Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (VI)

Dr. Hiscox, in defining new testament ministerial "ordination," wrote:

"In Acts 14 : 23 it is said of Paul and Barnabas, "when they had ordained (cheirotoneesantes) them elders in every city," etc. This much-quoted word, which has been relied on to prove a ritualistic ordination, by the "laying on of hands," the best scholarship decides to mean the stretching out of the hand or the lifting up of the hand as in voting. The meaning of which here is, that the Apostles secured the election of elders by the vote of the churches, with no reference to ceremonial induction into office."

That is the primitive Baptist view and is what is clearly the meaning of the text. This is what Dr. Gill also said, as we noted in the second chapter.

Hiscox continued:

"The word used in Titus 1 : 5, "ordain elders in every city," is katasteesees, which means to set, to place, to constitute, to set over. And which Robinson defines, "to constitute, to make;" and Green, "to place, constitute, set, appoint."

Hiscox then gives "The Testimony of Scholars" of which I will give a sampling, as these (again, all highlighting and emphasis are mine):

Dr. Dexter, with reference to these cases, says: "There being no hint in either case of any thing of a character like what is commonly called ordination in our time." Fairly translated, and unmodified by any coloring from subsequent unscriptural ecclesiastical usage, these texts would never have suggested any such act as that which is called ' ordination' by the common speech of men." Congregationalism, pp. 138, 139.

Dean Alford says:

"The word (Cheirotoneesantes) will not bear Jerome's and Chrysostom's sense of ' laying on of hands,' adopted by Roman Catholic expositors. Nor is there any reason for departing from the usual meaning of electing by show of hands." Comments on Acts 14 : 23.

DR. Hackett renders the phrase:

"Now having appointed for them elders in every Church," which he interprets thus; "having appointed for them by their outstretched hand." Comment in loco. Dean ALFORD renders the passage, Titus I : 5, "And mightest appoint, city by city, elders." He sees no ceremonial ordination in it.

Next, Hiscox says this about the several citations of scholars:

"A want of space forbids further citation of authorities. Nor is it needful. New Testament ordination was an election, an appointment to office, and had no reference whatever to any formal induction into office; did not imply any ceremonial investiture, or setting apart to the functions of that office. The New Testament calls an election to office, ordination; we call the setting apart of those elected, ordination. Those who are jealous for New Testament models, should correct their phraseologies by the New Testament standard.

It may be fairly asked admitting that ordination in the New Testament sense was an election, an appointment - Were not those, thus elected, set apart by formal ceremonies to the discharge of their official duties? This we can neither affirm nor deny. We simply do not know. There is neither precept, example, nor manifest inference to decide the question. It has usually been taken for granted that the primitive ministry was inducted into office by formal services, and that "prayer with the laying on of hands," was the essential part of such ordination." 

So, how did so many Baptists get away from this simple teaching? How did they imbibe episcopal and presbyterian ideas about ordination? In looking at the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists one can see how their "associations" were nothing but a kind of presbytery.

Hiscox continued:

"But this has been accepted as scriptural, not because it is found in the Scriptures, but because Prelatical and Presbyterial authorities have interpreted the Scriptures by their own ecclesiastical usages, rather than adjusted their usages to the New Testament teaching." 

Amen to that! This is what I am seeking to call the attention of Baptists to see.

Hiscox continued:

"They have seen Episcopal and Presbyterian ordination in the New Testament because they saw it in their Church standards and practices. Their scholars have largely so interpreted the text, and Baptists have accepted their conclusions without even their justification."

Yes, and this is a common practice in so many circles, when it comes to bible interpretation. "Baptists have accepted their conclusions without even their justification."  This is not "Baptistic."

Hiscox continued:

2. The Laying on of Hands. But does not Paul expressly declare to Timothy that he was ordained and set apart to the work of the ministry by the laying on of his hands and the hands of the Presbytery? No; he makes no such declaration. Does he not enjoin Timothy not to ordain any man hastily by suddenly laying hands on him? No; he makes no such declaration, as we shall see.

The subject of "the laying on of hands" must be treated very briefly in this place. It was an old Jewish and common Oriental custom, by which benedictions were conferred or invoked, and other symbolical acts performed. Our Lord laid His hands on the sick to heal them; on the little children to bless them. The Apostles did the same. But in the apostolic church this act was chiefly associated with the special impartation of the Holy Spirit. The Charismata was thus conferred. Peter and John laid hands on the converts at Samaria, and they received the Holy Ghost. So did Paul on the twelve disciples at Ephesus. Ananias laid his hands on Saul at Damascus that he might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Jesus, after the resurrection, conferred the Holy Ghost by breathing on His disciples. And His farewell blessing, when He ascended, was conferred by the lifting up of His hands.

Now, the apostolic precedents relied on to enforce ceremonial ordination by the laying on of hands, are the following:

1. The ordination of the Seven as related in Acts 6: 1-6. The true ordination, i. e., the election in this case was by the "whole multitude," "the multitude of the disciples."

But this case is not in point, and constitutes no argument; since this setting apart was to a secular office and not to a spiritual ministry; to the serving of tables and not to preaching of the Word. An induction into the Diaconate and not into the Episcopate. Moreover, this act was by inspired Apostles, who have no successors. Neither the Diaconate, the Episcopate, nor the Presbyterate can claim to be the official successors of the Apostolate. Presumably this act was for their especial endowment by the Charismata. It has no authority unless it be in the ordination of deacons."

