• James Shannon's Ordination--No. I.
• James Shannon's Ordination--No. II.
• Thomas Campbell's Remarks on the Above.

FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER,

NEW SERIES.

VOLUME III.-----NUMBER XI.

B E T H A N Y, VA. NOVEMBER, 1839.

      Brother Crihfield:

      In Vol. 3, No. 2 of the Heretic Detector, I find several essays from the pen of our excellent Brother Winans on the subject of Ordination, addressed to 'Professor Shannon.'

      I am, no doubt, the person intended, the official designation merely being erroneous. My worthy Brother says he writes 'for the purpose of inducing me to write.' I know not, that I can throw any light on this subject, which has already been discussed by so many able tongues and pens, and which, to some minds, still seems to (lis sub judice) an unsettled point. I am perfectly willing, however, to contribute my mite, for the purpose of ascertaining what the Christian Scriptures teach on this subject. For the sake of brevity and distinctness, permit me to arrange my remarks in reply to the call of Brother Winans under the following heads:

      1st. Is ordination by the imposition of hands necessary to authorize a disciple of Christ to preach the Gospel, and baptize believers?

      2d. What is the Scriptural meaning of Ordination!

      3d. What does the New Testament teach about the laying on of hands?

      If ordination by the laying on of hands is necessary to authorize a disciple of Christ to proclaim the Gospel, and baptize believers, then, indeed, we may fairly expect to find this doctrine taught in the New Testament with great plainness. For, beyond doubt, the whole success of the Gospel depends on its being proclaimed. Without having heard the Gospel, no human being ever believed it, or was converted by it.

      Now, if it has been enacted by Zion's King, that these disciples alone should preach the Gospel, who have been set apart to the work by the imposition of hands--then, to say the very least, it would be blameworthy for any Christian to attempt 'to minister in holy things,' (I use the language of Babylon, in order to be understood,) who had not been thus consecrated to the work. Hence, it is apparent, that the salvation of men by the Gospel, is made absolutely to depend on the plainness with which this doctrine, if it be Scriptural, is taught in the Living Oracles. Let us, then, examine for a little, how this matter stands. [536]

      In the first place, I have never been able to find a single passage in the New Testament, which gave the least countenance to the notion, that disciples of Christ, as such, have not the right to preach the Gospel, and baptize believers--but that this right is confined to such, as have been consecrated by the laying on of hands. Such a passage I sought for, while I was an orthodox Baptist, with as much diligence, as I sought for a passage in support of infant sprinkling, while I was an orthodox Presbyterian. My searching, however, was utterly vain. Nay, more, I have never been able to find an individual, even among the sects, who will pretend to say, that he knows any passage in the New Testament, which directly teaches that doctrine. In December, 1829, according to previous appointment, I spent a day in the investigation of this subject accompanied with fasting and prayer, at the house of one of the most talented and excellent Baptist Preachers in the Southern Atlantic States. Several worthy and intelligent Baptist Preachers took part in the conference. When I asked for a passage in the New Testament, teaching the doctrine, that none of the disciples, except the specially Called and Sent, should preach and baptize--Hebrews v. 4, was produced. "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

      A very brief examination of the passage in its connexion convinced the company, that it spoke exclusively of the office of High Priest, and had no more to do with the business of preaching, than it had with that of planting corn, or making horse-shoes.

      When I called for another passage, it was acknowledged by the venerable Patriarch, and by all the company, that there was no text in the New Testament, which taught the doctrine directly--but they inferred it from certain passages, such as the diversities of gifts, spoken of by Paul in the 12th chapter of 1st Corinthians. It was even denied on this occasion, that licensing and ordaining gave any power, or was to be regarded as any thing more, than a recognition of the power previously derived from a higher source. I showed, that this plea was suicidal, and in direct opposition to the meaning of the term license, and the generally received import of the transaction. It is obvious, that if licensing and ordination do not give any authority to preach the Gospel and baptize, an individual has no power for that specific purpose after ordination, which he had not before.

      Inasmuch, then, as by the commandment of the Everlasting God, the Gospel was to be proclaimed unto all nations for the obedience of faith, and the command was given, not to the enemies of our Lord, but to his disciples, if it be restricted to a particular class of disciples, it never can be obeyed, unless it be made perfectly plain in the New Testament, who constitute that privileged order, whose right it is exclusively, 'to minister in holy things.'

