the act of conferring holy orders, or of initiating a person
into the ministry of the Gospel, by prayer and with or without the
laying on of hands. In the church of England, ordination has always been
esteemed the principal prerogative of bishops; and bishops still retain
the function as a mark of their spiritual sovereignty in their diocess.
Without ordination no person can receive any benefice, parsonage,
vicarage, &c. A person must be twenty-three years of age, or near it,
before he can be ordained deacon, or have any share in the ministry; and
full twenty-four before he can be ordained priest, and by that means be
permitted to administer the holy communion. A bishop, on the ordination
of clergymen, is to examine them in the presence of the ministers, who
in the ordination of priests, but not of deacons, assist him at the
imposition of hands; but this is only done as a mark of assent, not
because it is thought necessary. In case any crime, as drunkenness,
perjury, forgery, &c, is alleged against any one that is to be ordained,
either priest or deacon, the bishop ought to desist from ordaining him.
The person to be ordained is to bring a testimonial of his life and
doctrine to the bishop, and to give an account of his faith in Latin;
and both priests and deacons are obliged to subscribe to the thirty-nine
articles. In the ancient discipline there was no such thing as a vague
and absolute ordination; but every one was to have a church, whereof he
was to be ordained clerk or priest. In the twelfth century the bishops
grew more remiss, and ordained without any title or benefice. The
council of Trent, however, restored the ancient discipline, and
appointed that none should be ordained but those who were provided with
a benefice; which practice still obtains in the church of England.
The reformed held the call of the people the only thing essential to the
validity of the ministry; and teach, that ordination is only a ceremony,
which renders the call more august and authentic. Accordingly the
Protestant churches of Scotland, France, Holland, Switzerland, Germany,
Poland, Hungary, Denmark, &c, have no episcopal ordination. For Luther,
Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon, &c, and all the first reformers and founders
of these churches, who ordained ministers among them, were themselves
presbyters, and no other. And though in some of these churches there are
ministers called superintendents, or bishops, yet these are only _primi
inter pares_, the first among equals; not pretending to any superiority
of orders. Having themselves no other orders than what either presbyters
gave them, or what was given them as presbyters, they can convey no
other to those they ordain. On this ground the Protestant Dissenters
plead that their ordination, though not episcopal, is the same with that
of all the illustrious Protestant churches abroad; and object, that a
priest ordained by a popish bishop should be received into the church of
England as a valid minister, rightfully ordained; while the orders of
another, ordained by the most learned religious presbyter, which any
foreign country can boast, are pronounced not valid, and he is required
to submit to be ordained afresh. In opposition to episcopal ordination,
they urge that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery, 1 Tim. iv, 14; that Paul and Barnabas were ordained by
certain prophets and teachers in the church of Antioch, and not by any
bishop presiding in that city, Acts xiii, 1–3; and that it is a well
known fact, that presbyters in the church of Alexandria ordained even
their own bishops for more than two hundred years in the earliest ages
of Christianity. They farther argue, that bishops and presbyters are in
Scripture the same, and not denominations of distinct orders or offices
in the church, referring to Phil. i, 1; Titus i, 5, 7; Acts xx, 27, 28;
1 Peter v, 1, 2. To the same purpose they maintain, that the superiority
of bishops to presbyters is not pretended to be of divine, but of human,
institution; not grounded on Scripture, but only upon the custom or
ordinances of this realm, by the first reformers and founders of the
church of England; nor by many of its most learned and eminent doctors
since. See Stillingfleet’s _Irenicum_, in which the learned author
affirms and shows this to be the sentiment of Cranmer, and other chief
reformers both in Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth’s reign, of Archbishop
Whitgift, Bishop Bridges, Lee, Hooker, Sutcliff, Hales, Chillingworth,
&c. Moreover, the book entitled, the Institution of a Christian Man,”
subscribed by the clergy in convocation, and confirmed by parliament,
owns bishops and presbyters by Scripture to be the same. Beside, the
Protestant Dissenters allege, that if episcopal ordination be really
necessary to constitute a valid minister, it does not seem to be
enjoined by the constitution of the church of England; because the power
of ordination which the bishops exercise in this kingdom, is derived
entirely and only from the civil magistrate; and he authoritatively
prescribes how, and to whom ordination is to be given: that if an
ordination should be conducted in other manner and form than that
prescribed by him, such ordination would be illegal, and of no authority
in the church. Accordingly the bishop at the ordination of the candidate
asks, Are you called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
the due order of this realm?” The constitution and law of England seem
to know nothing of uninterrupted lineal descent, but considers the king
vested, by act of parliament, or the suffrage of the people, with a
fulness of all power ecclesiastical in these realms, as empowering and
authorizing bishops to ordain: and this power of ordination was once
delegated to Cromwell, a layman, as vicegerent to the king. They farther
think it strange, that the validity of orders and ministrations should
be derived, as some have contended, from a succession of popish bishops;
bishops of a church, which, by the definition of the nineteenth article
of the church, can be no part of the true visible church of Christ, and
bishops, likewise, who consider the Protestant clergy, although ordained
by Protestant bishops, as mere common unconsecrated laymen.
