English Puritan & Reformed

Diatriba

Sidrach Simpson (1600-1655) · 3,505 words · 16 min

The source for this document is https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A93273.0001.001

Project Note

This is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND. This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.

The source of this document is the Early English Books Online (EEBO-TCP) website. Those books were transcribed in a character for character manner and can be very cumbersome to read since there was no standard spelling during that time. Many spelling variations such as "unlesse", "vnlesse", and "vnles" regularly appear.

This project was conceived to clean up those books as much as possible and make them more accessible to the interested reader, leading to the creation of a massive list of variant spellings and their corrections. This was used to clean up the text, but is of course only as complete as the list itself. Because of the nature of the original transcription, some words have missing characters or places where the original language (e.g., Greek) was not transcribed. This effort does not change that. Be aware that the original transcription can also be faulty and in some cases entire sentences may be missing.

Although this is no substitute for a properly compared, proofed, and scholarly edition, I believe that the result is a document which is far more accessible, particularly for searching for terms using standard spelling. The document has been cleaned and presented in what I hope is a pleasing and useful format for the vast majority of Christian brothers and sisters who just want access to read these spiritually nourishing works.

However, a word of warning: The Puritans were a very diverse group of people and their age was characterized with godliness, but also much upheaval, disputation and strife. They disagreed on many doctrines and some of these works contain less orthodox or Scriptural views than others. The reader is strongly advised to read with discernment, particularly if it is unknown whether author is trustworthy.

This project took a huge amount of time and skill to bring to fruition. I would particularly like to thank David Jonescue for the initial list of Puritans he found on EEBO and the concept behind this project as well as the continuous, unceasing efforts toward seeing this complete. Without his labor, this would not be available. Alex Sarrouf was invaluable in providing the initial list of over 7,000 spelling variations he had identified and corrected, as well as continuing to review more than 16,000 additions to that list for any typos.

Logan West
(with David Jonescue and Alex Sarrouf)
www.puritansearch.org

ΔΙΑΤΡΙΒΗ.

Wherein the Judgment of THE Reformed Churches AND Protestant Divines, is shown,

Concerning

Ordination.
Laying on of Hands in Ordination of Ministers: And,
Preaching by those who are not Ordained Ministers.

[illustration] [Tudor rose]

[illustration] [Scottish thistle]

[illustration] [French fleur-de-lis]

[illustration] [depiction of Irish harp]

London, Printed for Peter Cole, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Printing-Press in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange, 1647.

The Judgment of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines, concerning Ordination, Laying on of Hands in Ordination of Ministers, &c.

O Rdination is taken commonly for an act of Ministers or Elders, after Examination and Election: In that sense,

Ordination is not Essential to the Calling of a Minister: For,

1. The word, To Ordain, Tit. 1.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , even when it is used concerning Officers, signifies to six, settle, establish one who was in Office before, as appears by Psal. 2.6. where the Septuagint useth the same word Paul doth to Titus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Now if you understand the Psalm of David in the type, he was a King many years before he took in the Hill and Fort of Zion, 2 Sam. 5.5, 6. Or if you understand it of the Apostles Preaching up Christ, as the Apostles do the Psalm, Acts 4.25, &c. Christ received all power at his Ascension, and did but settle his Kingdom by their Preaching. The Apostles were but witnesses of Christ's glory, and in being so, did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And however the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be taken sometimes, yet Tit. 1.5. it cannot be taken for making him an Elder who was none before, for what is enjoined there, is to be done by Titus only, or by Titus joining with other Ministers; For the Text says, I have left [thee] to Ordain: But neither did the Apostles, much less might other Ministers make a Minister by a sole act of their own: As for example▪ Acts 14.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. the word translated, They Ordained, in the Plural number, may be referred to the people, as well as to Paul and Barnabas: For its such a word as properly belongs to the people as well as their Rulers when they gave their votes, and never to the Rulers without the people. The custom was amongst the Grecians in their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or lawful meetings, that the people joined votes with the Rulers, and the Rulers with the people, before any act was accounted Legal; yea it may be rather referred to the people then to them, for the people sometimes voted alone, but the Rulers did never. And in this sense it is taken by the Reverend Divine of Scotland; his words are,

But it is objected, That Luke saith not of the whole Church, but of Paul and Barnabas, that they made them, by voices, Elders in every City. Answ. But how can one imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went to suffrages? Election by most voices, or the listing up of the hand, in taken of a suffrage, had place only amongst a multitude assembled together. Wherefore We say with Junius, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is both a common and a particular action, whereby a man chooseth by his own suffrage in particular, and likewise with others in common one: So that in one and the same action, we cannot divide those things which are so joined together.

