Again, the interpretation which makes the expression “the hands of the presbytery” include ruling elders, is inconsistent with the sense that language bears in all writings cotemporary with our standards, or of authority in Presbyterian Churches. Thus in the Westminster Directory, whence our formularies were derived, this language is admitted to mean the hands of the preaching presbyters, because it can there have no other meaning, since the Directory elsewhere teaches that the work of ordination belongs to ministers. It has the same sense in Stewart’s Collections, a book still of authority in Scotland, as it was formerly with us; it has the same sense in all the publications of the age in which our Confession of Faith was formed, which are regarded as giving an authentic exposition of Presbyterian principles. This is the point to which Dr. Maclean principally directed his remarks; and which he demonstrated in the clearest manner by abundant references to the works in question. What would be thought of an interpretation of an expression in the writings of Paul, which was inconsistent with the sense the phrase had in every other book in the Bible?
Again, as the ministers and elders who adopted our constitution had been accustomed to understand the expression “hands of the presbytery” in the sense in which it is used in the Directory, under which they had so long acted, it is clear they must have understood it the same way, when that expression was transferred to the new constitution. And if it be a sound principle of interpretation that we must take the language of any document in the sense which it was designed to bear to those to whom it was addressed, then we are bound to take the constitution in the sense in which it was framed and adopted. That is its true sense; the sense in which it is obligatory on the Church.
Again, the new construction of the passage in question, is inconsistent with the nature of the subject spoken of, and with the doctrine elsewhere taught in our standards concerning the office of the ruling elder. When it is said: God sits on a throne; or, This is my body, we know that the language is not to be taken literally, because the literal interpretation is inconsistent with the nature of the subject spoken of, and with what is elsewhere taught concerning God, and the Lord’s Supper. So when it is said that the presbytery shall ordain, we know that the standing and not the delegated members are intended from the nature of the service. When it is said “some member” shall open the sessions of the judicatory with a sermon, the nature of the service, of necessity, limits the phrase to those members that are entitled to preach. So when ordination to the ministry is the subject, the language is of necessity confined to those members who are in the ministry; who can say to the newly ordained brother “we give you the right hand of fellowship, to take part in this ministry with us.” The word ministry means ministry of the gospel, and in our standards it means nothing else. The language just quoted means and can only mean, “we recognize you as a fellow minister of the gospel.” This act of recognition is from its nature confined to those who are in the ministry. Besides, as ordination is a solemn setting apart to a certain office, it belongs, according to the doctrine of all churches, except the Brownist, to those who are clothed with the office conferred, or one superior to it, and which includes it. If ordination were merely induction into the order of presbyters, from which some members by a subsequent process, were selected to preach, and others to rule, then the service might from its nature belong to all presbyters; but as beyond dispute ordination is an induction into a particular office, it cannot, according to our constitution, belong to any who do not hold that office. Ordination to the ministry is therefore as much a peculiar function of the ministry as preaching is. The construction of the constitution which would give ruling elders the right to join in the ordination of ministers, is no less inconsistent with what that constitution teaches of the nature of the office of ruling elder. Ordination is an act of executive power, which does not pertain to the ruling elder. They have the right to deliberate and judge, but the execution of the determinations of our judicatories belongs to the ministry. This argument was thus presented by Chancellor Johns:
“The constitution of our Church confers upon its officers three kinds of power—legislative, judicial and ministerial. The ruling elders are clothed by the constitution with the first two, legislative and judicial, and can carry with them nothing else, place them where you may. Look at your elder in the lowest court, the Church session. He sits here as a legislator and a judge. But the moment you have to execute the sentence which is passed in this court, it devolves on your minister as the executive. Trace the elder up to the presbytery or synod, there he appears as the representative of the Church, but only with legislative and judicial power. When the constitution refers any act to this body, it requires that it be done in a constitutional manner, and by those possessing the requisite constitutional power. After the decree has been passed that a man shall be ordained, it follows that it must be done by those who are not defective in power. It is clear that the moment you decide that ordination is a ministerial or executive act, that moment you decide that it must be performed by those possessing ministerial or executive authority. The execution of the acts necessarily devolves on the competent parts of the body. A ministerial or executive act therefore can be performed only by ministers. Unless you make an elder a minister at once, I never can admit that he can perform an act belonging to the ministerial office. This distinction unlocks the whole difficulty. On this principle, the presbytery give the right hand of fellowship to a co-presbyter ‘to take part of this ministry.’ But ruling elders are not in the ‘ministry,’ and therefore even this act does not belong to them.”
Mr. Breckinridge says a minister, per se, has no power to ordain, but only as a member of presbytery, and adds—
“The question comes to this, do ministers as such ordain, or is it as members of presbytery? If as the latter, and not as the former, then elders being equally members of the presbytery, share in the act, and in the executive power vested in the whole body.”
