Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (V)

Dr. Edward T. Hiscox wrote a large work titled  "The New Directory for Baptist Churches" (see here). It is a book that every pastor and teacher should read. In this book we find some very good teaching on the ordaining of men for the pastoral office. In this posting we will begin giving citations from chapter XIV titled "Ordination." (beginning on page 344).

Hiscox sets forth the following propositions that summarize the New Testament doctrine of ordination as it applies to pastors. He wrote (emphasis mine):

“PROP. I. That the ordination of the New Testament was an election, or appointment, to the ministerial office, and not a ceremonial setting apart, or consecration to that office.

“PROP. II. That there is no proof in the New Testament that persons chosen to the office of elder, pastor or bishop in the apostolic churches were designated for, or inducted into, that office by any formal service or ceremony whatever.

“PROP. III. That, though the laying on of hands was common on many occasions, as an ancient Oriental Jewish and early Christian form of blessing, especially in the bestowment of the gifts of the Spirit, yet there is neither precept nor precedent in the New Testament to require its use in the ordination of Christian ministers.”

Prop. IV. That, while some public service of inauguration and designation for one who first enters the ministry, or at any subsequent entrance upon a new field of labor, would be very appropriate and becoming as expressing the approval and fellowship of other ministers and the churches, yet such service is not of divine authority, and cannot be made obligatory or essential, either to the lawfulness of ministerial standing or to the validity of ministerial acts.

Prop. V. That if such ordination or recognition services be held, their form and order are matters of liberty and choice with those concerned in them, since they are prescribed by no Scriptural authority.

PROP. VI. That, since all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local, visible Church according to the New Testament polity, therefore the right to set apart, as well as to elect, belongs to the Church alone, and the only sphere of Council or Presbytery action is that of advice to, and cooperation with, the Church, being in no sense authoritative or essential.

PROP. VII. That while, for the sake of order and propriety it is becoming for accredited ministers to conduct all public religious services on ordinary occasions, yet ceremonial ordination is not essential to the ministry of the Word, nor to the administration of the ordinances; therefore, a Church without an ordained minister may, with the strictest propriety, direct a private member to administer the ordinances, conduct its services, and preside in its assemblies; and, indeed, this should be done for the edification of the body.

PROP. VIII. That reordination, in the case of ministers who come to us from other evangelical denominations, is a matter of Christian liberty, optional with those concerned, but cannot be made essential to ministerial character or the validity of ministerial acts, though it may with propriety be made to conform to prevailing custom, for the sake of uniformity in usage."

I believe these propositions also and so should everyone. I covered some of these points in my series on Hardshell Landmarkism. I do not believe that I can add anything to what Hiscox has said in the above. They are sufficient.

Under "WHAT IS ORDINATION?" Hiscox wrote:

"This question, to be clearly answered, needs definition and limitation. Ordination means different things to different minds, and according to different ecclesiastical standards. It is defined to be the act and form of setting one apart to the work of the Christian ministry; or induction into the sacred office. Or, in a little more formal and churchly language it is "the act of conferring holy orders, with prayer, and the imposition of hands." If, however, a more comprehensible explanation be desired, as to both the form and substance of it, we must keep in mind the point of view from which it is contemplated.

First, there is the ordination of present usage as held and practised by the various Christian denominations, with great diversity of subjective import and ceremonial observance.

Second, there is the ordination of history which found its highest conception and most complete expression in the mediaeval Latin and Greek churches, which held it as a sacrament, invested it with the sanctity of inspiration and surrounded it with the pageantry of an imposing ritualism.

Third, there is the ordination of the New Testament, which differs from both the others and which alone need command the regard or research of those churches who claim to draw both the form and spirit of all life from that sacred fountain of ecclesiastical order and authority.

Our inquiry, then, is narrowed to this question, What is the "ordination" of the New Testament? The English words ordain and ordained, are used with some frequency in the sacred writings, and render several Greek words, but constitute, as every careful reader knows, no argument for ceremonial ordination, as now or formerly practised."

In the next posting we will continue to review the worthy things Dr. Hiscox has written on this most important subject. I am happy to share his research with our readers.