      This view of the subject most evidently to my apprehension throws the burden of proof on those, who would restrict the business of preaching and baptizing to the 'Called and Sent,'--the 'Ordained,'--the 'Priesthood'--a particular order in the church, to whom it pertains exclusively, in Babylonish phrase, 'to minister in the sacred desk.'

      But, though we might with great propriety, rest the matter here, until the advocates of restriction in this business bring some direct Scripture proof of its existence, which we have never yet known to be done--still, [537] for the sake of the prejudiced, we choose to pursue a different course. And, as it is impossible to prove a negative directly, we shall in the present essay content ourselves with examining, whether these, who are mentioned in the New Testament as being engaged, in proclaiming the Gospel, were authorized for, and set apart to the work by the imposition of hands.

      In strictness we need go no farther back than to the day of Pentecost, on which the reign of Heaven began. We choose, however, to go to--'the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.' 'John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.' Mark i. 1-4.

      It has never been hinted, so far as is known to me, that John was consecrated to this work by the hands of a presbytery.

      But, how was it with those whom the Saviour sent to preach while he was on earth! In John xv. 16, we find him saying to the twelve, 'Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you,' &c. Now in what way were they ordained? Luke vi. 13, informs us. 'And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named Apostles.' No intimation whatever is made about the laying on of hands. Luke ix. 1, records the ordination of the twelve, and 1st verse of the next chapter records that of the seventy to a missionary tour. How was it done? Simply, he appointed and sent them.

      As yet, then, we find no trace of the laying on of hands, to qualify or authorize men to announce the good news of the approaching Reign. Let us come now to the Commission.

      From the, record made of it, both by Matthew and Mark, it seems to have been given to the eleven; but in what capacity, whether as Apostles, or simply as disciples, we are not informed. If it was given to them simply as disciples, then is it binding on all disciples, in proportion to their several abilities. But, if it was given to the eleven, as Apostles merely, then is it binding on none but Apostles. Consequently, when Apostles ceased on earth, the obligation of the Commission ceased also. And, therefore, all the exertions, that have been made since that time, to carry the Commission into effect, have been unauthorized by Heaven, and in contravention of the will of God. Hence, on this hypothesis, in order to make it the duty of any part of the disciples to preach, it would be necessary to prove that part to be Apostles. Nor, even then, would it follow, that they should be ordained by the laying on of hands, nor ordained by men in any form. For it is very evident that the simple choice by Christ of twelve from among his disciples to be Apostles constituted the only ordination made by the Saviour to that office, so far as we have any record in the New Testament. The appointment of Matthias is admitted on all hands, I believe, to be one (sui generis) of a special character, and furnishing no example for imitation. At any rate, it gives no countenance to the doctrine of ordination by the laying on of hands. Perhaps that may be the reason why the advocates of this doctrine find so little use for it.

      We have already showed, that if the Commission were given to the eleven, as Apostles merely, it would be in contravention of the will of God for any except Apostles to preach and baptize. But, others did preach with the sanction of the Apostles, and the manifest approbation [538] of Heaven. This proves that the Commission was given to the eleven simply as disciples; otherwise the mass of the primitive disciples would not have dared to act under it; nor would the Apostles sanctioned, nor Heaven approbated such action. Let us examine a few of those cases, and see if they will throw any light on this subject.

      In the 7th and 8th Acts, we are informed of the preaching of Stephen and Philip. The 6th of Acts gives us an account of their ordination the laying on of Apostles' hands. To what work, however, were they thus ordained? Was it to 'the ministry of the word?' So far from it, that it was to a work, which was placed by the Apostles themselves, on that very occasion, in contradistinction with this ministry. It was to serve tables. When they preached, therefore, it was simply as disciples, and not in consequence of any ordination required in the New Testament. Yet, though they were never ordained to 'the ministry of the word,' Stephen was the first to suffer martyrdom in preaching the Gospel; and Philip, as is well known, not merely preached, but also baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch, and many of the Samaritans.

      In Acts viii. 1-4, we are informed that after the martyrdom of Stephen, 'there was a great persecution against the Church, which was at Jerusalem: and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles.' We are furthermore informed that 'they that were scattered abroad went every where proclaiming the word.'

