Difference between revisions of "Ordination"

<p> <b> 1. Scope of the inquiry. </b> -It is proposed to examine the somewhat scanty evidence of the 1st cent. as to the manner in which [[Christian]] ministers were admitted to office. In the investigation the following passages, which have, or may be thought to have, a bearing on the subject, will be specially considered: Acts 1:24 (appointment of Matthias) Acts 6:6 (appointment of the Seven) Acts 13:3 (mission of [[Barnabas]] and Saul) Acts 14:23 (appointment of presbyters); 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6 (Timothy’s ordination); 1 Timothy 5:22 (?), Titus 1:5 (ordinations by Timothy and Titus). But, before examining these passages, we may make two preliminary remarks. (a) There is no technical word used in the NT to express admission to ministerial office, for though χειροτονεῖν is found (Acts 14:23), there is no indication that it is there used in a technical sense (see below, 3). This is the case also in the [[Didache]] ( 15, c.[Note: . circa, about.]a.d. 130?), where we read: ‘Appoint (χειροτονήσατε) therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons.’ At a later date this word and χειροθετεῖν and others (for which see Encyclopaedia of [[Religion]] and Ethics, article‘Ordination’) acquired a technical sense; but this is not the case in the NT. (b) As we have for this subject to depend largely on the narrative in Acts, it will be well to bear in mind a characteristic of St. Luke. With the wealth of material at his disposal, it was impossible for him to repeat the same or similar details over and over again; he therefore omits a detailed description in cases where a like account has already been given. We notice this both in the Third [[Gospel]] and in Acts. St. Luke gives the salient facts, especially of the events that happened at critical periods of the history; but, having once given them, he does not repeat the details next time he has to narrate a similar event. This will be borne in mind when we are considering narratives about admission to the ministry. We shall not expect that on each occasion the whole procedure will be described; but from the analogy of one such ordination, e.g. that of the Seven in Acts 6, we shall conclude, unless anything is said to the contrary, that the same procedure was followed on other occasions. </p> <p> <b> 2. Choice of ordinands. </b> -The normal method of choosing men for the Christian ministry in the [[Apostolic]] Age, as certainly in those which succeeded it, was election by those to whom the ordained was to minister. This was undoubtedly the case with the Seven in Acts 6. Whatever their exact office was-and it is not likely, in view of the solemn procedure adopted, to have been only an office of serving tables, a supposition which seems also to be contrary to the evidence of evangelistic activity by Stephen, Philip, and the rest-the people (‘the whole multitude’) elected (ἐξελέξαντο, ‘chose for themselves,’ Acts 6:5) the Seven and presented them to the apostles (Acts 6:6), who after election ‘appointed’ them (Acts 6:3, καταστήσομεν) and prayed and laid their hands on them (Acts 6:6). The difference between the ‘appointing’ and the ‘electing’ would seem to be that while the people had a free choice, the apostles reserved the right of veto if they thought the choice in a particular case unsuitable. And the same veto apparently rested with ‘apostolic men’ like Timothy and Titus. Thus Titus appoints (Titus 1:5, καταστήσῃς, the same word as in Acts 6:6) presbyters in every city. This must involve at least the same power of veto as in Acts 6. </p> <p> We do not read of election in some cases; notably it is not mentioned when the presbyters are appointed in Acts 14:23, and some have taken the pronoun in the phrase ‘appointed for them’ as indicating that Paul and Barnabas acted without consulting the people. Yet, as has been said above (1), we ought probably to presume election to have taken place unless there is evidence to the contrary. The details are given in ch. 6; they are not repeated in ch. 14. It is also probable that election existed at [[Ephesus]] and in Crete, though we nowhere read of it in the Pastoral Epistles. This method (not without a certain veto attached) continued for many centuries, and to a large extent, with geographical and local variations, exists to this day (see article‘Laity,’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethicsvii. 768 f.). </p> <p> An exception to this method of choosing men for the ministry would be when the [[Divine]] will was directly intimated. The Twelve were chosen by our Lord Himself (note especially John 15:16), without ecclesiastical intervention. So also was St. Paul (Galatians 1:1; see below, 8). In the appointment of [[Matthias]] to the apostolate, the people did indeed choose two (Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus, and Matthias) from among the personal witnesses of our Lord’s life and resurrection, but took the lot which (after prayer had been offered) was cast between these two as an indication of the purpose of God (Acts 1:15-26). The prayer is noteworthy both as being the first recorded act of public worship of the disciples after the Ascension, and as containing words which are characteristic of later ordinations: ‘thou which knowest the hearts of all men’ (καρδιογνῶστα πάντων, Acts 1:24; cf. Acts 15:8), though it is uncertain whether the prayer in Acts is addressed to the Father or to the Son. In the later ordinations it is addressed to the Father. In the case of St. Matthias there was apparently no further ‘ordination’ to the apostolate. The Divine choice is announced by the lot, and so he ‘was numbered with the eleven apostles’ (Acts 15:26). </p> <p> Other cases of Divine intervention are mentioned, and in such cases it would seem that there was no election. Whatever was the significance of the ceremony in Acts 13:1-3 (see below, 8), the choice of Barnabas and [[Saul]] was made by the [[Holy]] Ghost-no doubt through the utterance of a Christian prophet. And Timothy, as St. Paul tells us (1 Timothy 4:14), was ordained through (διά) prophecy. This is taken by Liddon (Com. in loc.) as indicating an apostolic utterance or prayer-i.e. the ordination prayer. But this interpretation does not suit 1 Timothy 1:18 ‘the prophecies which went before on thee’ (or better, as Revised Version margin, ‘which led the way to thee’); and a much more likely view is that the ‘prophecy’ is the indication of the Divine purpose by a Christian prophet, showing that Timothy was a suitable person. Here a regular