whence [as ſay our Divines] it was tranſlated into the New Teſtament, Numb. 8.10. But I hope the Iſraelites did not thereby confer extraordinary gifts, it was one Act in their ſeparation of the Levites.
Now for Timothy, who is the only proof of Mr. N. his Argument. I wiſh Mr. N. had opened the Text more fully. What was this Propheſie? One thus, He will have Ordination be in facie Eccleſiae cum prophetiâ, i. e. cum recitatione, & interpretatione verbi Divini de Miniſterio Euangelii. But this gives no content. Zanchy underſtands that Timothy came by that gift by Propheſie, i.e. Per ſacrarum literarum interpretationes quas partim jam inde ab ipſa juventute didicerat, partim ab Apoſtolo acceperat: The Leyden Profeſ. underſtand Propheſie as doth Zanch. Diſp. 42. S 37.Deinde idem Donum confirmatum in eo fuit & aucium per impoſitionem manuum, cum fuit Ordinatus. If this were all, this would not ſo confirm Mr. N. his notion: for why may not the Lord increaſe the gift of a Miniſter, and confirme it at his Ordination, by means of that Ordinance. If he hath done it, may be not do it ſtill? Let him give me a reaſon. Nos vero non negamus gratiam. i. e. foreign conferri in ordinatione, ſaith great Chamier. Then Impoſition need not be caſt out for this: for Mr. N. muſt prove it was an extraordinary gift which Timothy had nothing of before, and which this Presbytery by Impoſition conferred; which I think he will not eaſily do.
Others underſtand by Propheſie a Revelation made to Paul concerning Timothy. So Beliarmin, with which the thoughts of moſt agree, a Revelation made by ſome Prophets which then were in the Church, by which he was deſigned to the Miniſtry, In Loc.& poſt ea per Impoſitionem mannum fuit in eo confirmatus & quaſi inveſtitus, ſaith Gerhard. And this the Apoſtle mentions, both for the commendation of Timothy, and for his excuſe, being yet ſo young, and elſe in regard of years unfit for ſo great an Office. See Gerh. Ib.
For this foreign the thoughts of Divines are very various; but the moſt probable fall under one of theſe two heads. 1. Either thoſe gracious qualifications by which he was fitted for his work. Or 2. The Docendi officium, the very office and place unto which men through grace are fitted. So Rom. 12.6. This is moſt generally received. Gerhard takes in both, but doth not reckon extraordinary gifts; he ſaith, Gratiam docendi, exhortandi, Scripturas interpretandi, contradictores redarguendi. I think he ſaith trueſt. Yet as Zanchy before, ſo I conceive Timothy had ſome degree of thoſe gifts before, though now more increaſed and confirmed.
2. But if the gifts were extraordinary, let him tell us how Timothy ſhould ſtir up extraordinary gifts.
3. Where doth he finde extraordinary gifts conferred by a Presbytery? which is here diſtinct from Paul, who was an extraordinary Officer. Presbyter is the common word for an ordinary Paſtor in the New Teſtament; and when it is named as diſtinct from other extraordinary Officers, I know not why it ſhould not be meant of an ordinary Presbyter, and ſo this Presbytery but ordinary: to ſay this gift was extraordinary, and the Presbytery extraordinary without ſufficient proof will not ſatisfie a rational man.
4. I had another Notion, but was afraid to ſet it down, leſt I ſhould be charged with ſingularity, as is Mr. N. 't was this, Suppoſe the gift were extraordinary, yet it ſhould ſeem to be given foreign, 1 Tim. 4.14. And foreign, 2 Tim. 1.6. foreign is joyned to both; ſo that this gift came by Propheſie, as much as by hands. And if withal foreign comprehends the Miniſterium eccleſiaſticum to which Timothy was ordained, he being by Propheſie deſigned to it being young, the Preſbytery might well Impoſe hands with Paul to ſeparate him to his office, as Paul being commanded to be ſeparated, &c. Acts 13.3. Here the prepoſition is changed, it is not foreign, but foreign. I knew no hurt in this Notion, nor what fault could be found with it, only (as I ſaid) I feared ſingularity. But caſting my eye upon Diodati I ſaw he concurred with me in my Notion. By the Impoſition of Paul's hands, 2 Tim. 1.16. Timothy received the extraordinary gift. By the Impoſition of the Colledge of Elders hands, 1 Tim. 4.14. He was inſtalled in the Miniſtry with a publick bleſſing. Thus he on 2 Tim. 1.6.
