Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the…

Name: Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the…
Author: Giles Firmin

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 ...

:53p. 1§3dly.

Thirdly, The Election of the People does not make a Minister. Dr. Owen hath spoken enough to this:¹ Unto Officers of the Church are required, saith he, Election of the People, submitting themselves unto them in the Lord, and the solemn setting them apart, by Imposition of Hands: And after that he writes, that Church Order is defective, that wants the Symbol of Authoritative Ordination, viz. Imposition of Hands.

Thirdly, The Election of the People does not make a Minister. Dr. Owen hath spoken enough to this:¹ Ʋnto Officers of the Church are required, saith he, Election of the People, submitting themselves unto them in the Lord, and the solemn setting them apart, by Imposition of Hands: And after that he writes, that Church Order is defective, that wants the Symbol of Authoritative Ordination, viz. Imposition of Hands.

1Lib. 2. p. 83. 85. 139.

:54p. 2§3dly.

And in his Exposition of the Hebr. l. 3. p. 33. Imposition of Hands is a Right of standing use in the Church, and that wherein Church Order is much concerned.

:55p. 2§3dly.

In his Second Book of the Church, mentioned before, p. 136. he proves there ought to be many Elders in one particular Church. This he proves, 1st. from Scripture; 2dly. by Reasons: one of which he fetches from Imposition of Hands. Is, saith he, there be but one Elder only in a Church, upon his Death or Removal, this Imposition of Hands, must either be left unto the People, or be supplied by the Elders of other Churches, or be wholly omitted, all which are Irregular. He did acknowledge the Ordination he had without Imposition of Hands, when he turned Independent, was defective.

In his Second Book of the Church, mentioned before, p. 136. he proves there ought to be many Elders in one particular Church. This he proves, 1st. from Scripture; 2dly. by Reasons: one of which he fetches from Imposition of Hands. Is, saith he, there be but one Elder only in a Church, upon his Death or Removal, this Imposition of Hands, must either be left unto the People, or be supplyed by the Elders of other Churches, or be wholly omitted, all which are Irregular. He did acknowledge the Ordination he had without Imposition of Hands, when he turned Independant, was defective.

:56p. 2§3dly.

Whether Dr. Owen had his hand in drawing up the Savoy Confession, I know not. But we see, upon mature thoughts, when he is leaving the World, he gives his Judgment according to the Holy Scriptures [which should be the only Guide and Rule in the House of God] contrary to that Confession.

:57p. 2§3dly.

Why Imposition of Hands by Elders of other Churches should be Irregular? he names no Scripture to prove it. But if it be omitted, that Ordination, saith he, is irregular, (this we are sure of from Scripture) that's enough for me. If it be irregular, then 'tis not Due Ordination; for the Rule hath not it's Due given to it. If such Ordination can be valid, to what purpose is the Rule? We shall have strange things follow if this be admitted, that in Religion, and in the House of God, Acts may be valid which are not conformable to the Word of God. The Word saith thus, but these Acts answer it not.

:58p. 2§3dly.

Pious and Learned Mr. Faldo before his Death, wrote me word, That one of the Brethren against Imposition of Hands was with him, and debated the Question with him; and this especially he stuck at, He would not allow the Elders of one particular Church to perform Office-Acts, to those that were not of that Church. Mr. Faldo tells me, He gave him a formal Argument, to prove that it might be, and in many cases it must be admitted. This he desired to write down, and did so, and I believe it will be seen by others in this Town of his Opinion: And if they will take occasion to ventilate that Difference Brotherly, it will not be declined by some of your and my mind. Thus Mr. Faldo.

Pious and Learned Mr. Faldo before his Death, wrote me word, That one of the Brethren against Imposition of Hands was with him, and debated the Question with him; and this especially he stuck at, He would not allow the Elders of one particular Church to perform Office-Acts, to those that were not of that Church. Mr. Faldo tells me, He gave him a formal Argument, to prove that it might be, and in many cases it must be admitted. This he desired to write down, and did so, and I believe it will be seen by others in this Town of his Opinion: Aud if they will take occasion to ventilate that Difference Brotherly, it will not be declined by some of your and my mind. Thus Mr. Faldo.

:59p. 2§3dly.

What that Argument was Mr. Faldo did not write: I wrote to that Brother, desiring him to let me know it, but I cannot obtain it; he searched for it, but could not find it.

:60p. 2§3dly.

But now, for Imposition of Hands in separating a Person to Office in the House of God, this came in by an express Command of God, Numb. 8.10, 14.

:61p. 2§3dly.

Who are meant by the Sons of Israel in the 10th. verse, is the Question. Mr Pool saith, the First-Born, or chief of the Tribes. The same Persons I presume, might be both, and most probable it was so.

:62p. 2§3dly.

