The Diatribe Proved to be Paradiatribe, Part 3 · Section

The Diatribe Proved to be Paradiatribe · Part 3 · Section

p. 65Concerning IMPOSITION OF HANDS.

This is your Poſition—pag. 13.

IMpoſition or laying on of Hands is neither eſſentiall to a Miniſters Call, nor to his Ordination.

Anſ. Before I ſpeak to the particulars wherein you pretend to the proof of this, it ſeems neceſſary to preface a little concerning the Subject in generall, that the Terms belonging to the Queſtion may be the better underſtood.

When ſhall we know what you mean by a Call? and how it ſhall be diſcerned what is eſſentiall to it? Or to whom the power of Calling does belong? Whether one way of Calling be preciſely determined? Or what manner of Ordaining is to be found in Scripture, beſides that of Laying on of hands? At your leiſure reſolve theſe Enquiries diſtinctly, that the Reader may be fully informed.

Till I am convinced of the contrary by your ſelf or ſome other, I ſhall preſume that a Call is alwayes neceſſary, yea a Call from God, mediate or immediate. That way of Calling mediately is to be followed in ſucceeding times, which is warranted by precepts or example… in the New Teſtament. In the nature of the thing it ſelf, Calling for the ſubſtance of the act is more neceſſary, than this or that manner, or rite of Calling. Election may poſſibly he either by ſilence, as in the diſcipline of the French Churches it is preſcribed, or by lively p. 66voyce, or by holding up the hand, or by writing. The Church at Frankford in Queen Maries dayes had a peculiar way of chooſing Miniſters, in part blindfold, by a kind of Ballattingbox **Lyturgia in Eccleſia Pereg…inorum Frâ…oford…ae. p. 51.. For Ordination, the Papiſts have deviſed many Rites, not only by perverſe applying of the examples of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, but alſo by their own preſumptuous inventions. The Reformed Churches ſuffice themſelves with Prayer, Faſting, and Laying on of hands. Some few have uſed manus porrectione, the giving of the right hand of fellowſhip in ſtead of Laying on of hands: but though there be an inſtance of the uſe of that Ceremony in token of approbation between Paul and Barnabas on the one ſide, and ſome of the Apoſtles at Jeruſalem on the other part, (Gal. 2. 9.) yet that will conclude nothing to the queſtion of Ordination.

In ſuch things as are indeed (not pretendedly) left unto the Churches liberty, ſhe may uſe it as makes moſt for edifying; and about many Circumſtances belonging to a Miniſters Call, there is a liberty ſuppoſed, granted, and taken; and in ſome things neceſſary to be determined, not ſo much by rule or Canon, as (per prudentiam practice practicam) by the diſcretion of thoſe who are (pro hic & nunc) imployed in Calling. To this purpoſe ſome ſpeak largely enough **Quibus ritibus Doctores eccleſiae ſint vocan…i, quâ ratione publicum hoc docendi mun… e… ſit delegandum ac imponendum, non est expreſſe traditum, ſed liber…ari Eccleſiae relictum. Magdeburgenſes, cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4 pag. 118. lin. 33. Modus elect…ni… nullus certus eſt praſcriptus i… ſacris literis. Aretius, probl. parte 3. de Miniſt. Vocati… …ata habenda, dum vocatio Dei manet conjuncta foris aliquâ teſtificatione ipſtu…, quae qui…varia est, deſinire non poſſumus. Armin., and more then I dare aſſent unto without due caution.

Yet this muſt be remembred, that God is not ſought after the due Order, (1 Chron, 15. 13.) when any rite or manner of doing is omitted which is of his appointing: And it's ſafer to cleave unto warrantable examples even about circumſtances, then to preſume too much of our freedome in deviſing any thing which may be called new, or transferring the rite of one thing to another. And many things which were in themſelves, and to the Apoſtles, free and indifferent, become by their example more or leſſe neceſſary to us, eſpecially when p. 67their example is backed by the …ptneſſe or equity of the thing it ſelf, and either directly commended to us, or enlivened with ſome inſinuation, that in doing as they did we ſhall do well. The certainty of lawfulneſſe is alwayes a ſure point for us to center in:

As to the uſe of Laying on of hands (to ſay nothing of that which was common to all Chriſtians to be applied unto them upon ſeverall occaſions, but of that which was uſed by thoſe who were already in office, in putting others into office alſo) The Papiſts urging of it as a Sacrament, as a meanes of conveighing the Holy Ghoſt, as alwayes abſolutely neceſſary and eſſentiall: And thoſe hands to be a Biſhops, as an Order or Degree ſuperior to a Preſbyte…, gave occaſion to ſome of the firſt Reformers in ſome parts to ſuſpect it, to judge it indifferent; and to argue from the Apoſtles liberty in taking of it up, and tranſlating of it from … Jewiſh uſe unto a Chriſtian, to their liberty of uſing or difuſing it as they found expedient, and the ſtate of the Church in their times and thoſe places where their lot fell, made way.

For my part, when I conſider how uniform and accurate the Apoſtles were in obſerving it, and of this rite alone in the matter of Ordination, and that we have no inſtance or example of their Ordaining otherwiſe; How unſafe it is to vary from their lawfull and imitable practiſe; What advantage the Papiſts have to bring in other rites upon pretence of liberty, And what danger might be by ſubſtituting another way of Ordaining then we have ſure warrant for; Of what conſequence it is that Miniſters ſhould keep up a peculiar intereſt of acting in the name and ſtead of Chriſt, by ſomething peculiar to themſelves; and that this alone doth moſt cleerly hold it out, beſide the manifold uſes of it which are expreſſed by Proteſtant Divines: Though it be commonly called a rite, and in that reſpect is but an adjunct, ſo as it muſt needs ſeem harſh to call it eſſentiall; yet I judge it ſinfull for any who deſire the office of a Miniſter to refuſe it, and ſcandalous in any Church wilfully to throw i… aſide. That its more or leſſe neceſſary in the judgement of Reformed Churches and their Divines, cannot but be known to thoſe who are acquainted p. 68with their writings. The peace of the Church may be preſerved among thoſe who hold it lawfull; and the diſpute whether it be Eſſentiall, might be ſpared.

Yet becauſe though it were not eſſentiall, your Proofs may fall ſhort of that Concluſion, I ſhall conſider of them.

Your firſt Reaſon is:

Some have been made Miniſters without it, as the Apoſtles and Matthias, Act. 1.

To which I anſwer. 1. If your Argument had truth and weight in it, it would prove, That nothing is eſſentiall which is to be performed either by the Church or her Officers, becauſe the Apoſtles were made Miniſters by the Head alone without the Body. Paul calls himſelf an Apoſtle neither of man nor by man, Gal. 1. 1. and yet he was a Miniſter, 1 Cor. 4. 1. The like may be ſaid of the Twelve. And whereas you diſtinguiſh between the Apoſtles and Matthias, as if he were none, Acts 1. the Text here cited proves the contrary.

2. Its not enough to ſay, That ſome were made Miniſters without it; unleſſe you ſhew further, that in being made Miniſters they were Ordained, and that without Laying on of hands.

3. How ſome have been made Miniſters in particular caſes, as Matthias alone by lot, is not to be inſiſted on; but what's the generall rule for all in an ordinary way.

4. Were it proved that the Apoſtles have been made Miniſters, and Ordained without the Rite in queſtion; it would be little to the purpoſe, becauſe there is neither the ſame rule nor reaſon for Them and ordinary Officers.

The ſecond Reaſon:

When the Apoſtle bids Titus to Ordain, Tit. 1. 5. he ſayes not a word of Impoſition of hands.

Anſ. You ſhould ſay, Not of Election by the People, and therefore Election is not eſſentiall. But if Tit. 1. 5. be compared with Act. 6. 3. 5. it will appeare he means appointing or conſtituting by Impoſition of hands. There were among the Cretiant Tit. 1. 11.Titus 1:11many …r…ly and vain talkers, ſpecially they of the Circumciſion, p. 69whoſe mouths (ſaith Paul) muſt be ſtopped, who ſubvert whole houſes, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucres ſake. Theſe might well be the fruits of that liberty of Preaching without a Call, and the Peoples making to themſelves Miniſters by their own choice without Ordination or Impoſition of hands, which you contend for; and Titus, it ſeems, was left at Crete to Ordain others in ſtead of theſe.

The third:

When the Apoſtle uſed it to Timothy, 1 Tim. 1. 6. it was ſo uſed as it was in giving the Holy Ghoſt; as appears by comparing that place with Act. 19. 6. And therefore was no more eſſentiall to Timothies being a Miniſter, then it was to their Baptiſme, Act. 19. 6.

Anſ. 1. Suppoſe the Holy Ghoſt was given by Impoſition of hands, both after Baptiſme, and in Ordination; as this makes nothing to prove it to be eſſentiall unto either, ſo it makes nothing againſt it: but in that ſuch a bleſſing did then accompany it, we may be aſſured that the uſe of it was of God, and not from men.

