Diatriba, Part 2
Impoſition, or Laying on of Hands, is neither Eſſential to a Miniſters Call, nor to his Ordination: For,
1. SOme have been made Miniſters without it, as the Apoſtles and Matthias, Acts I.
2. When the Apoſtle bids Titus to Ordain, Tit. 1.4. He ſays not a word of Impoſition of hands.
3. When the Apoſtle uſed it to Timothy, 2 Tim. 1.6. it was ſo uſed as it was in giving the Holy Ghoſt; as appears by comparing that place with Acts 19.6. And therefore was no more eſſential to Timothy's being a Miniſter, then it was to their Baptiſm, Act. 196. The Apoſtles indeed by the laying on of their hands did ſignifie their giving of the gift of the Holy Ghoſt (ſay the Divines of Scotland) but now as the miracle,Eng. Pop. cerem. p…g. …69. ſo the myſtery hath ceaſed. Something extraordinary its likely was in the Apoſtles laying on of hands, for he ſayes the Gift was given foreign,2 Tim ….6. by the laying on of my hands, as it was foreign by prophecy, 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 efficiency was in Paul ſingularly, as our Brethren of Scotland expreſs it, Pauls hands were the mean,Eng. Pop. cere. 168, 169. the laying on of their hands, the Rite and ſign of his Ordination. And therefore they adde, Its not to be uſed with opinion of neceſſity; Ordination may be done by word alone without any 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 unlawful, by reaſon of the by gone and preſent Superſtitious uſe of the ſame in Popery.
4. If laying on of hands be eſſential 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,In Act. 14.23. yet they who uſed it firſt had it not themſelves.Quidam hoc referre malunt ad manuum impoſitionem quae & ipſa ſit prorſus neceſſaria; & hoc praetextu accepto, vocationē noſtram irritam eſſe dicunt, quoni…m Ordinarii (quos vocant) nobis Manus non impoſuerunt; Sive, quod non ſimus in Romana Eccleſia Ordinati. Reſpondeo, & ipſis Canonibus quos jactant, irritam eſſe conſecrationem cui non praeirit legitima electio, aut quae fit Excommunicato, Oſtendant autem ipſi vel unum in tota illa ſua Hierarchia qui legitime ſit vocatus, imo qui non ſit centies ipſo jure Excommunicatus. Si ipſis eorum Synodis ſtetur. Nos igitur cur abillis Impoſitionem manuum peteremus, aut quo jure ipſi nobis eam tribuerent? Habemus autem nos, Dei beneficio, Certas noſtrae vocationis notas, legitimo ab Eccleſiis noſtris & vitae & Doctrinae teſtimonſo (per Dei gratiam) ornati; & ab iiſdem electi, ac Demum etiam invocato Deo nomine in noſtro miniſterio confirmati, cui Dominus (ut ſpero) ejectis tum furibus Mercenariis, benedicat. They are the words of Beza, Some (ſaid he) chuſe to refer this to laying on of hands, as 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 lawful choiſe, 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 Excommunicate, 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 lawful 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 bleſs, and caſt out both the Theeves and Hirelings.
And in the ſame caſe are the Lutherans, who hold laying on of hands not to be eſſential to their calling; Yea that its Popery to hold it ſo. Bellarmine (ſays Tarnovius) would have laying on of hands to be abſolutely neceſſary,Tarnov. de Miniſterio c. 25. l. 1. qu. 1. as the ſubſtantial part of Ordination. Chemnitius puts the caſe, Whether his Miniſtery be Null who hath not hands laid on him; and having reptated their opinion who ſay its not neceſſary ſo the Call be lawful, he layes the neceſſity of it to be in regard of others who …un and are not ſent, not in regard of the Calling it ſelfe, but that the Calling may be witneſſed which the Miniſter hath: and ſayes, Ordinationon facit vocationem, Ordination makes not his Calling, but declares it. And further, Praecipue ſervatur iste ritus at tota Eccleſia communibus & ardentibus pracibus, &c. that Impoſition of hands is retayned chiefly for the prayers ſake which the whole Church make, &c. Yea, Fatendum ſane, nullum extare in ſcripturis Mandatum Dei quod hic citus Ordinatione fit adhibendus; there is no Command of God in Scripture to Ordain by laying on of hands.In 1 Tim. 5.22 Loc. Com. Tom. 3.137. Danans ſayes, Laying on of hands is not neceſſary, ſo there be but prayer made to confirm the party elected, and the whole Church joyne 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 quaestionis & ineptas, The urging of it breeds vain and fooliſh queſtions about Miniſters callings. And with them agrees the Church of Scotland; Eng. Pop. cere. pag. 168, 169.The Church hath full liberty to uſe any other decent Rite, or to uſe no Rite at all, beſide a publique declaration; the Church is not tyed to uſe any Rite at all by the word of God, in the giving of Ordination.
Yea ſuppoſe it Eſſential, 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 (becaus an extrinſecal circumſtance failing, or being corrupted, a thing ceaſes not to be) yet if it be made eſſential, 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 Presb yeer formally, but as one of a ſuperior Order to Elders; And for ſcuh an Order there is no Divine Inſtitution. As therefore that Baptiſin muſt be repeated which was adminiſtred by a perſon not lawfully called to the miniſtration of it; if the perſon miniſtring be eſſential to Baptiſm, ſo muſt that perſon be ordained again who had hands laid on by a Biſhop, as a Biſhop, if laying on of hands be eſſential to the Miniſtery. Whatſoever wants its eſſentials, is not, though it ſeems to be.
Object. 1 Tim. 5.22. Laying on of hands is put for the whole matter of appointing Miniſters, ergo its eſſential.
Anſ. Take it for granted that it be ſo taken, (though it will not be eaſily proved, becauſe the Scripture ſhews it hath been uſed in other caſes then in appointing Officers) yet it follows not that it is the principal or eſſential thing in Ordination. As for example, Prayer is put for the whole worſhip of God, yet is it not the principal 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 Acts 14.23.5.) it bindes not to that in all elections, nor places 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.
If therefore laying on of hands be not eſſential, why ſhould thoſe be kept altogether from laboring in the Lords Harveſt, who cannot or have not received it; and in a way too that is as queſtionable as the thing it ſelf?We have the word [Presbytery] but once ſpoken of in all the Scriptures, as belonging to the Churches of the New Teſtament. Calvin underſtāds by it the office of a Presbyter, not a company of them. Thoſe who take it for a company differ a…ongſt themſelves: Some ſay a a company of Preachers, as the Leyden Profeſſors, Synopſ, purior. theol. disp. 43. u. 3…. Some take it for a company of extraordinary Miniſters, as Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Prophets, Scott foreign Paracleſ. p. 2…8. Others for a company of Ruling Elders, as well as others, Eng. Pop. Cerem. p. 1… 1. Some underſtand it of a Congregational P…esbytery, (a… the Non-conformiſts againſt Downame, and the Scots againſt Tilenus) Some of a Claſſical, Provincial Presbytery, as the London Miniſters. 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 fouls by preaching? Aſſoon as they had but an Altar, they offered on it when they came out of Babylon, and ſtaid not till all the Temple in all its furniture and utenſils, was ready, EZra. 3. Before they were wholly carryed 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 point of Separation is there, then to make void, or deny a whole Ordinance for want of a Circumſtance?
FINIS.
End of the text · Sidrach Simpson, Diatriba (1647)