Churches parallel to Corinth in all things because there is the form of that sin which was in Corinth called Schism then if canseless separation from a Church be Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved there must needs by consequence be Schism also for posita forma ponitur formatum 4. The Doctor tells us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used in the Scripture for secession or separation into parties Division it doth signifie but doth the propriety of the word forbid it to signifie Division into parties in an Ecclesiastical sense it is used only in this particular example he saith therefore it can signifie no other I suppose the Syriack Translator was not of the Doctor 's mind for he useth that word in the 11. ch 18. 12. ch 25. which comes from the same root with Peleg Gen. 10.25 Whence Peleg had his name the text tells us and I think there was division into many parties the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primitive signification will carry a division into parts Matth. 27.51 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant the Septuagint * Other Greek Versions I have not to see do not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Kin. 11.11 31. yet why the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not be translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifie what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth I know not I conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but comprehends what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth This appears 1. By the Learned who as they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by findo scindo so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 findere scindere qui pannum aut aliquod ejusmodi continuum dirumpit c. Buxt Schind Pagn Merc. hence as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered scissura so the 70. in v. 30 31 render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scissurae So the vulgar render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 31. Nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifie the rending of a thing into parts in opposition to the Doctor 's notion more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For among the Physitians a rupture in a membrane the rending of a Muscle they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the part be not separated from the body so Gorraeus 2. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament is used and applied to such things as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament as to the rending of cloaths here and in divers other Texts So is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 19.24 Matth. 27.51 Luke 5.36 John 21.11 so that though the Hebrews have two other words which the learned render scindere findere yet none I conceive answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this doth There may be something in this that the Arabick in the 11. v. use that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the Noune in 1 Cor. 12.25 comes Whence I think we may properly say there was a great Schism in the Church and Commonwealth of Israel and here was separation with a witness To search over other Divines to see what they had said about Schism I thought it in vain because the Doctor had laid a bar against them all they are all mistaken and so 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 themselves in their definition of Schism men of great renown for learning and piety Dr. Ames and our Mr. Norton in N. E. in answer to the Q. Quid est schisma I find Ames thus answers Schisma dicitur a scindendo est scissio separatio disjunctio aut dissolutio Vnionis illius quae debet inter Christianos observari I was neerer to the Doctor 's definition then I was aware of but then he adds Quia autem haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita Communione Ecclesiastica recusanda idcirco illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recte vocatur Schisma thus he Mr. Norton thus Schisma est illicita separatio a Communione Ecclesiae semper grande malum I will look no further these are sufficient Now for the Catholick-Church I am to prove there may be Schism in it For my ground-work I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25 That there should be no Schism in the body If by the body in this text be meant the Catholick-Church visible then Schism may be in the catholick-Catholick-Church visible But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequence cannot be denied The Antecedent is to be proved That by the body is meant the Church the Doctor yields Schis p. 147. but what Church he speaks of is not evident the difference he speaks of in the individual persons of the Church is not in respect of office power and Authority but gifts and graces and usefulness on that account thus he But I had thought that by Apostles Prophets Teachers Helps Governments v. 28. he had properly spoken of office power and authority are gifts and graces meant by these words very strange But to come to our Text. If the Church be here meant then it is either the Church invisible or visible But not the invisible that the Chapter clears and the Doctor saith It 's impossible Schism should be in the invisible Church If visible then either the Catholick or a particular Church but not a particular Ergo This I grant that by body in one Text v. 27. a particular Church is mentioned because the Apostle applies what he had been speaking of before to this particular Church being a similar part of the Church-Catholick as our