But, do not our Hardshell brothers often say that "the ministry," separate and distinct from the congregation, are "successors" to the apostles in regard to ordination? Baptists do not believe, however, that the apostles have successors.

Hiscox continued:

2. The next precedent relied on is the case of Barnabas and Saul, sent forth to the Gentiles by the Church at Antioch, Acts 13 : 1-3.

But this was not an ordination in any technical sense. Both these men had been engaged in the active work of the ministry for years not less than eight or nine, possibly twelve, according to the best chronological data. They were not here inducted into the ministry, but designated to a new field of work. Moreover, this designation was by the special and express dictation of the Holy Ghost, showing that it was not a common and customary, but an extraordinary and wholly exceptional thing, and therefore not an imitable example. Also, it is wholly undetermined who laid hands on them, whether the prophets, the elders, or the disciples generally.

The burden of proof is on those Baptists who think the laying on of hands in Acts 13 is an ordination service. It is not an ordination service, however.

Hiscox continued:

3. The next case usually quoted to the same end, is Paul's injunctions to Timothy; "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." 1 Tim. 4 : 14. Also, "Wherefore, I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." 2 Tim. 1 : 6.

These passages are held to prove primitive ordination by the laying on of hands. This inferential reasoning is quite of a piece with that which proves primitive infant baptisms from the fact of household baptisms. The fact is, the Apostle makes not the least allusion to ordination in these citations. He speaks expressly and only of "the gift of God " (to Charisma tou Theou), which had been bestowed by the laying on of hands. It would do no more violence to the text to infer that Paul laid his hands on the disciples to ordain them, or that Peter laid his hands on the converts at Samaria for the same purpose, than to say that the above texts refer to Timothy's ordination.

To say the very most for those who insist that these passages refer to ordination, it must be confessed the foundation is too slender and uncertain to allow of resting on them any doctrine, or imposing any ceremony that shall be regarded as essential to the validity of ministerial acts. It is not strange that many interpreters, looking at these passages through their own standards and usages, should see ordination recognized where the Apostle seemed to see nothing but extraordinary spiritual gifts imparted by the imposition of hands.

4. We come lastly to mention the text much relied on to prove ceremonial ordination as existing in the apostolic Church; and while it fails to substantiate that doctrine, it is undoubtedly the strongest citation for that purpose that can be made from the New Testament. It is 1 Tim. 5:22. "Lay hands suddenly on no man." This is interpreted to mean, "do not ordain and put into the ministry any man, hastily." If it does refer to ordination, the inference would be strong though not conclusive that a custom prevailed, of inducting men into the sacred office by the imposition of hands. But does it refer to ordination? It has generally been so interpreted. But we learn to distrust the scholarship which interprets the word of God under the bias of ecclesiastical prepossession.

Well, amen to that!

Hiscox continued:

Dr. Wm. B. Johnson, one of the most honored of American Baptists, says:

"As there is not a solitary case in the New Testament of ordination to the ministry by imposition of hands, I cannot suppose that the direction of Paul to Timothy, to lay hands suddenly on no man, does refer to imposition of hands in ordination." The Gospel Developed, pp. 155, 156.

Dr. J. B. Jeter, a man acute, discriminating and conservative, says:

"In the primitive age very little stress was laid on the ceremonies attending the induction into office. The Apostles laid on their hands several times to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost; but never in confirmation of an appointment to office except in the case of the Seven." "There is no scriptural proof that any elder or bishop of any Church was ordained by the laying on of the hands of an Apostle, or of any Christian minister." "In the apostolic times ordination was simply an appointment to office." "A formal ordination service is not essential to the performance of ministerial duties; but it is eminently becoming and useful. The appointment of a Church is the essence of ordination." Religious Herald, editorial of May 21, 1876.

I agree completely. We cannot base the whole ordination practice by presbyteries on "a text so variously understood"!

Hiscox continued:

In the modern Roman Church imposition of hands is deemed essential in the sacraments of ordination, confirmation, and baptism. Also in the Anglican and other Episcopal churches it is similarly used. In other Protestant churches, our own included, it retains its place only in ordination, in all of which it is insisted on with a tendency to sacramental effect.

Ordination, therefore, by public prayer and the imposition of hands by other ministers, is not essential to the genuineness of ministerial character or the validity of ministerial acts. It does not make a minister any more than inauguration makes the president. He is president, dejure and de facto, by virtue of his election, with all the rights, powers and privileges which belong to the office, with or with out an inauguration. Such is the relation of ordination to the ministry. It is their inauguration, making public the election, with the approval and commendation of those who take part in the services. And this only.

Isaac Backus, clarum et venerabile nomen among Baptists, said:

"And ordination of ministers is no more than swearing them to be faithful in that office. Their being furnished with grace and gifts for it is the most essential thing in the affair."—Hist. N. E. Churches, p. in. Phil, ed., 1833.

In our next posting we will continue our citations from Hiscox and our analysis of those NT texts that are supposed to teach ministerial ordination by presbyteries.