If the whole matter depends on the question, whether ministers, as such, ordain, or only as members of presbytery, we think it may be soon settled. Mr. B. appears to think that ministers and Church courts get all their powers from the constitution; whereas the constitution is but the declaration of the powers which belong to ministers and judicatories, and the stipulations agreeably to which those who adopt it agree to exercise their respective functions. Suppose the constitution was out of existence, would ministers and courts have no power? Have not any number of ministers, no matter how or where convened, the right to ordain? Are not the ordinations by the ecclesiastical councils in New England valid, although such councils are not presbyteries within the definition of our book? An affirmative is the only answer that can be given to these questions; consequently, ordination is a ministerial act; it is performed by ministers as such, and not merely as members of presbytery. It is true, all the ministers of the Presbyterian Church have entered into a contract with each other not to exercise this right, except under certain circumstances, or on certain conditions. They have agreed not to ordain any man who does not understand Greek, Latin, and Hebrew; who has not studied theology with some approved minister, at least two years, who does not adopt our Confession of Faith and Form of Government. They have also agreed not to exercise this right, unless regularly convened after due notice, that all interested, and having a right to be present, may have the opportunity. The reason of all this is obvious. These ministers are connected with others; every man whom they ordain, becomes a joint ruler and judge over all the others; the others, therefore, have a right to a voice in his ordination, that is, to a voice in deciding under what circumstances or on what conditions ordination may be administered. But this does not prove that the power to ordain comes from the constitution, or that it belongs to the ministers only when convened in what we call a presbytery. Any two or three ministers, and (according to Presbyterian doctrine, as we understand it,) any one minister has full right to ordain as Timothy or Titus had. Presbyterial ordination is ordination by a presbyter or presbyters, and not by a presbytery, in our technical sense of the term. This is surely the doctrine of the Scriptures, and the only doctrine on which we can hold up our heads in the presence of prelacy. It is the only ground on which we can admit the validity of ordination by a single prelate, or by an ecclesiastical council, or, in short, of any ordination but our own. If then, as Mr. Breckinridge says, the only question is whether ministers as such, ordain, we think that even he, on reflection, must admit that the right to ordain is inherent in the ministerial office, and does not arise from any provision of our constitution, or from the associations of ministers and elders in the form of a presbytery.
Again, the new interpretation given to the constitution is contradicted by the practice of its framers, and the uninterrupted usage of the Church. This consideration has been set aside as an argument from tradition. But no argument is more legitimate. No man can doubt that if we had authentic information how the apostles and their disciples acted in carrying out the commands of Christ, we should have the most satisfactory of all rules for the interpretation of those commands. Christ directed his disciples to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of him, and the conduct of the apostles and early Christians under that command, is the best possible proof of the perpetual obligation of the command. He directed them to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Holy Trinity; the conduct of the disciples, in baptizing whole households, is one of our best arguments in favour of infant baptism. Apostolic usage also is the main ground of our observance of the first day of the week as the weekly sabbath. The Protestant objection to the Roman doctrine of tradition is not that apostolic teaching and practice are of no authority, but that we have no authentic or satisfactory proof of what that teaching and practice were, except in the inspired Scriptures. If papists will produce undoubted proof that the apostles understood the commands of Christ, and especially their own commands in a certain way, we will admit that such is the true way. So if our opponents will produce satisfactory proof that the framers of our constitution and those who adopted it, intended to express a certain idea by any of its provisions, we will admit that such is the true meaning of the instrument As to the case in hand there is no room for dispute. The framers of our constitution find a certain expression in the Westminster Directory, under which they had long acted, and where it had an undoubted meaning, they transfer that expression to the new constitution, and continue to act precisely as they did before, and the Church has continued to act in the same way ever since. If this does not fix the meaning of the constitution, nothing can do it. No man, as far as we know, doubts or can doubt that the expression “laying on of the hands of the presbytery” was intended to mean the hands of the ministers, the standing members of the presbytery, and that it has been so understood ever since. This being the case, we see not what shadow of proof there can be that such is not its meaning. Let it be remembered that while Presbyterians have ever contended for presbyterial ordination, they have always contended for ministerial ordination, and that no case of lay ordination, or of an ordination in which ruling elders participated, has been produced, or, as is believed, can be produced in the history of any Presbyterian Church. Surely it is rather late in the day to begin to teach the whole Presbyterian world what are the first principles of their own system.
We have used above the expression lay ordination, without intending to decide whether ruling elders are laymen or not. This is a mere question of the meaning of a word. If a layman is one who holds no office in the Church, then they are not laymen; and then, too, Dr. Lushington and other judges of the ecclesiastical courts in England are not laymen. But if a layman is a man who is not a clergyman, not a minister of the gospel, then they are laymen. The latter is certainly the common meaning of the word, which is used to designate those whose principal and characteristic business is secular, and not sacred or clerical.
Finally it was objected to the new doctrine that it was destructive of the office of ruling elder, by merging it into the ministry. The only satisfactory or constitutional ground on which the participation of elders in the ordination of ministers can be defended is, that they hold the same office, that they take part in the same ministry, or in short that elders are ministers. But this conclusion is subversive of the office of ruling elder and of our whole system. And cui bono, what good is to be attained, what evil cured by this new doctrine? It adds nothing to the dignity or usefulness of the elder’s office. If it is a mere ceremony, it is not worth contending about; if it is a serious matter, it is so only because the principle on which the claim is made to rest seriously interferes with our ecclesiastical constitution.
← Chapter XIII. Church Officers, § 5. Rights of Ruling Elders · Contents · Chapter XIII. Church Officers, § 7. Significance of Laying on of Hands →