<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2012-10-11</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Alexis Jakobson</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>*Proofed title page(s).
*Reviewed structure.
*Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, BYLINE, etc.).
*Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate.
*Checked for N=""s.
*Checked ^s.
*Checked placement and completeness of PBs.
*Checked for foreign, damage and missing-page GAPs, #, --.
*Checked for LBs, startqs / endqs, q;s, &abque;s, ABBRs, LETTERs and Qs.
*Checked for FIGUREs and decorated initials.
*Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there.
*Corrected <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s etc.
*Converted <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="[vendor name]".
*Revalidated.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A85312">
<STC T="W">F958</STC>
<STC T="T">E1819_1</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99868625</BIBNO>
<VID>170413</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>OF SCHISM. PAROCHIAL CONGREGATIONS IN ENGLAND, AND <HI>Ordination by Impo&s;ition of Hands.</HI></P>
<P>Wherein Dr. <HI>Owen</HI>'s Di&s;covery of the True Nature of Schi&s;m is briefly and friendly examined, together with Mr. <HI>Noyes</HI> of <HI>New England</HI> his Arguments again&s;t Impo&s;ition of hands in Ordination.</P>
<P>By GILES FIRMIN, Sometime of <HI>New England,</HI> now Pa&s;tor of the Church at <HI>Shalford</HI> in <HI>E&s;&s;ex.</HI></P>
<Q><BIBL><HI>1 Cor. 12.25.</HI></BIBL> That there &s;hould be no Schi&s;m in the body.</Q>
<Q><BIBL><HI>1 Chron. 15.13.</HI></BIBL> The Lord our God made a breach upon us for that we &s;ought him not after the due order.</Q>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed by <HI>T. C.</HI> for <HI>Nathanael Webb,</HI> and <HI>William Grantham,</HI> at the Bear in <HI>Paul</HI>'s Church-yard, neer the little North door of <HI>Pauls,</HI> 1658.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2" MS="y">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To the Reverend the A&s;&s;ociated Mini&s;ters in the County of <HI>E&s;&s;ex.</HI></HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Fathers and Brethren,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>EIther we have dealt hypocritically with God and man, or el&s;e the Divi&s;ions in the&s;e poore Churches have lain upon the hearts of the godly in <HI>England</HI> as an afflicting evil. The Civil Power have &s;eemed to be &s;o &s;en&s;ible of this evil, that more then once it hath been numbred amongst the cau&s;es in their Orders for our Solemn and Publike Humiliati|ons; if our Fa&s;t-days, Prayers, Sermons, Books, &amp;c. may be believed, then the breaches in our Churches have broken our comforts. For my part I have cau&s;e to take &s;hame, and to ask pardon of God that this &s;in which hath wrought &s;o much evil, and brought &s;uch di&s;honour to Chri&s;t, have no more affected me; it is for them who&s;e hearts are mo&s;t divided from &s;elf, and united to God, to be <HI>indeed</HI> affected and afflicted with Divi&s;ions in the Church. I look on it as an act of a grown Chri&s;tian, who&s;e Intere&s;t in Chri&s;t is well cleared, and his heart walking clo&s;e with God, to be really taken up with the publike Intere&s;t of Chri&s;t. I will not mea&s;ure other mens hearts by my own, but I mu&s;t &s;ay for my &s;elf, the good Lord pardon my hypo|cri&s;ie in this point, for to be affected as become Chri|&s;tians for Divi&s;ions among Chri&s;tians, I find it a hard matter, whatever words &s;eem to affirm.</P>
<P>Could I joy in my &s;elf, I &s;hould be glad that I lived to &s;ee the day when the Lord put it into two or three of your hearts to try what might be done for the healing
<PB REF="3">of our breaches, and thereupon to call &s;ome of your Brethren together to &s;ee if we could agree &s;o far that we might A&s;&s;ociate together, as &s;ome of our Brethren in other Countries have done: and let me leave this upon record, &s;o long as this poor Script &s;hall la&s;t, for the honour of the <HI>Presbyterial</HI> Brethren, as they were the fir&s;t movers for peace, &s;o they have bidden fair for peace; had our Congregational Brethren [who&s;e per|&s;ons, gifts, and graces I de&s;ire to honour and love] been but an&s;werable, we might have had cau&s;e to have joyned together in prai&s;es for our healing, as we have had, and &s;till have cau&s;e to mourn for our breaches.</P>
<P>It is not to be forgotten how the good hand of God went along with us; for though we were men of diffe|rent principles who were cho&s;en to draw up the agree|ment, and we met neer twenty times before we could fini&s;h, yet no unbrotherly cla&s;hing was heard amongst us; but &s;o &s;oon as we &s;aw each others principles to be fixed, pre&s;ently we were called off from Di&s;puting, and the next words were, <HI>Come, let us &s;ee how we can Accommodate;</HI> let the ble&s;&s;ing of <HI>Matth. 5.9.</HI> fall upon &s;uch hearts.</P>
<P>Were it true <HI>that uniting with our Brethren in this A&s;&s;ociation, were a dividing of our hearts from God,</HI> as one of our Congregational Brethren did intimate in a Sermon of his upon <HI>Ho&s;. 10.2.</HI> then I wonder not though he &s;o &s;oon de&s;erted us, and that others &s;tand off from us. For this he &s;aid was one note of the heart di|vided from God, <HI>when the heart did not fully come up to God:</HI> and under this head brought in &s;uch <HI>who did fa&s;hion and mould them&s;elves in State and Church according to the Mode of the Times, though contrary to their own principles and light, cro&s;s to [or laying by] the In&s;titutions of Chri&s;t, when as
<PB REF="3">the Text &s;aith,</HI> Jer. <HI>15.19. If thou &s;eparate the pre|cious from the vile, &amp;c.</HI> our Brothers aim was under|&s;tood by divers in the Congregation, and unto him I &s;hall return this an&s;wer.</P>
<P>If he means I have gone contrary to my own prin|ciples and light, he is mi&s;taken extreamly. If he meant he and other Congregational men mu&s;t do &s;o if they A&s;&s;ociate, how can this po&s;&s;ibly be, when it was one of our foundations we laid for agreement, and it was pro|fe&s;&s;ed again and again, <HI>that we went not about to take any man off from his Principles?</HI> I wi&s;h our Bro|ther had in&s;tanced what In&s;titution of Chri&s;t we cro&s;&s;ed or laid by.</P>
<P>For the Scripture he alledged, let us &s;ee how this &s;uits our ca&s;e; the Presbyterial Brethren do not indeed &s;epa|rate as do he and others, but doth he therefore upon this Text &s;tand off? I finde five &s;everal expo&s;itions of the words, and very few who take the word <HI>Precious</HI> for to relate to <HI>Per&s;ons.</HI> But I will give my Brother that &s;en&s;e, Let it be meant of Per&s;ons,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">The <HI>Ara|bick</HI> word which the Tran&s;la|tor ren|der <HI>Hone|&s;tus Golius</HI> renders <HI>genero&s;us, nobilis.</HI> And the other <HI>(Dalilon) abjectus, vllis con|temptus.</HI></NOTE> as <HI>Pi&s;cator</HI> thinks it mo&s;t proper, becau&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>alibi de per&s;ona tant&ugrave;m dicitur.</HI> And &s;o the <HI>Interlineary glo&s;s.</HI> Now the que|&s;tion is, <HI>1.</HI> Who are meant by <HI>Precious? 2.</HI> How <HI>Jere|miah</HI> was to &s;eparate the&s;e Precious from the Vile.</P>
<P>For the fir&s;t, tho&s;e who do Interpret it of <HI>Per&s;ons</HI> do all under&s;tand <HI>real Saints;</HI> and here &s;tanding &s;o in oppo&s;ition to others it mu&s;t needs be meant &s;o. Obj. <HI>If he will &s;ay, that doth not follow; for all I&s;rael were called</HI> holy, <HI>and that in as high a word as</HI> precious. I an&s;wer, The Lord &s;peaks of the&s;e who were called <HI>holy,</HI> and yet here commands the &s;eparation of the <HI>Precious</HI> from the <HI>Vile;</HI> therefore it mu&s;t be meant of <HI>real Saints.</HI> I could &s;ay more but &s;pare.</P>
<P N="2"><HI>2.</HI> For the &s;econd, How did he &s;eparate, either by
<PB REF="4"><HI>Doctrine,</HI> or <HI>Di&s;cipline.</HI> Not by <HI>Di&s;cipline</HI> [which mu&s;t &s;erve my Brothers purpo&s;e.] For</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, To &s;eparate <HI>real Saints</HI> from <HI>vile</HI> by <HI>Di&s;cipline</HI> is a hard work indeed, and &s;uch a task as the Lord never put his Mini&s;ters to; who knew mens hearts? then the Congregational Brethren mu&s;t look to it that all their members are <HI>real Saints.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><HI>1.</HI> But if my Brother &s;aith, by <HI>precious</HI> real Saints are not meant but <HI>vi&s;ible,</HI> though not &s;o <HI>really.</HI> [Be|&s;ides that all were called <HI>holy.</HI>] This my Brother mu&s;t prove, and then tell us what he means by a vi&s;ible Saint. But however &s;eparation by <HI>Di&s;cipline</HI> cannot be meant. For</P>
<P N="2"><HI>2. Jeremiah</HI> then had a &s;trange task, for he had no particular Church as we; and for him to &s;eparate all vi&s;ible Saints from the vile in the Jewi&s;h Church by Di&s;cipline were a &s;trange and impo&s;&s;ible work.</P>
<P N="3"><HI>3. Jeremiah</HI> a &s;ingle Prie&s;t could not do it; as all that know the Jewi&s;h governments will confe&s;s.</P>
<P N="4"><HI>4.</HI> But put ca&s;e it were &s;o, yet this hinders not his A&s;&s;ociating with our Brethren, who de&s;ire him but to A&s;&s;ociate, where they do &s;eparate the precious from the vile by Di&s;cipline.</P>
<P>Since then this &s;eparation was <HI>Doctrinal,</HI> as all Divines upon the Text acknowledge, then whether the <HI>Prebyterial</HI> Brethren [very many of them at lea&s;t] do not &s;eparate as well as him&s;elf, I de&s;ire my Brother to con&s;ider. For the la&s;t words which he al&s;o u&s;ed, <HI>Let them return to thee, but return not thou unto them.</HI> Doth my Brother indeed <HI>parallel</HI> our A&s;&s;ociated Bre|thren with tho&s;e who are meant by <HI>them?</HI> Let the <HI>Presbyterial</HI> Brethren return to the <HI>Congregational,</HI> not they to them: I &s;hould not have dared to have made &s;uch a parallel.</P>
<PB REF="4">
<P>I &s;hall only put this Brother in mind what he then &s;aid again&s;t tho&s;e <HI>who dare depart from</HI> &s;tanding <HI>Commandments,</HI> and de&s;ire him to con&s;ider whether he never read of a <HI>&s;tanding</HI> (to u&s;e his own words). Commandment, repeated again and again, <HI>that we &s;hould follow the things which make for peace,</HI> and whether he, with our Brethren who &s;tand off, have an|&s;wered that Commandment, &s;ober Congregational men &s;hall judge.</P>
<P>Let me leave with our Brethren a few lines which I received a few weaks &s;ince from that learned and godly Divine Mr. <HI>Norton,</HI> [Teacher of the Church in <HI>Bo&s;ton</HI> in <HI>N. England</HI>] in a Letter to me. <HI>The A&s;&s;ociation you mention among&s;t the Mini&s;ters we much rejoyce in, I never thought it better then human, but often|times wor&s;e, that the Presbyterian and Congre|gational men cannot clo&s;e together in Brotherly Communion. The power of godline&s;s intere&s;t us in the affections of the godly, above the notions of either of them con&s;idered apart therefrom. I believe the Congregational way to be the truth: yet I think better of many Presbyterians then of many Congre|gational men. 'Tis no wonder if Independents are unruly, for I di&s;tingui&s;h between Independents and Congregational men; or rather &s;uch [call them&s;elves as they plea&s;e] that will not acknowledge the rule of the Presbytery, and the order of Councils</HI> Thus far this reverend and great Divine. I am &s;ure our A&s;&s;ociation reaches no higher then a Council.</P>
<P>As for our Brethren who will not A&s;&s;ociate till they &s;ee the Civil Magi&s;trate &s;et his &s;tamp of Authority upon this way of A&s;&s;ociation, whatever the late <HI>In&s;tru|ment</HI> made by the Parliament allows us, though they &s;ee <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> and Congregational Churches, and
<PB REF="5">other A&s;&s;ociated Counties to exerci&s;e Di&s;cipline without any &s;cruple, though they would quarrel with an Era|&s;tian Magi&s;trate, that &s;hould deny any &s;uch power to belong to Churches, yea, though &s;ome of the&s;e can &s;u|&s;pend from the Lord's Supper whom they plea&s;e, we mu&s;t leave the&s;e to their own wi&s;edom, and de&s;ire them to convince the Magi&s;trate &s;o that he may be able to &s;ee clearly that the government of the Church is either Epi&s;copal, Cla&s;&s;ical, or Congregational, and &s;o &s;tabli&s;h <HI>one;</HI> or if the Magi&s;trate be not &s;o clear in either, but yet willing to favour any of the&s;e, the per&s;ons be|ing godly and peaceable, [as he doth] then let the&s;e Brethren con&s;ider whether the want of <HI>Church-Di&s;|cipline</HI> be a fault to be charged mo&s;t upon the Magi|&s;trate or upon them&s;elves.</P>
<P>To return to you then <HI>[Fathers and Brethren]</HI> in a few words. Hitherto God hath brought us; the worke we have engaged in is to <HI>mo&s;t</HI> [if not <HI>all</HI> of us] <HI>new,</HI> and &s;uch a work as many of tho&s;e who have been exerci&s;ed in it, have &s;o often mi&s;carried in, that the Ordinance of <HI>Di&s;cipline</HI> hath &s;uffered much di&s;ho|nour: and that which adds to the difficulty, we &s;et to it in &s;uch times wherein the Mini&s;try is &s;o much reviled by Sectaries, and as to this work much con|temned by the Gentry, and our Epi&s;copal Divines; one of which <HI>[and whom I honour]</HI> &s;aid to me, <HI>That we were no more fit to manage the government of the Church of</HI> England <HI>then</HI> David Saul<HI>'s Armour.</HI> We boa&s;t not of our fitne&s;s, but for the government of the Church by &s;uch Bi&s;hops [though I highly reve|rence &s;ome of them] they have no &s;uch cau&s;e to boa&s;t, as witne&s;s the Churches they have left us mi&s;erably overgrown with ignorance and profanne&s;s; had we &s;o many hundreds [or thou&s;ands] of pounds <HI>per annum,</HI>
<PB REF="5">&s;uch honour and regal power to &s;tick to us as had they, I hope the Churches might be governed as well as they were before, and be purged a little from that igno|rance and profanene&s;s which now we find them in.</P>
<P>But we mu&s;t go to our work without <HI>Saul</HI>'s Ar|mour. I am &s;en&s;ible how much wi&s;edom and prudence this work calls for; all my comfort is, <HI>Chri&s;t of God is made to us wi&s;edom, &amp;c. 1 Cor. 1.</HI> I take care for nothing but for <HI>Faith, Humility,</HI> and <HI>Prayer,</HI> to fetch this <HI>wi&s;edom</HI> from our King and Head, and leave the &s;ucce&s;s to him who did in&s;titute this Ordinance.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your fellow labourer in the worke of the Go&s;pel, GILES FIRMIN.</SIGNED>
<DATELINE>Shalford <DATE><HI>2.</HI> of the <HI>2.</HI> Month, <HI>1658.</HI></DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="publisher's advertisement">
<PB REF="6">
<HEAD>An Adverti&s;ement of two Books lately publi&s;hed by this Author.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>Giles Firmin. Viz.</HI> 1. Stabli&s;hing again&s;t Shaking, being a di&s;covery of the Quakers.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Power of the Civil Magi&s;trate in matters of Religion vindicated, and the ex|tent of it determined. By Mr. <HI>Stephen Mar|&s;hall,</HI> publi&s;hed by his own Copy &s;ince his death, with notes upon it.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="part">
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="1" REF="6">
<HEAD>CHAP. I. <HI>A brief and friendly examination of</HI> Dr. Owen<HI>'s di&s;covery of the Nature of</HI> Schi&s;m.</HEAD>
<P>_SEveral definitions of <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> both ancient and modern the Doctor recites, none of which give him content. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> [he &s;aith] &s;uited his definition directly to the cau&s;e he had in hand again&s;t the <HI>Donati&s;ts:</HI> for the re&s;t they do not &s;atisfie him; then offers <HI>his</HI> definition, being <HI>the</HI> definition which agrees with Scripture, to which he ap|peals, and e&s;teems this appeal to be <HI>nece&s;&s;ary and rea&s;onable.</HI> I am of the Doctor's mind, and wi&s;h we had kept there all this time; for while &s;ome men made <HI>Providence</HI> their <HI>Bible,</HI> others make <HI>Antiquity</HI> theirs, they have made us by woful experience know the evil effects of walk|ing by &s;uch <HI>Canons.</HI> Providences &amp; antiquity are excellent things to confirm us when they have clear Scriptures &s;tand before them as Figures before Cyphers; and if men would redu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e their
<PB N="2" REF="7">actions and di&s;putes to this Head, by which one day we &s;hal be judged, <HI>Rom.</HI> 2. [and not by Pro|vidences or Antiquity] as we might have &s;pared many of our troubles, &s;o we might &s;ooner come to the clo&s;ing up of our breaches, which I per|ceive is one part of the Doctors aim, but I can hardly believe will ever effect the Cure: For &s;uppo&s;e he can convince men that this &s;eparati|on <HI>from</HI> Churches is not Schi&s;m in the <HI>preci&s;e notion</HI> [as he often mentions] of Scripture; yet if they apprehend it to be &s;omething el&s;e as <HI>bad,</HI> and it may be <HI>wor&s;e,</HI> his book will prove ineffectual to the healing of our wounds.</P>
<P>Thus then he defines Schi&s;in, <HI>p.</HI> 51, 52. <HI>It is a cau&s;ele&s;&s;e difference or divi&s;ion among&s;t the members of any particular Church that meet to|gether, or ought &s;o to do, for the wor&s;hip of God and celebration of the &s;ame numerical ordinan|ces to the di&s;turbance of the order appointed by Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and contrary to that exerci&s;e of love in wi&s;edom and mutual forbearance which is re|quired of them.</HI></P>
<P>Two things I gather from this definition, and the Doctors di&s;cour&s;e in his Books.</P>
<P N="1">1. That he confines <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> to a particular Church onely.</P>
<P N="2">2. If Divi&s;ions in a particular Church grow &s;o high that divers of the members doe cau&s;e|le&s;ly make a Separation <HI>from</HI> the Church, hold|ing Communion with them&s;elves apart, that this is not Schi&s;m in the <HI>preci&s;e notion,</HI> however for di&s;putation-&s;ake again&s;t the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> and the <HI>Epi&s;copal</HI>-men he may yield it to be &s;o. <HI>The withdrawing from any Church or Society whate|ver
<PB N="3" REF="7">upon the plea of its corruption, be it true</HI> of fal&s;e, <HI>with a mind and re&s;olution to &s;erve God in the due ob&s;ervation of Church In&s;titutions, ac|cording to that</HI> light <HI>which men have received, is no where called Schi&s;m,</HI> p. 46, &amp; 77. And <HI>Rev.</HI> p. 83.</P>
<P>It is not <HI>called</HI> Schi&s;m, <HI>ergo</HI> it is not Schi&s;m. Will the con&s;equence hold, if the plea be fal&s;e? What is it <HI>called?</HI> I pray. Welfare an er|roneous con&s;cience; but &s;uppo&s;e upon a fal&s;e plea &s;uch a con&s;cience &s;hould rai&s;e divi&s;ions in a Church, according to the definition, with|out &s;eparating <HI>from</HI> the Church; were it Schi&s;m or not?</P>
<P>I thought by one pa&s;&s;age in the Doctor's <HI>Pre-view,</HI> p. 54. I had mi&s;taken him; for thus he &s;peaks to Mr. <HI>C. If he &s;uppo&s;e that I deny that to be Schi&s;m where there is a &s;eparation, and that becau&s;e there is a &s;eparation, as though Schi&s;m were in its</HI> whole nature <HI>exclu&s;ive of all &s;eparation, and lo&s;t its being when &s;eparation en&s;ued; he hath taken my mind as rightly as he hath done the whole de&s;ign of my book.</HI> But adds withall, <HI>Becau&s;e this is not proved, I &s;hall de&s;ire him not to make u&s;e of it for the future, as though it were &s;o.</HI> The&s;e words I did not ob|&s;erve till I had done.</P>
<P N="1">1. If Schi&s;m in its <HI>whole nature</HI> will include cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a particular Church, and this according to Scripture warrant, then the fal&s;e plea of an erroneous con&s;cience for cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church, upon pre|tence of &s;erving God in his In&s;titutions, ac|cording to its <HI>light,</HI> mu&s;t be <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> whether it
<PB N="4" REF="8">be <HI>called</HI> &s;o or not, unle&s;s you can tell us how el&s;e it is called.</P>
<P N="2">2. Why then doth the Doctor pa&s;s by the definition of Schi&s;m &s;o generally received? for he knows this is <HI>the</HI> thing which hath given that great offence, <HI>&s;eparation from true Churches;</HI> and that which mu&s;t &s;atisfie here mu&s;t be to prove that all this &s;eparation is ju&s;t and war|rantable by Scripture; and if &s;o, I know not who can charge the&s;e men with <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> nor any thing el&s;e in <HI>&s;o</HI> &s;eparating: &s;o that there was no need of departing from the definition generally received, and giving a new one, of which I know no u&s;e: unle&s;s, Fir&s;t, To &s;hew there can be no Schi&s;m in the <HI>Catholick Church:</HI> And &s;econdly, To &s;hew that Church-Mem|bers may be guilty of Schi&s;m, though they do not &s;eparate into parties, and &s;o &s;hew that our Churches are more guilty of Schi&s;m then we are aware of, which I believe to be true; but this will bring no honour I doubt to &s;ome Congregational Churches. Alas, what Schi&s;ms have we known? this is &s;o common a thing that a Divine whom I know, [and &s;o doth the Doctor] once a high Congregational man, &s;uffered much under that name, for whom my principles were not &s;trait enough, [but now he looks on me as erroneous, and too &s;trait, though I am the &s;ame I was then] being now turned about, and again&s;t all Congregational Churches, &s;aith this of them, <HI>they will all break in pieces and come to nothing.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Let the Reader be plea&s;ed to ob&s;erve the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages in his books, then judge if I mi&s;take him.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="5" REF="8">1. In the &s;ame book where he &s;peaks &s;o to Mr. <HI>C.</HI> who had &s;aid there was a &s;eparation into parties in the Church of <HI>Corinth;</HI> this the Doctor &s;tifly denies, <HI>p.</HI> 70. and in <HI>p.</HI> 62. &s;aith, <HI>The Schi&s;m the Apo&s;tle rebuked con&s;i&s;ted in Divi|&s;ion</HI> in <HI>it, and not in &s;eparation</HI> from <HI>it.</HI> Then in <HI>p.</HI> 72. <HI>What that Schi&s;m was from which he dehorts them, he declares only in the in&s;tance of the Church of Corinth; and thence is the</HI> mea&s;ure <HI>of it to be taken in reference to</HI> all <HI>dehorted from it.</HI></P>
<P>Hence then we mu&s;t dehort men from divi&s;i|ons <HI>in</HI> the Church, as being <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> the <HI>mea&s;ure</HI> allows it; but we mu&s;t not dehort them from cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church as being <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> becau&s;e that <HI>only in&s;tance,</HI> which is the <HI>mea&s;ure,</HI> doth not call it Schi&s;m. If that <HI>in|&s;tance</HI> be the <HI>mea&s;ure,</HI> what then doth not punctually agree with it is not Schi&s;m.</P>
<P N="2">2. In his book of Schi&s;m, <HI>p.</HI> 42. To this Q. <HI>[If any one now &s;hall &s;ay, will you conclude be|cau&s;e this evil mentioned by the Apo&s;tle is Schi&s;m, therefore nothing el&s;e is &s;o?]</HI> he &s;aith, <HI>I an&s;wer, that having before a&s;&s;erted this to be the</HI> chiefe <HI>and</HI> only &s;eat <HI>of the doctrine of Schi&s;m, I am inclinable &s;o to do.</HI> This in&s;tance is the <HI>only &s;eat</HI> of the doctrine of Schi&s;m; but this in&s;tance &s;peaketh only of divi&s;ion <HI>in</HI> the Church, not of &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> it, &s;aith he.</P>
<P N="3">3. P. 193. Ib. <HI>Take it for a particular Church of Chri&s;t, I deny that &s;eparation</HI> from <HI>a parti|cular Church, as &s;uch, as meerly &s;eparation, is Schi&s;m, or ought to be &s;o e&s;teemed; though per|haps &s;uch &s;eparation may proceed from Schi&s;m, and be al&s;o attended with other evils.</HI></P>
<PB N="6" REF="9">
<P>Who ever &s;aid that <HI>meer &s;eparation,</HI> &s;epara|ting all moral con&s;iderations from it, <HI>ju&s;t</HI> or <HI>unju&s;t,</HI> was Schi&s;m? we are &s;peaking of an unju&s;t or cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church, is that Schi&s;m? No, it &s;eems.</P>
<P>Before this cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation, there was divi&s;ion mo&s;t likely <HI>in</HI> the Church, and this is allowed to be <HI>Schi&s;m;</HI> this Schi&s;m at la&s;t produces <HI>&s;eparation cau&s;ele&s;ly,</HI> but this <HI>&s;epara|tion</HI> is not Schi&s;m, nor mu&s;t be &s;o e&s;teemed, <HI>he &s;aith.</HI> Compare this with his &s;peech to Mr. <HI>C.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. The Doctor &s;eems to define the <HI>whole nature</HI> of Schi&s;m, <HI>It is a cau&s;ele&s;s divi&s;ion among members, &amp;c. meeting together for the celebra|tion of the &s;ame numerical ordinances, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Had he thought there might be &s;chi&s;matical acts be&s;ides this Act in <HI>Corinth. viz.</HI> Cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church which was not here, (he &s;aith) then his work was only to de&s;cribe what was <HI>this</HI> Schi&s;m the Apo&s;tle reproves, and &s;o &s;hould have &s;aid, <HI>This Schi&s;m was a cau&s;ele&s;s divi&s;ion, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>But he defines, <HI>Schi&s;m is, &amp;c.</HI> And this agreeth with the Title of his Book, which pro|mi&s;eth to &s;hew us the <HI>True nature</HI> of Schi&s;m, [hitherto mi&s;taken it &s;eems by all Divines] and that definition the Doctor only embraceth; and for others he can own them again&s;t the Romani&s;ts <HI>ex abundanti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> but no definition hath given the <HI>true nature</HI> of it but his. Nor doth the Doctor find fault with other mens defini|tions, becau&s;e they mi&s;tooke this particular act of Schi&s;m in <HI>Corinth,</HI> [which it may be they never intended, but to give the whole nature
<PB N="7" REF="9">of the &s;in, as <HI>Logicians</HI> &s;hould doe, and the true definition of the &s;in will fetch in all parti|cular Acts] but he looks upon them all as not giving the <HI>true nature</HI> of Schi&s;m according to the <HI>preci&s;e notion</HI> of Scripture.</P>
<P>What then the Doctor means by his words to Mr. <HI>Ca.</HI> I know not; the&s;e grounds I have laid down will clear that I am not mi&s;taken in what I gather from him.</P>
<P>I &s;ee in his <HI>Rev.</HI> p. 85. he finds fault with Mr. <HI>Ca.</HI> becau&s;e he had &s;aid that he delivered him&s;elf <HI>ob&s;curely.</HI> But Mr. <HI>Ca.</HI> is not the fir&s;t man whom I have heard complain of <HI>ob&s;curity</HI> in his book, but divers others; I could &s;et down their expre&s;&s;ions, but forbear. In &s;everal pla|ces I ob&s;erve things are not clear, and &s;hould have taken &s;ome things in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e Mr. <HI>Ca.</HI> hath done, for which the Doctor blames him. The Doctor then mu&s;t pardon us though poor country-Mini&s;ters are not &s;o quick of un|der&s;tanding to find out his meaning.</P>
<P>So far then as I under&s;tand the Doctor, I am not in divers things &s;atisfied, and in particular not with his definition, which I doe not look upon as <HI>Logical.</HI> For, one rule of Definition is this.