2. There's no mention of the Holy Ghoſt, in 2 Tim. 1. 6. but of the gift of God which was in him (or which he had) by the laying on of Pauls hands, that may be meant of the power and authority conferred on him, or of the Office it ſelf; for Offices are called foreign gifts, Eph. 4. 8. And Power and Authority is by many thought to be called foreign grace, Rom. 12. 3. If Laying on of hands be the inſtrumentall rite of conveighing the gift or grace in this ſenſe, it is the more neceſſary.

3. Becauſe the Holy Ghoſt was given by Laying on of hands after Baptiſme in Ordination, and upon other occaſions alſo; therefore you will not eaſily prove that Ordination muſt needs be underſtood in that place, as you uſe to argue.

Neither, 4. doth… Act. 19. 6. or any other place ſpeak of Laying on of hands in Baptiſme: and in Heb. 6. 2. Baptiſms and Laying on of hands are diſtinguiſhed as things of a diverſe kind. In all this you ſeem rather to anſwer, than to frame p. 70duplicate page p. 71duplicate page p. 70an Argument. To ſay the Holy Ghoſt was given by Impoſition of hands then, but not now, and therefore it is not eſſentiall, is no proofe (as ſhall further appear hereafter.)

5. Under the Old Teſtament Impoſition of hands was uſed in divers caſes. As firſt in Bleſſing, Gen. 48. 14, 20. Secondly, in Conſecrating, or ſetting apart of a ſacrifice unto God, Numb. 8. 12. Thirdly, in Ordaining, or appointing unto an Office; as when Joſhua was appointed to ſucceed Moſes, Moſes laid his hands upon him and gave him a charge. Num. 27. 23. Joſhua alſo is ſaid to be full of the Spirit of wiſdome, for Moſes had laid his hands on him, Deut. 34. 9. He was full of the Spirit of wiſdome, and therefore had hands laid on him, as appears Num. 27. 18. Take thee Joſhua the ſon of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay thy hands upon him. As in the New Teſtament, the Deacons were firſt full of the Holy Ghoſt and wiſdome, Act. 6. 3. and therefore they had hands laid on them, v. 6. This laying on of hands was (as Ainſworth calls it) Ainſworth on Numb. 18. 18.Num 18:18a ſigne of his Calling and Ordination. And though a greater meaſure of the Spirit might be given with the ſigne, yet that was not the only ground of uſing it. We read not of any Law requiring the uſe of it conſtantly, ſave in the caſe of conſecrating: and yet you ſhew no reaſon to the contrary, why it may not be neceſſary under the Goſpel in the ſetting apart of a meet perſon to an holy function, though every other kind of uſing it be not neceſſary, whereof we have example in the New Teſtament. All Ends of uſing it do meet together in Ordination; as Bleſſing, Conſecrating, and Setting apart unto an Office. And therefore we have the greater reaſon to continue it ſtill.

To that of the Divines of Scotland:

The Apoſtles indeed by the Laying on of hands did ſignifie Engl. pop. cer. p. 169.their giving of the Holy Ghoſt: but now as the miracle, ſo the myſterie hath ceaſed.

Anſ. 1. It no where appeares by any expreſſe Scripture, that Laying on of hands in Ordination was uſed by the Apoſtles as a ſigns, with relation to the Holy Ghoſt as the thing ſignified and given thereby: It's too much advantage to the p. 71Papiſts, in making … Sacrament, to grant ſo much.

2. Suppoſe that the … Ghoſt was given by, with, or after Impoſition of hands in Ordination, and that ſuch miraculous giving do now ceaſe: yet as Baptiſme of water continues, though there be no miraculous Baptiſme of the Holy Ghoſt, and is not in that reſpect to ceaſe, as the Socinians pretend; ſo may Impoſition of hands continue ſtill in Ordination as a rite of deſigning a fit perſon to an office in the Church, becauſe no reaſon can be ſuppoſed for the uſe of it in that kinde then, which holds not in other ages of the Church, in the regular and ordinary ſtate thereof.

[Solemnly to deſigne and point out the perſon Ordained as a morall ſigne, was one of the ends and uſes whereunto this rite of Laying on of hands was appointed by themſelves, as Chemnitius ſheweth.]

Theſe laſt are the words of your own Teſtimony in the ſame page.

That which follows of your own, is—

Something extraordinary its likely was in the Apoſtles Laying on of hands. For he ſays, the gift was given foreign, by the laying on of my hands, as it was foreign by prophecie, which was peculiar to extraordinary Officers; but it was but [with] foreign, 1 Tim. 4. 14. They (it ſeems) had but a bare concurrence, but the efficiencie was in Paul, as our Brethren of Scotland expreſſe it.

To which I anſwer, 1. All this is but, its likely, and it ſeems, by which its likely to prove nothing, and it ſeems you your ſelf ſaw as much aforehand.

2. To ſay there was ſomething extraordinary in the Apoſtles laying on of hands, is ambiguous, becauſe it may relate either to the ground, or manner of doing, or to the effect or accidentall conſequent thereof. There might be ſomething extraordinary, but that can be no prejudice to the ordinary uſe of this rite, unleſſe they …ad only ſome extraordinary ground for their uſing of it.

p. 723. In comparing 2 Tim. 1. 6. … 4. 14. there is indeed a difference between (foreign & … …nd with; and from thence the Papiſts and Prelates wo… …fer, That the efficiency of Timothy's Preſbyteratus was i… Paul as in a Biſhop, and in the Preſbyterie by a bare concurrence, and thence infer the neceſſity of a Biſhop unto Ordination. But this is e…ually vain, as in them to one end, ſo in you to another. For that in 2 Tim. 1. 6. you may remember what was ſaid in the beginning of this anſwer to your Third. And as you tell us pag. 17. touching laying on of hands in 1 Tim. 5. 22. that its not neceſſary to be underſtood of Ordination, becauſe it was uſed in other caſes. So might it be put off here. But be it granted that Ordination is intended in 2 Tim. 1. yet it will not follow that Paul aſcribes any thing to himſelf, as excluding the Preſbyterie. Junius ſpeaking to this Text, ſayes: [In a common thing, the arguing from poſition of one, to the removing or denying of another, is inconſequent. As after this manner: Paul laid hands on Timothy, therefore the Presbyterie did not. **Junius in Bel. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 3 ar. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 18. Ac. 16. 1 a.1 Tim 1:18] Thoſe words foreign by prophecie, do ſhew the moving cauſe, and what incouraged Paul with the Preſbytery to lay hands on him, viz. It was prophecied that Timothy ſhould be an excellent Miniſter, as Cartwright (upon the place) interprets it.

That phraſe, foreign. and the other, foreign. do both of them equally imply an inſtrumentall efficiencie in Paul, and in the reſt of the Preſbyterie. That the Prepoſition [foreign] by, with a genitive caſe, doth uſually ſignifie an inſtrumentall working, yet not in foreign, is amongſt Cartwrights Annotations. foreign with, is ſometimes put for foreign by. as Act. 13. 17. chap. 14. 27. & 15. 4. In the 12. v. of that chap. Then all the multi…ude kept ſilence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring See Beza in loca.what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. In the Greek 'tis foreign, in this latter place; but in all the reſt foreign, and yet the like thing, viz. what God did by them as by inſtruments, is intended in them all. The reaſon why the Apoſtle uſeth foreign and not foreign in 1 Tim. 4. 14. may be becauſe foreign goes immediately before in the p. 73ſame verſe in that phraſe, foreign, where it hath another ſenſe than the next words will beare, if it had been uſed there alſo. How fit it would have been for the words to have run thus: [foreign] &c. by prophecy, by laying on of hunds, let the learned judge.

5. If the efficiencie was in Paul ſingularly, and in the Preſbyterie by a bare concurrence, as you ſay it ſeems; there uſing of it then, makes nothing at all for our uſing of it now, unleſſe we had ſuch concurrence: and then Laying on of hands in theſe times is not only non-eſſentiall, but unlawfull. We muſt wait with the Seekers for ſome New Apoſtles to revive this way of Ordaining: and the practice of thoſe, who being themſelves out of Office are deputed to lay on hands, is moſt preſumptuous; becauſe there is no inſtance ſo much as of their concurrence, and much leſſe of their acting alone in this kinde.

6. Thoſe words [as our Brethren of Scotland expreſſe it] ſeem to relate unto the former paſſages; and then they are injurious, becauſe you go about to put a ſenſe upon them which I think you know they will not owne: That the Preſbyterie Ordained only by a bare concurrence, and not as (Cauſa ſocia) a joint cauſe, in way of efficiencie.

I ſhall now conſider their words as you alledge them.