ordination did follow. It is possible, though perhaps not probable, that the words in Acts 20:28 (see below, 6) mean that the Holy [[Ghost]] had by a prophet pointed out the presbyters at Ephesus as being worthy of ordination. </p> <p> <b> 3. The outward sign of ordination. </b> -We are not told that our Lord gave directions to the apostles as to the method by which they were to appoint officials for the Church. Indeed, it is not a little remarkable that what Western theologians of a later day called the ‘matter’ and ‘form’ of ordination could neither of them have been taken from the incidents recorded in the gospel narratives which have come down to us. For in John 20:22 f. (we need not stop to inquire whether these words were addressed to the Ten or to a larger number of disciples) our Lord is said to have ‘breathed’ on those present, whereas the apostles and those who came after them used, without any known exception, laying on of hands as an outward sign, and to have pronounced a declaratory and imperative formula, whereas the disciples always (till the Middle Ages) used by way of ‘form’ a prayer only. </p> <p> The use of an outward sign for the admission of men to the ministry follows many analogies. Our Lord had made use of outward signs in instituting the two great sacraments of the gospel, baptism and the Eucharist. In the OT an outward sign was used in setting apart for office, and it was to be expected that a similar custom should be found in the Christian Church. As a matter of fact, the only outward sign found for many centuries in the case of Christian ordination is imposition of hands. This symbol was used in the OT in acts of blessing, of appointment to office, and of dedication to God. [[Moses]] laid his hands on Joshua when he set him apart as his successor (Numbers 27:23, Deuteronomy 34:9). [[Jacob]] blessed his grandchildren by laying his hands on their heads (Genesis 48:14; [[Genesis]] 48:17). Imposition of hands was used in dedicating sacrifices (Leviticus 1:4), and in setting apart [[Levites]] (Numbers 8:10). Similarly our Lord blessed by laying on of hands (Mark 10:13; Mark 10:16 and || Mt. Lk.), and used the same symbolic act in healing (Mark 5:23 -which shows that it was a well-known practice, as Jesus is asked to lay on hands, Luke 4:40; Luke 13:13 etc.). The disciples also used laying on of hands in healing (Mark 16:18; Acts 9:12; Acts 9:17, referring probably to the restoration of Saul’s sight: see below, 8; Acts 28:8). We see, then, that the symbol had more than one signification. The apostles used it when praying for the gift of the Holy Ghost for the baptized (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6), and also when setting men apart for the ministry. The ‘laying on of hands’ in Hebrews 6:2 perhaps refers to all the occasions when the symbol was used; or else to ‘confirmation’ only, as F. H. Chase maintains (Confirmation in the Apostolic Age, London, 1909, p. 45). </p> <p> Laying on of hands is explicitly mentioned in Acts 6:6 (the Seven) 13:3 (mission of Barnabas and Saul; see 8), 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6 (ordination of Timothy), and in 1 Timothy 5:22, if that refers to ordination (see below). No other outward sign is mentioned in the first three centuries. None at all is mentioned in the appointment of presbyters in Acts 14:23. Here the verb χειροτονεῖν is used, which in later days often meant ‘to ordain.’ But it does not necessarily imply laying on of hands; it may mean election, properly through a show of hands, or at any rate by an assembly, as in 2 Corinthians 8:19; or it may even mean an appointment by God (Acts 10:41) or by man (Acts 14:23). Thus we cannot affirm from the last-named passage that Paul and Barnabas laid on hands[Note: The word χειροθεσία (‘laying on of hands’) is not found in the NT (as it is so often found later on), but ἐπίθεσις χειρῶν. In some works, e.g. the Apost. Const., χειροτονία is used ordinarily for ‘ordination,’ but χειροθεσία when ‘laying on of hands’ is emphasized; the latter is used in Apost. Const. for other impositions of hands (A. J. Maclean, [[Ancient]] Church Orders, Cambridge, 1910, p. 154 f.).]when they appointed presbyters in every church[Note: This word might have been translated ‘In church’: cf. Acts 2:46, ‘at home’; but Titus 1:5 is conclusive for the other translation.] which they visited on their first missionary journey. Yet it is exceedingly unlikely that they used any other outward sign, or that they refrained from using any outward sign. Here the characteristic of St. Luke already mentioned should be borne in mind. Laying on of hands was the sign universally used in the early Church for ordination; a supposed exception in the case of the ordination of a bishop in the Apostolic Constitutions (circa, abouta.d. 375) is conclusively shown by the newly-discovered Church Orders to be only apparent. </p> <p> In the 4th cent, another outward sign was introduced, apparently in cases where it was not at first deemed suitable to use imposition of hands-namely, at the admission of men (and women) to minor orders. In this case the ‘porrectio instrumentorum’ was substituted; a reader, for example, was given a book. In the Middle Ages, in the West, this kind of outward sign almost overshadowed the imposition of hands, especially in the case of the chalice and paten given to one ordained to the presbyterate. See on this subject Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, article‘Ordination.’ </p> <p> Laying on of hands is mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:22. Timothy is to ‘lay hands hastily on no man.’ But does this refer to ordination? If so, it gives us confirmation of the fact, which in any case we can scarcely doubt, that the local ministry were ordained with imposition of hands. It is taken in this sense by Chrysostom and the Greek commentators, and in modern times by Alford, Liddon, and (apparently with a slight hesitation) by H. B. Swete (Hasting's Dictionary of the [[Bible]] (5 vols)iii. 85). On the other hand, this passage is interpreted by several moderns (Hort, Hammond, Ellicott, Chase, etc.), as referring to the reception of penitents with laying on of hands. This interpretation suits the context perhaps better than the other; both before and after this verse St. Paul is speaking of sinners, and the words, ‘Neither be partaker of other men’s sins, keep thyself pure,’ are held to be less suitable to ordination. The custom of receiving penitents or persons who had been in schism or heresy, with laying on of hands, is attested in the 3rd cent. by [[Cyprian]] (Ep. lxxiv. [lxxiii.], ‘ad Pompeium,’ 1, de Laps. 16), in the 4th cent. by the [[Council]] of Nicaea (Song of [[Solomon]] 8), [[Eusebius]] (Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.)vii. 2, an ‘ancient custom’), the Apost. Const. (ii. 41), and at the end of the 5th cent. by the ‘Gallican Statutes’ (Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua), formerly in error ascribed to the ‘Fourth Council of Carthage’ ( 80; see C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Eng. translation, Edinburgh, 1896, ii. 411). But this custom is not referred to elsewhere in the NT, and one has a suspicion that the interpretation in question antedates it considerably. On the whole, the question must be left open. </p> <p> The laying on of hands is no magical sign, effecting a change independently of all spiritual considerations. But the same thing is true of the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Eucharist. The utility of an outward and visible sign is undoubtedly very great, but it is only a minor part of an ordinance, and does not enable those who receive it to neglect the spiritual disposition which is necessary. The outward sign is the help to faith. The vitally important factor in the ordinance is the Holy Spirit who works in it. See Swete, The Holy Spirit in the NT, p. 384. </p> <p> <b> 4. The ordination prayer. </b> -All the passages in Acts mentioned above (Acts 1:24; Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3; Acts 14:23) tell us of prayer being used, but, except in the case of the choosing of Matthias (where the words are no guide to us for the general case), we have no indication as to the nature of the prayer. The prayer preceded the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6). The earliest ordination prayer that we can even provisionally arrive at dates from perhaps the beginning of the 3rd century. By a careful comparison of the ordination prayers in the parallel Church Orders of the 4th cent., which are derived from a common original that is perhaps of the time of Hippolytus, we can conjecturally determine the ordination prayer of the lost original. But even this gives us only one out of what was doubtless a very large number of such prayers in use throughout the Church; and, further, those used at ordinations, like those used at the Eucharist, were probably at the first in a very fluid condition, if not extemporaneous. The great characteristic of all ordinations for many centuries after the [[Ascension]] was their extreme simplicity, no matter to what office a person was ordained; a prayer and laying on of hands were practically all, except that the kiss of peace, and, in the case of a bishop, enthronization, were added. But it is very noteworthy that while our Lord in John 20:22 f. said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost,’ and ‘Whose scever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them,’ etc., the Christian ordinations invariably took the form of a prayer. The introduction in the West, in the Middle Ages, of the declaratory form, in addition to (not instead of) the ordination prayer, was very probably due to a desire to follow our Lord’s example exactly. But the earlier [[Christians]] would seem to have regarded such a procedure as irreverent. Their [[Master]] had used a declaratory form, had by His Divine power declared that their commission was given to them. They themselves believed that their own proper course was to pray that God would give the commission to the ordinands by their instrumentality. The same feeling comes out in the fact that in the early ages the eucharistic consecration by the Church was always conceived as effected by a prayer, and not by a declaratory form of words. See Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, articles ‘Invocation (Liturgical)’ and ‘Ordination.’ </p> <p> <b> 5. Fasting. </b> -In Acts 13:2 f. we read that fasting preceded the solemn mission of Barnabas and Saul. In Acts 14:23 ‘fastings,’ as well as prayer, accompany the appointment of presbyters ‘in every church’ by Paul and Barnabas. The plural ‘fastings’ seems to mean that these apostles at each town held a solemn service of ordination with fasting; they did not ordain a large number for the whole district at one convenient centre. </p> <p> [[Fasting]] was frequently in early ages associated with solemn prayer (Psalms 35:13, Daniel 9:3, Mark 9:29 [some Manuscripts], Luke 2:37); and so with baptism and the Eucharist. The pre-baptismal fast is mentioned in the Didache (7 f.), by Justin [[Martyr]] (Apol. i. 61), Tertullian (de Bapt. 20), [[Cyril]] of [[Jerusalem]] (Cat. iii. 7, xviii. 17), in the Church Orders (see Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethicsv. 768a), and elsewhere. The fast before [[Communion]] is mentioned in Tertullian (ad Uxor. ii. 5) and in the Church Orders (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethicsv. 768b). In the [[Testament]] of our Lord (i. 22) and the Arabic Didascalia (23, 38) there is a fast for bishops after their ordination. But we do not find in early post-apostolic literature much emphasis laid on fasting in connexion with ordination. </p> <p> <b> 6. God working through His ministers in ordaining. </b> -It was not only when there was a special Divine intervention, as in the case of Matthias, Paul, and (probably) Timothy, that the first disciples believed that God was the real ordainer. He always worked through His human instruments. Even in the case of Matthias the special intervention extended only to God’s selection (so they regarded the lot) of one out of two men; the choice of the two was made by the people. Yet no one would doubt that Matthias was really appointed an apostle by God. And this, as seems most probable, is the meaning of Acts 20:28. St. Paul tells the presbyters of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost has made them ‘bishops.’ Yet he doubtless had ordained them himself, though probably (as in 6:3) the people had elected them. It is perhaps due to this significant passage about the [[Ephesian]] presbyters that, as Swete remarks (The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, London, 1912, p. 290 f.), all the forms of ordination in the Church Orders recognize the Holy Spirit as the source of ministerial power, though the invocation of the Third Person in the [[Eucharist]] was not quite so universal. </p> <p> <b> 7. The charisma in ordination. </b> -St. Paul says to Timothy, ‘Neglect not the charisma that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery’ (1 Timothy 4:14); and ‘kindle (stir into flame, Revised Version margin) the charisma of God which is in thee through the laying on of my hands’ (2 Timothy 1:6 : on these two verses see further below, 9). That this ‘charisma’ (gift) is not the office to which Timothy was appointed-whatever that was-but the inward grace which enabled him to discharge it, is seen from the words ἐν σοί which occur in both passages (so Alford, Ellicott, Liddon, Comm. in loc.; Swete, The Holy Spirit in the NT, p. 246; see also R. Hooker, [[Ecclesiastical]] Polity, bk. v. ch. lxxvii.). The nature of the charisma is referred to in 2 Timothy 1:7, which immediately follows the second passage; it is a spirit of power and love and discipline (σωφρονισμοῦ, i.e., possibly, ‘self-control,’ or better, ‘the capacity of exercising discipline without abandoning love’ [so Swete]). That the ‘charismata’ or gifts of the Spirit are not all of them what we call ‘extraordinary,’ but include those faculties which enable the regular ministry to carry out their work, may be seen also from St. Paul’s description of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12. The gifts are indeed various, but they include ‘apostles,’ ‘teachers,’ ‘helps,’ ‘government,’ as well as ‘powers,’ ‘gifts of healing,’ ‘kinds of tongues’ (1 Corinthians 12:28; cf. the preceding verses). The same thing is seen from Romans 12:6-8. </p> <p> The belief that in ordination a charisma of the Spirit is given does not (it need hardly be said) mean that those who thus receive it have not before received the Holy Spirit. The Seven, for example, were to be full of [Holy] Spirit and wisdom before they were elected by the people and appointed and ordained by the apostles (Acts 6:3). [[Stephen]] was already ‘a man full of faith and Holy Spirit’ (Acts 6:5). But the gifts of the Spirit are many and various; and the charisma which Timothy was not to neglect but to kindle was that special gift which would enable him to be a good Christian minister. </p> <p> <b> 8. The mission of Barnabas and Saul from Antioch. </b> -In considering the present subject we must necessarily touch on the meaning of the ceremony in Acts 13:1-3, when these two great missionaries were sent out on their first evangelistic journey. Was it an ordination, or a ‘dismission service’? Was it the appointment of Barnabas and Saul to the apostolate? We read that certain ‘prophets and teachers’ were at Antioch-Barnabas, Symcon, Lucius, Manaen, Saul. ‘As they ministered (λειτουργούντων) to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, [[Separate]] me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.’ The ‘sending forth’ is expressly said to be the act of the Holy Ghost (Acts 13:4). This was after the return of Barnabas and Saul from Jerusalem, whither they had gone to take the alms of the Church at [[Antioch]] (Acts 11:30, Acts 12:25). St. Luke’s pronouns are somewhat ambiguous. But his phrase in Luke 13:3 must mean that Symeon, Lucius, and [[Manaen]] (and possibly other prophets and teachers, if any unnamed ones were present)[Note: The τινες of the TR is badly attested, and can hardly be original. D and Vulg. have ‘among whom [were] Barnabas,’ etc., suggesting that there were others. But probably the list given is exclusive.] prayed and laid hands on Barnabas and Saul, and sent them away. It was clearly an important occasion. It was a solemn service or liturgy before God, during which the Holy Spirit indicated His Divine purpose-doubtless by the mouth of one of the prophets present. They then fasted and-apparently on a second occasion-prayed, laid on hands, and sent the two missionaries away. It is the view of some that this was an ‘ordination’ of Barnabas and Saul to the apostleship (so, e.g., Rackham, Com. in loc.). It is said that hereafter, but not before, they are described as ‘apostles’ (Acts 14:14), and that though St. Paul was made an apostle by our Lord directly, yet that Divine appointment did not make it unnecessary for the Church at large by a formal act to recognize it. But (however that may be) the view that these two men were on this occasion made apostles appears to the present writer to be more than doubtful. In the first place, nothing whatever is said in the passage in question about the apostleship, or indeed about an appointment to any office whatever. Secondly, in Galatians 1:1 St. Paul explicitly claims that he is an ‘apostle not from (ἀπό) men, neither through (διά) man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.’ His apostleship is of Divine, not of human, origin; the same is true of the apostleship of the Twelve also. Further, his apostleship is not through man-no man is the instrument by which this Divinely appointed apostleship came to him. Indeed, the whole argument of the first two chapters of this [[Epistle]] is based on the supposition that St. Paul did not derive authority through the Twelve-and a fortiori not through any Christian ‘prophets and teachers.’ And in the third place the suggestion about Church recognition, if it be pressed to mean (as it is pressed by Rackham) that Symeon, Lucius, and Manaen conferred the apostleship on Barnabas and Saul, means that those who were not themselves apostles could make others apostles. Rackham says that as the Divine will was indicated, this was possible, just as Ananias, a ‘layman,’ laid hands on Saul (Acts 9:17). The latter statement involves more than one unproved assumption; but at any rate this argument about [[Ananias]] runs counter to the proposition that ‘the Church should by a formal act recognize the Divine operation.’ ‘The Church’ does not mean any individual layman in the Church. More cautiously [[Gore]] remarks (The Church and the Ministry5, London, 1902, p. 236 n.[Note: . note.]): </p> <p> ‘It was essential to St. Paul’s apostolate that he should not have received his spiritual gifts through other apostles. Again the prophets and teachers at Antioch lay hands on Barnabas and Saul. But here also we have a special divine authorization; and it is to set apart two already of their own “order” to a special work.’ </p> <p> For the reasons stated it seems impossible to view the incident at Antioch as a conferring of the apostleship on Barnabas and Saul. But it was a solemn assignment to them, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, of an extended work among the Gentiles, and all the accompaniments befitted this new departure. When Barnabas received the apostleship there is no record. But as he was constantly in touch with the Twelve, and was, so to speak, the connecting link between them and St. Paul, and as there is no claim that he received the apostleship direct from our Lord, it is probable that he received it from the Twelve on some occasion which is not recorded. </p> <p> <b> 9. The action of the presbyters in Timothy’s ordination. </b> -We have hitherto refrained from asking to what office Timothy was ordained. And it is perhaps unnecessary for our present purpose to do so. But, at any rate. Timothy was one of those ‘apostolic men’ who shared in the itinerant ministry of the apostles, though they were not themselves apostles; he was not one of the local ministry, though for a time he was resident at Ephesus. There is no reason to suppose that he passed from one office to another, as the ordained of later ages have done; and we may in all probability take his ordination referred to in the Pastoral [[Epistles]] as being his only ordination, and as his ordination to the office which he held when St. Paul addressed his two letters to him. </p> <p> Now in 1 Timothy 4:14 the charisma (see above, 7) is said to have been given to Timothy through (διά) prophecy (see above, 1), with (μετά) the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (πρεσβυτερίου). And in 2 Timothy 1:6 the ‘charisma of God’ is said to be in Timothy ‘through (διά) the laying on of [St. Paul’s] hands.’ It seems hardly possible to interpret these words otherwise than of Timothy’s ordination.[Note: Chase (Confirmation in the Apostolic Age, p. 35) takes 2 Timothy 1:6 (not 1 Timothy 4:14) as referring to Timothy’s confirmation, though he stands almost alone in doing so. He interprets 1 Timothy 4:14 as is done by the present writer, and understands it to mean that St. Paul and the presbyters together laid hands on Timothy at his ordination.] And it is difficult to interpret the presbytery otherwise than as the body of presbyters referred to in 1 Timothy 5:17, etc. The usual interpretation seems to be the right one, that in the above passages we have the prototype of an arrangement which was once probably universal, or certainly widespread, in both East and West, and which still survives in the West. We may think of St. Paul laying his hands on Timothy, with the active concurrence of the local presbyters, who lay on hands together with the Apostle. But the difference of preposition is significant; in the case of St. Paul διά, in the case of the presbyters μετά, is used. The latter word would seem to indicate that the act was one of St. Paul’s in which the presbyters by their deed concurred. There is, indeed, a slight difficulty in this interpretation. The arrangement, formerly in the East and still in the West, to which reference has been made, is that at the ordination of a presbyter the presbyters lay hands on his head together with the ordaining bishop, though the latter alone says the words. But this custom is not mentioned till the 4th century. We find it in the [[Egyptian]] and Ethiopic Church Orders, the Testament of Our Lord, and the [[Verona]] Latin [[Fragments]] of the Didascalia, etc.; also c.[Note: . circa, about.]a.d. 500 in the ‘Gallican Statutes’ (above, 3); see Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, article‘Ministry,’ 8. The custom may probably be traced to the lost original of the parallel Church Orders-that is, to the 3rd century. Of the intervening period between the Pastoral Epistles and that date we know nothing in respect to this matter. It is therefore possible that the arrangement in question was not continuously in use, but was adopted in the 3rd cent. because of the interpretation then given to the passage in 1 Timothy. And it was confined to the ordination of a presbyter, for when a bishop was ordained the other bishops laid on hands, but no presbyters, unless possibly-this is very uncertain-in the Canons of Hippolytus; while in the NT there is no indication that the local presbyters laid on hands with Paul and Barnabas when they ‘appointed’ presbyters for each church: indeed, probably there were no presbyters present other than the newly-ordained. Nevertheless, though the arrangement may possibly not have been continued in the sub-Apostolic Age, and though the latter procedure was not altogether on all-fours with the apostolic arrangement, seeing that the whole local organization of the ministry had developed by the 3rd cent., it appears highly probable that St. Paul’s meaning is that both he and the local presbyters laid hands on Timothy when the latter was ordained. Where this took place St. Paul does not say. It could hardly have been at Lystra, where Timothy was converted. A novice in the faith, such as he was when St. Paul took him into his company, would not have been ordained to the ministry (cf. 1 Timothy 3:6). Alford (Com. on 1 Timothy 4:14) suggests Ephesus, where Timothy was to exercise his ministry for a considerable time. And this would be in accordance with the idea that St. Paul refers to the concurrence of the presbytery because the Ephesian presbyters were likely to read his Epistle. But the point is of no great importance. </p> <p> For the manner in which ordinations to the ministry have been conducted in subsequent ages, reference may be made to the present writer’s article ‘Ordination’ in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. </p> <p> Literature.-H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the NT, London, 1909, article‘Laying on of Hands’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols); F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, London, 1897 (posthumous); the various [[Commentaries]] on Acts and the Pastoral Epistles, especially R. B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles2, London, 1904; C. J. Ellicott, The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul, do., 1856; H. Alford, The Greek Testament7, do., 1874; H. P. Liddon, St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy, do., 1897. </p> <p> A. J. Maclean. </p>

