Green on Article XXIII: Of Ministering in the Congregation

1 The word ‘ Congregation ’ is evidently used here in the same sense as in Article XIX. (where see notes). It should be remarked that the Latin version has ‘Ecclesia’ ; cf. Deut. xxiii. 1, 2, where the Vulgate gives ‘Ecclesia’ as the equivalent of the word denoting the whole assembly of Israel as the people of God. ’E/c/cXT/cn’a is thus used in the New Testament in Acts vii. 38, Heb. xii. 23. We may illustrate from the wording of CANON 55 : —

“ Christ’s Holy Catholic Church ; i.e., the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world.”

§ 2.— OBJECT.

The Article is evidently directed against the error of those who maintained that any one believing himself called to the work of the Ministry was bound to exercise the functions of a Minister in defiance of all Church Authority.

§ 3. — EXPOSITION.

(1.) The Distinction between Clergy and Laity.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation.

That men may enjoy the blessings of the Gospel it must first be preached to them. Preachers, therefore, must be sent (Rom. x. 15). Thus Christ sent forth His Apostles (S. J ohn xx. 21); and the Mission was handed on by them to others, so that the setting apart of certain members with authority to preach the Word publicly, and to be her ministers in sacred ordinances, dates from the very begin¬ ning of the Church’s existence (Acts xiii. 1—3, xiv. 23 ; Eph. iv. II, 12 ; Phil. i. 1). Such ministers of the Church are spoken of in the New Testament as “ ambassadors of Christ” (2 Cor. v. 20), “ministers of Christ” (1 Cor. iv. 1), or “ of God ” (2 Cor. vi. 4), and “ stewards of the mysteries of God ” (1 Cor. iv. 1 : cf. Col. i. 25 ; Tit. i. 7) ; they cannot of themselves assume authority as such, but must be called to the office by God Himself (Acts xx.28 ; Heb. v. 4).

(2.) The Need of Ordination for the Clergy.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same.

We find in the New Testament : —

(a) That election by the people did not constitute a man a minister. See, e.g.. Acts vi. 5, 6, where, after the Seven Deacons had been chosen by the whole body of the brethren, we read that they were admitted to their office by the im¬ position of the Apostles’ hands.

(b) Neither did the express inward call of the Holy Spirit itself alone suffice. See Acts xiii. 2, 3, where we have the account of the Ordination of SS. Barnabas and Paul by imposition of hands in obedience to a Divine command,

although they had already received the call of the Holy Spirit.

( c ) We gather, therefore, that, from the very foundation of the Church, Ordination has been considered necessary. See the passages above quoted, and notice especially how, when the Apostles themselves were passing away from the earth, provision was made for the permanence of a duly ordained ministry1 (i Tim. iii., iv. 14, v. 22; 2 Tim. i. 6, ii. 2; Tit. i. 5).2 Thus the Threefold Ministry has come down to us by succession from the Apostles.

Cf. the Preface to the Ordinal : —

“It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scrip¬ ture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church : Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same ; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority.”

1 Several passages in the Epistle of S. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (written 92-96 A.D.) are important in this connection : —

[…]

2 In the Pastoral Epistles we may trace the development of the Threefold Ministry. Two grades of ministers of the Church are mentioned —

(i.) dLaKbvoL (1 Tim. iii. 8) ;

(ii.) xpeafivTepoL, or exiaKoxoi (1 Tim. iii. 1); both these names being indiffe¬ rently used for holders of one and the same office. Cf. Tit. i. 5-7 ;

Acts xx. 17, 28.

Then (iii.) above these two orders we have the office held by Timothy and Titus at Ephesus and Crete respectively, with powers delegated by the Apostle S. Paul to ordain ministers (1 Tim. v. 22 ; Tit. i. 5), to take measures for en¬ suring the teaching of sound doctrine (1 Tim. i. 3, iv. 6, 13, 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 13, ii. 2, iv. 2-4 ; Tit. i. 9, 13, ii. 1, 2, 15), to administer discipline (1 Tim. iii. 10, v. ; Tit. iii. 10), and to provide for the due order of the Church (1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Tit. i. 5). No official title is given to Timothy and Titus ; but to this third and highest order the name bxuKbxos was afterwards transferred.

(3.) Whom are we to consider Lawfully Ordained?