Paul's hands were the mean; the laying on of their hands the rite and ſigne of his Ordination. And therefore they adde (as you ſay) Its not to be uſed with opinion of neceſſity; Ordination may be done by word alone, without ceremony. And again. If the uſe of Impoſition of hands in Ordination be accounted and uſed as a ſacred Rite, and as having a ſacred ſignification, (the uſe of it not being neceſſary) it becomes unlawfull by reaſon of the by gone and preſent ſuperſtitious uſe of the ſame in Popery.

Anſ. 1. All this you heap together by ſubſtraction as you pleaſe: And though it's true, the firſt words [Pauls hands were the mean—] are to be found in the place intended, yet your conſcience will tell you that the Author uſed them to one end, and you unto the contrary. Take them fully, and let a third be Judge between us. Thus he:

p. 74[Becauſe Impoſition of hands was uſed in Ordination, not only by the Apoſtles who had power to give extraordinarily the gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, but likewiſe by the Presbyterie or Company of Elders; and Timothy did not only receive 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Tim 4 14.2 Tim 1:61 Tim 4:14that gift which was in him, by the laying on of Pauls hands as the mean, but with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie as the rite and ſigne of his Ordination: therefore the Church in after-ages hath ſtill kept and uſed the ſame rite in Ordination; which rite ſhall without leave be yet retained in the Church.]

2. For my part, I ſee no ground at all either in the nature of the thing, or in the Texts, for that diſtinction of mean and ſigne. The Profeſſors of Leyden are not afraid to call Ordination a mean. Ad legitimam Paſtorum ordinariorum vocationem duo potiſſimùm media ſunt adhibenda; vocandorum Synop. pur. Theol. …iſ…. 42. n. 31.Electio, & electorum Ordinatio. [Two meanes are eſpecially to be uſed for the lawfull Calling of ordinary Paſtors: Election of thoſe who are to be called, and Ordination of thoſe who are elected.] But this is cleer out of the former Teſtimony; that notwithſtanding the difference of the phraſes, by the laying on of Pauls hands, and with the laying on of the hands of the Preſbyterie, the latter cannot be ſo underſtood as to give unto the Presbyterie (in his judgement) a bare concurrence, becauſe then it could not be a ground of uſing the rite either at the Preſent or in former ages.

3. For thoſe expreſſions—Its not to be uſed with opinion of neceſſity, and the reſt; they are indeed Proviſo's, or rather ſome excerpta, extracts of thoſe things which the Author brings in by way of providing: the ſumme whereof is—1. Laying on of hands is to continue, if it be not uſed with opinion of neceſſity; Nor 2. as a ſacred ſignificant Ceremony. But naked teſtimony avails little, eſpecially when it i… is ſingle or ſingular. Therefore I anſwer, 1. Neceſſity muſt be diſtinguiſhed. Simple neceſſity with relation to all times and caſes, is aſſerted by none but Papiſts. Neceſſity (ſecundum quid) in ſome reſpect, either for Orders ſake, or to avoyd ſcandall, is acknowledged by thoſe Proteſtants who make leaſt account of Laying on of hands. As it muſt be granted p. 75that all examples either of Chriſt or his Apoſtles have not the nature of a Law; ſo muſt it alſo be maintained that ſome have: and I think as much may be ſaid for this in particular, I mean the Apoſtles practiſe in Ordination, as for any other; or as much as for the geſture of ſitting in receiving the Sacrament. At preſent here's nothing but bare Aſſertion, and therefore the leſſe need to dwell upon the particular. 2. If Impoſition of hands be a ſigne, and (as your Author calls it) a morall ſigne, it muſt in ſome ſenſe be ſacred, becauſe the ſubject of it, and manner of uſing, belong unto the firſt Table; and as a ſigne, it is eſſentiall to it to be ſignificant. That grace is given by and with the Ordination of the Miniſters, when Cartwright againſt the Them. on 1 Tim 4 14.1 Tim 4:14it is duly given and received, we willingly yield, becauſe the words of the Scripture beare it. Thus much Cartwright grants unto the Rhemiſts, in the name of Proteſtants.

To your fourth Reaſon, pag. 14.

If laying on of hands be eſſentiall to a Miniſters Call, then are the Miniſters of the Reformed Churches no Miniſters: For though they uſe Laying on of hands, now, as a thing indifferent; yet they who uſed it firſt, had it not themſelves.

I anſwer. The Conſequence is denied. 1. Becauſe Laying on of hands (contrary to what you ſay) hath continued in moſt of the Reformed Churches ſucceſſively to this day; as in England, Denmark, and many parts of Germany. For England, in this reſpect the ſpight and envy of the Papiſts hath been eſpecially ſet againſt the Miniſtry of it. And though **Tractatu de vocatione Miniſtrorum.Champney labours to invalid all which Maſon alledges (de Miniſterio Anglicano) to prove ſucceſſion; yet in his Epiſtle to George Abbot then Archbiſhop of Canterbury, he confeſſeth he heard that the ſaid Archbiſhop cauſed ſome Popiſh Prieſts to be brought before himſelf and ſome others in Commiſſion with him, that they might teſtifie they had ſeen thoſe Publike Acts which Maſon urged for his proof. For Denmark, and alſo for divers parts of Germany, I refer you to Melchior Adamus in the life of Bagenhagius, p. 315.

2. Becauſe there are times wherein neither Election nor Ordination [as Church-acts] are eſſentiall unto a Miniſters Calling; as in part hath been cleered already, and will further appear in that which follows.

To your large Quotation out of Beza on Act. 14. 23. in theſe words:

Some (ſaid he) chuſe to refer this to Laying on of hands, as Quid…m hoc …ferre … ad manuū impoſitionem, quae & ipſa ſi… pro… ſus neceſſaria; & hoc praetext… accepto vocationem nostram irritam eſſe dicunt: qu…niam Ordinarii (quos vocan) nobis manus non impoſuerunt; ſive quòd no ſumus in Romana eccleſia ordinati. Reſp. & ipſis canonibus qu…s jactant, irritam eſſe conſecrationem cui non praeirit legitima el…cti…, aut quae fit Excommunicaro. Oſtendant autem ipſi vel unumin tota illo Hierarchia qui legitimè ſit vocatus, imo qui non ſit centies ipſo jure excommunicatus, ſi ipſi eorum Synodis ſtatur. Not …itur cur ab illis Impoſitionem manuū pe…eremus? aut qu… ſure ipſi nobis eam tribuerent? Habemus autem nos Dei beneficio certas noſtrae vocationis nota…, legitimo ab eccleſiis noſtris & vitae & doctrinae teſtim nio (per Dei gratiam) ornati, & ab i…ſdem electi, ac demum etian invocate Dei nomine, in no…tro Miniſterio confirmati, cui Dominus (ut spero) ejectis tum ſuribus tum mercenariis, benedicet.if it alſo were altogether neceſſary; and under this pretence ſay Our Calling is null, becauſe the Ordinaries (as they call them) have not laid hands on us, or becauſe we are not Conſecrated in the Church of Rome. I anſwer by thoſe Canons which they boaſt of, the Conſecration is null, where there was not firſt a lawfull choice, or which was done by one who is excommunicated. Let them ſhew but one in all their Hierarchy who is lawfully choſen, yea who is not by the very Law a hundred times Excommnicate, if they will ſtand to their own Synods. Why ſhould we therefore deſire hands to be laid on us by them? or by what Law can they do it? But we have by the bleſſing of God certain marks of our Calling, being (through the grace of God) adorned with the lawfull Teſtimony of our Life and Doctrine, from our Churches; and after that, by calling upon the name of God, confirmed in our Miniſtery; which God, I hope, will bleſſe, and caſt out both the Theeves and Hirelings.

Anſ. Theſe few and briefe Notes may ſuffice for anſwer. 1. Beza gives no reaſon at at all to prove why foreign the word there ſpoken of, ſhould not be referred to laying on of hands, or why it ſhould imply ſome joint act of the Apoſtles and of the Churches. But of this enough before. 2. The whole paſſage is rather an apologie for want of Impoſition of hands in ſome, than to ſhew that it is needleſſe in all. 3. Its granted, that in ſuch a caſe as he ſpeaks of, the firſt p. 77comming out to Babylon, it was not neceſſary to return back again to Popiſh Biſhops for Ordination: and to this his reaſons are ſtrong; but what is that to the regular and ordinary way of Calling? 4. It's worth obſerving how he begins: [Some chuſe to refer this to Laying on of hands.] For indeed they were not only Papiſts who urged the neceſſity of having hands laid on, (and it ſeems from this place) but Proteſtants alſo were offended with the firſt Reformers in France, for want of ſucceſſion in the way of Ordination. Which gave occaſion to Sadeel to write a ſpeciall Treatiſe (De legitima vocatione Paſtorum Eccleſiae Reformatae) againſt thoſe who profeſſed to differ from the reſt (in hoc tantùm capite) in this point only, That Miniſters wanted a lawfull Calling, for want of ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles to the preſent times. And therefore you muſt not wonder if you cannot perſwade all men to be of your mind, eſpecially when your reaſons are far from cogencie: And Beza, from whom you might expect ſomething, and make a ſhew of much, waves the determining of that on the place, which was moſt proper to it. 5. If it be ſaid, he gives certain marks of Calling, and yet reckons not Impoſition of hands for one. As 1. the Teſtimony; 2. the Election of the Church, (for that's in the Latine, though you leave it out in the tranſlation) and 3. Confirmation by prayer. I anſwer, theſe ſuffice when the condition of the Church will not poſſibly afford more, yea leſſe then theſe: The ediſication of the Church is ſo neceſſary, that it muſt be endeavoured as Providence makes way; but when there may be Order and beauty obſerved, its ſinfull to neglect the rules and means of procuring and upholding it. That which is lawfull by vertue of neceſſity, is only ſo far lawfull, as the neceſſity is reall, and not pretended.

