Filter authors and titles

A41335:65

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 ...

: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.

:69p. 3§3dly.

In the next Thesis: The Fifth, they tell us, In such Churches where there are no Elders, and the Church desire it, we see not why Imposition of hands may not be performed by the Elders of other Churches. ¹Ordinary Officers laid hands upon Officers of many Churches. The Presbytery at Ephesus, laid hands upon Timothy an Evangelist. The Presbytery at Antioch, laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas. These Men do not tell us this is their Judgment. but they give us the Holy Scriptures for what they say. Whereas, the Savoy Confession gives us not one word of Scripture; but only tells us, where the Essence of a Pastor lies, without imposition of hands, which is denied. I must say with Tertullian, Non recipio, quod extra Scripturam de tuo insers. Si Apostolicus, cum Apostolis senti.

In the next Thesis: The Fifth, they tell us, In such Churches where there are no Elders, and the Church desire it, we see not why Imposition of hands may not be performed by the Elders of other Churches. ¹Ordinary Officers laid hands upon Officers of many Churches. The Presbytery at Ephesus, laid hands upon Timothy an Evangelist. The Presbytery at Antioch, laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas. These Men do not tell us this is their Judgment. but they give us the Holy Scriptures for what they say. Whereas, the Savoy Confession gives us not one word of Scripture; but only tells us, where the Essence of a Pastor lyes, without imposition of hands, which is denyed. I must say with Tertullian, Non recipio, quod extra Scripturam de tuo insers. Si Apostolicus, cum Apostolis senti.

11 Tim. 4.14. Act. 13.3.

:70p. 4§3dly.

I find in the beginning of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, when they came newly out of Popery, Imposition of Hands was not judged necessary; ¹as I read in the History put out by Mr. Calderwood. That Man of God, Mr. Robert Bruce [whose Name I honour] was not ordained thus, nor any other way, that I can learn, as if there were something in him extraordinary; though I honour the Man, yet we must stick to our Rule, and not Mr. Bruce. ²But afterwards, they tell us, how Ordination is to be performed, viz. by Fasting, Prayer, and Imposition of the Hands of the Eldership.

1An. 1560. pag. 26.
2An. 1581. pag. 105.

:71p. 4§3dly.

After this, pag. 383. they make it Indifferent.

:72p. 4§3dly.

But at a general Assembly, ¹it was ordered, That there be an Uniform Order touching Ordination of Ministers throughout the whole Realm, and that with Imposition of Hands; and thus it holds to this day.

1An. 1597. pag. 408.

:73p. 4§3dly.

Mr. ¹Bruce having preached many Years, would admit of Imposition of bands for Confirmation, but not for Ordination. Several denied him to be their lawful Pastor for want of Imposition; but others owned him.

Mr. ¹Bruce having preached many Years, would admit of Imposition of bands for Confirmation, but not for Ordination. Several denyed him to be their lawful Pastor for want of Imposition; but others own'd him.

1An. 1598. pag. 424.

:74p. 4§3dly.

Mr. Bruce accepts of Imposition for Confirmation; and Mr. Pont imposes hands upon him.

:75p. 4§3dly.

First, As for Imposition of Hands for Confirmation, as it is used in England, after Baptism, I find not one word of it in all the History, nor did the Church of Scotland own it, that I find there.

:76p. 4§3dly.

Secondly, All this while, there is not one Scripture brought by those who opposed Imposition: Yet they had taken the Word of God for their only Rule, which is so express for Imposition, &c. which makes me wonder at Mr. Bruce, so holy a Man. But if they had no Scripture, had they no Reasons? Yes, they had one, and but one, and that a pitiful one too. Thus, It being laid as a ground, ¹that none can receive Ordination to the Ministry, without Imposition of Hands, and that the Ceremony is proper to Bishops, it behoved to follow, that none could enter into the Ministry, without the Imposition of the Hands of Bishops. This is all very strange that Mr. Bruce should admit of Imposition of Hands for Confirmation, when the Bishops do appropriate that to themselves as well as in Ordination.

Secondly, All this while, there is not one Scripture brought by those who opposed Imposition: Yet they had taken the Word of God for their only Rule, which is so express for Imposition, &c. which makes me wonder at Mr. Bruce, so holy a Man. But if they had no Scripture, had they no Reasons? Yes, they had one, and but one, and that a pityful one too. Thus, It being laid as a ground, ¹that none can receive Ordination to the Ministry, without Imposition of Hands, and that the Ceremony is proper to Bishops, it behoved to follow, that none could enter into the Ministry, without the Imposition of the Hands of Bishops. This is all very strange that Mr. Bruce should admit of Imposition of Hands for Confirmation, when the Bishops do appropriate that to themselves as well as in Ordination.

1pag. 425.

:77p. 4§3dly.

How many things may be said to this, to show the weakness of this ground? Any understanding man may easily see; but I forbear. The Representation of Presbyterian Government, and put out the Year 1690. when Bishops are turned out, tell us in the sixteenth Section, That Men come into the Ministry by Election and Ordination, by laying on of the Hands of the Bresbytery, which is a mean of Communicating Authority to him. Then it seems the Church of Scotland, where this stir was, can impose Hands in Ordination without Bishops.

How many things may be said to this, to shew the weakness of this ground? Any understanding man may easily see; but I forbear. The Representation of Presbyterian Government, and put out the Year 1690. when Bishops are turn'd out, tell us in the sixteenth Section, That Men come into the Ministry by Election and Ordination, by laying on of the Hands of the Bresbytery, which is a mean of Communicating Authority to him. Then it seems the Church of Scotland, where this stir was, can impose Hands in Ordination without Bishops.

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36