NICOLAITANISM
or
THE RISE AND GROWTH OF THE CLERISY
F.W. GRANT
"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes,
which I also hate. "
"So hast thou also them that hold the
doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I
hate"
—REV. 2:6,15.
The address to Pergamos
follows that to
be
recognized historically. It applies to the time when, after having passed
through the heathen persecution, and the faithfulness of
many
an Antipas being brought out by it, it got publicly recognized and established
in the world. The characteristic of this epistle is, the
Church dwelling
where Satan’s throne is. "Throne"
it should be, not "seat." Now Satan has his throne, not in
hell, which is his prison,
and
where he never reigns at all, but in the world, he is expressly called the
"prince of this world." To dwell where Satan’s throne is, is
to
settle down in the world, under Satan’s government, so to speak, and protection.
That is what people call the establishment of the
Church.
It took place in
decided,
yet it was then that the Church stepped into the seats of the old heathen
idolatry. It was what people call the triumph of
Christianity, but the result was that the
Church had the things of the world now as never before, in secure possession:
the chief place
in
the world was hers, and the principles of the world every-where pervaded her.
The very name of "Pergamos"
intimates that. It is a word (without the particle attached to it, which is
itself significant,)—really meaning
"marriage,"
and the Church’s marriage before Christ comes to receive her to Himself is
necessarily unfaithfulness to Him to whom she
is
espoused. It is the marriage of the Church and the world which the epistle to Pergamos speaks of—the end of a courtship which had
been
going on long before.
There is something, however, which is
preliminary to this, and mentioned in the very first address; but there it is
evidently incidental,
and
does not characterize the state of things. In the first address, to the
Ephesians, the Lord says, "But this thou hast, that thou hatest
the
deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate"
(2:6). Here it is more than the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes.
There are now not merely
"deeds,"
but "doctrine." And the Church, instead of repudiating it, was
holding with it. In the Ephesian days, they hated the
deeds of the
Nicolaitanes;
but in Pergamos, they "had," and did not
reprobate, those who held the doctrine.
The question now before us is, How shall we interpret this? and we
shall find that the word "Nicolaitanes" is
the only thing really which
we
have to interpret it by. People have tried very hard to show that there was a
sect of the Nicolaitanes, but it is owned by writers
now
almost
on all sides to be very doubtful. Nor can we conceive why, in epistles of the
character which we have seen these to have,
there
should be such repeated and emphatic mention of a mere obscure sect, about
which people can tell us little or nothing, and that
seems
manufactured to suit the passage before us. The Lord solemnly denounces it:
"Which thing I hate." It must have a special
importance
with Him, and be of moment in the Church’s history, little apprehended as it
may have been. And another thing which we
have to remember is, that it is not the
way of Scripture to send us to church histories, or to any history at all, in
order to interpret its
sayings.
God’s Word is its own interpreter, and we have not to go elsewhere in order to
find out what is there; otherwise it becomes a
question
of learned men searching and finding out for those who have not the same means
or abilities, applications which must be
taken
on their authority alone. This He would not leave His people to. Besides, it is
the ordinary way in Scripture, and especially in
passages
of a symbolical character, such as is the part before us, for the names to be
significant. I need not remind you how
abundantly
in the Old Testament this is the case; and in the New Testament, although less
noticed, I cannot doubt but that there is the
same
significance throughout.
Here, if we are left simply to the name,
it is one sufficiently startling and instructive. Of course, to those who spoke
the language used,
the
meaning would be no hidden or recondite thing, but as apparent as those of
Bunyan’s allegories. It means, then, "Conquering the
people."
The last part of the word ("
used
term "Laity" is derived. The Nicolaitanes
were just those "subjecting—putting down the laity" the mass of
Christian people, in
order
unduly to lord it over them.
What makes this clearer is, that,—side by
side with the Nicolaitanes in the epistle to Pergamos,— we have those who hold
the doctrine
of
Balaam, a name whose similarity in meaning has been observed by many.
"Balaam" is a Hebrew word, as the other is a Greek; but
its
meaning is, "Destoryer of the people," a
very significant one in view of his history; and as we read of the
"doctrine of the
Nicolaitanes,"
so we read of a "doctrine of Balaam."