Didoclavius, whom reverend Mr. Hooker follows, obſerved the difference in the phraſe, but whether he meant as Mr. Hooker doth I know not. For thus Mr. Hooker, By gift he underſtands thoſe gracious abilities which Timothy received by the ſpirit in way of Propheſie, whence he was fitted to be an Evangeliſt. It is by the hands of Paul there is a cauſal vertue under Chriſt of conſtitution: but it is with the hands of the Elderſhip, as concurring by way of Approbation only. Thus he. That Paul's hands ſhould cauſaliter conſtituere gracious qualifications, and that the hands of the Elderſhip ſhould onelyonly concur by way of Approbation that Timothy ſhould have ſuch qualifications ſeems ſomething odd: What need of their concurrence or approbation? Nor do I think conſtitution here is taken in that ſenſe the New Teſtament doth uſe it.
I hope by this time this Argument of Mr. N. uſed by our Brethren doth not appeare ſtrong enough to remove Impoſition: as for the reſt of his Arguments I will now take them in order, omitting what is needleſs.
His firſt Argument is, Impoſition is not warranted in Ordination by Impoſition on the Levites. He giveth divers reaſons; I can yield to divers things without hurting my cauſe.
His fift reaſon, Iſrael Impoſed hands on the Levites, to ſignifie that they were to bear their ſins, and make attonement for them, Exod. 29.
A. 1. There is no ſuch thing mentioned in the Chapter quoted. In Numb. 18.3. the Levites were not to meddle with the Prieſts office; no not to ſprinkle blood. 2 Chron. 30.16.
2. The 14. verſe tells us it was a part of the ſeparation of the Levites: nor do we make this our firſt warrant.
His fift reaſon, This was a Jewiſh Ceremony, and why ſhould this, all other being abrogated, be only reſerved.
Let the Apoſtles give the Anſwer; Why did they uſe it? and Paul bid Timothy uſe it? Let him blame Paul if Impoſition upon the Ordained be a Ceremonial Law which took end by the coming of Chriſt, then the Apoſtles were injurious unto his death, who tranſlated that Ceremony from the Jews under the Law into the Church under the Goſpel, ſaith Mr. Cartwright, Reply p. 221. More anon.
His ſecond Argument from Heb. 6.2. doth not hold it forth in point of Ordination, but it is a fundamental principle of religion, uſed figuratively for the gift of the Holy Ghoſt, which is ſignified and conferred.
A. Then Mr. N. of all men muſt not exclude Ordination, in which it conferred extraordinary gifts [as he hath affirmed before] for that time then it muſt comprehend Ordination; his own Notion confutes himſelf.
2. I think as he ſaith [and ſo in his ſixth reaſon, which I will therefore omit] it was a fundamental principle, and therefore ſhould ſtand ſo long as the Church ſtands. Let the Reader be pleaſed to caſt his eye upon what I have ſaid concerning the Text before.
His firſt reaſon hath there its anſwer alſo.
His ſecond and third reaſons, I think, aim both at the ſame thing. Doctrine is added to Baptiſm, and Impoſition, to intimate the doctrine of the Ordinance, not the Ordinance it ſelf was intended: the communication of the Spirit is the thing ſignified, or the doctrine of Impoſition.
A. Is indeed the Doctrine of Baptiſm here only intended, and not the Ordinance of Baptiſm it ſelf? I muſt requeſt him to excuſe me, I intend not to give ſo much advantage to the Socinians. I think the Ordinance is plainly inded, and ſo is Impoſition.
2. Doth not the Apoſtle then Tautologize? Do not Repentance and Faith comprehend much of the doctrine of Baptiſm? why ſhould the Ordinance be mentioned if not intended?
