Under "BY WHOM IS ORDINATION?" Hiscox wrote:
"Admitting that, for the sake of order, ceremonial
ordination should be continued, where resides the
right and the power to set men apart to this service?
Is it in a Church, or in a Council or Presbytery?"
The ordaining of men into ministry by presbyteries is really only "ceremonial ordination," not real ordination. I was therefore not "ordained" by the two presbyteries who performed this "ceremonial ordination" by "laying on of hands" of "the presbytery." Rather, each time I accepted a call to pastor a church, either as leading pastor or associate, I was really "ordained" by NT standards. By the latter reckoning I have been ordained four times. Of course, as far as being ordained by God to preach and to serve, I was ordained only once!
Hiscox continued:
"The answer is brief, and should be conclusive.
The right of ordination is inherent in the Church;
and in no other body of men whatever. This conclusion is inevitable to those who hold to Church independency, and repudiate sacramental ordination
and hierarchical assumptions, as Baptists do."
Well, amen to that! Would to God many of our Presbyterian Baptists would see this!
Hiscox continued:
"The
contrary claim, that the right inheres in a Council
or Presbytery, and that the ceremony must be performed by those who have had hands laid on them,
in order to be valid, is so preposterous, that no man
should make it unless he be prepared to defend holy
orders by Episcopal hands as a sacrament, with an
uninterrupted apostolical succession. For to that
he must be finally driven."
Again, amen! This is what our Baptist forefathers who wrote the first and second London Confessions also taught. How did so many Baptists get away from the purity of the original teaching?
Hiscox continued:
"That the right of ordination resides in the local,
visible Church though ministers may be called
upon to advise in the matter, and to perform the
public services will be evident from the following
considerations:
1. Because all ecclesiastical authority resides in
the local Church. This is the only organic form of
Christian life divinely appointed. Christ instituted
no society but the Church, and to it He committed
authority to administer His laws. This is the Baptist doctrine, held, taught and defended, always and
everywhere."
Yes, "all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local Church." And, amen to "this is the Baptist doctrine, held, taught and defended, always and everywhere."
Hiscox continued:
"Councils and Presbyteries, as organized bodies, are of human, not of divine origin or
authority, and cannot be essential to, much less
supersede, the Church in the performance of any
ecclesiastical functions."
I am sure that my stubborn Hardshell brothers will be very much against the idea that they have anything about them religiously that is "of human" rather than "of divine origin or authority," but they suffer under a delusion in this regard. Are not their associations of human origin?
Hiscox continued:
"A Council is created by the Church which convenes it. Now to suppose that a Church has not
power to ordain, while a Council has, is to suppose
that the body created has more power than that
which created it. Moreover, the Council has no inherent power, and possesses only what the Church
which called it has conferred upon it. It is, therefore absurd to suppose the Council can do more
than the Church."
Again, this is simply logical and what the bible teaches.
Hiscox continued:
"And further, Christ gave to the churches pastors
and teachers. But if Councils hold the right to ordain, the churches cannot enjoy these most important gifts of ministerial service divinely bestowed,
without the consent of a Council, a body of men
for which the great Head of the Church made no
provision.
2. Because a Church is a body complete in itself
as to authority, though without officers."
How did so many Baptists get away from this basic truth?
Hiscox continued:
"It has
power to create officers out of its own members, and
set them apart to the service for which they may be
chosen, by any form or ceremony it may choose, or
without any ceremony, at its option. The right to
choose and enjoy the ministry of its own religious
teachers, without let or hindrance from any, is one
of the primary rights with which Christ has invested
His churches.
3. Because that in the primitive churches, though
there was an apostleship and a discipleship, there
was no such division into clergy and laity as afterward sprang up and now prevails. There was no
official caste or class, save as the Holy Spirit,
working in each, developed certain gracious capabilities, which the churches used for the edification
of the body. It was neither cleric nor laic, but a
common discipleship. All alike constituted a holy
priesthood, ordained to offer spiritual sacrifices unto
God. And the churches selected and elected teachers and leaders, as the fitting qualifications were
developed which commended the individuals."
