Maclear and Williams on Article XXIII: Of Ministering in the Congregation

i. Connection. Having dealt with the constitution and authority of the Church, as also with the channels through which the voice of the Church is made known, the Articles proceed to speak of the Ministers of the Church, and to lay down the necessity of their having a definite call and mission. This came out more clearly in the original title of the Article, ” Nemo in Ecclesia ministret nisi vocatus,” “no man may minister in the congregation, except he be called.”

ii. Source. The Article is founded on the Fourteenth Article of the Confession of Augsburg1, which states that “no one ought to preach or administer the Sacraments publicly in Church, who is not rightly called.” This expres-

sion has been adopted in our Article, but the word “rite,” duly or rightly, has been altered to “legitime,” lawfully, and ” missus,” sent, has been added to called, so that the sentence now runs, “before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.”

iii. Object. As originally drawn up the Article had for its object to controvert the teaching of the Anabaptists, who maintained that anyone, believing himself called to the work of the Ministry, had a right to exercise his functions as a preacher in defiance of all Church-order or authority. Thus we are told that “a bricklayer taking upon him the office of preaching, affirmed he might law- fully do it, though he were not called thereunto by the Church. For Spiritus ubi vult spiral”

iv. Analysis. The Article contains two proposi- tions : —

(a) That no man may assume the office of the

Ministry without a lawful call and mission; (/3) That such calling and mission can only be given by those “who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard2.” Thus it is distinctly laid down that the Church is an organized body, and that it is separated from those aggregates of individuals, to whom Christianity is a so- called ” spiritual ” matter only. It is true that there is no

2 Or as it is expressed in the Fourth quod nemo debeat publice docere, aut of the Eleven Articles of 1559, “It Sacramentaadministrare, nisi rite voca- is not lawful for any man to take upon tus, et quidem ab his, penes quos in him any office or ministry, either ec- Ecclesia, juxta verbum Dei et leges clesiastical or secular, but such only ac consuetudines uniuscujusque regio- as are lawfully thereunto called by nis, jus est vocandi et admittendi.”

definition here either of the nature of Ordination or of the lawful authority essential to call and mission. But this definition is practically supplied by the Ordinal, which really interprets the meaning of the Article, and expresses the mind of its compilers on the subject.

v. The Principle of Order in the Old Testament. Respecting the first of these two propositions it is in truth a matter of common sense, which applies not only to Church Order, but to any order in Church or State. If any one may take upon himself the office of a governor at his own will, and exercise the same at his own discretion, the most complete disorder must be the inevitable result. Hence it is not surprising that under the Jewish Law we find the principle of order recognised with the utmost carefulness. The whole nation indeed was regarded as dedicated to God and as constituting His people1, yet only one tribe was allowed to perform priestly offices before Him, and of that tribe only one family, the family of Aaron, might hold the office of high priest. Any violation of this enactment was severely punished, as in the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. xvi.), of Saul when he offered sacrifice at Gilgal instead of waiting for Samuel (1 Sam. xiii), of Uzziah, when he ventured to burn incense in the Sanctuary (2 Chron. xxvi. 16 — 19).

vi. In the New Testament, again, we find our Lord waiting upwards of thirty years in seclusion and retirement before He enters upon His public ministry2, and He does not enter upon it then till the Holy Spirit has descended upon Him at His Baptism, and He has received His commission from the Father visibly acknowledging Him

[…]

ii. 9).

