widow or deaconess.'1 The same thing is testified by Bingham, who gives abundant proof to show that they were indifferently called by all these names, and that they were required to be widows, and even such as had children, by the same laws.'2 Such also is the view presented by Mr. Coleman, who says, 'the office of deaconess may be regarded as substantially the same with that of female presbyters.' But what is more than all this, they are spoken of elsewhere by this same apostle. There can be no doubt, also, that these female helpers were consecrated to their office by prayer and imposition of hands, and that, although not empowered to discharge any of the duties of the ministry, they were in many ways eminently useful in the existing condition of the church. Now here Timothy is reminded, that these presbyters stood on full ministerial equality with himself, and that he is not, therefore, to presume upon his authority, or treat them otherwise than as fathers and mothers in Israel, and the younger ones as brethren and sisters, that is, as coequals. 6 Again, in 1 Tim. 5: 19, the apostle enjoins upon Timothy 'against a presbyter to receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses,' that is, before as many of the other presbyters as might constitute a presbytery. Timothy is restrained and limited by this express rule, which he is bound to observe. The offending presbyter was to be tried before his peers, and then, and not till then, to be condemned. No accusation was to be received by Timothy, except before such a court, and even when faulty, Timothy was not to rebuke, but to exhort them, as fathers. And, further, if Timothy presided in the court thus called, he was to sit there as being one of the same order with the rest, as has been customary in ecclesiastical bodies in all ages of the church. The apostle here cuts up by the very roots, that prelatic assumption of exclusive 1) Christ. Antiq. p. 236. Concerning their office, see Cotel. ad Constit. Apost. lib. iii. c. g. and Zimmerman de Presbyt. et Presbyterissis. Burnet's Obs. on the Second Canon, p. 68, &c. 2) Eccl. Ant. vol. i. p. 247, &c. 5) See Coleman, ibid, p. 117, and all of 12, where their duties are given; Riddle, ibid, p. 252; Bingham, vol. i. p. 251. See also full authorities on the whole subject, presented by bishop Burnet, in his Obs. on the Second Canon, p. 68, &c. See also Whateley's Kingdom of Christ. Es say ii. § 20, p. 131; Neander's Hist. of the Chr. Rel. vol. i. p. 191. Such female officers, for the benefit of the female portion of the congregation, were approved of by the reformers, and were in use in the Bohemian church, and are still found in the Moravian church. See Bost's Hist. of the Bohem. and Morav. Brethren, p. 131. Taylor's Apostolic Baptism, p. 157, &c. 6) So it is rendered by Bp. Sparrow on the Auth. of the Ch. in Tracts of Anglican Faith, vol. i. p. 333. 461. 7) See Elliott on Romanism, p. jurisdiction, which is now declared to reside only in the order of prelates, and not at all in that of presbyters. So manifestly is prelacy and the Bible opposite, the one to the other. And thus have we demonstrated, that, as Timothy was presbyterially ordained, so he and Titus were, as evangelists, presbyters; and that in all their ordinations, as it is certain they consecrated only presbyters, they themselves acted only as presbyters, and in association with other presbyters. But were we to admit, that in ordaining ministers they acted, at least, in some extreme cases, alone, this would not affect us, since it would not be deemed improper, even now, for some modern presbytery, in any case of absolute necessity, to depute one of their number to ordain ministers in some heathen or destitute settlements.1 But this manifestly would not prove, what prelatists affirm, that the apostles, with these associates, instituted an order of prelates, who had power in other churches besides their own; and that to these was given not only the power of ordination, but also the power of imparting to others the same authority, and of limiting it to them. This, as Mr. Goode allows, prelatists are bound to prove, and this, he adds, 'will be a hard task.'2 But, it may be said, if presbyters were thus originally empowered to ordain and govern,- what need was there to send to them, and to their churches, Timothy and Titus, with such extraordinary directions? We answer, that all the directions and charges contained in these epistles were proper, advisable, and necessary for the better instruction of presbyters, and churches, in our own day, as well as at that time. They are, as it regards all times, the dictates of inspiration, and designed to be an authoritative rule of faith and practice. In the case of these churches, however, since they were as yet imperfectly organized, more than mere instruction was necessary; and, therefore, these evangelists were sent to them by the apostles, with powers suited to the exigency of the occasion, and authority to see these directions carried into full operation. The epistles themselves, however, were designed by God for the churches, and not for Timothy or Titus. The directions, duties, and functions, here described, were given for their and our instruction. All the ministerial acts here 1) Hence it has been argued, that the order of evangelists were designed to be as permanent as the unevangelized condition of any portion of our globe. See Essay on the Nature and Perpetuity of the Office of the Primi tive Evangelist, by Rev. David Douglass, Baptist, p. 210. 