      Can any thing be plainer, or more decisive than this? Who preached on this occasion? Luke answers--'They that were scattered abroad.' And if we ask him again, 'Who were these?' he replies--'All the church in Jerusalem, except the Apostles.' The man who can make this passage tally with a dogma, that none should preach and baptize, except such as have been ordained by the laying on of hands, whether official or unofficial need afterwards find but little difficulty in believing that JONAH SWALLOWED THE WHALE--and found his belief, too, on the testimony of the historian, that the Whale swallowed Jonah.

      Of the ordination of Ananias, who baptized Saul, we have not the slightest hint. He is barely mentioned (Acts ix. 10.) as 'a certain disciple.' Of Saul himself we are informed, that straightway after his baptism, 'he preached Christ in the Synagogues, that he is the Son of God.'

      Some, however, are of the opinion, that the record contained in Acts xiii. 1-3, conflicts with the foregoing views. This cannot be the case for a very plain reason. Paul assures us most positively in the first chapter of Galatians, that when he was converted 'he conferred not with flesh and blood,' in relation to preaching the Gospel, but immediately set about it. This, too, is in perfect harmony with the record of his conversion given us in Acts. 'Straightway he preached Christ.' Whatever, therefore, may have been the design of the transaction in question, it could not have been intended, as giving authority to preach and baptize.

      But could it even be demonstrated, that this transaction was an ordination to the ministry, in the modern sense of the phrase, it would not, and could not form a model for our imitation.

      Hear the reason. The Church at Antioch, as a Church, had nothing [359] to do with the transaction, so far as the record gives us any information. It was the act, not of the body, but of inspired men--'certain prophets and teachers'--appertaining to the body. Should any have the least doubt, as to their being inspired, he may remove that doubt by barely glancing at 1st Cor. xii. 28.

      Besides, these inspired men did not act in the case, in obedience to any general rule, but rather in obedience to the special command of the Holy Spirit. 'As they ministered unto the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work, whereunto I have called them.'

      It is universally admitted by the candid and intelligent of all parties, that special commands are to be obeyed only by those to whom they are given;--and not even by them, except at the time when, and in the manner in which they are delivered. The foregoing command was manifestly special, both as regards the persons addressed, and the thing to be done; and, therefore, it never was obligatory on a human being except the Prophets and Teachers in the Church at Antioch--nor on them, except in that solitary instance.

      It is a great and mischievous error, a strong pillar in the temple of sectarian idolatry and superstition, to give a general application to special commands, and interpret special Scriptures in a general way.

      If the foregoing case must be made an example, why not make the ordination of Matthias an example for our imitation? It has by no means so much appearance of speciality, as the transaction in question. And I can see no reason, why it, as well as Acts xiii, 1-3, is not referred to by the sects, as an authoritative example for the ordination of Preachers, but that it does not suit their nations, nor support the laying on of hands. If it were the order of the day to manufacture 'Clergymen' out of disciples by the casting of lots, no doubt the ordination of Matthias would be appealed to with as much confidence, as that with which the foregoing passage is quoted under existing circumstances. Nor can I discover, that there would be less reason in one case, than in the other.

      Let us come next to the case of Timothy, recorded Acts xvi. 1-3. 'Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him, because of the Jews, which were in those quarters: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.'

      Not another word is said about this ordination, either here, or in any other part of the New Testament. I am well aware that some good people think differently. They think, that Paul in I Tim. iv. 14, distinctly recognizes his ordination as a 'Clergyman,'--and that, too, by the imposition of hands. Let us examine this matter. 'Neglect not (says Paul in the passage alluded to) the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.' Who composed this Presbytery will come up for examination in our essay on imposition of hands. It is sufficient to notice here, that this Presbytery could, because it did impart a spiritual gift, and that Paul says not one word about an office to which Timothy was ordained--but speaks solely of a gift, that had been imparted to, or put in him by (or according to) prophecy with (or through) the laying on of hands. Nothing short of the grossest assumption can make this passage teach either the fact, or the manner of Timothy's ordination to any office [540] whatever. If when the Apostle tells Timothy that a gift was in him, he meant, that Timothy was in an office, and I am allowed to interpret Scripture in this way, I will prove to a demonstration, that the Pope of Rome is the Vicar and legal representative of Jesus Christ. Is it not by this same unhallowed license of accommodation, (I will not say interpretation, for it deserves not the name,) that to 'be born of water and of the Spirit,' is rendered so as to exclude water altogether--and 'Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins'--is translated, 'Repent, &c. because your sins are remitted?'

