In a broader, and in fact its only important sense, or- dination signifies the appointment or designation of a person to a ministerial office, whether with or without attendant ceremonies. The term ordination is derived directlj' from the Latin ordinatio, signifying, with ref- erence to things or affairs, a setting in order, an estab- lishment, an edict, and with reference to men, an ap- pointment to office. It is used in all languages derived from the Latin, and chiefly in application to this one idea of induction to the ministerial office. As used in the English language, the term is not fixed and invariable in its signification. In fact it has many variations of meaning, as it is made to represent the peculiar theories and practices which have prevailed in different periods and churches with reference to the character and effect of ordination ; j'et all these variations of meaning may be harmonized under the general idea of ministerial appointment, whether by the Saviour's command, or through mnlti]ilie(l ceremonies of human devising.
It is but just to consider the subject of ordination one of no small intrinsic interest, since, by the consent and practice of the Christian world, it is an act, or the pe- culiar feature of a series of acts, by which all minis- ters have received their order or office, in distinction from the laity of the Church. Nevertheless much of the prominence w'hich has been given to it in theolog- ical controversy has not arisen from its intrinsic impor- tance, but from the accident of its being a pivotal ques- tion in reference to the dogma of a Imeal apostolical succession, and the consequences supposed to flow through it as a channel of transmitted grace. It has also entered largely into the sacramentarian controver- sies of the past.
Whoever woidd properly comprehend the subject of ordination as now defined should give primary atten- tion to whatever teachings the Scriptures contain re- specting it. Of necessity the Word of God, rightly in- terpreted, is the one source of authority in reference to a subject so closely connected with the establishment of Christ's kingdom upon the earth. Hence any theory or practice that is not sustained by inspired precept or example cannot be regarded as of religious authority, or deserving attention other than as a matter of history or curiosity.
A scriptural investigation of this subject can hardly fail to impress any ingenuous mind with the great sig- nificance of the fact that neither the Lord Jesus Christ nor any of his disciples gave specific commandj or dec- larations in reference to ordination. The facts of the institution of the ministerial office in the Church and of the ordination, in the sense of the appointment, of faithful or believing men to serve in that office, stand forth prominently throughout the New Testament. But the manner in which those facts are stated suggest the inference that ministerial ordination, like the more com- prehensive subject of Church organization itself, was not designed to be a matter of miinite prescription or of constrained uniformity, but rather was to be left open, within the range of certain great principles, to minor
ORDINATION"
412
OKDINATION
variations of detail that might l)e appropriate to the circumstances of the future. Had any jiarticnlar form of ordination been essential to the perpetuity of the Church, the validity of the sacraments, or the salvation of men, it seems but reasonable to infer that the Head of the Church himself would have appointed that spe- cial form, and have given precepts for its continuance. In the absence of any such appointment by the Lord Jesus, we have to ascertain to what extent the apostles became the instructors of the Ciiurch in reference to the subject in question; and, finding in their writings an absence of specific precepts, it is necessar_v to collate the several examples of ordination which they have re- corded, and to draw from them impartial inferences as to their import and bearing upon the future practice of the Church. When once the canon of Scripture is closed nothing remains but to follow the course of his- tory, and to observe how different churches, at different periods, have sought to improve upon the simplicity and godly sincerity of the apostolic practices, and with what results, inclusive of far-reaching corruptions. As the subject essentially demands historic treatment, at- tention is first invited to —
I. The Analogies and Counter- A7ialogies of Judaism. — Many writers, without due consideration, have as- •sumed that Christian ministerial ordination was derived directly from .Judaism, whereas the whole system of in- duction into the office of the .Jewish priesthood is in marked contradistinction to that practiced by Christ and his apostles in reference to the Christian ministry.
1. The consecration of Jewish priests was by means of the anointing oil upon their persons and their gar- ments (see Exod. xxviii, 40, 41 ; xxix, 1, 19, 30; Lev. viii, 12, 30 ; x, 7 ; xxi, 12). The Levites, as assistants to the priests, were consecrated by the sprinkling of the •water of purification, washing their clothes, and the of- fering of sacrifice (Numb, viii, 6-22). The laying on of hands appointed for the Levitical consecration was performed by the people, not as conferring an office or spiritual gifts, but as symbolical of the transmission of their sins to the Levites, who, in turn, transmitted the same by laying their hands upon tlie heads of the bul- locks offered for a sin-offering and a burnt-offering (ver. 10-12).