Mr. Norton and other Divines in the definition of a particular Church though some Physitians make different definitions as we respect the matter or form of a similar part yet I content my self with that definition which is commonly given What duties are enjoyned the Catholick-Church or what sins are forbidden these concern every particular Church for Christ giveth his Laws to the Catholick-Church primarily no particular Church hath a special law given to it as such whence well may the Apostle apply his speech to this particular Church but that the Apostle was not discoursing of a particular Church in viewing over the Chapter these arguments perswade me 1. It is such a body into which we are all baptized v. 13. but are we baptized into a particular Church is that the one body the Apostle means Let the Doctor speak Rev. p. 134. I am so far from confining Baptism subjectively to a particular Congregation that I do not believe that any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized As much he seems to intimate Schis p. 133. in his answer to this question wherein consists the unity of the Catholick-Church A. It is summoned up in Eph. 4.5 one Lord one Faith one Baptism It is the unity of the doctrine of faith
necessary to a Minister But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear for to what end was the power committed if it need not be executed it is to accuse Christ of want of wisedom to give a needless power to officers to command them to do a thing and order them strictly 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 some are bound to hear and to be baptized So in this 1. For the Antecedent 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands on no man suddenly p. 2. p. 50. In quo praecepto non solum exemplum sed mandatum continetur saith Walaeus That Ordination is here meant there is such a unanimous consent of the Church that I think there is no question of it Thus the Fathers Lutherans Calvinists Episcopal * Synod N. E. platf ch p. 11. M. Hooker Sur Ch. Disp p. 2. p. 74. Classical and Congregational yea though divers of the Papists do understand their Sacrament of Pennance yet Anselm Cajetan Cor. a Lap. Justin Salmeron understand it rather of Ordination But I must meet with this Text again and then I will prove it must be meant of Ordination 2. 2 Tim. 2.2 few Interpreters that I see touch that which I aim at i.e. How did Timothy commit or what was it for him to commit c. The things which we had heard not Traditions as the Papists hence gather for Quae Apostolus Timotheo viva voce tradidit Gerh. in loc sunt eadem cum illis quae scriptis consignavit he must commit To whom They must be faithful mon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to teaach others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysostom upon this Text and Cartwright in his Comment upon the speech of Christ to Nicodemus would make us believe it is not so easie a matter to be a Minister as our vain heads in these days take it to be But still how did Timothy commit these was it by teaching or preaching to them so he did commit them to weak men and women as well as able men was it by writing these so the whole Church had them committed This is clear the men must be able before the things be committed his teaching might help them to be able but being qualified and able how doth he commit them Surely by laying on of hands i.e. ordaining of them and thus separating them to the work of the Ministry he doth indeed commit them If this Interpretation do not please give me a better After much searching I found one or two go my way Non solum fideliter eos doceas sed etiam potestatem alios docendi ipsis conferas this is Commenting in Gerh. opinion Magna cura eligendus est Doctor saith Ambrose in loc If you lay hold of eligendus pray take it in a large sense as Ambrose doth and it was Timothy's election Anselm and Bullinger incline also this way The 3 Titus 5. Titus is left in Crete to Constitute or Ordain Elders I doe not remember that Clemens uses any other word but either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the same in his Epist ad Corin. when he speaks of the Apostles ordaining of Officers Doubtless saith Musculus as Paul left Titus to ordain Loc. Com. p. 198. so Titus kept the method Paul used i. e. election prayer and imposition of hands Those then that come into the Ministry in Crete they must be ordained In vain were those words to Timothy and Titus if ordination were such a needless thing Timothy and Titus also being Church-officers where is this popular election that is so much cried up to give the Essence One would think the Apostle should have given strict command to the people to look to their Election because it gave the Essence but not be so exact with Timothy and Titus who gave but an adjunct who can deny the adjunct or of what force is it when the essence is given before Timothy and Titus might well say nay Paul We are clear we must not ordain whom we will See separ exam p. 55. ad 59. but whom the people will to whom they give the essence if an unworthy fellow be chosen let the fault lie where it doth it cannot on us if we gave the essence it were true indeed whether we will ordain them or not that hinders not for they have the essence then act they may sure enough without us Arg. 3. It is necessary that he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Minister should shew true Authority by which he doth them But he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Minister without Ordination cannot shew true Authority by which he doth them Ergo Ordination is