Authority is in Christ and his word and he has invested this authority in individuals and in independent assemblies. I got my authority to teach, preach, baptize, eat the Lord's Supper, etc., from Christ and from his word. Why do I need to get it anywhere else? Is that not what Gill and Spurgeon said, as we have observed?
Hiscox continued:
"It is indisputable that after the primitive age the
common discipleship was divided by this class-distinction into clergy and laity. Then developed the
hierarchical tendency to wrest ecclesiastical authority from the churches and vest it in an ambitious
clergy. Especially did this tendency show itself in
the claim that the right of ordination belonged exclusively to the clergy. For in no other way could
they so effectually dominate the churches as by
holding in their own hands the exclusive right to
consecrate and invest their pastors. This right conceded, the churches were powerless in the grasp of
their despotic spiritual rulers. The demand now
for an exclusive clerical ordination has this same
hierarchical tendency for its germ and life."
Churches ought not to ever concede their authority that they have from Christ. We must beware of the dangers of the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
Hiscox continued:
Dr. Wm. B. Johnson said:
"The sole power of ordaining to the pastorate or bishopric is lodged with the churches." Gospel Developed, pp.
133, 144-
Dr. Strong says:
"It is always to be remembered, however, that the power
to ordain rests with the Church; and that the Church may
proceed without a Council, or even against the decisions of a
Council. Such ordination, of course, would give authority
only within the bounds of the individual Church." Systematic Theology, p. 5/4.
Hiscox cites others, but these are sufficient to the point.
Hiscox continued:
4. Because the claim made by some, that while
a Church may have the right to ordain or set apart
a minister for themselves, ordination by a Council
makes one a minister for the whole denomination, is
false, illogical and absurd. A Church cannot, in
deed, make a man a minister to any but themselves.
The fact that they had chosen him and approved
his ministry, would to that extent give him credit
with other churches. Nor yet can a Council do
any more than give a man the credit of their approval and commendation. They cannot make him
a minister for any Church save that one which asked their advice and cooperation in his ordination."
I think the Hardshells look at ordination by presbyteries as a kind of denominational ordination.
Hiscox continued:
"It is preposterous to claim that a Council can
assure the confidence and fellowship of the entire
denomination to any man on whom they may lay
their hands. What is the denomination? It is
not an organic entity; it has no corporate existence; it is not an ecclesiastical body; it has neither organization, laws nor officers, and has no
means of expressing approval or dissent. It is a
mere conception of the aggregate of all the churches.
The ministers who lead and direct its activities are
not the denomination; the journals that speak to
and for it are not the denomination; and in the
sense in which it is so often appealed to, or spoken
for, it is a fiction.
When, therefore, did the denomination authorize
a Council or Presbytery to ordain a man into its
ministry, or give him the credit of its fellowship
throughout the land? What havoc it makes with
our theory of Church life, to claim that a Council
sitting in Maine or Vermont can make a man an
accredited minister for all the churches in Mississippi or Texas or Montana; or that a Presbytery
acting in New York can give a man the fellowship
of the churches in Chicago, St. Louis or San Francisco, and elsewhere and everywhere.
This question then remains, Is it right and proper
for an unordained man to administer the ordinances?
The prevailing opinion is, that he has no such right
until the hands of the Presbytery have been laid on him an opinion that finds no warrant in the New
Testament.
Any of the "royal priesthood" of the discipleship could baptize
converts, and break the loaf and fill the cup at the
Supper; preaching the Gospel was a higher function.
[Hiscox, E. T. The New Directory for Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1970, Kregel Publications: Pg. 345. (Now published under the title Principles & Practices for Baptist Churches)]
Everyone interested in this important subject should read the full writing of Hiscox on this subject. In our next posting we will look at some of the issues involved and at some historical incidents in Baptist history where the subject was discussed and debated.
No comments:
Post a Comment