<Q><HI>Definitio ne-&s;it angu&s;tior, neve latior &s;uo de|finito,</HI> but the Doctors definition is <HI>angu&s;ti|or &s;uo definito.</HI> Therefore not logical.</Q> It is <HI>angu&s;tior</HI> in two re&s;pects. 1. It takes not in cau&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church, which I doubt not may be <HI>Schi&s;m.</HI> 2. It takes not in the Schi&s;m in the <HI>Catholick Church.</HI> The Doctor &s;aith there can be none. Whether there
<PB N="8" REF="10">can be no Schi&s;m <HI>from</HI> the Catholick Church, is a harder que&s;tion, it would &s;eem rather to be <HI>Apo&s;tacie,</HI> as &s;aith the Doctor; yet I do al|mo&s;t think we may &s;uppo&s;e Schi&s;m to be <HI>from</HI> the <HI>Catholick Church.</HI> But that there is Schi&s;m <HI>in</HI> the Catholick Church, I doubt not. Now if the&s;e two can be made good, then the Do|ctors definition is not <HI>logical.</HI> Every definiti|on mu&s;t <HI>exhaurire totam naturam [&s;pecificam &s;altem] &s;ui definiti,</HI> el&s;e not <HI>adequate,</HI> nor <HI>reci|procal,</HI> which mu&s;t be.</P>
<P N="1">1. Then, Cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church <HI>may</HI> be Schi&s;m. Why I put in the word, <HI>May,</HI> I &s;hall give the rea&s;on afterwards.</P>
<P>But it may be the Doctor may &s;ay,
<Q>That definition of Schi&s;m which <HI>onely</HI> a|greeth with Scripture, that, and that one|ly, is the true definition of Schi&s;m. But &s;uch is mine. <HI>Ergo</HI></Q></P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> [which I &s;hall deny] he proves from this <HI>in&s;tance</HI> of the Church in <HI>Corinth.</HI> Where is no mention made of Separation <HI>from</HI> a Church, there was onely Divi&s;ion in a Church.</P>
<P>The word <HI>Onely</HI> I put into the propo&s;ition [and the Doctor him&s;elf &s;peaks as much, Here is the chief <HI>and</HI> onely <HI>&s;eat of the doctrine of Schi&s;m,</HI> p. 42.] el&s;e though I yield &s;uch a defi|nition agrees with a particular in&s;tance, yet it agreeth not with the whole &s;pecifical nature of the fin which we are enquiring into, and there|fore not logical. Doth every Scripture-in&s;tance give a full definition of the fin forbidden? The Command &s;aith <HI>Thou &s;halt not &s;teal,</HI> in <HI>Exod.</HI>
<PB N="9" REF="10">22.2. I finde mention made of a <HI>thief breaking in,</HI> &amp;c. to which Chri&s;t alludes <HI>Mat.</HI> 24.43. Sup|po&s;e there were no other in&s;tance of <HI>theft</HI> in all the Scripture, &s;hall I now goe &s;et forth a book about the <HI>true nature of theft,</HI> and goe to this In&s;tance, and there ground my Definition, and &s;ay, <HI>Theft is an illegal and violent breaking in|to a mans hou&s;e and taking away goods again&s;t the owners will,</HI> and &s;ay nothing el&s;e can be <HI>Theft</HI> in the <HI>preci&s;e notion</HI> of Scripture, becau&s;e the Scripture-in&s;tance calls nothing el&s;e <HI>theft?</HI> This were &s;trange. Is not robbing at Sea <HI>theft,</HI> though no &s;uch in&s;tance is found in Scripture? That definition given, <HI>Furtum e&s;t ablatio inju|&s;ta rei alienae invito domino,</HI> will fetch in all <HI>theft.</HI> It is true, every particular Act of any &s;in forbidden hath the &s;pecifical nature of that &s;in in it: If a man take my goods unju&s;tly, whether it be at &s;ea, or on the high-way, out of my hou&s;e openly or privately, and &s;everal o|ther ways, all the&s;e have the &s;pecifical nature of <HI>theft</HI> in them, and <HI>theft</HI> is predicated of them; we doe not make &s;everal definitions of theft becau&s;e there are &s;everal Acts: <HI>&V;nius rei una tantum e&s;t definitio.</HI> There may be divers de|grees of the &s;ame &s;in [as there is of Schi&s;m] yet <HI>gradus non variant &s;peciem.</HI> But we do not u&s;e to goe to particular Acts of any &s;in, and out of &s;uch an Act fetch the definition of the &s;in confining the &s;pecifical nature [which is more large] to that individual or &s;ingular Act.</P>
<P>So here. There is a command given, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.25. <HI>There mu&s;t be no Schi&s;m in the body.</HI> Now if I would define <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> mu&s;t I goe to a parti|cular
<PB N="10" REF="11">in&s;tance, and give a definition of the fi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> from that, and &s;ay <HI>this</HI> is Schi&s;m, and nothing el&s;e, Divi&s;ion <HI>in</HI> a Church, but no cau&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;e|paration <HI>from</HI> a Church, becau&s;e there is no in&s;tance given where &s;uch &s;eparation is <HI>called</HI> Schi&s;m; as if we had particular in&s;tances in Scripture of all the acts of &s;ins forbidden in the ten commandements. It is true, <HI>that</HI> is Schi&s;m [<HI>i. e.</HI> the cau&s;eleffe Divi&s;ion <HI>in</HI> the Church of <HI>Corinth,</HI> though they did not &s;epa|rate <HI>from</HI> it into parties, whether they did or no, I pa&s;&s;e not] which here the Apo&s;tle reproves: But is nothing el&s;e Schi&s;m? Put ca&s;e the divi|&s;ion had ri&s;en &s;o high that <HI>Cephas</HI> and his com|pany had &s;eparated from <HI>Apollos</HI> and his com|pany, and held communion apart by them|&s;elves, had not this been Schi&s;m? give a rea|&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> Such &s;eparation is not <HI>called</HI> Schi&s;m? <HI>An&s;w.</HI> It cannot be <HI>called</HI> &s;o unle&s;&s;e it <HI>were;</HI> the Doctor &s;ays it <HI>was not;</HI> we cannot expect the Scripture to give names to Acts as done, when they are not done. But <HI>ex hypothe&s;i,</HI> I ask the que&s;tion, if it had been &s;o [as it is now common with us] that <HI>Cephas</HI> had &s;eparated cau&s;ele&s;ly, had it not been <HI>Schi&s;m?</HI> Certainly if <HI>Racha</HI> and <HI>thou fool</HI> be breaches of the &s;ixt Command, then if one adde to his word blows and wounds unju&s;tly, that man is guilty of <HI>kil|ling</HI> al&s;o: So if <HI>Cephas</HI> and his company will adde Separation to Divi&s;ion, and that unju&s;tly, let <HI>Cephas</HI> pretend what he will, it is <HI>Schi&s;m.</HI></P>
<P>There are divers profe&s;&s;ors in the&s;e dayes, have been and would be e&s;teemed glorious
<PB N="11" REF="11">ones &s;till, who are &s;o &s;piritual that they live <HI>a|bove</HI> Ordinances [a carnal and wicked &s;piritu|ality] they have their grounds and pleas why they do &s;o, but we find no &s;uch In&s;tance in all the Scripture, of men upon the plea of <HI>&s;piritu|alne&s;s</HI> to live <HI>above</HI> them. Now to which com|mand &s;hall we reduce this &s;in, certainly a &s;in it is; if I can find a command where the Lord hath in&s;tituted his external wor&s;hip, and com|manded all to attend upon it, thither I reduce it, to the &s;econd.</P>
<P>So if men, though godly [for I know not but they have &s;in, and the Devil may abu&s;e them] will cau&s;ele&s;ly &s;eparate, though they think not &s;o, but plead this or that, becau&s;e I find no &s;uch In&s;tance in the Scripture, that men upon &s;uch <HI>pleas</HI> have &s;eparated, yet cau&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;eparation is a &s;in oppo&s;ite to the <HI>&V;nion</HI> commanded; and I think <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> and <HI>&V;nion</HI> are <HI>oppo&s;ite.</HI></P>
<P>If the Doctor then will give me [a poor Countrey-Mini&s;ter] leave, I will humbly pro|pound the way I would take to find out the de|finition of Schi&s;m. I &s;ee it is a &s;in, and offen-five to Chri&s;t, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.25. Now what is oppo|&s;ite to this, what is the affirmative precept? <HI>&V;|nion of the members among&s;t them&s;elves.</HI> This is the thing often commanded, the thing Chri&s;ts heart &s;eemed to be fixed upon, <HI>John</HI> 17. when he was leaving the world, and that &s;uch Uni|on as thereby the world may know who&s;e di&s;|ciples we are, as the Dr. p. 54. then I conceive <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> may be thus defined,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Schi&s;m de|fined.</NOTE>
<Q><HI>Schi&s;m</HI> is the &s;olution of that Unity which Chri&s;t our Head requireth in his Vi&s;ible Body.</Q>
<PB N="12" REF="12">I am not in this place critical about the words <HI>&V;nion</HI> or <HI>&V;nity;</HI> the Reader hath my meaning. I think the Dr. will not oppo&s;e this, for I find him enquiring exactly into the <HI>&V;nion</HI> of the <HI>In|vi&s;ible</HI> and <HI>Vi&s;ible Church,</HI> &amp;c. For the <HI>Invi&s;ible</HI> Church of Chri&s;t, there can be no <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> &s;aith the Doctor; hence I put it not in. It mu&s;t be in his <HI>vi&s;ible</HI> body, there I take in the Catho|lick Church [which I look on as mo&s;t pro|perly his Body-vi&s;ible] and al&s;o particular Churches. I take this definition to be <HI>recipro|cal,</HI> I do not call to mind any &s;chi&s;matical Act but it will comprehend it, whether it be Schi&s;m <HI>in</HI> a Church, or from a Church; in the <HI>Catho|lick</HI> or <HI>particular</HI> Churches: and yet my ground is Scriptural al&s;o, though I go not to a particu|lar in&s;tance.</P>
<P N="1">1. Hence then let us &s;ee whether cau&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church be not <HI>properly</HI> Schi&s;m. Let us &s;ee what unity the Lord requi|red of this Church; was it onely that inward love and forbearance [which the Doctor men|tions] which by their divi&s;ions the Apo&s;tle &s;aw they had broken? Did he not al&s;o require that they &s;hould, as with reverence towards him, &s;o with love one to another mutually and joyntly attend upon their <HI>Head</HI> in all his holy wor&s;hip and ordiuances, Sacraments, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> [The Do|ctors definition &s;aith as much, <HI>Numerical Or|dinances,</HI> &amp;c.] If then <HI>Cephas</HI> and his company had cau&s;ele&s;ly made the divi&s;ion, and upon this &s;eparate from the re&s;t, and not joyn with them in the Supper [wherein they &s;hew them&s;elves to be <HI>One bread, Chap.</HI> 10.17.] and other Or|dinances,
<PB N="13" REF="12">dinances, did they not manife&s;tly &s;hew a breach of that unity which the Lord required? mu&s;t I not &s;ay, <HI>Cephas,</HI> you and your company are highly guilty of Schi&s;m? let the Reader judge. Thus then &s;tands the argument.</P>
<P>If cau&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church be a &s;olution of that unity God requireth in his body, then cau&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church is Schi&s;m.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Antecedent</HI> is true: <HI>Ergo,</HI> the <HI>Con|&s;equent</HI> is true. The <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> is clear.</P>
<P N="2">2. In ca&s;e the&s;e who made the Divi&s;ion in <HI>Corinth</HI> had &s;eparated <HI>from</HI> the other members, the Doctor grants it had been a greater &s;in, <HI>Rev.</HI> p. 68. Since then we mu&s;t not call it <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> let the Doctor give us another <HI>Scrip|ture name</HI> for that &s;in; let him &s;et down the oppo&s;ite affirmative precept, and &s;ee if Union will not be found in it. I doubt he will hard|ly find another Scripture-name, for I think he will hardly find in all the Bible where godly men, or &s;uch as appeared &s;o, dared ever to make a cau&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church. To &s;ay it is <HI>Apo&s;tacie,</HI> no &s;tay; I will &s;uppo&s;e tho&s;e members who thus divide, to be per&s;ons &s;ound in the main points of faith, in their con|ver&s;ation vi&s;ibly godly, &s;uch as maintain the Ordinances of God among&s;t them&s;elves [the very ca&s;e of divers of ours] but corprution and errour in this point hath divided <HI>Cephas</HI> and his company; now here is no <HI>Apo&s;ta&s;ie:</HI> And though it be a Church guilty of Schi&s;m, and &s;o far a <HI>&s;chi&s;matical Church,</HI> yet a true Church. Hence I &s;aid a cau&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;eparation, <HI>&amp;c may</HI>
<PB N="14" REF="13">be Schi&s;m, <HI>i. e.</HI> &s;uppo&s;ing they hold to what before I mentioned, el&s;e it fell from the faith, &amp;c. it had been <HI>Apo&s;tacy,</HI> and not properly <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> unle&s;s you will &s;ay <HI>both.</HI> Hence</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>If cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church hath no other name given it in Scripture, nor can rationally be referred to any other head then. <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> then cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation from a Church is Schi&s;m.</ITEM>
<ITEM>But the Antecedent is true:</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>ergo</HI> the Con&s;equent is true.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The con&s;equence is clear, becau&s;e it partakes of the nature of no &s;in, as of Schi&s;m: [pro|vided tho&s;e who &s;eparate be &s;uch as before I mentioned.]</P>
<P N="3">3. Since the Doctor makes this in&s;tance the <HI>only &s;eat of the doctrine of Schi&s;m,</HI> and tieth us up &s;o &s;treightly to it, I was thinking whether it would not hence follow that there can be no Schi&s;m in any Church but onely in &s;uch Churches as do exactly an&s;wer this in&s;tance; &amp; hence Schi&s;m mu&s;t be only in &s;uch Churches where there are diver&s;ity of Officers, extraor|dinary gifts, differences about <HI>meats,</HI> &amp;c. thus I hope mo&s;t Churches are uncapable of Schi&s;m; and that &s;in will hardly be found in our days. It may be he will &s;ay, by <HI>con&s;equence</HI> it will follow where there are cau&s;ele&s;s differences, where the <HI>form</HI> of the &s;in is found, there is the &s;in of Schi&s;m, though Churches do not an&s;wer <HI>Corinth.</HI></P>
<P>But what the Doctor &s;aith, that the Scripture doth not <HI>call cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation</HI> from <HI>a Church Schi&s;m.</HI> So I can &s;ay, this Scripture in&s;tance,
<PB N="15" REF="13">calls that only Schi&s;m, where &s;ome were for <HI>Cephas,</HI> others for <HI>Apollos,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>But further, let us enquire into the <HI>form</HI> of the &s;in where it is. <HI>In the divi&s;ion amongst the members to the di&s;turbance of the order in the wor&s;hip of God, &amp;c.</HI> I wi&s;h the Doctor had told us how that order was di&s;turbed; &s;ome things he doth mention, but whether all the di&s;order in the wor&s;hip of God be recorded, I know not; and that which is recorded admits of &s;ome que&s;tions to be re&s;olved before we can clearly under&s;tand it. As for the <HI>di&s;turbance of the order,</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e he doth not make that the <HI>form</HI> of the &s;in of <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> nor part of it; I look on it rather as a <HI>con&s;equent</HI> of the Schi&s;m, therefore not the <HI>form;</HI> neither do I look on <HI>Order</HI> and <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> properly as contrary, where <HI>&V;num uni tantum opponitur,</HI> they do not <HI>comi|nus inter &s;e pugnare per proximas formas.</HI> Nor am I certain that there was ever <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> where yet &s;ome di&s;order have been found. I cannot tell that there was <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> among&s;t the <HI>Prophets.</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. but &s;ome <HI>di&s;order</HI> there was in the exerci&s;e of their gifts, as it &s;hould &s;eem by the la&s;t <HI>Ver&s;e,</HI> the Apo&s;tle calls for <HI>order.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical union cau&s;ele&s;ly di&s;&s;olved,</HI> I take to be the <HI>form</HI> of Schi&s;m; this is it by which Schi&s;m is <HI>id quod e&s;t.</HI> If then the Doctor will allow that Schi&s;m may be in Churches by <HI>con|&s;equence,</HI> though the cau&s;es be not &s;uch as were in <HI>Corinth,</HI> northe Churches parallel to <HI>Corinth</HI> in all things, becau&s;e there is the <HI>form</HI> of that &s;in which was in <HI>Corinth</HI> called <HI>Schi&s;m;</HI> then if can&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> a Church, be <HI>Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical
<PB N="16" REF="14" MS="y">union cau&s;ele&s;ly di&s;&s;olved,</HI> there mu&s;t needs by <HI>con&s;equence</HI> be Schi&s;m al&s;o, for <HI>po&s;ita forma ponitur formatum.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. The Doctor tells us the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> is not u&s;ed in the Scripture for <HI>&s;ece&s;&s;ion,</HI> or <HI>&s;epara|tion into parties. Divi&s;ion</HI> it doth &s;ignifie, but doth the propriety of the word forbid it to &s;ignifie <HI>Divi&s;ion into parties?</HI> in an Eccle&s;ia&s;tical &s;en&s;e it is u&s;ed only in this particular example, (he &s;aith) therefore it can &s;ignifie no other. I &s;up|po&s;e the <HI>Syriack</HI> Tran&s;lator was not of the Do|ctor's mind, for he u&s;eth that word in the 11. <HI>ch.</HI> 18. &amp; 12. <HI>ch.</HI> 25. which comes from the &s;ame root with <HI>Peleg. Gen.</HI> 10.25. Whence <HI>Peleg</HI> had his name the text tells us, and I think there was divi&s;ion into many parties: the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> in its primitive &s;ignification will carry a divi&s;ion into parts. <HI>Matth.</HI> 27.51. <GAP DESC="foreign">. I grant the <HI>Septuagint</HI>
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Other Greek Ver&s;ions I have not to &s;ee.</NOTE> do not u&s;e the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> in 1 <HI>Kin.</HI> 11.11, 31. yet why the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> might not be tran&s;lated by <GAP DESC="foreign"> and &s;ignifie what <GAP DESC="foreign"> doth, I know not. I conceive <GAP DESC="foreign"> is of a larger &s;ignification then <GAP DESC="foreign"> but comprehends what <GAP DESC="foreign"> doth. This appears,</P>
<P N="1">1. By the Learned, who as they render <GAP DESC="foreign"> by <HI>findo, &s;cindo,</HI> &s;o they render <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>findere, &s;cindere, qui pannum aut aliquod eju&s;modi con|tinuum dirumpit,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Buxt. Schind. Pagn. Merc.</HI> hence as <GAP DESC="foreign"> is rendered <HI>&s;ci&s;&s;ura,</HI> &s;o the 70. in <HI>v.</HI> 30, &amp; 31, render <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&s;ci&s;&s;urae.</HI> So the <HI>vulgar</HI> render <GAP DESC="foreign"> 31. Nor doth <GAP DESC="foreign"> always &s;ignifie the rending of a thing into parts [in oppo&s;ition to the Doctor's notion]
<PB N="17" REF="14">more then <GAP DESC="foreign">. For among the Phy&s;itians a rupture in a membrane, the rending of a Mu&s;cle, they call <GAP DESC="foreign">, though the part be not &s;eparated from the body; &s;o <HI>Gorraeus.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Becau&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the Old Te&s;tament is u&s;ed and applied to &s;uch things as <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the New Te&s;tament, as to the rending of cloaths here, and in divers other Texts. So is <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>John</HI> 19.24. <HI>Matth.</HI> 27.51. <HI>Luke</HI> 5.36. <HI>John</HI> 21.11. &s;o that though the Hebrews have two other words which the learned render <HI>&s;cindere, fin|dere,</HI> yet none [I conceive] an&s;wer <GAP DESC="foreign"> as this doth.</P>
<P>There may be &s;omething in this that the <HI>Arabick</HI> in the 11. <HI>v.</HI> u&s;e that <HI>Verb,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"></NOTE> whence the <HI>Noune</HI> in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.25. comes. Whence I think we may properly &s;ay there was a great <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> in the Church and Commonwealth of I&s;rael, and here was <HI>&s;eparation</HI> with a witne&s;s.</P>
<P>To &s;earch over other Divines to &s;ee what they had &s;aid about <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> I thought it in vain, becau&s;e the Doctor had laid a bar again&s;t them all, <HI>they are all mi&s;taken,</HI> and &s;o their authority is worth nothing; but when I had done, two men came into my mind, who were neer to the Doctor's principles, being Congregational men, and therefore had need to look to them|&s;elves in their definition of Schi&s;m, men of great renown for learning and piety, Dr. <HI>Ames,</HI> and our Mr. <HI>Norton</HI> in <HI>N. E.</HI> in an&s;wer to the Q. <HI>Quid e&s;t &s;chi&s;ma?</HI> I find <HI>Ames</HI> thus an&s;wers, <HI>Schi&s;ma dicitur a &s;cindendo, &amp; e&s;t &s;ci&s;&s;io,</HI> &s;epa|ratio, <HI>disjunctio, aut di&s;&s;olutio &V;nionis illius quae debet inter Chri&s;tianos ob&s;ervari.</HI> I was
<PB N="18" REF="15">neerer to the Doctor's definition then I was aware of; but then he adds, <HI>Quia autem haec &s;ci&s;&s;io maxime perficitur, &amp; apparet in debita Communione Eccle&s;ia&s;tica recu&s;anda, idcirco illa</HI> &s;eparatio <HI>per appropriationem &s;ingularem, recte vocatur Schi&s;ma;</HI> thus he.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Norton</HI> thus, <HI>Schi&s;ma e&s;t illicita &s;eparatio a Communione Eccle&s;iae; &s;emper grande malum.</HI> I will look no further, the&s;e are &s;ufficient.</P>
<P>Now for the <HI>Catholick-Church,</HI> I am to prove there may be Schi&s;m in it. For my ground|work I lay that Text 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.25. <HI>That there &s;hould be no Schi&s;m in the body.</HI></P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>If by the <HI>body</HI> in this text be meant the <HI>Catholick-Church vi&s;ible,</HI> then Schi&s;m may be in the Catholick-Church vi&s;ible.</ITEM>
<ITEM>But the <HI>Antecedent</HI> is true:</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>ergo</HI> the Con&s;equence cannot be denied.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The Antecedent is to be proved. That by the <HI>body</HI> is meant the Church, the Doctor yields, <HI>Schi&s;. p.</HI> 147. <HI>but what Church he &s;peaks of is not evident; the difference he &s;peaks of in the individual per&s;ons of the Church, is not in re&s;pect of office, power, and Authority, but gifts and graces, and u&s;efulne&s;s on that account;</HI> thus he. But I had thought that by <HI>Apo&s;tles, Prophets, Teachers, Helps, Governments, v.</HI> 28. he had pro|perly &s;poken of office, power, and authority: are gifts and graces meant by the&s;e words? very &s;trange. But to come to our Text.</P>
<P>If the Church be here meant, then it is either the Church invi&s;ible or vi&s;ible. But not the invi&s;ible, that the Chapter clears; and the Do|ctor &s;aith, It's impo&s;&s;ible Schi&s;m &s;hould be in the <HI>invi&s;ible</HI> Church.</P>
<PB N="19" REF="15">
<P>If vi&s;ible, then either the Catholick, or a particular Church; but not a par|ticular: <HI>Ergo</HI></P>
<P>This I grant, that by <HI>body</HI> in one Text, <HI>v.</HI> 27. a particular Church is mentioned, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle applies what he had been &s;peaking of before to this particular Church, being a <HI>&s;imilar</HI> part of the Church-Catholick, as our Mr. <HI>Norton,</HI> and other Divines in the definition of a particular Church; [though &s;ome Phy|&s;itians make different definitions, as we re|&s;pect the <HI>matter</HI> or <HI>form</HI> of a &s;imilar part, yet I content my &s;elf with that definition which is commonly given.] What duties are en|joyned the <HI>Catholick-Church,</HI> or what &s;ins are forbidden, the&s;e concern every particular Church; for Chri&s;t giveth his <HI>Laws</HI> to the Catholick-Church <HI>primarily,</HI> no particular Church hath a &s;pecial law given to it <HI>as &s;uch:</HI> whence well may the Apo&s;tle apply his &s;peech to this particular Church; but that the Apo|&s;tle was not di&s;cour&s;ing of a particular Church, in viewing over the Chapter the&s;e arguments per&s;wade me.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is &s;uch a body into which <HI>we are all baptized, v.</HI> 13. but are we baptized into a <HI>particular Church?</HI> is that the <HI>one body</HI> the Apo&s;tle means? Let the Doctor &s;peak, <HI>Rev.</HI> p. 134. <HI>I am &s;o far from confining Bapti&s;m &s;ubjectively to a particular Congregation, that I do not believe that any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized.</HI> As much he &s;eems to intimate, <HI>Schi&s;. p.</HI> 133. in his an&s;wer to this que&s;tion, <HI>wherein con&s;i&s;ts the unity of the Catho|lick-Church?</HI>
<PB N="20" REF="16">A. <HI>It is &s;ummoned up in Eph.</HI> 4.5. one Lord, one Faith, one Bapti&s;m. <HI>It is the unity of the doctrine of faith which men profe&s;s, in &s;ubjection to one Lord, Je&s;us Chri&s;t, being ini|tiated into that profe&s;&s;ion</HI> [and &s;o that body] <HI>by Bapti&s;m.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. It is &s;uch a body as with its head makes up <HI>Chri&s;t, v.</HI> 12. But if one particular Church related to its head be <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> what are all the other? how many <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> &s;hall we have? For my part I conceive, as <HI>all</HI> true believers make up but one &s;piritual body, to which Chri&s;t is a &s;aving and &s;piritual head; &s;o all the parti|cular Churches in the world are but one body vi&s;ible, of which Chri&s;t is the Political Head. Every true believer is &s;aid to be married to Chri&s;t, and of this Church, <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith, <HI>he had e&s;pou&s;ed them to Chri&s;t,</HI> and are not thou&s;ands more? but we do not read <HI>Rev.</HI> 22.17. <HI>Brides &s;ay Come;</HI> nor of the <HI>Lambs wives, ch.</HI> 21.9. but the Lambs <HI>Bride</HI> and <HI>Wife:</HI> thus the Catho|lick vi&s;ible body is called the <HI>Kingdom</HI> of Chri&s;t, not <HI>Kingdoms;</HI> though by rea&s;on of the numberle&s;s number, the Lord bids one Pa&s;tour, feed you my flock <HI>there,</HI> and another, feed you my flock <HI>there, &amp;c.</HI> yet but <HI>one flock, one body;</HI> the&s;e meetings of this great body being in a manner accidental to the Church-Catholick, by rea&s;on of the numero&s;ity of its members, for could we conceive that all the members of this Church could meet in one place, and partake of the &s;ame numerical or|dinances orderly, this meeting in &s;everal places &s;hould cea&s;e.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="21" REF="16">3. It is &s;uch a body as hath <HI>Apo&s;tles &s;et in it, v.</HI> 28. but though the Apo&s;tles were officers to this particular Church, yet not to this <HI>only,</HI> but to the Catholick.</P>
<P N="4">4. It is &s;uch a body that the members of it <HI>&s;uffer together, and rejoyce together, v.</HI> 26. but this mutual rejoycing and &s;ympathy, is not confined to the members of that particular Church, I hope? the &s;ame <HI>&s;pecifical</HI> care, though not the &s;ame <HI>gradual</HI> care, I think &s;uch a di&s;tinction may help to under&s;tand the 25. <HI>v.</HI> for I conceive there is &s;ome neerer tie to my own members in particular, as to my own fa|mily, and yet to have no care of other members of another Church, though I &s;ee them in danger of &s;in, or require of me the di&s;pen&s;ing of an rdinance, (regularly) &amp;c. I think this is not right. Then 27. <HI>v.</HI> what I have &s;aid of the great body, I &s;ay to you who are a <HI>&s;imilar</HI> part of this great body, and &s;o called the <HI>body</HI> of Chri&s;t, Do ye take heed there be no <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> among&s;t you.</P>
<P>Thus that parallel Text, <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.4, 5. &s;eems to be meant not of the particular Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> but the Catholick; <HI>many</HI> members, but <HI>one</HI> body.</P>
<P>When I can &s;ee better rea&s;ons given me to prove he is di&s;cour&s;ing of a <HI>particular Church,</HI> I &s;hall yield to them.</P>
<P>Q. <HI>But how can Schi&s;m be in the Catho|lick-Church vi&s;ible?</HI> this mu&s;t be enquired into, though I fail in the opening of it, yet what I have &s;aid to the Text before will &s;ave me.</P>
<PB N="22" REF="17">
<P><HI>A.</HI> I mu&s;t premi&s;e &s;ome things, then come to the an&s;wer. The Doctor <HI>p.</HI> 133. <HI>Schi&s;.</HI> &s;peaking of the Catholick-Church, &s;aith, <HI>The &s;aving do|ctrine of &s;alvation by Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and obedience through him to God, as profe&s;&s;ed by them, is the bond of that union whereby they are made one body.</HI> But [under favour] I conceive the Doctor hath expre&s;&s;ed only that bond which is between the <HI>body</HI> and the <HI>head;</HI> but are there no ligaments whereby the joynts of this great body are knit to each other? &s;urely if a body, there are &s;uch; the Apo&s;tle <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.16. I think &s;peaks of a bond among the members; and by the 11. <HI>v.</HI> he &s;eems to me to &s;peak of the <HI>Catholick-Church-vi&s;ible, from whom the whole body fitly joyned together, and compacted by that which every joynt &s;upplieth, according to the effectual working in the mea&s;ure of every part maketh increa&s;e of the body unto the edi|fying of it &s;elf in love.</HI> Upon which words <HI>Zanchy</HI> thus, <HI>Concludere vult Apo&s;tolus quod initio propo&s;uerat, fovendam e&s;&s;e unitatem hujus corporis my&s;tici per vinculum pacis: Ratio, quia ita &s;e habet hoc corpus, ut ni&s;i quis per fidem vivam amori&s;que plenam cum Chri&s;to conjun|ctus, &amp; per fraternam caritatem cum fratribus totaque eccle&s;ia congruenter coagmentatus perm&agrave;neat, is non po&s;&s;it a Chri&s;to vel vitam vel alimentum &amp; incrementum accipere.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;t. Ma&s;culus</HI> thus, <HI>Dilectio conglutinat membra Chri&s;ti;</HI> and a little before <HI>Nihil igitur hic loci e&s;t &s;eparatis ac divul&s;is, quales quales tandem e&s;&s;e videantur.</HI> With the&s;e agree <HI>Beza.
<PB N="23" REF="17">Charity is the knitting of the limbs together. Faith</HI> and <HI>Love</HI> u&s;e to be joyned together; if the Apo&s;tle doth expre&s;s it as the <HI>bond,</HI> &s;urely we may call it &s;o; and thus we have the <HI>body</HI> united to the head, and each member one to another.</P>
<P><HI>To the pre&s;ervation of this union</HI> [&s;aith the Doctor] <HI>it is required that all tho&s;e grand and nece&s;&s;ary truths of the Go&s;pel, without the know|ledge where of no man can be &s;aved by Je&s;us Chri&s;t, be &s;o far believed, as to be outwardly and vi&s;ibly profe&s;&s;ed, in that variety of ways wherein they are, or may be called out thereunto, p.</HI> 134. To which I add; and unto the pre&s;ervation of that <HI>bond</HI> of union among the members, it's required that all &s;uch Acts which do exter|nally declare this bond of love whereby the&s;e members are joyned together, <HI>as &s;uch a body,</HI> ought carefully and Chri&s;tianly to be per|formed, when we are regularly called there|unto; this <HI>bond</HI> of Love &s;o much commanded and prayed for by our Head, being not con|fined to a particular Church, but extended to the whole Catholick Church his body, by which men &s;hew who&s;e Di&s;ciples they are.</P>
<P>Hence then as all &s;uch errors which &s;ubvert tho&s;e grand and nece&s;&s;ary Truths, being re|ceived and believed, do di&s;&s;olve the bond of union between the head and the members, and declare men to be Apo&s;tates; So all &s;uch Acts as do openly manife&s;t the cau&s;ele&s;s breach of Love, by which the members are united each to other, do declare &s;uch per&s;ons guilty of Schi&s;m. <HI>Apo&s;ta&s;ie</HI> [as I conceive] properly
<PB N="24" REF="18">re&s;pecting the <HI>Head,</HI> but <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> the Body. Now in reference to this I lay down the&s;e Conclu|&s;ions.</P>
<P N="1">1. The members of this great Body in atten|ding upon tho&s;e ordinances of wor&s;hip in&s;titu|ted by their Head, e&s;pecially the <HI>two Sacra|ments,</HI> doe declare that faith in their Head which they profe&s;&s;e. Open <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> we finde nothing there but <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> open the <HI>Lords Sup|per,</HI> we have nothing there but <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> our Head, and the grand and nece&s;&s;ary Truths which con|cerne our &s;alvation: As the Martyrs &s;ealed up their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ions</HI> by their blood, we doe, as it were, &s;eal up our <HI>Profe&s;&s;ion</HI> in partaking of our Lords blood.</P>
<P N="2">2. The members of the Church in partaking of the Sacraments doe profe&s;&s;edly declare that Union which they have among them&s;elues by love, as <HI>&s;uch a body.</HI> It is one rea&s;on why the Lords Supper is called a <HI>Communion,</HI> and it is one of the ends of the Sacrament, <HI>&V;nio fidelium inter &s;e,</HI> as Divines doe unanimou&s;ly acknow|ledge upon that, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.17. <HI>Fractio panis e&s;t unitatis &amp; dilectionis Symbolum,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Pareus.</HI> Much might be here &s;poken. I know there are other wayes by which Chri&s;tians manife&s;t their love, and &s;o did Heathens in &s;uch manner as now is &s;carcely found among&s;t Chri&s;tians; but for the manife&s;tation of their love to each other <HI>as &s;uch a body,</HI> there is no way that I know of, nor no ordinance in which they do &s;o declare it as in this ordinance, wherein <HI>they, though ma|ny, are one bread,</HI> 1 Cor. 10.17.</P>
<P N="3">3. The Sacraments were not given to a <HI>par|ticular</HI>
<PB N="25" REF="18">Church <HI>primarily,</HI> but to his <HI>Catholick</HI>-Body the Lord gave them; and &s;o are the ex|ternal pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body. That the Sacra|ments come to be admini&s;tred in &s;everal particu|lar &s;ocieties, I gave the rea&s;on before, &s;eeming ra|ther to be accidental to the Catholick Church, by rea&s;on of the numero&s;ity of its members. That body which the bread &s;ignifies in the Supper is but one body, and the members of the Catholick body make but <HI>one bread.</HI> Je|&s;us Chri&s;t with his body make one Chri&s;t, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.12. The Sacraments doe &s;hew our union with our Head Chri&s;t <HI>primarily,</HI> and the union of the members among&s;t them&s;elves. I know a per&s;on who had received wrong from another who lived 40. miles di&s;tant: this wrong cau&s;ed a divi&s;ion between this per&s;on and the other, upon which this per&s;on dur&s;t not venture to the <HI>Sup|per,</HI> but kept off till reconciliation was made, knowing what the Supper did call for, then came to me and joyned in the ordinance; I knew not the rea&s;on of this per&s;on's holding off &s;o long before. If the Sacraments were pledges only of that Love or Communion which is be|tween the members of a <HI>particular Church,</HI> what needed the con&s;cience of this per&s;on to have been troubled, &s;ince the other per&s;on had no re|lation to our Church. This was one bred up in the Epi&s;copal way, but it were well if others made &s;o much con&s;cience as this per&s;on did in this re&s;pect.</P>
<P N="4">4. Hence then that Church which &s;hall deny to the members of other Churches [qualified
<PB N="26" REF="19">as the Doctor requires <HI>Catholick</HI> members to be, and walking orderly in their particular Chur|ches] occa&s;ionally de&s;iring communion with the Church, fellow&s;hip with them in the Sacra|ments, becau&s;e they are not of their judgments as to <HI>Congregational, Cla&s;&s;ical,</HI> or <HI>Epi&s;copal</HI> principles, and will hold fellow&s;hip onely with tho&s;e who are of their principles, I charge that Church with <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> in re&s;pect of the <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> by this Act declaring a breach of that bond of union which Chri&s;t requires in his Church.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But we may love them, and &s;hew our love in other wayes, though we doe not this way.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> So doe the Heathen &s;hew love to Hea|then, and &s;o doe we to Heathen, though we will not admit them to communion in a Church-ordinance; but that Symbol of your loue to him or them <HI>as Chri&s;tians,</HI> as members of <HI>&s;uch a body</HI> having union with your Head, and union with you al&s;o who are of the &s;ame body making up one <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. you de|ny. And whereas one while you dare not de|ny them to be vi&s;ible members of Chri&s;t, being qualified according to the rules for Catholick members, and having all the Ordinances and Officers of Chri&s;t according to their <HI>light</HI> in their particular Churches; yet now as much as in you lies you declare them to have no union with the Head, nor to be parts of the Catholick Body, neither the members refu&s;ed, nor con&s;e|quently the Churches to which they belong be|ing of the &s;ame judgment. So that while you talk of <HI>Love,</HI> I &s;ay as the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Shew me thy
<PB N="27" REF="19">faith by thy works;</HI> &s;o &s;hew me your <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|cal love by Church-fellow&s;hip.</HI> To this opinion of mine Doctor <HI>Ames</HI> in the place before quo|ted agreeth fully. <HI>Haec &s;ci&s;&s;io maxime perficitur &amp; apparet in debita communione Eccle&s;ia&s;tica recu&s;anda,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Thus I conceive Congregational, Cla&s;&s;ical, or Epi&s;copal Churches may be guilty of Schi&s;m, and cau&s;e Schi&s;m in the <HI>Catholick-Church-Vi|&s;ible.</HI></P>
<P>As for that Doctrine, That an Officer of a particular Church mu&s;t admini&s;ter an Ordi|nance to none but his own members. This is confuted in the practice of all Churches that I know of, and I &s;uppo&s;e will not be de|fended.</P>
<P>To this I add: Suppo&s;e there be divers mem|bers of &s;everal particular Churches, who are very zealous for <HI>Prophe&s;ying,</HI> and they mu&s;t have their liberty to prophe&s;ie, whether they have abilities or not; the Churches conceive that the gift of <HI>Prophe&s;ying,</HI> being extraordina|ry, is cea&s;ed, therefore will allow no &s;uch li|berty. The&s;e are &s;o &s;et for their Prophe&s;ying, that they make Divi&s;ions in the Churches, and at la&s;t &s;eparate from them all, and make up one Church by them&s;elves; they are qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members; they have all the ordinances and officers of Chri&s;t a|mong them; whence I cannot deny but here is a Church, but yet they refu&s;e communion with all other Churches in the world, unle&s;s of their opinion, neither <HI>give</HI> nor <HI>take,</HI> though de&s;ired; and there are no other Churches in the world
<PB N="28" REF="20">of their opinion or practice. Now this Church I cannot charge with Apo&s;ta&s;ie from the Head, but with &s;eparation <HI>from</HI> the Catholick Church, and &s;o is guilty of <HI>Schi&s;m.</HI> If it be &s;aid this Church is a part of the <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> how then &s;eparate <HI>from</HI> it? It's true, el&s;e it were not <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> but Apo&s;ta&s;ie; but as it &s;eparates <HI>from all</HI> other Churches cau&s;ele&s;ly, in that &s;en&s;e I &s;peak.</P>
<P>Hitherto of the <HI>Doctors Definition.</HI> As for his De&s;ign to free <HI>All</HI> the Congregational Churches from the imputation of <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> though we &s;up|po&s;e <HI>Schi&s;m to be a cau&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;eparation from a Church,</HI> I had rather wave that then goe about to prove the contrary, and that partly becau&s;e of the honour which I bear to many of the&s;e brethren; partly becau&s;e I know not the pra|ctices of <HI>all</HI> Congregational Churches: I can|not be of Mr. <HI>Ca.</HI> mind, if by the title of his book [as I find it quoted by the Doctor, for I never &s;aw Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI>] <HI>Independencie is great Schi&s;m,</HI> he means that <HI>congregational princi|ples will nece&s;&s;arily conclude a man a Schi&s;ma|tick.</HI> Certainly from the principles as our Di|vines in <HI>New-England</HI> hold them forth, &s;uch a nece&s;&s;ity of Schi&s;m will not be forced; but whether <HI>all</HI> in <HI>England</HI> can quit them&s;elves I doubt it. What &s;ome may think of me who find me in Mr. <HI>Edwards gang</HI> among&s;t the <HI>Inde|pendents,</HI> and now read this, I know not. Po&s;&s;i|bly they wil &s;ay either Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> wrote what was fal&s;e, or that I am changed from my prin|ciples [as &s;ome have &s;aid] but I a&s;&s;ure the Rea|der, I am not gone back, nor advanced one &s;tep