But if the word, They Ordained, be referred to Paul and Barnabas, and signify to Create or make an Officer who was none before; yet the power whereby this Creation is wrought, is not their own only; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Creare per suffragia, as H: Stephan renders it, which is as much as to say, They did it not only virtually in the power of others, but they did it by others.

2. The end and scope of ordination is but to solemnize, inaugurate or publish the calling of a Minister, It is to a Minister as Coronation is to a King, which makes him not a King, but declares him and sets him forth with glory. These are the very expressions and similitudes of Protestant Writers, both Lutheran and Calvinist in this matter. Sicut non Coronatio facit Regem, sed Electio &c. Aegid. Hunn. ad actic. Acturi contra assert. 6. Ames Bellar. enervat. tom. 2. p. 76. Id cas. cons. l. 4. c. 25. sect. 28. Voet. Desp. causa Papatus, lib. 2. sect. 2. c. 20. p. 264. Majorem differentiam comminisci nemo potest inter duo illa (Elect. & •• di •• t.) quam inter Constitutionem et Commissionem Principis unde spectatam, et inter eandem commissionem arbitrariis quibusdam simbolis sceptra, Corona, &c. insignitam, Id pag. 267. And they are agreeable to Scripture; For Act. 13.2, 3. Paul and Barnabas are said to be Separated to the work by prayer and fasting and laying on of hands; but both of them were Ministers before, as appears Act. 12. ult.

3. Then a man is a Minister, when he hath a calling to the work from God and man. But both those he may have without Ordination: For a man is called by God when he is approved to be of eminent gifts, and hath his heart stirred up by spiritual respects to use those gifts for public good. And he is called by man, when the people who are godly, consulting with the Word of God, and laying aside all carnal respects, choose him and give up themselves unto him. This is the reason of Crocius in defense of the Protestants against the Socinians. "Distinguimus inter necessitatem vocationis et ordinationis (says he) we distinguish between the necessity of having a Call and of being Ordained. A calling is necessary, by reason of God's command; Ordination is necessary in respect of order and Ecclesiastical Constitution. The calling is the Constitution of one in Office, which (if it be lawful) hath two things in it. 1. That one be chosen of God. 2. That he be chosen by the Antecedent consent of the people: One chosen of God when he is adomed with gifts, &c.

4. Whatsoever substantial act belongs to the making of a Minister, or is solemniz'd in ordinatiō, the same is done in Election. For first, to Election there goes the trial and approbation of a man's abilities; In Election, the Church giveth up itself to God to take whom he shall direct their hearts to, and in choosing one well qualified, they choose him whom God would have Chosen. In their choice they, eo ipso, separate and set him apart to the Ministry: Him they take as from God's appointment and hand, they offer themselves to God by him. In accepting the choice, the party chosen undertaketh to be in God's stead to them, & to go in their stead and behalf to God (for what else is it to be a Minister?) And all this is done with prayer and mutual agreement. Now as where the Church agrees in an act, God will be present to confirm that act, Mat. 18.18, 19. so prayer is also a separation of one to the Ministry, Act. 13.2, 3. Add further, Our Translators of the Bible take and render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To Ordain, which signifies properly to choose: And where the Scripture speaks expressly of choosing, they supply the Text with the word Ordain, as Act. 1.22. Hen. Stephan calls the act of choice ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) Creare Magistratum, the making of and Officer, for it is (as he says) a new found sense of the word, to signify, laying on of hands. And if the Apostle Luke should use it for laying on of hands, it was never used so before his time by any writer, holy or profane: And unless his purpose was to write that which none should read, it must needs be that as he wrote so he meant, Election by voices, says Cartwright.

Yea let it be further observed, that in Election and Ordination, the same word is used; In Election, Act. 1.23. Act. 6.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Ordination it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; the same word, with addition of a preposition, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) only: And as the Translators of the Bible render both words, Appoint. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They appointed, Act. 1.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we will appoint, Act. 6.3. So the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not alter the sense specifically from the word when it is without it, no not in the matter of making an Officer: For its all one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as H. Stephan observes. In the New Testament 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to place one, and to place one with honor; whence the phrase is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he shall set the Sheep on the right hand, Mat. 25.33. Its an authoritative word, as Rom. 3.31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We establish the Law. And the Septuagint, whom Luke is observed to follow most, use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as 1 Chron. 9.22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . These did David and Solomon appoint in their set office. But especially consider that electing one is taking up an Office for him, Act. 1.20.22. and he that is elected is said to be numbered amongst Officers, Act. 1.26. The lot fell on Matthias, • nd he was numbered amongst the Apostles. Numbred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 communibus suffragiis seu calculis ad scriptus est, by common consent or votes he was put into the number, or enrolled amongst the Apostles.