You have pointed out what he
"taught" Balak. Balaam’s doctrine was,
"to cast a stumbling-block before the children of
things
sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication." For this purpose he
enticed them to mixture with the nations, from which God had
carefully
separated them. That needful separation broken down was their destruction, so
far as it prevailed. In like manner we have
seen
the Church to be called out from the world, and it is only too easy to apply
the divine type in this case. But here we have a
confessedly
typical people, with a corresponding significant name, and in such close
connection as naturally to confirm the reading of
the
similar word, "Nicolaitanes," as similarly
significant. I shall have to speak more of this at another time, if the Lord
will. Let us notice
now
the development of Nicolaitanism. It is, first of
all, certain people who have this character, and who (I am merely translating
the
word.)
first take the place of superiors over the people.
Their "deeds" show what they are. There is no "doctrine"
yet; but it ends in
Pergamos, with the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. The place is
assumed now to be theirs by right. There is a doctrine—a teaching about
it,
received at least by some, and to which the Church at large—nay, on the whole
true souls, have become indifferent.
Now what has come in between these two
things,—the "deeds" and the "doctrine"? What we were
looking at last time—the rise of a
party
whom the Lord marks out as those who said they were Jews and were not, but who
were the synagogue of Satan: the
adversary’s
attempt (alas! too successful) to Judaize the Church.
We were looking but a little while since
at what the characteristics of Judaism are. It was a probationary system, a
system of trial, in
which
it was to be seen if man could produce a righteousness for God. We know the end
of the trial, and that God pronounced "none
righteous—no,
not one." And then alone it was that God could manifest His grace. As long
as He was putting man under trial, He could
not
possibly open the way to His own presence and justify the sinner there. He had,
as long as this trial went on, to shut him out; for on
that
ground, nobody could see God and live. Now the very essence of Christianity is
that all are welcomed in. There is an open door,
and
ready access, where the blood of Christ entitles every one, however much a
sinner, to draw near to God, and to find, in the first
place,
at His hand, justification as ungodly. To see God in Christ is not to die, but
live. And what, further, is the consequence of this?
The people who have come this way to
Him,—the people who have found the way of access through the peace-speaking
blood into
His presence, learned what He is in
Christ, and been justified before God, are able to take, and taught to take, a
place distinct from all
others,
as now His, children of the Father, members of Christ—His body. That is the
Church, a body called out, separate from the
world.
Judaism, on the other hand, necessarily
mixed all together. Nobody there could take such a place with God: nobody could
cry, "Abba,
Father," really; therefore there
could not be any separation. This had been then a necessity, and of God, no
doubt; but now, Judaism
being
set up again, after God had abolished it, it was no use, it is no use, to urge
that it was once of Him; its setting up was the too
successful
work of the enemy against His gospel and against His Church. He brands these Judaizers as the "synagogue of Satan."
Now we can understand at once, when the
Church in its true character was practically lost sight of, when Church-members
meant
people
baptized by water instead of by the Holy Ghost, or when the baptism of water
and of the Holy Ghost were reckoned one, (and
this
very early became accepted doctrine,) how of course the Jewish synagogue was
practically again set up. It became more and
more
impossible to speak of Christians being at peace with God, or saved. They were
hoping to be, and sacraments and ordinances
became
means of grace to insure, as far as might be, a far-off salvation.
Let us see how far this would help on the
doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. It is plain that when
and as the Church sank into the synagogue,
the
Christian people became practically what of old the Jewish had been. Now, what
was that position? As I have said, there was no
real
drawing near to God at all. Even the high-priest, who (as a type of Christ,)
entered into the holiest once a year, on the day of
atonement,
had to cover the mercy-seat with a cloud of incense that he might not die. But
the ordinary priests could not enter there at
all,
but only into the outer holy place; while the people in general could not come
in even there. And this was expressly designed as a
witness
of their condition. It was the result of failure on their part; for God’s offer
to them, which you may find in the nineteenth chapter of
Exodus, was this: "Now, therefore, if
ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, ye
shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me
above
all people; for all the earth is Mine; and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of
priests, and a holy nation."