That which followes is in part confuſed.

And in the ſame caſe are the Lutherans, who hold Laying on of hands not to be eſſentiall to their Calling, yea, that it's Popery to hold it ſo. Bellarmine (ſayes Tarnovius) would have laying on of hands to be abſolutely neceſſary, as the ſubſtantiall part of Ordination.

p. 78Yet I anſwer, 1. In the connexion of theſe words either to thoſe immediately foregoing, or to the beginning of the Paragraph, you make the Lutherans Theeves and Hirelings, or exclude them out of the number of the Reformed Churches, which is extreme uncharitable. 2. Though the Lutherans do not hold Laying on of hands to be eſſentiall, yet they need not fear a nullity in their Calling, having Impoſition by ſucceſſion, and uſing it ſtill. The act it ſelf is of force, though they ſhould erre in the grounds of uſing it. 3. To hold Laying on of hands to be abſolutely neceſſary in all caſes, may well be counted Popery; if we think thoſe hands muſt be a Biſhops, and that Biſhop conſecrated by a power derived from the Sea of Rome, as Papiſts do: But to hold Laying on of hands ſuch a rite as ought not to be omitted by thoſe who have authority from the Word to uſe it, in deſigning a meet perſon to the Miniſtery, and in the viſible declaration of that deſignation, is no Popery. 4. In this paſſage you deal fraudulently with your credulous Readers, while you pretend to tell them the Judgement of Proteſtant Divines, and do purpoſely conceale it. Tarnovius in that very place which you point at in your margin, propounding the queſtion (De impoſitionis manuum neceſſitate) Concerning the neceſſity of Laying on of hands, ſuppoſeth a neceſſity more or leſſe to be granted on both ſides between Papiſts and Lutherans; and having ſet down Bellarmines opinion, afterward gives this for his own and others of that part. Nos eum (ſpeaking of this rite) neceſſarium exiſtimamus ſecundum quid, nimirum quia citra ſcandalum omitti hodie non poteſt, qui tot annos in Eccleſia uſitatus fuit, & habet ſuos uſus. What need you cite Tarnovius only to let us know what Bellarmine ſayes and will not let us know the judgement of Tarnovius himſelf; if it were not upon deſigne to rake up all that may be ſaid againſt that Rite, and to hury (as much as in you lies) all that makes for it. 5. As for the opinion of the Papiſts in generall, and particularly of Bellarmine, they are divided in this point. And though he labours to prove Manus impoſitionem ad eſſentiam De Sac. Ord. lib. 1. cap. 9.Sacramenti ordinis pertinere; yet he ſayes, Alii exiſtimant manus impoſitionem eſſe accidentariam.—ita Dominicus à p. 79Soto, & alii quidam. Whether there be not ſome difference between (pertinere ad eſſentiam) to belong unto the eſſence, which is Bellarmines expreſsion; and, eſſe ſubſtantiale, as Tarnovius hath it: or, to be a ſubſtantiall part, as you phraſe it, is conſiderable: becauſe that belongs unto the eſſence, without which it cannot be compleat or entire; and that only is a ſubſtantiall part, without which it cannot be at all. Among Decret. Greg. lib. 1. tit. 16. …. 1.the Decretals of Gregory, this Caſe is put: An permitti debeat miniſtrare qui ſine impoſitione manuum fuerit ad Ordinem Subdiaconatus aſſumptus. Whether one taken into the Order of a Subdeacon, without Impoſition of hands, ſhould be permitted to miniſter. By this it appears, 1. That laying on of hands was ſometime omitted in ſome Ordinations. 2. That ſuch Ordination Impoſitio manuum non requ…r…tur in omnibus Ordinibus eccleſiasticis velut in cocolytho & ſubdiacono ordinandis. Can. ſubdiacon. & can. ſeq. dist. 24.was not preſently thought to be invalid, and [eo ipſo] null. Which is further manifeſt by the Popes anſwer to the Caſe, which is made a Canon in their Law. In talibus non eſt aliquid iterandum, ſed cautè ſupplendum, quod incautè fuerat praetermiſſum. In ſuch caſes nothing is to be reiterated, but that muſt be warily ſupplyed, which was unwarily pretermitted. Th…s is of great uſe againſt the Papiſts themſelves, who can find a ſalvo for want of Impoſition of hands among themſelves, and yet allow none to the Paoteſtants. And ſerves alſo to ſhew the vanity of your argument, who from the defect of this one hing, without any diſtinction of time or ſtate in the Church, would infer a meer nullity in the whole. Thus far by occaſion of that in Tarnovius.

Touching Chemnitius it follows.

Chemnitius puts the caſe, Whether his Miniſtery be Null who hath not hands laid on him? And having repeated their opinion who ſay its not neceſſary, ſo the Call be lawfull; he lays the neceſſity of it to be in regard of others who run and are not ſent, not in regard of the Calling it ſelf, but that the Calling may be witneſſed which the Miniſter hath; and ſays, Ord natio non facit vocationem, Ordination makes not his Calling, but declares it. And further, Praecipuè ſervatur iſte ritus, ut tota Eccleſia communibus & ardentibus precibus &c. That Impoſition of hands is retained chiefly for the Prayers ſake which the whole Church makes, &c. Yea, Fatendum p. 80ſane nullum extare in Scripturis mandatum Dei In 1 Tim. 5. 22.1 Tim 5:22quod h…c ritus Ordinationis ſit adhibendus. There is no command of God in Scripture to Ordain by laying of hands. Loc. com. tom. 3. 137.

The anſwer. 1. Why did you conceale from the Reader Cer…ò & manifeste constat, cum ex Scripturae mandatis, tum exemplis, Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 4 14. 2 Tim. 22. Act. 14. 23. Eos qui jam ſunt i… M…n…ſterio, & profitentur ſacram doctrinam, adhibendos eſſe quando per medi…tam vo…ationem al cui comm…ndandum eſt miniſterium. Turbulenti & ſedui ſi Anabaptiſtae minime rectè faciunt qui vocabulo Eccleſiae intell gunt tantum promiſcuam multitudinem, excluſo Miniſterio & pio Magistratu. Chemnit. par. 8. L. C. de Eccleſia. pag 134.Titus 1:51 Tim 4:14Acts 14:23what you found in Chemnitius in favour of Ordination, as an act of Miniſters and Elders, when you were upon that Head? Are not thoſe his words, which you have here in the margin?

2. Touching the matter it ſelf which you here refer unto, you miſ-relate him. He ſpeaks not of laying on of hands in the ordinary and regular Call of a Miniſter, for therein he ſuppoſes Impoſition of hands ſhould be uſed; but of a certain caſe. Nam interdum hujuſmodi caſus incidunt, ut quis habeat vocationem, & impediatur quo minus ſe conferat ad Nobiliorem Eccleſiam, in quâ accipiat ritum Ordinationis. Queſtio ergo eſt, An illius miniſterium ſit evacuatum? His anſwer is, Aliqui id affirmant, aliqui negant: Some grant it, ſome deny it.

