“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers… the Holy Ghost said, ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.’ And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed…”
Acts 13:1-4
“…the apostles, Barnabas and Paul… when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.”
Acts 14:14,23
.
.
Subsections
Extraordinary Calling
Laying on of Hands
Roman Ordination
Bishop: Not Necessary for
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 9+
Who may Nominate? 2
Definition
Who has Power to Ordain?
. One Elder: No Power to Ordain
Reordination 2
When People may Reject the one Installed
History 2
Biblio 1
Latin 1
.
Articles
Post-Reformation Anthology
Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 27, ‘The Church’, sections 33-36 in Reformed Dogmatics ed. Bizer, trans. Thomson (d. 1879; 1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 677-78
.
1500’s
Bullinger, Henry – pp. 128-45 of Sermon 4 in The Decades of Henry Bullinger… trans. H.I. (1549; Parker Society, 1852), 5th Decade
Calvin, John – 3. ‘Of the Teachers & Ministers of the Church. Their Election & Office’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 3, bk. 4, pp. 56-73
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Of the Choosing & Ordaining of Ministers in the Church’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), folio 167.b
Beza, Theodore – A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1562), ch. 5
35. How the ecclesiastical elections ought to be
36. Of the qualities and conditions of those which they ought to elect
37. The order and manner to give the voices
38. Of confirmation and consecration of the persons elected
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573), A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, 20th Dialogue
.
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Ecclesiastical Politics tr. by AI (Amsterdam: Joannes à Waesberge, 1663–1676), vol. 3
‘On the Fivefold Approval of Elected Church Officers’, ch. 5, pp. 560-73
‘On the Calling in Reformed Churches, & the First Reformers’, ch. 6, pp. 573-79
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – 4. ‘Institution or creation of Church ministers’ in Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683), Posthumous Works, 6. Controversies on the Members of the Militant Church, pp. 1098-1103 Latin
.
1800’s
Binnie, William – ‘The Concurrence of Popular Election & Official Ordination’ in The Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882), p. 132 ff. 16 pp.
.
Who may Nominate Persons for the Church Offices of Elder & Deacon?
Intro
This is an important question. While Scriptural and natural principles are involved, yet there is rightly a certain amount of indifferency and liberty in the way the details may be wrought about.
Many American, presbtyerian churches have been influenced by democritization: The lay people are first given the opportunity to nominate whom they will to be Church officers. The congregation then votes to narrow this down to a select, approved few. Those that are thus chosen are put before the session of elders, and the elders then, trying their qualifications and call, make the final decision as to whom of them become Church officers. The pastor, having the consent of the session of elders, and who ought to have the consent of presbytery, then ordains the new officers by conferral of ecclesiastical power.
One problem with this is that the session of elders is limited as to who they may make officers, insofar as they are limited to whom the lay-people put before them. But lay-persons may not have the best knowledge or wisdom as to who would make the best, or even capable, church officers, and desirable persons may be left out.
One proof-text sometimes used to justify the people having the first choice, though it be in the context of civil rulers, is that of Dt. 1:13-18. However this is a very democratic reading of this passage, which would seem to be historically improbable. It would seem to be more likely in the passage that the representatives and leaders of the massive population went about in an organized way to choose the most qualified men, in concurrence with the people’s consent.
Classical presbyterianism, as practiced by the Church of Scotland during the Westminster era,† was, generally speaking, for the session of elders (who would likely best know and were representatives of the people, and may inquire into the mind of the people and receive suggestions from them) to seek out, try, approve and set before the congregation whom they thought were best fit for church office. The people, limited to whom the session put before them, would then either give their consent to these individuals, or not (the denial of consent was prohibitive).
† Pardovan, bk. 1, Title 7, ‘Of Ruling Elders’, pp. 34-35
This method is practiced by some presbyterian denominations today, and has a number of benefits in efficiency: the congregation doesn’t have to go through the unpleasantries of persons thought well of by the people, but not qualified for church office, being turned down by the elders.
However, there is a significant drawback to this method: No one will ever be proposed to church office besides those whom the current elders put forward. The people have no way of nominating persons to be elders (other than giving the elders their input). Yet, the current elders are not all-knowing or all-wise, and are fallible. They may be overly picky according to their own opinions and interests, more so than Jesus and the apostles were. This method also, in point of fact, allows the current elders to be controlling (a common temptation to men), which is especially an issue if the elders and the people are not of a harmonious mind.
