kind of madness, he confidently affirmed, that God, the Father, suffered; but being yet puffed up by greater pride and madness, he called himself Moses, and his brother, Aaron. In the mean time o uzaqi σẞEQ01, &c. The blessed presbyters (or pastors) of the kirk, being moved by the report of this matter, summoned Noetus before them, and interrogated him concerning all these matters; if he had broached such blasphemy against God, the Father. But he began first to deny επι τον πρεσβυτερον αγόμενος, when he was brought before the presbytery, that poisonous doctrine which nobody before him had adventured to spew out. After that, when he had infected some with his madness, and had gathered to himself about ten persons, turning more insolent, he openly spread his her esy. Therefore, again, ου αυτοι πρεσβύτεροι the same very presbyters summoned, not only him, but the rest, who had unhappily joined with him, and to interrogate him concerning the very same thing. But he, with his accomplices, growing impudent, began boldly to contradict (the presbytery). And, saith he, what ill have I done? I adore one God; one I know, neither that was born, suffered or died. To which opinion, when he adhered, they (the presbyters) excommunicated him and his followers. At length he died a little after, with his brother; neither was he buried with the like honor as Moses of old, or with the same as Aaron. For they were rejected as transgressors, neither were they buried by any catholic. Afterwards, they who had imbibed his doctrine strengthened this opinion, being induced with the same words with which their master was at the beginning. For he told them, when he was interrogated aло Tоν лεσẞursqov by the presbyters, that he worshipped one God,'1 &c. 1) See in Blondel, and in Jameson's Sum. of the Episc. Controv. p. 156, &c. CHAPTER VII. PRESBYTERS ARE, BY DIVINE RIGHT, CLOTHED WITH THE POWER OF ORDINATION. §1. The power of presbyters to ordain formerly acknowledged by the Anglican and Roman churches. PRELATISTS claim certain powers and prerogatives as peculiarly the right and function of their prelates. By the exercise of these powers, they say, they are distinguished, and constituted the first and highest order of the christian ministry. If, therefore, it can be shown that these same powers were, by divine right, vested in presbyters, it will of course follow, that presbyters were, originally, the highest order of the ministry, and that, as Jerome says, custom, by degrees, brought in the office of prelate to rule and tyrannize over the church. We have, therefore, endeavored to make it plain, that the powers of preaching, of conducting public worship, of administering baptism and the Lord's supper, and of jurisdiction, five of these prelatic functions, did originally belong to presbyters, and were, beyond doubt, exercised by them. There remains to be considered, the sixth prelatic function, the power, namely, of ordination, which is considered essential to complement and fill up the plenitude of episcopal authority. We proceed therefore, to show, that this also was originally inherent in the office of the presbyter. And were prelatists to remain always in the same mind, or to allow their own proceedings to be interpreted by common sense, our argument need be neither long nor difficult. For The Institution of a Christian Man,' already quoted, and which authoritatively expressed the sentiments of the English church after the reformation, not only ascribes this power, as we have seen, to all ministers who are called by it presbyters and bishops, but boldly declares, that this right had never been denied them. Forasmuch,' says this work, 'as the whole power and authority of the church, belonging unto priests and bishops, is divided into two parts, whereof the one is called potestas ordinis, and the other is called potestas jurisdictionis; and forasmuch, also, as good consent and agreement hath alway been in the church concerning the first part, and contrary, much controversy for this other part of jurisdiction. Such was the judgment of the English reformed church, in 1537. And that this continued to be her views, until 1662, is beyond controversy, since, up to that time, she had only one form of ordination, and in it conveyed to presbyters all and every power, given to those who were called bishops. The same fact is still proclaimed in her canonical practice, which requires, in ordination, the presence and concurrence of presbyters-a standing monument to the truth of their original rights. The same thing is infallibly taught in the Romish church, which has, in numerous cases, authorized the consecration, even of bishops, by the concurrent imposition of the hands, of one or two presbyters out of the three ordainers required by the canons; and in which church it is the prevailing doctrine, that the presbyterate is the generic order, and the fountain of all ministerial power. It is in vain to allege, that this imposition of the hands of the presbyters, with that of the bishop, is merely for attestation, and not for concurrence. For why, were this true, should the privilege be confined to presbyters, and not be extended to deacons also, seeing, that they, as well as presbyters, are regarded as ministers by these prelatists? And why, if this is the only reason for this practice, should not both presbyters and deacons be permitted to express their assent and approbation at the ordination of prelates as well as of presbyters? It is plain, that the custom originated in the acknowl edged and inherent power of presbyters to ordain presbyters; whereas, prelates being, by ecclesiastical law, elevated to a new and higher office, presbyters