3. It ſuffices me that he grants Impoſition of hands to be neceſſary in any reſpect agreeable to the Word. For they who agree in that, will agree in a warrantable uſe of this rite; neither the peace nor the communion of the Church will be diſturbed, though it be not held to be eſſentiall. 4. Take his own words fully, (Sed tamen propte… eos qui currunt, & non miſſi ſunt, vocatio debet habere publicum Eccleſiae teſtimonium. Et ritus Ordinationis nihil aliud eſt quàm talis publica teſtificatio, quâ vocatio illa in conſpectu Dei, & ipſius nomine declaratur eſſe legitima & divina.) and conſider whether th…s follow not:—A Miniſters call is then declared lawfull and divine, and ſo to be reputed, when he is Ordained by laying on of hands. And if there be no other way of ſuch Declaration to be f…und in Scripture, This of Impoſition of hands will be p. 81eſſentiall to it. 5. Whereas you ſingle out thoſe words only, Ordinatio non facit vocationem, Ordination makes not his Calling, but declares it:—The entire ſentence is this: Licet ergo Ordinatio non facit vocationem, ſi tamen quis legitimè eſt vocatus, ille ritus eſt declaratio & confirmatio vocationem illam quae praeceſſit eſſe legitimam. Here are two things which you leave out. 1. That Ordination is a confirmation of that Call, as well as a declaration. 2. It is not barely a delaration of the Call, but of the Lawfulneſſe; ſo as the lawfulneſſe of the Call may juſtly be queſtioned, which hath not been declared by Ordination. 6. This rite is not reteined chiefly for the Prayers ſake (as you tranſlate his words) but rather for the benefit of ſuch prayers as uſe to be made at Ordination. [Et illas preces tali ritu peractas, non eſſe inanes teſtatur Moſes, Deut. 34. 9. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim, 1. 6.] 7. As I grant thoſe are his words, Fatendum ſanè &c. ſo you cannot deny that theſe which follow are his alſo. Habet tamen ille ſua fundamenta in verbo Dei. This rite hath its foundations in hhe Word of God. 8. It's much that you have alledged out of Chemnitius; but is there nothing elſe which is of concernment for the Reader to know touching this Rite? You know there is more (pag. 138.) where he gives an account to what end and uſe Impoſition of hands is reteined in the Reformed Churches. As, 1. Illo publico ritu teſtamur, hoc opus licèt ſit mediatum, eſſe tamen verè divinum. [By this publike rite we teſtifie that this work although it be mediate, yet it is truly Divine: for it is not ours, but Gods work which we performe, who calls and Ordains that perſon by us.] 2. Hac impoſitione manuum ſiſtitur Eccleſiae, ut haec quoque admoneatur Deum per hanc perſonam & ejus miniſterium velle ipſos docere, exhortari, conſolari, Sacramenta adminiſtrare, peccata vel abſolvere vel ligare. [By this impo…ition of hands the Miniſter is preſented to the Church, that they alſo may be admoniſhed that God by him and his miniſtery will teach, exhort, and co…fort them, adminiſter the Sacraments unto them, and looſe or bind their ſins.] But the people muſt hear nothing of this kind from Proteſtant Divines, leſt they ſoon perceive that thoſe Miniſters who make them believe that power of p. 82Ordination belongs unto the people, do deceive; and that there is ſomething belonging to the Call of a Miniſter, which from the nature of the thing it ſelf cannot belong to the People, or to any of their deputing to this act, but to ſuch as are already Miniſters, by them to be performed towards the people in the name of God and Chriſt alone. Authoritas coram Eccleſia tribuitur ei, cuimanus ſunt impoſitae. [Authority is conferred on him publikely before the Church, on whom hands are laid. Thus Chemnitius. But this was not for your turne; neither doth it ſerve ad captandum populum, to heare of authority conferred on Miniſters, eſpecially by Impoſition of hands. Thus far of Chemnitius.

To that of Danaeus in 1 Tim. 5. 22.

Laying on of hands is not neceſſary, ſo there be but Prayer made to confirme the Party elected, and the whole Church joyn in prayer with him, that the Spirit of God would ſtrengthen him. And he gives amongſt other reaſons, as that Prayer is all, this for one. Qui hanc ceremoniam praeciſe urgent, incidunt in vanas quaeſtiones & ineptas. The urging of it breeds vain and fooliſh queſtions about Miniſters Callings.

I anſwer, 1. I queſtion whether ever you conſulted with the Author himſelf, and did not rather tranſcribe a little out of that which you found cited in Tarnovius. If you did, it further appeares how partiall and unfaithfull you are in ſetting down the Judgement of Protestant Divines; For he makes an act of the Preſbyters not only to be neceſſary, but neceſſary in the firſt place before the aſſent of the people be asked, in calling of a Miniſter; and gives five ſtrong reaſons for it, to which I refer the ſtudious Reader in the Book it ſelf, pag. 352, 253, 254.] 2. Whereas you ſay, Laying on of hands is not neceſſary, Danaeus his own words (pag. 360) are, Non uſque adeo certè neceſſaria eſt. And ſo they are alſo in Tarnovius, ſo as you cannot pretend that he deceived you in this. By that manner of expreſſion he grants ſome neceſſity, though not abſolute; and does not ſimply ſay as …, Laying on of hands is not neceſſary. 3. That reaſon, that Prayer is all, is obtruded on him (if I miſtake not) and not to be found in any of his expreſſions. 4. What he ſayes of p. 83the preciſe urging of the Ceremony, is to be underſtood of the urging of it upon Popiſh grounds. The fooliſh queſtions which he means, are thoſe in a Popiſh Canon de triplici manuum impoſitione, una Ordinatoria, altera Confirmatoria, tertia Curatoria, and ſuch like. 5. It's granted that he ſayes expreſly, that Laying on of hands is not eſſentialis pars, & ritus legitimae vocationis; and that it is in rerum indifferentium numero, & retineri & omitti poteſt pro more regionis in qua electus ordinatur. This laſt is more then you have yet acknowledged: And if it be to be reteined pro more regionis according to the cuſtome of the Country, it muſt continue in uſe among us, for ought that you have ſaid or can ſay to prove it Non-eſſentiall.

Now thus it follows—

And with them agrees the Church of Scotland. The Engl. pop. cer. pag. 168, 169.Church hath full liberty to uſe any other decent rite, or to uſe no rite at all beſide a publike declaration; the Church is not not tyed to uſe any rite at all by the Word of God, in the giving of Ordination.

Anſ. What's the matter that you cite this book ſo often? Are you in love with Engliſh Popiſh Ceremonies? or do you take that Book for an Oracle? Or do you think the Church of Scotland will abide by every expreſſion to be found therein? Or is there no other way to know the ſenſe of the Church of Scotland, but by that Book? Are you of the ſame judgement with that Church, or any of thoſe Proteſtant Divines whom you have cited, ſo much as in this one head of Ordination, and the rite of it? I feare nothing leſſe. The Church of Scotland is at an agreement within it ſelf, and with ſuch eminent Divines abroad as Chemnitius and Danaeus; but you and they differ (if I be not miſ-informed) more then a little. But, 2. to the thing it ſelf. Liberty of deviſing new rites in Ordination is neither ſ…fe to be granted by way of doctrine, nor to be uſed in practice, eſpecially in thoſe Churches which have ſuffered much under pretence and by the abuſe of ſuch liberty, and who in other things are ſtrict urgers of examples as binding, and that in matter of Rite. 3. Thoſe Scriptures which tye the Church to Ordination, tye her alſo p. 84to the Rite which we are ſpeaking of: Or tell us where you find a Scripture for the one, and not for the other?

That which follows, whether intended as a fifth reaſon, or as an excurſion only, I know not: though it be confuſed, yet it ſufficiently diſcovers what you aim at, viz. To make thoſe who were Ordained by Biſhops no Miniſters, under pretence that they were Ordained by them as a Superiour Order unto Preſbyters, and ſo you ſlide into another Queſtion: Whether the Perſon ordaining or impoſing hands be of the eſſence of the Call.] I ſhall lay down all your own words entire, and then anſwer. Thus you, pag. 16.

Yea, ſuppoſe it eſſentiall; and then, whereas it hath been held againſt the Browniſts, that the Miniſtery in the Church of England is not null, though the Biſhops laid on their hands, who ſhould not have had a finger in it, (becauſe an extrinſecall Circumſtance failing, or being corrupted, a thing ceaſes not to be) yet if it be made Eſſentiall, what ſhall be ſaid? Seeing both in the Biſhops intention in ordaining, and in the profeſſion of the Party ordained, hands were laid on him, not as a Presbyter formally, but as one of a ſuperior Order to Elders; and for ſuch an Order there is no Divine inſtitution. As therefore that Baptiſme muſt be repeated, which was administred by a perſon not lawfully called to the miniſtration of it, if the Perſon miniſtring be eſſentiall to Baptiſme; ſo muſt that perſon be Ordained again, who had hands laid on by a Biſhop, as a Biſhop, if Laying on of hands be eſſentiall to the Miniſtery. Whatſoever wants its Eſſentials, is not, though it ſeems to be.

Anſ. Let the Queſtions be propounded diſtinctly, which are here involv'd, and then it will be eaſier for any one to judge.

1. What will follow concerning the Miniſtery in the Church of England, if Laying on of hands be eſſentiall?

I anſwer. That the Miniſters of England who have Hands laid on them, have that which is eſſentiall to their Calling. Who can imagine otherwiſe upon the ſuppoſition?

2. But ſeeing Miniſters in England were Ordained by Biſhops as a ſuperiour Order to Elders, and no ſuch Order is p. 85of Gods appointing, nor ought to be; is not their Calling null in that reſpect?