<p> The act of conferring holy orders, or of initiating a person into the priesthood by prayer and the laying on of hands. Among the dissenters, ordination is the public setting apart of a minister to his work, or over the people whose call he has accepted. In the church of England, ordination has always been esteemed the principal prerogative of bishops, and they still retain the function as a mark or their spiritual sovereignty in their diocess. Without ordination no person can receive any benefice, parsonage, vicarage, &c. A person must be twenty-three years of age, or near it, before he can be ordained deacon, or have any share in the ministry; and full twenty-four before he can be ordained priest, and by that means be permitted to administer the holy communion. A bishop, on the ordination of clergymen, is to examine them in the presence of the ministers, who in the ordination of priests, but not of deacons, assist him at the imposition of hands; but this is only done as a mark of assent, not because it is thought necessary. </p> <p> In case any crime, as drunkenness, perjury, forgery, &c. is alleged against any one that is to be ordained either priest or deacon, the bishop ought to desist from ordaining him. The person to be ordained is to bring a testimonial of his life and doctrine to the bishop, and to give account of his faith in Latin; and both priests and deacons are obliged to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles. In the ancient discipline there was no such thing as a vague and absolute ordination; but every one was to have a church, whereof he was to be ordained clerk or priest. In the twelfth century they grew more remiss, and ordained without any title or benefice. The council of Trent, however, restored the ancient discipline, and appointed that none should be ordained but those who were provided with a benefice; which practice still obtains in England. The times of ordination are the four Sundays immediately following the Ember weeks; being the second Sunday in Lent, [[Trinity]] Sunday, and the Sundays following the first Wednesday after September 14 and December 13. These are the stated times; but ordination may take place at any other time, according to the discretion of the bishop, or circumstances of the case. Among [[Seceders]] or Dissenters, ordinations vary. In the establishment of Scotland, where there are no bishops, the power of ordination is lodged in the presbytery. Among the Calvinistic Methodists, ordination is performed by the sanction and assistance of their own ministers. </p> <p> Among the [[Independents]] and Baptists, the power of ordination lies in the suffrage of the people. The qualifications of the candidates are first known, tried, and approved by the church. After which trial, the church proceeds to give him a call to be their minister; which he accepting, the public acknowledgment thereof is signified by ordination, the mode of which is so well known, as not to need recital here. According to the former opinion, it is argued that the word ordain was originally equal to choose or appoint; so that if twenty Christians nominated a man to instruct them once, the man was appointed or ordained a preacher for the time. The essence of ordination lies in the voluntary choice and call of the people, and in the voluntary acceptance of that call by the person chosen and called; for this affair must be by mutual consent and agreement, which joins them together as pastor and people. And this is to be done among themselves; and public ordination, so called, is not other than a declaration of that. [[Election]] and ordination are spoken of as the same; the latter is expressed and explained by the former. It is said of Christ, that he ordained twelve, Mark 3:14 . that is, he chose them to the office of apostleship, as he himself explains it, John 6:70 . </p> <p> Paul and Barnabas are said to ordain elders in every church (Acts 14:1-28; Acts 15:1-41; Acts 16:1-40; Acts 17:1-34; Acts 18:1-28; Acts 19:1-41; Acts 20:1-38; Acts 21:1-40; Acts 22:1-30; Acts 23:1-35; Acts 24:1-27; Acts 25:1-27; Acts 26:1-32; Acts 27:1-44; Acts 28:1-23 .) or to choose them; that is, they gave orders and directions to every church as to the choice of elders over them: for sometimes persons are said to do that which they give orders and directions for doing; as Moses and Solomon, with respect to building the tabernacle and temple, though done by others; and Moses particularly is said to choose the judges, Exodus 18:25 . the choice being made under his direction and guidance. The word that is used in Acts 14:23 . is translated chosen in Cor. 2: 8, 19. where the apostle speaks of a brother, who was chosen of the churches to travel with us, and is so rendered when ascribed to God, Acts 10:41 . This choice and ordination, in primitive times, was made two ways; by casting lots and giving votes, signified by stretching out of hands. Matthias was chosen and ordained to be an apostle in the room of [[Judas]] by casting lots: that being an extraordinary office, required an immediate interposition of the Divine Being, a lot being nothing more nor less than an appeal to God for the decision of an affair. But ordinary officers, as elders and pastors of churches, were chosen and ordained by the votes of the people, expressed by stretching out their hands; thus it is said of the apostles, Acts 14:23 . </p> <p> When they had ordained them elders in every church, by taking the suffrages and votes of the members of the churches, shown by the stretching out of their hands, as the word signifies; and which they directed them to, and upon it declared the elders duly elected and ordained. Some, however, on this side of the question, do not go so far as to say, that the essence of ordination lies in the choice of the people, but in the solemn and public separation to office by prayer: still, however, they think that ordination by either bishops, presbyters, or any superior character, cannot be necessary to make a minister or ordain a pastor in any particular church; for Jesus Christ, say they, would never leave the subsistence of his churches, or the efficacy of his word and sacraments, to depend on the uninterrupted succession of any office or officer: for then it would be impossible for any church to know whether they ever have had any authentic minister; for we could never be assured that such ordinations had been rightly transmitted through 1700 years. A whole nation might be corrupted, and every bishop and elder therein might have apostatized from the faith, as it was in [[England]] in the days of popery. To say, therefore, that the right of ordaining lies in men who are already in office, would drive us to hold the above-mentioned untenable position of uninterrupted succession. On the other side it is observed, that, although Christians have the liberty of choosing their own pastor, yet they have no power or right to confer the office itself. [[Scripture]] represents ordination to be the setting apart of a person to the holy ministry, by the authority of Jesus himself acting by the medium of men in office; and this solemn investing act is necessary to his being lawfully accounted a minister of Christ. </p> <p> The original word, Acts 6:3 . which according to Scapula, and the best writers on the sacred language, signifies to put one in rule, or to give him authority. Now did this power lodge in the people, how happens it that in all the epistles, not a single word is to be found giving them any directions about constituting ministers? On the other hand, in the epistles to timothy and Titus, who were persons in office, we find particular instructions given them to lay hands suddenly on no man, to examine his qualifications before they ordain him, and to take care that they commit the office only to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also, Titus 1:5 . 