Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (VII)

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.