First, Chark•ni [as Mr. Ainsworth Quotes him, and agrees with him in it] saith, They were the First-Born. In this case he may be credited as soon as any Christian Writer.

:63p. 2§3dly.

Secondly, We read in the three next verses, 16, 17, 18 the Lord tells Moses three times, that he had taken the Levites instead of the First-born: Hence 'tis, most probable, the First-born were they who imposed Hands on the Levites.

:64p. 2–3§3dly.

Thirdly, By this Act, saith Mr. Pool, they signified their transferring that Right of Ministering to God, from the First-born, in whose hands it formerly ⟨p. 3⟩was. Very good: But who should, or who could give away the First-Born's-Right but themselves? We read, Exod 24.5. Moses sent the Young Men of the Sons of Israel, and they offered burnt Offerings. Who were these Young Men? The Chaldee saith, [Greek or Hebrew] Primogeniti, the First born. These were the Priests or Sacrificers, until the Levites had the Priesthood in their Tribe. So Numb. 3.12. 'Tis certain, the First-born had many Privileges [tho' Esau despise his Eirth-right.] Then the First-born must impose hands, and give away their Privileges; but shall they who have no right give away another Man's Right?

Thirdly, By this Act, saith Mr. Pool, they signified their transserring that Right of Ministring to God, from the First-born, in whose hands it formerly ⟨p. 3⟩was. Very good: But who should, or who could give away the First-Borns-Right but themselves? We read, Exod 24.5. Moses sent the Young Men of the Sons of Israel, and they offered burnt Offerings. Who were these Young Men? The Chaldee saith, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Primogeniti, the First born. These were the Priests or Sacrificers, until the Levites had the Priesthood in their Tribe. So Numb. 3.12. 'Tis certain, the First-born had many Priviledges [tho' Esau despise his Eirth-right.] Then the First-born must impose hands, and give away their Priviledges; but shall they who have no right give away another Man's Right?

:65p. 3§3dly.

Fourthly, The First-born were separated, Exod. 13.2. Sanctify unto me every First-born; in their Sanctification, there was a Separation. Now it is most probable, that they who were separated did separate the Levites, and not others. I insist upon this for a Reason I shall give hereafter; let our Opposites give better Reasons to prove they were not the First born.

Fourthly, The First-born were separated, Exod. 13.2. Sanctifie unto me every First-born; in their Sanctification, there was a Separation. Now it is most probable, that they who were separated did separate the Levites, and not others. I insist upon this for a Reason I shall give hereafter; let our Opposites give better Reasons to prove they were not the First born.

:66p. 3§3dly.

As this Practice came into the Church by God's Command, so it continued in the Jewish Church. Dr. Lightfoot tells us, that some Men who gave themselves to the study of the Law, became very Learned Men which they might, the Law being in their own Tongue, and did teach, beside the Priests and the Levites: but none without being first ordained, and that with imposition of hands, Dr. Owen affirms the same; when the Gospel-Church was to be erected, the Apostles, with whom Christ had spoken of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, Acts 1.3. when a Deacon was to be set apart to his Office, they did it with Imposition of hands, Acts 6.6. And so the Churches practised ever afterwards, Acts 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Tim. 5.22. Heb. 6.2. Of which Text more anon.

:67p. 3§3dly.

This was the Practice of the Churches next the Apostles, and ever since amongst the Fathers. Papists, and Protestants, both Lutherans, Calvinists, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independents; I never saw in my time, ¹while I was there, nor ever heard since I came from New England [tho I have enquired] that any one was ordained to any Office in the Church without Imposition of hands.

1Platfor. Ch. Dise. Cap. 9. Thes. 4.5.

:68p. 3§3dly.

Thus the Synod held there ^*1649. tells us, upon these Hypotheses, that the Fraternity is the [Greek or Hebrew], of the Power of the Keys; and that Election gives the Essence. If there be no Elders, Imposition of hands may be performed, by some of the Brethren, Numb. 8.10. But there is a Difference between the First-born there, and our private Brethren; and good reason why they should impose Hands, and not our private Men. It was not so in the Gospel-Church: It is Irregular, saith Dr. Owen. But by this we see how Imposition of Hands must be, and was in Practice.

Thus the Synod held there ^*1649. tells us, upon these Hypotheses, that the Fraternity is the 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, of the Power of the Keys; and that Election gives the Essence. If there be no Elders, Imposition of hands may be performed, by some of the Brethren, Numb. 8.10. But there is a Difference between the First-born there, and our private Brethren; and good reason why they should impose Hands, and not our private Men. It was not so in the Gospel-Church: It is Irregular, saith Dr. Owen. But by this we see how Imposition of Hands must be, and was in Practice.

*And approved by the Synod. held at Boston 1680.

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36