ORDINATION.

“No blood, no altar now,

The sacrifice is o’er;

No flame, no smoke ascends on high,

The Lamb is slain no more!

But richer blood has flowed from nobler veins,

To purge the soul from guilt, and cleanse the reddest stains.”

                                                                             – Bonar.

“Let all things be done decently, and in order.”

                                                                           – St. Paul.

     DIFFERENT denominations hold different views about ordination.

     1. The Friends have no sacraments and no ordained preachers. Their great theologian, Robert Barclay, says:

     “When they assemble together, to wait upon God, and to worship and adore him; then such as the Spirit sets apart for the ministry, by its divine power and influence opening their mouths, and giving them to exhort, reprove and instruct with virtue and power: these are thus ordained of God and admitted into the ministry, and their brethren cannot but hear them, receive them, and also honor them for their work’s sake.”

     He states as follows their position in reference to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper:

     “As there is one Lord and one faith, so there is one baptism; which is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience before God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this baptism is a pure and spiritual thing – to wit: the baptism of the Spirit and fire, by which we are buried with him, that being washed and purged from our sins, we may walk in newness of life; of which the baptism of John was a figure, which was commanded for a time, and not to continue forever.”⁹ 

     He takes a similar position in respect to the Lord’s Supper:

     “The communion of the body and blood of Christ is inward and spiritual, which is the participation of his flesh and blood, by which the inward man is daily nourished in the hearts of those in whom Christ dwells. Of which things the breaking of bread by Christ with his disciples was a figure, which even they who had received the substance used in the church for a time, for the sake of the weak; even as abstaining from things strangled, and from blood, the washing one another’s feet, and the anointing of the sick with oil: all which are commanded with no less authority and solemnity than the former; yet seeing they are but shadows of better things, they cease in such as have obtained the substance.”¹⁰

     The main objection to this teaching is that it is contrary to the plain teaching of the New Testament.(1.) All true ministers are called of the Holy Ghost. But before one becomes a minister of the Gospel in the fullest sense, his divine call must be acknowledged and duly ratified by the church. Thus, the successor to Judas was so appointed, as described in Acts 1:15-26. Thus Paul was divinely called and in a formal manner publicly ordained. Acts 26:16-18 and Acts 13:2, 3.

     (2.) All baptism with water is not John’s baptism, as Robert Barclay teaches. Christian baptism is baptism with water. This is made perfectly clear. Paul, finding certain disciples at Ephesus, said unto them;

     “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

     “And he said unto them, Unto what, then, were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

     “Then said Paul: John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus.

     “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

     “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied”– Acts 19: 2-6.

     Here three acts, each distinct in itself, are specified:

     1. The baptism of John.

     2. Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus – that is Christian baptism.

     3. The coming upon them of the Holy Ghost in His miraculous power.

     This shows that the baptism of the Holy Ghost did not do away with baptism by water.

     The same is also taught with equal plainness in Acts 10:47. “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”

     Here were people who had received the substance; they needs must now receive the sign. They had been accepted in the army of the Lord; they must now publicly come under his banner.

     They belonged to Christ; they must now, before their fellow men, receive the mark of Christ upon them.

     (3.) Equally unscriptural is the above position in regard to the Lord’s Supper. In it the body of Christ must be partaken of in a spiritual manner. But there must also be the outward sign.

     “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, He broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. – 1 Cor. 11:23-26.

     (1.) It was not figurative, but actual bread which they ate. As oft as ye eat – not this, indefinitely – but THIS BREAD.

     (2.) They were to do this openly – not as a sacrifice for sin – but as a remembrance of Christ.

     (3.) It was not to be “used in the church for a time, for the sake of the weak,” but for ALL TIME – as long as the world stands; for in doing this, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

     As to “abstaining from things strangled and from blood, all Christians abstain from them; they still wash one another’s feet, in the sense intended by our Lord; and some still anoint the sick with oil.

     Many more passages to the same effect as the above might be quoted; but these are sufficient to show that the position taken by the Friends on the ministry and on the sacraments is contrary to the Scriptures.

     2. THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. In striking contrast with the above views, is the teaching of the Church of Rome.

     The Council of Trent, in the third canon of the twenty-third session, says:

     “Whoever shall affirm that orders, or holy ordination are not a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord, let him be accursed.”

     Again, in the fourth canon of the same session;

     “Whoever shall affirm that the Holy Spirit is not given by ordination, let him be accursed.”