5. Upon whomsoever Election falleth, Ordination doth, necessarily, and therefore the Call to the Ministry lies principally in Election; as he that is chosen to be a King, must be Crowned, therefore his election gives him the right to rule. That Ordination necessarily follows Election, appears Act. 6.3. where the Apostle bids them look out ( i. e. choose, as its explained ver. 5.) and he would appoint.

And to this agree our Brethren of the Church of Scotland; speaking of Ordination in general (though they instance it as to a particular flock)

Neither the Patrons presentation, not the Clergies nomination, examination, and recommendation, nor the Bishops laying on of hands and giving of institution; nor all these put together, can make up to a man his Calling to be a Pastor, without the free Election of the flock: Again, A man hath from his Election power to be a Pastor, so far as concerns Jus ad rem; And Ordination only applieth him to the actual exercising of his Pastoral Office, which Ordination Ought to be given to him Only who is elected, and that because he is elected.

6. A Minister may want and be without Ordination in some cases, therefore its not essential to his Galling. Thus Gregor. Thaumaturgus way, and others may be in times of persecution. This Argument Voetius presseth larger, and showeth, even by confession of the Papists, (That one elected or chosen, may without Ordination do all the offices of a Minister, as, Excommunicate, Absolve, and concludes it is no more to the effence of a Minister, then bowing of the knee externally is essential to prayer to God, or the leading of the Bride and pomp of a wedding • ay, is to marriage, Desp. causa Papal. 266, 267.

7. The inconveniences will be very great which follow upon this, That Ordination is Essential to the calling of a Minister: For of necessity, for the maintenance of it, it must be asserted that the Romish Priests, by whom Ordination comes to us (and therefore to Beza it was all one, to be Ordained by the Ordinary, and to be Consecrated in Romana Ecclesia, in Acts 14.23.) are the Ministers of Jesus Christ, and the Church of Rome wherein they are, the true Church and Spouse of Christ: Yea, that there is a personal succession of Ministers (uninterruped by Heresy or whatsoever else may nullify a Ministers Calling) from the Apostles times to this present; For if there be but one, who when he Ordained was no Minister, or not Ordained, all that were Ordained by him are no Ministers, if Ordination be essential.

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 signify their giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost ( say the Divines of Scotland) but now as the miracle, so the mystery hath ceased.

Something extraordinary its likely was in the Apostles laying on of hands, for he says the Gift was given 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the laying on of my hands, as it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by prophecy, which was peculiar to extraordinary Officers; but it was but [with] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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,

Paul's hands were the mean, the laying on of their hands, the Rite and sign of his Ordination. And therefore they add, 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, yet they who used it first had it not themselves. They are the words of Beza,

Some (said he) choose 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 choice, or which was done by one who is Excommunicated: Let them show 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 Ministry, which God I hope will bless, and cast out both the Thieves 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, as the substantial part of Ordination. Chemnitz puts the case, Whether his Ministry 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 lays the necessity of it to be in regard of others who • un 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, 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 retained chiefly for the prayers sake which the whole Church make, &c. Yea, Fatendum sane, nullum extare in scriptures Mandatum Dei quod hic citus Ordinatione fit adhibendus; there is no Command of God in Scripture to Ordain by laying on of hands. Loc. Com. Tom. 3.137. Danans says,

Laying on of hands is not necessary, so there be but prayer made to confirm the party elected, and the whole Church join 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; The Church hath full liberty to use any other decent Rite, or to use no Rite at all, beside a public declaration; the Church is not tied 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 Ministry 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 extrinsical 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 year 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 administered by a person not lawfully called to the ministration of it; if the person ministering 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 Ministry. 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 shows 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 binds 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 Lord's Harvest, who cannot or have not received it; and in a way too that is as questionable as the thing itself? 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 people's fouls by preaching? As soon 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 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 point of Separation is there, then to make void, or deny a whole Ordinance for want of a Circumstance?

FINIS.