A41335:14
Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the…
Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the work of the ministry be necessary?, II. Whether it be essential to the right constitution of a particular church, that the teaching elders and the members meet always in one place? : whereunto is added a prediction of Mr. Daniel Rogers, minister in Essex, long before the beheading King Charles I and Arch-Bishop Laud, foretelling that they should not dye a natural death / by Giles Firmin ...Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the work of the ministry be necessry?, II. Whether it be essential to the right constitution of a particular church, that the teaching elders and the members meet alwayes in one place? : whereunto is added a prediction of Mr. Daniel Rogers, minister in Essex, long before the beheading King Charles I and Arch-Bishop Laud, foretelling that they should not dye a natural death / by Giles Firmin ...
London : Printed for the author, 1692
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
What this Due Ordination is, our Brethren, as I said, have not told us. Hence the Discussing of this Question, falls not under that Prohibition, p. 3. that we must not Dispute those different Sentiments: For our Sentiments do all agree it must be Due Ordination; which if it be not declared what it is, we agree and Subscribe to we know not what.
Before I Subscribed, I asked the Brethren whether the Subscribing to this Agreement did debar us from an amicable discussing the Questions wherein we differ? they All Answered, No. We were not hindered by it. We know the different Sentiments, before we Subscribe the Agreement, and tho' we Dispute them, yet our Union holds as well as if we did not dispute them.
Before I Subscribed, I asked the Brethren whether the Subscribing to this Agreement did debar us from an amicable discussing the Questions wherein we differ? they All Answered, No. We were not hindered by it. We know the different Sentiments, before we Subscribe the Agreement, and tho' we Dispute them, yet our Ʋnion holds as well as if we did not dispute them.
The Apostle exhorts, 1 Cor. 1.10 and Phil. 2.2. that we be all of one Mind, of one Judgment. If we must not labour after it, to what purpose is the Exhortation? Is not the discussing Controverted Questions in a Christian amicable way, seeking Light from God, and setting up his Ends, [not our own] one way to come to be of one mind, which the Apostle exhorts to? I am sure it is, and could give good proof of it from experience, in the Question now disputed. If we may not do this, then it is as much as to say, There are different Sentiments amongst us, and shall be so; for still, I say, the End of the Agreement, which is Union, is preserved.