They were thus conditionally offered equal
nearness of access to God,—they should be all priests. But this was rescinded,
for they
broke
the covenant; and then a special family is put into the place of priests, the
rest of the people being put into the background, and
only
able to draw near to God through these.
Thus a separate and intermediate
priesthood characterized Judaism, as on the other hand, for the same reason,
what we should call
now
missionary-work there was none. There was no going out to the world in this
way, no provision, no command, to preach the law
at
all. What, in fact, could they say? that God was in
the thick darkness? that no one could see Him and
live? It is surely evident there
was
no "good news" there. Judaism had no true gospel. The absence of the
evangelist and the presence of the intermediate
priesthood
told the same sorrowful story, and were in perfect keeping with each other.
Such was Judaism; how different, then, is
Christianity! No sooner had the death of Christ rent the vail,
and opened a way of access
into
the presence of God, than at once there was a gospel, and the new order is,
"Go out into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every
creature." God is making Himself known, and
"is He the God of the Jews only?" Can you confine that within the
bounds of a
nation?
No; the fermentation of the new wine would burst the bottles.
The intermediate priesthood was, on the
other hand, done away; for all the Christian people are priests now to God.
What was
conditionally
offered to
Peter, ordained of man the great head of
ritualism, who in his first epistle announces the two things which destroy
ritualism root and
branch
for those who believe him. First, that we are "born again," not of
baptism, but "by the word of God, that liveth
and abideth
for-ever;"
and this, "the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
Secondly, instead of a set of priests, he says to all
Christians, "Ye also, as living
stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priest-hood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God
by
Jesus Christ." (2:5). The sacrifices are
spiritual, praise and thanksgiving, and our lives and bodies also (Heb.
12:1); but this is to be with us true
priestly work, and thus do our lives get their proper character: they are the
thank-offering service of
those
able to draw nigh to God.
In Judaism, let me repeat, no one drew
really nigh; but the people—the laity (for it is only a Greek word made
English,)—the people
not
even as the priest could. The priestly caste, wherever it is found, means the
same thing. There is no drawing nigh of the whole
body
of the people at all. It means distance from God, and darkness,—God shut out.
Let us see now what is
the meaning of a clergy. It is, in our day, and has been for many
generations, the word which specially marks
out
a class distinguished from the "laity," and distinguished by being
given up to sacred things, and having a place of privilege in
connection
with them which the laity have not. No doubt in the present day this special
place is being more and more infringed on, and
for
two reasons. One is, that God has been giving light, and, among Protestants at
least, Scripture is opposing itself to
tradition,—modifying
where it does not destroy this. The other is a merely human one—that the day is
democratic, and class-privileges
are
breaking down.
But what means this class? It is evident
that as thus distinguished from the laity, and privileged beyond them, it is
real and open
Nicolaitanism,
if Scripture does not make good their claim. For then the laity has been
subjected to them, and that is the exact meaning
of
the term. Does Scripture, then, use such terms? It is plain it does not. They
are, as regards the New Testament, an invention of later
date,
although, it may be admitted, as imported really from what is older than the
New,—the Judaism with which the Church (as we
have
seen,) was quickly permeated.
But we must see the important principles
involved, to see how the Lord has (as He must have) cause to say of the deeds
of the
Nicolaitanes, "Which I also hate."
We too, if we would be in communion with the Lord in this must hate what He
hates.
I am not speaking of people (God forbid!):
I am speaking of a thing. Our unhappiness is, that we are at the end of a long
series of
departures
from God, and as a consequence, we grow up in the midst of many things which
come down to us as "tradition of the
elders,"
associated with names which we all revere and love, upon whose authority in
reality we have accepted them, without ever
having
looked at them really in the light of God’s presence. And there are many thus
whom we gladly recognize as truly men of God
and
servants of God in a false position. It is of that position I am speaking. I am
speaking of a thing, as the Lord does: "Which thing I
hate."
He does not say, Which people I hate. Although in
those days evil of this kind was not an inheritance,
as now, and the first
propagators
of it, of course, had a responsibility, self-deceived as they may have been,
peculiarly their own. Still, in this matter as in all
others,
we need not be ashamed or afraid to be where the Lord is;—nay, we cannot be
with Him in this unless we are; and He says
of
Nicolaitanism, "Which thing I hate."
