but a simple confirmation. Once Paul lays hands on disciples that they may receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:6). He also lays hand on Timothy in connection with the presbytery (1 Tim. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 1:6). In the other cases a common disciple lays hands on Paul (Acts 9:17); the prophets and teachers lay hands on Barnabas and Saul and so constitute them apostles so far as man could do that. But the apostles at Jerusalem had nothing to do with it. It was an act of the Church by means of those prophets and teachers (Acts 13:3). Timothy is told not to lay hands suddenly on any one (1, 5:22). It is pretty certain (see Huther Com.) that this does not refer to ordination to office. The context decides against this. "Lay not hands in a hasty fashion on any one, neither be partaker of other men's sins; keep thyself pure." And (in v. 20), "Them that sin rebuke before all that others may fear." Titus (1:5) is told to "ordain elders in every city" (in Crete). But the word translated ordain here is, kathistemai, which carries merely the idea of placing, and must have been with the consent of the churches. It was what Paul and Silas did in Iconium (Acts 14:23), where the word is to elect, or have elected, and not ordain. (See Gore, p. 257. Cf. Stephanus Thes. Græcæ Linguæ.)

What concerns us is that these functionaries were not appointed by the apostles, nor ordained by the apostles, according to any evidence we possess. It was in the Church that the authority reposed. The words of Hatch (« Organization of the Early Church,"

p. 130ff.). on the subject of ordination are conclusive:

(1) All the words which are in use to express appointment to ecclesiastical rank connote either simple appointment or accession to rank.

(2) All these words were in use to express appointment to civil office. When other ideas than those of civil appointment came beyond question to attach themselves to ecclesiastical appointment, other words were used. The absence of such words in the earlier period of itself affords a strong presumption of the absence of the ideas which are relative to them.

(3) There were the same elements in appointment to both civil and ecclesiastical office: nomination, election, approval by a presiding officer.

(4) All the modes of admission to ecclesiastical office were, with one exception, analogous to the modes of admission to civil office. Hatch shows that the elected one simply entered on to the duty of his office. Imposition of hands was not regarded as essential. So far as practiced, it was always accompanied by prayer. Augustine resolves it into a prayer: "quid aliud est manuum impositio quam oratio super hominem" (Hatch, p. 132).

Hatch shows that "ordination" was not supposed to confer special or spiritual favours. He argues this from silence upon a matter extremely important; from the facility with which ordination was made and unmade.

Therefore, we conclude, the evidence is strongly

against the opinion that Paul transmitted authority to those who ruled in the churches of the western world.

If Paul did not, certainly no other prophet or apostle ever did.

X

THE CHURCH AND THE PRIESTHOOD

OF ISRAEL

Can organization be inferred from the Old Testament? The worship of God not priestly.

The Levitical régime not essential to Israel.

Neither circumcision nor passover priestly performances. The priest inferior to the prophet.

Melchizedek and Christ.

The "priest" ignored in the New Testament.

Christ not followed by priests but prophets, pastors.