On reviewing the whole of this controversy, says Dr. Watts, that since
there are some texts in the New Testament, wherein single persons,
either Apostles, as Paul and Barnabas, ordained ministers in the
churches, or evangelists, as Timothy and Titus; and since other missions
or ordinations are intimated to be performed by several persons, namely,
prophets, teachers, elders, or a presbytery, Acts xiii, 1; 1 Timothy iv,
14; since there is sometimes mention made of the imposition of hands in
the mission of a minister, and sometimes no mention is made of it; and
since it is evident that in some cases popular ordinations are and must
be valid without any bishop or elder,--I think none of these differences
should be made a matter of violent contest among Christians; nor ought
any words to be pronounced against each other by those of the episcopal,
presbyterian, or independent way. Surely all may agree thus far, that
various forms or modes, seeming to be used in the mission or ordination
of ministers in primitive times, may give a reasonable occasion or
colour for sincere and honest searchers after truth to follow different
opinions on this head, and do therefore demand our candid and charitable
sentiments concerning those who differ from us. Among the Wesleyan
Methodists, the ordination of their ministers is in the annual
conference, with a president at its head, and is by prayer without
imposition of hands. The latter they hold to be a circumstance of
ordination, not an essential. They sometimes therefore use it, and at
others omit it. The missionaries sent out by that body, if not
previously ordained by the conference, are set apart by a few senior
ministers; and ordinarily in this case, the service of the church of
England, with some alterations, is used, with imposition of the hands of
the ministers present.
into the ministry of the Gospel, by prayer and with or without the
laying on of hands. In the church of England, ordination has always been
esteemed the principal prerogative of bishops; and bishops still retain
the function as a mark of their spiritual sovereignty in their diocess.
Without ordination no person can receive any benefice, parsonage,
vicarage, &c. A person must be twenty-three years of age, or near it,
before he can be ordained deacon, or have any share in the ministry; and
full twenty-four before he can be ordained priest, and by that means be
permitted to administer the holy communion. A bishop, on the ordination
of clergymen, is to examine them in the presence of the ministers, who
in the ordination of priests, but not of deacons, assist him at the
imposition of hands; but this is only done as a mark of assent, not
because it is thought necessary. In case any crime, as drunkenness,
perjury, forgery, &c, is alleged against any one that is to be ordained,
either priest or deacon, the bishop ought to desist from ordaining him.
The person to be ordained is to bring a testimonial of his life and
doctrine to the bishop, and to give an account of his faith in Latin;
and both priests and deacons are obliged to subscribe to the thirty-nine
articles. In the ancient discipline there was no such thing as a vague
and absolute ordination; but every one was to have a church, whereof he
was to be ordained clerk or priest. In the twelfth century the bishops
grew more remiss, and ordained without any title or benefice. The
council of Trent, however, restored the ancient discipline, and
appointed that none should be ordained but those who were provided with
a benefice; which practice still obtains in the church of England.