It should be noted that in Acts 6:1-7, which is in the ecclesiastical context, the apostles tell the lay-people (vv. 2-5, there were no elders at that time) to “look ye out among you seven men of honest report.” That is, in this situation, the lay-people had the first choice. However, that may have been accidental to the circumstances, precisely because they had no elders. It was not necessarily determinative for how the process must proceed for when, later, the churches would have elders.‡
‡ So Pardovan, p. 34, section 2
One thing Acts 6:1-3 does show, is that the Church governors do have the right and power to assess and determine the need for further officers, and how many may do the job. That is, the elders may determine how many persons may be selected for Church office, according to the need and circumstances, though they have not the right to unilaterally determine which individuals those will be.
The two methods above, however, are not the only possibilities, nor is it clear that the second method (described by Pardovan) was in fact a full representation of the exact and exclusive practice of the Post-Reformation era Church of Scotland:
George Gillespie (1637) gives a very important qualification below, quoting the Scottish First Book of Discipline (1560), ch. 8, that after the elders put forward persons to the congregation for their consent to be elders:
“…if any man know others of better qualities within the Church than these that be nominat[ed], they should be put in election, that the Church may have the choice.”
That is, the people are not constrained to elect for officers only those persons put before them by the elders, but have a right to put forward their own nominations. This greatly diminishes the ability for the current elders to be controlling, and greatly boosts the ability of the people, not simply to consent to new governors over them, but to choose who they should be (though subject to the further consent of the elders), that the best men may have full opportunity to be officers in the Church for her good.
This practice, which appears to be the fuller practice of the Post-Reformation Church of Scotland, it is proposed, does things in the best way, keeping the advantages of both other practices above while minimizing their deficiencies.
.
Quote
1600’s
George Gillespie
English Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 8, Digression 1, p. 163
“And as for the other sort of elders, together with deacons, we judge the ancient order of this Church [of Scotland], to have been most convenient for providing of well-qualified men for those functions and offices.
For the eighth head of the First Book of Discipline, touching the election of elders and deacons, ordains that men of best knowledge and cleanest life, be nominat[ed] to be in election, and that their names be publicly read to the whole church by the minister, giving them advertisement, that from among them must be chosen elders and deacons: that if any of these nominat[ed] be noted with public infamy, he ought to be repelled: and that if any man know others of better qualities within the Church than these that be nominat[ed], they should be put in election, that the Church may have the choice.”
.
.
Definition of Ordination
Quote
1600’s
Richard Baxter
Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653), An Explication of Some Passages in the Propositions, p. 9
“Those that will not use the name of ordination may yet use the thing: which is nothing but the solemn designation or appointment of a fit person to the office, by competent men: which is most fitly accompanied with prayer and imposition of hands, where they may be had.”
.
Who has the Power to Ordain?
Order of Contents
Intro
Article 1
Quotes 6
.
Intro
Not individual ministers or elders, not simply multiple ministers or elders, but the constituted presbytery over that area (and not ministers or elders of other presbyteries).
See the many articles and quotes which affirm this principle on our webpage: Independent Churches do Not Have the Authority for Greater Excommunicaton. The power for ordination (and defrocking) goes hand-in-hand with the power of greater-excommunication as these things constitute the highest powers given to the Church.
.
Article
1600’s
Hutcheson, George & James Wood – pp. 27 & 30-31 of A Review & Examination of a Pamphlet Lately Published bearing the Title of Protesters No Subverters & Presbytery No Papacy, etc. (1659)
Hutcheson and Wood were Resolutioners arguing against Protestors, for, in a constituted Church area, using a neighboring Protestor presbytery to ordain a minister into a church with Resolutioner sympathies. The authors, in this context, liken this to ministers being ordained by ad hoc presbyters assembled together, which such ordinations are invalid.
“It discusses with the same clearness and thoroughness [as his A Little Stone Pretended] the question of church authority, and is in fact perhaps the very best and most satisfactory discussion of that question we possess.” – James Walker
.
Quotes
Order of
2nd Book of Discipline
Gillespie
Rutherford
Westminster
London Presbyterians
Baxter
.