3. What error is there if we read the words dividedly, with a Comma betwixt foreign, as do the Tigurin and Aethiopick Verſions. So Oecumenius, Luther, Eraſmus, Gagnaeus, as Gerhard ſaith, and the Greek do not oppoſe it; Thus Cajetan and Aretius: See their Comments. Then this notion fails, and it will make yet more for my Interpretation.
4. But let us ſuppoſe the Doctrine of Impoſition be here intended: Yet as Aretius ſaith well in loc. De hac ceremonia admonebantur Neophyti, quandoquidem tum in frequenti erat uſu, quid illa eſſet, cur inſtituta, quibus, & per quos imponerentur manus: item ad quid conduceret diſcebant Fidei Tyrones. Very good: muſt not then the Neophyti anſwer, Hands were Impoſed in Ordination of Church Officers? If we come to teach ours this head of Catechiſm, and they muſt anſwer according to Mr. N. his notion, they may well ſay, What is this to us? how is it a foundation to us, the thing is ceaſed ſo many hundred years ſince? [beſides what I have before ſaid.] But according to our Interpretation, we both open the Doctrine, we uſe the thing, and it remains as yet a Foundation to us. The old holy non-conformiſts tell us how they look upon the Miniſtry: there was an objection made, We have been taught heretofore that Diſcipline is an eſſential part of the Goſpel and matter of Faith. To this they anſwer,
That Diſcipline of the Church [being generally underſtood] is a matter of Faith, and an eſſential mark of the Church, I hope our Brethren will not deny; for Diſcipline comprehendeth not only the Adminiſtration of the Keys, but Ordination and Impoſition of hands: but without Ordination there are no Preachers, Rom. 10.15. and without Preaching there is no belief, v. 14. Wherefore without ſome part of Diſcipline it cannot be denied but that the Church is no Church, Faith no Faith. Thus they. This ſuites Mr. Hooker's expoſition of our Text.
5. If the confirmation and increaſing of ordinary gifts be the Spirit's work, then ſtill it may hold, as Zanch. and Chamier before.
His fourth and fifth reaſons are anſwered before: onelyonly whereas he ſaith, Impoſition is added as an explicative adjunct of Baptiſm. It ſhould ſeem no [beſides what have been ſaid] there being ſo few heads enumerated, it's unlikely the Apoſtle would add an Adjunct to this ordinance, [which I think he cannot prove was alwayes at Baptiſme.] I thinke alſo this croſſeth the former head, wherein he ſaid, Not Baptiſme, but the Doctrine of Baptiſme is intended.
His ſeventh it is interpreted in the next, v. 4, 5. Illumination anſwers to repentance, Taſte of the heavenly gift to Faith, the participation of the Holy Ghoſt to the doctrine of Impoſition and Baptiſme, the taſting of the good word to the reſurrection.
A. This doth not pleaſe. Illumination, as moſt underſtand the word belonging to the Intellectual part, and repentance to the heart, do not ſeem to anſwer. I know foreign in the 1. v. if the word be taken ſtrictly as the word ſounds belongs to the minde, but ſo as it's Act is perfected in the heart; it is foreign. The Syriack render foreign otherwiſe; and that Baptiſme is taken for Illumination among the Ancients, according to the Syriack who knows not; foreign, &c. Juſt. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 94. So Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 1. p. 93, 95. So Greg. Naz. Orat. 40.
2. Mr. N. ſaith, Juſtifying Faith is ſignified in Baptiſme, then not in the word Faith expreſſed in the Text, then Faith muſt be taken in a large ſenſe, and this will rather anſwer to Illumination then repentance.
3. How doth Reſurrection anſwer to the Taſte of the good word; when as Reſurrection is a terrible word to moſt. The good word of promiſe rather, the promiſe contains good.
4. Why doth he make one word to anſwer Baptiſm and Impoſition, when they were divided in the Text; and Mr. N. hath not yet proved that they went always together.