      It is certainly unnecessary to follow this subject farther. There is, in short, not a single passage in the New Testament, which records the fact, that any disciple ever had hands laid on him to authorize him to preach the gospel and baptize believers. If there is any such passage, I shall feel greatly indebted to the person who will point it out.

      We have already proved, that if no such limitation of the Commission is expressly taught, no such limitation could have been intended. Indeed, to proclaim the good news for the salvation of sinners, is so manifestly a moral duty, as to need no positive statute to make it obligatory on all the disciples. On the contrary, it would require a positive statute to exempt any disciple from an obligation in this matter proportional to his abilities.

      For the present, I shall only add, in accordance with this sentiment, the heavenly words of our exalted King, as John in the island of Patmos heard them from his own blessed lips, 'I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the spirit, &c. And let him that heareth say, come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.'

      Ought we, then, to regard the statute of the King--'Let him that heareth say, COME'--or rather give heed to the voice of the Clergy crying, Stop! Don't say, come, till WE have permitted and authorized you, by the laying on of OUR HANDS. Let every loyal citizen judge for himself, which of these opposite commands ought to be obeyed.

      In loyalty to the King, love to his liege subjects, and devotion to the truth, I remain your fellow-citizen,

JAMES SHANNON.      

      P. S. Will Brother Campbell oblige me by republishing these essays in the Harbinger, and pointing out wherein, if at all, they do not accord with the unerring standard.

J. S.      

      I shall reserve any remarks on this very explicit and sententious article, till our readers have Brother Shannon's No. 2 before them.

A. C.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (November 1839): 536-541.]

FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER,

NEW SERIES.

VOLUME III.-----NUMBER XII.

B E T H A N Y, VA. DECEMBER, 1839.

      IN my former essay I showed that there is not a single passage in the whole of the New Testament, from beginning to end, which records the fact, that any disciple of Christ ever had hands laid on him to authorize him to preach the gospel and baptize believers. The object of this essay is to ascertain the scriptural use and meaning of the term "ordination." [566]

      It is deeply to be deplored that in the common English version of the scriptures there are to be found so many outlandish words, which to the common reader can convey no definite signification whatever. Had every word been translated into plain English, and the "laity" been permitted to hear the truth in their own mother tongue, the creed-makers would have been in a great measure defeated; and the "clergy" would have been deprived of one of their most successful methods of imposing on the ignorance and credulity of mankind. Had Bishops, which in England has no meaning, except what the reigning Priesthood choose to give it, been translated Overseer, then every body would have known, that, in the New Testament, Bishops meant nothing more than the associate Elders or Overseers of one Christian congregation. Had Minister been translated servant, as it should have been, then the distinctions between servants of Christ and Ministers of Christ would have been unknown.

      How fatal must the base translation of this word have proved to the dominion and arrogant pretensions of the Clergy, who impiously dare to lay an exclusive claim to the rank of Ministers of the Gospel, and to the right of performing certain parts of the service under the New Constitution--such, especially, as preaching the gospel and "administering its ordinance;" thereby disfranchising the great mass of God's "royal Priesthood," and degrading them to the rank of mere menials in the Kingdom.

      In like manner, if ordination had been translated into English, it would have been simply appointment.^* Every appointment, then, no matter to what duty or office, or in what manner it might have been made, would have been an "ordination." But by anglicising the Latin word ordinatio, instead of using the English term appointment, "ORDINATION" easily comes to have a cabalistic meaning. An ambitious and self-constituted Priesthood can easily attach to the word a signification favorable to their exclusive pretensions, and persuade the 'laity' that it means consecration to the "HOLY MINISTRY" by the laying on of the hands of a duly "ORDAINED MINISTRY."

      Oh! for the day when faithful translations of the scriptures into every tongue under heaven shall enable us all, every member of the human family, to learn the truths of scripture, "in that language in which we were born." May God hasten its advent!