Because what does it mean? It means a
spiritual caste, or class,—a set of people having officially a right to
leadership in spiritual things;
a
nearness to God, derived from official place, not spiritual power: in fact, the
revival, under other names, and with various
modifications,
of that very intermediate priesthood which distinguished Judaism, and which
Christianity emphatically disclaims. That is
what
a clergy means; and in contradiction to these, the rest of Christians are but
the laity, the seculars, necessarily put back into more
or
less of the old distance, which the cross of Christ has done away.
We see, then, why it needed that the
Church should be Judaized before the deeds of the Nicolaitanes could ripen into a "doctrine."
The Lord even had authorized obedience to
scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses’ seat; and to make this text apply, as
people apply
it
now, Moses’ seat had of course to be set up in the Christian Church: this done,
and the mass of Christians degraded from the
priesthood
Peter spoke of, into mere "lay members," the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes was at once established.
Understand me fully, that I am in no wise
questioning the divine institution of the Christian ministry. God forbid! for ministry in the fullest
sense
is characteristic of Christianity, as I have already in fact maintained. Nor do
I, while believing that all true Christians are
ministers
also
by the very fact, deny a special and distinctive ministry of the Word, as what
God has given to some and not to all—though for the
use
of all. No one truly taught of God can deny that some, not all,
among Christians have the place of evangelist, pastor, teacher.
Scripture makes more of this than current
views do; for it teaches that every true minister is a gift from Christ, in His
care, as Head of
the Church, for His people, and one who
has his place from God alone, and is responsible in that character to God, and
God alone.
The miserable system which I see around
degrades him from this blessed place, and makes him in fact little more than
the manufacture
and
the servant of men. While giving, it is true, a place
of lordship over people which gratifies a carnal mind, still it fetters the
spiritual
man,
and puts him in chains; every where giving him an artificial conscience toward
man, hindering in fact his conscience being
properly
before God.
Let me briefly state what the
Scripture-doctrine of the ministry is—it is a very simple one. The Assembly of
God is Christ’s body; all the
members
are members of Christ. There is no other membership in Scripture than this—the
membership of Christ’s body, to which all
true
Christians belong: not many bodies of Christ, but one body; not many Churches,
but one Church.
There is of course a different place for
each member of the body by the very fact that he is such. All members have not
the same office:
there
is the eye, the ear, and so on, but they are all necessary, and all necessarily
ministering, in some way or sense, to one another.
Every member has its place, not merely
locally, and for the benefit of certain other members, but for the benefit of
the whole body.
Each member has its gift, as the apostle
teaches distinctly. "For as we have many members in one body, and all
members have not
the
same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members
one of another. Having then gifts differing
according
to the grace that is given to us, etc. (
In the twelfth chapter of first
Corinthians, the apostle speaks at large of these gifts; and he calls them by a
significant
name—"manifestations
of the Spirit." They are gifts of the Spirit, of course; but more, they
are "manifestations of the Spirit;" they manifest
themselves
where they are found,—where (I need scarcely add that I mean,) there is
spiritual discernment,—where souls are before
God.
For instance, if you take the gospel of
God, whence does it derive its authority and power? From any
sanction of men? any human
credentials
of any kind? or from its own inherent power? I dare
maintain, that the common attempt to authenticate the messenger takes
away
from instead of adding to the power of the Word. God’s Word must be received as
such: he that receives it sets to his seal that
God is true. Its ability to meet the needs
of heart and conscience is derived from the fact that it is "God’s good
news," who knows
perfectly
what man’s need is, and has provided for it accordingly. He who has felt its power
knows well from whom it comes. The work
and
witness of the Spirit of God in the soul need no witness of man to supplement
them.
