enjoined, are to be performed by the ministers here described. And as it is granted, that we have here no account of any other ministers than presbyters, presbyters are here, to the end of time, empowered to ordain other ministers by the laying on of their hands.1 § 3. Conclusion of the scripture argument for the power of presbyters to ordain. No evidence to be found for prelatical ordination. We have thus, we trust, satisfactorily proved, by plain and positive testimony from scripture, that presbyters did, and, therefore, can still ordain other ministers. On the other hand, while we have found abundant instances in which ordinations were performed by presbyters, and by the apostles, in their character of presbyters, we do not find in scripture any instances of ordination, by a single individual, nor by any number of individuals, under the assumed character of prelates. There is no such instance to be produced from the whole New Testament. Neither do we read of any one case where those who were first ordained as presbyters, were afterwards consecrated as prelates; nor any reiteration of christian ordination under any circumstances whatever, and yet the book of Acts embraces the history of the church for thirty years. We know that there was no ordination in the Jewish church after the first; and, as this custom of ordination was derived from it, we must presume the order of the synagogue was followed.2 The contrary, we have certainly no right to assume, against fact, utility, and Jewish example.3 On this point, let us refer to the testimony of bishop Croft. The whole theory of prelatic ordination is an idle hypothesis, without any manner of support in the word of God. It is not only not true that prelates alone are authorized to ordain; it is not true that the Bible knows any thing of prelates, or allows to them either the power of ordination or of any thing else. The only permanent order of ministers known to the scriptures, is that of presbyters or bishops, and the only ordination it prescribes is presbyterian ordination. Presbyters, therefore, have the power of ordination. 1) Milton's Wks. vol. i. pp. 86, 87. ii. p. 111. 274. 3) Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. p. 4) Naked Truth, or the True State of the Primit. Ch. in Scott's Coll. of Tracts, vol. vii. p. 297. CHAPTER X. THAT PRESBYTERS HAVE THE POWER OF ORDINATION, PROVED BY AN APPEAL TO ANTIQUITY. § 1. Presbyterian ordination attested by facts and testimonies, from the earliest ages. BEFORE leaving this subject of ordination, we will produce some testimonies in support of our conclusion. And to put the matter beyond controversy, we affirm, to use the words of Dr. Rice, that there was no ordination performed at all, from the days of the apostles, until at least two hundred and fifty years after Christ, by any but presbyters. During the first two centuries, the modern distinction between bishop and presbyter was unknown to the church.1 The exclusive power of ordination, claimed by prelates, is an usurpation, supported by nothing but decrees of councils, and contrary to the whole practice of the pure, primitive age of christianity. When presidents were chosen, or succeeded to others, they were not reordained, in the first two centuries. As late as the council of Nice, in A. D. 325, this practice of at once passing into the office of bishop is forbidden, thus showing that at that time the ordination of a bishop was sometimes the first and only ordination. Ambrose, of Milan, Nectarius, of Constantinople, Eusebius, the successor of Basil, Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, Cyprian, of Carthage, and Philogonius, of Antioch, are all thought to have been laymen, when ordained to be bishops. Many others passed from the order of deacon to that of bishop; thus proving, that there were then only ordinations for two orders.3 According to Hippolytus, and the apostolical constitutions, the presidents or 1) Evang. Mag. vol. ix. p. 618. 2) Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. of the Ch. p. 135. 3) Dr. Wilson, ibid, p. 231. bishops, were set apart to their office, not by imposition of hands, but by the simple form of 'holding the divine gospels opened over the head of him who was ordained,' while presbyters were consecrated to their office by imposition of hands. Nor is there any proof that the elevation of a presbyter to the duty of president or prelate, was considered as an ordination, or attended by imposition of hands, before the middle of the third century. As for the consecration of bishops, by a new imposition of hands, it doth not,' says bishop Burnet, 'prove them a distinct office; being only a solemn benediction, and separation of them, for the discharge of that inspection committed to them."2 Hilary, as the same bishop acknowledges, was of opinion that the elder presbyter without any election or ordination, succeeded to the chair of the deceased bishop.3 Dionysius, the Areopagite, also tells us that the presbyter was ordained in the same form that a bishop was ordained, save only, that the gospel was not laid on his head. 4 In the epistle to Hiero, ascribed to Ignatius, speaking of his presbyters, he says, 'they baptize, they celebrate the eucharist, they impose hands in penance, they ordain.'5 Equally plain is the declaration of Firmilian, himself a bishop, in a letter to Cyprian. The presbyters preside, who possess the power of baptizing, imposing the hands, and ordaining. Hilary, the deacon, says, that in Egypt, even to this day, the presbyters ordain in the bishop's absence,' and that the ordination of bishop and presbyter is the same, for both are priests." The general synod of Nice, in their epistle to the churches of Alexandria, &c., authorized the clergy, ordained by Meletius, to ordain ministers, and to nominate men for the sacred office. And that those, here referred to, were presbyters and not prelates, appears from their character, 'such as were entered into holy orders;' from their having been ordained by Meletius alone; from their having been deprived of the privileges of presbyters; and because they are prohibited from preaching in any church, without the consent of the bishop. And as for those,' says 1) See ibid, pp. 226, 227, and 229, 230, 231, 273, 135, 148, and Nolan's Cath. Char. p. 18. 