necessary to a Minister The Major is plain it holds in all Acts of Authority else a man is an usurper By what authority dost thou these things said they to Christ the question was rational if Christ had not Authority he would not have done them Minor He who shews true Authority for his Ministerial Acts must shew Scripture-authority But he that performs Ministerial Acts without Ordination cannot shew Scripture-authority Ergo. The major is plain The minor if any deny let them produce their scripture-Scripture-authorities He who is sufficiently qualified elected supposing there is a Church already and ordained this man I am sure may shew his Authority But he that is not Ordained cannot shew it I know no Scripture to warrant it Let our question be attended I have heard it affirmed and that strongly from a person of no small abilities that the Fraternity may Preach Baptize administen the Supper as well as the Pastor the common Scriptures urged by this wilde generation and Acts 10.48 were alledged I never heard that the Papists or our Bishops would allow any private man to baptize in a Church where there were Ministers present this text would force it if these men argue right provided they can prove that these brethren were private men and Peter not extraordinarily guided which yet they have not done But a little further 1. It was granted there are Church-Officers and shall be till the body be perfected Eph. 4. If so then these Officers have some things so proper to them that they are not common to others But if all men may preach baptize administer the Supper there is nothing proper to the Officers if any thing it must be government which first is by many denied But if it be yielded why may they not take this also as well as the rest but if Church-officers have nothing proper to them how are they officers That officers have something proper to them I think none can deuy the nature of the thing will carry it in all Officers If all can make warrants c. where is the office of a Justice and thus in other offices what is common to all is proper to none how are
Doctor hath delivered concerning Schism 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 cause in any point to appear cross to the Doctor with whom I have had so much inward familiarity whom I have so entirely loved and honoured and do still both honour and love CHAP. II. Concerning the Parochial Congregations in England I took it for granted that our Congregational brethren did look on the Parochial Congregations where they came and have gathered Churches as true Churches before they came there and so did not lay new foundations or gather Churches where there were none before only the Congregations being over-grown with persons grosly ignorant and scandalous for want of Catechizing and Discipline they did segregate such persons from Church-Communion till they got so much as might declare them to be visible Saints But one of these Ministers tell me I am mistaken if I be then I understand not our brethren all this while nor do I know when I shall for my part I have ever professed I looked on the Parochial Congregations as a true Church before I came to it though over-grown as before I said Those who were here and elected me to be their officer I look on my self as having sufficient authority over them by their election those who have come into Town since I do require their owning of me for their officer knowing that government here is founded upon consent and subjection to all ordinances if they demand the ordinances of me so far I go along with our brethren That many Parochial Congregations are true Churches I doubt not though the Presbyterial brethren have not proceeded so far as others have done and therefore the Congregational Brethren may safely have communion with them Some things let me premise and then I will give one argument or two 1. The want of some ordinances in a Church destroys not the truth of the Church Then there can be no homogeneal Church our brethren I hope will not allow the Fraternity being destitute of officers to baptize c. but yet a homogeneal Church they maintain much might be spoken here but I forbear Ecclesiastical Discipline which some alledge as being wanting in these Parochial Churches do not therefore deny them to be true Churches which yet in part they had for suspension it is well known The Rod is not of the essence of the family though the children may do ill where it is wanting Feast of Tabernacles Neh. 8.17 was long wanting 2. An officer usurping power in a Church doth not destroy the truth of the Church Diotrephes took more then was due The Bishops were but Ministers and did ministerial work if they took more power then the Lord gave them yet that doth not hinder the truth of the Churches What shall be said then to the Bishops in the primitve Churches I wish I had as much zeal and love to Christ as they had 3. Though many members be corrupt in doctrine and manners yet they do not take away the truth of a Church Corinth had too many of these and the officers might be faulty in tolerating of them but yet a true Church and I hardly think that Paul would have refused communion with the Church I doubt not but other Churches also had bad members The Churches which lived under Heathenish persecution were true Churches yet there are foul scandalous sins reported of some of the members 4. Reality of grace though desireable O very desireable yet is not absolutely requisite to the making of a visible Church though I think it is hard to find such a Church yet I know not but according to the rules we must go by in admitting of Church-members