1500’s
Scottish Second Book of Discipline 1578
Ch. 6, Of Elders and their Office
“4. Their office is, as well severally as conjunctly, to watch diligently upon the flock committed to their charge, both publicly and privately, that no corruption of religion or manners enter therein.”
.
Ch. 7, Of the Elderships, and Assemblies, and Discipline
“3. All the ecclesiastical assemblies have power to convene lawfully together for treating of things concerning the kirk, and pertaining to their charge.
11. The power of these particular elderships is to give diligent labours in the bounds committed to their charge, that the kirks be kept in good order; “
.
1600’s
George Gillespie
Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland (1641)
p. 12-14
“…we will distinguish with the School-men a two-fold power, the power of Order, and the power of Jurisdiction; which are different in sundry respects.
1. The power of Order comprehends such things as a minister by virtue of his ordination, may do without a commission from any Presbytery, or Assembly of the Church, as to preach the Word, to minister the Sacraments, to celebrate marriage, to visit the sick, to catechize, to admonish, etc. The power of Jurisdiction comprehends such things as a minister cannot do by himself, nor by virtue of his ordination; but they are done by a Session, Presbytery, or Synod; and sometimes by a minister, or ministers, having commission, and authority from the same, such as ordination and admission, suspension, deprivation and excommunication, and receiving again into the Church, and making of laws and constitutions ecclesiastical and such like; whereof we boldly maintain, that there is no part of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, in the power of one man, but of many met together in the name of Christ.
2. The power of Order is the radical and fundamental power, and makes a Minister susceptive, and capable of the power of Jurisdiction.
3. The power of Order goes no further than the court of conscience; the power of jurisdiction is exercised in external and ecclesiastical courts.
Fourthly, the power of Order is sometime unlawful in the use, yet not void in itself. The power of Jurisdiction when it is unlawful in the use, it is also void in itself. If a minister do any act of Jurisdiction, as to excommunicate, or absolve without his own parish, wanting also the consent of the ministry and elders of the bounds where he does the same, such acts are void in themselves, and of no effect. But if without his own charge, and without the consent aforesaid, he baptise an infant, or do any such thing belonging to the power of Order, though his act be unlawful, yet is the thing itself of force, and the sacrament remains a true sacrament.”
.
Part 2, ch. 3, p. 131 ff.
The word […] ‘Presbytery’ we find thrice in the New Testament: twice of the Jewish presbytery at Jerusalem, Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5, and once of the Christian presbytery, 1. Tim. 4:14, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.” Sutlivius and Downame have borrowed from Bellarmine two false glosses upon this place (De Presb., ch. 12, p. 75,81; Serm. in Apoc. 1:20; Iren. lib., 2, ch. 11, p. 161).
They say by […] here, we may understand either an assembly of bishops, or the office of a presbyter, which was given to Timothy. To these absurdities let one of their own side answer. Whereas says Dr. Forbes, some have expounded the presbytery in this place to be a company of bishops, unless by ‘bishops’ thou would understand simple presbyters, it is a violent interpretation and an insolent meaning. And whereas others have understood the degree itself of eldership, this cannot stand, [De presb […].1.] for the degree has not hands, but hands are men’s. I find in Sutlivius, a third gloss: He says, that the word presbytery in this place signifies the ministers of the Word, non juris vinculo sed ut cunque collectos, inter quos etiam Apostoli erant [Not by a bond of law, but at anytime being collected together, even as the apostles were].
Answer 1: If so, then the occasional meeting of ministers, be it in a journey or at a wedding or a burial, etc. shall all be presbyteries, for then they are ut cunque collecti [at sometime collected together].
2. The apostles did put the Churches in better order than to leave imposition of hands or any thing of that kind to the uncertainty of an occasional meeting.
3. The apostles were freely present in any presbytery where they were for the time because the oversight and care of all the churches was laid upon them: Pastors and elders were necessarily present therein, and did by virtue of their particular vocation meet together presbyterially, whether an apostle were with them, or not.
No other sense can the text suffer but that by presbytery we should understand consessus presbyterorum, a meeting of elders, and so do [John] Cameron and [John] Forbes themselves expound it.