5. Why may not the participation of the Holy Ghoſt have reſpect alſo to ſuch gifts as are given now in our days? for do we not obſerve [with trembling] how ſome loſe their gifts, even eminent gifts, profeſſion, and ſo fall away, as never more return? ſhould it be tied up only to extraordinary gifts [which I do not believe] yet thoſe were given in Ordination, as Mr. N. ſaith, ſo that for that time Impoſition muſt be comprehended.
His eighth: Impoſition is made a principle from which it was neceſſary an Apoſtate ſhould fall if finally: but it is not neceſſary that one ſhould be inſtructed touching the office of the Miniſtry: one may be ſaved, and yet be ignorant in the point of Ordination, and one may fall away finally though ignorant in this reſpect.
A. I know not what he means by the Apoſtates falling from the principle. He doth not mean, I ſuppoſe, that a man muſt have firſt thoſe extraordinary gifts, and ſo fall from them, elſe not an Apoſtate; there are too many Apoſtates yet never reached thoſe gifts.
2. One may be ſaved as well though he doth not underſtand the extraordinary gifts conferred by Impoſition. I preſume Mr. N. doth not think the Apoſtles conferred the Holy Ghoſt in a gracious ſaving way by Impoſition.
3. It is one thing for a perſon to be ignorant of Ordination, another to be ignorant of that which Ordination holds out; of what neceſſity the Miniſtry is, Mr. Cartwright and the Non-Conformiſts [before mentioned] tell us. So the Scripture. But Mr. Hooker takes it in a larger ſenſe.
4. I think there are few Apoſtates who have been ignorant of the Miniſtry; for thoſe who have been ignorant of this, never came to ſo much as the Text expreſſes; then they cannot fall away from what they never had.
His ninth: If we ſhould underſtand the docirine of the Miniſtry by Impoſition, then we muſt exclude the Adminiſtration of Baptiſme in the principle of Baptiſme, becauſe Baptiſme in this conſideration belongeth unto the Miniſtry, and therefore cannot [unleſs it ſignifie the doctrine of Baptiſme onelyonly] be a diſtinct principle from Impoſition. And if we make Baptiſme it ſelfe together with the doctrine which it holds forth a diſtinct principle, and the doctrine of Impoſition together with the Adminiſtration of it in Ordination another diſtinct principle, to what principle ſhall we refer the Lord's Supper.
If I miſtake Mr. N. in what he would have, I muſt craye pardon; I wiſh he had been more clear, but as I underſtand him, ſo I anſwer. The Lord's Supper being of the ſame nature with Baptiſm; a ſigne to repreſent, a ſeale to confirm, an inſtrument to convey, &c. [as ſay our old Catechiſms] well may it be referred to Baptiſme. As for Baptiſme, it being 1. An Ordinance ſo long practiſed before by John. 2. The initiating Sacrament. 3. Anſwering all thoſe Baptiſmes the Hebrews knew well. 4. At this time greatly eſteemed and practiſed. 5. The ſpirit fore-ſeeing our times wherein that Ordinance would be ſlighted and caſt out, as now it is, no wonder though this be expreſly ſet down, to which the other is fitly referred.
If the Lord's Supper be referred to Baptiſme [as there is reaſon why it ſhould] and the Miniſtry [which will include Preaching and Diſcipline] be underſtood in Impoſition of hands, then we may have in theſe few heads the ſumme of thoſe Doctrines which are neceſſary to ſalvation and a viſible Church in the Ordinances and Officers held forth.
His tenth: Interpreters apply this to confirmation, not all, I named ſome before that are of another opinion. But if we ſhould loſe this Text, yet we have not loſt our cauſe.
His third Argument I anſwered firſt.
His fourth is alſo as good as anſwered: this it is, If we muſt remove Impoſition from converts, from prayers for the ſick, if from any, why not all; the extraordinary gift ceaſeth in reſpect of Ordination, as well as in reſpect of other Adminiſtrations. The ſtrength of the Argument lying upon the extraordinary gift, this is anſwered before.