there may be a true visible Church where there is not one real true Saint Dare any Congregational Minister avouch the true grace of all the members of his Church will any Church excommunicate a person for want of true grace Did the Apostles when they admitted members search narrowly for the truth of grace 5. I had almost said It is as great a fault to keep out visible repenting believers willing to subject to all ordinances as it is to tolerate wicked persons in a Church If the Presbyterial brethren are guilty of the latter the Congregational are guilty of the former I think it as great a faultto sin against the lenity of Christ as against the severity of Christ It is true these wicked ones are a dishonour to Christ leaven to the lump but yet suspended from the Lord's Supper and they have not that means applied which might help to their souls salvation but it is that which these Ministers would gladly reach if they could they alledge the words of the Apostle their authority is for edification not destruction On the other side to keep out those who visibly appear like Christians when men have power to take in is to hinder these from being levened with true grace a great offence to the godly discouragement of souls and Magisterially to set up Rules which the Lord never appointed Who blame Bishops for setting up their posts by God's posts I know the word visible Believer is a contentious word but I understand one plainly thus Here is one that hath a competent knowledg of those grounds which are essential to salvation and believes them His estate by nature he understandeth and professeth he believeth in the Lord Jesus for life and salvation his conversation doth not confute his profession worships God in his family and subjects to all Christ's Ordinances for the private conferences of Christians and private fastings which sometimes they have though this were desireable to have them frequent them yet these in such a manner being free-will offerings I dare not tie up men to these or else debar them if he hath been scandalous he declareth his repentance cordially so far as charity can judge and proves it by some time would the Apostles have debarred such a person from the Church but I speak what I know persons who go thus far and further cannot yet be admitted to Church-fellowship Some would have us go to Rev. 21.15 and Rev. 11.2 to see the rules for Churches What they have drawn from hence I know not I have bestowed so much pains in reading of men upon the Revelation and find so little content in all that I read great Hooker of N.E. would say he would never forfeit his credit in undertaking those Scriptures where he could not make Demonstration that now I regard nothing which is said upon it One Text which I observed as I was reading through it in my course gave me more settlement then all I had read But alas good men do they carry us to their Symbolical Divinity to prove what they would have this will not prevail with judicious men I think the Apostolical practices must be our Reed to measure by
true nature of the Church So Mr. Hooker Sur. Ch. Dis part 1. pag. 47 48. So Mr. Norton Resp ad Apol. p. 22 28. So the Synod of New-England Cap. 4. S. 4. Arg. 2. If there be as much for substance in many Parochial congregations as there was in Corinth to make it a true Church then many Parochial congregations are true Churches But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear for the Church of Corinth was a true Church I hope For the Antecedent 1. It 's true we have not many preaching officers in one Parish as had that Church which I conceive did not all meet in the same place for Church-worship but in divers 2. Nor have we extraordinary Prophets as were in that Church though our brethren strangely make those a proof for their private members Prophesying as they call it yea and are so highly carried in their notions that if their Pastor be absent though there be another Minister preach in the Town they will not go to hear him but a Tradesman must Prophesie what this implies who seeth not if a Pastor be dead and the people goe to another congregation the Pastor whereof is of their own principles these have been charged by one of our Essex Independent Ministers with irregular walking for not staying at home and Prophesying a sin certainly against the eleventh commandement 3. Nor have we other extraordinary gifts as that Church had 4. Nor have we men ordained by the Apostles 5. Nor called by the Apostles for if these things doe weaken my argument then they doe as well cut off the congregational Churches to be true Churches But if the Church of Corinth had persons called by the Word some whereof were real Saints and some onely visible so have we If they had persons Officers who held out the faith of the Gospel in their teaching soundly so have we as sound as they did or could doe if not sounder such as build not hay nor stubble c. If they had the Ordinances of Christ so have we If they consented to worship God c. so doe ours These are the Essentials of that Church The Essence is perpetually the same but Vnaquaeque res vera dicitur a sua naturâ essentiâ If we have corrupt and erroneous members so had they Ours debarr'd suspended from the Lords Table a great part of Church-discipline but that their corrupt members were so I think will not easily be proved a great fault in the Officers who it seemes did not regard discipline scarce at all 2 Cor. 12.20 21. 