Sutlivius objects to the contrary that the apostle Paul did lay on hands upon Timothy, which he proves both from 2 Tim. 1 and because extraordinary gifts were given by that laying on of hands.
Answer: There is an express difference made betwixt Paul’s laying on of his hands and the Presbytery’s laying on of their hands…
3. If the testimony of the Presbytery, by the laying on of their hands, together, with the apostle’s hands, in the extraordinary mission of Timothy, was required: much more may it be put out of question, that the Apostles committed to the Presbytery the full power of ordaining ordinary ministers.
.
Samuel Rutherford
The Due Right of Presbyteries (1644), pt. 1, pp. 195-6
“…yea but ordination by precept and practice is never given but to pastors and elders in consociation, 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6; 2 Tim. 2:2-3; Tit. 1:5; Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3; 14 23.”
.
A Peaceable & Temperate Plea (1642), p. 264
“…but there be wide differences betwixt ordination of a pastor which essentially makes him a pastor, and the people’s choosing him to be their pastor, as:…
2. The Word of God restrains ordination of officers to pastorsª (1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:2; Tit. 1:5; Acts 6:6; Acts 13:1-3), and ascribes election of officers to the people (Acts 6:5).”
ª [That is, properly, presbyteries of pastors. Ruling elders sit with presbyteries as guest representatives, but are not properly members thereof. While the consent of the whole presbytery (including the Ruling Elders) is needed for the ordination of a pastor, only the pastors (and not Ruling Elders) are to lay hands on the one becoming a pastor. As the laying on of hands is a designation pointing out the one being prayed for, so the proper conferral of ecclesiastical authority in the ordination of a pastor only properly comes from the prayer of the pastors of the presbytery, as Ruling Elders do not have the authority to confer an authority they do not have.]
.
Westminster’s Form of Presbyterial Church Government 1645
Touching the Power of Ordination
“Ordination is the act of a presbytery.[t]
The power of ordering the whole work of ordination is in the whole presbytery, which, when it is over more congregations than one, whether these congregations be fixed or not fixed, in regard of officers or members, it is indifferent as to the point of ordination.[v]
[t] 1 Tim. 4:14.
[v] 1 Tim. 4:14.
It is very requisite, that no single congregation, that can conveniently associate, do assume to itself all and sole power in ordination:
1. Because there is no example in scripture that any single congregation, which might conveniently associate, did assume to itself all and sole power in ordination; neither is there any rule which may warrant such a practice.
2. Because there is in scripture example of an ordination in a presbytery over diverse congregations; as in the church of Jerusalem, where were many congregations: these many congregations were under one presbytery, and this presbytery did ordain.
The preaching presbyters orderly associated, either in cities or neighboring villages, are those to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations within their bounds respectively.”
.
London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pt. 2, pp. 123-26
“You will reply: It is because they are ministers ordained by antichristian bishops; and therefore, before they have renounced their false ministry we cannot with a safe conscience hear them, nor expect a blessing from their ministry. This reply is, we confess, a great stumbling block to many godly people in this kingdom. For satisfaction to it we offer these particulars:
1. Many of you [congregationalists] that make this reply hold that the election of the people is by God’s Word sufficient to make a man a true minister without ordination. Now it is certain that many public [Anglican] ministers have been chosen by the free and full consent of their congregations; and most of them have had an after consent, which was sufficient to make Leah Jacob’s wife (Subsequens consensus Jacobi in Leam, fecit eos conjuges. [David] Pareus, etc.), and why not (to use your own words) to marry a man to a people; and therefore according to your own judgments all such are lawful ministers. For sinful superadditions do not nullify divine institutions.
2. Some of you that, besides election, require ordination for the making of a minister, yet say that this ordination must be by the people of the congregation; and thus are your ministers ordained. Now we find neither precept nor precedent for this in all the Scripture: We find ordination by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (1 Tim. 4:14), but never of the laying on of the hands of the people. We find the apostles, Timothy and Titus ordaining (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:22; Tit. 1:5), but never the people ordaining; and for private persons to assume the power of ordination (that is, a power to send men to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments) is a sin like unto the sin of Uzzah and of Korah and his company. Therefore we say to you as Christ does, Mt. 6, ‘First pluck the beam out of thine own eye, and then, etc.’ First justify the ordination of your own ministers by private persons and then you will see better to find fault with the ordination of our ministers.