Then he meets with an Objection. It may be a ſacred ſign in Ordination to ſignifie the conſecration of a perſon to adminiſter holy things; or if he had pleaſed to have added to ſhew the Deſignation, the Separation, the Appointing of this perſon to his office. As the Congregation ſaw Joſhua and knew him appointed to his office when Moſes impoſed hands and charged him.]
To this he anſwers, 1. It was not of this uſe in the conſecration of Prieſts and Levites.
A. Why not? he ſhould have told us of what uſe it was, not to confer extraordinary gifts I am ſure. Omitting what might be ſaid, let Peter Martyr ſpeak for the reſt of our Divines. Loc. Com. de. Voca. adminiſt.He reciting the ſeveral rites of the old conſecration both of Prieſts and Levites, ſaith, Haec externa ratio eo valuit ut populus intelligeret eos eſſe jam miniſtros ſibi deſignatos a Deo: ſublatis autem iſtis umbris nobis nihil relinquitur niſi Impoſitio manuum. Thus alſo Zanc. 4. praec. p. 785.
2. He ſaith It is not of this uſe in Ordination of Deacons.
A. I ſhall only give him Mr. Hooker's words, Sur. Chu. p. 3. p. 9.The Lord Chriſt in his Infinite wiſedome and Kingly care conceived it neceſſary for the honour of the place, and execution of the work of a Deacon to appoint choiſe men, & ſolemn Ordination to Authorize them to the work. If a Deacon be only the Treaſurer of the Church, he had need be deſigned and authorized to it; but Mr. Noyes, who writeth againſt ruling Elders, giving all their work to the Deacon, p. 23.had more cauſe to allow of it. Let him ſhew us Deacons in Scripture ordained without Impoſition of hands.
FINIS.
Errata.
PAge 3. line 16. read review. p. 13. l. 7. r. Chriſt. p. 14. l. 2. r. if. p. 16. in the Syriack word put Tau in the place of Ae. p. 21. l. 17. r. Ordinance. p. 22. l. 31. r. Muſculus. p. 38. l. 17. r. 1. p. 39. l. 19. r. Congregation. p. 49. l. 10. r. from being. p. 51. l. 6. r. me. p. 52. l. 15. after have r. judged this. p. 63. l. 2. r. foreign. p. 79. The Arabick words have neither the Vowels nor Orthographical notes placed right; the words ſhould be waſamou lahom, with elif quieſcens placed after Sin. p. 80. l. 12. foreign. p. 92. l. 34. r. others. p. 93. l. 20. r. think. p. 102. l. 30. r. committing. p. 103. l. 1. r. 1. Titus. p. 114. l. 24. r. communem. p. 121. l. 8. r. eccleſiae. p. 130. l. 19. r. words. p. 138. l. 24. after had r. no.
Some few other faults in the Greek, and pointing, but the judicious Reader will ſoon correct them.
THe Admiſſion of perſons baptized in their infancy, without due Tryal of their Faith & growth in Chriſt, when grown in years, to a full participation of all Church-Privileges & Ordinances, hath cauſed great confuſion in the Adminiſtration of holy things; And therefore, I conceive, the Learned Author of this Elaborate exercitation hath deſerved well of the Churches, by clearing the way of thoſe Admiſſions from Scripture-grounds, and the concurrent Teſtimonies of many, both Antient and Modern writers; As alſo, by diſcovering and removing thoſe Popiſh additions and pollutions which by ſeveral ſteps and degrees have crept into it. And if what he hath offered in this Eſſay come not up to the Judgement and Practice of the beſt conſtituted Churches; yet this ingenuous and pious overture holds out more than moſt Churches have hitherto attained, and may provoke the zeal of many to hold out what they have attained, as more commodious for, and perfective of the much-deſired and longed-for reſtauration of the Churches to their privitive purity, both in ſeparating the pretious from the vile, and in uniting the pretious into a more beautiful and beneficial Order among themſelves. Theſe conſiderations have confirmed me in giving not only Licenſe to the publiſhing, but thanks to the Publiſher of this diſcourſe of Confirmation.
Joſeph Caryl. The 24th of the 6th. MonethMonth, 1657.
End of the text · Giles Firmin, Of Schism (1658)