Anſ. No, i… is not. 1. Becauſe neither Church nor State did ever declare Biſhops to be a ſuperiour Order, though ſome of them (for they were but ſome) made ſuch a claim. The State hath often declared againſt it, not only by books approved by them, as in the dayes of Henry the 8. but by ſeverall acts of Parliament in King Edwards time, and ſince.

2. Becauſe Biſhops only and alone were never authoriſed to lay on hands, excluding other Pr…sbyters, but together with them.

3. Biſhops were Elders firſt, before they came to be Biſhops; and of Elders were made Biſhops in way of accumulation, not in way of privation. Their error, that they thought themſelves a ſuperiour Order above Presbyters, could not make them no Presbyters.

4. All Ordinations are counted valid which are performed in a ſetled Church, with the conſent of Magiſtrate, Miniſters and People; whether the Ordainers be Biſhop, Superintendent, or a Preſbyterie. This principle is maintained both by the Lutherans and Calviniſts, as you uſe to diſtinguiſh, For the Lutherans, I refer you to Hen. Ekhardus [in opuſculo de Ordine Eccleſiaſtico, pag. 5…. and to Nicolaus Hunnius [Demonſt. Min. Lutherani, pag. 294.] For others, Zanchy ſayes, (quo ſupra.) Nihil refert ſive ab omnibus praeſentibus Miniſtris, ſive ab uno omnium nomine imponantur manus. It matters not whether hands be laid on by all the Miniſters who are preſent, or by one in the name of the reſt. So he. And I think it might be added, nor how many be preſent; the Quorum is but of prudentiall determination. Pareus ſpeaks more largely. **Comment. ad Rom. 10. 15.Rom 10:15The lawfull Calling of the Church is that, which is inſtituted in every Church by publike authority, for Orders ſake unto edification. Neque enim uniformis eſt omnium ubique quoad circumſtantias externas, ſed libertati Eccleſiae relicta.

5. To ſpeak my own judgement. When ſin cleaves to the manner of Calling, through the generall error or corruption of all ſorts who are concerned in it, though ſuch a p. 86Calling cannot be ſaid to be legitima, or legi proxima, but is diſpleaſing to God, and null in ſome ſenſe, (as unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is counted no receiving, 1 Cor. 11. 20.) and ſinfull faſting, no faſting, Zach. 7. 5.) yet it is not otherwiſe to be invalidated here below, than by doctrinall cenſure and repentance, and not (as we uſe to phraſe it) by reiteration.

2. As to your third queſtion, What ſhall be ſaid to the Browniſts? By the way, let us know what you are; whether to ſatisfie you and them be not one thing? And let them firſt agree amongſt, and anſwer for themſelves. Ainſworth, the more rigid, thinks the People have power to Ordain. Johnſon denies it, and maintains the validity of Baptiſme and Ordination not in England only, but in Rome. Whether all, I know not, but ſure I am many of thoſe in New-England fall in with Ainſworth in this fundamentall of the Browniſts. Thoſe amongſt us here at home, who ſay they are not Browniſts, and like not to be called Independents, are not all one mans children in this point. What a caſe are they in with the Anabaptiſts, who will not call in or repair unto the Elders of other Churches to Ordain for them, and can have no Elderſhip within themſelves but by popular Election; if Ordination be eſſentiall, and the perſons Ordaining in Scripture be found to be only Elders, or more then Elders, and there be nothing almoſt or in compariſon but examples in things of this kind?

3. For your cloſe: Whatſoever wants its eſſentials, is not, though it ſeems to be. I anſwer, There's difference between eſſentia partis, and compoſiti; and in a totum integrale, a member may be wanting, and yet all being not be deſtroyed. He that loſes an arm or a legge, doth not thereby loſe his life, unleſſe it be by accident. As Election relates to the People, and Ordination to the Elders, they ſubſiſt apart: Each of them have their fair claims for priority. In ſeverall caſes both may carry it, and the preſence of the one ſupply the abſence of the other. That Ordination which is pretended by the body of the People, or ſuch Members out of office as they depute, ſeems to be and is not: But that which is performed p. 87by Preaching Presbyters, is an Ordinance of God, and you have yet proved nothing to the contrary.

Next you make ſhew of anſwering an Objection.

1 Tim. 5. 22. Laying on of hands is put for the whole matter of appointing Miniſters, Ergo it is eſſentiall.

Anſ. Before I conſider of your anſwer, I have ſomething to ſay in generall, and particularly to this for the generall. 1. If you have a mind in good earneſt to anſwer ſuch things as may be produced for the affirmative of that Theſis which you deny, why ſay you nothing to that of Calvin, whereof I ſuppoſe you are not ignorant? **Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum impoſitione, quia tamen fuiſſe in perpetuouſu apoſtolis videmus illa tam accurata corum obſervatio praecepti vice nobis eſſe debet. Calv. inst. lib. 4. cap. 3. ſec. 16.Although (ſaith he) there is no certain precept extant concerning Impoſition of hands, yet becauſe we ſee it was in perpetuall uſe by the Apoſtles, that their ſo accurate an obſervation muſt be in ſtead of a precept to us.

2. Impoſition of hands was of ſuch account with him, and many other the moſt eminent among Proteſtant Divines, that I believe you think they ſaid too much in favour of it, and cannot but conceive they ſaw ſome reaſon for ſo ſaying, and therefore it would not be below you to vouchſafe them an anſwer. Non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum. So Calvin **Calv. lib. 4. cap. 14. ſec. 20. cap. 19. ſec. 39.. In another place: Supereſt impoſitio manuum, quam ut in veris legitimíſque ordinationibus Sacramentum eſſe concedo, ita nego locum habere in hac fabula. Martin Bucer enquiring after that Ordination which the Holy Ghoſt in his Scriptures teacheth to be lawfull, ſayes. Ea vero eſt—ſolennis per verbum Domini & preces Eccleſiae, & manuum impoſitionem, inſtitutio, atque imitatio **Videndum igitur quàm Sp. Sanctus in ſcripturis ſuis doceat legitimam… eſſe Miniſtrorū ordinationem. Ea verò est eorum qui agnoſci poſſint & debeant ad Eccleſiae ministeria eſſe ritè vo…a…i atque probati, ad eadem ministeria … legitim… Ordinatore ſolennis per verbum Domini & preces Eccleſiae, & Manuum impoſitionem inſtitutio, …tque i…ia…i… M. Bucer inter ſcripta Anglicana. De Ordinatione legitima Miniſtrerum Eccleſi… revocanda. p. 238.. In his judgement therefore, where there is no laying on of hands; there is no lawfull Ordination; and this way of Ordaining is the Scripture-way, and the way which the Holy Ghoſt teacheth.

Now particularly to that place in 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands ſuddenly on no man. This argument may be drawn from them▪ p. 88Laying on of hands is eſtabliſhed for continuance, becauſe only the ſudden laying on is forbidden, and whatſoever is commanded about Ordination is eſſentiall to it. But this you take no notice of; only you deviſe a Reaſon which I know not who will owne, and think perhaps to be applauded for your anſwer.

Take it for granted (ſay you) that [Laying on of hands is put for the whole matter of appointing Miniſters] (for this muſt be ſupplied hither out of the Objection) though it will not eaſily be proved, becauſe the Scripture ſhews it hath been uſed in other caſes then in appointing Officers; yet it follows not that it is the principall or eſſentiall thing in Ordination. As for example, Prayer is put for the whole worſhip of God, yet it is not the principall part of worſhip; for ſometimes keeping the Sabbath is put for all the Worſhip; as Iſa. 56. 4. Again, as when the Scripture by the ſame figure puts lifting up of hands for Election (as it doth Act. 14. 23) it binds not to that in all Elections, nor placeth it the eſſence of a choice in that: ſo neither doth the Scripture place the chief part or eſſence of Ordination in laying on of hands, though it put it for that work.