3. We distinguish between a defective ministry and a false ministry, as we do between a man that is lame or blind and a man that is but the picture of a man. We do not deny but that the way of ministers entering into the ministry by the bishops had many defects in it, for which they ought to be humbled. But we add that, notwithstanding all the accidental corruptions, yet it is not substantially and essentially corrupted, as it is with baptism [not being substantially and essentially corrupted] in the Popish Church. All orthodox divines account it valid, though mingled with much dross, because the party baptized is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And therefore, when a Papist turns protestant, he is not baptized again, because the substance of baptism is preserved in Popery under many defects. The like and much more may be said for the ordination of our ministers by bishops: It is lawful and valid for the substance of it, though mingled with many circumstantial defects. And this appears:
1. Because when they were ordained, they were designed to no other office but to preach the Word and administer the sacraments according to the will of Christ.
2. Because since their ordination God has sealed the truth of their ministry (as has been said) by his blessing upon it. If they be antichristian ministers, how is your conversion Christian?
3. Because they were ordained by bishops, not as lord bishops or as a superior order by divine right above a presbyter, but as they were presbyters. For the understanding of which you must know:
1. That by Scripture a bishop and presbyter is all one, as appears by Acts 10:27-28; Tit. 1:5-8; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-2, etc. 1 Pet. 5:1-2, and by what is said by the authors quoted in the margin. (Smectymnuus, The Answer of Mr. Marshal, Mr. Vines, Mr. Caryl, Mr. Seaman returned to the late King in the Treaty at the Isle of Wight)
2. That the lordly dignities of bishops were mere civil additaments annexed to their bishoprics by kingly favor.
3. That this opinion, that bishops are a superior order of ministry by divine right above a presbyter is a late upstart opinion contrary to antiquity, as appears by the authors quoted in the margin. (Ambrose in ch. 4 to the Ephesians and in 1 Tim. 3; Jerome in Tit. 1 and to Evagrius; Augustine, Epistle 19; Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3)
4. That the laws of this realm do account nothing divine in a bishop but his being a presbyter; and therefore the parliament in their ordinance for ordination tells us that they did ordain [them] as presbyters, not as bishops, much less as lord bishops.
As for their usurpation of the sole power of jurisdiction together with their lordly titles and dignities and dependances, we have renounced them in our Solemn League and Covenant [1643]. But we never did, nor never shall renounce them as presbyters, which by the consent of all sides are by divine right.
4. We shall add one thing more, that ministers do not receive their ministry from the people, or bishops, but immediately from Jesus Christ. For they are ministers and ambassadors of Christ, not of the people. Indeed they are ambassadors for the good of the people, but not ambassadors of the people. All that the people or bishop does is but to choose and ordain a man, but it is Christ that gives him his power and authority, as when a wife chooses a husband and a town a mayor: the town does not give the mayor, nor the wife the husband the power they have, but the laws of God the one, and of man the other. So it is here, it is Christ that gives the office and the call to the ministry; they are his servants and in his name execute their function. It is He that fits them with ability for their work; the people they consent, and the bishop as a presbyter with other presbyters ordain him; which though it had many corruptions mingled with it, when the bishop was in all his pomp and lordliness, yet for the substance of it, it was lawful and warrantable and therefore cannot without sin be renounced and abjured.”
.
Richard Baxter
The Cure of Church Divisions… (London, 1670), pt. 1, Direction 58, p. 290
“Eighthly, [it is superstition] that the people do not only choose the persons who shall be their pastors, but also give them their office or power.
Ninthly, that the people have the power of the keys, or of Church-government, by vote.
Tenthly, that the people of a particular church, do give authority to men to be ministers in the universal Church, and to preach and baptize among those that are without [the Church].”
.
That One Elder does Not have the Power to Ordain
Intro
Ordination is a power of jurisdiction (including things like Church discipline, excommunication, defining dogma, etc.), which take officers acting together to do; it is not a power of order (things like preaching, administering the sacraments, etc.), which a minister may do of himself.