Even the Lord’s appeal in His own case was
to the truth He uttered: "If I say the truth, why do ye not believe Me?" When He stood
forth
in the Jewish synagogue, or elsewhere, He was but in men’s eyes a poor
carpenter’s son, accredited by no school or set of men
at
all. All the weight of authority was ever against Him. He disclaimed even
"receiving testimony from men." God’s Word alone should
speak
for God. "My doctrine is not Mine, but His that
sent Me." And how did it approve itself? By the fact of
its being truth. "If I speak the
truth,
why do you not believe Me?" It was the truth that was to make its way with
the true. "He that will do God’s will shall know of the
doctrine,
whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself." He says, "I
speak the truth, I bring it to you from God; and if it is truth, and
if
you are seeking to do God’s will, you will learn to recognize it as the
truth." God will not leave people in ignorance and darkness, if
they
are seek-ing to be doers of His will. Can you suppose
that God will allow true hearts to be deceived by what-ever plausible
deceptions
may be abroad? He is able to make His voice known by those who seek to hear His
voice. And so the Lord says to Pilate,
"Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice." (John
18:37.) "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them,
and they follow Me;" and
again,
"A stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; for they know
not the voice of strangers." (John 10:27,5.)
Such is the nature of truth, then, that to
pretend to authenticate it to those who are themselves true is to dishonor it,
as if it were not
capable
of self-evidence, and so dishonor God, as if He could be wanting to souls, or
to what He Himself has given.
Nay, the apostle speaks of "by
manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in
the sight of God" (2 Cor.
4:2): and the Lord, of its being the
condemnation of the world, that "light is come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than
light,
because their deeds were evil" (John
own
condemnation, when they sought escape from it.
Even so in the
gift was there "the manifestation of the Spirit," and it was
"given to every man to profit withal."
By the very fact that he
had
it, he was responsible to use it—responsible to Him who had not given it in
vain. In the gift itself lay the ability to minister,
and title
too;
for I am bound to help and serve with what I have. And if souls are helped,
they need scarcely ask if I had commission to do it.
This is the simple character of
ministry—the service of love, according to the ability which God gives, mutual
service of each to each
and
each to all, without jostling or exclusion of one another. Each gift was thrown
into the common treasury, and all were the richer by
it.
God’s blessing and the manifestation of the Spirit were all the sanction
needed. All were not teachers, still less public teachers, of the
Word; still in these cases, the same
principles exactly applied. That was but one department of a service which had
many, and which
was
rendered by each to each according to his sphere.
Was there nothing else than that? Was
there no ordained class at all, then? That is another thing altogether. There
were, without
doubt,
in the primitive Church, two classes of officials, regularly appointed, or (if
you like) ordained. The deacons were those who,
having
charge of the fund for the poor and other purposes, were chosen by the saints
first for this place of trust in their behalf, and then
appointed
authoritatively by apostles mediately or immediately.
Elders were a second class,— elderly men, as the word
imports,—who
were
appointed in the local assemblies as "bishops," or
"overseers," to take cognizance of their state. That the elders were
the same
as
bishops may be seen in Paul’s words to the elders of
which
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." There they have translated the
word, "bishops," but in Titus they have left it—"that
thou
shouldest ordain elders in every city, as I had
appointed thee; if any be blameless . . . . for a
bishop must be blameless." (Acts
Their work was to "oversee," and
although for that purpose their being "apt to teach" was a
much-needed qualification, in view of
errors
already rife, yet no one could suppose that teaching was confined to those who
were "elders," "husbands of one wife, having
their
children in subjection with all gravity." This was a needed test for one
who was to be a bishop; "for if a man know not how to rule
his
own house, how shall he take care of the
Whatever gifts they had they used, as all
did, and thus the apostle directs—"Let the elders that rule well be
counted worthy of double
honor,
especially they who labor in the Word and doctrine (
The meaning of their ordination was just
this, that here it was not a question of "gift," but of authority. It
was a question of title to take up
and
look into, often difficult and delicate matters, among people too very likely
in no state to submit to what was merely spiritual. The
ministration
of gift was another thing, and free, under God, to all.
Thus much, very
briefly, as to Scripture-doctrine. Our painful
duty is now to put in contrast with it the system I am deprecating,
according
to which a distinct class are devoted formally to spiritual things, and the
people—the laity—are in the same ratio excluded
from
such occupation. This is true Nicolaitanism,—the
"subjection of the people."
