Chapter XIII (continued, part 3)
"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.
7. Significance of Laying on of Hands
[Form of Gov., chap. xiii., sec. iv.—Digest of 1873, p. 346.]
The Committee of Bills and Overtures reported an overture from the Presbytery of South Alabama on the subject of ordaining elders and deacons with the imposition of hands. The committee recommended
that it be left to the discretion of each Church session to determine the mode of ordination in this respect.
Under the old dispensation and in the Apostolic Church, the imposition of hands was used on all solemn occasions to signify the idea of communication. It is a fitting and becoming ceremony whenever the rights and privileges of a sacred office are conferred; but there is evidently no necessity or peculiar importance to be attached to it. There would seem to be something of the leaven of the Popish doctrine of the communication of a mysterious influence, producing the indelible impress of orders, still lurking in the minds of some of our brethren. If grace, in the sense of divine influence, was given by the laying on of hands, then indeed, it would be a serious question when that ceremony should be used. But if grace, in such connection, means what it often means in Scripture, and in the language of the English Reformers, office, considered as a gift; then it is obviously a matter of indifference, whether those in authority express their purpose of conferring a certain office by words or signs, or by both.
8. Installation not essential to Validity of Eldership
[Form of Gov., chap. xiii., sec's. iii–v.—comp. Digest of 1873, pp. 347,
348.]
[Judicial.] Case no. 3. In this case it appears that the session of the Church of Muncy arraigned General —— on three charges. On two of these he was condemned; but on the first charge, the ruling elders of the Church being interested, the case was referred to the Presbytery of Northumberland, who tried and condemned him on the first
charge. The Synod of Philadelphia afterwards, on the alleged grounds that one of the ruling elders had not been installed, and also that the session were interested personally in the case, declared the whole proceedings null and void. The Rev. Messrs. Waller and Gibson now complain of the said action of Synod; and Mr. Smalley appeals.
The only point of general interest involved in this case is, whether installation is essential to constitute a man a ruling elder in any congregation. The affirmative was strenuously asserted by several members of the Synod. The negative was as strongly affirmed by several members of the Assembly. Judge Leavitt stated, "that if installation were necessary, he himself was not a ruling elder, and had no right to a seat in the Assembly." Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, made the same statement respecting his own position. "He had never heard, indeed, the word installation applied to ruling elders until yesterday." Similar statements were made by others. Mr. Waller stated that "there were five uninstalled ruling elders at his Presbytery last fall. Did that destroy the Presbytery?" The Assembly refused to sustain the appeal and complaint. The vote stood—sustain, 52: not sustain, 100; sustain in part, 14. This might seem to imply that the Assembly intended to sanction the doctrine of the necessity of installation. To avoid that inference, the Rev. Mr. Shotwell moved that a committee be appointed to bring in a minute expressing the judgment of the Assembly in the case. Dr. Humphrey "thought this important, inasmuch as the vote of the morning had placed many members in a very equivocal position. Are these men," he asked, "no longer ruling elders?" The motion was carried. The committee subsequently reported the following minute, which was adopted, viz.
The Committee appointed to prepare a minute in relation to the action of the Assembly in Judicial case No. 3, respectfully
recommend the passage of the following resolutions, to prevent on the one hand the bad effects of former irregularities in the installation of ruling elders, and on the other hand to avoid such irregularities in future.
1. Resolved, That any ruling elder, regularly ordained or installed in one church, and subsequently elected to the sacred office in another church, and who has heretofore, pursuant to such election, served as a ruling elder in such other church, without objection, shall be presumed to have been duly installed therein, and his right to act shall not be now questioned.
2. Resolved, That when a ruling elder shall hereafter be elected to the same office in a church other than that in which he has been ordained, the minister and session are hereby enjoined formally to install him.
3. Resolved, That the Assembly hereby declare that the existing law of the Church as to the mode of installation is as follows:—After sermon, the minister shall speak of the office of ruling elders, as in case of ordination, and shall then propose to the ruling elder elect, in the presence of the congregation, the following questions: "Do you accept the office of ruling elder in this congregation, and promise faithfully to perform all the duties thereof?" "Do you promise to study the peace, unity, and purity of the Church?" The ruling elder elect having answered these questions in the affirmative, the minister shall ask the members of the church whether they accept him, as in cases of ordination. The members of the church having answered in the affirmative, by holding up their right hands, the minister shall declare him a ruling elder of the church; and accompany this act by an exhortation, prayer, and other proceedings, as he may deem suitable and expedient.
Turrettin remarks, that in reference to ordination and the appointment of church officers, we must distinguish between "essential, and accidentals." To make forms essential is the essence of formalistic ritualism, and utterly subversive of God's law, and of the best interests of the State and of the Church. What is marriage but the covenant between one man and one woman to live together as man and wife, according to God's ordinance? Wherever this covenant is made, there, in the sight of God, and in fero conscientiœ, is marriage. Different States have enacted different laws prescribing the forms or circumstances which should attend this contract and the modes in which it shall be attested; and it is the duty of all living under such laws to conform to them. But suppose that from ignorance or recklessness any of them are neglected, is the contract null and void? To answer in the affirmative is to trample the law of God under foot. For a long time the laws of England required that all marriages should be solemnized in church by an episcopally ordained minister, and within canonical hours. While these laws were in force, it was the duty of all Englishmen to obey them. But suppose any man was married by a Presbyterian minister, after twelve o'clock, noon, would his marriage in the sight of God be void, and would it be pronounced void by the civil courts, without doing violence to the divine law? In like manner, ordination is the declaration of the judgment of the Church, through its appointed agents, that a certain man is called to the ministry. The Church directs that this judgment shall be signified in a certain way, and with certain prescribed solemnities, such as laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Suppose any of these prescribed formalities are neglected; suppose the presbytery omit the laying on of hands, (as we have known very recently to be done,) is the ordination void? No man but a Papist or Puseyite would answer, Yes. In the case of a ruling elder, the choice of the church, and the consent of the person chosen, is all that is essential. The rest is ceremonial. Prescribed
forms should be observed; the neglect of them should be censured. But to make them essential is, in our view, to abandon the fundamental principle of Protestantism and of common sense. It would invalidate the acts of half the sessions in the country.