were not allowed to assist in their consecration. This reason the council of Carthage expressly assigns, when it decrees, that, while in the ordination of a presbyter, presbyters shall assist and impose their hands; in the ordination of a deacon only the prelate shall ordain, because he is consecrated, not to the priesthood, but to the ministry,' or deaconship.3 1) Form. of Faith. in Reign of Henry VIII, p. 107. See also The 2) Lect. on the Apost. Succ. 3) See in Baxter on Episc. part Necess. Doctr. pp. 280, 282, which is ii. p. 109, c. Concil. Carth. Can. 2, &c. very strong. As, however, this right of presbyters is now universally denied by prelatists, we will enter at some length upon the substantiation of the claim of presbyters to this function also. § 2. The nature of ordination explained. The functions already considered are essential to the due organization of the church, and to its right government when constituted; the power of ordination is equally necessary to its perpetuation. For as there must always be ministers to guide, teach, and govern the church; and as the office of the ministry is one which no man can lawfully take upon himself without being called thereto; so must there be some body, or council, authorized to invest worthy and qualified men with the ministerial office. The essence of a call to the work of the ministry, consists in a willingness of mind, on the part of any qualified individual, to obey that command of Christ, by which ministers are authorized to go forth and preach the gospel. That command is the only efficient cause of the ministry, the only warrant of its divine authority,and the only security for its success. Christ alone could and did institute this office; and He alone can impart that spiritual power necessary to it. And this He does in the standing and fundamental law or charter of his church. He, therefore, who gives evidence, sufficient and satisfactory, that he has been thus called of God, is to be set apart or consecrated to the office of the christian ministry by ordination. Ordination may be defined to be an outward and solemn rite, by which an individual, who has given evidence of being divinely called, is, by the lawful authority of some particular church, invested with the office of the ministry, and thus, ecclesiastically, clothed with the name, character, and authority of a christian minister. Ordination, therefore, is a solemn inauguration into office, or investiture with authority, by virtue of God's ordinance, and as a ratification of His divine act, in having inwardly called and qualified the individual, thus separated, to his own instituted work. While, therefore, ordination is necessary, as the ordinary and orderly introduction to the ministry; it is not so absolutely necessary as that there can, in no case, be a lawful and valid ministry, without it; for as the essence of the ministry consists in the plain manifestation of Christ's will, that any individual should act under the authority and promise of his commission; so may there be cases when this will be sufficiently evident, although ordination, by man, may not be procurable.1 2 The writers of the New Testament use five different words in speaking of ordination, all of which are general, and can be made to mean no more than to appoint or place in office. For the hierachical notion, that ordination impresses a character, imparts a fitness for the office not previously possessed, communicates the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and constitutes the most vile and abandoned men, the most worthy, and valid, and approved ministers-for all this, there is not a shadow of support in reason, in the word of God, or in actual fact. These suppositions, on the contrary, we believe to be unscriptural, anti-christian, and pernicious in the extreme, and to be equally derogatory to the divine Head, and the divine Agent, of the church.3 So much for ordination, in its general character, as a solemn separation of persons to a sacred office. But this act of consecration must be performed in some particular manner or form. The mode in which this was done, is recorded in five places in the New Testament, namely, in Acts, 6:6. Acts, 13:3. 1 Tim. 4: 14, compared with 2 Tim. 1: 6, and 1 Tim. 5: 22. In all these cases, we find this act of solemn consecration was symbolized by the laying on of hands upon the head of the individuals ordained. This form, or ceremonial, had been long in use among the Jews, when a benediction was pronounced, when pardon was proclaimed, when the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were bestowed, when miraculous cures were performed, and when persons were inducted into office. This last use of the ceremony was very common in the Jewish synagogue, and familiar to the Jews. In the case of the deacons, the Holy Spirit had been already imparted, and their call made certain, before they received imposition of hands. The apostles, therefore, did not lay on hands upon them to bestow that gift or that call, but simply to invest them with that office, for which they had been divinely qualified, and to which they had been called by the voice of the people. In the case of Barnabas and Saul, as related in Acts, 13: 1-3, imposition of hands, most assuredly, did not communicate any character or gifts, but was merely a public designation to the office of the ministry, after the customary form. Timothy, in like manner, is said to have 5 1) Mark, 3: 14; Acts, 1: 22; Acts, 14: 23; 1 Tim. 2: 7; Titus, 1: 5. See the subject fully examined by Dr. Rice, in Evang. Mag. vol. x. p. 541, &c. 2) See Lect. on Apost. Succ. 5) See Evang. Mag. vol. x. p. 543, and Acts, 6. |