13.2 Paul threatens that he will not spare Our Churches come to this by the oppression of the Hierarchy the Ministers else would have exercised Discipline but those had none to overtop them and yet were negligent How to get their Churches purer the Ministry find it hard to excommunicate a multitude our congregational brethren say no to separate from the rest our classical brethren are not clear they quote the Text 2 Cor. 10.8 Their authority is given for edification not destruction They must doe what they can by degrees which they are resolved upon and deserve to be encouraged by all More Arguments I could give as from the nullity of all the Ordinances which else must follow Also I wonder whether our congregational Ministers were converted in Parochial or congregational Churches But I forbear Hence then that congregational brethren may associate with the classical to me there is no question though my practice is something different from the classical brethren yet what they allow is so candid that I am rather thankful to them that they are so willing to associate with me That we way hold communion with a Church so far as we are intangled in no sin I think was never denied but so may we with the classical brethren For what though they baptize all and all of them do not though some do and more endeavour it bring their people to an explicite engagement yet they desire us not to have communion with all their members but with their compleat members i. e. those whom they admit to all Ordinances and I am sure those according to the rules drawn up would have gone for good Church-members in the Apostles days and I think should now so that we are called to associate onely with those who are as good members as our own As for their Baptizing of the Infants of such whom they debar from the Lords table though their arguments doe not convince men no not good Mr. Blake that man who now I hear is with God if he had I would have poofessed it to the world I doe more admire to see what answers so learned a man gives but that I have professed in my Epistle to the Reader that I would meddle no more with the question I find it very easie to take off at least in my apprehension what he hath said had but he cast the major proposition in p. 97. thus which he knew was my Scope Such as for manifest unworthiness de jure ought and de facto are debarr'd from the Lords Table c. To this I have spoken before Then see how his answer from Infants takes me off but I shall adde no more Now though he hath not satisfied me yet I look on the Arguments as more valid to prove the Infants of those scandalous persons should be baptized then are their arguments who cast out the Infants of repenting and believing parents from Baptism and the Church yet these our congregational brethren make no scruple to communicate with and to have such members in their Churches Are all the members of congregational Churches such as they ought to be visibly I doubt it Some are as offensive as many in Parochial Churches Should we therefore refuse communion one with another because of such Would Paul have done it at Corinth As for taking members out of other Parishes which our brethren stand upon so stiffely and without which there will be no Association this hath been the old breaking principle and resolved it seems they are to hold it In what cases and upon what conditions it shall be allowed our classical brethren have declared and I think sufficiently to give a heart that loves peace satisfaction For my own part I care not if the thing be yielded I think I might make as good a shift as another and have had tentations strong this way but I did never yet take up such a practice not out of any conscience to the Parish bounds but because I have to be that unworthy principle which hath chiefly kindled the fire in this poor Church Should I have done it because I looked on my way more pure then my neighbour-Ministers I knew the impurity of my own heart and looked on my Neighbour-Minister as more godly if I should think more highly of my own parts I knew my own weaknesse and might justly fear lest God should blast the little
answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the verse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 22. this being the last act of Paul and Barnabas when they had confirmed and exhorted the Disciples in v. 22. Ordained them Elders in v. 23. they commended them all Pastors and people to God I see Calvin Piscator Cor. a Lap. agree with me making no question of this Interpretation for they pass it over as granted And Musculus speaks my mind clearly Ergo jejunantes orantes quod in coetu fidelium fieri solebat ordinarunt Presbyteros a fidelibus electos observe he puts a difference between election and ordination in this verse post eam ordinationem commendaverunt ecclesiam Domino discesserunt 3. That Text in Acts 20.32 confutes this notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text to the 2. Aor voc med and we shall find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 14.23 Now the Apostle did not ordain these he calls them Elders and Bishops before and so they were but now taking his leave of them he commended them to God and so he did in Acts 14. departing from the Churches he commended them to God in whom they had believed 4. I cannot yet be convinced but that ordination is an act of authoritative power but commending of a person to God in prayer is no act of such power 5. The Scripture gives us another definition of Ordination as I shall shew afterwards ergo this is not the true definition Thus then I have made it clear that gifts and popular election are not sufficient to constitute a Minister if the Scripture may be judge we may make use of other civil officers to illustrate it more