<PB N="29" REF="20">in the&s;e controver&s;ies, from what I ever mani|fe&s;ted in tho&s;e times when tho&s;e letters were &s;ent to Mr. <HI>Edwards.</HI></P>
<P>I intend not to follow the Dr. in all that he hath written, but to come to the point pre&s;ent|ly. In <HI>p.</HI> 263. the Dr. tells us <HI>He dare boldly &s;ay, the holy Gho&s;t hath commanded a Schi&s;m from a congregation that is not reformed, will not, nor cannot reform it &s;elf.</HI> with <HI>p.</HI> 262. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 6.5. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.5. <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 4.12. If the Dr. apply the&s;e Texts to our &s;eparations which &s;ome congregational Churches make, I que&s;tion whether they will carry the thing he produces them for. But to be &s;hort: I will not &s;ay the Holy Gho&s;t com|mands <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> but <HI>Separation</HI> in &s;ome ca&s;es he doth; therein I agree with the Doctor, and ac|cordingly practice [different from my bre|thren] but it is onely within my own congre|gation, denying to admit tho&s;e who are, as Mr. <HI>Vines</HI> calls the generality of the people in this Land, <HI>Bruits for their knowledge, and bea&s;ts for their lives,</HI> and &s;o will be unto the &s;eals of the covenant of grace.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sacram.</HI> p. 152.</NOTE> So I have made a &s;epara|tion <HI>in</HI> the congregation, but not from the con|gregation. Had I read that the Apo&s;tles had &s;tood upon the reality of grace in their admi&s;&s;i|on into Church-fellow&s;hip, I would have been as &s;trict as &s;ome brethren &s;ay they are; but be|cau&s;e I find it not in their practice, I look on it as mens <HI>adding</HI> to the Word, and &s;o let it a|lone.</P>
<P>But our que&s;tion is not whether <HI>any</HI> Separa|tion, but whether <HI>&s;uch</HI> a Separation be com|manded as thus. Here is a Church where are
<PB N="30" REF="21">many corrupt members, that is true; but with|all here are 1. <HI>many real and vi&s;ible Saints.</HI> 2. <HI>A Pa&s;tor godly, &s;ound in doctrine, and able for his work, preaching Chri&s;t &s;oundly.</HI> 3. <HI>The Or|dinances in them&s;elves clear from humane mix|tures.</HI> 4. <HI>Though here are corrupt members, yet when the Lords Supper is celebrated, they are &s;e|parated, not admitted, but there is a pure lump.</HI> 5. <HI>The Church is not puffed up, but rather grie|ved that there are &s;o many corrupt members a|mong&s;t them, but according to their light, they be|ing &s;o many, know not how to ca&s;t them out, left there by other mens &s;ins, but bear this evil with complaint and prayer to God for healing.</HI></P>
<P>Yet notwith&s;tanding a few of the&s;e Vi&s;ible Saints, the <HI>minor</HI> part be &s;ure [we ob&s;erve] &s;hall make &s;eparation, not onely from the corrupt members, but from the <HI>major</HI> part of the god|ly and vi&s;ible Saints, from that godly Pa&s;tor, having no communion with the&s;e, no not in the <HI>Supper</HI> where they are a pure lump; and yet this <HI>minor</HI> part have not done their part to reform the&s;e corrupt members. If the Holy Gho&s;t hath commanded &s;uch a Separation, I pray Doctor quote the texts where we may find it. I fear he will hardly find three texts for &s;uch a Separation; yet I know where &s;uch Separati|ons are, and of the&s;e men complain. If he can|not produce Scriptures, he hath &s;aid nothing to many of our Separations.</P>
<P>The Dr. I perceive &s;peaks much of <HI>original In&s;titution</HI> and <HI>primitive Con&s;titution</HI> of Church|es; but I &s;hall de&s;ire him to &s;hew us the Scrip|tures where the Apo&s;tles did u&s;e to goe to &s;eve|ral
<PB N="31" REF="21">Congregations where indeed were divers corrupt members, but withal many godly, at lea&s;t vi&s;ible Saints, who had walked before with their godly Pa&s;tors in con&s;tant attendance upon and &s;ubjection to the Ordinances of Chri&s;t; and there the Apo&s;tles did pick out &s;ome of the be&s;t of the members, and leaving the Pa&s;tor and o|thers grieved, weakened, and thus did con&s;ti|tute Churches: I cannot remember any Scrip|ture which &s;hews this was their practice, whence I doubt this kind of con&s;titution is not &s;o <HI>old,</HI> but rather had its <HI>original</HI> &s;ince 1640. As for <HI>Parochial Precincis,</HI> I &s;hall &s;peak to them here|after.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But why then doe not the&s;e godly Pa|&s;tors and vi&s;ible Saints you &s;peak of, &s;eparate the profane and gro&s;&s;ely ignorant from their Congre|gations, but &s;infully retain them, or at lea&s;t &s;uffer them to abide with them? If they did &s;o, they &s;hould not be troubled with godly mens &s;eparating from them; they &s;weep not the Lords hou&s;e.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Whether godly men would not &s;epa|rate then I cannot tell: If the Apo&s;tles rules of admi&s;&s;ion were &s;ufficient to guide us, there might be more hopes they would not. But when men &s;et up rules them&s;elves, and all men mu&s;t come to their rules and wayes, they would be as apt to &s;eparate from tho&s;e whom the Apo&s;tles would admit, I think they would be almo&s;t as eager for &s;eparation as now.</P>
<P>Whether tho&s;e Pa&s;tors and Saints vi&s;ible doe &s;infully &s;uffer &s;uch in their Churches, and &s;o are blame-worthy, I di&s;pute not; but as to the
<PB N="32" REF="22">pre&s;ent &s;tate of the&s;e Churches left &s;uch by the negligence &amp; &s;in of tho&s;e who u&s;urped the power over them, whence &s;ome will &s;carce own them for Churches, and others plead &s;o much for &s;e|paration from them, &s;omething may be fairly offered, which may plead for them. True it is, men of great <HI>grace,</HI> great <HI>gifts,</HI> great <HI>pur&s;es,</HI> great <HI>courage,</HI> great <HI>favour with great men,</HI> ha|ving the <HI>chiefe&s;t per&s;ons</HI> in a Town on their &s;ides [which <HI>la&s;t</HI> was my advantage in this &s;mall village] may doe more towards the reformati|on of their particular congregations, then other men can doe who are not &s;o advantaged. <HI>Ma|gi&s;terial</HI> and <HI>Cur&s;t</HI> Divines, who being aloft eve|ry way, con&s;ider not the tentations of men be|low them, are not &s;uch honourable men with me as &s;ome others are. Tho&s;e men who have lien in pickle in the brine of varieties of tenta|tions twenty years, have known by experience the evils of debts, poverty joyned to great fa|mily-charges, low gifts, de&s;perate workings of &s;piritual and fle&s;hly corruptions, &s;en&s;e of guilt; the&s;e are the men who &s;hall write practical books for me; the&s;e, I doubt not, will write low, and &s;peak low; the&s;e will feel their bre|threns temptations. But to the point.</P>
<P N="1">1. The&s;e men doe &s;eparate at the Lords Sup|per, and there allow them no communion. This is attained with much difficulty in our dayes; we know they contend much for it.</P>
<P N="2">2. The mo&s;t they doe is, they admit their children to Bapti&s;m, which con&s;idered in them|&s;elves are not profane; and were Bapti&s;m ad|mini&s;tred by that latitude which the Apo&s;tles
<PB N="33" REF="22">did admini&s;ter it, I doubt not but many may be admitted to it.</P>
<P>Now in that this is all the priviledge they have, more then the&s;e men who &s;eparate will al|low them, the que&s;tion is, whether there be nothing con&s;iderable to &s;way men to this pra|ctice.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is a que&s;tion di&s;putable, whether the immediate Parents onely can give title; whe|ther the Grandfather, or Grandmother, being in covenant, may not help to give title to a grandchild. Upon this account divers admi|ni&s;ter Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P N="2">2. There is a que&s;tion, whether if others un|der the covenant will undertake the education of &s;uch children, may they not be baptized? [as our Mr. <HI>Norton</HI> conceives they may.]</P>
<P N="3">3. There are eminent Divines who main|tain, that though the Parents be excommunica|ted, yet the child of &s;uch ought to be baptized, <HI>Zanch. Perkins,</HI> and divers whom I could name. Now if this be true, then though all the&s;e were <HI>excommunicated,</HI> which is the mo&s;t tho&s;e who &s;eparate can de&s;ire, yet their children &s;hould be baptized, which is all the priviledge the&s;e men have though not excommunicated, and which tho&s;e who &s;eparate can &s;tumble at. For the re&s;t of the Ordinances we admit <HI>Indians</HI> to, I hope they will not deny them admi&s;&s;ion to tho&s;e.</P>
<P>I omit that great que&s;tion, whether Bapti&s;m be not a <HI>Regenerating Ordinance,</HI> which divers Learned men abroad and at home doe main|tain, and have Scriptures which &s;peak very fair|ly
<PB N="34" REF="23">for them, &s;o much, as I can &s;carcely be &s;atis|fied with the an&s;wers our Divines have given to tho&s;e texts they bring.</P>
<P>Now though I have not &s;o much <HI>light</HI> to car|ry me in any of the&s;e opinions, and convince me fully of their truth; yet I &s;ee &s;o much argu|ment for them, that I am very tender towards tho&s;e who goe upon the&s;e grounds, whatever arguments I have again&s;t them which carry me another way; and were I a private member of one of tho&s;e Churches where there were &s;o ma|ny tho&s;e vi&s;ible Saints, an able godly Pa&s;tor, and the Supper kept as I &s;aid, I &s;hould not dare to &s;eparate from it as others doe.</P>
<P>I might adde to this how &s;ome Mini&s;ters, though they doe baptize, yet they deal round|ly fir&s;t with the Parents, and &s;o as &s;ome will come no more at them for Bapti&s;m. And one, an Epi&s;copal Divine of eminent note, hath re|fu&s;ed to admini&s;ter Bapti&s;m to the children of &s;uch parents as he found &s;otti&s;hly ignorant, but &s;ent them back fir&s;t to learn the principles of Religion, and a&s;&s;ent to them.</P>
<P>So that had the&s;e who &s;eparate &s;tuck clo&s;e to their Mini&s;ters, and encouraged them in thus dealing with tho&s;e &s;candalous per&s;ons in private, they might have done more towards reformati|on then now they have done.</P>
<P N="3">3. There were divers corrupt members in <HI>Corinth,</HI> and their children baptized; for ought I know a fault might be in the Officers, and better part, but no command to &s;eparate from the Officers.</P>
<P N="4">4. Should all the godly Mini&s;ters in <HI>England</HI>
<PB N="35" REF="23">&s;eparate, as the&s;e men would have us, and goe by their rules in admi&s;&s;ion of Church-members, I que&s;tion whether there would be a godly Mi|ni&s;ter left in <HI>England,</HI> the common people would not bear it. And verily for godly Mini|&s;ters to &s;uffer death in things &s;o di&s;putable, wherein holy men and Martyrs before did walk without any &s;cruple, having &s;o much probabi|lity from Scripture [as that argument of Cir|cumci&s;ion, with the re&s;t before mentioned] but yet more, to &s;uffer for rules which them&s;elves made, &amp; not the Apo&s;tles, this is a hard chapter; tho&s;e who are &s;o free of their lives may take their cour&s;e. I will ble&s;&s;e the Lord if he &s;hall plea&s;e to a&s;&s;i&s;t me with grace to lay down my life for him [if he &s;hall call me to it] in things where I am confident I know his mind, and the Scriptures are &s;o clear that I need not doubt, and in the mean time thank God I meet with &s;uch as will bear with me in things wherein I differ from them of le&s;&s;e concernment, argu|ments ca&s;ting me on that &s;ide, but not without great &s;cruples on the other &s;ide. I hear great words from &s;ome of the&s;e, they will not pra|ctice any thing but what they are ready to lay down their lives for. I dare not &s;peak &s;uch great words.</P>
<P N="5">5. The&s;e men who thus &s;eparate, when as yet there is nothing but the baptizing of their Infants they can object again&s;t, yet allow in their Churches, and think we are bound to al|low &s;uch who deny all <HI>Infant-Bapti&s;m,</HI> and will call the Anabapti&s;tical Churches true Church|es. The&s;e who ca&s;t off all the Infant-po&s;terity of
<PB N="36" REF="24"><HI>Abraham</HI> from <HI>Church-member&s;hip:</HI> the&s;e men mu&s;t be admitted to the <HI>Supper,</HI> and what not: the others are debarred from the Supper, but their Infants baptized, which of the&s;e two is the wor&s;t I wonder? for my part I would rather baptize the child of a wicked man, profe&s;&s;ing Chri&s;t in words, then not baptize the child of a godly man; more rea&s;on and Scripture may be alledged for it. Whence me thinks the Do|ctor, being &s;uch a &s;trong Champion for Tole|ration, may allow unto the Presbyterial Bre|thren &s;ome benefit of his opinion: for Tole|ration is <HI>Malorum,</HI> and if this be evil, I pre|&s;ume he looks on the Anabapti&s;tical opinion as evil al&s;o; and if this mu&s;t be tolerated in Churches, and doth not weaken the purity of the Church, why the other &s;hould not have &s;ome allowance I know not.</P>
<P>I know no under&s;tanding man that is again&s;t Toleration <HI>&s;imply,</HI> he that will allow none is not fit to live in the&s;e times; but how far we are bound to Tolerate, is a hard que&s;tion.</P>
<P>To conclude,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Re&s;pon. ad Apol.</HI> 168.</NOTE> I &s;hall only &s;ee what our Mr. <HI>Norton,</HI> a man who in &s;ome ca&s;es allows &s;epa|ration from a true Church, and one that in the Congregational way is <HI>Theologus cum primis nobilis,</HI> to that que&s;tion <HI>how is &s;ece&s;&s;ion to be made from a true Church?</HI> an&s;wers thus.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Not without due v&s;e of all means to remove the impurities.</HI> I am &s;ure among&s;t tho&s;e means this is one, for the&s;e to bear witne&s;s again&s;t the &s;candalous members, and labour in their places to get them removed regularly; tho&s;e then who never deal with any of the&s;e in a
<PB N="37" REF="24">Church-way, who will not bear witne&s;s again&s;t them to the Elder&s;hip, but when their Pa&s;tor have asked them, Will you prove again&s;t the&s;e. &amp;c. an&s;wer, <HI>No, not they.</HI> The&s;e u&s;e means well, yet &s;uch &s;eparate.</P>
<P>Al&s;o how &s;ome of the Congregational Mini|&s;ters, who have had their hands in the&s;e &s;epa|rations, have u&s;ed <HI>all means,</HI> when as they never went to the Mini&s;ters; when they encouraged the people in their &s;eparation to &s;peak with them, I know not. I have heard two Mini&s;ters of note complain of this unkind dealing.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Not pre&s;ently, but they mu&s;t u&s;e prudence, patience, and long-&s;uffering.</HI> Tho&s;e Mini&s;ters and Churches who have found the&s;e in tho&s;e who &s;eparated from them, may te&s;tifie for them if they can.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Without condemning of the Ch<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ch, but acknowledging it from whence this &s;ece&s;&s;ion is made.</HI> It were well if we could get &s;o much from many of the&s;e, to acknowledge any to be true Churches but &s;uch as are in their <HI>gathe|red</HI> [as they call it] way.</P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>Communion &s;till continued with &s;uch a Church in things lawful.</HI> [Separation from the <HI>Luthe|ran</HI>
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Yet <HI>Ca|lovius</HI> in his an|&s;wer to <HI>Jo. Cro|cius,</HI> tells us we differ from them in <HI>ten</HI> Arti|cles, and above <HI>thirty</HI> Contro|ver&s;ies. p. 33.</NOTE> Churches he will not allow, though we ought not to communicate with them in the Supper.]</P>
<P>But our men, 1. will not communicate with the Church from which they have &s;eparated at the Lords Supper where the doctrine is &s;ound, and the per&s;ons admitted as pure as any Con|gregational Church that I know of.</P>
<P N="2">2. No, nor will &s;ome of them &s;o much as
<PB N="38" REF="25">hear the officer from whom they have &s;epara|ted, though &s;ound and godly, but rather &s;et up a Trade&s;man to prophe&s;ie in the ab&s;ence of their own Mini&s;ter, and before they had a Mini&s;ter, exerci&s;e their gifts among&s;t them&s;elves, rather then hear their former Mini&s;ter.</P>
<P>Certainly if <HI>&s;ome</HI> Congregational Churches in <HI>England</HI> be not guilty of <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> there was never any <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> in this world.</P>
<P>Thus I have given my rea&s;ons why I am not &s;atisfied with <HI>all</HI> which the Doctor hath deli|vered concerning <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> though with a great part of it I am abundantly; men of more learning then I am may give more, only this I I may and do add: it is a trouble to me that I have cau&s;e in any point to appear cro&s;s to the Doctor, with whom I have had &s;o much inward familiarity, whom I have &s;o entirely loved and honoured, and do &s;till both honour and love.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="39" REF="25">
<HEAD>CHAP. II. <HI>Concerning the</HI> Parochial <HI>Congregations in</HI> England.</HEAD>
<P>I took it for granted that our Congregational brethren did look on the Parochial Congre|gations where they came, and have gathered Churches as <HI>true</HI> Churches before they came there, and &s;o did not lay new foundations, or gather Churches where there were none before, only the Congregations being over-grown with per&s;ons gro&s;ly ignorant and &s;candalous for want of Catechizing and Di&s;cipline, they did &s;egregate &s;uch per&s;ons from Church-Com|munion, till they got &s;o much as might declare them to be vi&s;ible Saints. But one of the&s;e Mini&s;ters tell me I am mi&s;taken: if I be, then I under&s;tand not our brethren all this while, nor do I know when I &s;hall: for my part I have ever profe&s;&s;ed, I looked on the Parochial Con|gregations as a true Church before I came to it, though over-grown [as before I &s;aid:] Tho&s;e who were here and elected me to be their officer, I look on my &s;elf as having &s;ufficient authority over them by their election; tho&s;e who have come into Town &s;ince, I do require their owning of me for their officer [knowing that government here is founded upon con|&s;ent] and &s;ubjection to <HI>all</HI> ordinances, if they demand the ordinances of me; &s;o far I go along with our brethren. <HI>That many Parochial
<PB N="40" REF="26">Congregations are true Churches,</HI> I doubt not, though the Presbyterial brethren have not proceeded &s;o far as others have done, and therefore the Congregational Brethren may &s;afely have communion with them. Some things let me premi&s;e, and then I will give one argument or two.</P>
<P N="1">1. The want of &s;ome ordinances in a Church de&s;troys not the <HI>truth</HI> of the Church. Then there can be no <HI>homogeneal</HI> Church; our brethren I hope will not allow the Fraternity being de&s;titute of officers to <HI>baptize,</HI> &amp;c. but yet a <HI>homogeneal</HI> Church they maintain; much might be &s;poken here, but I forbear. <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Di&s;cipline</HI> which &s;ome alledge, as being wanting in the&s;e Parochial Churches, do not therefore deny them to be <HI>true</HI> Churches, [which yet in part they had, for <HI>&s;u&s;pen&s;ion</HI> it is well known.] The <HI>Rod</HI> is not of the e&s;&s;ence of the <HI>family,</HI> though the children may do ill where it is wanting. <HI>Fea&s;t of Tabernacles, Neh.</HI> 8.17. was long wanting.</P>
<P N="2">2. An officer u&s;urping power in a Church, doth not de&s;troy the <HI>truth</HI> of the Church. <HI>Dio|trephes</HI> took more then was due. The Bi&s;hops were but Mini&s;ters, and did mini&s;terial work, if they took more power then the Lord gave them, yet that doth not hinder the <HI>truth</HI> of the Churches. What &s;hall be &s;aid then to the Bi&s;hops in the primitve Churches; I wi&s;h I had as much zeal and love to Chri&s;t as they had.</P>
<P N="3">3. Though many members be corrupt in doctrine and manners, yet they do not take away the truth of a Church. <HI>Corinth</HI> had too
<PB N="41" REF="26">many of the&s;e, and the officers might be faulty in tolerating of them, but yet a true Church; and I hardly think that <HI>Paul</HI> would have re|fu&s;ed communion with the Church. I doubt not but other Churches al&s;o had bad members. The Churches which lived under Heatheni&s;h per&s;ecution were true Churches; yet there are foul &s;candalous &s;ins reported of &s;ome of the members.</P>
<P N="4">4. Reality of grace, though de&s;ireable, O very de&s;ireable, yet is not ab&s;olutely requi&s;ite to the making of a vi&s;ible Church; though I think it is hard to find &s;uch a Church, yet I know not but according to the rules we mu&s;t go by in admitting of Church-members, there may be a true <HI>vi&s;ible</HI> Church where there is not one real true Saint. Dare any Congregational Mini&s;ter avouch the true grace of all the mem|bers of his Church? will any Church excom|municate a per&s;on for want of true grace? Did the Apo&s;tles when they admitted members &s;earch narrowly for the truth of grace?</P>
<P N="5">5. I had almo&s;t &s;aid, <HI>It is as great a fault to keep out vi&s;ible repenting believers willing to &s;ub|ject to all ordinances, as it is to tolerate wicked per&s;ons in a Church.</HI> If the Presbyterial brethren are guilty of the latter, the Congregational are guilty of the former. I think it as great a faultto &s;in again&s;t the <HI>lenity</HI> of Chri&s;t, as again&s;t the <HI>&s;everity</HI> of Chri&s;t. It is true, the&s;e wicked ones are a di&s;honour to Chri&s;t, leaven to the lump, [but yet &s;u&s;pended from the <HI>Lord's Supper</HI>] and they have not that means applied which might help to their &s;ouls &s;alvation; but it is
<PB N="42" REF="27">that which the&s;e Mini&s;ters would gladly reach if they could, they alledge the words of the Apo&s;tle, <HI>their authority is for edification, not de&s;truction.</HI> On the other &s;ide, to keep out tho&s;e who vi&s;ibly appear like Chri&s;tians, when men have power to take in, is to hinder the&s;e from being levened with true grace, a great offence to the godly, di&s;couragement of &s;ouls, and Magi&s;terially to &s;et up Rules which the Lord never appointed. Who blame Bi&s;hops for &s;etting up their po&s;ts by God's po&s;ts? I know the word <HI>vi&s;ible</HI> Believer is a contentious word, but I under&s;tand one plainly thus; Here is one that hath a competent knowledg of tho&s;e grounds which are e&s;&s;ential to &s;alvation, and believes them. His e&s;tate by nature he under|&s;tandeth, and profe&s;&s;eth he believeth in the Lord Je&s;us for life and &s;alvation; his conver|&s;ation doth not confute his profe&s;&s;ion; wor|&s;hips God in his family, and &s;ubjects to all Chri&s;t's Ordinances; [for the private confe|rences of Chri&s;tians and private fa&s;tings, which &s;ometimes they have, though this were de&s;ire|able to have them frequent them, yet the&s;e [in &s;uch a manner] being free-will offerings, I dare not tie up men to the&s;e, or el&s;e debar them] if he hath been &s;candalous, he declareth his repentance, cordially &s;o far as charity can judge, and proves it by &s;ome time, would the Apo&s;tles have debarred &s;uch a per&s;on from the Church? but [I &s;peak what I know] per&s;ons who go thus far, and further, cannot yet be admitted to Church-fellow&s;hip.</P>
<P>Some would have us go to <HI>Rev.</HI> 21.15. and
<PB N="43" REF="27"><HI>Rev.</HI> 11.2. to &s;ee the rules for Churches. What they have drawn from hence I know not; I have be&s;towed &s;o much pains in reading of men upon the <HI>Revelation,</HI> and find &s;o little content in all that I read [great <HI>Hooker</HI> of <HI>N.E.</HI> would &s;ay, he would never forfeit his credit in under|taking tho&s;e Scriptures where he could not make Demon&s;tration] that now I regard no|thing which is &s;aid upon it. One Text which I ob&s;erved as I was reading through it in my cour&s;e, gave me more &s;ettlement then all I had read. But alas good men, do they carry us to their <HI>Symbolical</HI> Divinity to prove what they would have? this will not prevail with judicious men. I think the Apo&s;tolical pra|ctices mu&s;t be our <HI>Reed</HI> to mea&s;ure by; if you have precepts given where the qualification of per&s;ons admitable to Church-fellow&s;hip are &s;et down higher then I have &s;et them down, I would be thankful if any one would &s;hew me them. As for <HI>Rev.</HI> 21. I confe&s;s there is a <HI>golden</HI> Text, but I think they draw a <HI>leaden</HI> argument from it to our Church-fellow&s;hip. The fift Monarchy dreams have not as yet in|fatuated us; that time is not yet come.</P>
<P N="6">6. Parochial bounding of Churches doth not detract from the truth of Churches; it doth not hinder the <HI>purity,</HI> much le&s;s the <HI>entity</HI> of a Church.</P>
<P>Vicinity of members is requi&s;ite for mutual in&s;pection, convenient meeting for celebration of ordinances, but it adds nothing to the e&s;&s;ence of a Church; particular Churches mu&s;t be bounded &s;omewhere.</P>
<PB N="44" REF="28">
<P>When the Law enjoyned men to keep their own pari&s;h Churches, it was but to prevent di&s;order, that people &s;hould be bound to at|tend ordinarily at that place, and not run up and down where they li&s;ted. If the Mini&s;ter were godly the Law helped him, and it is likely that this hath turned as well to the good of that people, which el&s;e would not have &s;o attended upon that Mini&s;tery which was pow|erful and &s;earching; if the Mini&s;ter were un|godly, it was but the denying of &s;ome outward accommodation in that pari&s;h, and &s;o remove to a godly Mini&s;ter. By vertue of the Law then every one did implicitely choo&s;e that Mini&s;ter to be his where he came, which as I &s;aid, was as well for the good as the hurt of people; if men had no mind to the Mini&s;ter, they might choo&s;e whither they would go into that Pari&s;h or not: tho&s;e who were godly in the Pari&s;h, and had a good Mini&s;ter, they were not offended at the Law: whence this Paro|chial bounding &s;hould be looked upon as &s;uch an Antichri&s;tian bu&s;ine&s;s I cannot imagine.</P>
<P>The chiefe&s;t inconveniency is by rea&s;on of the building of the place for A&s;&s;embling in divers places upon the skirts of Towns; yet in <HI>N. E.</HI> per&s;ons who live at farms three miles or more from the place of their A&s;&s;embling in their own pari&s;h, go con&s;tantly to that place, when as they might joyn to another Church much neerer in another Town.</P>
<P>But let us &s;ee what we &s;hall do when Pari&s;h bounds are broken down: Vicinity is requi|&s;ite, this is agreed upon by all, how then &s;hall
<PB N="45" REF="28">we agree upon <HI>Vicinity?</HI> what will <HI>this</HI> Church call Vicinity? I doubt if there be a rich per&s;on who would joyn, and the Officer with mem|bers have a mind to him, they will &s;tretch <HI>vicinity</HI> very largely to fetch him in. Some of our brethren oppo&s;e Parochial boundings, be|cau&s;e they are &s;o great, I doubt our brethren will not bring their Vicinity into a narrower compa&s;s; nay, we &s;ee how far they go for members: &s;hould we go about to alter Pa|ri&s;hes, I think few would be plea&s;ed in the manner of doing it, nor will agree upon Vi|cinity: wherefore I think we had better bear with &s;ome inconveniences, then while we &s;eek to mend them create wor&s;e.</P>
<P N="7">7. In reducing of Churches to <HI>purity</HI> the Mini&s;ter cannot do it alone; he mu&s;t know the members impurity, it mu&s;t be proved to him by witne&s;&s;es; let Churches be <HI>gathered,</HI> or whatever you call them, this mu&s;t be done be|fore per&s;ons can be excommunicated. But how do the&s;e members who find fault with Mini&s;ters do this? One who came to his Mini&s;ter and was very urgent to have him thus &s;eclude wicked per&s;ons from the Sacraments, when the Mini&s;ter asked him whether he would come and bear witne&s;s again&s;t them, an&s;wered, <HI>&s;o he might leave him&s;elf not worth a groat;</HI> but yet could &s;eparate from his Mini&s;ter: is this right? The&s;e things premi&s;ed, now to an Argument.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 1. Where there are the e&s;&s;ential cau&s;es of a Church [matter and form] there is a true Church.</P>
<P>But in many Parochial Congregations of
<PB N="46" REF="29"><HI>England,</HI> there are the e&s;&s;ential cau&s;es of a Church.</P>
<P><HI>Ergo</HI> many Parochial congregations in <HI>Eng|land</HI> are true Churches.</P>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> deny who can. <HI>Po&s;itis cau&s;is e&s;|&s;entialibus ponitur effectus.</HI> For the <HI>Minor,</HI> I prove that thus.</P>
<P>Where there are per&s;ons &s;ound in the faith, and vi&s;ibly conformable to the rules of the Go&s;pel in their practice, there is the <HI>matter</HI> of a Church.</P>
<P>Where the&s;e per&s;ons doe con&s;ent together to wor&s;hip God in all his ordinances [Mr. <HI>Bur|roughs</HI> &s;aith, <HI>all the ordinances &s;o far as they know</HI>] with Officers duely qualified, and for &s;ub&s;tance orderly called, there is the <HI>form</HI> of a Church.</P>
<P>But thus it is in many Parochial congregati|ons in <HI>England.</HI></P>
<P>For the <HI>matter</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e we will not deny it, there are &s;uch for vi&s;ible appearance as true as tho&s;e that are in congregational Churches. If it be asked, <HI>How many Pari&s;hes are there that have &s;uch per&s;ons, &s;ufficient in number to make a Church?</HI> That is none of my que&s;tion to an|&s;wer; but this I can &s;ay according to our bre|threns practice, who make <HI>eight</HI> [or fewer] to be &s;ufficient to the fir&s;t founding of a Church; there will be divers Pari&s;hes found to have that number without que&s;tion.</P>
<P>For the <HI>form,</HI> I have put in enough; the <HI>co|venanting</HI> or <HI>con&s;enting,</HI> our brethren make the <HI>form:</HI> But I have put in the Officer, and &s;o make it an <HI>Organical Church.</HI></P>
<PB N="47" REF="29">
<P>For the Officer, if the quarrel be with his <HI>qua|lification,</HI> I think none dare deny but for per|&s;onal graces, and Mini&s;terial abilities, there are abundance &s;uch Mini&s;ters in &s;everal Pari&s;hes.</P>
<P>For their <HI>call,</HI> elected by the people, and or|dained by a Presbyterie very &s;olemnly. If the Epi&s;copal ordination be que&s;tioned, I have an|&s;wered to it before [as al&s;o in my Book again&s;t the Separation] however I think there is as much cau&s;e to que&s;tion their ordination who are ordained by the people when Elders were pre&s;ent, or with others, <HI>onely praying</HI> after ele|ction, as there is to que&s;tion Ordination by a Bi&s;hop and his Clergy. But what doe our bre|thren cavilling again&s;t that, when they have <HI>E|lection,</HI> which is the <HI>e&s;&s;ence</HI> of the call, as them|&s;elves affirm? I think God hath witne&s;&s;ed for them that they were true Mini&s;ters, in going forth with them, and giving &s;uch &s;ucce&s;&s;e to their Mini&s;try, as I think our congregational brethren have not found &s;ince they came to que&s;tion and ca&s;t off Epi&s;copal Ordination [if any doe &s;o.] I doubt if the congregational Mi|ni&s;ters had no more members of their Churches then they have converted &s;ince they have &s;o much cried down Pari&s;hes and Epi&s;copal Ordi|nation, they would have very thin Churches. I doe not think the Lord did it <HI>therefore,</HI> be|cau&s;e of their Epi&s;copal Ordination; yet I think the Lords appearing &s;o much in tho&s;e days over now he doth in converting-work, &s;hould teach us much tenderne&s;s in the&s;e dayes, and not to walk &s;o highly as &s;ome doe.</P>
<P>If the objection be about the <HI>con&s;enting,</HI> the
<PB N="48" REF="30">election of the people declare it <HI>explicitely,</HI> and their con&s;tant attendance upon &s;uch a Mini&s;ter in all the ordinances of God, declares their con&s;ent <HI>implicitely.</HI> No Congregational Divine makes the <HI>form</HI> of a Church to con&s;i&s;t in the <HI>explicitene&s;s</HI> of a <HI>covenant,</HI> but affirm that an <HI>implicite covenant</HI> pre&s;erves the true nature of the Church. So Mr. <HI>Hooker Sur. Ch. Di&s;. part.</HI> 1. <HI>pag.</HI> 47, 48. So Mr. <HI>Norton Re&s;p. ad Apol. p.</HI> 22, 28. So the <HI>Synod of New-England, Cap.</HI> 4. <HI>S.</HI> 4.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 2. If there be as much for &s;ub&s;tance in many Parochial congregations as there was in <HI>Corinth,</HI> to make it a true Church, then many Parochial congregations are true Churches.</P>
<P>But the Antecedent is true; <HI>Ergo</HI> the Con|&s;equent is true.</P>
<P>The <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> is clear; for the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> was a true Church I hope. For the <HI>Antecedent,</HI> 1. It's true, we have not many preaching officers in one Pari&s;h, as had that Church [which I conceive did not all meet in the &s;ame place for Church-wor&s;hip, but in di|vers.] 2. Nor have we <HI>extraordinary Prophets,</HI> as were in that Church [though our brethren &s;trangely make tho&s;e a proof for their private members <HI>Prophe&s;ying</HI> [as they call it] yea and are &s;o highly carried in their notions, that if their Pa&s;tor be ab&s;ent, though there be another Mini&s;ter preach in the Town, they will not go to hear him, but a Trade&s;man mu&s;t Prophe&s;ie [what this implies who &s;eeth not] if a Pa&s;tor be dead, and the people goe to another congre|gation, the Pa&s;tor whereof is of their own prin|ciples,
<PB N="49" REF="30">the&s;e have been charged by one of our <HI>E&s;&s;ex</HI> Independent Mini&s;ters with <HI>irregular walking,</HI> for not &s;taying at home and Prophe&s;y|ing [a &s;in certainly again&s;t the <HI>eleventh</HI> com|mandement.] 3. Nor have we other extraor|dinary gifts, as that Church had. 4. Nor have we men ordained by the Apo&s;tles. 5. Nor called by the Apo&s;tles; for if the&s;e things doe weaken my argument, then they doe as well cut off the congregational Churches to be true Churches.</P>
<P>But if the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> had per&s;ons cal|led by the Word, &s;ome whereof were <HI>real</HI> Saints, and &s;ome onely vi&s;ible; &s;o have we. If they had per&s;ons Officers, who held out the faith of the Go&s;pel in their teaching &s;oundly; &s;o have we, as &s;ound as they did or could doe, if not &s;ounder, &s;uch as build not hay nor &s;tub|ble, &amp;c. If they had the Ordinances of Chri&s;t; &s;o have we. If they con&s;ented to wor&s;hip God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> &s;o doe ours. The&s;e are the E&s;&s;entials of that Church. <HI>The E&s;&s;ence is perpetually the &s;ame,</HI> but <HI>&V;naquae&abque; res vera dicitur a &s;ua natur&acirc; &amp; e&s;&s;enti&acirc;.</HI> If we have corrupt and erroneous members, &s;o had they: Ours debarr'd, &s;u&s;pen|ded from the Lords Table [a great part of Church-di&s;cipline] but that their corrupt mem|bers were &s;o, I think will not ea&s;ily be proved; a great fault in the Officers, who it &s;eemes did not regard di&s;cipline &s;carce at all, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.20, 21. &amp; 13.2. <HI>Paul</HI> threatens, <HI>that he will not &s;pare.</HI> Our Churches come to this by the op|pre&s;&s;ion of the Hierarchy, the Mini&s;ters el&s;e would have exerci&s;ed Di&s;cipline; but tho&s;e had
<PB N="50" REF="31">none to overtop them, and yet were negligent. How to get their Churches purer the Mini&s;try find it hard; to excommunicate a multitude our congregational brethren &s;ay, <HI>no;</HI> to &s;eparate from the re&s;t our cla&s;&s;ical brethren are not clear, they quote the Text, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.8. <HI>Their authority is given for edification, not de&s;truction.</HI> They mu&s;t doe what they can by degrees, which they are re&s;olved upon, and de&s;erve to be encouraged by all.</P>
<P>More Arguments I could give [<HI>as from the nullity of all the Ordinances which el&s;e mu&s;t follow.</HI> Al&s;o, <HI>I wonder whether our congregational Mi|ni&s;ters were converted in Parochial, or congrega|tional Churches.</HI>] But I forbear.</P>
<P>Hence then that congregational brethren may a&s;&s;ociate with the cla&s;&s;ical, to me there is no que|&s;tion, though my practice is &s;omething different from the cla&s;&s;ical brethren; yet what they al|low is &s;o candid, that I am rather thankful to them that they are &s;o willing to a&s;&s;ociate with me.</P>
<P><HI>That we way hold communion with a Church &s;o far as we are intangled in no &s;in,</HI> I think was ne|ver denied; but &s;o may we with the cla&s;&s;ical bre|thren: For what though they baptize all, and all of them do not [though &s;ome do, and more en|deavour it] bring their people to an explicite engagement; yet they de&s;ire us not to have communion with <HI>all</HI> their members, but with their <HI>compleat members,</HI> i. e. tho&s;e whom they admit to all Ordinances; and I am &s;ure tho&s;e, according to the rules drawn up, would have gone for good Church-members in the Apo&s;tles
<PB N="51" REF="31">days, and, I think, &s;hould now; &s;o that we are called to a&s;&s;ociate onely with tho&s;e who are as good members as our own.</P>
<P>As for their Baptizing of the Infants of &s;uch whom they debar from the Lords table; though their arguments doe not convince men [no not good Mr. <HI>Blake,</HI> that man who now I hear is with God; if he had, I would have poofe&s;&s;ed it to the world. I doe more admire to &s;ee what an&s;wers &s;o learned a man gives; but that I have profe&s;&s;ed in my <HI>Epi&s;tle to the Reader</HI> that I would meddle no more with the que&s;tion, I find it very ea&s;ie to take off [at lea&s;t in my ap|prehen&s;ion] what he hath &s;aid, had but he ca&s;t the <HI>major</HI> propo&s;ition in p. 97. thus [which he knew was my Scope.] <HI>Such as for manife&s;t un|worthine&s;s</HI> de jure <HI>ought, and</HI> de facto <HI>are de|barr'd from the Lords Table,</HI> &amp;c.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">To this I have &s;po|ken be|fore.</NOTE> Then &s;ee how his an&s;wer from Infants takes me off; but I &s;hall adde no more. Now though he hath not &s;atisfied me] yet I look on the Arguments as more valid to prove the Infants of tho&s;e &s;can|dalous per&s;ons &s;hould be baptized, then are their arguments who ca&s;t out the Infants of re|penting and believing parents from Bapti&s;m and the Church; yet the&s;e our congregational brethren make no &s;cruple to communicate with, and to have &s;uch members in their Churches.</P>
<P>Are all the members of congregational Churches &s;uch as they ought to be vi&s;ibly? I doubt it. Some are as offen&s;ive as many in Parochial Churches. Should we therefore re|fu&s;e communion one with another becau&s;e of
<PB N="52" REF="32">&s;uch? Would <HI>Paul</HI> have done it at <HI>Corinth?</HI></P>
<P><HI>As for taking members out of other Pari&s;hes,</HI> which our brethren &s;tand upon &s;o &s;tiffely, and without which there will be no A&s;&s;ociation, this hath been the old breaking principle, and re|&s;olved it &s;eems they are to hold it.</P>
<P>In what ca&s;es, and upon what conditions it &s;hall be allowed, our cla&s;&s;ical brethren have declared, and I think &s;ufficiently to give a heart that loves peace, &s;atisfaction. For my own part I care not if the thing be yielded; I think I might make as good a &s;hift as another, and have had tentations &s;trong this way: but I did never yet take up &s;uch a practice, not out of any con|&s;cience to the Pari&s;h bounds, but becau&s;e I have to be that unworthy principle which hath chief|ly kindled the fire in this poor Church. Should I have done it, becau&s;e I looked on my way more pure then my neighbour-Mini&s;ters? I knew the impurity of my own heart, and look|ed on my Neighbour-Mini&s;ter as more godly; if I &s;hould think more highly of my own parts, I knew my own weakne&s;&s;e, and might ju&s;tly fear le&s;t God &s;hould bla&s;t the little I had. But</P>