The reformed held the call of the people the only thing essential to the
validity of the ministry; and teach, that ordination is only a ceremony,
which renders the call more august and authentic. Accordingly the
Protestant churches of Scotland, France, Holland, Switzerland, Germany,
Poland, Hungary, Denmark, &c, have no episcopal ordination. For Luther,
Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon, &c, and all the first reformers and founders
of these churches, who ordained ministers among them, were themselves
presbyters, and no other. And though in some of these churches there are
ministers called superintendents, or bishops, yet these are only _primi
inter pares_, the first among equals; not pretending to any superiority
of orders. Having themselves no other orders than what either presbyters
gave them, or what was given them as presbyters, they can convey no
other to those they ordain. On this ground the Protestant Dissenters
plead that their ordination, though not episcopal, is the same with that
of all the illustrious Protestant churches abroad; and object, that a
priest ordained by a popish bishop should be received into the church of
England as a valid minister, rightfully ordained; while the orders of
another, ordained by the most learned religious presbyter, which any
foreign country can boast, are pronounced not valid, and he is required
to submit to be ordained afresh. In opposition to episcopal ordination,
they urge that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery, 1 Tim. iv, 14; that Paul and Barnabas were ordained by
certain prophets and teachers in the church of Antioch, and not by any
bishop presiding in that city, Acts xiii, 1–3; and that it is a well
known fact, that presbyters in the church of Alexandria ordained even
their own bishops for more than two hundred years in the earliest ages
of Christianity. They farther argue, that bishops and presbyters are in
Scripture the same, and not denominations of distinct orders or offices
in the church, referring to Phil. i, 1; Titus i, 5, 7; Acts xx, 27, 28;
1 Peter v, 1, 2. To the same purpose they maintain, that the superiority
of bishops to presbyters is not pretended to be of divine, but of human,
institution; not grounded on Scripture, but only upon the custom or
ordinances of this realm, by the first reformers and founders of the
church of England; nor by many of its most learned and eminent doctors
since. See Stillingfleet’s _Irenicum_, in which the learned author
affirms and shows this to be the sentiment of Cranmer, and other chief
reformers both in Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth’s reign, of Archbishop
Whitgift, Bishop Bridges, Lee, Hooker, Sutcliff, Hales, Chillingworth,
&c. Moreover, the book entitled, the Institution of a Christian Man,”
subscribed by the clergy in convocation, and confirmed by parliament,
owns bishops and presbyters by Scripture to be the same. Beside, the
Protestant Dissenters allege, that if episcopal ordination be really
necessary to constitute a valid minister, it does not seem to be
enjoined by the constitution of the church of England; because the power
of ordination which the bishops exercise in this kingdom, is derived
entirely and only from the civil magistrate; and he authoritatively
prescribes how, and to whom ordination is to be given: that if an
ordination should be conducted in other manner and form than that
prescribed by him, such ordination would be illegal, and of no authority
in the church. Accordingly the bishop at the ordination of the candidate
asks, Are you called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
the due order of this realm?” The constitution and law of England seem
to know nothing of uninterrupted lineal descent, but considers the king
vested, by act of parliament, or the suffrage of the people, with a
fulness of all power ecclesiastical in these realms, as empowering and
authorizing bishops to ordain: and this power of ordination was once
delegated to Cromwell, a layman, as vicegerent to the king. They farther
think it strange, that the validity of orders and ministrations should
be derived, as some have contended, from a succession of popish bishops;
bishops of a church, which, by the definition of the nineteenth article
of the church, can be no part of the true visible church of Christ, and
bishops, likewise, who consider the Protestant clergy, although ordained
by Protestant bishops, as mere common unconsecrated laymen.
On reviewing the whole of this controversy, says Dr. Watts, that since
there are some texts in the New Testament, wherein single persons,
either Apostles, as Paul and Barnabas, ordained ministers in the
churches, or evangelists, as Timothy and Titus; and since other missions
or ordinations are intimated to be performed by several persons, namely,
prophets, teachers, elders, or a presbytery, Acts xiii, 1; 1 Timothy iv,
14; since there is sometimes mention made of the imposition of hands in
the mission of a minister, and sometimes no mention is made of it; and
since it is evident that in some cases popular ordinations are and must
be valid without any bishop or elder,--I think none of these differences
should be made a matter of violent contest among Christians; nor ought
any words to be pronounced against each other by those of the episcopal,
presbyterian, or independent way. Surely all may agree thus far, that
various forms or modes, seeming to be used in the mission or ordination
of ministers in primitive times, may give a reasonable occasion or
colour for sincere and honest searchers after truth to follow different
opinions on this head, and do therefore demand our candid and charitable
sentiments concerning those who differ from us. Among the Wesleyan
Methodists, the ordination of their ministers is in the annual
conference, with a president at its head, and is by prayer without
imposition of hands. The latter they hold to be a circumstance of
ordination, not an essential. They sometimes therefore use it, and at
others omit it. The missionaries sent out by that body, if not
previously ordained by the conference, are set apart by a few senior
ministers; and ordinarily in this case, the service of the church of
England, with some alterations, is used, with imposition of the hands of
the ministers present.