Keck pol. The Athenian Senators were sworn though the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So are our Magistrates take a Constable though the Town hath chosen him to that office yet if he shall act as a Constable before he be sworn he is a trespassor and a man may have an Action against him for his so doing There is much reason why the popular election should give the essence here but there is no such reason why it should to a Minister 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 This being dispatched now it will necessarily follow that Ordination is necessary to the constitution of a Minister though I should say no more it is but little I intend to say or need to say for the reason I gave before Arg. 1. First Conformity to the rules of God's house in things pertaining to his house is necessary Ordination of Ministers Stewards pertaining to the house is conformity to the rules of the house of God ergo Ordination of Ministers is necessary The major if any deny they must take away the authority of the Scriptures leave men to their own phantasies which no holy man ever dare say so that I doubt not but that will stand The minor if any deny it must be upon one of these two grounds 1. Either denying that we have any positive rules because we have none but examples which shews how Ministers came in to office But if those examples of Apostles commissioned by Christ to order his house having such a promise of his presence with them be not rules to us then we have no rules at all left for officers coming into his house which were strange defect of wisedom to impute to Christ that he should have a house and no order in it and contrary to the old Church which had rules exactly for their officers coming in Nor must popular election be ever more pleaded for Or 2. They must deny it because officers were made without any ordination which is the thing I desire to see proved from Scripture If we observe the practise of the Apostles after they had received the promise of the Spirit and were now fitted and sent forth to act with that Spirit guiding them we find that thus they did set Deacons in the house of God Acts 6.6 Obj. But it is objected That here was no ordination to any office at all there were persons before who did this work that we suppose the Deacons should these men were appointed only for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessity in v. 3. that is to end that difference which arose in v. 1. 1. A. It is true there were some who did distribute the goods of the Church to the poor c. who those were I think Chap. 4. v. ult will tell us They laid the money at the Apostles feet Whence it is clear to me that the Apostles had this burden upon them also compare the verse with chap. 6.2 and this they found a great hinderance to them in their preaching work so that both they could not tend whence by the Spirit they were guided to Institute the Deacon Upon search I find other men of my mind a Inst l. 4. c. 3.9 Calvin b Exam. Con. Trid. p. 217. Chemnitius c In 4. praec p. 766. Zanch. with more whom I could mention 2. The Apostles do not say v. 2. to leave the word of God decide differences but serve Tables which they saw hindered them and one they saw they must neglect or perform not well as we see complaint made whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 3. must answer to that which the Apostles could not attend to in v. 2. which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. As the Church-Members consist of bodies as well as souls which bodies must be provided for by others if they have not of their own to uphold them and since God hath given in charge that collections should be made for the poor Since also there are divers things which belong to the worship of God and things about the Church which must have money to buy them and to answer for them hence it stands with right reason that an Officer be chosen and authorized to be the Church-Treasurer to take in these collections and moneys and by these to serve the poors Table the Lord's Table I conceive they had their Love-feasts at that time also and why they should not attend upon the Minister at the Administration of the Lord's Supper I know not In N. England the Deacons also bring in to the Elders Table they are not troubled as we are here to send to every bodies house in particular for our due 4. It is clear by 1 Tim. 3. and Phil. 1.1 there was such an Officer as a Deacon and that distinct from the Bishop I wonder what was the work of this Deacon being an Officer not the Bishops I am sure then he should not have been distinguish'd from the Bishop neither are the same qualifications in every point required of him that are of the Bishop When or where had this Officer his original I think in this