2 Timothy 4:14 . Acts 14:23 . Besides, it is said, the primitive Christians evidently viewed this matter in the same light. There is scarcely a simple ecclesiastical writer that does not expressly mention ordination as the work of the elders, and as being regarded as a distinct thing from the choice of the people, and subsequent to it. Most of the foregoing remarks apply chiefly to the supposition, that a person cannot be ordained in any other way than as a pastor over a church. </p> <p> But here, also, we find a difference of opinion. On the one side it is said, that there is no Scripture authority whatever for a person being ordained without being chosen or nominated to the office of a minister by a church. [[Elders]] and bishops were ordained in every church, not without any church. To ordain a man originally, says Dr. Campbell, was nothing else but in a solemn manner to assign him a pastoral charge. To give him no charge, and not to ordain him, were perfectly identical. On the other side it is contended, that from these words, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." it is evident that missionaries and itinerants must be employed in the important work of the ministry; that, as such cannot be ordaining them for the church universal. Allowing that they have all those talents, gifts, and grace, that constitute a minister in the sight of God, who will dare say they should not be designated by their brethren for the administration of those ordinances Christ has appointed in the church? </p> <p> Without allowing this, how many thousands would be destitute of these ordinances? Besides, these are the very men whom God in general honours as the first instruments in raising churches, over which stated pastors are afterwards fixed. The separation of Saul and Barnabas, say they, was an ordination to missionary work, including the administration of sacraments to the converted Heathen, as well as public instruction, Acts 13:1; Acts 13:3 . So timothy was ordained, 1 Timothy 4:14 . Acts 16:3 . and there is equal reason, by analogy, to suppose that Titus and other companions of Paul were similarly ordained, without any of them having a particular church to take under his pastoral care. So that they appear to have been ordained to the work of the Christian ministry at large. On reviewing the whole of this controversy, I would say with Dr. Watts, "that since there are some texts in the New Testament, wherein single persons, either apostles, as Paul and Barnabas, ordained ministers in the churches; or evangelists, as Timothy and Titus; and since other missions or ordinations are intimated to be performed by several persons, viz. prophets, teachers, elders, or a presbytery, as in Acts 13:1 . and 1 Timothy 4:14; since there is sometimes mention made of the imposition of hands in the mission of a minister, and sometimes no mention of it; and since it is evident that in some cases popular ordinations are and must be valid without any bishop or elder; I think none of these differences should be made a matter of violent contest among Christians; nor ought any words to be pronounced against each other by those of the episcopal, presbyterian, or independent way. </p> <p> Surely, all may agree thus far, that various forms or modes, seeming to be used in the mission or ordination of ministers in primitive times, may give a reasonable occasion or colour for sincere and honest searchers after truth to follow different opinions on this head, and do therefore demand our candid and charitable sentiments concerning those who differ from us." </p> <p> See articles EPISCOPACY, IMPOSITION OF HANDS, INDEPENDENTS, and MINISTERIAL CALL, in this work; James Owen's [[Plea]] for Scripture Ordination; Doddridge's Tracts, 5: 2: p. 253-257; Dr. Owen's True Nature of a Gospel Church, p. 78, 83; Brekell's [[Essay]] on Ordination; Watts' Rational foundation of a Christian Church, sec. 3; Dr. Campbell's Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1: p. 345; Gill's Body of Divinity, p. 246. vol. 3: 8 vo.ed. Theological Magazine for 1802, p. 33, 90, 167; Ewing's Remarks on Dick's Sermon, preached before the [[Edinburgh]] Missionary Society, in 1801. </p>

<p> the act of conferring holy orders, or of initiating a person into the ministry of the Gospel, by prayer and with or without the laying on of hands. In the church of England, ordination has always been esteemed the principal prerogative of bishops; and bishops still retain the function as a mark of their spiritual sovereignty in their diocess. Without ordination no person can receive any benefice, parsonage, vicarage, &c. A person must be twenty-three years of age, or near it, before he can be ordained deacon, or have any share in the ministry; and full twenty-four before he can be ordained priest, and by that means be permitted to administer the holy communion. A bishop, on the ordination of clergymen, is to examine them in the presence of the ministers, who in the ordination of priests, but not of deacons, assist him at the imposition of hands; but this is only done as a mark of assent, not because it is thought necessary. In case any crime, as drunkenness, perjury, forgery, &c, is alleged against any one that is to be ordained, either priest or deacon, the bishop ought to desist from ordaining him. The person to be ordained is to bring a testimonial of his life and doctrine to the bishop, and to give an account of his faith in Latin; and both priests and deacons are obliged to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles. In the ancient discipline there was no such thing as a vague and absolute ordination; but every one was to have a church, whereof he was to be ordained clerk or priest. In the twelfth century the bishops grew more remiss, and ordained without any title or benefice. The council of Trent, however, restored the ancient discipline, and appointed that none should be ordained but those who were provided with a benefice; which practice still obtains in the church of England. </p> <p> The