<P N="1">1. I hope our brethren doe not think it a &s;in for a Mini&s;ter to keep to his own Pari&s;h, if they doe, let us hear them prove it. I have heard it reported by a very &s;erious Chri&s;tian, that one of our brethren &s;hould affirm that <HI>Chri&s;tians were bound to come out of their Parochial wayes, and to joyn in Church-fellow&s;hip after the congre|gating manner, el&s;e they did partake of the mark of the Bea&s;t.</HI> I write it as well as I can remember it, but becau&s;e I heard it not with my own ears,
<PB N="53" REF="32">fir&s;t I doe not &s;o fully believe the truth of it; yet there are good rea&s;ons why I &s;hould be|lieve it: I had &s;omething to &s;ay, but at pre&s;ent let it alone.</P>
<P N="2">2. I am &s;ure <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aid, <HI>All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient,</HI> 1 Cor. 6.12. Is not this a rule for us? grant the thing to be <HI>lawful,</HI> that is, it might be done without any breach of Gods Law [though not com|manded to doe it] yet I am &s;ure it is not <HI>expe|dient</HI> for us to doe it, becau&s;e we &s;ee it is that which hath broken and doth break the peace of our Churches; but the peace of Churches ought to be very precious to us. If <HI>we be com|manded to follow peace with all men,</HI> then I hope to follow after, and endeavour the peace of the Churches, is a duty of great weight.</P>
<P><HI>But this is looked upon as the Mini&s;ters weakne&s;s, that this &s;hould break peace.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Be it &s;o that it is their weakne&s;&s;e, then let others &s;hew their <HI>&s;trength</HI> in bearing with their weakne&s;&s;e, &s;ince they have no command to take people from other good Mini&s;ters. <HI>Tho&s;e who are &s;trong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. But I doubt there is <HI>&s;trong</HI> rea&s;on for this <HI>weakne&s;&s;e.</HI> For 1. This grieves the heart of a godly brother, to have tho&s;e in whom lies his chiefe&s;t comfort taken from him; if you take away my comfort, there is rea&s;on why I &s;hould be grieved: would you not have a godly per|&s;on to be a comfort to the Mini&s;ter?</P>
<P N="2">2. It weakens the hands of that good Mini|&s;ter in endeavours to reform. Who will &s;tand
<PB N="54" REF="33">by him if the godly be gone from him? Tho&s;e commonly who are taken out of other Pari&s;hes are not of the poore&s;t &s;ort.</P>
<P N="3">3. When a place hath wanted a Mini&s;ter, it hath been a cau&s;e of &s;uch di&s;couragement to godly Mini&s;ters, that a godly man will not readily come into &s;uch a Pari&s;h, becau&s;e the congregational men have taken out the good people, or &s;ome of them, it may be the chief out of the Pari&s;h, and &s;o the Pari&s;h lie de&s;titute of a Mini&s;ter a long time, and at la&s;t mu&s;t get &s;uch as they can; and thus the &s;ouls of others are endangered. As for their returning of &s;uch to that Mini&s;ter in ca&s;e he will come, we know their judgment by their practi&s;es. When Pa|ri&s;hes have had good Mini&s;ters, this hath helped to remove them. That practice then which &s;o di&s;courageth good Mini&s;ters, as it cau&s;eth their removal, and hinders others from coming into place, I doe not look at this as a light matter, but a <HI>practice intolerable</HI> in the Churches. Though this be not &s;o bad as is the practice of &s;ome by me, yet in effect it comes to the &s;ame. Two &s;mall Pari&s;hes lying &s;o as they may ea&s;ily joyn, and would; but tho&s;e in them who had a &s;hew of Religion turn'd to the Separation, whence no godly Mini&s;ter cares for coming a|mong them, but there the people lie year after year, no Mini&s;ter to regard them, no Ordinan|ces: who knowes what God might have done for the &s;ouls of &s;ome of them, had the profe&s;&s;ing party held clo&s;e, and encouraged a godly Mini|&s;ter to come among&s;t them, whereas now for divers years they have had none, nor are like
<PB N="55" REF="33">to have. This practice of our brethren comes to the &s;ame in conclu&s;ion, if they thus take a|way the good people out of other Pari&s;hes.</P>
<P N="4">4. What weakne&s;&s;e &s;oever this is in them, I doubt our <HI>&s;trong</HI> men would not take it well, to have another come and take away their peo|ple from them. Something I heard <HI>hi&s;ce auri|bus</HI> what one &s;aid when a Mini&s;ter would have come into another Pari&s;h by, and took away &s;ome of his people. Tho&s;e who are eminent in parts, and have their people &s;ure to them, may &s;ay <HI>Let them goe;</HI> but what they would doe if the thing &s;hould be practi&s;ed, I know not: But however 'tis good to weigh things in the &s;cales of rea&s;on; and if &s;o, I think it a ju&s;t matter of grief, and &s;o of offence to good Mini&s;ters, a|gain&s;t their free con&s;ent to take away any of their people. So much for <HI>weakne&s;s.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. The congregational brethren being le&s;&s;e in number by ten, if not twenty parts, compa|red with the number of other Mini&s;ters, and tho&s;e godly, one would think it &s;hould be a mercy &s;ufficient that they live in &s;uch a Nation as this <HI>quietly;</HI> having the <HI>freedome of their con|&s;ciences, let them reform what they can in their own places.</HI> The Magi&s;trate doth countenance the Mini&s;ters, though of different judgments, and &s;o numerous, yet willing to a&s;&s;ociate, and &s;hew brotherly communion. For my part, I look on it as a great mercy [had I a heart to an&s;wer it] though I doe not goe and fleet the cream of my neighbours congregations becau&s;e they are not of my judgment.</P>
<P>This is &s;poken in reference to our A&s;&s;ocia|ting,
<PB N="56" REF="34">which if it were but yielded, there were hopes of clo&s;ure: Nor do I &s;ee any rea&s;on why our brethren &s;hould &s;o much &s;tand upon it; for I think their gathering of one Church out of divers true Churches is almo&s;t at an end; for tho&s;e who have a mind to &s;eparate, affect <HI>no</HI> Churches rather then Congregational Chur|ches.</P>
<P>As for &s;uch to whom the brethren have offer|ed the Agreement for peace, and they refu&s;e to a&s;&s;ociate with their brethren without any Scri|ptural rea&s;on given why they &s;o refu&s;e [a great care having been taken of cro&s;&s;ing of mens prin|ciples which were not plainly again&s;t Scripture, and might &s;tand with peace and &s;obriety] but rather affect to &s;tand alone: if any in their Pa|ri&s;hes &s;hall de&s;ire to joyn with any of the A&s;&s;o|ciated Churches, I know no rea&s;on why our hands &s;hould be &s;o bound up that we &s;hould not receive them; but others mu&s;t take from us, e&s;|pecially if they be &s;uch who have a right to the Lords Supper, but did not, nor will communi|cate with &s;uch a congregation, becau&s;e they re|quire that of them which the Word doth not, before they will admit them. This I conceive were great bondage, that a Mini&s;ter with three or four men &s;hall &s;et up a way of admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper, which all mu&s;t come to; the thing it &s;elf may be good, but not required to a Church-&s;tate, nor the receiving of the Sup|per; and that all mu&s;t &s;toop to this, or have no Supper there; and becau&s;e of Parochial bounds they mu&s;t have it no where el&s;e. Men may be of different judgments from mine, but that
<PB N="57" REF="34">&s;hall never hinder communion, if they be o|therwi&s;e qualified, and yield but to what is ne|ce&s;&s;ary to a Church-&s;tate, in which men, though of different per&s;wa&s;ions other wayes, yet all a|gree, be they Epi&s;copal, Cla&s;&s;ical, or Congre|gational, unle&s;&s;e &s;ome of the&s;e la&s;t make an <HI>ex|plicite</HI> covenant the <HI>form</HI> of the Church, which I &s;ee &s;ome of our brethren do here in <HI>England:</HI> El&s;e what means that pa&s;&s;age of a brother, <HI>But it will by us be expected</HI> [&s;atis pro imperio] <HI>that you leave the brethren and godly</HI> (yet ungather|ed) <HI>free who have voluntarily come under no en|gagement</HI> explicitely <HI>with your Pari&s;h ways &s;ince the fall of Prelacie.</HI> I could quote another who carries it more clo&s;ely. Then it &s;eems all tho&s;e Chri&s;tians who before this walked with their godly Pa&s;tors in con&s;tant attendance upon, and &s;ubjection to all Ordinances, mu&s;t now come under an explicite covenant, or what?</P>
<P>For my part, I &s;aid before, it was not any con&s;cience to Pari&s;h bounds which hath kept me from receiving of per&s;ons from other Pari|&s;hes, but de&s;ire of peace: But if men will re|fu&s;e terms of peace &s;o drawn up with &s;o much tenderne&s;s, as I think can well be de&s;ired, I &s;hall receive tho&s;e who &s;hall de&s;ire to joyn with me, and re&s;ign them up again when there comes a man who will embrace peace with his brethren: I do not look upon our rules binding me fur|ther then our A&s;&s;ociations.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="58" REF="35">
<HEAD>CHAP. III. <HI>Of A&s;&s;ociation of Churches.</HI></HEAD>
<P>OUr Brethren in <HI>Cumberland</HI> [with whom our Brethren in <HI>E&s;&s;ex</HI> agree] conceive <HI>That in the exerci&s;e of Di&s;cipline,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>A&s;&s;oc. Cumb.</HI> p. 3.</NOTE> it is not only the mo&s;t &s;afe cour&s;e, but al&s;o mo&s;t conducing to brotherly uni|on and &s;atisfaction, that particular Churches carry on as much of their work with joynt and mutual a&s;&s;i&s;tance as they can with conveniencie and edifi|cation, and as little as may be to &s;tand di&s;tinctly by them&s;elves, and apart from each other.</HI></P>
<P>This &s;ome of our congregational brethren look upon, as <HI>cutting off congregational liberty by the middle.</HI> But I conceive not &s;o, they put in the words <HI>Conveniencie</HI> and <HI>Edification;</HI> nor is their intent [&s;o far as I apprehend] to null the power of particular Churches, but onely to be a&s;&s;i&s;tant to each other in the wi&s;e mana|ging of &s;o great an Ordinance: and <HI>Ble&s;&s;ed be God</HI> [&s;ay I.] <HI>that &s;uch A&s;&s;i&s;tance may be had.</HI></P>
<P>That Church-Di&s;cipline is an In&s;titution of Chri&s;t, I doe not at all que&s;tion. That the cut|ting off a member from a Church is a thing of great weight, I do not al&s;o que&s;tion. [Chirur|geons, though able, when they come to the Amputation of a natural member, love to call in all the help they can.] And as certain I am that through the abu&s;e and ill maniging of this Solemn Ordinance, it hath almo&s;t lo&s;t its glory. This hath not been the fault of the Pope and the Hierarchy; but I wi&s;h I could &s;ay that &s;ome
<PB N="59" REF="35">congregational Churches had not expo&s;ed it to contempt through their indi&s;creet carriages in this Ordinance; I know of more then two or three of the&s;e Churches in which this fault will be found. In <HI>Ip&s;wich</HI> in <HI>N. E.</HI> where tho&s;e two worthy men Mr. <HI>Nathaniel Rogers</HI> [Pa&s;tor] and Mr. <HI>Norton</HI> [Teacher] had the managing of this Ordinance, they carried on the work with &s;o much <HI>prudence</HI> and <HI>long-&s;uffering</HI> [the cau&s;e did permit it] before they came to the execution of it, and with &s;o much Maje&s;ty and Terrour when they came to the Sentence, that the hearts of all the members [I think] were &s;truck with fear, and many eyes could not but let drop tears; the Ordinance had &s;omething of the maje&s;ty of the Ordainer in it. If we could carry on this Ordinance thus, we might recover the glory of it.</P>
<P>What particular Churches may do when no A&s;&s;i&s;tance can be had, is one thing; what they ought to doe when it may be had, is another. Doctor <HI>Ames</HI> is a man who favours particular Churches enough, yet &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Medul. C.</HI> 39. <HI>S.</HI> 27.</NOTE> <HI>Eccle&s;iae tamen par|ticulares, ut earum communio po&s;tulat, naturae lumen, &amp; aequitas regularum, &amp; exemplorum Scripturae docent, po&s;&s;unt, ac &s;aepi&s;&s;im&egrave; etiam de|bent Confaederationem, aut Con&s;ociationem mutu|am inter &s;e inire, in Cla&s;&s;ibus &amp; Synodis, ut com|muni con&s;en&s;u &amp; &s;ub&s;idio mutuo utantur, quantum commod&egrave; fieri pote&s;t, in iis prae&s;ertim quae &s;unt ma|joris momenti,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Furthermore, becau&s;e the brethren &s;tand &s;o much upon the power of particular Churches, I de&s;ire [as I have divers years profe&s;&s;ed my di&s;|&s;atisfaction
<PB N="60" REF="36">&s;atisfaction in this point] they would plea&s;e to clear it from the <HI>N. T.</HI> where they find &s;uch particular Churches as ours are in the&s;e &s;mall Villages, con&s;i&s;ting of one Pa&s;tor, and a few members, being &s;o near to other Churches as ours are, and might unite if they would; yet that &s;uch particular Churches kept them&s;elves di&s;tinct, and exerci&s;ed all power within them|&s;elves, without any dependance upon, or con|&s;ociation with other Churches. If Scripture|examples be any thing to us, I think they will not prove it. I could never yet under&s;tand the rea&s;on of this con&s;equence. <HI>The Churches in Jeru&s;alem, in Rome, in Corinth, in Ephe&s;us,</HI> &amp;c. were independent for the execution of their power; <HI>Ergo,</HI> every particular Church in a &s;mall Village with one Pa&s;tor, and a few mem|bers, is independent for the execution of all Church-power.</P>
<P>I pray let us con&s;ider whether it will not more an&s;wer the Scripture-patterns, to have di|vers of our &s;maller Villages to unite, and make up but <HI>One Church,</HI> though every Mini&s;ter con|tinue in his &s;tation, taking care e&s;pecially [though not <HI>onely]</HI> of tho&s;e who live within his own Pari&s;h, and to preach to the&s;e, admini&s;ter Sacraments, exhort, rebuke, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as he findeth cau&s;e. But yet as to the exerci&s;e of <HI>all Church|power,</HI> they are but <HI>One Church.</HI> I dare &s;ay it will come neerer to the Scripture, then doth the practice of the Churches as now they &s;tand. Our brethren yield the Church at <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> to be but <HI>One Church;</HI> but that this Church met alwaies for all Ordinances in one place, who
<PB N="61" REF="36">can imagine? Though the Apo&s;tles went up to the Temple to Preach, yet that was as well for the &s;ake of others who came to the Temple, and not yet converted; the Apo&s;tles went to meet with <HI>them,</HI> they did not goe to meet with the <HI>Apo&s;tles.</HI> But we doe not read that they went thither to admini&s;ter the Lords Supper. Where they could find a room for five thou&s;and per&s;ons to receive the Supper together, I cannot tell; to throw away ones rea&s;on in matters of practice is hard: what a long time mu&s;t they be admini&s;tring? though others did help, yet they mu&s;t have room to pa&s;&s;e to and fro to car|ry the elements, that at la&s;t we mu&s;t have a va&s;t place.</P>
<P>Mo&s;t Divines that I read agree, that by <HI>brea|king of bread, Acts</HI> 2.42. is meant the Lords Supper: I doe not &s;ee that <HI>Beza</HI> hath many followers. Why then by <HI>breaking of bread,</HI> v. 46. &s;hould not be meant the Lords Supper al&s;o, and their <HI>eating meat with gladne&s;s</HI> their <HI>Love|fea&s;ts</HI> which attended the Supper, I &s;ee no rea|&s;on, though I know many Divines doe not un|der&s;tand it as in 42.</P>
<P>That it is the phra&s;e whereby the Lords Sup|per is &s;et forth in the New Te&s;tament, is yield|ed, <HI>Acts</HI> 20.7. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.16. &amp; <HI>Cap.</HI> 11. and &s;o in the 42. <HI>v.</HI> of this <HI>Chap.</HI> Once in <HI>Luke</HI> 24.30, 35. we find it meant of an ordinary &s;upper, the text doth clear it, though &s;ome Papi&s;ts would draw it to the Sacrament under one element, yet other Papi&s;ts deny it here.</P>
<P>It's true, we find this phra&s;e once in the Old Te&s;tament, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 58.7. to be under&s;tood of the
<PB N="62" REF="37">giving of Alms to the poor; but there is diffe|rence between the&s;e phra&s;es, <HI>Breaking bread to the hungry,</HI> and this <HI>Breaking bread:</HI> we doe not find the words <HI>to the hungry,</HI> or &s;uch like, added in the New Te&s;tament. If this be yield|ed, then they did <HI>break bread Domatim,</HI> as <HI>Beza.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Corn. a Lap.</HI> thus interprets the Text of the <HI>Euchari&s;t,</HI> and &s;aith that doth not hinder that they did break <HI>Domatim, quia cre|&s;coute numero fidelium, per varias domos eos di&s;tribuere, in ii&s;que Euchari&s;tiam celebrare oportebat.</HI> In this &s;en&s;e al&s;o <HI>Chemnitius</HI> takes the words,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Exam. Conc. Trid. p.</HI> 95.</NOTE> not troubling him&s;elf with that que|&s;tion, <HI>an ad veritatem Euchari&s;tiae requiratur pe|culiaris qualitas loci?</HI> He draws his an&s;wer from the example of Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles: <HI>Nec Apo&s;toli peculiares habuerunt Ba&s;ilicas; &s;ed &s;icut per&s;everabant in doctrina Apo&s;tolorum, &amp; orati|one, quando in privatis domibus colligebantur, ita etiam per domos frangebant panem.</HI> Although <HI>Lormus</HI> be again&s;t this interpretation him&s;elf [his rea&s;on in&s;ufficient;] yet he acknowledges <HI>Antoninus</HI> to under&s;tand it of the Lords Supper, <HI>qui ait e&s;&s;e communem opinionem;</HI> &s;o <HI>Gagneius, Baronius, Boderianus,</HI> &amp;c. as <HI>Lorinus</HI> quotes. Thus I doubt not but it was in <HI>Rome, Ephe&s;us,</HI> and <HI>Corinth,</HI> where were many Officers, and much people, <HI>Acts</HI> 18.10. They met in &s;everal places for Preaching and Sacraments; yet the&s;e were but one Church. That Text 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.34. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. &s;eems to carry it fairly: There were divers of the&s;e A&s;|&s;emblies in <HI>Corinth</HI> which he calls Churches;
<PB N="63" REF="37">and yet in another &s;en&s;e it is the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>Co|rinth.</HI> As for the words <GAP DESC="foreign">, how <HI>Cal|vin</HI> and others interpret them is well known, with whom agree the <HI>Arab.</HI> Ver&s;ion, <HI>Acts</HI> 2.44. &s;o that I &s;ay no more to them.</P>
<P>Now if the&s;e did thus meet as before, why may not we as well meet in our &s;everal Pari&s;h|es, and yet be but one Church, and the Mini|&s;ters Elders in common to that One Church? &s;o may we have divers Elders in One Church, as had the&s;e Churches. Our Pari&s;hes lie &s;o, that tho&s;e who dwell in the next Pari&s;hes are as well known to Mini&s;ters as many of their own; they dwell much neerer to places of A&s;|&s;embling for the wor&s;hip of God, then doe ma|ny in our own Pari&s;hes; and for number, we may joyn divers of our Pari&s;hes together before we &s;hall have &s;o many compleat members to all Ordinances as were in <HI>Jeru&s;alem, Rome,</HI> or <HI>Co|rinth.</HI> Such a Church as this I could willingly call (in one &s;en&s;e) an <HI>Independent Church.</HI> Dr. <HI>Owen</HI> (a congregational Divine) was once very near this opinion in his <HI>Country E&s;&s;ay for the practice of Church-government.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 59.</NOTE> He would have the extreams of the Divi&s;ion not be above 8, or 10 miles, &s;o the center not more then 4, or 5 miles from any part of it, &amp;c. though in &s;ome things we &s;hall differ, yet not in what I aim at. For ought I can &s;ee this would come neere&s;t to Scripture, and for the benefits of it.</P>
<P N="1">1. If any Mini&s;ter die, here are Mini&s;ters &s;till left in the &s;ame Church to ordain another in his room [the people electing] and to try him before election.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="64" REF="38">2. The matters of Juri&s;diction are carried on with the coun&s;el and a&s;&s;i&s;tance of divers; where is hoped to be more &s;afety, and the Or|dinance of Excommunication more &s;olemn.</P>
<P N="3">3. If any Mini&s;ter be &s;candalous, here is a way for his Excommunication. Things now may be carried on as they were in tho&s;e Chur|ches which we finde in the New Te&s;tament, where there were many Elders; and divers que&s;tions which have troubled the Churches, about <HI>the peoples ordaining of a Mini&s;ter, Ex|communication of their Mini&s;ter,</HI> &amp;c. avoided. And thus our brethrens trouble about <HI>Pari&s;h|bounds</HI> is al&s;o avoided in great part. The great|e&s;t difficulty I find is this, that we are divided about the qualification, of Church-members, which they in <HI>Jeru&s;alem, Corinth,</HI> &amp;c. were not. Certainly there <HI>were</HI> and <HI>are</HI> common rules for all Churches to goe by, or el&s;e they could not have agreed more then we. If the Lord had left it to the liberty of every Mini&s;ter to require what qualifications he plea&s;ed, then confu&s;ion and divi&s;ion mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily have been always in the Church. Is it &s;o hard then to find out the&s;e Rules? Were we to Preach to Heathen, and they under&s;tanding the doctrines of &s;alva|tion, did profe&s;&s;e their a&s;&s;ents unto tho&s;e Do|ctrines, their con&s;ent to take Chri&s;t for their Saviour and Lord, their &s;orrow <HI>for</HI> and re|nouncing <HI>of</HI> their former wicked ways, giving up them&s;elves to Chri&s;t, his ways and ordinan|ces, &s;urely &s;uch as the&s;e we mu&s;t admit and bap|tize; if not, give us a Text where the Apo&s;tles refu&s;ed &s;uch. If after Bapti&s;m they vi&s;ibly an|&s;wered
<PB N="65" REF="38">their profe&s;&s;ion then made, they were continued members, and had fellow&s;hip in all Church-priviledges, I think &s;o. Let us come thus far, and we &s;hall agree for many; tho&s;e a|mong us who apparently bely the profe&s;&s;ion made at Bapti&s;m, let them either be brought to repentance, or &s;ecluded. [That is my opini|on, and I think all <HI>would</HI> have it &s;o, who would reform the Church.]</P>
<P N="2">2. However the congregational brethren, who doe agree in qualifications, and dwell thus neer, may unite into one Church; and &s;o may others.</P>
<P N="3">3. Since our brethren who look on all their Pari&s;hes as Church-members, doe not yet re|quire of us &s;o to judge of them, and de&s;ire us onely to A&s;&s;ociate with them in giving commu|nion to &s;uch as are qualified according as they have &s;et down [the qualifications certainly be|ing &s;trict enough for Church-members, if not too &s;trict, if we goe to the rigour of them, &s;o as congregational Churches will not an&s;wer in all points] why may we not unite with them &s;o far? The&s;e things I propound willing to re|ceive &s;ome light; but as to what the Cla&s;&s;ical brethren require, it is no more then <HI>N. E.</HI> Di|vines doe allow and practice in their Councils. Certainly &s;ince we know our &s;elves to be men &s;ubject to infirmities, corruptions, tentations, many, if not mo&s;t now unacquainted with the exerci&s;e of Church-Di&s;cipline, a weighty Or|dinance, the glory of it almo&s;t lo&s;t, one would think no Chri&s;tian Mini&s;ter &s;hould de&s;ire to &s;tand alone, but be mo&s;t willing to take in all
<PB N="66" REF="39">a&s;&s;i&s;tance he could, and not e&s;teem it a needle&s;s troubling of him&s;elf [as &s;ay &s;ome of our bre|thren] but rather a mercie that he may have help from his neighbouring Mini&s;ters.</P>
<P>If any man will go further with me, and &s;ay, if you will mould your Churches according to tho&s;e in the Scripture, and have divers Elders to carry on the Affaires of the Church, why then may we not have one Elder among the&s;e, who may be a <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;uppo&s;e a <HI>&s;tanding Mo|derator?</HI> For in tho&s;e Churches we find men|tion made of an <HI>Angel</HI> in <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> and the o|ther Churches, which &s;eem to imply as much.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer. If you doe not make this <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>primus Presbyter, &s;tanding Moderator</HI> [or what other name you will give him] a di&s;tinct Scri|ptural Officer from other Presbyters, giving to him a power di&s;tinct <HI>from</HI> and &s;uperiour <HI>to</HI> the power of other Preaching Presbyters, whence he &s;hall perform &s;ome Church-Acts which other preaching Presbyters <HI>&s;hall not</HI> or <HI>cannot</HI> perform, &s;o that it be no di&s;tinct or &s;uperiour power, but onely <HI>order</HI> which is contended for, I am well content to yield it, being ready to goe with others for peace and unities &s;ake, till they come to con&s;titute Officers which Chri&s;t never did, then I &s;ay <HI>Hold.</HI> But for a <HI>&s;tanding Moderator,</HI> one that <HI>Durante vit&acirc; modo bene &s;e ge&s;&s;erit,</HI> &s;hall keep that place, let him, <HI>per me licet.</HI> For,</P>
<P N="1">1. In the meetings of Councils there mu&s;t be one who mu&s;t rule and order the affairs at tho&s;e times; a Pre&s;ident, a Moderator mu&s;t be, rea&s;on leads us to it to avoid confu&s;ion: and this is &s;een in the &s;ynodical meetings of Congregati|onal Elders.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="67" REF="39">2. He who is cho&s;en Pre&s;ident or Moderator this Se&s;&s;ion may be the next, and the next; we may choo&s;e him for one year, or two years, what Scripture text forbids it? why may we not twenty?</P>
<P N="3">3. I am &s;o far from thinking it is contrary to Scripture, that I think it comes neere&s;t to Scripture. [I may declare my opinion with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to better judgements] for as for the word <HI>Angel</HI> mentioned in the Epi&s;tles to the &s;even Churches, though I cannot agree to that which that ever honoured and learned <HI>Dave|nant</HI> doth gather from it, namely,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Determ.</HI> 42.</NOTE> the &s;uperi|ority of the Bi&s;hop above other Presbyters, <HI>becau&s;e here was one in the Church of Ephe&s;us, &amp;c. which</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>is called</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. For what <HI>I&s;idore</HI> &s;aith of created Angels, <HI>Angelus e&s;t nomen officii non naturae, &s;emper &s;unt &s;piritus &s;ed cum</HI> mittuntur <HI>vocantur Angeli,</HI> I may apply to this, if all true preaching Mini&s;ters are <HI>&s;ent,</HI> as they are, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. then they al&s;o are <GAP DESC="foreign">. I think our Divines have &s;poken &s;uffici|ently to take off this; yet [with favour] I conceive that Chri&s;t mentioning an <HI>Angel</HI> in the &s;ingular number, and rea&s;on telling us what mu&s;t be in all orderly Meetings &amp; Coun|cils to avoid confu&s;ion, there being divers Elders in one Church, who had the care, in|&s;pection, and government of it; I conceive tho&s;e Elders had one who for order &s;ake was a Pre&s;ident, Moderator, [though he had not <HI>power</HI> above them, as may be proved by other Scriptures] that ordered the tran&s;actions when they met; nor can I conceive it was &s;o,
<PB N="68" REF="40">for one Se&s;&s;ion or two, but for his life for ought I can learn, he that can, let him prove the contrary? in that he is taken notice of &s;o in a &s;pecial manner, it &s;hould &s;eem he was one that was &s;o more then one or two Se&s;&s;ions.</P>
<P N="4">4. I verily conceive that error [be not offen|ded, I pray, if I call it &s;o, for I humbly con|ceive it to be &s;o] which &s;o &s;oon crept in, of <HI>one</HI> a&s;&s;uming power above other Presbyters, took its fir&s;t ri&s;e upon <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> of this Order. God's providence &s;o ordering it to leave his own Servants to their wi&s;edom and wills, who freely acting made way at la&s;t for his Decrees: for if the Pre&s;ident or Moderator had &s;hifted and changed every Se&s;&s;ion, I cannot tell which way it was po&s;&s;ible a Pope &s;hould have ri&s;en.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> Therefore away with your <HI>&s;tanding Moderator,</HI> you have &s;poken enough again&s;t it.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Stay, not too fa&s;t; mu&s;t I throw away every thing that may be or is abu&s;ed? <HI>occa&s;io</HI> and <HI>cau&s;a</HI> differ much. <HI>Diotrephes,</HI> and &s;o other Mini&s;ters may abu&s;e their power; &s;hall then a Mini&s;ter have no power over his people? <HI>Tollatur abu&s;us, maneat u&s;us.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> But for Mini&s;ters power we have Scri|pture for it plainly, &s;o we have not for a con|&s;tant &s;tanding Moderator.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> By Scripture Authority we make Officers, who have power from Chri&s;t immediately. I am not di&s;cour&s;ing of the making of a <HI>Church-Officer,</HI> and what <HI>power</HI> &s;uch an Officer &s;hould have, I di&s;claim this; <HI>power</HI> and <HI>order</HI> are two things.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="69" REF="40">2. That Text which before I produced, I know not what fairer Interpretation can be given of it. I can exclude &s;uperiority of power by other Scriptures, but why an Interpre|tation of Scripture which cro&s;&s;es no other Scripture, nor &s;ound rea&s;on, and hath &s;uch fair probability from the practi&s;e of the mo&s;t ancient, &s;hould not be admitted [e&s;pecially when a fairer Interpretation cannot be given [for my part I know none] I know no rea&s;on.</P>
<P>The mo&s;t that can be objected again&s;t me is matter of <HI>Prudence.</HI> But I conceive 1. that which comes neere&s;t to make peace in the Church, and doth not cro&s;s the Scripture, that is prudence. 2. That which comes neere&s;t to Scripture Interpretation, having the practice of &s;o many ancient holy Men and Martyrs [though I know they went higher] to give light to it, this I call prudence. 3. Time will di&s;cover which will have mo&s;t prudence in it, whether a Moderator or Pre&s;ident changed every Se&s;&s;ion, or a &s;tanding Moderator. I think now we are out of danger of making a Pope, if his time of ruine be &s;o neer as &s;ome think.</P>
<P>Thus I have delivered my thoughts, humbly conceiving that a Church &s;o moulded as there may be divers elders in it, and among&s;t the&s;e one cho&s;en for a <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>pre&s;ident,</HI> [or what you will call him] for order &s;ake, to abide &s;o con|&s;tantly, come neere&s;t to the plat-form of the Churches in the Scripture; and in this there is &s;omething of the <HI>Congregational,</HI> &s;omething of the <HI>Cla&s;&s;ical,</HI> and &s;omething like the <HI>Epi&s;|copal</HI> way; &s;uch a Church for the exerci&s;e of its
<PB N="70" REF="41">power, being independent, as was the Church in <HI>Ephe&s;us.</HI> But to have one Pa&s;tor, and it may be twelve men to &s;tand alone, and to exerci&s;e all Church-power when they may a&s;&s;ociate, I de&s;ire to &s;ee &s;uch a Church in Scripture.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="2" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>PART II.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I. <HI>A Plea for Ordination.</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>To.</HI> 4. <HI>Di&s;p.</HI> 9. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 1. I own no Church Officer which is not or|dained. <HI>Nemo ad ordina|riam in eccle&s;i&acirc; functio|nem, &s;ive ad Diaco|natum &s;ive ad Pres|byteratum, &amp;c. ad|mitti de|bet ni&s;i legitim&egrave; electus &amp; ordinatus. Zanch.</HI> 4. <HI>praec. p.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">77.</NOTE></HEAD>
<P>ALthough I am far from <HI>Valentia</HI>'s judg|ment, making Ordination a Sacrament [&s;trictly &s;o called;] yet in this I think he &s;aith true, when he would have the word <HI>Ordination</HI> to be taken from the effect of that Ordinance, <HI>Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque</HI> Ordine <HI>certo eccle&s;ia&s;ticae dignitatis con&s;titutiur.</HI> Thus &s;ome are <HI>Pa&s;tors,</HI> &s;ome <HI>ruling Elders,</HI> &s;ome are <HI>Deacons,</HI> they are in &s;uch an Order in the Church when they are Ordained. This hath been the judge|ment, and accordingly the practice of the Church for many hundred years; till <HI>ye&s;ter|day</HI> Ordination was made but an <HI>Adjunct</HI> of a Mini&s;ters call [popular election being made the <HI>e&s;&s;ential</HI> cau&s;e:] and <HI>to day</HI> Ordination is thrown out; no wonder, for <HI>Adjunctum pote&s;t abe&s;&s;e, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<PB N="71" REF="41">
<P>This cloathing of God's things with our Logical notions, (though I know Logick is a general Art) and by them to <HI>rai&s;e</HI> one thing above another, one mu&s;t be cried up, the other &s;lighted, when both have the &s;ame Divine &s;tamp upon them, I utterly mi&s;like, and think it too much boldne&s;s. Hath the Scripture made &s;uch compari&s;on between the&s;e, as be|tween Ceremonial and Moral wor&s;hip? We blame the <HI>Socinians</HI> becau&s;e they adhere not to Divine Te&s;timony, but will try all things at the bar of their rea&s;on, and &s;o approve or di&s;approve: and are they blamele&s;s, who <HI>when they have Divine Te&s;timony</HI> and rea&s;on al&s;o for two things, yet they will call this but an Adjunct, (when as that Adjunct hath more and clearer Scriptures for to prove it) and the other an e&s;&s;ential cau&s;e (which hath fewer Scriptures, and tho&s;e not &s;o clear to &s;peak for it) and &s;o neglect the Adjunct? what are the&s;e notions to our practi&s;e? to which God's <HI>Adjuncts</HI> (if you call them &s;o) are <HI>e&s;&s;ential.</HI></P>
<P>A few words then for Ordination (my chief aim being at <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands</HI> in Ordination, and &s;o I will make the more ha&s;te over this.)</P>
<P>Q. <HI>Whether gifts and popular election be &s;ufficient to con&s;titute a Mini&s;ter without Ordi|nation?</HI></P>
<P>Where, fir&s;t, by a Mini&s;ter I under&s;tand not one who exerci&s;eth for the trial of his gifts, before he be ordained; for if <HI>Timothy</HI> mu&s;t <HI>commit the things, &amp;c. to faithful men,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.2. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.22.</NOTE> and &s;uch as are able to teach others.</HI> If <HI>he mu&s;t lay hands on no man &s;uddenly,</HI> then good proof mu&s;t be had
<PB N="72" REF="42">of mens lives,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;o&s;t. in loc.</NOTE> and &s;o of their abilities. <GAP DESC="foreign">. But by a Mini&s;ter I un|der&s;tand one who doth Officially and Autho|ritatively Preach, admini&s;ter Sacraments, go|vern the Church, ordain others, (though the latter &s;eems to be a begging of the que|&s;tion.)</P>
<P N="2">2. Neither is the que&s;tion what may be done in a ca&s;e extraordinary when Ordination cannot be had, this our Divines have &s;poken to &s;ufficiently;
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Loc. com. p.</HI> 748. <HI>Synop. pur. Theol. Di&s;.</HI> 42. <HI>S.</HI> 39, 43, 44.</NOTE> I could quote divers, but I will mention only <HI>Peter Martyr,</HI> who &s;hall &s;peak for all the re&s;t. <HI>Quando adhuc extructa non e&s;t eccle&s;ia, &amp; homines Chri&s;tianae religionis ignari &s;unt, quicunque ibi fort&egrave; fortun&acirc; fuerint qui Chri&s;tum probe norint, illum tenentur annun|ciare, neque ordinatio e&s;t expectanda ubi haberi non pote&s;t: quod e&s;t intelligendum, &s;i omnino ei de&s;it copia Ordinantium; nam &s;i aliquos po&s;&s;it accedere qui &s;e u&s;itato more ordinent</HI> Manus im|ponendo, <HI>non debet Ordinationem negligere.</HI> Then adds a little after, <HI>Quae a Deo fiunt extra ordinem, admirari debemus, non &s;emper imitari.</HI> But this is none of our ca&s;e. The&s;e things be|ing premi&s;&s;ed, I undertake the <HI>Negative.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Gifts are not &s;ufficient.</HI> A per&s;on gifted is the <HI>material</HI> cau&s;e of a Mini&s;ter, the <HI>formal</HI> as yet is wanting.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Heb.</HI> 5.</NOTE> It was &s;aid of old, <HI>No man taketh this honour to him&s;elf, but he that is called of God.</HI> But if he be gifted he may take it, may he not? No; the Text allows it not. I let the <HI>Socinians</HI> alone to tho&s;e who have
<PB N="73" REF="42">an&s;wered them: I only add, it was the <HI>office</HI> not the <HI>honour</HI> that did look to Chri&s;t. Our happine&s;s lies in this, that he is our <HI>High Prie&s;t,</HI> performs that <HI>office</HI> in our behalf, not in the <HI>honour</HI> that attends the office (at lea&s;t not primarily.) Chri&s;t hath his call, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 42.6. <HI>Paul</HI> hath his call, <HI>Rom.</HI> 1.1. A Mini&s;ter mu&s;t be able to &s;ay he was called to the office.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sur. ch. di&s;. p.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 9. <HI>p.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 42, 45.</NOTE> Reverend <HI>Hooker</HI> calls it an <HI>Anabapti&s;tical Fren&s;y</HI> to meddle with the Acts of a Church Officer without a call: and in another place he &s;aith, <HI>All &s;uch Acts are void, and of none effect,</HI> though men have gifts.</P>
<P>I know <HI>Ames</HI> is much again&s;t the the common Interpretation of that text, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.15. upon which I perceive generally our Divines have grounded that <HI>Mi&s;&s;io pote&s;tativa,</HI> which they make the &s;ub&s;tance, e&s;&s;ence, and formal act of Ordination. But <HI>Ames</HI> &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Bell. ener. To.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 82.</NOTE> <HI>Mi&s;&s;io nu&s;quam in Scriptura &s;ignificat vocationem ordinariam, qua per homines in aliquem derivatur: neque &s;ua &s;ignificatione notat actum aliquem hominum vocantium hominem ordinaria ratione vocandum. Supple, a Deo,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Cajetan.</HI> I intend not to meddle with what the Doctor hath &s;aid (though to me the Apo&s;tle plainly intimates, there can be <HI>no preaching</HI> without <HI>&s;ending,</HI> but then I would ask, How &s;hall I know whether my &s;elf or another be &s;ent of God?) but I will rather examine what the Author of the <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp;c. (who makes Ordination not e&s;&s;ential to the call of a Mini&s;ter) hath commented upon it. <HI>The &s;ending which the Apo&s;tle means is not a Mini&s;terial or Eccle&s;ia&s;tical &s;ending, but a pro|vidential
<PB N="74" REF="43">&s;ending by giving men gifts, and working with them in their u&s;e and exerci&s;e.</HI> He gives rea&s;ons, of which afterwards.</P>
<P N="1">1. Then it &s;eems Eccle&s;ia&s;tical &s;ending is not providential &s;ending. Hath God no act of pro|vidence in the &s;ending of a Mini&s;ter, when he is &s;ent by Mini&s;ters? I thought providential &s;ending (as the more general) had compre|hended under it Mini&s;terial &s;ending, but this Author oppo&s;eth them <HI>not this</HI> but <HI>that.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. I thought God's pre&s;ence working with men in the exerci&s;e of their gifts, let them be &s;ent pro|videntially or eccle&s;ia&s;tially had been a di&s;tinct thing from his &s;ending them; that to <HI>&s;end</HI> is one thing, and to work with a per&s;on <HI>&s;ent</HI> is another. So to give <HI>gifts</HI> is one thing, but to <HI>&s;end</HI> a gifted man another: if not, but <HI>gifting</HI> be <HI>&s;ending,</HI> then Election is as needle&s;s as Or|dination; for why? I am &s;ent providentially becau&s;e I am gifted: but that Author is &s;tiff for popular Election.</P>
<P N="3">3. But what if God doth not plea&s;e to work in the exerci&s;e of gifts to breed faith? are not therefore &s;uch per&s;ons &s;ent? it mu&s;t not be &s;o by this Interpretation. The Prophets of God did little or no good that we read of, yet 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 36.15. God &s;aith <HI>he &s;ent</HI> them: till they found the Lord working they were not fent. It's po&s;&s;ible they might preach half a year or more before they did convert one; it &s;eems all that time they were not <HI>&s;ent</HI> becau&s;e God did not work with their gifts. <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 6. the Prophet had a commi&s;&s;ion not to breed faith, yet <HI>&s;ent;</HI> this will trouble &s;ome good Mini&s;ters.