      When a peculiar meaning, no matter how erroneous, has thus been appropriated to an outlandish word, and that meaning has been extensively incorporated with religious prejudices, it becomes a Herculean task to disabuse the public mind, and restore the word to its true signification.

      Ordain, and its derivative ordination, fall within the scope of these remarks. So soon as ordain is heard with reference to religious matters, it is immediately and almost irresistibly inferred that hands were imposed; and he who would question this inference would be regarded as questioning the fact of ordination, and doubting the veracity of the historian. But is this a correct view of the subject? Let us examine a few passages where ordain occurs, and see what is the scriptural meaning of the term:-- [567]

      Isaiah xxvi. 12. "Lord, wilt thou ordain peace for us?" Psalm viii. 2. "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength." Psalm viii. 3. "The moon and the stars which thou hast ordained." Psalm cxxxii. 17. "I have ordained a lamp for mine Anointed," Acts xiii. 48. "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed." Acts xvi. 4. "The decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders." Romans vii. 10. "The commandment which was ordained to life." Galatians iii. 19. "The law was ordained by angels." I Tim. ii. 7. "Good works, which God hath before ordained." Jude 4. "Ungodly men, who were of old ordained to this condemnation."

      In all the foregoing passages (and similar ones might be multiplied almost ad infinitum) it is manifest to the intellect of a child, that to interpret ordain so as to include the laying on of hands, would make sad havoc alike of scripture and of common sense.

      Let us now examine a few passages, where ordained is used with reference to official appointment, and see whether even then it includes imposition of hands:

      Mark iii. 14. "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach," &c.

      Luke records the same transaction thus: "And when it was day he called unto him his disciples; and of them he chose twelve, whom he also named Apostles." Luke. vi. 13.

      Thus we see that the bare choice of the twelve in this instance constituted their ordination.

      Acts i. 22. "Of these, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." Peter is here speaking of the ordination of Matthias; and every body knows that he was ordained not by the laying on of hands, but by the casting of lots.

      Acts x. 42. In this passage Jesus is said to have been "ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead"--not, certainly, by the laying on of God's hands.

      Romans xii. 1. "The powers that be are ordained of God." Did he lay his hands on the civil officers when he thus ordained them?

      I Tim. ii. 7. "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher and an Apostle." That Paul was neither ordained a preacher nor an Apostle by the laying on of human hands, was proved in the former essay, both by the record of his conversion and by the express testimony of Paul himself in the first chapter of his letter to the Galatians.

      Titus i. 5. "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."

      The word used here in the original is kataeteses, from kathistemi, which denotes simply to constitute or appoint--no matter in what manner that appointment may be made. If Titus, as Paul's agent, had done no more than tell the Cretans what were the necessary qualifications of Elders, and they had elected such in any way, every thing would have been done that is implied in this passage, so far as the import of the terms are concerned. And we are not to learn our duty from what scripture does not say, but from what it does say.

      Acts xiv. 23. represents Paul and Barnabas, in their tour through Asia Minor, as having "ordained Elders in every church." [568]

      The word used in the original is cheirotoneo, which means primarily to extend, or lift up the hand, but commonly to elect in that way. It is also used in a still more general sense to denote appointment to office, without any reference to the manner in which it is made. Thus in 2 Cor. viii. 19., Titus is said to have been chosen (cheirotonetheis) by the churches of Macedonia to carry their contribution to the poor saints. There is no proof that hands were laid on him for that purpose. The supposition of such a thing would be highly unreasonable. A compound of this same verb is used in Acts x. 41., (and translated "chosen before") to express God's choice of the Apostles to be witnesses of the resurrection of Christ. The laying on of hands is obviously excluded here by the necessity of the case.

      There is, then, no evidence, nor even intimation, that the persons spoken of as ordained in Acts xi v.. 23., had any hands laid on them, but rather presumptive evidence to the contrary; since a phraseology very different from that, which is used on this occasion, is employed invariably to express the laying on of hands.

      Dr. Doddridge, although an advocate for Presbyterial ordination by the laying on of hands, paraphrases the foregoing passage thus: "And when they had, by the concurrent suffrages of the people," (he might with more propriety have said disciples,) constituted presbyters for them in every city."