     As to the power conferred by ordination the Roman Catechism says:

     “The faithful then are to be made acquainted with the exalted dignity and excellence of this sacrament in its highest degree, which is the priesthood. Priests and bishops are, as it were, the interpreters and heralds of God, commissioned in his name to teach mankind the law of God, and the precepts of a Christian life. They are the representatives of God upon earth. Impossible therefore, to conceive amore exalted dignity, or functions more sacred. Justly, therefore, are they called not only ‘angels’ but gods, holding as they do the place and power, and authority of God on earth. But the priesthood, at all times an elevated office, transcends in the new law all others in dignity. The power of consecrating and offering the body and blood four Lord, and of remitting sins, with which the priesthood of the new law is invested, is such as cannot be comprehended by the human mind, still less is it equalled by, or assimilated to, anything on earth.”¹¹

     “In ordaining a priest, the bishop, and after him, the priests who are present, lay their hands on the candidate. The bishop then places a stole on his shoulder, and adjusts it. He next anoints his hands with sacred oil, reaches him a chalice containing wine, and a patena with bread, saying, ‘RECEIVE POWER TO OFFER SACRIFICE TO GOD, AND TO CELEBRATE MASS AS WELL FOR THE LIVING AS FOR THE DEAD.’ By these words and ceremonies he is constituted an interpreter and mediator between God and man, the principal function of the priesthood. Finally, placing his hands on the head of the person to be ordained, the bishop says, ‘RECEIVEYE THE HOLY GHOST; WHOSE SINS YE SHALL FORGIVE, THEY ARE FORGIVEN THEM; AND WHOSE SINS YE SHALL RETAIN THEY ARE RETAINED. Thus investing him with that divine power of forgiving and retaining sins, which was conferred by our Lord on his disciples. These are the principal and peculiar functions of the priesthood.¹²

     These are wonderful pretensions! The apostles themselves claimed no such powers. They never pretended to transform bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no record of their claiming to forgive sin, in the place of God, or of pronouncing absolution from sin by his authority. They were to forgive those who sinned against them, but all Christians were to do the same. They laid down authoritatively the conditions on which God forgives sin.

     Says Dr. Lightfoot: “The Holy Spirit directing them, they were to determine concerning the legal doctrine and practice, being completely instructed and enabled in both by the Holy Spirit descending upon them.

     “As to the persons, they were endowed with a peculiar gift, so that, the same Spirit directing them, if they would retain and punish the sins of any, a power was delivered into their hands of delivering to Satan, of punishing with diseases, plagues, yea, death itself, which Peter did to Ananias and Sapphira; Paul to Elymas, Hymeneus and Philetus.”

     But the power which the twelve possessed they never assumed to bestow upon others. The record does not show that Christ ever gave them any such power.

     Simon Magus was the only one spoken of in the New Testament as ascribing to them such power. And he was most severely rebuked. – Acts 8:18-24.

     As to the Romish priests transforming the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus, it is a blasphemous assumption. The apostles did not pretend to do any such thing. For as often as ye eat this bread. – 1 Cor. 11:26.

     Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. – 27th verse.

     They eat unworthily who eat it to satisfy hunger and not to commemorate the sacrificial death of Christ. They do not discern the Lord’s body.

     But whether eaten worthily or unworthily, it is THE BREAD that is eaten.

     On the unscriptural view that the Lord’s Supper is of the nature of a sacrifice for sin is based the claim that Gospel ministers constitute a priesthood. This is an error of the greatest magnitude and fraught with the most direful consequences.

     It is remarkable that, though the word priest is found in the New Testament one hundred and fifty-one times, it is never once applied to a Christian minister. Neither John, nor Peter, nor Paul, nor James is ever called a priest.

     “What is the reason?”

     A priest is one who offers sacrifices for the sins of others. “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” – Heb.5:1. See also Chap. 8:3.

     But Christ has offered himself a sacrifice for our sins, ONCE FOR ALL. “And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering often times the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God. – Heb.10:12. Note well! that THE SACRIFICE FOR SINS IS FOREVER. It is never to be repeated.

     “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s; for this he did once, when he offered up himself. – Heb. 7:26, 27.

     There is then a valid reason why the Christian religion has no priests. It has no sacrifices for sins to offer. The sacrifice for sin is complete. The Redeemer has appeared among men. Man is redeemed. For ministers to assume to be priests, in the priestly sense, is an open insult to Christ. It is a Heaven daring usurpation.

     The Christian priesthood embraces all of God’s people. It was to all the saints that St. Peter wrote: “Ye, also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” – 1 Pet. 2:5.

     Also in the 9th verse: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood.” There is no dispute that all the saints are referred to in both these passages.