This matter of installation of elders is very much a novelty. We believe it is unknown in the Scottish and Continental Churches. We have no objection to it. We are perfectly willing it should be "enjoined," and we think the injunction ought to be complied with; but we must renounce our Protestantism before we can believe that an uninstalled elder is no elder. Some years since, an Episcopalian in Ireland was married to a Presbyterian woman, the rite being solemnized by a Presbyterian minister, whereas the law at that time required that when either party belonged to the Episcopal Church, the officiating clergyman should be an Episcopalian. The man repudiated his wife, and made her children bastards. In some of our States the law requires a marriage license. A young girl, ignorant of that fact, is married without a license, and her marriage is pronounced void. Is this right? Certainly it is, if the neglect of prescribed forms be allowed to vitiate solemn contracts. Mr. Waller asserted "that Mr. Smalley, the ruling elder in question, was unanimously elected, after due and sufficient notice," and was immediately invited to take his seat in the session, and did so. This was almost a month before the trial. Any principle which would invalidate his official acts would justify the repudiation of a wife under the circumstances just stated. If a man sells an estate, and receives the money for it, and then refuses to recognize it because of technical defect in the papers, it would be universally considered an outrage, because everything essential to a sale had been done, and the failure was in unessential and variable formalities. However, therefore, we may be disposed to insist on certain forms attending
induction into Church offices, do not let us do as Romanists do, exalt forms into substance.
9. The Right of Elders to exhort and to expound the Scriptures
[Form of Gov., chap. v.—Digest of 1873, p. 117.]
Dr. Waddel said he desired to bring up a paper from the Tombeckbee Presbytery, which he had been requested by the delegate from that Presbytery to bring before the Assembly, as the delegate himself had failed to arrive. It could not legally come before the Assembly he knew, but might do so in an informal way, by consent of the Assembly. It was a request of the Presbytery to the Assembly to review its former deliverance on the subject of ruling elders conducting religious service and expounding the Scriptures.
Dr. Waddel moved that the paper be received by the Assembly. Dr. Adger seconded this resolution in order to offer an amendment to it, as follows: "Whereas, the last Assembly, near the close of its meetings, and probably therefore, with some degree of haste, in adopting the report of their Committee on the Records of the Synod of Mississippi, did sanction the principle that a ruling elder, in the absence of the pastor, may read the Scriptures and explain them, and endeavour to enforce the truth by suitable exhortations; and whereas the notice of this body has been called to the subject by representations on the part of a Presbytery of that Synod, therefore be it resolved by this Assembly, that explaining the Scriptures, and enforcing the truth by exhortation, form no part of the official duty of ruling elders. At the same time it is earnestly recommended by this Assembly, in the language of the twenty-first chapter of our Form of
Government, that every vacant congregation meet together, on the Lord's day, at one or more places, for the purposes of prayer, singing praises, and reading the Holy Scriptures, together with the works of such approved divines as the Presbytery in whose bounds they are may recommend, and they may be able to procure: and that the elders or deacons be the persons who shall preside, and select the portions of Scriptures and of the other books to be read, and to see that the whole be conducted in a becoming and orderly way."
The decision of the Assembly is certainly in accordance with the usage of the Church in all parts of our country with which we are acquainted. In Dr. Green's congregation, in Philadelphia, the elders held weekly meetings in different parts of the city, in which they read the Scriptures and exhorted the people, explaining and applying the portion read. In the French Protestant Churches, where the same pastor serves several congregations, it is customary for him to set one of his elders to supply his place when he is engaged in some other part of his charge. Every head of a Christian family and almost every private member of the Church does more or less of the duty here enjoined. It is hard to see why the elders alone should be debarred the privilege. It would require very stringent laws, and more power than any Assembly possesses, to prevent zealous elders from exhorting sinners to repent and turn unto God and live.
10. Relative Powers of Elders and Deacons
[Form of Gov., chap. vi. Digest of 1873, p. 119.]
Dr. Breckinridge reported the following Overture. Has a Church session any control over the funds in the hands of the deacons for the
poor of the Church? or does the control belong to the deacons? Or what power has the session in the premises? The first of these questions the Committee recommend should he answered in the negative; the second in the affirmative; and the third, by saying that the session may advise as to the use of the funds in the hands of the deacons.
This subject occasioned some little debate, perhaps from the fact that the limitations of the question were not at first perceived. The question was not, which was the governing power, deacons or elders? Nor which had the right to raise and to control the general contributions of the Church? Nor even which body had control over the contributions made specifically for the poor? But simply which had the right to determine on the distribution of money designed for the poor, and already in the hands of the deacons? That is, to decide who shall receive it, and how much should be given to A., and how much to B. The question was thus reduced to a very small point. As soon as the Assembly discovered this, they cut short the debate, and adopted the report of the committee.