2 Comp. Matt. iii. 13; Mark i. 9; Luke iii. 23.

and saying, Thou art My beloved Son ; in Thee I am well pleased (Luke iii. 22). Even He glorified not Himself to be made a High Priest (Heb. v. 5)1. Again, during His Ministry He did not give to every one indiscriminately His commission to preach and to baptize. He Himself after a long night of prayer chose the Apostles (Luke vi. 12, 13), and to their training He devoted all His energies. He Himself also appointed seventy otlters, and sent tltem two and two before His face into every city and place, whither He Himself was about to come (Luke x. 1). Thus during His life on earth there were three orders2,

1. Our Lord3,

2. The Twelve,

3. The Seventy.

vii. Apostolic Times. After the Ascension the same principle of order was still recognised by those whom our Lord had left to represent Him4. In the Acts and the Epistles we find in existence three orders, (1) the Apostles, (2) Elders, (3) Deacons5, and in process of time Bishops

[…]

’ Our Blessed Lord, the Source of all grace, is the fountain head of the

Christian Ministry. In His sacred Person He summed up all the offices of the Ministry. Thus in the New Testament He receives the title of Apostle (Heb. iii. 1); Bishop (1 Pet. ii. 25); Priest (Heb. v. 6); Deacon (Luke xxii. 27).

4 How truly He intended that they should be His representatives in the world is plain from His own declara- tion, He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that rejecteth you rejecteth Me, and lie that rejecteth Me rejecteth Him that sent Me, Luke x. 16.

6 Acts vi. 1 — 6. We soon find the diaconate in the Gentile churches also (Rom. xii. 7), and a deaconess, no doubt for the ministrations to the half- secluded women of a Greek town, in the Church at Cenchrea; (Rom. xvi. 1). That the office mentioned in Acts vi.

were chosen out of the general body of Elders for definite localities1 and special spheres of work, and the three orders were in course of time again reproduced under the names of (1) Bishops, (2) Presbyters, (3) Deacons. Thus from the earliest twilight of the Christian dawn down to the present day the principle of order has been universally recognised, and we can find no trace of persons being allowed at random or on their own initiative to exercise spiritual functions.

viii. Our Lord’s sense of Mission. The second proposition advanced in the Article is that calling and mission can only be given to the Clergy by those who have public authority in the Church to do so. This principle has been recognised from the beginning. Even Christ, as we have just seen, glorified not Himself to be made a High Priest (Heb. v. 5), and again and again we find Him dwelling on the fact of His divine mission as an animating and inspiring power. This sense of mission does not cease even after His Resurrection. When on the evening of the first Easter Day He revisits the Apostles in the upper room, He bids them carry on not a new, but His commission. As the Father hath sent Ale, He says, even so send I you* (John xx. 21). And just before His

represents the later diaconate is testi- nurse, if not the mother, of episcopacy

fied by the unanimous voice of tradition in the Gentile Churches.” Philippians,

from the earliest times. “Irenoeus, p. 206. “S. James, the Lord’s brother,

the first writer who alludes to the ap- clearly enjoyed in Jerusalem the local

pointment of the Seven, distinctly preeminence and authority (Acts xv.

holds them to have been deacons.” 13; xxi. 18; Gal. i. 19) which justified

Iren. i. 26, 3; iii. \i, 10. Bp Light- later writers in calling him bishop of

foot, Philippians, p. 1 88. Jerusalem ; and the Apostolic autho-

1 In promoting the rise of the epis- rity of S. John was probably in his

copate, which slept in the Apostolate, latter days so far localized in Ephesus

the example of the presidency exercised and its neighbourhood that we may

by S. James at Jerusalem must have well call him bishop of that city.”

had great effect in Syria. An early Cheetham’s Church History, p. 31.

tradition ascribes a special agency in 2 Kadus a.H<rTa\K4 /xe 6 liar-qp,

this matter to the Apostle S. John, K&yto Trtnirw v/nds. The tense here used

who is said to have appointed bishops has an emphasis of its own. He says

in the Churches of Asia Minor — “Asia not as the Father sent Me, as though

Minor was,” says Bp Lightfoot, “the He was speaking of something past,

Ascension He utters His last command. All autlwrity hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. . .and lo, I am with you all tlie days, even unto the end of the world (Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20). Thus, then, as the Father sent the Son, so the Son Himself sent the Apostles.