      In the primitive churches, before the New Testament was written, nothing could be done but by inspiration, or as inspired men directed. The New Testament stands in the same relation to us, as inspired men stood to them. Hence, Paul ordains Elders as truly in our congregations as he did in theirs, when the congregations themselves ordain--that is, simply elect (cheirotoneo) or appoint them to office in accordance with his instructions. Any other view subverts the independence of the churches, and the right of each to govern itself according to the scriptures.

      To sum up what has been proved in this essay:--1st. Ordain means simply appoint, and should have been so rendered. 2d. In most cases where it is used in the common version, the laying on of hands is manifestly excluded. 3d. In none of the cases that have been examined (and I have omitted no official case in the New Testament that I could find) is the laying on of hands ever included.

      I would not be understood to say, that the laying on of hands never accompanied appointment to office in the New Testament. What I meant to say is, that imposition of hands is not included in the terms ordain and ordination, and that where they occur in the common version there is not the slightest evidence that the appointment was ever made by the laying on of hands. So far from it, that as we have seen in all the foregoing cases, there is presumptive evidence, and in one of them positive evidence against the practice.

      Your fellow-servant in the gospel,

JAMES SHANNON.      

            COLLEGE OF LOUISIANA, Jackson, April 29, 1839.

      ^* Quere.--Is there not also, in many cases, the act of instalment?--The ordaining act? T. C.

      Attending, pro tem., to my son's editorial business for a few weeks in his absence, I take the liberty to offer a few remarks upon your two essays respecting ministerial ordination, now republished in the Millennial Harbinger according to your request. I may add, that I am the rather encouraged so to do, seeing you express a desire, that we should "point out wherein, if in any thing, at all, they do not accord with the holy scriptures." However this may be, I must say, in the mean time, that son Alexander clearly and fully expresses my views of church order, in his late publication called "The Christian System," page 85, sections 14 and 15; which read as follows:--

      "While the Christian system allows every man 'as he has received a gift to minister as a good steward of the manifold grace of God,' it makes provision for choosing and setting apart qualified persons for all its peculiar services, necessary to its own edification and comfort, as well as to its usefulness in the world. It provides for its own perpetuity and its growth in the wisest and most practical manner. Its whole wisdom consists in four points:--1st. It establishes the necessary offices for its perpetuity and growth. 2d. It selects the best qualified persons for those offices. 3d. It consecrates or sets those persons apart to those offices. 4th. It commands them to give themselves wholly to the work, that their improvement may keep pace with the growth of the body, and be apparent to all. Can any person point out an imperfection in this plan?

      "All its officers, whether for its services at home or abroad, when fully proved, are to be formally and solemnly set apart by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery or eldership of the church. The whole community choose: the seniors ordain. This is the apostolic tradition. Let those unacquainted with the volume examine the apostolic law and usage, Acts vi. 2-6. So the Christian system in its elections and ordinations began. It is immutable. Therefore this system obtains in all cases."

      Now if all this be scripturally right, as I believe it is, it would appear that there is, at least, a shade of difference between this view of the matter and some of the sentiments expressed in the essays under consideration. The first of which comes to this conclusion;--That "there is, in short, not a single passage in the New Testament, which records the fact, that any disciple ever had hands laid on him to authorize him to preach the gospel and baptize believers." And "that if no such limitation of the commission is expressly taught, no such limitation could have been intended."-That "to proclaim the good news for the salvation of sinners is so manifestly a moral duty, as to need no positive statute to make it obligatory on all the disciples." And the second essay comes to this conclusion: 1st. That "ordain means simply appoint; and should have been so rendered." 2d. That "in most cases where it is used in the common version the laying on of hands is manifestly excluded." 3d. That "in none of the cases that have been examined, (and I have omitted no official case in the New Testament that I could find,) is the laying on of hands [570] ever included." Yet you tell us, you would "not be understood to say, that the laying on of hands never accompanied appointment to office in the New Testament;" but only, that you "meant to say, that imposition of hands is not included in the terms ordain and ordination; and, that where they occur in the common version, there is not the slightest evidence that the appointment was ever made by the laying on of hands."