The extraordinary offices in Scripture, such as the apostles, prophets and evanglelists could ordain and excommunicate of themselves, however the regular offices in the Church cannot. Those who argued that one officer, usually a bishop, could ordain or excommunicate of themselves, Papists, Prelatists and Anglicans, usually argued continuity from the examples of the apostles, prophets and, especially, the evangelists (such as Timothy and Titus). Hence, part of the reformed counter-argument involved the principle of cessationism (amongst other things).
The reason why ordination of ministers and excommunication are specifically held forth prominently in these discussions is because they are the highest actions of ecclesiastical power in their kinds. All lesser actions in their kinds do not necessarily take the explicit power of a presbytery to do (the presbytery holding the root of Church authority), but they do take the consensus of elders (such as a local session), and may not be performed by one elder.
.
Articles
1600’s
Baynes, Paul – 3rd Question, ‘Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinary power ecclesiastical, and the exercise of it, to any singular person, or to [a] united multitude or presbyters’ in The Diocesan’s Trial, wherein all the Sinews of Doctor Downame’s Defense are brought into Three Heads & Orderly Dissolved (d. 1617; 1641), pp. 78-89
Gillespie, George – Digression 4, ‘Of the Power of the Keys & Ecclesiastical Censures’ in A Disputate Against the English-Popish Ceremonies... (1637), pt. 3, ch. 8
This topic was a live issue in both Scotland and England when Gillespie wrote this, just before the Second Reformation in Scotland (1638).
.
Contra Reordination
Articles
1600’s
Crofton, Zachary – A Serious Review of Presbyters’ Re-ordination by Bishops (London: Smith, 1661) 38 pp.
Crofton was an English presbyterian.
Baxter, Richard – ch. 5, ‘Of Reordination’ in The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), pp. 23-30
In 1662 England required all ministers in the Anglican Church to have been ordained by a bishop, though many, even of the conformist ministers, had not. The non-conformist ministers considered their previous ordinations to be valid and for it to be sinful to be reordained. Baxter argues the point in a dialogue between a Lawyer and the nonconformist Minister.
.
.
When the People may Reject the Person Ordained and/or Installed
Quote
1600’s
Richard Baxter
Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653), ‘Objections Answered’, pp. 82-83
“3. And He has described the persons that he will have to be the officers by their requisite qualifications [e.g. 1 Tim. 3]. All this is done in his laws already.
4. There is nothing therefore left to be done but to determine which are the individual persons that are fittest according to God’s description. This God Himself also will do, but has not tied himself to one way in doing it: In general, some sign of God’s will that this is the man must be had; At first in calling the apostles his own immediate nomination was the sign. Now the most notable sign is the most eminent unquestionable qualification of the person, which when God confers so notably or discernably, that man must be taken as chosen by God, and they that reject him do sin:
These qualifications lie both in abilities, willingness, conveniency of habitation or other externals and interest in the people; and if God bow their minds to consent, there is the fuller signification of his will; yet lest any by intrusion should abuse the Church, God has made the pastors and overseers judges of men’s fitness, or the ordinary discerners of it, for the guidance of the Church in their consent. But then if these judges or discerners take a man to be fit (and so ordain him) who is utterly unfit, their ordination is ipso facto null, as being against God’s will; for God gave them power only to ordain those that were so and so qualified, and forbade them to ordain others.
Also if the qualification and fitness of the person be eminent; the people are bound to see God’s choice and to accept that man of themselves without ordination rather than an insufficient man ordained. For as Cyprian says:
Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis et Deum motuens, a peccatore praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi sacerdotis sacrificia miscere: quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi; Quod et ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere, ut sacerdos plebe praesente, sub omnium oculis deligatur, et dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur, etc. Et sit ordinatio justa & legitima quae omnium suffragio et judicio fuerit examinata.
That which I especially note is the first words, that God leaves neither bishops at liberty who to ordain, nor people whom to choose, but has so described to them the persons that if they grossely err, their action is null: and therefore the people themselves are bound to cast off a wicked or utterly unfit pastor, though all the bishops in the world command them to receive them (as in the Arians time some did). And on the contrary they are bound to choose the fittest against the bishops’ mind, if he would thrust an unfit one upon them.