     The nature of these sacrifices is clearly specified. They are –

     1. Our bodies. “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” – Rom. 12:1.

     No priest is to offer this for another. Each believer in Christ is to offer it for himself.

     2. Good works. “But to do good and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” – Heb. 13:16. See also Eph. 5:2.

     This direction also is to all of God’s people.

     3. Praise. “By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. – Heb. 13:15.

     This too is a sacrifice that all the saints are to offer. It is not to be done by priest or other proxy. No choir, however skillful, or how highly paid, can relieve us of this duty of offering praise to God.

     These are all the sacrifices that Christians are directed, in the New Testament, to offer. And each and all of these they are to offer for themselves. Not one word is said about offering “the sacrifice of the Mass” as an atonement for our sins. All this is adding to the word of the Lord.

     If Christian Ministers were called upon to slaughter cattle and sheep as sacrifices for sin, then it would-be improper for women to be ministers. This is the reason why, in the Old Testament, no woman is called a priest. Some of them were prophets to instruct and reform the people, but no woman was a priest to offer sacrifices for sins.

     In the primitive Christian Church, when the Ministers became proud and aspiring, and assumed priestly prerogatives, they assigned to woman a lower place in the Christian ministry; and finally, as they apostatized more fully, they dropped her from the ministry altogether.

     Between these two extremes, of the Friends, who make absolutely nothing of ordination, and of the Romanists, who make an apotheosis, a deification of it, lies the truth.

     By Protestants generally, ordination is looked upon as a solemn recognition by the church, of the authority to preach, of those whom God has called to this office, and who have made full proof of their ministry.

     John Wesley, referring to ecclesiastics of the Church of England, to which he belonged, said that for forty years he had been in doubt over the question, “What obedience is due to Heathenish priests and mitered infidels?”

     So it is quite evident that he did not regard ordination as bestowing a Christian, much less an angelic or godlike character.

     Ordination is necessary to prevent improper persons from thrusting themselves into the ministry, and thus bringing the Gospel into contempt. Daniel Webster said; “Forms are as necessary as hoops on a barrel; they keep the whole from falling to pieces.”

     “The essential elements of the act of ordination,” says Rev. H. J. Van Dyke, Sr., D. D., “are prayer, and the laying on of hands, with the avowed intention of setting apart the candidate to the work of the ministry, as one who, after due examination, is believed to be called of God to that office.”¹³

     For ordination there is the plain authority of the New Testament.

     “The Ordination of the Seven Deacons”¹⁴ This marked event in the history of the Church occurred in immediate sequence of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at the Pentecost, and from the space allotted to it in the sacred record (Acts 6:2-6), as well as from the fact that all the apostles were present, it may now be considered, as it doubtless was during the whole apostolic period, a model ordination for the subsequent Church. Its characteristic features were: (1.) A demand for men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom; (2.) An election or choice by the church on that basis; (3.) Prayer by the apostles; (4.) The laying on of hands, presumably, by several of the apostles, as representative of the whole body. In this act the apostles illustrated their ideas of the proper functions of the church in reference to its future ministers, and established a precedent, of perpetual authority. It was a precedent, moreover, in obvious harmony with the precept of our Lord, given in connection with his appointment of the seventy (Luke 10:2), “Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth laborers into his harvest.” The apostles evidently regarded this as the standing commission and perpetual duty of the church, in reference to the promotion of Christ’s Kingdom in the earth. In it they saw that the Lord claimed the work of evangelizing the world as his own, and also the prerogative of calling and sending forth laborers, while at the same time, he charged the church with the responsibility of prayer and cooperation. This, too, was in harmony with the Saviour’s promised gift of the Holy Ghost as the guide of the church when he should no longer be present as its visible head. The Spirit’s influence was specially promised in answer to prayer, and it was only a praying church endowed with the Holy Ghost that could become the light of the world, and the agency of its salvation. So long as the church illustrated these characteristics, it gloriously fulfilled its mission. It grew rapidly by the addition of regenerated believers, many of whom, in proportion to the demands of its widening work, were called of God, and moved of the Holy Ghost to preach to others the same Gospel that had become to them the power of God unto salvation. The function of the church, therefore, as to ordination was, not to create or bestow the gift of the ministry, but simply to recognize and authenticate it when bestowed by the Head of the Church.”

     The ordination of elders. In the Apostolic Church, Bishops and Elders were the same. “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” When they were come together he said to them; “Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”–Acts 20:17, 28. The word here translated overseer is, in the original, episcopos, bishop. From this we learn –1. That those having the oversight of the Church were called elders or bishops. These two words were used interchangeably. 2. That preaching was the chief business of these elders or bishops. They were made bishops by the Holy Ghost that they might FEED the church of God.