2) Vind. of the Ch. of Scotl. Conf. iv. p. 181, ed. 2d. 1724. 3) Obs. on the 1st Canon, p. 6. 4) Burnet's Obs. on the 2d Canon, p. 65. 5) Cap. iii. p. 114, ed. Cotel. in Thorndike, pp. 163, 164. 6) Cyprian, Ep. 75. 7) On Ephes. 4: 2, and 1 Tim. 3. 8) Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 1. i. c. 9, and quoted in Baxter on Episc. part ii. pp. 104, 105, auctoritatem habeant tum ministros ordinandi, tum eos qui clero digni fuerint nominandi,' &c. the council, who have been found in no schism, but have ever remained immaculate in the catholic church, it pleased the holy synod that they should have power to ordain.'1 The presbyters, therefore, of the church of Alexandria, and the other churches of Egypt, were still allowed, in the fourth century, their full power of ordination; and this power, the council goes on to say, is ' according to the ecclesiastical law of sanction."2 Paphnutius, who was only a presbyter, ordained his disciple Daniel, first a deacon, and afterwards a presbyter.3 The chorepiscopi, or country bishops, ordained both presbyters and deacons. In the fourth century, when the prelatical hierarchy had attained to some maturity, these rural bishops, or chorepiscopi, as well as presbyters generally, were forbidden to ordain. If, then, these chorepiscopi were prelates before this time, it follows that only some prelates can ordain, that is, those only who are permitted by their masters. And if they were not prelates, but only presbyters, then presbyters were at liberty to ordain, until the church was enslaved by spiritual despotism. But that the chorepiscopi were as truly bishops as any others, while yet they were only parochial ministers, is made manifest from this fact, that there were also, in ancient times, rural presbyters, (εлw 6 or regionarii) who were regarded as inferior to the city presbyters. But were they, therefore, of an inferior order to the city presbyters? Surely not, and for the same reason, rural bishops (επιχωριοι επισκοποι) were not an order inferior to city bishops. This will appear still further, from 'The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodial or Presbyterial Government,' by archbishop Usher, wherein he allows that the suffragans supplying the place of those, who, in the ancient church were called chorepiscopi,' 'may lawfully use the power both of jurisdiction and ordination, according to the word of God, and the practice of the ancient church.7 5) Bingham Orig. Eccl. B. ii. ch. xiv. § 2. See council of Ancyra, Can. 13, in Binii Conc. tom. i. pp. 277, 278, and our remarks. 6) See Riddle's Christ. Antiq. p. 235; also at p. 173, where he shows they ordained; and Burnet Obs. on 1st Canon, p. 48, Suppl. 7) Judgment of the archbishop of Armagh, by Dr. Bernard, Lond. 1657, pp. 8 and 12, of the Reduction, &c. at the end. power Usher did not lightly appeal to the ancient church. By the council of Antioch, the chorepiscopi were allowed to govern their own churches, to ordain readers, subdeacons, exorcists, and even deacons and presbyters, with the permission of the city bishop. By the 13th canon of the council of Ancyra, they were confirmed in the same privileges.2 Basil, the Great, in an epistle to his chorepiscopi, confirms to them the full they then had, of creating both presbyters and deacons.3 The same conclusion must be drawn from the 8th canon of the council of Nice. Nicolas I, Pope, A. D. 864, being consulted on this very point, decided, that whereas in many regions these chorepiscopi ordained deacons and presbyters, and some bishops lately had deposed those so ordained, such reordinations ought not to be allowed, since no one could question that, like the seventy, they were true bishops. Rabanus Maurus, in an epistle concerning them, traces chorepiscopi to the time of Peter and Clemens, and says that they ever had full right to ordain all the orders, and discharge every episcopal function. He wonders greatly at the contention on this point, which he does not hesitate to ascribe to pride and envy. The character of these chorepiscopi appears further from the fact, that they are never ranked among presbyters, but as a distinct class between bishops and presbyters. And while, by law, they were abolished as an order in the ninth century, yet, as Natalus Alexander proves, they still continued to retain their place, and to be pepetuated.s But if, as many papists and prelatists would now teach, these rural bishops were presbyters, then of course all the evidence for their original power of ordination, is proof for the original and inherent power of presbyters to ordain, and for the subsequent withdrawment of that power by hierarchical usurpation. Now that, in the judgment of many, they were only presbyters, is certain. The chorepiscopi,' says Leo, according to the canons of Neo Cæsarea, or according 1) See Dissert. De Chorepiscopi, Natali Alexandro, Paris, 1678, p. 173. 2) Ep. 181, in ibid, p. 174. 3) Ibid, p. 176. 4) See ibid, p. 181. 5) Ad Drogonem Metensim Episc. ibid, p. 183. 6) Ibid, p. 185, Concil. Chalced. Can. 12. dain, is acknowledged by Jeremy Taylor, in his Episc. Asserted in Wks. vol. vii. p. 128. So also Dr. Forbes in Jus. Div. Min. part ii. p. 135, where see also the opinion of Hispalensis, who lived A. D. 630, in libro. de Off. Eccl. c. 6, who says they yet remained in the church. Dr. Field of the Ch. lib. iii. c. 39. Forbeis Irenicum, cap. 11. Tertium Partem. Thomæ disp. 7) Ibid, pp. 187, 188. |