Anſ. 1. Though laying on of hands was uſed at other times, as well as at Ordination; yet there is no reaſon why we ſhould imagine that in this Text it refers to any other thing becauſe the Chapter ſpeaks for the moſt part of things belonging to Elders. 2. Be it granted that laying on of hands was uſed in other caſes beſides that of appointing Officers: yet the uſe of it in ordaining Elders is one thing, if it be not the only thing here intended. 3. This argument will ſurely hold. Laying on of hands is put for appointing Miniſters therefore in appointing Miniſters its lawfull to lay on hands. As this: Prayer and keeping the Sabbath are put for Worſhip, therefore they belong to Worſhip. And if becauſe they be put for Worſhip, they are therefore parts of Worſhip; then Impoſition of hands is part of Ordination, becauſe its put for Ordination. If a part, then either eſſentiall or integrall; ſo as at leaſt no Ordination is complete and entire without it. 3. Lifting up of hands is not put for Election, in Act. 14. 23. p. 89as you underſtand Election; and if you will needs have Election underſtood there, it will follow that Paul and Barnabas did both elect and ordain; and while you graſp in all for the People, you will leave them nothing. 4. If lifting up of hands by the people, were as directly intended and as often expreſſed as laying on of hands by Apoſtles & Elders is, your zeale for the People would make you think it neceſſary. To what purpoſe ſhould laying of hands be ſo often mentioned, if the Holy Ghoſt intended it ſhould be meerly arbitrary, whether it be uſed or no? 5. Conſider what Antonius Walaeus hath ſaid, propounding the queſtion, Whether Impoſition of hands be neceſſary. **Video in omnibus Confeſsionibus Noſtrarum Eccleſia…um; praet…r unam a…t alte am, eam requiri & Sane cum Apoſtoli ſemper eam uſurparint, in…o Apoſtolus praeceptum dat Timotheo. 1. Tim. 5 22 Ne …ito …iquam manus Imponito, nos omittendam non judicamus: quia in negativo illo mandato, etiam affirmativū continetur: ubi cū pro totâ electione Paſtoris ſumatur per Synecdochen, certe pro ritu aut parte eſſentiati habenda est, alioquin pro toto ſumi non poſsit, aut ſaltem proadjuncto proprio & omnibus vocationibus communi. Ant. Wal. l. de Funct. Eccl.1 Tim 5:22[I perceive (ſaith he) that it is required in all the Confeſſions of our Churches except one or two. And ſurely, ſeeing the Apoſtles alwayes uſed it, yea the Apoſtle gives Timothy a commandment, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands ſuddenly on no man: we judge it is not to be omitted; becauſe in that negative commandement an affirmative is alſo contained: where being taken by a Synecdoche for the whole Election of a Paſtor, it muſt be taken either for a rite, or for an eſſentiall part; (otherwiſe it could not be put for the whole) or at leaſt for a proper adjunct, and that which is common to all Callings.]

Now you begin to draw towards a concluſion, and propound this queſtion:

If therefore laying on of hands be not eſſentiall, why ſhould thoſe be kept altogether from labouring in the Lords harveſt, who cannot or have not receivedit, and in a way too that is as queſtionable as the thing it ſelf? If the Calling may be true without it, why is it equally preſſed with it? Is there more need of an adjunct, an acceſſory, a ſolemnity, then of Miniſters, peace, ſalvation to peoples ſoules by Preaching? Aſſoon as they had but an Altar, they offered on it when they came out of Babylon, and ſtayed not till all the Temple in all its furniture and utenſils was ready, Ezra 3. Before they were wholly carried away into Babylon, they worſhipped and ſerved God with thoſe veſſels which were left in the Sanctuary, though they had not all, 2 Chron. 36. 7. 10. 18. What higher p. 90point of Separation is there, than to make voyd or deny a whole Ordinance for want of a Circumſtance?

Anſ. 1. Here are many raſh inſinuations: As,

1. That ſome are kept altogether from labouring in the Lords harveſt, who cannot, or have not received Impoſition of hands.

2. That the way to receive Impoſition of hands, (ſpeaking of the preſent) is as queſtionable as the thing it ſelfe.

3. That Calling, and Impoſition of hands are equally preſſed.

4. That nothing ſhould be preſt about the Calling of a Miniſter, but that which is eſſentiall.

I ſhall ſpeak a little to theſe, and then anſwer your main queſtion.

For the firſt. The fault of our times is, and long hath been a boundleſſe liberty uſurped by ſome, and connived at by others. Perhaps ſome may be denied approbation for, and admittance unto the publike Miniſtery by way of charge, not becauſe they had not, but becauſe they would not (though tendered to them) receive impoſition of hands. But who are kept back altogether? Many, both men and women, are ſaid to have laboured much in the Lord, by their private endeavours; who did not yet ſtretch themſelves Phil. 4. 3. Rom. 16. 12.Phil 4:3Rom 16:12beyond their line to preach publikely un-ordained. This liberty in a morall way is denied none.

For the ſecond, I ſuppoſe your Margin is intended, where you tell us—

We have the word [Presbyterie] but once ſpoken of in all the Scripture, as belonging to the Churches of the New-Teſtament. Calvin underſtands by it the office of a Preſbyter, not a company of them. Thoſe who take it for a company, differ among themſelves. Some ſay a company of Preachers, as the Leyden-Profeſſors. Synopſ. purior. Theol. diſp. 43. n. 37. Some take it for a company of extraordinary Miniſters, as Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Prophets. Scoti foreign, Paracleſ. p. 228. Others for a company of Ruling Elders as well as others, Eng. pop. cer. p. 171. Some underſtand it of a Congregationall p. 91Preſbyterie, (as the Non-conformiſts againſt See the anſw. to Bp. Downham, ſerm. p. 93.Downham, and the Scots againſt Tilenus.) Some of a Claſſical Provinciall Preſbyterie, as the LONDON-Miniſters.

Anſ. 1. You ſhould do well to let us know your own judgment, whether we ſhall repute you Prelaticall, Browniſt, Anabaptiſt, Independent, Eraſtian, Seeker, Sceptick? Or whether you underſtand it of a Conclave of Cardinals. Would you have it a cypher to ſignifie nothing, or ad placitum? What means this pretending of ambiguity, where there is none? You cannot but perceive that moſt of theſe opinions fall into one, againſt thoſe that place the power of Ordination in the People. There might be a company of Preachers, and of extraordinary Miniſters, and ſome Ruling Elders, and yet all in one Presbyterie. No man yet ever dreamed that it ſignified a company of Believers without Officers. 2. What of that that it is but once ſpoken of in all the Scriptures? You cannot find the word Excommunication ſo much as once, nor Trinity; will you therefore be Eraſtian or Arrian? Shew us one place for Ordination by the people, or calling to the office of a Miniſter without it? Whereſoever there were divers Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Prophets, or Biſhops and Elders orderly aſſembled for acts of power, there was the ſubſtance of a Presbyterie, (we have neither fitter nor other name in Scripture to call ſuch an Aſſembly by.) Such there were both at Jeruſalem, Act. 15. and at Antioch, Act. 13. 1. and at Philippi, Phil. 1. …. And therefore though we read of the name but once, we have the thing often. 3. For Calvin, theſe are his own words upon that Text (1 Tim. 4. 14.) Preſbyterium qui hîc collectivum nomen eſſe putant pro Collegio Preſbyterorum poſitum, rectè ſentiunt meo judicio. [They who think Preſbyterie in this place to be a Noun collective put for a Colledge of Presbyters, do think rightly in my judgement.] Therefore though he think another ſenſe (non malè quadrare) may agree with the words; yet you have no reaſon to ſet him at a diſtance from others, and from himſelf. 4. As touching the Leyden-Profeſſors, whereas your printed book hath diſput. 43. n. 3…. I ſuppoſe your Copy had p. 92diſp. 42. for there only is ſhew of ſomething for your purpoſe, but nothing indeed. Though the power of Ordaining or Confirming Paſtors (ſay they) belong to the whole Preſbytery; yet of old the Preſbytery did execute that in the rite of laying on of hands, not ſo much by Ruling Elders as by Paſtors, who did eſpecially attend on prophecy or explication of the Scripture, and application of it to the uſe of the faithfull. unde Prophetia cum Manuum impoſitione per quam olim fiebat Ordinatio Paſtorum, ab Apoſtolo conjungitur. 1 Tim. 4. 14. By this it appears they have a ſingular opinion of the word Prophecy, not of the word Preſbytery; for they plainly ſuppoſe the Presbyterie conſiſted of two ſorts of Elders, and yet that preaching Elders only laid on hands. And well they might ſuppoſe that, (as doth your Author ſo often cited pag. 171.) becauſe much of Prayer and Teaching is to accompany the act of Impoſition, before and after. 5. That which you cite out of the anſwer to Tilenus, under the title of Scoti foreign Paracleſis, is not to be found in it as applied to the word: but this he ſayes in generall. There were many Preſbyteries in the Apoſtles times, in which no Biſhop (properly ſo called) could preſide. Quia pars magna ex Apostolis, Evangeliſtis, & ejuſmodi viris conſtabat, qui Epiſcopis longè erant ſuperiores. [Becauſe a great part (not the whole) did conſiſt of Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, and ſuch like men, which were far ſuperior unto Biſhops.] 6. None affirms that the word Presbytery as it is uſed in 1 Tim. 4. 14. does neceſſarily imply a company of Ruling Elders as well as others. But upon the ſuppoſition that there are two ſorts of Elders, proved by other places, they may be included under that one word, becauſe its comprehenſive of them both. The Presbyterie may be in the eſſentiall conſideration, but cannot be whole in the integrall without them. He that ſays, The number of preaching Elders in one city, together with thoſe Elders Eng pop. cer.which in the ſame city laboured for Diſcipline only, made up that company which the Apoſtle (1 Tim. 4. 14.) calleth a preſbyterie; muſt be underſtood to ſpeak of that company in the generall notion of it rather than in the peculiar or individuall. And this is plain by thoſe words of his which follow a little p. 93after. The Doctor himſelf (ſpeaking of Forbes in his Irenicum) by the Presbyterie whereof the Apoſtle ſpeaks, underſtandeth as we do, Conſeſſus Presbyterorum. 7. That ſome underſtand it of a Congregationall Presbytery, is granted; and ſome excluſively, as if there were no other, as you your ſelf perhaps. But whatever the Nonconformiſts againſt Downham do, ſurely the Scots in generall do not, nor thoſe in particular who wrote againſt Tilenus. And howſoever they uſe the word, Pariſh or Congregation, as diſtinct from Dioceſſe, yet they uſe it in ſo large a ſenſe, as ſerves to take in the greateſt City of England to make but one Congregation. The words of him that wrote againſt Tilenus (lib. citat. cap. 28. pag. 218.) are theſe. Diverſae ſunt Londini paroeciae diſtinctae, quarum tantus eſt numerus, & tam exiguus Note.locus, ut impoſſibile ſit omnes ſimul & ſemel convocari, & tamen pro una tantùm habentur congregatione ſeu paraeciâ. 8. For the London Miniſters, it appears plainly pag. 191. that they bring the word Presbytery as uſed in 1 Tim. 4. 14. only for the proof of this Poſition, That there is a pattern of a Preſbytery in the Word of Chriſt. And that not only becauſe they find the thing as in other places, but the name as here. And if we find the nature of a Presbytery, we ſhall more eaſily diſcern what uſe is to be made of it. 9. All this while I heare nothing but a windy noiſe, that the way to receive Impoſition of hands is as queſtionable as the thing it ſelf. Sir. to be plain with you before ou… parting, If you can ſay no more againſt the way of receiving, then you have ſaid againſt the lawfulneſſe and expediencie of Laying on of hands, (which is worth the while in reference to practiſe) than you have ſaid yet, You may begin when you pleaſe, and bring both ends to nothing.