     So, in the various lists that are given us in the New Testament, of the officers of the church, elders and bishops are never both found in the same list. These elders were ordained. “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” – Acts 14:23.

     “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless – Titus 1:57.

     It is evident that those whom he calls elders in the fifth verse he calls bishops in the seventh.

     We see also that the Apostolic churches were not independent, but the same men had official oversight of many churches.

     Ordaining Apostles. “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch and Saul.

     “And as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

     “And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them they sent them away.” – Acts13:1-3.

     “The events above narrated,” say McClintock and Strong, “occurred some two years after the commission of Saul of Tarsus, following which ‘straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues’ – Acts 9, 20.Becoming associated with Barnabas, he also ‘spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus’ at Jerusalem. Both these men seem to have labored as evangelists whenever they had opportunity, and their ministry, having been given of God, was honored by his blessing. They were now called to higher responsibilities. ‘They were to go forth under the sanction of the church and not only to proclaim the truth, but also to baptize converts, to organize Christian congregations, and to ordain Christian ministers. It was therefore proper that, on this occasion, they should be regularly invested with the ecclesiastical commission. In the circumstantial record of this proceeding, in the Acts of the Apostles, we have a proof of the wisdom of the Author of Revelation. He foresaw that the rite of the laying on of hands would be sadly abused; that it would be represented as possessing something like a magic potency; and that it would at length be converted by a small class of ministers, into an ecclesiastical monopoly. He has therefore supplied us with an antidote against delusion by permitting us, in this simple narrative, to scan its exact import. And what was the virtue of the ordination here described? Did it furnish Paul and Barnabas with a title to the ministry? Not at all. God himself had already called them to the work, and they could receive no higher authorization. Did it necessarily add anything to the eloquence, or the prudence, or the knowledge, or the piety of the missionaries? No results of the kind could be produced by any such ceremony. What, then, was its meaning? The evangelist himself furnishes an answer. The Holy Ghost required that Barnabas and Saul should be separated to the work to which the Lord had called them, and the laying on of hands was the mode or form in which they were seta part or designated to the office. This rite to an Israelite, suggested grave and hallowed associations. When a Jewish father invoked a benediction on any of his family, he laid his hand upon the head of the child; when a Jewish priest devoted an animal in sacrifice, he laid his hand upon the head of the victim; and when a Jewish rabbi invested another with office, he laid his hand upon the head of the new functionary. The ordination of these brethren possessed all this significance. By the laying on of hands the ministers of Antioch implored a blessing upon Barnabas and Saul, and announced their separation or dedication to the work of the gospel and intimated their investiture with ecclesiastical authority.’ ”¹⁵

     There is nothing, then, in the nature of ordination which indicates that no woman should ever be ordained. If she is called of God to his work, and this is evident to the church, then may the church separate her to this work by ordination.

     Ordination, while it does not, in the rite itself, convey any supernatural, or magical power, yet it should be the occasion of great and permanent blessing to the person ordained. But this depends, not upon the form, but upon the parties concerned. If those ordaining are proud, and worldly, and carnal, and formal, and the candidate is unconverted, ordination, in all probability, will only make him more proud, exacting and aspiring. But if those who ordain, are men full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and the one ordained is spiritual, humble and fully consecrated to God, he may receive at his ordination such a baptism of the spirit as shall give him new power all the rest of his days.

     “God knows,” says Whitfield, “how deep a concern entering into the ministry and preaching was tome. I have prayed a thousand times till the sweat has dropped from my face like rain, that God, of his infinite mercy, would not let me enter into the church, till he called me to and thrust me forth in his work. I said, Lord I cannot go. I shall be puffed up with pride, and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Lord, do not let me go yet. I pleaded to be at Oxford two or three years more. I intended to make one hundred and fifty sermons, and thought that I would setup with a good stock in trade. I remember praying, wrestling and striving with God. I said, I am undone. I am unfit to preach in thy great name. Send me not, Lord – send me not yet. I wrote to all my friends in town and country to pray against the bishop’s solicitation, but they insisted I should go into orders before I was twenty-two. After all their solicitations these words came into my mind: ‘Nothing shall pluck you out of my hands’; they came warm to my heart. Then, and not till then, I said, Lord I will go; send me when thou wilt.” He was ordained; and he said: “When the bishop laid his hands upon my head, my heart was melted down, and I offered up my whole spirit and soul and body.”

     Complaint was made to the bishop that, by his first sermon he drove fifteen mad. The good man replied that he hoped their madness would last.