2) Goode's Div. Rule of Faith, vol. ii. p. 79. Eng. ed. See also Pierce's Def. of Pres. Ord. part. ii. pp. 25, 28. enjoined, are to be performed by the ministers here described. And as it is granted, that we have here no account of any other ministers than presbyters, presbyters are here, to the end of time, empowered to ordain other ministers by the laying on of their hands.1 § 3. Conclusion of the scripture argument for the power of presbyters to ordain. No evidence to be found for prelatical ordination. We have thus, we trust, satisfactorily proved, by plain and positive testimony from scripture, that presbyters did, and, therefore, can still ordain other ministers. On the other hand, while we have found abundant instances in which ordinations were performed by presbyters, and by the apostles, in their character of presbyters, we do not find in scripture any instances of ordination, by a single individual, nor by any number of individuals, under the assumed character of prelates. There is no such instance to be produced from the whole New Testament. Neither do we read of any one case where those who were first ordained as presbyters, were afterwards consecrated as prelates; nor any reiteration of christian ordination under any circumstances whatever, and yet the book of Acts embraces the history of the church for thirty years. We know that there was no ordination in the Jewish church after the first; and, as this custom of ordination was derived from it, we must presume the order of the synagogue was followed." The contrary, we have certainly no right to assume, against fact, utility, and Jewish example.3 On this point, let us refer to the testimony of bishop Croft. The whole theory of prelatic ordination is an idle hypothesis, without any manner of support in the word of God. It is not only not true that prelates alone are authorized to ordain; it is not true that the Bible knows any thing of prelates, or allows to them either the power of ordination or of any thing else. The only permanent order of ministers known to the scriptures, is that of presbyters or bishops, and the only ordination it prescribes is presbyterian ordination. Presbyters, therefore, have the power of ordination. 1) Milton's Wks. vol. i. pp. 86, 87. ii. p. 111. 274. 3) Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. p. 4) Naked Truth, or the True State of the Primit. Ch. in Scott's Coll. of Tracts, vol. vii. p. 297. CHAPTER X. THAT PRESBYTERS HAVE THE POWER OF ORDINATION, PROVED BY AN APPEAL TO ANTIQUITY. § 1. Presbyterian ordination attested by facts and testimonies, from the earliest ages. BEFORE leaving this subject of ordination, we will produce some testimonies in support of our conclusion. And to put the matter beyond controversy, we affirm, to use the words of Dr. Rice, that there was no ordination performed at all, from the days of the apostles, until at least two hundred and fifty years after Christ, by any but presbyters. During the first two centuries, the modern distinction between bishop and presbyter was unknown to the church. The exclusive power of ordination, claimed by prelates, is an usurpation, supported by nothing but decrees of councils, and contrary to the whole practice of the pure, primitive age of christianity. When presidents were chosen, or succeeded to others, they were not reordained, in the first two centuries.2 As late as the council of Nice, in A. D. 325, this practice of at once passing into the office of bishop is forbidden, thus showing that at that time the ordination of a bishop was sometimes the first and only ordination. Ambrose, of Milan, Nectarius, of Constantinople, Eusebius, the successor of Basil, Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, Cyprian, of Carthage, and Philogonius, of Antioch, are all thought to have been laymen, when ordained to be bishops. Many others passed from the order of deacon to that of bishop; thus proving, that there were then only ordinations for two orders.3 According to Hippolytus, and the apostolical constitutions, the presidents or 1) Evang. Mag. vol. ix. p. 618. 2) Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. of the Ch. p. 135. 3) Dr. Wilson, ibid, p. 231. bishops, were set apart to their office, not by imposition of hands, but by the simple form of 'holding the divine gospels opened over the head of him who was ordained,' while presbyters were consecrated to their office by imposition of hands. Nor is there any proof that the elevation of a presbyter to the duty of president or prelate, was considered as an ordination, or attended by imposition of hands, before the middle of the third century. As for the consecration of bishops, by a new imposition of hands, it doth not,' says bishop Burnet, 'prove them a distinct office; being only a solemn benediction, and separation of them, for the discharge of that inspection committed to them.'2 Hilary, as the same bishop acknowledges, was of opinion that the elder presbyter without any election or ordination, succeeded to the chair of the deceased bishop.3 Dionysius, the Areopagite, also tells us that the presbyter was ordained in the same form that a bishop was ordained, save only, that the gospel was not laid on his head.4 In the epistle to Hiero, ascribed to Ignatius, speaking of his presbyters, he says, 'they baptize, they celebrate the eucharist, they impose hands in penance, they ordain.'5 Equally plain is the declaration of Firmilian, himself a bishop, in a letter to Cyprian. The presbyters preside, who possess the power of baptizing, imposing the hands, and ordaining. Hilary, the deacon, says, that 'in Egypt, even to this day, the presbyters ordain in the bishop's absence,' and that 'the ordination of bishop and presbyter is the same, for both are priests." The general synod of Nice, in their epistle to the churches of Alexandria, &c., authorized the clergy, ordained by Meletius, to ordain ministers, and to nominate men for the sacred office.8 And that those, here referred to, were presbyters and not prelates, appears from their character, 'such as were entered into holy orders;' from their having been ordained by Meletius alone; from their having been deprived of the privileges of presbyters; and because they are prohibited from preaching in any church, without the consent of the bishop. And as for those,' says 1) See ibid, pp. 226, 227, and 229, 230, 231, 273, 135, 148, and Nolan's Cath. Char. p. 18. 2) Vind. of the Ch. of Scotl. Conf. iv. p. 181, ed. 2d. 1724. 3) Obs. on the 1st Canon, p. 4) Burnet's Obs. on the 2d non, p. 65. 6. Ca 5) Cap. iii. p. 114, ed. Cotel. in Thorndike, pp. 163, 164. 6) Cyprian, Ep. 75. 7) On Ephes. 4: 2, and 1 Tim. 3. 8) Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 1. i. c. 9, and quoted in Baxter on Episc. part ii. pp. 104, 105, auctoritatem habeant tum ministros ordinandi, tum eos qui clero digni fuerint nominandi,' &c. |