<PB N="75" REF="43">Some mens gifts lie more in building up then in bringing home, are they not therefore &s;ent?</P>
<P N="4">4. Then it &s;eems if God make me an in&s;tru|ment to beget faith in any, I mu&s;t not look at it as the fruit of God's &s;ending me Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|cally (as he hath appointed Pa&s;tors and Teach|ers for the gathering and building up his Church) but only as I was &s;ent providentially, and &s;o have no comfort <HI>quatenus</HI> an Officer.</P>
<P N="5">5. Doth God's &s;ending by giving gifts, and Mini&s;terial &s;ending oppo&s;e each other? in one &s;en&s;e indeed he may make <HI>gifts</HI> and <HI>Ordination</HI> oppo&s;ites, for they do <HI>differre re &amp; ratione:</HI> but if he con&s;ider them in their affection to a Mini&s;ter, they are e&s;&s;ential cau&s;es con&s;tituting the &s;ame effect, the Mini&s;terial fending follow|ing God's gifting.</P>
<P>His Rea&s;ons. 1. <HI>El&s;e none can be an in&s;tru|ment of conver&s;ion but a Preacher &s;ent.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> The great &s;tanding Ordinance which God hath appointed to breed faith in&s;tru|mentally, is the Mini&s;try <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tically</HI> fent: and I think <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12, 13. will prove it; though God hath not tied up him&s;elf &s;o as to u&s;e no other means, but this is his common way.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Fox Mart. Vol.</HI> 1 <HI>p.</HI> 299.</NOTE> <HI>Waldus</HI> when his neighbour that was walking with him fell down dead, began to live &s;piritually; here was no body &s;ent pro|videntially with gifts. I have heard of &s;ome per&s;ons who were adult, that could neither hear nor &s;peak, yet &s;o far as in charity we might judge by &s;ome of their outward ge&s;tures in reference to holy things, they might have
<PB N="76" REF="44">grace; <HI>yet faith ordinarily comes by hearing.</HI> I knew a good Chri&s;tian, in conference with a &s;ick per&s;on, another &s;tanding by the beds-&s;ide and hearing the conference, he who was now &s;eventy years old began to live; the Chri&s;tians gifts not fit for a Mini&s;ter; but what then? doth not God ordinarily convert by gifted men? Divers in&s;tances might be given which would make as much again&s;t providential &s;ending by gifts, as Eccle&s;ia&s;tical &s;ending.</P>
<P N="2">2. Rea&s;on. <HI>No man can be &s;ure whether he hath faith or no, till he be &s;ure his faith was wrought in him by a Mini&s;ter lawfully called.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> The former an&s;wer &s;erves here; we tie not men to this; the old man I mentioned before, and <HI>Waldus,</HI> might upon his grounds as much que&s;tion the truth of their faith, becau&s;e not wrought by men providentially &s;ent with gifts.</P>
<P>I could give another an&s;wer, but I leave this.</P>
<P N="2">2. As gifts alone are not &s;ufficient, &s;o neither are <HI>gifts and popular election</HI> &s;ufficient.</P>
<P>Let the&s;e men bring forth their Scriptures and &s;hew us where the&s;e two have con&s;tituted a Mini&s;ter. There are but three Texts brought to prove popular election, and none of them will do it. Not <HI>Acts</HI> 1. for (be&s;ides divers things which might be &s;aid) they did not elect an Apo&s;tle, when they had nominated two, they could not tell which was the Apo&s;tle till God cho&s;e.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cartw. Reply, p.</HI> 204.</NOTE> <HI>The Church cho&s;e no Apo&s;tle, but only choo&s;e two, of the which one was taken by the Lord to be an Apo&s;tle. Cartw.</HI> So <HI>Calvin In&s;t. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 3. <HI>&s;.</HI> 13.</P>
<PB N="77" REF="44">
<P><HI>Acts</HI> 6. will not prove it; there was Ordinati|on be&s;ides election, (though &s;ome deny here as any officer at all ordained, of which anon.)</P>
<P><HI>Acts</HI> 14. I find a Text much in&s;i&s;ted upon: &s;ome from hence would gather that a man may be a Mini&s;ter without Ordination, that popular election is &s;ufficient; which they ground upon the word <GAP DESC="foreign">: others of our Congregationall Brethren here in <HI>England,</HI> who will allow Ordination as an Adjunct to the call, they find it here in the ver&s;e; which thus they define. <HI>Ordination is a recommending a per&s;on (cho&s;en) to God, by fa&s;ting and prayer.</HI></P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign"> that carries the popular election; then <HI>with fa&s;ting and prayer they commended them to God;</HI> here is Ordination, and that without impo&s;ition of hands. I will examine both the&s;e heads.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, for <GAP DESC="foreign"> I am confident that tho&s;e learned Divines, who have made mo&s;t u&s;e of this word to prove the peoples power to elect their Mini&s;ter, did never think that this popular election did con&s;titute a Mi|ni&s;ter without Ordination, when it might be had; their writings prove it. Neither did ever intend to prove and warrant &s;uch ele|ctions as our people make, namely, that with|out any dependance upon the judgement and a&s;&s;i&s;tance of godly and learned Divines to help them, to choo&s;e whom they li&s;t upon their own heads. Mr. <HI>Cartwright</HI> hath &s;poken enough, and with heat &s;ufficient for the peoples privi|ledge from this word, yet how far he was from
<PB N="78" REF="45">approving &s;uch elections we may conceive by his words to the <HI>Rhemi&s;ts.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rhem.</HI> 14. <HI>Te&s;t. Act.</HI> 22.</NOTE> It may be under&s;tood how truly you &s;peak, as if we &s;o commended the Churches election, as we &s;hut out the Bi&s;hops or|dination, which we do not only give unto them, but make them al&s;o the chief and directors in election, (Scripture Bi&s;hops we mean.)</HI> And thus in other place. Thus <HI>Ames</HI> al&s;o, <HI>Med. The. C.</HI> 39. <HI>The&s;.</HI> 31.</P>
<P>If what our ancient Divines have &s;aid will not give content, I will come a little neerer.</P>
<P N="1">1. It's certain the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> re|lates to <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas;</HI> tho&s;e who did <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the 22. <HI>v.</HI> doe <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the 23. <HI>v.</HI> el&s;e we mu&s;t go look for our Grammar, which <HI>Luke did and could write &s;ure</HI> enough.</P>
<P>If then the word mu&s;t be re&s;trained to ele|ction, I am &s;ure <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> did elect; this the Grammar will force, which is a &s;urer rule then a <HI>Critici&s;m</HI> to bring the people in.</P>
<P N="2">2. If <GAP DESC="foreign"> mu&s;t relate to the people, then let us &s;ee what &s;en&s;e we &s;hall make of it. <GAP DESC="foreign"> the people choo|&s;ing by lifting up their hands, <GAP DESC="foreign"> Elders, <GAP DESC="foreign">: I think it &s;hould rather have been <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;urely they choo&s;e for them&s;elves not the Apo&s;tles, then it would have run more &s;moothly for popular election; but it is <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>e&s;t eligere proprio &s;uffragio, non per &s;uffragia ab aliis data.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. It is certain what we call Ordination, the Greeks call <GAP DESC="foreign">, when it is u&s;ed in re|ference to the con&s;titution of an Officer: this is plain enough to him who will read <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tome,</HI>
<PB N="79" REF="45" MS="y">who I &s;ee in all the&s;e places where Im|po&s;ition of hands is u&s;ed in the Text in the Or|dination of a Church-Officer in his Comment upon the Text, u&s;eth always the word <GAP DESC="foreign">. See him on <HI>Acts</HI> 13.3, &amp; 4 where three times he u&s;es this word. I will name no more but <HI>Acts</HI> 6.6. upon tho&s;e words <GAP DESC="foreign">, thus he &s;peaks. <GAP DESC="foreign">. Thus I have ob&s;erved <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> to u&s;e the word; It's &s;trange the&s;e Greek Fathers &s;hould not un|der&s;tand their mother-tongue. Had <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> been again&s;t the peoples Election, I &s;hould have &s;u&s;pected &s;omething; but I find him contrary. That the word mu&s;t needs imply the peoples Election, <HI>Acts</HI> 10.41. is well known to oppo&s;e it.</P>
<P>The Syriack Tran&s;lation confirms this; for they render the word, <HI>Et con&s;tituerunt.</HI> The &s;ame verb, and in the &s;ame conjugation which <HI>Paul</HI> u&s;eth, 1 <HI>Tit.</HI> 5. But if it were the peoples <GAP DESC="foreign">, which did con&s;titute Officers, cer|tainly <HI>Paul</HI> needed not to have left <HI>Titus</HI> there to doe that, which they could doe without him, and did though he were there; to leave <HI>Titus</HI> onely to contribute an Adjunct when the peo|ple have given the E&s;&s;ence, I could never re|ceive this conceit.</P>
<P>The <HI>Arabick</HI> al&s;o refers the Act to the Apo|&s;tles, <HI>Et de&s;ignarunt eis manibus &s;uis in &s;ingulis Eccle&s;iis Presbyteros.</HI> And by this the Impo&s;iti|on o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> hands is plainly implyed.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">&amp;c.</NOTE></P>
<PB N="80" REF="46">
<P>All things con&s;idered, I do much more que&s;ti|on whether any thing can be brought from this word to prove popular Election, then I doe be|lieve popular Election con&s;titutes a Mini&s;ter. To have a Mini&s;ter impo&s;ed upon godly peo|ple, or a true Vi&s;ible Church without their con&s;ent, I look on it as great tyranny. This was not the primitive practice;
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep. ad Cor. p</HI> 57.</NOTE> for <HI>Clemens</HI> &s;aith when the Apo&s;tles, or other <GAP DESC="foreign"> [no mention made of the Fraternity doing it] did con&s;titute Elders, he adds <GAP DESC="foreign">, yet I do not think that the people elect <HI>tanquam ex authoritate,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Electio non cogit.</NOTE> they doe <HI>eligere, non per jurisdictionem, &s;ed per &s;ubjectionem,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Ames.</HI> This power the people have, that no man &s;hal have power over them unle&s;&s;e they con&s;ent to &s;ubject unto him; but what is this to their having &s;o much power over <HI>him,</HI> as to make him <HI>a Mini&s;ter?</HI> To be <HI>their</HI> Mini&s;ter, and to be <HI>a</HI> Mini&s;ter are two things. If no Authority be put forth in the peoples Election, there is none put forth in Ordination (&s;ure:) if it be but an Adjunct, certainly the Adjunct &s;hould mo&s;t properly belong to them who give the E&s;|&s;ence, then Mini&s;ters come into Office with|out any Authoritative Act put forth; fa&s;ting and prayer [common to all Chri&s;tians] which they make <HI>Ordination,</HI> is no Act of Autho|rity.</P>
<P>It is &s;trange Doctrine to me, that a Mini&s;ter &s;hould be a Mini&s;ter onely in that congregati|on which elected him. Mr <HI>Noyes</HI> tells us, <HI>That the Elders of one Church have power to act in all Churches upon mtreaty;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P</HI> 48.</NOTE> and yet tells us <HI>the
<PB N="81" REF="46">power of the Keyes is originally and e&s;&s;entially in the body of the members, that they give the Keys:
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>p.</HI> 10. <HI>p.</HI> 11.</NOTE> that Election is the E&s;&s;ence of the Call;</HI> which doctrine I cannot yet receive. I que&s;tion not but every true Mini&s;ter bears relation to the Church Catholick; were now the Catholick Church reduced to &s;ix particular Churches, if members came to my congregation out of all tho&s;e &s;ix, I would not que&s;tion to admini|&s;ter the Lords Supper to them all at one time, and this our brethren deny not; but why mu&s;t I perform an official act to them to whom I bear no relation? If I &s;hould goe with my peo|ple into any one of the&s;e &s;ix congregations, then I hope I may admini&s;ter there al&s;o; this I &s;uppo&s;e may be allowed; for why may not I as well admini&s;ter there as in my own place? I hope they will not tye up Churches to places, &s;o as the place makes the difference. I know what men argue from the Analogy of a <HI>Mayor</HI> in a Corporation, which is no proof, but on|ly illu&s;tration; and if our brethren can find out that Chri&s;t hath one <HI>Catholick Civil Com|mon-wealth</HI> which makes up his body, as we can find he hath a Catholick Church which is his body, then the Analogy will have more force. But I mu&s;t break off from this di&s;|cour&s;e, though I had &s;omething more to have &s;aid to this.</P>
<P>I doubt not but in &s;ome ca&s;es a man may be Ordained, and Authoritatively &s;ent forth to preach the Go&s;pel and baptize without popular election preceding. What <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> did with <HI>Frumentius</HI> is well known, and &s;o others whom I &s;pare to name.</P>
<PB N="82" REF="47">
<P>If this be true,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Loc. Com. p.</HI> 199.</NOTE> then popular election gives not the E&s;&s;ence. <HI>Mu&s;culus,</HI> though he had plea|ded for that priviledge of the people in the A|po&s;tolical Primitive Churches, yet again &s;hews that that cu&s;tome cannot be profitable to the Churches now; and therefore in their Churches the people did <HI>not</HI> elect.</P>
<P>So much for the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, I know no other Texts that can be brought for popu|lar election. Our brethren doe allow Ordi|nation be&s;ides Election; but whether that be Ordination which they call Ordination, is the que&s;tion: being I am now upon the Text, and think it is that which they build upon (for I know no other) I will briefly examine, and &s;o return to this Text no more.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is true, that when a Mini&s;ter is to be or|dained, the Church doth &s;olemnly &s;eek the Lord by fa&s;ting and prayer for his grace and ble&s;&s;ing upon the per&s;on to be ordained, which &s;hews the weight of the office, and of Ordina|tion to it; but <HI>commending</HI> here doth not relate to their fa&s;ting and prayer, but is di&s;tinct. Fa&s;ting and prayer relates to their Ordination. <HI>Cor. a Lap.</HI> &s;aith, here is a <HI>Hi&s;terologia: Oratio enim &amp; jejunium praemi&s;&s;um fuit ordinationi presbyterorum,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Intex.</NOTE> ut in. Cap.</HI> 13. <HI>v.</HI> 2, 3. Therefore <HI>Luke</HI> u&s;eth the <HI>Aori&s;t</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, i.e. <HI>po&s;tquam ora&s;&s;ent q.d. cum po&s;t orationem &amp; jejunium con|&s;titui&s;&s;ent eis Presbyteros.</HI> Nor is that the main bu&s;ine&s;s of Ordination, to commend a man to God, this Text will not force it, as in the next I &s;hall clear. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"> ordinationis proprius e&s;t collatio prote&s;tatis docendi &amp; &s;acramenta ad|mini&s;trandi,
<PB N="83" REF="47">ad illum ordinatio per &s;e dirigitur,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Mini&s;. Eccle&s;. p.</HI> 182.</NOTE> eundemque perpetuo &amp; infallibiliter con&s;equitur:</HI> &s;aith <HI>Gerhard,</HI> with whom agrees the &s;tream of Divines, and the practi&s;e of the Churches in <HI>N. England:</HI> For though a man may teach for the trial of his gifts in order to office half a year, a whole year, yet he admini&s;ters no Sa|craments till he be ordained.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sepa. Exa. p.</HI> 54, 55.</NOTE> I have &s;poken more to this in my Book again&s;t the <HI>&s;epara|tion.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. This Text &s;erves not our brethrens turns; for if &s;o, then <HI>All tho&s;e whom the Apo&s;tles here commended to God the Apo&s;tles ordained.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But the Apo&s;tles did not ordain all tho&s;e whom they commended to God: ergo, ordination is not a commending, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>major</HI> is plain; for <HI>Definitio &amp; Defini|tum reciprocantur.</HI> Our brethren will &s;ay, but the commending of <HI>per&s;ons cho&s;en, &amp;c.</HI> will be ordination by this Text. No; for the la&s;t words &s;hew whom they commended; The <HI>Be|lieving Di&s;ciples.</HI> The whole Churches; they commended them to God in whom they had <HI>believed.</HI> Now <HI>believing</HI> is not the next cau&s;e of a per&s;ons being ordained, but they did commend them to God <HI>quatenus</HI> believers. The method of Ordination is thus, 1. A Believer. 2. A Per&s;on gifted. 3. A Per&s;on elected (in con&s;tituted Churches.) 4. Ordained. Women did believe, and they were commended to God as well as any other. So that <GAP DESC="foreign"> an&s;wers to <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the ver&s;e; and <GAP DESC="foreign"> relates to <GAP DESC="foreign">, in <HI>v.</HI> 22. this being the la&s;t act of <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas,</HI> when they had <HI>confirmed and
<PB N="84" REF="48">exhorted</HI> the Di&s;ciples in <HI>v.</HI> 22. <HI>Ordained them Elders</HI> in <HI>v.</HI> 23. they commended them all Pa|&s;tors and people to God. I &s;ee <HI>Calvin, Pi&s;cator, Cor. a Lap.</HI> agree with me, making no que&s;tion of this Interpretation, for they pa&s;s it over as granted. And <HI>Mu&s;culus</HI> &s;peaks my mind clearly, <HI>Ergo jejunantes &amp; orantes, quod in coetu fideli|um fieri &s;olebat, ordinarunt Presbyteros a fideli|bus electos</HI> (ob&s;erve, he puts a difference between election and ordination in this ver&s;e) <HI>&amp; po&s;t eam ordinationem, commendaverunt eccle&s;iam Domino &amp; di&s;ce&s;&s;erunt.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. That Text in <HI>Acts</HI> 20.32. confutes this notion. <GAP DESC="foreign">. Follow <GAP DESC="foreign"> in this Text to the 2. <HI>Aor. voc. med.</HI> and we &s;hall find <GAP DESC="foreign"> in <HI>Acts</HI> 14.23. Now the Apo&s;tle did not ordain the&s;e, he calls them Elders and Bi&s;hops before, and &s;o they were; but now taking his leave of them, he commended them to God; and &s;o he did in <HI>Acts</HI> 14. departing from the Churches he commended them to God in whom they had believed.</P>
<P N="4">4. I cannot yet be convinced, but that or|dination is an act of authoritative power; but commending of a per&s;on to God in prayer is no act of &s;uch power.</P>
<P N="5">5. The Scripture gives us another definition of Ordination, as I &s;hall &s;hew afterwards, <HI>ergo</HI> this is not the true definition.</P>
<P>Thus then I have made it clear, that gifts and popular election are not &s;ufficient to con|&s;titute a Mini&s;ter, (if the Scripture may be judge) we may make u&s;e of other civil officers
<PB N="85" REF="48">to illu&s;trate it more.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Keck. pol.</NOTE> The <HI>Athenian</HI> Senators were &s;worn, though the people did <GAP DESC="foreign">. So are our Magi&s;trates: take a Con&s;table, though the Town hath cho&s;en him to that office, yet if he &s;hall act as a Con&s;table before he be &s;worn, he is a tre&s;pa&s;&s;or, and a man may have an Action again&s;t him for his &s;o doing.</P>
<P>There is much rea&s;on why the popular ele|ction &s;hould give the e&s;&s;ence here, but there is no &s;uch rea&s;on why it &s;hould to a Mini&s;ter; yet here we find in civil officers more then election before they can act. I pray let us have order in the Church as well.</P>
<P>This being di&s;patched, now it will nece&s;&s;a|rily follow that Ordination is <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> to the con&s;titution of a Mini&s;ter, though I &s;hould &s;ay no more: it is but little I intend to &s;ay, (or need to &s;ay) for the rea&s;on I gave before.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 1. Fir&s;t, Conformity to the rules of God's hou&s;e in things pertaining to his hou&s;e is nece&s;&s;ary.</P>
<P>Ordination of Mini&s;ters, Stewards (per|taining to the hou&s;e) is conformity to the rules of the hou&s;e of God: <HI>ergo</HI> Ordination of Mini|&s;ters is nece&s;&s;ary.</P>
<P>The <HI>major,</HI> if any deny, they mu&s;t take away the authority of the Scriptures, leave men to their own phanta&s;ies, which no holy man ever dare &s;ay, &s;o that I doubt not but that will &s;tand. The <HI>minor,</HI> if any deny, it mu&s;t be upon one of the&s;e two grounds. 1. Either denying that we have any po&s;itive <HI>rules,</HI> becau&s;e we have none but examples, which &s;hews how Mini&s;ters came in to office. But if tho&s;e examples of
<PB N="86" REF="49">Apo&s;tles commi&s;&s;ioned by Chri&s;t to order his hou&s;e, having &s;uch a promi&s;e of his pre&s;ence with them, be not rules to us, then we have no rules at all left for officers coming into his hou&s;e, which were &s;trange defect of wi&s;edom to impute to Chri&s;t, that he &s;hould have a hou&s;e and no order in it; and contrary to the old Church, which had rules exactly for their officers coming in. Nor mu&s;t popular election be ever more pleaded for. Or</P>
<P N="2">2. They mu&s;t deny it, becau&s;e officers were made without any ordination, which is the thing. I de&s;ire to &s;ee proved from Scripture. If we ob&s;erve the practi&s;e of the Apo&s;tles after they had received the promi&s;e of the Spirit, and were now fitted and &s;ent forth to act with that Spirit guiding them, we find that thus they did &s;et Deacons in the hou&s;e of God, <HI>Acts</HI> 6.6.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> But it is objected, <HI>That here was no or|dination to any office at all; there were per&s;ons before who did this work that we &s;uppo&s;e the Deacons &s;hould; the&s;e men were appointed only for that</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, nece&s;&s;ity, in <HI>v.</HI> 3. <HI>that is, to end that difference which aro&s;e in v.</HI> 1.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>A.</HI> It is true, there were &s;ome who did di|&s;tribute the goods of the Church to the poor, &amp;c. who tho&s;e were I think <HI>Chap.</HI> 4. <HI>v. ult.</HI> will tell us: <HI>They laid the money at the Apo&s;tles feet.</HI> Whence it is clear to me that the Apo&s;tles had this burden upon them al&s;o; compare the <HI>ver&s;e</HI> with <HI>chap.</HI> 6.2. and this they found a great hinderance to them in their preaching work &s;o that both they could not tend; whence by the Spirit they were guided to In&s;titute the
<PB N="87" REF="49">Deacon. Upon &s;earch I find other men of my mind.
<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><HI>In&s;t. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 3.9.</NOTE> <HI>Calvin.
<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg"><HI>Exam. Con. Trid. p.</HI> 217.</NOTE> Chemnitius.
<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg"><HI>In</HI> 4. <HI>praec. p.</HI> 766.</NOTE> Zanch.</HI> with more whom I could mention.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Apo&s;tles do not &s;ay <HI>v.</HI> 2. <HI>to leave the word of God &amp; decide differences,</HI> but <HI>&s;erve Tables,</HI> which they &s;aw hindered them, and one they &s;aw they mu&s;t neglect, or perform not well, as we &s;ee complaint made; whence <GAP DESC="foreign"> in <HI>v.</HI> 3. mu&s;t an&s;wer to that which the Apo&s;tles could not attend to in <HI>v.</HI> 2. which was <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="3">3. As the Church-Members con&s;i&s;t of bodies as well as &s;ouls, which bodies mu&s;t be provided for by others if they have not of their own to uphold them; and &s;ince God hath given in charge that collections &s;hould be made for the poor. Since al&s;o there are divers things which belong to the wor&s;hip of God, and things about the Church, which mu&s;t have money to buy them, and to an&s;wer for them; hence it &s;tands with right rea&s;on that an Officer be cho&s;en and authorized to be the Church-Trea&s;urer, to take in the&s;e collections and moneys, and by the&s;e to &s;erve the poors Table, the Lord's Table, (I conceive they had their Love-fea&s;ts at that time al&s;o) and why they &s;hould not attend upon the Mini&s;ter at the Admini&s;tra|tion of the Lord's Supper I know not. In <HI>N. England</HI> the Deacons al&s;o bring in to the Elders Table, they are not troubled as we are here to &s;end to every bodies hou&s;e in particular for our due.</P>
<P N="4">4. It is clear by 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. and <HI>Phil.</HI> 1.1. there was &s;uch an Officer as a Deacon, and that
<PB N="88" REF="50">di&s;tinct from the Bi&s;hop. I wonder what was the work of this Deacon being an Officer, not the Bi&s;hops I am &s;ure, then he &s;hould not have been di&s;tingui&s;h'd from the Bi&s;hop; neither are the &s;ame qualifications in every point required of him that are of the Bi&s;hop. When or where had this Officer his original? I think in this Chapter we may be &s;atisfied, but no where el&s;e that I know of.</P>
<P>The&s;e things &s;atisfie me, with the judgement of the Church, which con&s;tantly hath main|tained that here were Officers ordained. I know much di&s;pute there hath been and is whether this Deacon might not preach and baptize: but that is none of my que&s;tion; if here were the ordination of an Officer it &s;erves my turn. When I had done, ca&s;ting my eye accidentally upon <HI>Bucanus.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 494.</NOTE> Loc. Com.</HI> I found him &s;peaking my thoughts, and &s;omething more, who gave me much content in opening the Deacons Office.</P>
<P>Thus then Deacons come into their office.</P>
<P>Thus <HI>Timothy</HI> al&s;o came into his office, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. &s;o it is generally under&s;tood. Out of his Epi&s;tles I &s;hall gather more in the next argu|ment.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> were ordained in <HI>Acts</HI> 13.2, 3. is a great que&s;tion, &s;ome deny it, many affirm it: if they were, it puts much honour upon that Ordinance, and &s;hews more the nece&s;&s;ity of this ordinance in men coming to the Mini&s;try. Let us &s;ee fir&s;t who they are that own this to be ordination, &s;ome I have met with, and others may know more; of this
<PB N="89" REF="50">judgement I finde <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> [ob&s;erve the word] <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. with whom agree others of the Greek Fathers. Thus <HI>Calvin. In&s;t. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 3. <HI>&s;.</HI> 14. <HI>Chemnitius, Zanchy, Polanus, Gualter (Officio divinitus &s;imul &amp; ab eccle&s;i&acirc; commi&s;lo,</HI> &s;aith he upon the Text) <HI>Aretius</HI> (who infi&s;ts upon it largely.) <HI>Gerhard, Maccovius, Malcolmus, Waltherus,</HI> (who recon|ciles this with <HI>Gal.</HI> 1.1.) <HI>Ravanel Diodati, Our Engli&s;h Annotations, Ain&s;worth</HI> (upon <HI>Numb.</HI> 8.10.) The <HI>Synod of N. England,</HI> who quote this Text to prove Mini&s;ters ought to be or|dained, and that with Impo&s;ition of hands. Of the Popi&s;h party I could name more, but I &s;pare them. The&s;e men are &s;o worthy, that their judgement is not ea&s;ily to be &s;lighted.</P>
<P>But we have harder work in writing in our days then others had heretofore, when the quotation of men was proof &s;ufficient, but this will not now &s;erve the turn. Thus then</P>
<Q><HI>Po&s;it&acirc; definitione, ponitur Definitum.</HI></Q>
<P>But here <HI>Ponitur Definitio Ordinationis: Ergo.</HI> The Papi&s;ts, who make Ordination a Sacra|ment (properly &s;o called) contend about the <HI>matter;</HI> for the <HI>form</HI> they are all agreed, that the form <HI>Con&s;i&s;tit in verbis, quibus &s;ufficienter &s;ignificatur traditio pote&s;tatis,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Valen.</HI> To the &s;ame purpo&s;e &s;peaks <HI>Bellarm. Convenit inter omnes, materiam e&s;&s;e aliquod &s;ignum &s;en&s;ibile, formam autem e&s;&s;e verba quae dicuntur, dum illud &s;ignum exhibetur.</HI> But whether the <HI>calix &amp; patina cum pane &amp; vino</HI> be the matter, and tho&s;e words then &s;poken, <HI>Accipe pote&s;tatem offe|rendi
<PB N="90" REF="51">&s;acrificium, &amp;c.</HI> be the <HI>form,</HI> as <HI>Valen.</HI> and his party, or whether the <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands,</HI> with the&s;e words, <HI>Accipe pote&s;tatem re|mittendi peccata</HI> do compleat the Act, &s;o as a man is not ordained till this be done, as <HI>Bel|larm.</HI> and his party; here they are divided. <HI>Bellarm.</HI> will have <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands</HI> to be e&s;&s;ential to the Sacrament, becau&s;e <HI>el&s;e, &s;aith he, we cannot convince the Hereticks, that Or|dination is a Sacrament properly &s;o called, be|cau&s;e we cannot demon&s;trate in the Scripture any other external &s;ymbole of this Sacrament.</HI> As for the word Sacrament in their &s;en&s;e, their cup, platter, &amp;c. we lay them by; &s;o for their words, which they make the <HI>form,</HI> we lay them by: yet I perceive our Brethren do contend for &s;ome words which &s;hould be u&s;ed at the laying on the hands of the Elder&s;hip.</P>
<P>For my part I am loth to engage further then I have clear Scripture to back me, or nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence from it. If we take Ordination at large, as this Scripture holds it out, and other agree with it, it may be thus de&s;cribed. <HI>Ordination is the &s;eparation of a per&s;on called to the work of the Mini&s;try, by per&s;ons in office with fa&s;ting, prayer, and Impo&s;ition of hands:</HI> Thus far this Text will warrant us; and it is the fulle&s;t that any one Text will afford us. Let us &s;ee how this &s;utes with other Scriptures. <HI>Rom.</HI> 1.1. <HI>Paul</HI> tells the <HI>Romans,</HI> he was <HI>called to be an Apo&s;tle, &s;eparated unto the Go&s;pel of God.</HI> Here is my Authority, I do not run be|fore I was &s;ent. But when was this done? and how this done? look to my Text, and I doubt
<PB N="91" REF="51">not but the&s;e Texts an&s;wer each to other. <HI>Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the worke whereunto I have called them, v.</HI> 2. I have <HI>called,</HI> do you then <HI>&s;eparate:</HI> both the words we find here. It &s;eems they were not to &s;eek what it was to <HI>&s;eparate,</HI> how to go about it, they had been acquainted with that work before. This phra&s;e <HI>&s;eparate</HI> is the old phra&s;e the Lord u&s;ed before in his ordaining of old Officers. <HI>Numb.</HI> 8.14. <HI>Thus &s;halt thou &s;eparate the Levites, &amp;c.</HI> thus, how? among other things; <HI>The children of I&s;rael &s;hall put their hands upon the Levites.</HI> It was &s;o here with <HI>Paul.</HI> So <HI>Deut.</HI> 10.8. <HI>At that time the Lord &s;eparated the Tribe of Levi.</HI> So <HI>Numb.</HI> 16.9. a full place. The Lord &s;eparated <HI>I&s;rael</HI> from other Nations, this was a high favour; but in <HI>I&s;rael</HI> the Lord made another &s;eparation, and this was higher honour &s;till. <HI>Seemeth it but a &s;mall thing unto you that the God of I&s;rael hath &s;eparated you, &amp;c.</HI> Thus we &s;ee the Lord keeps the old phra&s;e.</P>
<P>A <HI>per&s;on called. Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> were &s;o, by God immediately, and the&s;e per&s;ons com|manded from God immediately to <HI>&s;eparate</HI> to ordain them: whence well might <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ay, <HI>Gal.</HI> 1.1. <HI>was no Apo&s;tle by man.</HI> For all is here by immediate command from God; what|ever was done about them was by immediate revelation. Whence he &s;aith <HI>v.</HI> 4. <HI>So they be|ing &s;ent forth by the Holy Gho&s;t:</HI> yet they prayed, fa&s;ted, and impo&s;ed hands. <HI>Waltherus, Harmo, p.</HI> 490. &s;peaks more to the clearing of this doubt. As <HI>Paul</HI> then and <HI>Barnabas</HI> were called <HI>immediately,</HI> &s;o in con&s;tituted Churches Mini|&s;ters are elected.</P>
<PB N="92" REF="52">
<P><HI>By Per&s;ons in Office.</HI> Not every office; no mention made <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">here of <HI>Ruling Elders</HI> or Deacons, but <HI>Teachers</HI> at the lowe&s;t.</P>
<P>If the people &s;hould claim this power as &s;ome do, for the people in <HI>Numb.</HI> 8. did <HI>impo&s;e hands on the Levites,</HI> I have an&s;wered to this. <HI>Sepa. Exam. p.</HI> 70, 71. I add but this, The Apo&s;tles did tran&s;late <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands</HI> from the old Te&s;tament to the New in the Ordination of Mini&s;ters; but for the peoples impo&s;ition of hands, we find no &s;uch thing.</P>
<P>With <HI>prayer, fa&s;ting, impo&s;ition, &amp;c.</HI> Here a que&s;tion may be moved, <HI>Whether fa&s;ting and prayer did properly belong to the e&s;&s;ence of Ordi|nation? or whether as in other Ordinances we pray before the Admini&s;tration of the Ordinance, &s;o here was praying for the Lord's grace and ble&s;&s;ing upon the per&s;on to be ordained, but or|dination for the e&s;&s;ence a di&s;tinct thing?</HI></P>
<P>Some I &s;uppo&s;e make it the whole e&s;&s;ence, their Acts declare it, they do nothing el&s;e (un|le&s;s preach) and others look on impo&s;ition of hands but as a common thing among the Jews, when they would wi&s;h one well, or pray for them, or ble&s;s them after their manner, they laid their hands on their heads, and &s;o impo|&s;ition is now laid a&s;ide.</P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> But &s;tay a little, 1. Are you certain that the&s;e prayed while they impo&s;ed hands in ordination? I do not &s;ee how you will force it out of the Text: nor can you force it from <HI>Acts</HI> 6.6. the word is <GAP DESC="foreign">, the <HI>Aor.</HI> 1. Whence the <HI>Syriack</HI> and <HI>Arabick</HI> Tran|&s;lations (with which <HI>Pi&s;cator</HI> and others agree)
<PB N="93" REF="52">render the words, <HI>and when they had prayed</HI> they laid hands, plainly &s;ignifying that the prayers went before impo&s;ition; nor I am &s;ure will this Text help them; for what, I pray, <HI>Did they impo&s;e hands all the while they fa&s;ted and prayed?</HI> &s;urely their armes were very weary to lie upon their heads a whole day; whence it is more probable after that day was well &s;pent in fa&s;ting and prayer, then they impo&s;ed hands. Then the Jews common cu&s;tome doth not make impo&s;ition &s;o &s;illy a thing.</P>
<P N="2">2. In the con&s;ecration of the <HI>Levites</HI> (and &s;o of the Prie&s;ts) where we find Impo&s;ition, we find no mention of prayer at all (that I &s;ee) much le&s;s at their Impo&s;ition; if it were, it was not the e&s;&s;ence of the ordinance, &s;o far as I can learn; I know divers of God's things mu&s;t be e&s;teemed as &s;light things, if our heads mu&s;t be judges. But I think <HI>Tertul.</HI> &s;pake ex|cellently:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">De paeni|ten.</NOTE> <HI>Audaciam exi&s;timo de bono divini praecepti di&s;putare: neque enim quia bonum est idcirco au&s;cultare debemus, &s;ed quia Deus prae|cepit, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Ordination is the <HI>authorizing</HI> of a per&s;on to his work: So the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Acts</HI> 6.3. plainly imply. Both <HI>H. Stephens,</HI> and <HI>Sca|pula,</HI> agree that the word &s;ignifies
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Con|&s;tituo, &s;ic Con&s;titu|ere Re|gem. vel Creare. H. Stephens,</HI> Ib.</NOTE> <HI>praeficio. [Hinc praefectus] to put in authority, to give rule, to ordain a Ruler.</HI> So the&s;e Texts, <HI>Acts</HI> 7.10.27. <HI>Luc.</HI> 12.42. make it clear, with other Texts. <HI>H. Stephens, The&s;. To.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 1768. quoting of the&s;e Texts, <HI>Matth. c.</HI> 24. &amp; <HI>cap.</HI> 25. <HI>Acts</HI> 6. <HI>Luc.</HI> 12. where the word is u&s;ed, &s;aith, <HI>Quibus
<PB N="94" REF="53">in locis, non con&s;tituere &s;olum, &s;ed &amp; praeficere verti pote&s;t,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sur. Ch. Di&s;. p.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 9.</NOTE> &amp; quidem apti&ugrave;s.</HI> To this reve|rend <HI>Hooker</HI> agreeth. <HI>The Lord Chri&s;t in his Kingly care conceived it nece&s;&s;ary for the honour of the place, and the execution of the work of a Deacon, to appoint choi&s;e men and &s;olemn Ordi|nation to</HI> authorize <HI>them to the work, &amp;c.</HI> But then how Prayer doth properly carry any thing of this nature in it I do not apprehend: define prayer, and &s;ee how it &s;uits with <HI>authorizing,</HI> nothing like it; to <HI>beg</HI> and to <HI>authorize</HI> are not the &s;ame. Unle&s;s we look on Ordination as the con&s;ecration of a man to God, then a prayer may be part of the e&s;&s;ence.</P>
<P N="4">4. If you ask me <HI>what is then?</HI> truly I find it hard to an&s;wer; it is plain to me, it is <HI>not</HI> that which &s;ome cry up &s;o, and content them|&s;elves with, di&s;&s;enting from their brethren. <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands</HI> I am &s;ure is in the Text, and mu&s;t come into Ordination. I find that the old <HI>Non-conformi&s;ts,</HI> &s;peaking fir&s;t of the election of a Mini&s;ter, in which the help of neighbouring Mini&s;ters mu&s;t be required; then add, <HI>After that he is to be ordained by the laying on of the hands of the elder&s;hip, with the&s;e words pro|nounced by the Mini&s;ter thereunto appointed, [According to this lawful calling, agreeable to the word of God, whereby thou art cho&s;en Pa&s;tor,</HI> In the name of God, <HI>&s;tand thou charged with the Pa&s;toral charge of this people over which the Holy Gho&s;t hath made thee Over&s;eer, to govern the flock of God which he hath purcha&s;ed with his blood.</HI>]</P>
<P>When I read the&s;e words, it made me call
<PB N="95" REF="53">to mind the manner of the ordination of two Deacons in <HI>N. England</HI> about &s;ixteen years fince, which was the la&s;t ordination I &s;aw, or can remember any thing of; my memory may fail me in &s;ome circum&s;tance, but as I do re|member it was very little different from this.</P>
<P>The Pa&s;tor and the Teacher Impo&s;ed hands, and then &s;aid, <HI>We do in the name of Chri&s;t or|dain thee</HI> N.N.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mat.</HI> 10.5. <HI>Mark</HI> 3.14. <HI>Luc.</HI> 9.2. Chri&s;t <HI>called, ordained, &s;ent</HI> his Di&s;ciples forth to preach with power and au|thority, he in his <HI>own</HI> name, we in <HI>his</HI> name, &s;urely Chri&s;t u&s;ed words &s;uitable.</NOTE> (naming the per&s;on) <HI>Deacon of this Church, &amp;c.</HI> then what duties the Scripture puts upon the Deacon they framed into a hand&s;ome form; when they had &s;o done, a &s;hort prayer they made, their hands being &s;till upon the Deacons head.</P>
<P>According to the form of the <HI>Non-conformi&s;ts</HI> and the Church in <HI>N. England,</HI> there is &s;ome|thing appears like <HI>authorizing</HI> of a per&s;on to his work. Now if the que&s;tion be whether this be lawful or not? where have we warrant for this? that words were thus u&s;ed in the pri|mitive times, is plain enough to tho&s;e who read <HI>Hierom, Ambro&s;e, Au&s;tin.</HI> For Scripture this is plain, though &s;ome of the&s;e words be not &s;et down in the Scripture, yet if there be an <HI>authorizing, appointing, Acts</HI> 6.3. <HI>a &s;eparating, &s;etting apart, Acts</HI> 13. Some words mu&s;t be &s;poken that mu&s;t &s;ignifie &s;o much, and what breach of rule it is to &s;ay, <HI>we ordain,</HI> or <HI>&s;et apart,</HI> being the per&s;on is now <HI>&s;etting apart,</HI> the thing is <HI>doing?</HI> For u&s;ing <HI>the name of Chri&s;t,</HI> I hope it is he who hath given Pa&s;tors and Teachers to his Church, and from him doth the per&s;on now ordaining receive his power immediately, (It was not the Kingdom
<PB N="96" REF="54">of Heaven gave <HI>Peter</HI> the keys,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">I do not &s;ay the <HI>form</HI> of Ordina|tion lies in the&s;e words, I am not willing to make that the <HI>for|malis ratio</HI> of an or|dinance, which I have not expre&s;&s;e Scripture for, I would not give my ad|ver&s;ary &s;o much ad|vantage; yet Rea|&s;on tells that prayer alone, or impo&s;iti|on of hands alone, or both without <HI>words</HI> &s;uitable cannot make an Ordina|tion.</NOTE> but Chri&s;t gave <HI>Peter</HI> immediately the keys of the King|dom of heaven) under his authority, in his name they mu&s;t act. For the other words applying to the per&s;on ordaining, what duties the Scriptures do charge &s;uch an office withal; I hope this ought to be, el&s;e it were a raw bu|&s;ine&s;s. So that by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence from Scripture I cannot well &s;ee how the&s;e things can be denied; who can prove the Apo&s;tles did not u&s;e &s;ome &s;uch words, though they be not &s;et down. A <HI>&s;ending, Rom.</HI> 10. <HI>Setting apart, Appointing</HI> there mu&s;t be and is; then give us that which &s;hew and expre&s;&s;e the&s;e words: they were rational men, and the Spirit purely rational which guided them, whence we may well conceive &s;omething was &s;poken which an&s;wered the Scriptural expre&s;&s;ions; and &s;o long as we hold to them I can &s;ee no harm, but that rather ought to be. Let others &s;peak more rationally who oppo&s;e this; and leaving out impo&s;ition of hands, with the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions, &s;hew what you do, which doth carry in it the <HI>authorizing</HI> of a man to his work. I am &s;ure there is more rea&s;on for this, and Scripture will more look to us in it, then there is for that magi&s;terial power which congregational Mini&s;ters (not Chri&s;t, that we can find in Scri|pture) give to the people to keep men as they plea&s;e from being admitted into the Church; and hence again&s;t their Pa&s;tors, qualified men are kept out.</P>