And in such a case there is sufficient signification of God’s will that, ‘This should be the man,’ and then want of ordination cannot null his calling, if he had none at all: For where there is no place for controversy there is no need of a judge: And where God eminently qualifies one man, and leaves another utterly unfit, there should be no controversy which should be the man. And that judgment which is committed to ordainers is limited, and it is directed by God’s laws, which it may not pass or contradict. If it do notoriously, the same law commands the people not to obey man before God.
Also this power is given to certain ends: and if it be used against those ends, so that either the ends or that means must be forsaken, it is easy to see that it is means and not the ends. For the means are not always the same, God having [a] store [of them] if any one fail. Especially the means is of positive morality, and the ends [is] of natural morality: For when two duties come together, and both cannot be chosen, the choosing of the less (which must give place to the greater) is a sin: and positives are less (caeteris paribus [all things being equal]) than naturals: And the substantials of positives more necessary than the circumstantials: It is of flat necessity that the Church be taught and guided, and God publicly worshipped: It is necessary that there be ministers for that use. It is necessary that these men be godly, able and willing. It is fit that able pastors be judges who these be, lest unfit men creep in by deluding the peo∣ple. But this is but in order to the former as the end.
If therefore a bishop or pastor, or whoever shall appoint over a people an ungodly man, or an insufficient [man], this appointment is ipso facto null, and obliges not the people: Nay, God has already obliged them to worship Him publicly, etc. and therefore they are bound to choose a man unordained to this work rather than not perform it: and in so doing they obey God in choosing him whom God has designed, and he is a true pastor. For as Cyprian says (where above, Epistle 68, pp. 200-201) with the whole synod:
Desiderio vestro non tam nostra consilia quam divina praecepta respondent, quibus jampridem mandatur voce coelesti, et Dei lege praescribitur, quos et quales oportet deservire altari, et sacrificia divina celebrare, etc. Quae cum praedicta et manifesta sint nobis, praeceptis divinis necesse est obsequia nostra deserviant; nec personam in ejusmodi rebus accipere, aut aliquid cuiquam largiri po∣test humana indulgentia, ubi intercedit et legem tribuit divina praescriptio.
So that in truth God does all in conveying the ministerial power (as Spalatensis proves of the very magisterial) yea, He does by his description and qualifications choose the person, and only require men to accept him whom He has designed by discerning and observing the signs of his will in the nomination.
And mark that seeing all that God leaves to man is no more, therefore ordination and election do not so much differ as some think, both being but the ministerial determination of the person: And therefore it being proved easily that overseers of the Church are the stated ordainers, it follows that they are the principal choosers; unless you will cross Scripture in making ordination to be but a mere empty ceremony.
The people indeed must (necessitate naturali ad finem) consent; but that’s not election strictly. Or if they first propound the man, yet they do not determine of him authoritatively: that is the Church-officers or governors’ part:
But if he cross Gods Word palpably by male-administration, the people have Judicium discretionis [a judgment of discretion] (as Davenant has well proved, Of the Judge of Controversies) and must discern their own duty, and not partake in a pastor’s sin, nor obey him before God, so that this is neither to give the people any authoritative determining choice, nor to exempt them from the authoritative determining choice of their guides, except where their miscarriage makes it null: Much less to make themselves Church-governors:
No more than he makes an army self-governors, that when they find their commanders traitors, and see they would deliver them up to the enemy, does tell them they ought to forsake those commanders in obedience to their soveraign; and obey the next that is trusty, or (if none be so) choose another till they have further orders:
Nay, it is hard trusting the guidance of that man again that has once betrayed us and the Church: And therefore those bishops in England that set up drunkards and sottish readers, and cast out such as Ames, Parker, Baynes, Bradshaw, Brightman, with multitudes, such as England was not worthy of, yea, that cast out the conformable so fast, as if they had presently been destroying the preaching of the Gospel, I say, these have so apparently falsified their trust that (if we were fully resolved for bishops, yet) we cannot submit to them for ordination or jurisdiction.
The Concil. Rhegiensis decreed: Ut perversi ordinatores nullis denuò ordinationibus intersint, Where then shall we have a bishop to ordain of the old accused tribe? Also they decreed, De remotione ejus quem ordinare perperam duo praesumpserunt.”
.