Those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which he chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

The former part of the Article lays it down that Ministers must not be self-appointed ; in this last clause it is declared that they must be appointed by those who have authority in the Church for this purpose ; those are to be considered as lawfully ordained who are chosen and called by men who have public authority. It will be noticed that in the Latin text the words “co-optati et adsciti” correspond to the English “chosen and called”; both Latin words imply that Ministers must be admitted to their office by those who are themselves Ministers.

“By men who have public authority given unto them1 in the Congregation ” ; i.e., by the Bishops. Episcopal Ordination is the necessary qualification in order to the exercising of Ministerial functions in the Church of England.

See the Preface to the Ordinal : —

“And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be con¬ tinued, and reverently used and esteemed, in the [United] Church of England [and Ireland] ; no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the [United] Church of England [and Ireland], or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination.”

We see in the adoption of the Episcopal form of Government by the Church Universal from the earliest times the guiding

1 The wording of the Article is somewhat vague here. We shall not he sur¬ prised at this if we recollect that the text still stands exactly as composed in 1552, when it was based upon, or drawn up with reference to, a previous Article which was the outcome of conferences between English and Lutheran divines (see § 1 above). The English Church itself has always held fast to the Epis¬ copal government of the Church, and insisted on the necessity of Episcopal Ordination, in this respect retaining its organic unity with the pre-Reformation Church, and parting company with foreign Reformers, both Lutheran and Swiss. Certain individual bishops, who sympathised rather with the polity of Continental Reformed bodies than with the Order of the English Church, may have been guilty of irregularities ( e.g ., Archbishop Grindal, in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, licensed a certain John Morrison to officiate in England, who had only received Presby¬ terian orders in Scotland), but still the Rule of the Church in this country has always been the same.

hand of the Holy Spirit. The first serious departure from it was owing to the action of certain so-called Reformers in some countries ( e.g ., in Germany, Geneva, and Scotland) in the six¬ teenth century.1 Since that time we have had ample proof that Gospel Truth and the Divinely-appointed Constitution of the Church stand or fall together ; where the latter is departed from the first is soon tampered with, or imperfectly held.

1 It was not the wish of the earlier generation of Lutheran Reformers to abandon the historic constitution of the Church. Cf. Melancthon, Apol. Augsburg Conf., VII. xiv. 23, 24 : —

“Hac de re in hoc conventu (viz. : at Augsburg) saepe testati sumus, nos summa voluntate cupere conservare politiam ecclesiasticam, et gradus in ecclesia factos etiam humana auctoritate… . Porro hie iterum volumus testatum, nos libenter conservaturos esse ecclesiasticam et canonicam politiam, si modo episcopi desinant in nostras ecclesias saevire.”

Owing to the hostility of the bishops the Lutheran Reformers were unable to secure the episcopal succession, and we find accordingly that episcopacy was gradually abandoned in those States which had espoused the cause of the Reformation. It was suppressed in Hesse in 1526, and in Denmark in 1536, but lingered in Prussia until 1 587 ; while in Sweden, where the Reformation was carried out on Lutheran lines, the old episcopal arrangements were con¬ tinued and remain to the present day.

In Switzerland, Zwingli, whose tendencies were at once Erastian and republican, abandoned episcopacy from the first, framing his ecclesiastical polity upon the republican model of the civil government. Calvin, on the other hand, not only expressed a willingness to recognise the authority of the bishops (when exercised without tyranny), but even declared that those who refuse obedience to such authority are worthy of anathema : —

“Itaque quicquid jubent (scil. episcopi) ac praescribunt, id necessario observandum esse contendunt a populo Christiano : qui violaverit, eum duplicis inobedientiae reum esse, quod Deo et ecclesiae sit rebellis. Sane si veri episcopi essent, aliquid eis in hac parte auctoritatis tribuerem, non quantum sibi postulant, sed quantum ad politiam ecclesiae rite ordinandam requiritur ” (Institutes, IV. x. 6).

“ Talem nobis hierarchiam si exhibeant in qua sic emineant episcopi, ut Christo subesse non recusent, ut ab illo tanquam ab unico capite pendeant et ad ipsum referantur … turn vero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, si qui erunt, qui non earn reverentur, summaque obedientia observant ” (De Necessitate Reform. Eccles.).