reformed held the call of the people the only thing essential to the validity of the ministry; and teach, that ordination is only a ceremony, which renders the call more August and authentic. Accordingly the [[Protestant]] churches of Scotland, France, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, &c, have no episcopal ordination. For Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon, &c, and all the first reformers and founders of these churches, who ordained ministers among them, were themselves presbyters, and no other. And though in some of these churches there are ministers called superintendents, or bishops, yet these are only <em> primi inter pares, </em> the first among equals; not pretending to any superiority of orders. Having themselves no other orders than what either presbyters gave them, or what was given them as presbyters, they can convey no other to those they ordain. On this ground the Protestant [[Dissenters]] plead that their ordination, though not episcopal, is the same with that of all the illustrious Protestant churches abroad; and object, that a priest ordained by a popish bishop should be received into the church of England as a valid minister, rightfully ordained; while the orders of another, ordained by the most learned religious presbyter, which any foreign country can boast, are pronounced not valid, and he is required to submit to be ordained afresh. In opposition to episcopal ordination, they urge that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, 1 Timothy 4:14; that Paul and Barnabas were ordained by certain prophets and teachers in the church of Antioch, and not by any bishop presiding in that city, Acts 13:1-3; and that it is a well known fact, that presbyters in the church of [[Alexandria]] ordained even their own bishops for more than two hundred years in the earliest ages of Christianity. They farther argue, that bishops and presbyters are in Scripture the same, and not denominations of distinct orders or offices in the church, referring to Php_1:1; Titus 1:5; Titus 1:7; Acts 20:27-28; 1 Peter 5:1-2 . To the same purpose they maintain, that the superiority of bishops to presbyters is not pretended to be of divine, but of human, institution; not grounded on Scripture, but only upon the custom or ordinances of this realm, by the first reformers and founders of the church of England; nor by many of its most learned and eminent doctors since. See Stillingfleet's <em> Irenicum, </em> in which the learned author affirms and shows this to be the sentiment of Cranmer, and other chief reformers both in [[Edward]] VI, and [[Queen]] Elizabeth's reign, of [[Archbishop]] Whitgift, [[Bishop]] Bridges, Lee, Hooker, Sutcliff, Hales, Chillingworth, &c. Moreover, the book entitled, the "Institution of a Christian Man," subscribed by the clergy in convocation, and confirmed by parliament, owns bishops and presbyters by Scripture to be the same. Beside, the Protestant Dissenters allege, that if episcopal ordination be really necessary to constitute a valid minister, it does not seem to be enjoined by the constitution of the church of England; because the power of ordination which the bishops exercise in this kingdom, is derived entirely and only from the civil magistrate; and he authoritatively prescribes how, and to whom ordination is to be given: that if an ordination should be conducted in other manner and form than that prescribed by him, such ordination would be illegal and of no authority in the church. Accordingly the bishop at the ordination of the candidate asks, "Are you called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the due order of this realm!" The constitution and law of England seem to know nothing of uninterrupted lineal descent, but considers the king vested, by act of parliament, or the suffrage of the people, with a fulness of all power ecclesiastical in these realms, as empowering and authorizing bishops to ordain: and this power of ordination was once delegated to Cromwell, a layman, as vicegerent to the king. They farther think it strange, that the validity of orders and ministrations should be derived, as some have contended, from a succession of popish bishops; bishops of a church, which, by the definition of the nineteenth article of the church, can be no part of the true visible church of Christ, and bishops, likewise, who consider the Protestant clergy, although ordained by Protestant bishops, as mere common unconsecrated laymen. </p> <p> On reviewing the whole of this controversy, says Dr. Watts, that since there are some texts in the New Testament, wherein single persons, either Apostles, as Paul and Barnabas, ordained ministers in the churches, or evangelists, as Timothy and Titus; and since other missions or ordinations are intimated to be performed by several persons, namely, prophets, teachers, elders, or a presbytery, Acts 13:1; 1 Timothy 4:14; since there is sometimes mention made of the imposition of hands in the mission of a minister, and sometimes no mention is made of it; and since it is evident that in some cases popular ordinations are and must be valid without any bishop or elder,—I think none of these differences should be made a matter of violent contest among Christians; nor ought any words to be pronounced against each other by those of the episcopal, presbyterian, or independent way. Surely all may agree thus far, that various forms or modes, seeming to be used in the mission or ordination of ministers in primitive times, may give a reasonable occasion or colour for sincere and honest searchers after truth to follow different opinions on this head, and do therefore demand our candid and charitable sentiments concerning those who differ from us. Among the Wesleyan Methodists, the ordination of their ministers is in the annual conference, with a president at its head, and is by prayer without imposition of hands. The latter they hold to be a circumstance of ordination, not an essential. They sometimes therefore use it, and at others omit it. The missionaries sent out by that body, if not previously ordained by the conference, are set apart by a few senior ministers; and ordinarily in this case, the service of the church of England, with some alterations, is used, with imposition of the hands of the ministers present. </p>

<p> (1): (n.) Disposition; arrangement; order. </p> <p> (2): (n.) The act of ordaining, appointing, or setting apart; the state of being ordained, appointed, etc. </p> <p> (3): (n.) The act of setting apart to an office in the Christian ministry; the conferring of holy orders. </p>