well or pray for them or bless them after their manner they laid their hands on their heads and so imposition is now laid aside A. But stay a little 1. Are you certain that these prayed while they imposed hands in ordination I do not see how you will force it out of the Text nor can you force it from Acts 6.6 the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Aor 1. Whence the Syriack and Arabick Translations with which Piscator and others agree render the words and when they had prayed they laid hands plainly signifying that the prayers went before imposition nor I am sure will this Text help them for what I pray Did they impose hands all the while they fasted and prayed surely their armes were very weary to lie upon their heads a whole day whence it is more probable after that day was well spent in fasting and prayer then they imposed hands Then the Jews common custome doth not make imposition so silly a thing 2. In the consecration of the Levites and so of the Priests where we find Imposition we find no mention of prayer at all that I see much less at their Imposition if it were it was not the essence of the ordinance so far as I can learn I know divers of God's things must be esteemed as slight things if our heads must be judges But I think Tertul. spake excellently De paeniten Audaciam existimo de bono divini praecepti disputare neque enim quia bonum est idcirco auscultare debemus sed quia Deus praecepit c. 3. Ordination is the authorizing of a person to his work So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 6.3 plainly imply Both H. Stephens and Scapula agree that the word signifies * Constituo sic Constituere Regem vel Creare H. Stephens Ib. praeficio Hinc praefectus to put in authority to give rule to ordain a Ruler So these Texts Acts 7.10.27 Luc. 12.42 make it clear with other Texts H. Stephens Thes To. 1. p. 1768. quoting of these Texts Matth. c. 24. cap. 25. Acts 6. Luc. 12. where the word is used saith Quibus in locis non constituere solum sed praeficere verti potest Sur. Ch. Dis p. 3. p. 9. quidem aptiùs To this reverend Hooker agreeth The Lord Christ in his Kingly care conceived it necessary for the honour of the place and the execution of the work of a Deacon to appoint choise men and solemn Ordination to authorize them to the work c. But then how Prayer doth properly carry any thing of this nature in it I do not apprehend define prayer and see how it suits with authorizing nothing like it to beg and to authorize are not the same Unless we look on Ordination as the consecration of a man to God then a prayer may be part of the essence 4. If you ask me what is then truly I find it hard to answer it is plain to me it is not that which some cry up so and content themselves with dissenting from their brethren Imposition of hands I am sure is in the Text and must come into Ordination I find that the old Non-conformists speaking first of the election of a Minister in which the help of neighbouring Ministers must be required then add After that he is to be ordained by the laying on of the hands of the eldership with these words pronounced by the Minister thereunto appointed According to this lawful calling agreeable to the word of God whereby thou art chosen Pastor In the name of God stand thou charged with the Pastoral charge of this people over which the Holy Ghost hath made thee Overseer to govern the flock of God which he hath purchased with his blood When I read these words it made me call to mind the manner of the ordination of two Deacons in N. England about sixteen years fince which was the last ordination I saw or can remember any thing of my memory may fail me in some circumstance but as I do remember it was very little different from this The Pastor and the Teacher Imposed hands and then said We do in the name of Christ ordain thee N.N. Mat. 10.5 Mark 3.14 Luc. 9.2 Christ called ordained sent his Disciples forth to preach with power and authority he in his own name we in his name surely Christ used words suitable naming the person Deacon of this Church c. then what duties the Scripture puts upon the Deacon they framed into a handsome form when they had so done a short prayer they made their hands being still upon the Deacons head According to the form of the Non-conformists and the Church in N. England there is something appears like authorizing of a person to his work Now if the question be whether this be lawful or not where have we warrant for this that words were thus used in the primitive times is plain enough to those who read Hierom Ambrose Austin For Scripture this is plain though some of these words be not set down in the Scripture yet if there be an authorizing appointing Acts 6.3 a separating setting apart Acts 13. Some words must be spoken that must signifie so much and what breach of rule it is to say we ordain or set apart being the person is now setting apart the thing is doing For using the name of Christ I hope it is he who hath given Pastors and Teachers to his Church and from him doth the person now ordaining receive his power immediately It was not the Kingdom of Heaven gave Peter the keys I do not say the form of Ordination lies in these words I am not willing to make that the formalis ratio of an ordinance which I have not expresse Scripture for I would not give my adversary so much advantage yet Reason tells that prayer alone or imposition of hands alone or both without words suitable cannot make an Ordination but Christ gave Peter immediately the keys of the Kingdom of heaven under his authority in his name they must act For the other words applying to the person ordaining what duties the Scriptures do charge such an office withal I hope this ought to be else it were a raw business So that by necessary consequence from Scripture I cannot well see how these things can be denied who can prove the Apostles did not use some such words though they be not set down A sending Rom. 10. Setting apart Appointing there must be and is then give us that which shew and expresse these words they were rational men and the Spirit purely rational which guided them whence we may well conceive something was spoken which answered the Scriptural expressions and so long as we hold to them I can see no harm but that rather ought to be Let others speak more rationally who oppose this and leaving out imposition of hands with these expressions shew what you do which doth carry in it the authorizing of