<P>For the Objections which are made again&s;t this Text for Ordination, I find the&s;e.</P>
<PB N="97" REF="54">
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> 1. Some conceive there is no ordination here, becau&s;e he doth not &s;ay, <HI>to the office, but for the work whereunto I have called them, v.</HI> 2.</P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> By the &s;ame rea&s;on you may &s;ay, there was no ordination in <HI>Acts</HI> 6. becau&s;e the Apo|&s;tles in <HI>v.</HI> 3. do not u&s;e the word <HI>office,</HI> but <GAP DESC="foreign">. But I am confident tho&s;e Divines who u&s;e this argument, do acknowledge <HI>there</HI> was Ordination.</P>
<P N="2">2. If a per&s;on be &s;eparated to the work of an officer, I think he is &s;eparated to the office which that work belongs to.</P>
<P>Q. <HI>But what office was it to which they were now &s;eparated?</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> To be Apo&s;tles to the Gentiles: this I conceive was the bu&s;ine&s;s, and if we follow them in this and the next Chapters, we &s;hall find what was the office. I think <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 15. of <HI>Chapter</HI> 9. is now fulfilled: the Lord told <HI>Ananias</HI> that <HI>Paul</HI> was <HI>a cho&s;en ve&s;&s;el to bear his name amongst the Gentiles;</HI> and now is <HI>Paul</HI> ordained to it, and not before. This was a great worke indeed, to have the Gentiles brought into the Church; there was need of &s;ome &s;olemn act to prove their commi&s;&s;ion. Ob&s;erve <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 46. of this <HI>Chapter, Paul</HI> &s;ays to the Jews, <HI>Lo, we turn to the Gentiles.</HI> Thus <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> twice, it was <GAP DESC="foreign">, which I think &s;ignifies <HI>Munus Apo&s;tolicum.</HI> And thus mo&s;t Divines I meet with affirm.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> 2. <HI>Paul</HI> was made an Apo&s;tle before, <HI>Acts</HI> 9.</P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> Prove that; the Text holdeth forth no &s;uch thing. <HI>Aretius</HI> &s;aith, that in <HI>Acts</HI> 9. <HI>Paul</HI> was not &s;ent to the Gentiles, but to <HI>Ananias, a quo di&s;ceret
<PB N="98" REF="55">di&s;cenda.</HI> And Mr. <HI>Noyes</HI> denieth that <HI>Paul</HI> was an Apo&s;tle in this <HI>Chapter</HI> 13. but thinks he was an <HI>Evangeli&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Paul</HI> was a Preacher before (and &s;o had his authoritative <HI>mi&s;&s;ion</HI> I doubt not.) Our Divines in their Comments upon the 1. <HI>v.</HI> reckon up <HI>five</HI> eminent per&s;ons among&s;t tho&s;e <HI>Prophets</HI> and <HI>Teachers</HI> mentioned [and this runs mo&s;t &s;moothly] <HI>Saul</HI> mu&s;t be one of tho&s;e, or el&s;e five will not be found. Had <HI>Saul</HI> been then an <HI>Apo&s;tle,</HI> then it &s;hould have been <HI>there were in the Church at Antioch</HI> an <HI>Apo&s;tle, Prophets,</HI> and <HI>Teachers:</HI> but <HI>Luke</HI> doth not mention an Apo&s;tle, which &s;ure he would, &s;ince he doth inferiour officers. For my part I conceive <HI>Paul</HI> was a <HI>Prophet;</HI> partly becau&s;e he was <HI>filled with the Holy Gho&s;t, Acts</HI> 9.17. [<HI>Paul</HI> had there an authoritative mi&s;&s;ion to preach] as I conceive the Prophets mentioned were extra|ordinary per&s;ons, and their gifts &s;uch for ought any thing I could ever &s;ee to the contrary as yet: partly becau&s;e I find Prophets did go from one Church to another, according as there was cau&s;e, being men &s;o extraordinarily fitted for &s;ervice. Thus <HI>Judas</HI> and <HI>Silas, chap.</HI> 15.32. being <HI>Prophets</HI> were &s;ent, &amp;c. thus <HI>Chap.</HI> 11.27. <HI>Prophets came from Jeru&s;alem to Antioch.</HI> Thus we find <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> joyned and &s;ent together, <HI>Chapter</HI> 11.30. and 12.25. and the&s;e two abode together a whole year at <HI>Antioch, Chap.</HI> 11.26. But that he was an Apo&s;tle before now, I &s;ee nothing to force it. <HI>Paul</HI> then being one of the&s;e, and now called to an higher office, this doth not prove <HI>Re-ordination</HI> to the
<PB N="99" REF="55"><HI>&s;ame</HI> office: any per&s;on in office, and called to a higher office, ought to be ordained to it, though he was ordained to an inferiour office before. <HI>Re-ordination</HI> to the <HI>&s;ame</HI> office I know no warrant for.</P>
<P N="3">3. After Chri&s;ts A&s;cen&s;ion Apo&s;tles were not cho&s;en in &s;uch a private way as that <HI>Acts</HI> 9. would hold out. We find <HI>Matthias, Acts</HI> 1. cho&s;en in a publick and &s;olemn manner, God declaring his choi&s;e. So here in <HI>Acts</HI> 13. in a publick meeting <HI>Paul</HI> is called and &s;eparated in a &s;olemn manner.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> 3. If <HI>Paul</HI> were ordained an Apo&s;tle, then the greater was ble&s;&s;ed of the le&s;&s;er: his Apo&s;tolical power and order was given by them who them&s;elves had not Apo&s;tolical power, be|ing but Prophets and Teachers.</P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> 1. They were not commanded to <HI>ble&s;s,</HI> but <HI>&s;eparate.</HI> Ordination and ble&s;&s;ing differ very much; we might as well &s;ay, Why &s;hould the <HI>le&s;s &s;eparate the greater?</HI> &s;o we find it here, and it is in vain to di&s;pute again&s;t it if God will have it &s;o; but this was <HI>extraordinary.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Paul</HI>'s Apo&s;tolical power he received from him who commanded him to be &s;eparated, that is, the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> yet he is plea&s;ed to command the&s;e to &s;eparate him to it; and &s;urely &s;uch per&s;ons who ordain others by vertue of an <HI>immediate command and revelation</HI> from God, though their office be inferiour to the per&s;ons ordained, yet this <HI>immediate command and re|velation</HI> will countervail the act of others who are equal in office. They acted all by an <HI>im|mediate and extraordinary revelation;</HI> whence
<PB N="100" REF="56"><HI>Paul</HI> might well &s;ay it was by the <HI>will of God</HI> not of man, that he was an Apo&s;tle; hence the Text &s;aith, <HI>v.</HI> 4. <HI>they were &s;ent forth by the Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> The <HI>call</HI> was from the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> the command to <HI>&s;eparate</HI> them was from the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. That <HI>Barnabas</HI> was made an Apo&s;tle now, I think will not be denied: that he was an Apo&s;tle, <HI>Chap.</HI> 14. <HI>v.</HI> 14. tells us, <HI>which when the Apo&s;tles Barnabas and Paul, &amp;c.</HI> Thus <HI>Clem. Alex. Strom. l.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 373, &amp; 375. mentioning &s;ome of the writings of <HI>Barnabas</HI> calls him <GAP DESC="foreign"> twice. Thus <HI>Hierom, Catal. Script. Eccle&s;.</HI> &s;aith of him, <HI>Barnabas was ordained Apo&s;tle of the Gentales with Paul.</HI> Others I. could quote, who call him the <HI>Apo&s;tle Barnabas.</HI> But that <HI>Barnabas</HI> was an <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> before now I think none will &s;ay; for the Text is clear a|gain&s;t him. Why then <HI>Paul</HI> &s;hould not now be made an Apo&s;tle al&s;o, I &s;ee no rea&s;on, as well as <HI>Barnabas. Hierom</HI> &s;aith <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P N="4">4. If <HI>Paul</HI> were <HI>&s;eparated</HI> before to the office of an Apo&s;tle, what need he be &s;eparated now again: I know no in&s;tance in Scripture where men were twice &s;eparated to the <HI>&s;ame</HI> office.</P>
<P><HI>Corn. a Lap.</HI> upon the Text, &s;peaks thus, <HI>Saulus jam ab initio &s;uae conver&s;ionis, a Deo de&s;ignatus &amp; auctoratus erat Apo&s;tolus Gentium.</HI> Acts 9.15. <HI>Sed in actu primo &amp; &s;ecret&egrave;, h&igrave;c in actu &s;ecundo &amp; public&egrave; de&s;ignatur Apo&s;tolus.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Noyes,</HI> who writes again&s;t impo&s;tion of hands, finding it u&s;ed in this place, &s;aith, <HI>Paul was indeed called out of cour&s;e, and therefore
<PB N="101" REF="56">God may by this &s;ign with many other commend</HI> Paul <HI>to the Church as an Apo&s;tle of Chri&s;t.</HI> Yet but an <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> as yet with him. See <HI>Wal|therus Harmon. p.</HI> 490. Al&s;o <HI>Aretius</HI> upon the Text.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 2. If Chri&s;t hath committed power to Mini&s;ters to ordain Mini&s;ters, then Ordination is nece&s;&s;ary to a Mini&s;ter. But the Antecedent is true; <HI>ergo</HI> the Con&s;equent is true.</P>
<P>The Con&s;equence is clear; for to what end was the power committed if it need not be exe|cuted; it is to accu&s;e Chri&s;t of want of wi&s;e|dom to give a needle&s;s power to officers, to command them to do a thing, and order them &s;trictly in doing of it, if men may come into office without it. If I have a power committed to me to preach, and baptize, then &s;ome are bound to hear and to be baptized. So in this.</P>
<P N="1">1. For the Antecedent, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.22. <HI>Lay hands on no man &s;uddenly.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>p.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 50.</NOTE> In quo praecepto non &s;olum exemplum &s;ed mandatum continetur,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Walaeus.</HI> That <HI>Ordination</HI> is here meant, there is &s;uch a unanimous con&s;ent of the Church, that I think there is no que&s;tion of it. Thus the <HI>Fathers, Lutherans, Calvini&s;ts, Epi&s;copal,
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Synod. N. E. platf. ch. p.</HI> 11. <HI>M. Hooker Sur Ch. Di&s;p. p.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 74.</NOTE> Cla&s;&s;i|cal,</HI> and <HI>Congregational:</HI> yea, though divers of the Papi&s;ts do under&s;tand their Sacrament of Pennance, yet <HI>An&s;elm, Cajetan, Cor. a Lap. Ju&s;tin, Salmeron,</HI> under&s;tand it rather of Or|dination. But I mu&s;t meet with this Text again, and then I will <HI>prove</HI> it mu&s;t be meant of Or|dination.</P>
<P N="2">2. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.2. few Interpreters that I &s;ee touch that which I aim at, <HI>i.e. How did Timothy
<PB N="102" REF="57">commit? or what was it for him to commit? &amp;c.</HI> The things which we had heard [not Tradi|tions, as the Papi&s;ts hence gather, for <HI>Quae Apo&s;tolus Timotheo viva voce tradidit,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gerh. in loc.</NOTE> &s;unt eadem cum illis quae &s;criptis con&s;ignavit]</HI> he mu&s;t com|mit: To whom? They mu&s;t be <HI>faithful mon,</HI> and <GAP DESC="foreign"> able to teaach others. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> upon this Text, and <HI>Cart|wright</HI> in his Comment upon the &s;peech of Chri&s;t to <HI>Nicodemus,</HI> would make us believe it is not &s;o ea&s;ie a matter to be a Mini&s;ter as our vain heads in the&s;e days take it to be. But &s;till how did <HI>Timothy</HI> commit the&s;e? was it by <HI>teaching</HI> or <HI>preaching</HI> to them? &s;o he did <HI>com|mit</HI> them to weak men and women as well as able men: was it by <HI>writing</HI> the&s;e? &s;o the whole Church had them committed. This is clear, the men mu&s;t be <HI>able</HI> before the things be committed: his teaching might help them to be <HI>able;</HI> but being qualified and <HI>able,</HI> how doth he commit them? Surely by <HI>laying on of hands, i.e.</HI> ordaining of them, and thus &s;epara|ting them to the work of the Mini&s;try, he doth indeed commit them. If this Interpretation do not plea&s;e, give me a better. After much &s;earching I found one or two go my way. <HI>Non &s;olum fideliter eos doceas, &s;ed etiam pote&s;tatem alios docendi ip&s;is conferas;</HI> this is Commenting in <HI>Gerh.</HI> opinion. <HI>Magna cura eligendus e&s;t Do|ctor,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Ambro&s;e in loc.</HI> If you lay hold of <HI>eli|gendus,</HI> pray take it in a large &s;en&s;e as <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> doth, and it was <HI>Timothy</HI>'s election. <HI>An&s;elm,</HI> and <HI>Bullinger</HI> incline al&s;o this way.</P>
<PB N="103" REF="57">
<P>The 3 <HI>Titus</HI> 5. <HI>Titus is left in Crete to Con&s;ti|tute or Ordain Elders.</HI> I doe not remember that <HI>Clemens</HI> u&s;es any other word, but either <GAP DESC="foreign">, or <GAP DESC="foreign">, [&s;ignifying the &s;ame] in his <HI>Epi&s;t. ad Corin.</HI> when he &s;peaks of the Apo&s;tles ordaining of Officers. Doubtle&s;s [&s;aith <HI>Mu&s;culus] as Paul left Titus to ordain,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Loc. Com. p.</HI> 198.</NOTE> &s;o Titus kept the method Paul u&s;ed,</HI> i. e. <HI>election, prayer, and impo&s;ition of hands.</HI> Tho&s;e then that come into the Mini&s;try in <HI>Crete,</HI> they mu&s;t be or|dained. In vain were tho&s;e words to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> if ordination were &s;uch a needle&s;s thing: <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> al&s;o being Church|officers, where is this popular election that is &s;o much cried up to give the E&s;&s;ence? One would think the Apo&s;tle &s;hould have given &s;trict com|mand to the <HI>people</HI> to look to their <HI>Election,</HI> be|cau&s;e it gave the E&s;&s;ence; but not be &s;o exact with <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> who gave but an ad|junct; who can deny the adjunct, or of what force is it when the e&s;&s;ence is given before? <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> might well &s;ay, nay <HI>Paul, We are clear, we mu&s;t not ordain whom we will,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>See &s;epar, exam. p.</HI> 55. <HI>ad</HI> 59.</NOTE> but whom the people will, to whom they give the e&s;&s;ence; if an unworthy fellow be cho&s;en, let the fault lie where it doth, it cannot on us; if we gave the e&s;&s;ence it were true indeed: whether we will ordain them or not, that hinders not, for they have the e&s;&s;ence; then act they may &s;ure e|nough without us.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 3. It is nece&s;&s;ary that he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Mini&s;ter, &s;hould &s;hew true Authority by which he doth them.</P>
<P>But he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a
<PB N="104" REF="58">Mini&s;ter without Ordination, cannot &s;hew true Authority by which he doth them.</P>
<P><HI>Ergo</HI> Ordination is nece&s;&s;ary to a Mini&s;ter.</P>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is plain, it holds in all Acts of Authority, el&s;e a man is an u&s;urper. <HI>By what authority do&s;t thou the&s;e things?</HI> &s;aid they to Chri&s;t; the que&s;tion was rational: if Chri&s;t had not Authority, he would not have done them.</P>
<P><HI>Minor.</HI> He who &s;hews true Authority for his Mini&s;terial Acts, mu&s;t &s;hew Scripture-autho|rity.</P>
<P>But he that performs Mini&s;terial Acts with|out Ordination, cannot &s;hew Scripture-autho|rity. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>major</HI> is plain. The <HI>minor,</HI> if any de|ny, let them produce their Scripture-authori|ties. He who is &s;ufficiently <HI>qualified, elected</HI> [&s;uppo&s;ing there is a Church already] and <HI>or|dained,</HI> this man I am &s;ure may &s;hew his Au|thority: But he that is not Ordained, cannot &s;hew it, I know no Scripture to warrant it. Let our que&s;tion be attended.</P>
<P>I have heard it affirmed, and that &s;trongly, from a per&s;on of no &s;mall abilities, that the Fraternity may Preach, Baptize, admini&s;ten the Supper as well as the Pa&s;tor; the common Scriptures urged by this wilde generation, and <HI>Acts</HI> 10.48. were alledged. I never heard that the Papi&s;ts, or our Bi&s;hops, would allow any private man to baptize in a Church where there were Mini&s;ters pre&s;ent; this text would force it, if the&s;e men argue right, provided they can prove that the&s;e <HI>brethren</HI> were pri|vate
<PB N="105" REF="58">men, and <HI>Peter</HI> not extraordinarily guid|ed; which yet they have not done. But a lit|tle further.</P>
<P N="1">1. It was granted there are Church-Officers, and &s;hall be till the body be perfected, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4. If &s;o, then the&s;e Officers have &s;ome things &s;o proper to them, that they are not common to others: But if all men may <HI>preach, baptize, admini&s;ter the Supper,</HI> there is nothing proper to the Officers: if any thing, it mu&s;t be govern|ment; which <HI>fir&s;t</HI> is by many denied: But if it be yielded, why may they not take this al&s;o as well as the re&s;t? but if Church-officers have nothing proper to them, how are they officers? That officers have &s;omething proper to them, I think none can deuy, the nature of the thing will carry it in all Officers: If all can make warrants, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> where is the office of a Ju&s;tice? and thus in other offices, what is common to all, is proper to none: how are officers known but by their actions?</P>
<P>To &s;ay, <HI>That though the brethren doe the &s;ame things, yet they doe them not as their Officers,</HI> is to &s;ay nothing. How &s;hall we know that? If any man may make a warrant, and that war|rant is as valid as the <HI>Ju&s;tices,</HI> how &s;hall a man know who is Ju&s;tice? the name may differ, but not the power, <HI>Ergo,</HI> not the office.</P>
<P N="2">2. We finde divers promi&s;es made to the Church of Gods giving Officers, <HI>Jer.</HI> 3.15. &amp; 23.4. <HI>Ezek.</HI> 34.25. <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 30.20. But if every body may do the officers acts, then God &s;eems to make promi&s;es of good to his Church, which are needle&s;&s;e; a great &s;hew of mercy, but no
<PB N="106" REF="59">mercy indeed. There is no need, no u&s;e of the things promi&s;ed, what would this impute to God?</P>
<P N="3">3. Our Divines have maintained again&s;t the Papi&s;ts that <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19. was &s;poken to the A|po&s;tles, and the Mini&s;ters of the word their &s;uc|ce&s;&s;ors, and the context will force it, I think, if he &s;poke to the eleven Apo&s;tles, <HI>v.</HI> 16. And though the Lords Supper is not there mention|ed, yet &s;urely it was there included, there is <HI>par ratio.</HI> Let any man bring a proof from Scri|pture or antiquity, that ever any but an officer did admini&s;ter the Lords Supper. <HI>Docete, ba|ptizate,</HI> Matth. 28.19. <HI>Haec dicuntur &s;olis Apo|&s;tolis &amp; Mini&s;tris verbi; certum e&s;t haec non fu|i&s;&s;e dicta hominibus privatis.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Bell. ener. co.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 342</NOTE> In Actis Apo&s;tolo|rum nihil omnino legitur de privatis Chri&s;tianis ab&s;que &s;peciali revelatione baptizantibus,</HI> &s;aith Learned <HI>Ames.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. The Church-officers under the Old Te|&s;tament had &s;uch acts peculiar to them, as none but they could doe: It were &s;trange that Chri&s;t &s;hould in&s;titute Officers under the New Te&s;ta|ment, and they &s;hould have nothing proper to them.</P>
<P N="5">5. If this be true, then all the body is an <HI>Eye.</HI> The foot may &s;ay to the eye, though you are placed above, and I below, yet I doe the &s;ame acts you doe; and it is not the place, but the organ and the action which makes an eye. It is not the place, but the actions &s;hew the Of|ficer; that member which <HI>&s;eeth</HI> is the eye, place it where you will; if <HI>all</HI> &s;ee, then all are eyes. But the Apo&s;tle denieth the whole body to be an eye, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.</P>
<P N="6"><PB N="107" REF="59">6. Church-officers are called <HI>Stewards, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">+ver&s;eers, Preachers, Amba&s;&s;adors, Rulers.</HI> We would think it &s;trange, men would not bear it in civil acts, to have every body doe the acts which belong to the&s;e Relations; as much or|der I hope in Gods hou&s;e, as in other hou&s;es or States. He is every where a God of order, but this was &s;poken in reference to his Hou&s;e e&s;pecially.</P>
<P>I intend to add no more arguments to prove the nece&s;&s;ity of Ordinantion: I have onely two objections to an&s;wer, which two eminent Di|vines made again&s;t me, maintaining the nece&s;|&s;ity of Ordination.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> 1. <HI>We read of no Ordination but it was per|formed either by extraordinary per&s;ons, or at lea&s;t &s;ome &s;uch were pre&s;ent when they died who know where they left the power. The Bi&s;hop, Presbyter, Fraternity, each of the&s;e challenge the power, but who knows to whom it belongs?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The fir&s;t part of the objection cutts off Ordination wholly [and that is chiefly aimed at:] The &s;econd part doth &s;eem to yield it, could we but finde who &s;hould Admini|&s;ter it.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t part I an&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. It's no wonder though we finde extraor|dinary per&s;ons in the admini&s;tration of this Ordinance when they were in Being. In the fir&s;t beginnings the&s;e mu&s;t ordain, or none: we have but the hi&s;tories of planting of Chur|ches in the New Te&s;tament, where none were before; and this was done by per&s;ons extra|ordinary.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="108" REF="60">2. All that extraordinary per&s;ons did, I hope did not die with them. What is there more extraordinary in Ordination then in <HI>Preach|ing?</HI> why mu&s;t not Preaching die as well as ordination to Preaching? The action is no more then may be performed by ordinary Mi|ni&s;ters.</P>
<P>If it be &s;aid (as I know it is) <HI>they conveyed gifts in Ordination,</HI> I &s;hall an&s;wer this when I come to Mr. <HI>Noyes.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. How &s;hall we prove that there were Mini|&s;ters elected without the pre&s;ence, acting, guid|ance, and con&s;ent of extraordinary officers? I think no man can prove there were any &s;o cho&s;en, by the examples we have of the peo|ples choi&s;e; for extraordinary per&s;ons were e|ver pre&s;ent, and we finde they acted. By the &s;ame rea&s;on throw away Election, which this Divine would hardly doe,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Walaeus To.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 51.</NOTE> <HI>Nullum etiam oc|curret exemplum in toto Novo Te&s;tamento, nec in primitiva Eccle&s;ia quae Apo&s;tolorum aetatem exce|pit, ullam ullius ordinarii Doctor is Electionem in ulla Eccle&s;ia peractam fui&s;&s;e, &s;ine con&s;en&s;u &amp; con|&s;ilio aliquorum &s;altem Doctroum.</HI> This pincheth.</P>
<P N="4">4. Were the Churches &s;o blinde, that they could not &s;ee this to be an extraordinary thing, and that to die with the&s;e officers? Would the extraordinary officers admit ordinary Pres|byters to joyn with them in that work which was proper to them <HI>as extraordinary offi|cers.</HI> But that they did &s;o, the <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> to <HI>Timo.</HI> doth plainly carry it, and was, no doubt, the ground of that <HI>Canon.</HI> 3. in <HI>Concil. Carth.</HI> 4. where Presbyters were to impo&s;e hands with the Bi&s;hop.</P>
<P N="5"><PB N="109" REF="60">5. Were the Epi&s;tles to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> writ to them as extraordinary officers? I know when <HI>Timothy</HI> is called upon to do the work of an <HI>Evangeli&s;t,</HI> this was proper to him as <HI>&s;uch</HI> an officer; but I think, laying a&s;ide that which was proper to them as <HI>Evangeli&s;ts</HI> [which did not con&s;i&s;t in the admini&s;tration of any Ordi|nance] tho&s;e Epi&s;tles were written to Mini|&s;ters. <HI>They mu&s;t preach the Word, be in&s;tant in &s;ea&s;on and out of &s;ea&s;on,</HI> &amp;c. as well as <HI>Timo|thy;</HI> and why not I pray <HI>commit the things,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.2.</NOTE> &amp;c. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.2. <HI>lay hands on none &s;uddenly,</HI> as well as <HI>Timothy?</HI> What extraordinary matter is in this above the other?</P>
<P N="6">6. Shall per&s;ons come into the Mini&s;try un|tried whether they be fit or unfit, &s;ound or heretical? No, by no meanes, this is judged a dangerous thing. Men mu&s;t be tried, and that by tho&s;e who are able to judge [as now we have Commi&s;&s;ioners.] But what Scripture|rule have you for this? If you leave out the E|pi&s;tles to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.10. I doubt you will hardly finde any in Scripture: but <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> were extraordinary per|&s;ons, and what have we to doe with their E|pi&s;tles? but if you will make u&s;e of tho&s;e E|pi&s;tles to mainain your trial of men <HI>[it was a Commi&s;&s;ioner that made this objection again&s;t me]</HI> give us leave to make u&s;e of the &s;ame E|pi&s;tles to prove our Ordination of Mini&s;ters; tho&s;e who are able to do the one, I hope are as able to do the other.</P>
<P>For the &s;econd part of the Objection, I lit|tle regard that. As for the <HI>Fraternty,</HI> let the
<PB N="110" REF="61">people bring forth their Charter, and &s;hew us where the great Lord gave them this power. Again&s;t this I have argued a little [I intended but a little] in my book again&s;t the <HI>Separati&s;ts, p.</HI> 70, &amp;c.</P>
<P>For the <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and the <HI>Presbyter</HI> it mu&s;t fir&s;t be proved that the&s;e are di&s;tinct officers <HI>jure di|vino,</HI> or el&s;e the conte&s;t is vain: this is not a que|&s;tion for me to handle in this place, but I can &s;afely &s;ay this, there mu&s;t be more brought from <HI>Divine writ</HI> then I &s;ee is yet brought to prove it, or el&s;e I can acknowledge no &s;uch thing. I &s;uppo&s;e <HI>Bi&s;hop Davenant</HI> in his <HI>Deter|mination</HI> upon the que&s;tion, hath &s;ummed up what can be brought from Scripture, but that will not doe: yet he there in &s;ome ca&s;es will allow Presbyters to ordain, and I think our ca&s;e is as weighty as any. <HI>An&s;elm,</HI> the Popi&s;h <HI>Canterburian Arch-Bi&s;hop,</HI> in his Comment upon <HI>Titus</HI> 1. [Though I &s;ee much of it is taken out of <HI>Jerom</HI>] gave me enough to quiet my thoughts about this que&s;tion; &s;uch lines from his pen took much with me con&s;idering the Scriptures he brought. I am &s;ure he that made the objection did not own any &s;uch di&s;tinction. I think no &s;ober Bi&s;hop did ever yet deny the Ordinations in the <HI>French, Dutch,</HI> and <HI>Scotti&s;h</HI> Churches to be valid.</P>
<P>The &s;econd Objection was made by another reverend Divine, when I pa&s;&s;ed the Commi&s;&s;io|ners; He put this que&s;tion to me, <HI>Whether I judged Ordination nece&s;&s;ary to the Con&s;titution of a Mini&s;ter?</HI> I an&s;wered, <HI>Yes,</HI> if it could be had. He asked me <HI>to which command I would
<PB N="111" REF="61">refer Ordination?</HI> I an&s;wered, to the &s;econd. To which he a&s;&s;enting added, <HI>Cultus naturalis</HI> could not, nor mu&s;t be laid a&s;ide; but <HI>Cultus In&s;titutus</HI> might rather then <HI>Cultus naturalis</HI> &s;hould: <HI>God will have mercy, not &s;acrifice</HI> in &s;uch a ca&s;e; but if I would &s;ay Ordination was nece&s;&s;ary and might now be had, <HI>then I mu&s;t own it by &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, and con&s;equently main|tain the Church of Rome to be a true Church.</HI> Some words then pa&s;&s;ed, but time cut us off.</P>
<P>To this reverend Divine I &s;hall now give a further an&s;wer:</P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> The fir&s;t part of the &s;peech &s;aith no more then we allow, onely when Ordination cannot be had, I think it is not then properly <HI>laid a&s;ide.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Preaching,</HI> take the word &s;trictly, as it is the act <GAP DESC="foreign"> is not to be referred to the fir&s;t Commandment (I conceive) but to the &s;e|cond; nor do I &s;ee our Divines make it a part of <HI>Cultus naturalis.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. This notion will cut off <HI>popular election,</HI> as well as <HI>Ordination,</HI> if preaching belongs to <HI>Cultus naturalis,</HI> for that mu&s;t not be laid a&s;ide, &s;aith this Divine; I hope <HI>popular election</HI> doth not belong to the fir&s;t Commandment; then election is as unnece&s;&s;ary, and if men may preach without <HI>Election and Ordination</HI> we &s;hall have brave work. [Preaching here is put for all other Ordinances] where then is the e&s;&s;ence of a Mini&s;ter according to his owne notion?</P>
<P>But the la&s;t part of his &s;peech was that where he put the mo&s;t &s;trength, which yet hath
<PB N="112" REF="62">been often an&s;wered, that I might well &s;pare my pains: &s;omething I an&s;wered then, and now will add more.</P>
<P N="1">1. Divers of our Congregational Divines [of which this reverend Divine is one] conceive [and practi&s;e accordingly] the <HI>Fraternity</HI> to have power of Ordination; and if &s;o, then if <HI>election</HI> may be had, <HI>Ordination</HI> may be had; &s;o &s;hall it not need be laid a&s;ide, nor &s;hall we need trouble our &s;elves about <HI>Rome,</HI> that di&s;pute rather may be laid a&s;ide. I de&s;ired an An&s;wer of him what he thought of it, but he would give me none.</P>
<P N="2">2. But &s;uppo&s;e his judgement be contrary: According to this argument Ordination, which we are &s;ure was once an Ordinance of God, [and I have before proved it] mu&s;t be utterly lo&s;t, [unle&s;s with the <HI>Seekers</HI> we gape for &s;ome Apo&s;tles again] For this argument of <HI>Succe&s;&s;ion</HI> may ever be urged, and will be as &s;trong to the worlds end as now. But why mu&s;t the Church lo&s;e an Ordinance? If the argument be &s;o &s;trong again&s;t Ordination, is it not as &s;trong again&s;t any thing el&s;e that came through <HI>Rome?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Rome</HI> is no true Church, <HI>ergo</HI> nothing that comes <HI>through Rome</HI> is valid. What will be next? Mr. <HI>Ain&s;w.</HI> and other Separati&s;ts zealous enough again&s;t <HI>Rome,</HI> would not &s;ay &s;o of <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> therefore admitted of no <HI>re-baptizing.</HI> Nor would Mr. <HI>John&s;on</HI> upon the &s;ame ground admit of <HI>re-ordination;</HI> one was as valid as the other.</P>
<P N="3">3. If God hath &s;o far owned the Mini&s;try of
<PB N="113" REF="62"><HI>England,</HI> as to work with it to the conver&s;ion of many <HI>&s;oundly,</HI> and others <HI>vi&s;ibly,</HI> whence there are numbers to <HI>elect</HI> Mini&s;ters, I doubt not but he will as well own the Ordination of Mini&s;ters by them, though they had &s;ome acci|dental corruptions adhering to their own Or|dination [for the &s;ub&s;tance true.] If he hath not owned the Mini&s;try, how came our Bre|thren to gather Churches here &s;ome few years &s;ince, tho&s;e who <HI>elected</HI> them to office, I be|lieve very few of them [if any in &s;ome places] were converted by Mini&s;ters who were not or|dained, becau&s;e they mu&s;t have their Ordina|tion by &s;ucce&s;&s;ion, &amp;c. I pray where is there a Mini&s;try in the world which God hath more owned?</P>
<P N="4">4. Let it be as this Divine &s;aith, becau&s;e <HI>Cultus in&s;titutus</HI> may be laid a&s;ide, Ordination may be al&s;o, &amp;c. Let us &s;ee whither this will go; then <HI>official preaching</HI> [pardon the expre&s;&s;i|on, for I think <HI>all preaching,</HI> properly &s;o called, is <HI>official] Bapti&s;m,</HI> the <HI>Lord's Supper, Di&s;cipline,</HI> may be all laid a&s;ide upon the &s;ame account, for the&s;e belong to <HI>Cultus In&s;titutus,</HI> &s;o the whole &s;econd Commandment lo&s;t; which way &s;hall we come to the&s;e for fear of <HI>Rome?</HI> will he &s;ay, that the Churches [and tho&s;e without Ordinances, it &s;eems] may choo&s;e their Pa&s;tors [&s;uppo&s;e <HI>Wickliff, Luther, Zuinglius,</HI> men gifted and rai&s;ed extraordinarily] and <HI>election</HI> giving the e&s;&s;ence to a Mini&s;ters call, the&s;e may now <HI>preach, baptize, &amp;c.</HI> [&s;o the &s;econd Command|ment is &s;aved, el&s;e I know not which way he can &s;ave it] though they be not ordained;
<PB N="114" REF="63">may not the &s;ame Mini&s;ters as well <HI>Ordain</HI> other Mini&s;ters, <HI>Ordination</HI> belonging to the &s;ame Commandment? &s;urely no rational man can oppo&s;e it; this he mu&s;t yield to, or el&s;e the whole in&s;tituted wor&s;hip of God mu&s;t be lo&s;t out of the Church as well as Ordination. But if <HI>election</HI> will help, then I hope mo&s;t of the godly Mini&s;try in <HI>England</HI> may ordain, for they have been elected by the people, men qualified, and whom God hath ble&s;&s;ed in their work more or le&s;s: though they have more then election in their own e&s;teem, that hinders not; they have that which you think can authorize them to <HI>preach, baptize, &amp;c.</HI> then to <HI>ordain</HI> as well; and tho&s;e who are ordained by &s;uch, no doubt but may Ordain again; &s;o <HI>Rome</HI> and <HI>Succe&s;&s;ion</HI> trouble us not. <HI>Ames</HI> grants that <HI>Wickliff,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Med. The. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 33. <HI>&s;.</HI> 39.</NOTE> Luther, Zuinglius,</HI> may not un|fitly be called extraordinary Mini&s;ters, joyning &s;ome of our famous Martyrs with them, and gives three rea&s;ons for the a&s;&s;ertion; the la&s;t is, <HI>Quia ordine tum temporis perturbato &amp; collap&s;o, nece&s;&s;e habuerunt non nulla tentare praeter ordi|nem commune.</HI> So <HI>Syn. Pur. The. D.</HI> 42. <HI>S.</HI> 41, 42, 50.</P>
<P N="5">5. Carry the objection to our fir&s;t Reformers, where it &s;hould &s;eem to have mo&s;t &s;trength, what godly man is there who calls to mind <HI>Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Ridly, Philpot, Bradford,</HI> &amp;c. per&s;ons upon whom this obje|ction would fall, as to their own Mini&s;try, and their ordaining of others, that would not be a&s;hamed of him&s;elf, &s;hould he null their Mini&s;try, and as &s;ome [though this Divine ab|hors it I believe] who&s;e mouths are full of no|thing
<PB N="115" REF="63">but <HI>Antichri&s;tian,</HI> call the&s;e Antichri&s;tian Mini&s;ters, becau&s;e ordained by Popi&s;h men. Thou who calle&s;t the&s;e Antichri&s;tian Mini&s;ters, ri&s;e up with them in the morning, an&s;wer them in holine&s;s, go to the pri&s;ons with them, and from thence to the &s;take and burn with them for the &s;ake of Chri&s;t: grant it they were or|dained as the objection runs, after inlightning they threw off Popery, but their Ordination they held, being no <HI>Popi&s;h Invention,</HI> they go on &s;till to <HI>preach, baptize, &amp;c.</HI> and <HI>ordain</HI> others; Why not? when the&s;e men were or|dained by &s;uch men, they had a Mini&s;terial charge put upon them, &s;et apart to the work of the Mini&s;try to di&s;pen&s;e the things of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> not of <HI>Mahomet,</HI> or &s;uch like. While they were in the dark they acted <HI>&s;uper&s;titiou&s;ly,</HI> afterwards more purely; the corruptions they reformed, the &s;ub&s;tance they kept [and &s;o our Divines now] Will not the <HI>mercy</HI> of God pardon this, and keep his <HI>&s;acrifice</HI> &s;till in his Church? I doubt not but he will. The u&s;ual di&s;tinctions made 1. Between a per&s;on and his office. 2. Between the &s;ub&s;tance of an ordinance and the acciden|tal corruptions of it. 3. Between what cometh <HI>through Rome,</HI> [being Chri&s;t's In&s;titutions] and what cometh <HI>from Rome,</HI> being their own In|ventions; the&s;e di&s;tinctions will &s;oon an&s;wer the objection.</P>
<P N="6">6.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>To.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 66.</NOTE> Learned <HI>Ames</HI> in his an&s;wer to <HI>Bellarmin</HI> urging this, <HI>Eccle&s;ia nullo modo pote&s;t e&s;&s;e &s;ine Pa&s;toribus &amp; Epi&s;copis: illi &s;oli &s;unt veri Epi&s;copi qui ab Apo&s;tolis per legitimam &s;ucce&s;&s;ionem &amp; Ordinationem de&s;cendi&s;&s;e o&s;tenduntur, &amp;c.</HI> &s;peaks
<PB N="116" REF="64">thus, <HI>Ab Apo&s;tolis de&s;cenderunt ownes illi Pa&s;to|res qui &s;ecundum canones Apo&s;tolicos in Scriptu|ris traditos &s;unt in eccle&s;ia con&s;tituti.</HI> 4. <HI>Horum perpetua &s;ucce&s;&s;io ab Apo&s;tolis &amp; Apo&s;tolicis viris non e&s;t nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; o&s;tendenda ex hi&s;toriarum hu|manarum incertis te&s;timoniis, &s;ed ex promi&s;&s;ione illa Chri&s;ti, qua &s;po&s;pondit &s;e per omnes aetates ex|citaturum operarios ad &s;alutem electorum pro|curandam.</HI> 5. <HI>Ordinandi pote&s;tas quoad jus cui|que eccle&s;iae particulari e&s;t a Deo conce&s;&s;a.</HI> Now for his la&s;t. 6. <HI>Pa&s;tores hunc in modunt de&s;cen|dentes, &amp; ju&s;to jure ordinatos habemus nos per Dei gratiam in omnibus eccle&s;iis ex voto no&s;tro con&s;titutis.</HI> If any &s;hould take hold of the la&s;t words, and &s;uppo&s;e the Doctor means, <HI>gathered Churches in which the people did ordain,</HI> &s;urely they wrong the Doctor much. I wonder how many &s;uch Churches there were when the Doctor wrote? neither had the Doctor an&s;wered <HI>Bellarmin,</HI> who oppo&s;es all Mini&s;ters not ordain|ed by the <HI>Roman</HI> power, but had fallen off from <HI>Rome:</HI> then the Doctor mu&s;t own the ordina|tion of the Reformed Mini&s;ters, el&s;e he &s;aid nothing to the <HI>Je&s;uit.</HI> I wi&s;h this Divine would an&s;wer <HI>Bellarmin</HI> better. Doctor <HI>Ames</HI> u&s;es to be e&s;teemed of among&s;t Congregational men.</P>
<P N="7">7. For <HI>Rome being a true Church:</HI> it is well known that <HI>Rome</HI> is more corrupt now in Do|ctrine then it was when our fir&s;t Reformers fell off; what difference there is between the former and latter School-men who knows not? &s;o that <HI>Rome</HI> is not now what it was then, when our men had their Ordination from thence. But may we not &s;ay as our brethren do of
<PB N="117" REF="64"><HI>Pari&s;h-Congregations,</HI> they will not deny [the mo&s;t under&s;tanding and &s;ober of them] but that <HI>in many pari&s;hes there are true Churches,</HI> though they will not &s;ay <HI>the whole pari&s;h is a true Church,</HI> according to the con&s;titution. So there is <HI>a true Church under the Romi&s;h juri&s;di|ction,</HI> though we do not &s;ay <HI>Rome is a true Church.</HI></P>
<P>But what &s;hall we &s;ay to &s;uch a people where the true God, and the Trinity, with the Attri|butes of God; Je&s;us Chri&s;t in his divine and human nature; the &s;atisfaction and price of Chri&s;t as the meritorious cau&s;e of our ju&s;ti|fication
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">See <HI>Bel|lar. de Ju&s;tif. l</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 2. <HI>&amp; l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 5.</NOTE> and pardon; The Scriptures; All the ordinances of God; The doctrine of the Free|grace of God in oppo&s;ition to mans proud free-will [O excellent <HI>Bradwardin,</HI> and <HI>Alva|rez; &amp;c.</HI> are owned, defended, believed] where there are per&s;ons who walk according to Scri|pture rules in a great degree: what &s;hall we &s;ay? is here no Church?</P>
<P>If our State have been rightly guided when they made the Act to Tolerate tho&s;e who own <HI>One God, Chri&s;t, and Scriptures,</HI> then a Church in <HI>Rome</HI> may be owned, where the&s;e and many other truths are maintained, more &s;oundly then they will be by many of our tolerated per&s;ons: yea, it were well if all the members of Con|gregated Churches in <HI>England</HI> were as &s;ound in tho&s;e truths [before mentioned] and as holy in their conver&s;ations as are divers who live under <HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P>As for the Pope, were it no more but bare government, compared with the carriage of