      Well, all this being true, still leaves the matter open to investigation: for the question is not about the propriety of the translation, nor yet whether the laying on of hands be found in connexion with the word "ordain," when used in the common version with respect to official appointments; but only whether evangelists, bishops, and deacons were not ordinarily so appointed. We say ordinarily; that is, according to the settled order of the apostolic churches. We know there must be churches, before there can be any church order; and also, that whatever the Apostles practised or ordered for accomplishing the object of their mission, before any churches were formed, or where there were none, was perfectly just and right. To return, to the question at issue--that is, Were not Evangelists, Bishops, and Deacons ordinarily appointed by the imposition of hands, with fasting and prayer? We say, Yes, in so far as the churches were immediately concerned in their ordination: that is, when they either received or sent them. It is true, they could only send forth evangelists, not bishops and deacons; for these always bore a special official relation only to the churches wherein they were appointed.

      Now for the proof. See Acts vi. 6. for the first appointment of deacons; and Acts xiv. 23. for the first recorded ordination of Elders or Bishops. But here there is no mention made of the imposition of hands, but only of an election by suffrage, with the stretching forth of hands;--cheirotonesantes; accompanied with fasting and prayer. And what then? The very persons that did this business, were set apart for it by the imposition of hands, with fasting and prayer, by the church of Antioch, whence they were sent. But to this it is objected, that "the church at Antioch, as a church, had nothing to do with the transaction, so far as the record gives us any information. It was not an act of the body, but of inspired men--'certain prophets and teachers'--appertaining to the body." Well, certainly in every organized body, the official members transact the special business for which they are set apart in the body. Consequently, when there are prophets and teachers in any church, it behooves them to take the lead in the public social exercises in the church to which they belong. Nor, indeed, do we ever find any, in the New Testament, taking the lead in the public [571] social exercises of the churches, either in praying or teaching, but official characters; namely, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers. These are the divinely appointed agents and organs of the church, by which its public official business of teaching and ruling is to be performed. Wherefore, any business presented to the church in its collective capacity, must be first or immediately presented to its pastors and teachers, and by and through them to the church. Accordingly we find, Acts xiii. 1-3., that "there were in the church which was at Antioch, certain pastors and teachers:" that "as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit 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." So much for their mission by and from the church of Antioch; which, when they had accomplished by preaching the gospel first in the Isle of Cyprus, and afterwards in the cities of Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in Pisidia, and in Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and had converted many, and ordained them elders in every church, with prayer and fasting, they returned "to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God, for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done, by them; and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. And there they abode a long time with the disciples." Thus begun and ended the first church mission to the Gentiles.

      But still it is objected to the ordination under our immediate consideration, Acts xiv., 23., that there is no mention made of the laying on of hands. True, but what does that prove? That because the imposition of hands is not mentioned, as well as fasting and prayer, therefore it was not practised upon that occasion? As well might it be argued, that none of the converts made during this mission were baptized; because Paul, in his first sermon, recorded upon this occasion, delivered in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, concludes without mention of baptism, saying, "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."--And because it is not so much as once mentioned in the records of the whole of this very successful tour. But if the laying on of hands, with prayer and fasting, be not the divinely appointed manner of setting apart certain persons to special stated offices in the church, why do we find it used in the first appointment of deacons, Acts vi. 6.? Or why the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, I Tim, iv. 14.? Or [572] why the caution to Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man? And if all the disciples be bound by a moral necessity to preach and baptize, why all the special directions given to Timothy and Titus about choosing and ordaining fit persons for teaching and ruling in the churches?--"faithful men, that should be able to teach others"--men of character and standing, "having a good report of them that are without"--"not novices, lest being lifted up with pride, they should fall into the condemnation of the devil"? &c. &c. Why all this ado about electing and ordaining duly qualified persons, if every disciple, as such, be a preacher, a teacher, a baptist, by a moral necessity? But we know, that the whole body is neither eye, nor ear, nor tongue; and that all the members have not the same office: see Rom. xii. 4.