ix. The Apostles also, when the time came, sent and commissioned those who succeeded them. We do not read in the New Testament that either Timothy or Titus derived their authority to act at Ephesus and Crete by delegation from below. As, when the Lord Jesus was on earth, He alone ordained1, so after His Ascension the Apostles acted as the ministers of Ordination2. S. Paul gives to Timothy and Titus their commission. He ordains them (2 Tim. i. 6) ; he locates the one in the capital of Roman Asia (1 Tim. i. 3); he assigns to the other the island of Crete (Tit. i. 5). In these respective districts he authorises them to execute some of the same functions3 which he had himself exercised in his own wider sphere of labour. He clothes them with power to ordain (1 Tim. hi. 1 — 13; Tit. i. 5); to set in order the public services (1 Tim. ii. 1, 2 &c); to execute discipline (1 Tim. v. 17); to rebuke, exhort, admonish those that erred (2 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. i. 13); and to provide in their turn for a due succession of faithful men in the office of teaching (2 Tim. ii. 2). In one place,

but as the Father hath sent Me. He speaks of His Mission as a thing still present. He is 6 ’ Att6o-to\os. They are airboToKoi. This title is ascribed to Him in Heb. iii. i : KaTavo-qaare rbv ’ AtrbaTohov (cat ‘Apxiepia Trjs ofioKo- ylas iiixwv ‘1t]<tow, Consider Him who occupies the double position of envoy from God and High Priest. In Christ

the functions of Moses and Aaron are combined, each in an infinitely loftier form. See Bp Westcott, in toe.

1 See Matt, x; Luke x; John xx. SI.

2 Except in the case of S. Matthias and S. Paul, who were called to the Apostleship by Christ Himself.

3 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. vii. 6. 3.

28S

indeed, S. Paul specially reminds Timothy how grace for the Ministry had been given him1 by the laying on of Apostolic hands (2 Tim. i. 6)2.

x. Sub-Apostolic times. When we pass from Apos- tolic to Sub-Apostolic times we find that within the life- time of those who had learned from the Apostles in person, it had come to be recognised that no Church could be complete without the Three Orders of the Ministry. “The Apostles,” writes Clemens Romanus, “received the Gospel 3 for us from the Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge they went forth, …and preaching every- where in country and town they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe4.” ” Give ye heed to the Bishop,” writes Ignatius, “that God also

3 “Though the New Testament itself contains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a localized episcopate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from the moveable

episcopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus, and by Titus in Crete, yet there is satisfactory evidence of its development in the later years of the Apostolic age,… and that in the early years of the second century the episco- pate was widely spread and had taken firm root, more especially in Asia Minor and Syria. If the evidence on which its extension in the regions East ofthe^gean at this period be resisted, I am at a loss to understand what sin- gle fact relating to the history of the Christian Church during the first half of the second century can be regarded as established ; for the testimony in favour of this spread of the episcopate is more abundant and more varied than for any other institution or event during this period, so far as I can recollect.” Bp Lightfoot’s Epistles of S. Ignatius, i. pp. 376, 377.

may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the Bishop, the Presbyters, the Deacons. May it be granted to me to have my portion with them in the presence of God1.” Irenaeus speaks distinctly of successions of presbyters in the Church from the time of the Apostles, and recounts the succession of Bishops at Rome from S. Peter and S. Paul, and at Smyrna from S. Polycarp2. Tertullian enumerates together the three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and asserts that the two latter could baptize, but not without the authority of the Bishop3. From the time of Origen the distinction of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons admits of no question, and it may be re- garded as certain that in the earliest ages, in every quarter of the world whither the Church had penetrated, in every city there was one chief Presbyter, presiding over the Clergy of that city and its suburb (Trapoacla), and that to him was committed the power of Ordination, or, in the language of the Article, he had ” publick authority given unto him in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard4.”

xi. View of the English Church. In the English Church it has ever been held that the Bishop is the proper Minister of Ordination, and this primitive rule has never been infringed. In the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, put forth A.D. 1543, we find the