<PB N="118" REF="65">many Church-members, I may &s;ay as Learned Mr. <HI>Norton</HI> of <HI>N. England,</HI> in his Epi&s;tle to the <HI>General Court, Is there no medium between Boniface and Morellius, between Papacy and Anarchy, Babylon and Babel? &amp;c.</HI> both are naught, the Peoples Anarchy as well as the Popes Tyranny; and his Tyranny will not &s;ooner deny a Church there [as to Di&s;cipline] then Anarchy doth in the&s;e members: we &s;ee the effect, how many men in <HI>England</HI> have turned Papi&s;ts, &s;ince they &s;aw the&s;e carriages in the Churches.</P>
<P>But again, What mean tho&s;e Texts, <HI>Come out of her my people, Rev.</HI> 18.4. if there be no Church there? <HI>The womans flying into the wil|derne&s;s, Rel.</HI> 12.6. take it as Mr. <HI>Mead,</HI> or as <HI>Pareus,</HI> yet it will argue a true Church to have been under <HI>Rome.</HI> The witne&s;&s;es prophe&s;ied 1260. days, during the time of the womans being in the wilderne&s;s they were to feed her; this mu&s;t needs fall under the time before the Reformation, begin it when you will.</P>
<P>More I could &s;ay, but I think this is &s;ufficient to prove that Ordination may and ought &s;till to be continued notwith&s;tanding <HI>Rome,</HI> and that it is nece&s;&s;ary to a Mini&s;ter. And &s;ince both the&s;e objections are made again&s;t me by Commi&s;&s;ioners [though I would hope more <HI>Di&s;putandi grati&acirc;,</HI> then being indeed oppo&s;ite to my <HI>The&s;is,</HI> I &s;ay I would be glad to hope &s;o] and &s;ince this <HI>Script</HI> may po&s;&s;ibly fall into &s;ome of their hands, I wi&s;h humbly [and I know I could have hundreds of godly Mini&s;ters to joyn with me] they would plea&s;e to take off
<PB N="119" REF="65">that offence, which I conceive is ju&s;tly given to the mo&s;t part of the godly Mini&s;try in <HI>Eng|land,</HI> when they &s;ee them let into the Mini&s;try per&s;ons <HI>illiterate,</HI> and &s;ome <HI>blame-worthy in their conver&s;ations</HI> [as I am informed by godly Mi|ni&s;ters who know them] be&s;ides being illite|rate, and per&s;ons who neither are ordained, nor will be ordained, nor I think would &s;ober Mini&s;ters ever ordain them. The&s;e things are not &s;ecret, but more publikely &s;poken off then my Book can publi&s;h; whence their friends are grieved, their enemies rejoyce, having cau&s;e they think to open their mouths again&s;t them, and to vilifie Reformation, be&s;ides the hinderance of union in the Churches.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II. <HI>Concerning Impo&s;ition of hands in Ordina|tion.</HI></HEAD>
<P>ALthough our Divines have <HI>all</HI> I think [un|le&s;s a few ri&s;en up in our days] agreed in the nece&s;&s;ity of Ordination to a Mini&s;ter; yet they have not <HI>all</HI> had the &s;ame thoughts about <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands,</HI> as if it were <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> to Ordination. Mo&s;t have agreed in this, that though they look on it as a Ceremony, an Ad|junct, yet it ought to be practi&s;ed, becau&s;e of the Apo&s;tolical examples. Our Congregational Brethen in <HI>E&s;&s;ex</HI> ca&s;t it away; and &s;ome cau&s;e I have to &s;tand upon it, becau&s;e I therefore re|fu&s;ed Ordination by them, becau&s;e they would
<PB N="120" REF="66">not Impo&s;e hands, and &s;o it was the longer before I could be Ordained. If I did refu&s;e upon in&s;ufficient grounds, I am &s;ure the grounds which were given to me for the contrary were very in&s;ufficient. I lo&s;t the papers, but met with another manner of Antagoni&s;t &s;hortly after Mr. <HI>Noyes</HI> (a reverend Divine, and my dear friend) of <HI>N. England,</HI> who hath &s;aid more again&s;t it then I have as yet heard from the&s;e; what any body el&s;e have &s;aid again&s;t it in writing I know not unle&s;s the Author of the <HI>Diatribe, &amp;c.</HI> whom that worthy Divine Doctor <HI>Seaman</HI> hath an&s;wered: I ca&s;t my eye upon it long &s;ince, but do not now remember any thing <HI>Pro,</HI> or <HI>Con,</HI> what there is &s;aid, or in any other man. What then I can gather from Scri|pture and Rea&s;on I &s;hall humbly offer to the Reader, and to Mr. <HI>Noyes</HI> in an&s;wer to what he hath &s;aid again&s;t it.</P>
<P>Not many years &s;ince <HI>Humane Ceremonies</HI> added to the wor&s;hip of God, how much trouble and mi&s;ery they added to the Church, we have not yet forgot. Men wrote and &s;pake &s;o far as they dared, and &s;uffered by rea&s;on of them. Mens wits are now bu&s;ied as much in throwing out of God's wor&s;hip, as theirs were in adding; why then we may not now &s;tand up in de&s;ence of <HI>God's Ceremonies</HI> [if this be but a Ceremony] as they oppo&s;ed <HI>Mens Cere|monies,</HI> I know not.</P>
<P>Come then to <HI>Impo&s;ition,</HI> &amp;c. Let us hear a little what other men have &s;aid about it: And fir&s;t for great <HI>Calvin,</HI> whom I hear alledged a|gain&s;t Impo&s;ition, which I a little wondered at,
<PB N="121" REF="66">knowing <HI>Calvin</HI> had &s;poken &s;ufficiently for it.</P>
<P N="1">1.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>In&s;tit. l.</HI> 4. c. 3. <HI>&s;.</HI> 16.</NOTE> <HI>Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum Impo&s;itione, quia tamen fui&s;&s;e in perpe|tuo u&s;u Apo&s;tolis videmus, illa tam accurata eo|rum ob&s;ervatio prae cepti vice nobis e&s;&s;e debet.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Again, <HI>Impo&s;itionem manuum,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 14. <HI>&s;.</HI> 20.</NOTE> qua Eccle|&s;ia Mini&s;tri, in &s;uum munus initiarentur, non in|vitus patior vocari Sacramentum.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Again,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 2. <HI>&s;.</HI> 16.</NOTE> <HI>Et cert&egrave; utile e&s;t eju&s;modi &s;ymbolo Mini&s;terii dignitatem populo commendari,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>praeterea non erit inane &s;ignum, &s;i in germa|nam &s;uam originem re&s;titutum fuerit-: nam &s;i nihil fru&s;tra &s;piritus Dei in Eccle&s;ia Dei in&s;tituit, hanc ceremoniam cum ab eo profecta &s;it &s;entiemus non e&s;&s;e inutilem, modo in &s;uper&s;titio&s;um u&s;um nou vertatur.</HI> See him again <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 19. <HI>&s;.</HI> 31. <HI>Cal|vins</HI> judgment is clear, with his Rea&s;ons for it.</P>
<P><HI>Chemnitius</HI> giving us the judgment of the <HI>Lutheran</HI> Churches, &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Exam. Concil. Trid. p.</HI> 221.</NOTE> <HI>Nec manuum Impo|&s;itionem vocare Sacramentum gravabimur.</HI> I omit <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> who called it &s;o long before they were born, in a large &s;en&s;e, not the Popi&s;h &s;en&s;e. <HI>Nos uno verbo dicimus, &s;i per Sacramen|tum jusjurandum,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Loc. Com. p.</HI> 321.</NOTE> &amp; religio&s;am, ob&s;trictionem in|telligunt, &s;it Ordo ip&s;orum, per me licet, Sacra|mentum, quale veteribus erat Sacramentum mi|litare,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Mu&s;culus.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Walaeus</HI> &s;aith,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Loc. Com. l.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 473.</NOTE> <Q>In all the Confe&s;&s;ions of their Churches [except one or two] it was re|quired, and becau&s;e the Apo&s;tles alwayes u&s;ed it, and the Apo&s;tle gives that precept to <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.22. <HI>Not to lay on hands &s;uddenly</HI> we
<PB N="122" REF="67"><HI>ought not</HI> to omit it; becau&s;e in that negative an affirmative is contained that he &s;hould Im|po&s;e on worthy per&s;ons; where &s;ince by a <HI>Synecdoche</HI> it is taken for the election of a Pa&s;tor, <HI>cert&egrave; pro ritu, vel parte e&s;&s;entiali ha|benda e&s;t.</HI> Thus he.</Q></P>
<P>From the &s;ame charge to <HI>Timothy,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sur. ch. Di&s;. p.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 74.</NOTE> Mr. <HI>Hoo|ker</HI> &s;aith he <HI>is willing to follow the rode, when he hath no con&s;training rea&s;on to goe a&s;ide.</HI> It &s;eems this Reverend man knew no cau&s;e why Impo|&s;ition &s;hould be laid a&s;ide.</P>
<P>The Synod of <HI>New England</HI> &s;ay,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Platf. ch. Di&s;. c.</HI> 9.</NOTE> Church-Officers ought to be Ordained with Impo&s;ition of hands.</P>
<P>Here then we have the <HI>Fathers, Papi&s;ts, Lu|therans, Calvini&s;ts, Epi&s;copal, Cla&s;&s;ical, Congre|gational</HI> men, the Churches generally &s;ince the Apo&s;tles dayes Impo&s;ing hands in Ordination. We mu&s;t have &s;trong rea&s;ons (as Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI> &s;aith) to lead us afide from the&s;e Churches. <HI>Cu&s;tome of the Churches</HI> Paul <HI>u&s;es to make &s;ome|thing of,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. I think &s;o &s;hould we, having e&s;pecially &s;uch Scripture-precedents going be|fore them: I look upon their practice as very weighty.</P>
<P>But I come to argument, laying down fir&s;t my Po&s;ition: <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands ought to be u|&s;ed in Ordination.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 1. That form of Ordination which cometh neere&s;t to the Go&s;pel-pattern, ought to be u&s;ed.</P>
<P>But Impo&s;ition of hands in Ordination is that form which cometh neere&s;t to the Go&s;pel|pattern; <HI>ergo</HI> Impo&s;ition of hands in Ordination ought to be u&s;ed.</P>
<PB N="123" REF="67">
<P>The <HI>major</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e cannot well be denied, e&s;pecially by tho&s;e who in the Bi&s;hops days u&s;e to cry out &s;o much, <HI>All things mu&s;t be made ac|cording to the pattern in the Mount;</HI> and why now I pray mu&s;t not things be done according to the pattern of the Go&s;pel? what do you make of it? that which you may follow, or let alone as you plea&s;e? what is &s;aid again&s;t this I &s;hall meet with anon.</P>
<P>For the <HI>minors</HI> bring us forth tho&s;e rules, or examples which &s;hew that men may be ordain|ed, or were ordained without Impo&s;ition of hands: that Church-Officers were ordained with Impo&s;ition, the Texts are known, as be|fore mentioned.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 2. If the Go&s;pel expre&s;&s;eth the whole Ordinance of Ordination by Impo&s;ition of hands, then Impo&s;ition of hands in Ordination ought to be u&s;ed.</P>
<P>But the Antecedent is true, <HI>Ergo</HI> the Con&s;e|quent is true.</P>
<P>The <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> is clear; for why &s;hould the Apo&s;tle mention that which is but needle&s;s, or at lea&s;t but indifferent to &s;et out an ordi|nance by.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> But it is &s;aid, <MILESTONE UNIT="Obj."> This was no more then what <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith at another time, <HI>for this cau&s;e I bow my knee, &amp;c.</HI> meaning <HI>prayer.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> 1. Be it &s;o, yet this hinders not; <MILESTONE UNIT="Sol."> for if <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith <HI>he did bow his knee,</HI> I know <HI>Paul</HI> was &s;o hone&s;t that he would not lye; he did bow his knee &s;ure enough. So when he faith, <HI>Lay hands, &amp;c.</HI> I doubt not but <HI>Timothy</HI> did and ought to <HI>Lay hands, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="2"><PB N="124" REF="68">2. There were other ge&s;tures for prayer re|corded in the Go&s;pel be&s;ides kneeling; can you &s;hew other Ceremonies or Adjuncts [as you call them] recorded be&s;ides <HI>Impo&s;ition</HI> in Ordination? If there had been never any other ge&s;ture recorded in prayer but kneeling, then we would have concluded we ought to u&s;e that ge&s;ture only; why not then <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands</HI> in Ordination, &s;ince none but this is recorded.</P>
<P N="3">3. There may be &s;ome difference put be|tween <HI>Paul</HI>'s <HI>narration,</HI> what he did, and <HI>Paul</HI>'s <HI>injunction</HI> of another, what he <HI>&s;hould</HI> do. <HI>Paul</HI> might tell them another time that he prayed for them <HI>&s;tanding;</HI> but where doth he order <HI>Timothy,</HI> or others to ordain without Impo&s;ition?</P>
<P N="4">4. This objection would carry it, as if there were no more in <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands</HI> in refe|rence to Ordination then in <HI>kneeling</HI> to prayer: which I will not as yet yield; what I have &s;aid before I think will &s;hew the contrary, and more I &s;hall add.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Antecedent</HI> is the part I have to prove, which if I can make good, it will make much to &s;hew the nece&s;&s;ity of Ordination, and of Impo&s;ition in it; the Text is well known. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.22. <HI>Lay hands on no man &s;uddenly:</HI> the que|&s;tion is whether Ordination be here meant. I named before the judgement of all &s;orts of Divines, ancient and modern, <HI>Epi&s;copal, Cla&s;&s;i|cal, Congregational,</HI> [yea, of divers of the Pa|pi&s;ts] who agree it is meant of Ordination: this might be enough one would think; but in our days we mu&s;t prove what we &s;ay; had our Brethren given us rea&s;ons to the contrary, I
<PB N="125" REF="68">might have known what to have an&s;wered to; but I hear of none.</P>
<P N="1">1. This Impo&s;ition cannot have reference to <HI>&s;ick per&s;ons:</HI> There's no matter how &s;uddenly he laid on hands to cure them; nothing ap|pearing in the context.</P>
<P N="2">2. Nor can it relate to the ble&s;&s;ing of chil|dren; the context hath nothing for it: nor did I ever read that the Apo&s;tles did u&s;e this pra|cti&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3. Nor can it be meant of the Sacrament of Pennance, as many Papi&s;ts do expound it, though &s;ome of the mo&s;t learned are again&s;t it, and rather expound it of Ordination, as be|fore; the context will favour &s;omething this notion: but that I have this again&s;t it.</P>
<P N="1">1. For their Sacrament we reject it; for ab|&s;olution of a repenting per&s;on, before bound under Church-cen&s;ure, this we own; but in Scripture as we have no precept, &s;o no exam|ple that the Church did u&s;e to Impo&s;e hands on a penitent; we read no &s;uch thing when the Ince&s;tuous per&s;on was loo&s;ed, after he had been bound by excommunication; what rea&s;on then to have it under&s;tood of that which in Scripture is not to be found; it &s;tands with mo&s;t rea&s;on to expound it with other Scriptures.</P>
<P N="2">2. I &s;ee <HI>Bellarmin</HI> and others make little of <HI>Impo&s;ition</HI> in the Sacrament of Pennance; but in Ordination he makes it an e&s;&s;ential part: More rea&s;on then why of this then of that, which hath no other word for it.</P>
<P N="3">3. For the Brethren who oppo&s;e us, I pre&s;ume they will not under&s;tand it thus; for they give
<PB N="126" REF="69">&s;o much to the people, in admi&s;&s;ion of members, that <HI>Timothy</HI> might well be hindered for laying hands <HI>&s;uddenly</HI> on &s;uch: and that 2 <HI>Epi&s;tle</HI> to the <HI>Corinths,</HI> with the practi&s;e of Antiquity, e&s;pecially <HI>Cyprian</HI> will give &s;ome ground for it.</P>
<P>Had it not been for my fir&s;t rea&s;on, and the rea&s;ons I have to prove it mu&s;t be meant of Ordination, I &s;hould have inclined this way becau&s;e of <HI>v.</HI> 20.</P>
<P N="4">4. Nor can it be meant of <HI>Confirmation.</HI> I have heard our Brethren have thus Interpreted it. But</P>
<P N="1">1. I can &s;ee no &s;hadow of rea&s;on for this in the context; for the Apo&s;tle is &s;peaking nothing of Bapti&s;m, about which time that which men call confirmation was u&s;ed.</P>
<P N="2">2. They mu&s;t then prove that <HI>Timothy</HI> had power to confer the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t, for &s;o we find in confirmation they were given, <HI>Acts</HI> 8, &amp; 9, &amp; 19. Of this more anon.</P>
<P N="3">3. Nor do I &s;ee what need of that caution <HI>&s;uddenly;</HI> for no matter how &s;oon they were confirmed in the faith: they were in the Church already, and to confirm them as fa&s;t as might be was good. <HI>Peter</HI> in <HI>Acts</HI> 8. and <HI>Paul</HI> in <HI>Acts</HI> 19. did <HI>&s;uddenly</HI> Impo&s;e hands to this end; good to keep them from Wavering and Apo&s;ta|tizing.</P>
<P N="4">4. How did <HI>Timothy partake of other mens &s;ins</HI> when he &s;ought to confirm them <HI>&s;uddenly?</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. Laying then the&s;e by, the text mu&s;t needs be meant of Ordination, for I know of no other ca&s;es in which hands were Impo&s;ed in the New
<PB N="127" REF="69">&s;tament, [nor at all in one ca&s;e, <HI>i.e. pennance:</HI>] So that it mu&s;t be this, and that I &s;hall yet fur|ther prove.</P>
<P N="1">1. The Apo&s;tle from the 17. <HI>v.</HI> had been di&s;|cour&s;ing about Elders: now it is very &s;ea&s;on|able to give &s;ome word about the making of Elders. So the context holds it fairly out.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Aethiopick Ver&s;ion gives it, <HI>Ne Con|&s;tituas quenquam &s;ubit&ograve;:</HI> This is Ordination plainly.</P>
<P N="3">3. The rea&s;on why he &s;hould be cautious, was le&s;t he <HI>&s;hould partake of other mens &s;ins. Ne reus fias corrupti mini&s;terii,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Aretius.</HI> And it is certain, he that is the cau&s;e of a corrupt mans coming into the Mini&s;try (or in&s;ufficient) may be guilty of much &s;in; it is &s;o weighty a thing to have the charge of &s;ouls. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">on <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 58.</NOTE> Jerom, Calvin, Chamier, Hemmingius, Cor. a Lap.</HI> &s;peak excellently to this rea&s;on of the caution.</P>
<P N="4">4. As the Apo&s;tle had taught <HI>Timothy</HI> in the 3. Chapter what &s;hould be the qualification of Bi&s;hops and Deacons, the former of which he had been &s;peaking of in this Chapter, ju&s;t be|fore our Text, it may very well &s;uit that <HI>Timo|thy</HI> &s;hould not <HI>&s;uddenly</HI> ordain men, but fir&s;t &s;ee whether they were &s;o qualified as he had written to him. So much for this Text.</P>
<P N="2">2. A &s;econd Text wherein the Scripture ex|pre&s;&s;eth Ordination by <HI>Impo&s;ition</HI> only, is that known place 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. <HI>the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.</HI> This Text is generally under&s;tood of the Ordination of <HI>Timothy.</HI> I never met with any who denied it but one
<PB N="128" REF="70"><HI>Socinian.</HI> But of this Text more anon.</P>
<P N="3">3. A third Text as &s;ome apprehend, is <HI>Heb.</HI> 6.2. which Mr. <HI>Noyes</HI> doth very much oppo&s;e. I could not at fir&s;t tell what was his meaning to be&s;tow &s;o many lines upon it, but at la&s;t I thought of Mr. <HI>Hooker,</HI> who&s;e judgement it is likely Mr. <HI>N.</HI> under&s;tood; two advantages Mr. <HI>N.</HI> hath: 1. The multitude of Interpreters who under&s;tand it of <HI>confirmation</HI> (as Mr. <HI>N.</HI> &s;aith.) 2. That it followeth Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P>But fir&s;t, let us &s;ee if no Divines under&s;tand it of Ordination, &s;o as it is comprehended at lea&s;t under it. <HI>Junius, Pareus,</HI> and our <HI>Anno|tations</HI> take it largely, and look at Ordination included. <HI>Gualter, To&s;&s;anus, Gelle&s;pio, Dic&s;on, John&s;on, Jacob. Bullinger</HI> of Ordination <HI>only,</HI> or chiefly. Mr. <HI>Cartw.</HI> thus, <HI>By Impo&s;ition of hands the Apo&s;tle meaneth no Sacrament,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rhem. Te&s;t.</NOTE> much le&s;&s;e confirmation after Bapti&s;m; but by Trope, or borrowed &s;peech the Mini&s;try of the Church, upon the which hands were laid; which appeareth in that who&s;oever believeth not there ought to be a Mini&s;try by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Chri&s;tianity:</HI> this is to the point indeed.</P>
<P>Mr.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sur. Ch. Di&s;. p.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 7.</NOTE> <HI>Hooker</HI> proves that Church Di&s;cipline is a fundamental point of Religion from hence; thus, <HI>Laying on of hands being by a Metonymy of the Adjunct put for Ordination; and Ordination one particular put for the whole of Di&s;cipline.</HI> Having then the&s;e men [and the&s;e no babes] on my &s;ide, I will &s;ee what rea&s;on there is why Ordination here mu&s;t not be meant.</P>
<P>For <HI>confirmation</HI> [which &s;o many expound
<PB N="129" REF="70">it of] I &s;earched among&s;t tho&s;e Prote&s;tant Di|vines which I had to find a definition of it in our Prote&s;tant &s;en&s;e, and why they call it &s;o; but I could not find one who gave me &s;atisfa|ction but <HI>Chemnitius, Exam. Concil. Trid. de confirmat.</HI> The Papi&s;ts definition I knew, and a pretty one it is. That which <HI>Chemnitius</HI> &s;peaks gave me great content; but I could wi&s;h &s;ome body would, prove this is the meaning of <HI>Im|po&s;ition</HI> in this Text, for then we &s;hould have one more &s;trong ground for <HI>Infant-Bapti&s;m,</HI> as we may gather by <HI>Chemnitius</HI> opening of con|firmation. Ca&s;ting my eye on <HI>Diodati</HI> I &s;ee he thus expounds it, and hence gathers <HI>Infant-Bpati&s;m.</HI> But this is not &s;ufficient; we call for proof now. I know <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands</HI> was after Bapti&s;m in Scripture, except <HI>Act.</HI> 9.17. and &s;o far as we can learn from Scripture, we find</P>
<P N="1">1. Extraordinary gifts were ever the effect of it. So <HI>Acts</HI> 8. <HI>Acts</HI> 9. <HI>Acts</HI> 19. nor do we find any other end of it; the&s;e gifts being conveyed in a way above nature, might very well tend to the confirming them in their <HI>faith</HI> received, and &s;o well called <HI>confirmation.</HI> But in the con|firmation we talk of there is no &s;uch thing, nor do I &s;ee why we &s;hould call it confirmation.</P>
<P N="2">2. The per&s;ons who did Impo&s;e hands, were either Apo&s;tles, or per&s;ons extraordinarily rai&s;ed. We read but of one <HI>Ananias, Acts</HI> 9. I do not find the Evangeli&s;ts did Impo&s;e. Hence the Bi&s;hops, who call them&s;elves the Apo&s;tles &s;ucce&s;&s;ors, they claime this power, and poore Presbyters mu&s;t not do it [at lea&s;t without leave from them.]</P>
<PB N="130" REF="71">
<P>That then which truly de&s;erves the name <HI>confirmation,</HI> is cea&s;ed many hundred years &s;ince. But for the thing it &s;elf, which our Di|vines call confirmation, as <HI>Chemnitius</HI> lays it down,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>In&s;tit. l.</HI> 4. c. 19. <HI>&s;.</HI> 4.</NOTE> I could heartily wi&s;h with <HI>Calvin</HI> that it were brought into practi&s;e, only <HI>Impo&s;ition,</HI> I think, might be left out; yet I would not con|tend with him who did u&s;e it, rather &s;o, then not have the thing practi&s;ed. <HI>Mu&s;culus</HI> &s;peaking of <HI>Impo&s;ition</HI> in confirmation, &s;aith, The <HI>Impo|&s;ition of the Apo&s;tles was of miraculous operation,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Loc. Com. p.</HI> 321.</NOTE> and cea&s;ed long &s;ince: Exemplum illius retinue|runt Epi&s;copi, quo magis Apo&s;tolorum viderentur e&s;&s;e &s;ucce&s;&s;ores.</HI> But he &s;peaks nothing again&s;t Impo&s;ition in Ordination.</P>
<P>But to the Text; let us &s;ee why Ordination mu&s;t be &s;hut out here.</P>
<P N="1">1. The key of Interpretation I take to be the word <HI>Foundation and principles, &amp;c.</HI> (as we Tran&s;late.) So <HI>Camerarius, Sunt nece&s;&s;aria Dog|mata &amp; Capita doctrinae Chri&s;tianae quae enume|rantur hoc loco.</HI> So <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom.</HI> Now it &s;eems &s;trange to me that a <HI>foundation</HI> &s;hould be lo&s;t out of the Church above fifteen hundred years. I thought foundations &s;hould hold &s;o long as the building la&s;ts; take away a foundation the hou&s;e mu&s;t be in danger. But if this be meant of Ordination, then it holds; for the Mini&s;try &s;hall hold &s;o long as the Church holds; <HI>till the body be perfected, Eph.</HI> 4. But if <HI>confirma|tion,</HI> and extraordinary gifts, which were the only effect, &s;o far as we find in Scripture, [as before I touched] then this foundation is gone long &s;ince.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="131" REF="71">2. <HI>Faith, Repentance,</HI> and <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> are to la&s;t to the end of the world. Some of our Divines do from this Text prove again&s;t the <HI>Socinians</HI> that <HI>Water-Bapti&s;m</HI> is an ordinance &s;till to con|tinue, becau&s;e it is put among&s;t the foundations, Chatechetical heads; why then the Mini&s;try, which is Chri&s;t's great ordinance, to <HI>convert,</HI> to beget <HI>faith, [which comes by hearing, &amp;c.]</HI> and authorized to <HI>baptize</HI> to <HI>the end of the world,</HI> &s;hould not be meant by <HI>Impo&s;ition,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 28.20.</NOTE> but a temporary thing which was to vani&s;h pre&s;ent|ly, I can &s;ee no rea&s;on.</P>
<P N="3">3. That Impo&s;ition alone is put for Ordina|tion we have other Scriptures to &s;hew. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5, &amp; 4. [as before] but &s;hew us another Text where Impo&s;ition alone is put for <HI>confirma|tion.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. Extraordinary gifts were conveyed with|out Impo&s;ition of hands: as <HI>Act.</HI> 2.10. &amp; <HI>Act.</HI> 44.4. why then <HI>Impo&s;ition</HI> &s;hould only &s;ignifie the Holy Gho&s;t, which yet was given without it, I am not &s;atisfied.</P>
<P N="5">5. Then the&s;e Divines mu&s;t prove, that <HI>all</HI> who were baptized had hands Impo&s;ed, and ex|traordinary gifts conferred, el&s;e the placing after Bapti&s;m proves nothing; if onely to &s;ome baptized per&s;ons and <HI>pro tempore,</HI> what is this to prove it meant of <HI>confirmation;</HI> for I hope <HI>all</HI> baptized ones are to be confirmed in their &s;en&s;e. But this will be hard to prove.</P>
<P>One thing more I &s;hall add when I come to Mr. <HI>Noyes,</HI> why it &s;hould be meant of extraor|dinary gifts; <HI>Camero</HI> gives the &s;tronge&s;t rea&s;on. But yet I hope to an indifferent Reader, it
<PB N="132" REF="72">doth appear by what I have &s;aid, that there is no forcing rea&s;on why Ordination &s;hould be &s;hut out, but may at lea&s;t be fairly implied. So much for my &s;econd argument.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 3. That Act which the Church ever u&s;ed [and that regularly] in ordaining of Officers, ought to be u&s;ed in Ordination.</P>
<P>But Impo&s;ition of hands is an Act which the Church ever u&s;ed [and that regularly] in or|daining, &amp;c. <HI>Ergo</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> &s;eems &s;o fair, that I think no rational man will deny it. The <HI>Minor</HI> is clear; the Church under the Old Te&s;tament u&s;ed this act. <HI>Numb.</HI> 8.10. Upon which ver&s;e Mr. <HI>Ain&s;worth</HI> thus &s;peaketh, <HI>This rite was kept at the Ordination of Officers, both in the Old Te&s;tament and in the New.</HI> Acts 6.6. &amp; 13.3. <HI>By this &s;ign they did put the charge and &s;ervice of the Church upon them, &amp;c.</HI> Then why it ought not &s;till to be u&s;ed, I know not. Mr. <HI>Ain&s;.</HI> was a man learned, holy, and far from Popery, or idle Ceremonies.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 4. Let us &s;uppo&s;e Prayer and Fa&s;ting to be of the e&s;&s;ence of Ordination [as &s;ay our Brethren.]</P>
<P>If Prayer and Fa&s;ting without Impo&s;ition do not difference Ordination from another Ordi|nance, then Impo&s;ition of hands ought to be u&s;ed in Ordination.</P>
<P>But the Antecedent is true, <HI>ergo</HI> the Con&s;e|quent is true.</P>
<P>The rea&s;on of the <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> is, becau&s;e every Ordinance hath &s;omething in it whereby it is di&s;tingui&s;hed from others; &s;o mu&s;t this have &s;omething.</P>
<PB N="133" REF="72">
<P>Here I lie open to two <HI>Objections.</HI> Some will &s;ay, Why do not you put in tho&s;e words which they call <HI>verba creantia,</HI> where &s;ome put the very e&s;&s;ence of the Ordinance? To the&s;e I an&s;wer,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mr. <HI>Weems</HI> &s;aith, In their Churches when they Or|dain a Mi|ni&s;ter they give him the Book of God in his hand, to &s;ignifie that now he hath power to preach the word, as the Prie&s;ts hand was filled with fle&s;h <HI>Numb.</HI> 3.3. P. 105.</NOTE> Although I do agree with the old <HI>non|conformi&s;ts,</HI> and other Churches, that &s;ome &s;uch words <HI>mu&s;t</HI> be u&s;ed, and by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;e|quence it will be forced, [as before I &s;pake] yet I rather u&s;e this, becau&s;e it is my <HI>que&s;tion,</HI> and that which we have plain Scripture for, and &s;o feeling Scripture at my back, &s;hall be more able to make good my ground.</P>
<P>The other party &s;ay, by this I put the <HI>form</HI> of Ordination in Impo&s;ition; for <HI>forms di|&s;tingui&s;h.</HI> I do not at this time a&s;&s;ert what it is, but finding it in Scripture, I argue again&s;t tho&s;e who leave it out. <HI>Walaeus</HI> we &s;ee could not tell whether to call it a <HI>Rite,</HI> or an <HI>e&s;&s;ential part.</HI> I know <HI>Bellarmin</HI> and other Papi&s;ts look on it as part of the e&s;&s;ence of Ordination, and if they do &s;o, I do not blame them [they having Scri|pture for it] as I blame tho&s;e who leave it out.</P>
<P>Doctor <HI>Owen</HI> in his <HI>Review of the nature of S. p.</HI> 23. tells us that by Ordination of Mini&s;ters, <HI>many upon a mi&s;take under&s;tand only the Impo&s;iti|on of hands u&s;ed therein.</HI> [I have not met with any of this opinion; I find none of the Papi&s;ts &s;peaking thus, who make as much of it as any] then adds, <HI>Ordination of Mini&s;ters is one thing, Impo&s;ition of hands is another, differing as the whole and the part.</HI> Enough.</P>
<P>If a <HI>Totum,</HI> then <HI>Totum univer&s;ale</HI> he cannot mean, but <HI>Totum Integrale:</HI> then Impo&s;ition of hands &s;tands affected to Ordination as <HI>mem|brum</HI>
<PB N="134" REF="73">to <HI>Integrum,</HI> which is <HI>Symbolum cau&s;ae e&s;|&s;entialis;</HI> then not an Adjunct. If it be a part, and a principal part, then where there is no Im|po&s;ition there is no Ordination, for <HI>&s;ublat&acirc; parte principali, tollitur Integrum.</HI> If it be not a princi|pal, but le&s;s principal, yet Ordination is but Imperfect; for <HI>&s;ublat&acirc; qu&acirc;libet parte tollitur per|fectio Integri.</HI> Then let tho&s;e who are ordained [as they &s;ay they are] without Impo&s;ition of hands, con&s;ider their Ordination, and I hope they cannot be offended with me for refu&s;ing (at be&s;t) an imperfect ordination, when I could have a more perfect Ordination. One of their own Ordainers hath &s;poken enough for me.</P>
<P>I pray tell us how praying and fa&s;ting for a ble&s;&s;ing upon a per&s;on elected, is an Ordinance di&s;tinct. We Pray and Fa&s;t for <HI>rain,</HI> for <HI>fair &s;ea&s;ons,</HI> for <HI>peace,</HI> for <HI>&s;ucce&s;s in war,</HI> for <HI>health,</HI> for <HI>coun&s;el in great affairs, &amp;c.</HI> But I hope pray|ing and fa&s;ting for the&s;e ends does not make the&s;e &s;everal and di&s;tinct Ordinances; but it &s;eems it &s;hould be &s;o, as well as praying &amp; fa&s;ting for a ble&s;&s;ing on a per&s;on elected makes this a di&s;tinct Ordinance; prayer and fa&s;ting is but one Ordinance by it &s;elf u&s;ed for many ends.</P>
<P>Moreover, we &s;eldom fa&s;t and pray [nay, never I think] at a neighbour Congregation, but the Mini&s;ters u&s;e to pray for a ble&s;&s;ing upon the Mini&s;ter of that Congregation, then it &s;eems <HI>&s;o often we Ordain him;</HI> this is ab&s;urd.</P>
<P>Al&s;o good people fa&s;t and pray before ele|ction, what is it then? I know not how they will avoid it, but they mu&s;t confound Election and Ordination, which I am &s;ure is contrary to Scripture.</P>
<PB N="135" REF="73">
<P>When <HI>Paul</HI> wrote to <HI>Timothy,</HI> he did not charge him that he &s;hould not <HI>fa&s;t and pray &s;uddenly,</HI> but not <HI>Impo&s;e hands &s;uddenly.</HI> Words u&s;ed which &s;ignifie <HI>&s;ending, &s;etting apart, ap|pointing to the office</HI> with Impo&s;ition of hands; do di&s;tingui&s;h Ordination from other Ordi|nances.</P>
<P N="5">5. The la&s;t Argument I &s;hall u&s;e will be <HI>ad hominem,</HI> yet I think there is &s;omething in it.</P>
<P>If Satan from a wicked Imitation of God hath made u&s;e of Impo&s;ition of hands in the con&s;ecration of <HI>his</HI> Mini&s;ters, then Chri&s;tians, from an obediential Imitation of God, ought to u&s;e Impo&s;ition of hands in the Ordination of <HI>Chri&s;t's</HI> Mini&s;ters.</P>
<P>Satan in his wor&s;hip hath ever loved to imi|tate God in his wor&s;hip. As <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr, Apol.</HI> 2. and <HI>Tertul. Prae&s;crip. adv. Haeret.</HI> both &s;hew how this Ape hath taken example from the wor&s;hip God had appointed in his hou&s;e, and accordingly appointed the form of his wor&s;hip. So in the con&s;ecration of his Prie&s;ts, <HI>Livy</HI> reports of <HI>Numa</HI> that hands were Impo&s;ed upon his head, <HI>cum &s;ummo &s;acerdotio initiaretur.</HI> Why &s;hould not we upon another principle &s;tick clo&s;e then to the examples in the Word, &s;ince the Divel thinks there is &s;omething in it, I &s;uppo&s;e he took it from the <HI>Levites.</HI></P>
<P>I am not ignorant that &s;ome of our Divines, though they do u&s;e it, yet they look upon it as <HI>indifferent.</HI> So <HI>Polanus, Manuum Impo&s;itio e&s;t in rerum indifferentium numero,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Synt. The. l.</HI> 9. <HI>c.</HI> 33.</NOTE> quia a Deo ex|pre&s;&s;e praecepta non est.</HI> Yet adds <HI>Si in aliquibus Eccle&s;iis Impo&s;itio manuum recepta e&s;t &amp; u&s;i|tata,
<PB N="136" REF="74">improbari minime debet, cum exemplo Apo|&s;tolico nitatur.</HI> Say you &s;o? then I think you had no rea&s;on to di&s;approve of it indeed. Thus al&s;o <HI>Chemnitius;</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Exam. Concil Trid. p.</HI> 222.</NOTE> his rea&s;on, <HI>Nec enim nece&s;&s;itatem volu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">runt [Apo&s;toli] Eccle&s;iis imponere de qu&acirc; ip&s;i nullum habebant Chri&s;ti mandatum.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;umme is, we have examples indeed but no commands, and therefore indifferent. To which I &s;ay,</P>
<P N="1">1. Then make the rule general; <HI>What ex|amples &s;oever we have in the word, for which we find no commands, tho&s;e examples are but indiffe|rent, we may follow or not.</HI> This mu&s;t be a certain truth, el&s;e we &s;hall ask the rea&s;on, why &s;ome examples having no commandment are to be imitated, but the examples of Impo&s;ition of hands in Ordination are not to be imitated? [I know all examples are not imitable, but I cannot lanch forth in that di&s;cour&s;e] See what follows. Hence</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Popular election</HI> of a Mini&s;ter is a thing in|different. I regard not whether I be elected or not; we have &s;ome examples [though none &s;uch as our popular elections] indeed, but we find no command, that the <HI>plebs</HI> &s;hould choo&s;e their Mini&s;ter.</P>
<P><HI>Chemnitius</HI> had been pleading for popular election, and to prove it brings in &s;ome ex|amples out of the New Te&s;tament; when he had done, he adds <HI>Haec exempla Apo&s;tolicae Hi|&s;toriae clar&egrave; o&s;tendunt electionem pertinere ad uni|ver&s;am Eccle&s;iam, certo quodam modo ut &s;uae in electione &s;eu vocatione &s;int partes &amp; Presbyterii &amp; populi.</HI></P>
<PB N="137" REF="74">
<P>But if <HI>Chemnitius</HI> will plead for more then an indifferency in it, I mu&s;t bar this play, to have him come in with <HI>Haec exempla.</HI> I can &s;hew him <HI>Haec exempla</HI> more clear for Ordination by Impo&s;ition, &amp;c.</P>
<P N="2">2. Hence the con&s;ent of the people in ad|mi&s;&s;ions [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.</P>
<P N="3">3. Hence there is no Independent Church: with divers more things which I would draw from hence.</P>
<P N="2">2. I an&s;wer, if Impo&s;ition of hands carry tho&s;e five things in it which <HI>Chemnitius, Ib. p.</HI> 221. tells us, then I know no rea&s;on why he &s;hould call it an <HI>indifferent</HI> thing. At the end of that <HI>para|graph</HI> he is &s;till &s;peaking of <HI>Impo&s;ition,</HI> as I think, and &s;aith <HI>Nititur mandato,</HI> &amp;c. having quoted <HI>Acts</HI> 13.3. See <HI>Zanchy</HI> 4. <HI>praec. p.</HI> 785, 786.</P>
<P>Doctor <HI>Owen</HI> in his <HI>Review</HI> [before quoted] <HI>p.</HI> 23, 24. &s;aith, <HI>For that part of Ordination which con&s;i&s;ts in the Impo&s;ition of hands by the Presbytery [where it may be obtained according to the mind of Chri&s;t] I am al&s;o very remote from managing any oppo&s;ition to it. I think it ne|ce&s;&s;ary by vertue of precept; and that to be con|tinued in a way of &s;ucce&s;&s;ion. It is I &s;ay according to the mind of Chri&s;t, that he who is to be ordain|ed unto office in any Church receive Impo&s;ition of hands from the Elders of that Church, if there be any therein.</HI> But what, I pray, if there be no
<PB N="138" REF="75">Elders, what is the mind of Chri&s;t then that they mu&s;t be ordained without it? here the Doctor conceals his judgement; but I can help the Reader to under&s;tand his judgement [if he have not changed it] he would have Ordained me <HI>with</HI> Impo&s;ition of hands [and there were no Elders in our Church to do it] if the other Mini&s;ter would have Impo&s;ed hands al&s;o. Then &s;till I had rea&s;on to refu&s;e an Ordination where &s;omething of a <HI>precept</HI> was left out, unle&s;s a Scripture can be brought to prove that the <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> of it by vertue of <HI>precept</HI> cea&s;es where there are no Elders in the Church. This Scripture is de&s;ired.</P>
<P N="3">3. If it be <HI>indifferent,</HI> then it may be u&s;ed; there can be no &s;in in u&s;ing it; we have an Apo&s;tolical example for it, <HI>Confitente, Polano.</HI> Then</P>
<P N="1">1. This will give a man more &s;atisfaction, as to his Ordination whether it were regular or not, when he finds it an&s;wer the Apo&s;tolical ex|amples. I would not have that &s;cruple to lie upon me about my own Ordination, whether it were valid or not, becau&s;e I had Impo&s;ition, for much.</P>
<P N="2">2. This will tend more to union; for now there is an occa&s;ion of difference for want of this.</P>
<P N="3">3. It is great and ju&s;t matter of offence to the Epi&s;copal party, who in &s;ome ca&s;es do allow Presbyters may Ordain, but whether Ordi|nation can be without Impo&s;ition of hands, I do not know they are re&s;olved for the affirma|tive. Things then which tend to union, and
<PB N="139" REF="75">taking of offences and &s;cruples out of mens minds, if they may be done, and no &s;in in &s;o doing, I think ought to be done.</P>
<P N="4">4. Impo&s;ition of hands, which we conceive Apo&s;tolical men, directed by the Spirit of God, tran&s;lated from the Old Te&s;tament to the New, had an expre&s;s command for it in the &s;epara|tion of Levites to their office, <HI>Numb.</HI> 8.10. it was not indifferent then, why now?</P>
<P N="5">5. When the Apo&s;tle gives <HI>Timothy</HI> this charge, <HI>Lay hands &s;uddenly on no man;</HI> and when the Lord commanded them to &s;eparate <HI>Paul,</HI> they an&s;wer the command by Impo&s;ition <HI>Acts</HI> 13. I am mi&s;taken if we find not a precept here. If <HI>Timothy</HI> hath a rule for the <HI>modification</HI> of his Act, and that Act, for ought we can find, con|&s;tantly u&s;ed in this part of In&s;tituted wor&s;hip, I think the Act it &s;elf mu&s;t needs be commanded. For acts in them&s;elves civil, and u&s;ed among&s;t men, even Heathens, as being cu&s;tomes of Na|tions, if we find the Scriptures many hundred years after their civil u&s;e, to add a modification to &s;uch Acts, whether we are bound to &s;uch Acts where there is no &s;uch national cu&s;tomes, I much que&s;tion. The thing the Lord intends in them, be it humility, ho&s;pitality, love, we are bound to, that's true; but I &s;uppo&s;e not to the meer civil acts of other Nations, but from hence to ca&s;t out Impo&s;ition, I cannot yield to it. For</P>
<P N="1">1. I cannot find that it was their cu&s;tome to &s;eparate men in Civil States to the Office of a Magi&s;trate by Impo&s;ition of hands, and that God took this up from them. <HI>Jo&s;hua</HI> indeed
<PB N="140" REF="76">was thus appointed to his office, but by a com|mand from God, <HI>Numb.</HI> 27.18. but where doe we find this civil cu&s;tome before, thus to lay hands on Magi&s;trates?</P>
<P N="2">2. The <HI>thing</HI> the Scripture intends in the civil Acts of Nations we may &s;hew and exer|ci&s;e, though we follow not the civil cu&s;tomes of other Nations; but this being an Act belonging to In&s;tituted wor&s;hip, I know not how the <HI>thing</HI> it &s;elf is performed [at lea&s;t not perfectly] without it.