      The objection in your first essay, against the application of 1 Tim. iv. 14. to an official ordination, because it is said to have conferred a special gift, appears quite irrelevant; for surely, the putting of one in possession of an honorable office may be justly styled a gift or favor. Besides, it appears that Timothy received the gift of the Spirit by the laying on of Paul's hands; see 2 Tim. i. 6. Now that the laying on of Paul's hands had an immediate respect to his reception of the Holy Spirit is evident, not only from the uniform intention and effect of the Apostles' hands upon baptized believers, as such: see Acts viii. 14-17.; but also, from the immediate contextual connexion in which we find it, 1 Tim. i. 6-18, and ii. 1-7. The whole of which taken together, is to excite Timothy to courage and constancy in the endurance of all manner of hardships in the persevering and faithful discharge of all the duties of his office. Indeed, this is evidently the proper and primary intention of this epistle, which was written by the Apostle in confinement, under that most ruthless tyrant Nero, and in the near prospect of an ignominious death. Wherefore he commences with such considerations, as would have the most direct and powerful tendency to inspire Timothy with fortitude, for the faithful discharge of all his official duties in the face of all opposition; putting him in mind of the special advantages he enjoyed from his pious parents; and from his early acquaintance with the Apostle himself; who salutes him as a "dearly beloved son"--as his "own son in the faith:" reminding him of the special favor he had received at his hands;--of that gift of God which he thus enjoyed; even "the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." But, in the fourth chapter of the preceding epistle, where the Apostle speaks of the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, he has evidently a direct and immediate respect to the constant, diligent, and faithful performance of all his official duties respectively: and not to the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit, which he received by [573] the imposition of the Apostle's hands; saying, ver. 13-16., "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." Thus was Timothy excited to the due and faithful discharge of all his official duties; one of which was, as we learn from the 22d verse of the 5th chapter, to "lay hands suddenly on no man," that he might not be a partaker of other men's sins, by ordaining unqualified persons, contrary to the directions contained in the 3d chapter; and thus, by countenancing such, become a partaker of their evil deeds. 2 John v. 11. And that it was one of the official duties of evangelists to ordain bishops and deacons, the following scriptures taken together demonstrably prove. See 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15., and v. 22., with 2 Tim. ii. 2., and Titus i. 5-9. "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."--"Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be a partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."--"And the things that thou hast heard of me among in any witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."--"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, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."

      Upon the whole, for what other purpose could the imposition of the hands of evangelists and presbyters, mentioned in 1 Tim. iv. 14., and v. 22., be intended, if not for the purpose of ordination to some special official business, to the performance of which the persons were not previously bound, by the common ties of moral obligation? For the communication of spiritual gifts by the imposition of hands, that is, conferring miraculous powers,--(not simply the working of miracles,)--was peculiar to the Apostles. And even in the cases of official ordination, in which the Apostles were concerned, recorded [674] Acts vi. 6., and xiii. 3., there was no communication of spiritual gifts; for both the ordainers and the ordained were previously filled with the Holy Spirit. For what purpose, then, were the ordained thus set apart? We answer, For a peculiar business--for a special work--to which, in neither case, the ordained were previously bound by the common ties of moral obligation: see Acts vi. 3., and xiv. 26.--the former of which reads thus: "Brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business." The latter thus: "And thence they sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God, for the work which they fulfilled." Hence it is evident, that in both cases, the appointment was purely for official purposes.

            Respected brother, yours very respectfully,

THOMAS CAMPBELL.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (December 1839): 569-575.]

      Thomas Campbell's "Remarks upon the Above [James Shannon's 'Ordination']" was first published in The Millennial Harbinger, New Series, Vol. 3, No. 12, December 1839. The electronic version of the essay has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of The Millennial Harbinger, ed. Alexander Campbell (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1839), pp. 569-575. James Shannon's two-part essay "Ordination" was published in the November and December issues of The Millennial Harbinger, pp. 536-541; 566-569.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. I have let stand variations and inconsistencies in the author's (or editor's) use of italics, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling in the essay. Emendations are as follows:

 Page       Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 James Shannon's "Ordination--No. I."
 p. 537:    exclnsively [ exclusively
 p. 538:    approba- [ approbation
 p. 539:    abroad,' And [ abroad.' And
 p. 540:    sufflicient [ sufficient

 James Shannon's "Ordination--No. II."
 p. 567:    simply appointment. [ simply appointment.*
            aud its derivative [ and its derivative
 p. 569:    (and translatad [ (and translated

 Thomas Campbell's "Remarks upon the Above."
 p. 570:    immutable  The [ immutable. The
 p. 573:    all the dirciples [ all the disciples
            be bouud [ be bound
 p. 575:    behave theelf [ behave thyself
            who chall [ who shall
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 12 March 1998.
Updated 9 July 2003.