Numb. II. iT2'ENVIX, 35 not be fó inclinable to turn Seeker, nor to expert new Miracles, Apotties, or Re- velations upon the Suppofition you make j and for all your Words, if it came to the Pra&ice, I do not believe that you have fò hard aHeart, fo unmerciful a Na- ture, as to leave this one Nation, much lets all the World, to that apparent danger of Everlafting Damnation, and God's publick Worfhip to be utterly cats out, if I can butprove that theSuccefhionof Legitimate Church Ordination is interrupted. Ad 4 " ". To your Fourth Argument, I anfwer, I am as far from believingImpo- fition ofHands effential to Ordination, as any of the reft. The Bithop that was Taft fave one in this Diocefs was fo lame of theGout, that he could not move his Hand to ones Head, and though his Chaplain did hisbeft to help him, yet I could not well tell whether I might call it Impofition of Hands when I faw it Yet I never heard any on that Ground, fùfpefì a nullity in his Ordination : Nor do I think that aBithop torothall his Power of Ordination if he lofe his Hands, or the Motion of them. r. Immpofition of Hands was an old Cullom in a Superiors Adt of Benediction, or Letting a part toOffice and conveying Power, and not newly inftituted by Chilli, but continuedas a well known Sign, and therefore not of filch Neceffity as you imagin. 2. The End will thew much the degree of Neceffity. Ifit be evident that the End was but the Solemnizing of the Work by a convenient Ceremony, then it is not effential toOrdination or Authorizing : But, tic. Ergo, ;. God did not lay fuck a ftrefs onCeremonies, no not under the Ceremonial Law, no not onthe great initiating Sign and Seal of Circumcifion, without which, Men were entered, and continued in his Church for Forty Years in the Wildernefi. Your Argument is, (Chrift hash revealed to his Church that it is his Mind or Will that his Church's Officers be fet apart by Imppofition of Hands : Ergo, It follow- eth that Impofition ofHands is neceffary and effential to their Separation). Anfw. Negarar fegnsla: It follows a præcepto, only that it's neceffary Neceffitate precepti, and if youwill, Nece itatemedia, if you fpeak not of abfolute Neceffity ad effe Ordi- nation, but a lower Neceffity, as of a mutable means, and al bene efie. Do you think this is good arguing ? (The Holy Ghoft bath revealed it to be the Will of Chrift, that aBishop mutt be blatnelefs, and having faithful Children, and be not 'loon angry, Tit. a. 6, y: One that raletbwellhis own Honfe, bating bu Children in fad- ¡Wien with all Gravity, r Tam. g. 4, g, 6. Ergo, It is effential to a Bishop, to have faithful Childrento be blamelefs,not CO be loon angry,dyc.) O, what an Interrupti- on then is made in the Succeffion ! or is this good arguing? (It is the Will of Chrift that a Chriftian thould not fpeak an Idle Word : Ergo, He that £peaksan idle Word is not a Chriftian). Next you fùppofe your Leff queftioned (How youknow that it was Chrift's Mind and Will,that Impofitionof Hands fhould be ufed in the Ordina- tion of Minifters ?) and you confers, r. That you (have neither exprefs, nor im- plicite Command for it.) 2. But conclude, that Chrift's Mind may be otherwife known ; I confers, I like this Paffage worfe than all the reft of your Writing. r. I can find both implicite, and in a large fenfe explicite Commands for it in the Word of God, a Tam. 9. 22. Heb. 6.2. r Tim. q. net. at lean an implicite, that is unqueftionably plain. 2. 1f you had cnnfeffed as readily only this, that thereWas no Word of God implicite, or explicite to prove the Effentiality of Impofition df Hands to Ordination, then I should have believed you: But you will needs do more, and do much tò deftroy the very Duty of Impofition, while you are plead- ing-it fo effential (fo unhappy are extream Courfes, and fo foreaway is overdoing to undoing) : Yet with me you give up theCade of the fuppofed Effentiality in dilislaiming Scripture Precept, implicite. ;. I perceive it is your Judgment that thereare Duties effential to Ordination, and confequently without which, in your Judgment, there is no Miniftry, and no Church, which have no Command in Scripture, no not fo much as implicite : And consequently, that Scripture is not God's only Word for revealing hipernaturally, or his fufficient Law for obliging to Duties of univerfal ftanding necefFty ; but he bath another Word called Traditi- on, which revealeth one partof his Mind as the Scripture doth the other, and ano- ther Law obliging as atorefaid. This is the great Mailer Difference between the Reformed Churches and the Romanifts; of which fo much is faid by ÍYbitraker, Charnier, Baronies, and Multitudes more; that it's meerly vain for me to meddle with it: For I take it for granted, that you would not venture to difclaim the Re- formed Churches in this Point, till you had well read the chief of their Writers: That were to venture your Peace and Safety, to fave you a Labour : At leali, I hope youhave readChillingworth. Yet I muff tell you, that Comemoderate Papilla confers, that the written Word contained, all things of abfolute neceflity to Salva- tion ; but I doubt you do not fo; for I think youwill fay that ordinarily there is E 2 no
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=