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Deut.</HI> 34.9.</NOTE> As for <HI>Jo&s;hua,</HI> though the &s;pirit of the Lord was given in a larger mea&s;ure at this Impo&s;ition, yet this was not the only end intended, for then <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> might have Impo&s;ed his hands in a private Tent, and not before <HI>all the Congregation, and there give him his charge, v.</HI> 22, 23. but <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> did by this Act declare the <HI>De&s;ignation</HI> and <HI>Ordination</HI> of <HI>Jo|&s;hua</HI> to his Office before the whole Congrega|tion. So it is in Ordaining of Mini&s;ters.</P>
<P N="3">3. If it were a Jewi&s;h cu&s;tome, and upon that account only u&s;ed, why &s;hould <HI>Paul</HI> command <HI>Timothy</HI> a Greek to u&s;e it, and that in Ordina|tion of Officers to Gentile-Churches where no &s;uch cu&s;tome was?</P>
<P>From the&s;e grounds I do not yet look upon Impo&s;ition as being a thing indifferent; but I look at Ordination without it, at lea&s;t as irre|gular: and let me &s;peak my mind freely, I would rather cho&s;e to be ordained by a Bi&s;hop and Presbyters [which many cry out upon as Antichri&s;tian] then be Ordained by any other without Impo&s;ition.</P>
<P>Now let us &s;ee what Mr. <HI>Noyes</HI> hath written again&s;t it. I &s;hall begin at his third Argument
<PB N="141" REF="76">again&s;t it, becau&s;e that &s;trikes at the examples in Scripture, and is the very Argument our Brethren here now u&s;e, and indeed if that can be made good, I &s;hall not much &s;tand upon Im|po&s;ition. He &s;aith,</P>
<P><HI>Tho&s;e examples are not a warrant for us, be|cau&s;e they were either extraordinary per&s;ons [as Apo&s;tles] or extraordinary Presbyters, or they were extraordinarily rai&s;ed who did Impo&s;e hands.</HI></P>
<P>To that of <HI>Timothy</HI> he &s;aith, <HI>It conferred an extraordinary and &s;en&s;ible gift.</HI></P>
<P>All <HI>extraordinary</HI> it &s;eems, but by this we &s;hall not lo&s;e only <HI>Impo&s;ition</HI> but <HI>Ordination</HI> al&s;o, which yet Mr. <HI>N.</HI> owns: the &s;ame obje|ction was again&s;t Ordination, as we &s;aw before; and certainly if Mr. <HI>N.</HI> takes away tho&s;e Texts which &s;peak of Impo&s;ition, I know of few Texts he will find to prove his <HI>Ordination.</HI> I de&s;ire Mr. <HI>N.</HI> would give us &s;trong proof for Ordination, leaving out tho&s;e Texts: &s;o that we &s;hall have nothing left but election, and I think he will hardly prove any election, where|in extraordinary per&s;ons had not their hand: &s;o at la&s;t lo&s;e all.</P>
<P>But how doth he prove the&s;e Impo&s;ed hands <HI>qu&agrave;</HI> extraordinary per&s;ons? The example in <HI>Timothy</HI> [the Presbytery which laid hands on him] and <HI>Acts</HI> 13.3. he fore&s;aw would be alledged; to the&s;e two he lays in an&s;wer afore|hand, telling us they <HI>were extraordinary Pre&s;|byters.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> Say what Presbyters and prove; the ex|traordinary Presbyters are enumerated. 1. The <HI>Synod</HI> of <HI>N.E.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hooker,</HI> nor a thou&s;and more ever thought of any &s;uch thing; the <HI>Synod</HI>
<PB N="142" REF="77">conceive it was the <HI>Presbytery</HI> of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> which Impo&s;ed hands on <HI>Timothy. Junius</HI> conceives it was the Presbytery of <HI>Derbe and Ly&s;tra</HI> where <HI>Paul</HI> took him,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Eccle&s;. p.</HI> 1960.</NOTE> <HI>Acts</HI> 16.2. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> indeed thinks they were Bi&s;hops, for Presbyters could not ordain Bi&s;hops, &s;aith he. Mr. <HI>N.</HI> doth not believe <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> I know, nor do I believe they were extraordinary Presbyters.</P>
<P N="2">2. I wonder the Bi&s;hops of old, and our latter Bi&s;hops did not hit of this notion, but that both according to the <HI>Canons</HI> of old, and &s;o of our Bi&s;hops, Presbyters were admitted to joyn in Ordination with the Bi&s;hop; I que&s;tion not but the Canons were grounde<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> upon this Presbytery which Impo&s;ed with <HI>Paul</HI> upon <HI>Timothy:</HI> but if Mr. <HI>N.</HI> notion be true, it might have been ea&s;ily &s;aid, tho&s;e were <HI>extraordinary Presbyters,</HI> &s;o the&s;e ordinary Presbyters have no power in Ordination.</P>
<P>For <HI>Acts</HI> 13. he &s;aith, the&s;e &s;eem to be extra|ordinary Elders. 1. <HI>Partly by their Ambulatory cour&s;e [ordinary Elders are no where de&s;cribed by the title of Doctors only.</HI>] 2. <HI>Partly becau&s;e it is evident &s;ome of them were extraordi|nary Prophets, yet they are all put together as equal.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> 1. How will Mr. <HI>N.</HI> prove that <HI>all</HI> the <HI>Prophets</HI> and <HI>Teachers</HI> which were in the Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> u&s;ed that ambulatory cour&s;e? had not this Church a &s;etled Presby|tery? that were &s;trange; how was it in <HI>Corinth?</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Teachers,</HI> when taken di&s;tinct from other Officers, [as here] I think u&s;e to &s;ignifie <HI>ordi|nary</HI> and <HI>&s;etled</HI> Officers. Why doth Mr. <HI>N.</HI>
<PB N="143" REF="77">&s;ay that ordinary <HI>Elders are nowhere de&s;cribed by the title of Doctors only?</HI> What difference be|tween <GAP DESC="foreign"> here, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11. there as here, di&s;tinct from Prophets. So I think <GAP DESC="foreign"> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28. el&s;e we mu&s;t find no ordinary preaching Elders there.</P>
<P N="3">3. Though there were &s;ome extraordinary Officers there, yet that hinders not, but the whole teaching Presbytery of <HI>Antioch</HI> might joyn in the &s;eparation of <HI>Paul,</HI> and &s;o in im|po&s;ing of hands: how will Mr. <HI>N.</HI> prove the <HI>Teachers</HI> were excluded; neither doth it follow, becau&s;e they are numbred together therefore they were equal. Prophets here [as in other Texts] are named <HI>before,</HI> and as <HI>di&s;tinct</HI> from Teachers.</P>
<P><HI>But ordinary Presbyters might not impo&s;e upon extraordinary Presbyters,</HI> this I think he would have; but have you a Scripture-rule which forbids it? what if God will have it &s;o. If <HI>Paul</HI> were now made the Apo&s;tle of the Gentiles, as all that I &s;ee but Mr. <HI>N.</HI> do acknowledge, then though only the Prophets had Impo&s;ed, yet here inferiour officers impo&s;ed on &s;uperiour: for Apo&s;tles were &s;uperiour to Prophets, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28. <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11. and I hope by the &s;ame rea&s;on a Presbytery might impo&s;e on <HI>Timotby</HI> an <HI>Evan|geli&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>Thus Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI> and the Synod of <HI>N.E.</HI> &s;ay Presbyters [not extraordinary] impo&s;ed hands on <HI>Timothy</HI> an Evangeli&s;t.</P>
<P>To &s;ay inferiour may not impo&s;e, when the Text &s;aith, the&s;e did Impo&s;e, [and it lieth upon Mr. <HI>N.</HI> to prove which were excluded] is flatly to deny the Text.</P>
<PB N="144" REF="78">
<P>But Mr. <HI>N.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>He was no Apo&s;tle yet, and his proof is, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tles long after this time gave him the right hand of fellow&s;hip.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> 1. If there were no Apo&s;tles at <HI>Antioch</HI> now [as doubtle&s;s there were none, for then they would have been mentioned as well as inferiour Officers] then Apo&s;tles could not <HI>now</HI> give him the right hand of fellow&s;hip.</P>
<P N="2">2. Why &s;hould their right hand of fellow&s;hip make him an Apo&s;tle? that I &s;uppo&s;e he doth not mean; he was one before they gave him the right hand [it is &s;o in inferiour Officers.] <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith he was called to be an Apo&s;tle, <HI>Rom.</HI> 1.1. What, when they gave him the right hand of fellow&s;hip? or here where God &s;aith &s;o? <HI>I have called him.</HI> Mr. <HI>N.</HI> in this is &s;ingular, and his proofs not &s;ufficient.</P>
<P>He further proveth that they <HI>as</HI> extraordina|ry per&s;ons did Impo&s;e, becau&s;e <HI>there was an ex|traordinary and &s;en&s;ible gift conferred on Timo|thy:</HI> and thus much he in&s;inuateth in his fourth Argument. <HI>The extraordinary gift cea&s;eth in re&s;pect of Ordination;</HI> ergo <HI>it mu&s;t be removed, as from prayers for the &s;ick and con|verts, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> This is &s;omewhat like, and this I have heard urged; I know nothing to take off Im|po&s;ition but this, if it can be proved. If Mr. <HI>N.</HI> can carry this, he &s;hall carry me: But how proves he this? Thus; it had this effect upon <HI>Timothy, ergo.</HI> What? it had the &s;ame upon <HI>all,</HI> and this was the end of Impo&s;ition. But this Mr. <HI>N.</HI> mu&s;t prove: If I can prove the contrary, then I mu&s;t tell Mr. <HI>N.</HI> to argue <HI>a particulari
<PB N="145" REF="78">ad univer&s;ale</HI> is none of the be&s;t Logick. But of <HI>Timothy</HI> more anon.</P>
<P N="1">1. The Apo&s;tles <HI>Acts</HI> 6. when they Impo&s;ed hands, did it not to confer &s;uch gifts. For 1. They &s;ay plainly it was to <HI>appoint</HI> them, <HI>v.</HI> 3. <HI>to &s;uch a work, i. e.</HI> they were made Deacons [I think Mr. <HI>N.</HI> will not deny.] 2. They were to &s;eek out men <HI>full of the Holy Gho&s;t and wi&s;e|dom;</HI> they were then gifted before Impo&s;iti|on.</P>
<P N="2">2. In <HI>Acts</HI> 13.3. when the Prophets and Teachers were commanded to Impo&s;e hands on <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas,</HI> the end was not to confer extraordinary gifts; <HI>Paul</HI> was <HI>filled with the Holy Gho&s;t, Acts</HI> 9. when <HI>Ananias</HI> Impo&s;ed hands. The end here was to <HI>&s;eparate</HI> them, &amp;c. the Old Te&s;tament-word.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Timothy</HI> had command to Impo&s;e hands [in Ordination I doubt not] 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.22. But that <HI>Timothy</HI> conferred extraordinary gifts, is a task for Mr. <HI>N.</HI> to undertake to prove. <HI>Philip</HI> was an Evangeli&s;t, but it &s;eems he could not do it. <HI>Acts</HI> 8.15, 17. <HI>Peter</HI> and <HI>John</HI> the Apo|&s;tles did this: be&s;ides that all the ordinary Presbyters [for I hope &s;ome were ordinary] had extraordinary gifts, &s;eems &s;trange.</P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>Timothy</HI> is charged to <HI>commit the things, &amp;c. to ahle</HI> men. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.2. So <HI>Titus</HI> hath order &s;ent him to Ordain men qualified, gifted, &s;uch as mu&s;t be <HI>able by &s;ound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gain-&s;ayers.</HI> So in 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.2. the Bi&s;hop mu&s;t be <GAP DESC="foreign"> what need this caution? For if they by Impo&s;ition of hands, could confer extraordinary gifts,
<PB N="146" REF="79">they could make them <HI>able,</HI> be they never &s;o weak before. As we finde in <HI>Acts</HI> 8. and <HI>Acts</HI> 19. when the Apo&s;tles after Bapti&s;m Impo&s;ed hands, they did not look at their ability or inability, they made them able pre&s;ently.</P>
<P N="5">5. Impo&s;ition was in practice before this time under the Old Te&s;tament, from whence [as &s;ay our Divines] it was tran&s;lated into the New Te&s;tament, <HI>Numb.</HI> 8.10. But I hope the I&s;raelites did not thereby confer extraordinary gifts, it was one Act in their &s;eparation of the Levites.</P>
<P>Now for <HI>Timothy,</HI> who is the only proof of Mr. <HI>N.</HI> his Argument. I wi&s;h Mr. <HI>N.</HI> had opened the Text more fully. What was this <HI>Prophe&s;ie?</HI> One thus, He will have Ordina|tion be <HI>in facie Eccle&s;iae cum propheti&acirc;, i. e. cum recitatione, &amp; interpretatione verbi Divini de Mini&s;terio Euangelii.</HI> But this gives no con|tent. <HI>Zanchy</HI> under&s;tands that <HI>Timothy</HI> came by that gift <HI>by Prophe&s;ie,</HI> i.e. <HI>Per &s;acrarum literarum interpretationes quas partim jam inde ab ip&s;a juventute didicerat, partim ab Apo&s;tolo acceperat:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">The <HI>Ley|den Pro|fe&s;.</HI> un|der&s;tand <HI>Prophe&s;ie</HI> as doth <HI>Zanch.</HI> Di&s;p. 42. S 37.</NOTE> Deinde idem Donum confirmatum in eo fuit &amp; aucium per impo&s;itionem manuum, cum fuit Ordinatus.</HI> If this were all, this would not &s;o confirm Mr. <HI>N.</HI> his notion: for why may not the Lord increa&s;e the gift of a Mini&s;ter, and confirme it at his Ordination, by means of that Ordinance. If he hath done it, may be not do it &s;till? Let him give me a rea&s;on. <HI>Nos vero non negamus gratiam. i. e.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>conferri in ordinatione,</HI> &s;aith great <HI>Chamier.</HI> Then Impo&s;ition need not be ca&s;t
<PB N="147" REF="79">out for this: for Mr. <HI>N.</HI> mu&s;t prove it was an <HI>extraordinary</HI> gift which <HI>Timothy</HI> had nothing of before, and which this Presbytery by Im|po&s;ition conferred; which I think he will not ea&s;ily do.</P>
<P>Others under&s;tand by Prophe&s;ie a <HI>Revelation</HI> made to <HI>Paul</HI> concerning <HI>Timothy.</HI> So <HI>Beliar|min,</HI> with which the thoughts of mo&s;t agree, a Revelation made by &s;ome Prophets which then were in the Church, by which he was de&s;igned to the Mini&s;try,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Loc.</NOTE> <HI>&amp; po&s;t ea per Impo|&s;itionem mannum fuit in eo confirmatus &amp; qua&s;i inve&s;titus,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Gerhard.</HI> And this the Apo&s;tle mentions, both for the commendation of <HI>Timothy,</HI> and for his excu&s;e, being yet &s;o young, and el&s;e in regard of years unfit for &s;o great an Office. See <HI>Gerh. Ib.</HI></P>
<P>For this <GAP DESC="foreign"> the thoughts of Divines are very various; but the mo&s;t probable fall under one of the&s;e two heads. 1. Either tho&s;e gracious qualifications by which he was fitted for his work. Or 2. The <HI>Docendi officium,</HI> the very office and place unto which men through grace are fitted. So <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6. This is mo&s;t generally received. <HI>Gerhard</HI> takes in both, but doth not reckon extraordinary gifts; he &s;aith, <HI>Gratiam docendi, exhortandi, Scripturas interpretandi, contradictores redarguendi.</HI> I think he &s;aith true&s;t. Yet as <HI>Zanchy</HI> before, &s;o I conceive <HI>Timothy</HI> had &s;ome degree of tho&s;e gifts before, though now more increa&s;ed and confirmed.</P>
<P N="2">2. But if the gifts were extraordinary, let him tell us how <HI>Timothy</HI> &s;hould &s;tir up <HI>extraordinary</HI> gifts.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="148" REF="80">3. Where doth he finde extraordinary gifts conferred by a <HI>Presbytery?</HI> which is here di&s;tinct from <HI>Paul,</HI> who was an extraordinary Officer. <HI>Presbyter</HI> is the common word for an ordinary Pa&s;tor in the New Te&s;tament; and when it is named as di&s;tinct from other extraordinary Officers, I know not why it &s;hould not be meant of an ordinary Presbyter, and &s;o this Presbytery but ordinary: to <HI>&s;ay</HI> this gift was extraordinary, and the Presbytery extraordinary without &s;ufficient proof will not &s;atisfie a rational man.</P>
<P N="4">4. I had another Notion, but was afraid to &s;et it down, le&s;t I &s;hould be charged with &s;ingu|larity, as is Mr. <HI>N.</HI> 't was this, Suppo&s;e the gift were extraordinary, yet it &s;hould &s;eem to be given <GAP DESC="foreign">, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. And <GAP DESC="foreign">, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.6. <GAP DESC="foreign"> is joyned to both; &s;o that this gift came <HI>by</HI> Prophe&s;ie, as much as by hands. And if withal <GAP DESC="foreign"> comprehends the <HI>Mini&s;terium eccle&s;ia&s;ticum</HI> to which <HI>Timothy</HI> was ordained, he being by <HI>Prophe&s;ie</HI> de&s;igned to it being <HI>young,</HI> the Pre&s;|bytery might well Impo&s;e hands with <HI>Paul</HI> to &s;eparate him to his office, as <HI>Paul</HI> being com|manded to be &s;eparated, &amp;c. <HI>Acts</HI> 13.3. Here the prepo&s;ition is changed, it is not <GAP DESC="foreign">, but <GAP DESC="foreign">. I knew no hurt in this Notion, nor what fault could be found with it, only (as I &s;aid) I feared &s;ingularity. But ca&s;ting my eye upon <HI>Diodati</HI> I &s;aw he concurred with me in my Notion. <HI>By the Impo&s;ition of</HI> Paul's <HI>hands,</HI> 2 Tim. 1.16. Timothy <HI>received the extraordinary gift. By
<PB N="149" REF="80">the Impo&s;ition of the Colledge of Elders hands,</HI> 1 Tim. 4.14. <HI>He was in&s;talled in the Mini&s;try with a publick ble&s;&s;ing.</HI> Thus he on 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.6.</P>
<P><HI>Didoclavius,</HI> whom reverend Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI> follows, ob&s;erved the difference in the phra&s;e, but whether he meant as Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI> doth I know not. For thus Mr. <HI>Hooker,</HI> <Q>By gift he under&s;tands tho&s;e gracious abilities which <HI>Timothy</HI> received by the &s;pirit in way of Prophe&s;ie, whence he was fitted to be an Evangeli&s;t. It is <HI>by</HI> the hands of <HI>Paul</HI> there is a cau&s;al vertue under Chri&s;t of con&s;titu|tion: but it is <HI>with</HI> the hands of the Elder|&s;hip, as concurring by way of Approbation only.</Q> Thus he. That <HI>Paul's</HI> hands &s;hould <HI>cau&s;aliter con&s;tituere</HI> gracious qualifications, and that the hands of the Elder&s;hip &s;hould onely concur by way of Approbation that <HI>Timothy</HI> &s;hould have &s;uch qualifications &s;eems &s;omething odd: What need of their concur|rence or approbation? Nor do I think <HI>con&s;ti|tution</HI> here is taken in that &s;en&s;e the New Te&s;ta|ment doth u&s;e it.</P>
<P>I hope by this time this Argument of Mr. <HI>N.</HI> u&s;ed by our Brethren doth not appeare &s;trong enough to remove Impo&s;ition: as for the re&s;t of his Arguments I will now take them in order, omitting what is needle&s;s.</P>
<P>His fir&s;t Argument is, <HI>Impo&s;ition is not war|ranted in Ordination by Impo&s;ition on the Levites.</HI> He giveth divers rea&s;ons; I can yield to divers things without hurting my cau&s;e.</P>
<P>His fift rea&s;on, <HI>I&s;rael Impo&s;ed hands on the
<PB N="150" REF="81">Levites, to &s;ignifie that they were to bear their &s;ins, and make attonement for them,</HI> Exod. 29.</P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> 1. There is no &s;uch thing mentioned in the Chapter quoted. In <HI>Numb.</HI> 18.3. the <HI>Levites</HI> were not to meddle with the Prie&s;ts office; no not to &s;prinkle blood. 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 30.16.</P>
<P N="2">2. The 14. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> tells us it was a part of the <HI>&s;eparation</HI> of the Levites: nor do we make this our fir&s;t warrant.</P>
<P>His fift rea&s;on, <HI>This was a Jewi&s;h Ceremony, and why &s;hould this, all other being abrogated, be only re&s;erved.</HI></P>
<P>Let the Apo&s;tles give the An&s;wer; Why did they u&s;e it? and <HI>Paul</HI> bid <HI>Timothy</HI> u&s;e it? Let him blame <HI>Paul if Impo&s;ition upon the Ordained be a Ceremonial Law which took end by the coming of Chri&s;t, then the Apo&s;tles were injurious unto his death, who tran&s;lated that Ceremony from the Jews under the Law into the Church under the Go&s;pel,</HI> &s;aith Mr. <HI>Cartwright, Reply p.</HI> 221. More anon.</P>
<P>His &s;econd Argument from <HI>Heb.</HI> 6.2. <HI>doth not hold it forth in point of Ordination, but it is a fundamental principle of religion, u&s;ed figura|tively for the gift of the Holy Gho&s;t, which is &s;ig|nified and conferred.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> Then Mr. <HI>N.</HI> of all men mu&s;t not exclude Ordination, in which it conferred extraordi|nary gifts [as he hath affirmed before] for that time then it mu&s;t comprehend Ordination; his own Notion confutes him&s;elf.</P>
<P N="2">2. I think as he &s;aith [and &s;o in his &s;ixth rea&s;on, which I will therefore omit] it was a <HI>fundamental principle,</HI> and therefore &s;hould
<PB N="151" REF="81">&s;tand &s;o long as the Church &s;tands. Let the Reader be plea&s;ed to ca&s;t his eye upon what I have &s;aid concerning the Text before.</P>
<P>His fir&s;t rea&s;on hath there its an&s;wer al&s;o.</P>
<P>His &s;econd and third rea&s;ons, I think, aim both at the &s;ame thing. <HI>Doctrine is added to Bapti&s;m, and Impo&s;ition, to intimate the doctrine of the Ordinance, not the Ordinance it &s;elf was intended: the communication of the Spirit is the thing &s;ignified, or the doctrine of Impo&s;ition.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> Is indeed the Doctrine of Bapti&s;m here only intended, and not the Ordinance of Bap|ti&s;m it &s;elf? I mu&s;t reque&s;t him to excu&s;e me, I intend not to give &s;o much advantage to the <HI>Socinians.</HI> I think the Ordinance is plainly in|ded, and &s;o is Impo&s;ition.</P>
<P N="2">2. Doth not the Apo&s;tle then <HI>Tautologize?</HI> Do not <HI>Repentance</HI> and <HI>Faith</HI> comprehend much of the doctrine of Bapti&s;m? why &s;hould the Ordinance be mentioned if not intended?</P>
<P N="3">3. What error is there if we read the words dividedly, with a Comma betwixt <GAP DESC="foreign">, as do the <HI>Tigurin</HI> and <HI>Aethiopick</HI> Ver|&s;ions. So <HI>Oecumenius, Luther, Era&s;mus, Gagnaeus,</HI> as <HI>Gerhard</HI> &s;aith, and the Greek do not oppo&s;e it; Thus <HI>Cajetan</HI> and <HI>Aretius:</HI> See their Com|ments. Then this notion fails, and it will make yet more for my Interpretation.</P>
<P N="4">4. But let us &s;uppo&s;e the Doctrine of Impo|&s;ition be here intended: Yet as <HI>Aretius</HI> &s;aith well <HI>in loc. De hac ceremonia admonebantur Neophyti, quandoquidem tum in frequenti erat u&s;u, quid illa e&s;&s;et, cur in&s;tituta, quibus, &amp; per
<PB N="152" REF="82">quos imponerentur manus: item ad quid condu|ceret di&s;cebant Fidei Tyrones.</HI> Very good: mu&s;t not then the <HI>Neophyti</HI> an&s;wer, Hands were Im|po&s;ed in Ordination of Church Officers? If we come to teach ours this head of Catechi&s;m, and they mu&s;t an&s;wer according to Mr. <HI>N.</HI> his notion, they may well &s;ay, What is this to us? how is it a foundation to us, the thing is cea&s;ed &s;o many hundred years &s;ince? [be&s;ides what I have before &s;aid.] But according to our Interpretation, we both open the Doctrine, we u&s;e the thing, and it remains as yet a Foundation to us. The old holy <HI>non-confor|mi&s;ts</HI> tell us how they look upon the Mini|&s;try: there was an objection made, <HI>We have been taught heretofore that Di&s;cipline is an e&s;&s;ential part of the Go&s;pel and matter of Faith.</HI> To this they an&s;wer,</P>
<P><Q>That Di&s;cipline of the Church [being ge|nerally under&s;tood] is a matter of Faith, and an e&s;&s;ential mark of the Church, I hope our Brethren will not deny; for Di&s;cipline comprehendeth not only the Admini&s;tration of the Keys, but Ordination and Impo&s;ition of hands: but without Ordination there are no Preachers, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.15. and without Preaching there is no belief, <HI>v.</HI> 14. Where|fore without &s;ome part of Di&s;cipline it cannot be denied but that the Church is no Church, Faith no Faith. Thus they.</Q> This &s;uites Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI>'s expo&s;ition of our Text.</P>
<P N="5">5. If the confirmation and increa&s;ing of or|dinary gifts be the Spirit's work, then &s;till it may hold, as <HI>Zanch.</HI> and <HI>Chamier</HI> before.</P>
<PB N="153" REF="82">
<P>His fourth and fifth rea&s;ons are an&s;wered before: onely whereas he &s;aith, <HI>Impo&s;ition is added as an explicative adjunct of Bapti&s;m.</HI> It &s;hould &s;eem no [be&s;ides what have been &s;aid] there being &s;o few heads enumerated, it's un|likely the Apo&s;tle would add an Adjunct to this ordinance, [which I think he cannot prove was alwayes at Bapti&s;me.] I thinke al&s;o this cro&s;&s;eth the former head, wherein he &s;aid, Not Bapti&s;me, but the Doctrine of Bapti&s;me is in|tended.</P>
<P>His &s;eventh it is interpreted in the next, <HI>v.</HI> 4, 5. <HI>Illumination an&s;wers to repentance, Ta&s;te of the heavenly gift to Faith, the participation of the Holy Gho&s;t to the doctrine of Impo&s;ition and Bap|ti&s;me, the ta&s;ting of the good word to the re&s;ur|rection.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> This doth not plea&s;e. Illumination, as mo&s;t under&s;tand the word belonging to the Intellectual part, and repentance to the heart, do not &s;eem to an&s;wer. I know <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the 1. <HI>v.</HI> if the word be taken &s;trictly as the word &s;ounds belongs to the minde, but &s;o as it's Act is perfected in the heart; it is <GAP DESC="foreign">. The <HI>Syriack</HI> render <GAP DESC="foreign"> otherwi&s;e; and that Bapti&s;me is taken for Illumination among the Ancients, according to the <HI>Syriack</HI> who knows not; <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. <HI>Ju&s;t. Mart. Apol.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 94. So <HI>Clem. Alex. Paedag. l.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 93, 95. So <HI>Greg. Naz. Orat.</HI> 40.</P>
<P N="2">2. Mr. <HI>N.</HI> &s;aith, Ju&s;tifying Faith is &s;ignified in Bapti&s;me, then not in the word <HI>Faith</HI> ex|pre&s;&s;ed in the Text, then Faith mu&s;t be taken
<PB N="154" REF="83">in a large &s;en&s;e, and this will rather an&s;wer to Illumination then repentance.</P>
<P N="3">3. How doth <HI>Re&s;urrection</HI> an&s;wer to the <HI>Ta&s;te of the good</HI> word; when as Re&s;urrection is a terrible word to mo&s;t. The <HI>good word of pro|mi&s;e</HI> rather, the promi&s;e contains good.</P>
<P N="4">4. Why doth he make one word to an&s;wer Bapti&s;m and Impo&s;ition, when they were divided in the Text; and Mr. <HI>N.</HI> hath not yet proved that they went <HI>always</HI> together.</P>
<P N="5">5. Why may not the <HI>participation of the Holy Gho&s;t</HI> have re&s;pect al&s;o to &s;uch <HI>gifts</HI> as are given now in our days? for do we not ob&s;erve [with trembling] how &s;ome lo&s;e their gifts, even eminent gifts, profe&s;&s;ion, and &s;o fall away, as never more return? &s;hould it be tied up only to <HI>extraordinary gifts</HI> [which I do not believe] yet tho&s;e were given in Ordination, as Mr. <HI>N.</HI> &s;aith, &s;o that for that time Impo&s;ition mu&s;t be comprehended.</P>
<P>His eighth: <HI>Impo&s;ition is made a principle from which it was nece&s;&s;ary an Apo&s;tate &s;hould fall if finally: but it is not nece&s;&s;ary that one &s;hould be in&s;tructed touching the office of the Mini&s;try: one may be &s;aved, and yet be ignorant in the point of Ordination, and one may fall away finally though ignorant in this re&s;pect.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> I know not what he means by the Apo|&s;tates falling from the <HI>principle.</HI> He doth not mean, I &s;uppo&s;e, that a man mu&s;t have fir&s;t tho&s;e extraordinary gifts, and &s;o fall from them, el&s;e not an Apo&s;tate; there are too many Apo&s;tates yet never reached tho&s;e gifts.</P>
<P N="2">2. One may be &s;aved as well though he doth
<PB N="155" REF="83">not under&s;tand the extraordinary gifts con|ferred by <HI>Impo&s;ition.</HI> I pre&s;ume Mr. <HI>N.</HI> doth not think the Apo&s;tles conferred the Holy Gho&s;t in a <HI>gracious &s;aving</HI> way by Impo&s;ition.</P>
<P N="3">3. It is one thing for a per&s;on to be ignorant of Ordination, another to be ignorant of that which Ordination holds out; of what nece&s;&s;ity the Mini&s;try is, Mr. <HI>Cartwright</HI> and the <HI>Non-Conformi&s;ts</HI> [before mentioned] tell us. So the Scripture. But Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI> takes it in a larger &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P N="4">4. I think there are few Apo&s;tates who have been ignorant of the Mini&s;try; for tho&s;e who have been ignorant of this, never came to &s;o much as the Text expre&s;&s;es; then they cannot fall away from what they never had.</P>
<P>His ninth: <HI>If we &s;hould under&s;tand the do|cirine of the Mini&s;try by Impo&s;ition, then we mu&s;t exclude the Admini&s;tration of Bapti&s;me in the principle of Bapti&s;me, becau&s;e Bapti&s;me in this con&s;ideration belongeth unto the Mini&s;try, and therefore cannot [unle&s;s it &s;ignifie the doctrine of Bapti&s;me onely] be a di&s;tinct principle from Im|po&s;ition. And if we make Bapti&s;me it &s;elfe toge|ther with the doctrine which it holds forth a di|&s;tinct principle, and the doctrine of Impo&s;ition together with the Admini&s;tration of it in Ordi|nation another di&s;tinct principle, to what principle &s;hall we refer the Lord's Supper.</HI></P>
<P>If I mi&s;take Mr. <HI>N.</HI> in what he would have, I mu&s;t craye pardon; I wi&s;h he had been more clear, but as I under&s;tand him, &s;o I an&s;wer. The Lord's Supper being of the &s;ame nature with Bapti&s;m; a &s;igne to repre&s;ent, a &s;eale to
<PB N="156" REF="84">confirm, an in&s;trument to convey, &amp;c. [as &s;ay our old Catechi&s;ms] well may it be referred to Bapti&s;me. As for Bapti&s;me, it being 1. An Ordinance &s;o long practi&s;ed before by <HI>John.</HI> 2. The initiating Sacrament. 3. An&s;wering all tho&s;e Bapti&s;mes the <HI>Hebrews</HI> knew well. 4. At this time greatly e&s;teemed and practi&s;ed. 5. The &s;pirit fore-&s;eeing our times wherein that Ordi|nance would be &s;lighted and ca&s;t out, as now it is, no wonder though this be expre&s;ly &s;et down, to which the other is fitly referred.</P>
<P>If the Lord's Supper be referred to Bapti&s;me [as there is rea&s;on why it &s;hould] and the Mini&s;try [which will include Preaching and Di&s;cipline] be under&s;tood in Impo&s;ition of hands, then we may have in the&s;e few heads the &s;umme of tho&s;e Doctrines which are ne|ce&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation and a vi&s;ible Church in the Ordinances and Officers held forth.</P>
<P>His tenth: <HI>Interpreters apply this to con|firmation,</HI> not all, I named &s;ome before that are of another opinion. But if we &s;hould lo&s;e this Text, yet we have not lo&s;t our cau&s;e.</P>
<P>His third Argument I an&s;wered fir&s;t.</P>
<P>His fourth is al&s;o as good as an&s;wered: this it is, <HI>If we mu&s;t remove Impo&s;ition from converts, from prayers for the &s;ick, if from</HI> any, <HI>why not</HI> all; <HI>the extraordinary gift cea&s;eth in re&s;pect of Ordination, as well as in re&s;pect of other Admi|ni&s;trations.</HI> The &s;trength of the Argument lying upon the <HI>extraordinary gift,</HI> this is an|&s;wered before.</P>
<P>Then he meets with an Objection. <Q>It may be a &s;acred &s;ign in Ordination to &s;ignifie the
<PB N="157" REF="84">con&s;ecration of a per&s;on to admini&s;ter holy things;</Q> or if he had plea&s;ed to have added to &s;hew the <HI>De&s;ignation,</HI> the <HI>Separation,</HI> the <HI>Appointing</HI> of this per&s;on to his office. As the Congregation &s;aw <HI>Jo&s;hua</HI> and knew him ap|pointed to his office when <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> impo&s;ed hands and charged him.]</P>
<P>To this he an&s;wers, 1. <HI>It was not of this u&s;e in the con&s;ecration of Prie&s;ts and Levites.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> Why not? he &s;hould have told us of what u&s;e it was, not to confer <HI>extraordinary gifts</HI> I am &s;ure. Omitting what might be &s;aid, let <HI>Peter Martyr</HI> &s;peak for the re&s;t of our Divines.
<NOTE PLACE="marg">Loc. Com. de. Voca. admini&s;t.</NOTE> He reciting the &s;everal rites of the old con&s;e|cration both of <HI>Prie&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Levites,</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Haec externa ratio eo valuit ut populus intelligeret eos e&s;&s;e</HI> jam <HI>mini&s;tros &s;ibi de&s;ignatos a Deo: &s;ublatis autem i&s;tis umbris nobis nihil relinquitur ni&s;i Impo&s;itio manuum.</HI> Thus al&s;o <HI>Zanc.</HI> 4. <HI>praec. p.</HI> 785.</P>
<P N="2">2. He &s;aith <HI>It is not of this u&s;e in Ordination of Deacons.</HI></P>
<P><HI>A.</HI> I &s;hall only give him Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI>'s words,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sur. Chu.</HI> p. 3. p. 9.</NOTE> <HI>The Lord Chri&s;t in his Infinite wi&s;edome and Kingly care conceived it nece&s;&s;ary for the honour of the place, and execution of the work of a Deacon to appoint choi&s;e men, &amp; &s;olemn Ordina|tion to</HI> Authorize <HI>them to the work.</HI> If a Deacon be only the <HI>Trea&s;urer</HI> of the Church, he had need be de&s;igned and authorized to it; but Mr. <HI>Noyes,</HI> who writeth again&s;t ruling Elders, giving all their work to the Deacon,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">p. 23.</NOTE> had more cau&s;e to allow of it. Let him &s;hew us Deacons in Scripture ordained without <HI>Impo&s;ition</HI> of hands.</P>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="85">
<HEAD>Errata.</HEAD>
<P><HI>PAge</HI> 3. <HI>line</HI> 16. <HI>read</HI> review. <HI>p.</HI> 13. <HI>l.</HI> 7. <HI>r.</HI> Chri&s;t. <HI>p.</HI> 14. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>r.</HI> if. <HI>p.</HI> 16. in the <HI>Syriack</HI> word put <HI>Tau</HI> in the place of <HI>Ae. p.</HI> 21. <HI>l.</HI> 17. <HI>r.</HI> Ordinance. <HI>p.</HI> 22. <HI>l.</HI> 31. <HI>r. Mu&s;culus. p.</HI> 38. <HI>l.</HI> 17. <HI>r.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 39. <HI>l.</HI> 19. <HI>r.</HI> Congregation. <HI>p.</HI> 49. <HI>l.</HI> 10. <HI>r.</HI> from be|ing. <HI>p.</HI> 51. <HI>l.</HI> 6. <HI>r.</HI> me. <HI>p.</HI> 52. <HI>l.</HI> 15. <HI>after</HI> have <HI>r.</HI> judged this. <HI>p.</HI> 63. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>r.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>p.</HI> 79. <HI>The Arabick words have neither the Vowels nor Orthographical notes placed right; the words &s;hould be</HI> wa&s;amou lahom, <HI>with</HI> elif quie&s;cens <HI>placed after</HI> Sin. <HI>p.</HI> 80. <HI>l.</HI> 12. <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>p.</HI> 92. <HI>l.</HI> 34. <HI>r.</HI> others. <HI>p.</HI> 93. <HI>l.</HI> 20. <HI>r.</HI> think. <HI>p.</HI> 102. <HI>l.</HI> 30. <HI>r.</HI> committing. <HI>p.</HI> 103. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>r.</HI> 1. Titus. <HI>p.</HI> 114. <HI>l.</HI> 24. <HI>r.</HI> communem. <HI>p.</HI> 121. <HI>l.</HI> 8. <HI>r.</HI> eccle&s;iae. <HI>p.</HI> 130. <HI>l.</HI> 19. <HI>r.</HI> words. <HI>p.</HI> 138. <HI>l.</HI> 24. <HI>after had r.</HI> no.</P>
<P>Some few other faults in the Greek, and pointing, but the judicious Reader will &s;oon correct them.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="license">
<PB REF="85">
<PB REF="86">
<P>THe Admi&s;&s;ion of per&s;ons baptized in their infancy, without due Tryal of their Faith &amp; growth in Chri&s;t, when grown in years, to a full participation of all Church-Privileges &amp; Ordi|nances, hath cau&s;ed great confu&s;ion in the Ad|mini&s;tration of holy things; And therefore, I conceive, the Learned Author of this Elaborate exercitation hath de&s;erved well of the Churches, by clearing the way of tho&s;e Admi&s;&s;ions from Scripture-grounds, and the concurrent Te&s;ti|monies of many, both Antient and Modern writers; As al&s;o, by di&s;covering and removing tho&s;e Popi&s;h additions and pollutions which by &s;everal &s;teps and degrees have crept into it. And if what he hath offered in this E&s;&s;ay come not up to the Judgement and Practice of the be&s;t con&s;tituted Churches; yet this ingenuous and pious overture holds out more than mo&s;t Churches have hitherto attained, and may pro|voke the zeal of many to hold out what they have attained, as more commodious for, and perfective of the much-de&s;ired and longed-for re&s;tauration of the Churches to their privitive purity, both in &s;eparating the pretious from the vile, and in uniting the pretious into a more beautiful and beneficial Order among them|&s;elves. The&s;e con&s;iderations have confirmed me in giving not only Licen&s;e to the publi&s;hing, but thanks to the Publi&s;her of this di&s;cour&s;e of Confirmation.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Jo&s;eph Caryl.</SIGNED>
<DATELINE><DATE>The 24^t^h of the 6th. Moneth, 1657.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