Shepherd of Hernias describes as the Episcopus, dehinc presbyteri et dia-

squared stones of the great building coni ; non tamen sine Episcopi auc-

[…]

Irenaeus, adv. Heer. iii. 1. In 4 Bishop Browne, On the Articles,

another place he says, “Habemus ad- p. 555. The expression “the Con-

numerare eos, qui ab Apostolis insti- gregation” here used is equivalent to

tuti sunt Episcopi in ecclesiis, et sue- “the Church,” as is clear from the

cessores eorum usque ad nos.” Adv. Latin of the Article, where it is trans-

Hier. iii. 3. lated by ” Ecclesia.” 3 “Dandi (baptismum) quidem ha-

strongest language used concerning “Order” as “the gift or grace of Ministration in Christ’s Church, given of God to Christian men by the consecration and imposition of the bishop’s hands, and concerning a continual succession even to the end of the world.” In the Catechism he put forth in A.D. 1548 Cranmer dwells strongly on Episcopal Ordination and the Power of the Keys. The Ordinal appeared in 1549, and in it it is declared that “from the Apostles’ times, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; to which none were admitted but “by Public Prayer, with Impo- sition of Hands1.” This Ordinal is expressly sanctioned and authorized not only as part of the Book of Common Prayer, but also by the xxxvith Article, and the Preface to it not only enjoins Episcopal Ordination, but lays it down that the offices of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon were “evermore had in such reverent 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 same2.”

1 The Reformatio Legum, published in 1552, claims for the three Orders Scriptural authority and Divine ap- pointment, and for bishops the power of jurisdiction and ordination.

2 ” I had the privilege of spending some days with Bishop Lightfoot at Auckland Castle shortly before his death, and he then told me that the study of the early records of Christi- anity had left no doubt whatever in his mind as to the Apostolic — which, in fact, meant the Divine — origin of Episcopacy, although with that large

charity and gentleness which charac- terized him, he would not presume to pass any judgment on Christian com- munities differently organized. ‘To their own Master,’ he said, ‘they stand or fall. He knows what allow- ance to make for a multitude of things which are hidden from me. Our plain duty is to guard faithfully what has been committed to us, and leave others to Him who judgeth righteously’.” Canon MacColl, Preface to Christianity in relation to Science and Morals, pp. xxxvi, xxxvii.

Notes

• ” De Ordine Ecclesiastico docent, nisi rite vocatus.” Hardwick, Hist. quod nemo debeat in Ecclesia publice Articles, p. 20. docere, aut Sacramenta administrare,
• See Hardwick, Hist. Articles, p. their high authorities, according to the 102 n. ed. 1890, quoting Huggard’s ordinances of this realm.” In the Displaying of the Protestantes, sign. B. xiii. Articles of 1538 the xth Article iii. ran : ” De Ministris Eccleske docemus,
• Just as under the Mosaic economy there were (1) the High Priest, (2) the Priests, (3) the Levites. ” Quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitse in Templo, hoc sibi Episcopi, et Presbyteri, et Diaconi, vindicent in Ecclesia.” S. Hieron. Ep. cxlvi. ad Evag.
• “With less permanence but per- haps greater authority, the position occupied by these Apostolic delegates fairly represents the functions of the bishop early in the second century. They were in fact the link between the Apostle whose superintendence was occasional and general, and the bishop who exercised a permanent supervision over an individual congre- gation.” Bp Lightfoot’s Philippians, p. 199.
• The Apostles had, however, re- ceived no power from Christ to confer the Apostolate upon others; the vo- cation and bestowal came direct from God. Comp. Dollinger, First Age 0/ the Church, i. pp. 91 sqq. : Eng. ed.
• Clem. Rom. i Ep. ad Cor. c. 42. Bp Lightfoot’s translation.
• Ignatius, ad Polyc. c. 6. The bet jus summus Sacerdos, qui est