Again I say, not only that ministry of the
Word is entirely right, but that there are those who have special gift and
responsibility (though
still
not exclusive) to minister it. But priesthood is another thing, and a thing
sufficiently distinct to be easily recognized where it is claimed
or
in fact exists. I am, of course, aware that Protestants in general disclaim any
priestly powers for their ministers. I have no wish nor
thought
of disputing their perfect honesty in this disavowal. They mean that they have
no thought of the minister having any
authoritative
power of absolution; and that they do not make the Lord’s table an altar,
whereon afresh day after day the perfection of
Christ’s one offering is denied by
countless repetitions. They are right in both respects, but it is scarcely the
whole matter. If we look
more
deeply, we shall find that much of a priestly character may attach where
neither of these have the least place.
Priesthood and ministry may be
distinguished in this way: Ministry (in the sense we are now considering) is to
men; priesthood is to
God.
The minister brings God’s message to the people,—he speaks for Him to them: the
priest goes to God for the people,—he speaks
in
the reverse way, for them to Him. It is surely easy to distinguish these two
attitudes.
"Praise and thanksgiving" are
spiritual "sacrifices:" they are part of our offering as priests. Put
a special class into a place where
regularly
and officially they act thus for the rest, they are at once in the rank of an
intermediate priesthood,—mediators with God for
those
who are not so near.
The Lord’s supper
is the most prominent and fullest expression of Christian thankfulness and
adoration publicly and statedly; but what
Protestant minister does not look upon it
as his official right to administer this? what
"layman" would not shrink from the profanation of
administering
it? And this is one of the terrible evils of the system, that the mass of
Christian people are thus distinctly secularized.
Occupied with worldly things, they cannot
be expected to be spiritually what the clergy are. And to this they are given
over, as it were.
They are released from spiritual
occupations, to which they are not equal, and to which others give themselves
entirely.
But this must evidently go much further.
"The priest’s lips should keep knowledge." The laity, who have become
that by abdicating their
priesthood,
how should they retain the knowledge belonging to a priestly class? The unspirituality to which they have given
themselves
up pursues them here. The class whose business it is, become the authorized
interpreters of the Word also, for how
should
the secular man know so well what Scripture means? Thus the clergy become
spiritual eyes and ears and mouth for the laity ,
and
are in the fair way of becoming the whole body too.
But it suits people well. Do not mistake
me as if I meant that this is all come in as the assumption of a class merely.
It is that, no doubt ;
but
never could this miserable and unscriptural distinction of clergy and laity
have obtained so rapidly as it did, and so universally, if
every
where it had not been found well adapted to the tastes of those even whom it
really displaced and degraded. Not alone in
My people love to have it so!" Alas! they did, and they do. As spiritual decline sets in, the
heart that is turning to the world barters
readily,
Esau-like, its spiritual birthright for a mess of pottage. It exchanges
thankfully its need of caring too much for spiritual things, with
those
who will accept the responsibility of this. Worldliness is well covered with a
layman’s cloak; and as the Church at large dropped
out
of first love, (as it did rapidly, and then the world began to come in through
the loosely guarded gates,) it became more and more
impossible
for the rank and file of christendom to take the
blessed and wonderful place which belonged to Christians. The step taken
downward, instead of being retrieved, only
made succeeding steps each one easier; until, in less than three hundred years
from the
beginning,
a Jewish priesthood and a ritualistic religion were every-where installed. Only
so much the worse, as the precious things of
Christianity left their names at least as
spoils to the invader, and the shadow became for most the substance itself.
But I must return to look more
particularly at one feature in this clerisy. I have noted the confounding of
ministry and priesthood; the
assumption
of an official title in spiritual things, of title to administer the Lord’s supper,
and I might have added also, to baptize. For none
of
these things can scripture be found at all. But I must dwell a little more on
the emphasis that is laid on ordination.
I want you to see a little more what
ordination means. In the first place, if you look through the New Testament,
you will find nothing
about
ordination to teach or to preach. You find people going about every where
freely exercising whatever gift they had; the whole
Church was scattered abroad from
Word.
The persecution did not ordain them, I suppose. So with Apollos:
so with Philip the deacon. There is, in fact, no trace of any
thing
else. Timothy received a gift of prophecy, by the laying on of Paul’s hands
with those of the elders; but that was gift, not