Dr. W. B. Johnson
1782-1862
"A church first tries and approves a member for an office, and then chooses him. A time is appointed for his ordination, and ministers are invited to attend for the purpose, who, on their arrival, form an ecclesiastical council, and proceed to interrogate the candidate as to his conversion, faith, and call to the ministry. Satisfied of his fitness for ordination, they proceed to the act by the imposition of hands, and other services. Now surely the example for this is not found in the scripture."
The burden of proof for the necessity of "laying on hands" as an official "act of ordination" by a presbytery is on those who teach it. Yet, as Johnson said, they will not find any proof for it in the new testament.
Johnson continued:
"There can be no objection to the presence of bishops or evangelists, when such men are ordained, or to their affording assistance to the churches in their choice, but the discrimination should be carefully made between assistance and power or authority. Let this be done, and our ecclesiastical councils, convened to ordain ministers, unknown to the scriptures, would become unknown to us."
Again, a hearty amen to this practice being "unknown to the scriptures," a thing that many Baptists, as we have seen, have been faithful to show.
Johnson commenting upon the laying of hands on Paul and Barnabas when sent out by the church of Antioch said:
"Surely then, this case affords no example in favor of ordination to ministerial office, whether of bishop, evangelist, or deacon, by the imposition of hands on the part of ministers or others, much less by the imposition of the hands of ordinary ministers. This is the more apparent from the fact that, as we have already shewn, neither in the ordination of the apostles, the seventy, Matthias, Stephen, Philip, Barnabas, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, or any of the rest of the disciples, who went everywhere preaching the word, or in the ordination of the elders, was imposition of hands used."
Well said and very true.
Johnson continued:
"This leads me to speak of the following direction to Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man.” 1 Tim. v: 22...Now, if the meaning of the direction, “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” be determined by the connection in which it is found, is it not obvious from the connection in which we find it here, that it relates to the administration of affairs in the church at Ephesus? and, that it was intended to teach Timothy not to be precipitate in his measures in that church? Observe, that he must not entertain an accusation against an elder but upon due consideration, on the testimony of two or three witnesses. All that he did must be done, not upon hasty impressions, but deliberately, and on just grounds; that he should not be a partaker of other men’s sins, but preserve himself pure, by not being misled by others, or hastily doing what was committed to his hands. Again, if imposition of hands be necessary in ordination to the ministry, it would seem that it would have been mentioned in the third chapter of the epistle, where the qualifications of church officers are laid down. But as it is not, and 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 to the ministry of the word."
It is just not possible to take this passage about laying on of hands as justification for the practice of ordination by presbyteries.
Johnson continued:
"...the presence and imposition of whose hands are believed to be necessary to give validity to the appointment of the church. The necessary consequence of this distinction is, to make a church dependent for her officers on the ministers of the gospel, as a privileged order of men."
I find this so true and have, as an historian of the Baptists, especially of Particular Baptists, seen the sad effects of believing that a church cannot, without a presbytery, ordain her own officers.
Johnson continued:
"Now I most respectfully submit whether such a principle and practice do not violate the independence of the churches. And I further submit, whether we should not have a command or an example most clear and unequivocal, for the adoption of a principle and practice, which most obviously violate the principles of a government that the Head of the church has established."
Why my Hardshell and Landmarker brothers do not see this is to me fascinating.
Johnson continued:
"I hope that they will attain by the teachings of the New Testament; so that the choice of officers, their appointment, ordination, or investiture with official authority, shall all be done by the church, without imposition of hands, but with fasting and prayer."
That is so true. "To the law and to the testimony"!
Johnson continued:
"But it may still be said, that the ordination of ministers can be better done by those who have been already inducted into the sacred office. If so, surely he who is infinite in wisdom, would not have failed to perceive it, and to have given commandment accordingly. But as he has not done so, we ought to question the correctness of any opinion contrary to his order of things."
Again, I cannot improve upon these words but can only say "amen."
Johnson continued:
"The only passage of scripture that has any bearing on this subject, is the following: “When James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” Gal. ii: 9. Surely this does not refer to their fellowship as apostles, ministers, or christians, but to the specific lines of service in which they were respectively to engage; Peter, James and John, to go to the circumcision, and Paul and Barnabas to the uncircumcision, the heathen. Much less can it relate to ministerial ordination by which ministerial fellowship was acquired. And yet we have drawn the practice of giving the right hand of fellowship not only into ordination, but into the receiving of members into church-fellowship, and messengers from sister associations, thus applying it to purposes not known to the New Testament.
Why anyone who promotes ordination by presbyteries by relying on the supposed ordination, by laying on of hands, in the case of Paul and Barnabas, simply have "no legs to stand on."
After examining New Testament texts dealing with the matter of ordination in general and with the appointment of Matthias in particular, W. B. Johnson laid down the following principles:
1. That under the present dispensation, a church of Christ has the authority to appoint or ordain to ministerial offices.
2. That in the exercise of this authority, after seeking in prayer for special direction of the Lord, the appointment or ordination, should be by casting of votes by the members.
3. That there is no privileged order of men, whose action is required to give validity to appointments or ordinations to ministerial offices, because the churches are clothed with the appointing or ordaining power. (pg. 89 - Johnson, The Gospel Developed, 133.)
The ordination of a man to the ministry, though performed by a church, was seen as so important that it was recommended that other churches assist and advise the ordaining church.
Again, a hearty amen!
No comments:
Post a Comment