History
On the Early & Medieval Church
Article
1600’s
London Provincial Assembly – Appendix: Propositions on Ministerial Ordination in the Ancient Church in Jus divinum ministerii evangelici, or the Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministry… together with an Appendix, wherein the judgment and practice of antiquity about the whole matter of episcopacy, and especially about the ordination of ministers, is briefly discussed (London: Legat, 1654), pt. 2, pp. 99-149
The Propositions
1. That in the first and purest times, when the Church of Christ was governed by the Common Councel of Pres∣byters, There was Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters.
2. That after that bishops were admitted into the Church, yet notwithstanding, ordination by bishops without the assistance of his presbyters was always forbidden and opposed
3. That even according to the judgment of antiquity, presbyters have an intrinsic power and authority to ordain ministers, and when this power was restrained and inhibited, it was not propter legis necessitatem, but only propter honorem sacerdotii; It was not from the necessity of any divine law forbidding it, but only for the honor of episcopacy. It was not from the canon of the Scriptures, but from some canons of the Church.
4. That even during the prevalency of episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a presbyter to ordain without a bishop. A presbyter had not only an inherent power of ordination, but in some cases he did actually ordain.
5. That when Jerome says, Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter excepta ordinatione [What does a bishop make that a presbyter does not make except ordination]? This passage cannot be understood as if Jerome had thought that ordination was by divine right appropriated to bishops and not to presbyters (as Bishop Bilson says); for in the very same epistle he tells us that by divine right a bishop and a presbyter are all one; and that in Alexandria for a long time the presbyters ordained their bishop. But he must be understood of the practice of the Church in his days, and his meaning is, Quid facit episcopus secundum canones ecclesia quod non facit presbyter excepta ordinatione [What does a bishop make according to the ecclesiastical canons that a presbyter does not make except for ordination]?
6. That when Ischyras was deposed from being a presbyter because [he was] made [so] by Colluthus, that was but a presbyter himself and not a bishop, this was done not because the act of Colluthus was against the canon of the Scriptures, but only because it was against the canons of some council.
7. That Aerius was never condemned by any council of heresy for holding the identity of a bishop and a presbyter. But on the contrary, the Council of Aachen (Aquisgranensis) under Emperor Louis the Pious, anno 816, has approved it for true divinity out of the Scripture that bishops and presbyters are equal, bringing the same texts that Aerius does… We confess that he is called an heretic by Epiphanius and Augustine, but this was especially, if not only, because he was an Arran…
8. That even many, if not most of those that hold episcopacy and episcopal ordination to be divini juris, yet (as we in charity believe) they do not hold it to be so of divine institution as to be perpetually and immutably necessary in the Church of Christ; but they say that those Churches are true Churches that want [lack] bishops, and those ministers true ministers who are ordained by presbyters without bishops.
9. That our episcopal brethren that do so much inveigh against the presbyterians in all their writings for walking contrary to antiquity in the matter of ordination, do themselves fall under the same accusation in many particulars which we could easily name, if we did desire to recriminate. We will instance only in two…
.
On the Post-Reformation
Scotland
Articles
Sprott, G.W. – “Ordination” in The Book of Common Order of the Church of Scotland, Commonly known as John Knox’s Liturgy, ed. G.W. Sprott (Blackwood & Sons, 1901), pp. xlvi-xlvii
Kirk, James – Appendix III, ‘Scottish Ordinations in the Late Sixteenth Century’ in Development of the Melvillian Movement in Late Sixteenth Century Scotland PhD diss. (Univ. of Edinburgh, 1972), vol. 2, pp. 719-33
.
Book
Shaw, Duncan – The Admission of Ministers in the Church of Scotland, 1560-1652: A Study in Presbyterian Ordination MTh thesis (University of Glasgow, 1976)
.
Bibliography
Malcom, Howard – ‘Ordination’ in Theological Index... (Boston, 1868), p. 333
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – 2. ‘Whether the sending of ministers by the calling and ordination of the Church is still necessary by divine institution? We affirm against the Remonstrants.’ in An Examination of Arminianism ed. Matthew Nethenus (1639-1642; Utrecht: Anthony Smytegelt, 1668), ch. 16, ‘On the Ministers of the Word’, pp. 684-86
Rutherford (1600-1661)
.
.
.
Related Pages
On the Governing of the Church
On Those Training for the Ministry, Licentiates, Probationers & Seminaries