To your third inſinuation, that Calling and Impoſition of hands are equally preſt. I anſwer, 1. Were it ſo, you need not wonder; becauſe there are few who zealouſly oppoſe the one, but they oppoſe the other alſo: if you mean it of a Church-Call, the thing it ſelf is ſtruck at. Moſt of thoſe who care not for having Hands laid on them, do as little value the Peoples choice; were it not that the people are p. 94purſ-bearers, & the beneficium is ſure to come from them, whoſoever conveighs the officium. Gifted men would plead only the right of their own gifts, but that the Peoples gifts byas them towards the peoples Call. 2. He that ſcruples to have Hands laid on him, may well be ſuſpected to queſtion ſomething elſe; the rather, becauſe they make a new Sect beyond all in ordinary enumeration, who pretend the unlawfulneſſe of this Rite: and therefore Church and State have need to watch againſt the creeping in of ſuch.

To the laſt, That nothing ſhould be preſt about the Calling of a Miniſter, but what is eſſentiall. I anſwer; Conſider of qualifications whether every one of them be eſſentiall or no: if they be not; yet whether they may not be preſt? Is there any Church in the world that urgeth only eſſentials? Many things may be ſaid for Impoſition of hands, that cannot be ſaid for every rite, if it be but a rite. This is to me in ſtead of all: That liberty, whereby we pretend to lay aſide this, will imholden us to deviſe ſome other in ſtead of it; and that's (at leaſt) dangerous. Be it but an adjunct, in one ſenſe it will prove an inſeparable one; Ordination is likely to fall with it, and this monſter like to ariſe in the room of it: the Church will be all body, in viſible adminiſtrations to it ſelf, to act her own part and Chriſts, confuſedly.

But it remains to anſwer your Queſtions a little more particularly.

If the Calling may be true without it, why is it equally preſſed with it? Anſ. It is as well preſſed, but not equally; and therefore preſſed though it were not eſſentiall, becauſe ſo to do is conforme to the Apoſtles practiſe, not only in the particular thing, but in other caſes, as Act. 15. Order, in the particulars of it, is not eſſentiall; and yet particulars may be preſſed for Orders ſake, and that by way of commandement, 1. Cor. 14. 37.

Is there more need of an adjunct, an acceſſory, a ſolemnity, than of Miniſters, peace, and ſalvation to peoples ſoules by Preaching?

Anſ. The neceſſity of Miniſters, peace and ſalvation, are ſtrong obligations to binde thoſe who deſire the office of a p. 95Miniſter, not to refuſe a lawfull adjunct, acceſſory, and ſolemnity. Woe unto him that had rather not preach, then ſubmit himſelf to have hands laid on him; eſpecially when the uſe of that rite is carefully purged from ſuperſtition and abuſe.

As ſoon as they had but an Altar, they offered on it when they came out of Babylon, and ſtayed not till all the Temple in all its furniture and utenſils was ready. Ezra 3.

Anſ. Yet they did not ſacrifice before they had an Altar, under pretence of neceſſity: And why ſhould any do the work of the Office, and take the profit of it, who refuſes in an orderly way to be admitted to the Office it ſelf? Our Temple yet hath not all his furniture & utenſils, but we have a way of Ordination: let ſuch as it concerns make uſe of it, & take heed that by their example in neglecting and oppoſing this particular, they provoke not God to make the work of Reformation ceaſe, to the joy of our adverſaries, and the grief not only of our own hearts, but of Gods ſpirit. Can any thing be more diſpleaſing to God, and delightfull to the Popiſh and Prelaticall, than to make the labour of Reformers a Iudibrium and opprobrium? Is this to cry grace! grace! unto the work?

Before they were wholly carried away into Babylon, they worſhipped and ſerved God with thoſe veſſels which were left in the Sanctuary, though they had not all. 2 Chro. 36. 7. 10. 18.

Anſ. Therefore though we have not the power of all Cenſures, nor a pure adminiſtration of every Ordinance; yet Ordination being purged, let's make uſe of that as a pledge of the reſt. To ſet and obſerve the right way of entring into the Miniſtery, whereunto Ordination ſerves, is not only to lay the foundation, but as the rearing of gates and bars belonging to the …ngreſſe of the Houſe of God. Let none be as a thiefe to break through and ſteale, but enter in by this doore.

Yet you have one queſtion to be reſolved.

What higher point of Separation is there, than to make void or deny a whole Ordinance for want of a Circumſtance?

Anſ. 1. You ſhall do well to beware of points of Separation p. 96**Nam conſilia Separationis & inani… ſunt, & perai…ioſa, & ſacrilega; quia & ſuperba fiunt, & pl… perturbant infirm…s bon…s, quàm co-rigunt animoſos malos. A…g. …on. Parm. l 3 c. 2. to. 7.. In theſe times many Teachers and Chriſtians are all for Chymicall extracts of Society; [quorum ſeparatione novus quidam Monachiſmus irrepit] by whoſe ſeparation a new kind of Monkery is crept in: And this plague is the more hurtfull [quo eſt hypocriſi picturatior] by being coloured over with a ſhew of greater holineſſe. Theſe are the expreſſions of Bullinger **Lib. de funct. Prephetica. p. 18. col. 2.(no contemptible one among Proteſtant Divines) ſpeaking of the Catabaptiſts.

2. To make void or deny a whole Ordinance by refuſing to uſe a lawfull Circumſtance, is, whether a high point of Separation I know not, (the phraſe is improper) a great ſinne queſtionleſſe. But who are guilty of it, if not they, who rather than they will ſuffer Hands to be laid on them in ſuch a way as is now eſtabliſhed agreeable to the Word, will either not be Miniſters at all, or be made Miniſters (as they ſuppoſe) by ſuch a company of People as are not in a capacity for their parts to Elect, either by the laws of the Land, or any warrant in the Word of God; and much leſſe to Ordain?

3. Multitudes have been allowed to preach, and that publikely to their great profit, in this time of generall diſturbance in Church and State. But that liberty might be given and taken then, and whiles Reformation was under debate, which now can neither be asked with modeſty, nor granted with wiſdome and juſtice. If you pleaſe to take like paines for proving the Lawfulneſſe of Impoſing hands in Ordination, as now eſtabliſhed, as you have done to argue againſt the Eſſentiality; I hope there will be little need to complain either of preſſing to, of withdrawing or excluſion from the Miniſtery.

As touching your Paradox (for ſo I call it) A man may lawfully Preach the Word, who is not Called to be a Miniſter, That alſo ſhall be examined, God willing, by it ſelfe apart.

FINIS.

End of the text · Lazarus Seaman, The Diatribe Proved to be Paradiatribe (1647)