Blackheath, January, 1875.
My Beloved Brother,
For the sake of perspicuity, it may be well to sum up in a distinct form the conclusions of my last letter—changing only the order, for the clearer display of the teaching of Scripture—before I proceed with the remaining part of the subject. We saw then—
2. That there is only one instance of the selection of “church-officers” by the church, and that the duty of these officers was to “serve tables”; and that though they were selected by the church, they were actually set apart to their office by the apostles (Acts 6).
3. That there is no instance whatever of the selection or election of elders, whether by vote or otherwise, by the church; but that, in every recorded case, they were appointed either by the apostles or under the apostles’ direction and authority (Acts 14:2323And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23); Titus 1:5,5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: (Titus 1:5) and more).
4. The inference then from these facts is, that unless we have apostles, or apostolic authority, we have no Scripture warrant for the appointment of elders or bishops.
Such was the inference forced upon me by a careful examination of the Scriptures, and, as you know, the episcopalians affirm this principle, and consequently accept the fiction of apostolic succession; but I need not point out to you the utterly unscriptural character of this dogma.
It is possible, however, that you may tell me that in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 we have precisely those apostolic directions and authority which are desiderated. But it is to be remembered, that these directions were not sent to the churches but to individuals, and to those very individuals, Timothy and Titus, who were acting under the direction of the apostle, and who needed therefore just such instructions as are there given. It is most significant, indeed, that in Titus the qualifications for the bishop (or elder) follow upon the direction given to “ordain elders in every city.” Thus the very place of these instructions shows that, instead of being our warrant to appoint elders or bishops, the church, by so doing, is arrogating to itself a function which was strictly bound up with the apostolic office. Anything, therefore, more conclusive as to the unscriptural character of the mode of appointment of “dissenting ministers” it would be impossible to imagine.
And I am convinced that there are hundreds of godly men in dissent who would be only too thankful to be taught this conclusion. For, while they have accepted the traditions of dissent on the subject, they have found it hard to reconcile them with their belief in the divine wisdom. Suppose, now, “a church” without a minister—what is its resource? First of all, inquiries will be made of notable men as to any who will be likely to suit; applications will also flow in from “moveable” ministers. In due course, a selection will be made of one or more eligible candidates to come and preach, for three or four Lord’s days, on probation. At the termination of this critical period, a “church” meeting will be summoned, and the merits of the candidate or candidates will be discussed and then, finally—all alike being judges, the aged believer and the veriest babe in Christ, the most instructed as well as the most untaught, being on the same level—all alike supposed to be able to pass judgment upon the spiritual qualifications of the candidate for the post to which he aspires—after many speeches, it may be for and against, a vote will be taken, and if there be a majority in favor of the candidate, the invitation to the pastorate (although the candidate has only been tested as a minister in preaching) will in due course be forwarded, and then the candidate accepts the invitation or not, according to his own exigencies, or inclinations, or judgment.
All this, I freely confess, was present in my mind when I was reexamining the whole subject, and perhaps aided me to come to the unbiased conclusion—I say unbiased, because my own position was bound up with the investigation—that the ministry, as appointed amongst Nonconformists, is wholly without the warrant of Scripture.
Thus far, I have gone on the assumption that there is correspondence between the office of a Dissenting minister and that of the elder or bishop of Scripture; for I desired to examine the subject on this ground. But I soon saw—if indeed I had ever seriously thought otherwise—that there is scarcely, if any, correspondence between these two things; that in Scripture there is always the most absolute distinction between office and gift; and that while there was appointment in the way indicated to the former by the apostles, the possessor of the gift exercised it in sole responsibility to the Lord, and never was appointed to exercise it either by the apostles or the assembly. (See Rom. 12:6-86Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. (Romans 12:6‑8); 1 Peter 4:10-11,10As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:10‑11) and so on). Consequently, it is never said that the Lord gave “elders” in the enumeration of the gifts (see Eph. 4:11-1211And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Ephesians 4:11‑12)), though apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, are all named. The fact is, elders were appointed for rule, and hence they held an office; but the possessors of gifts—such as prophets, pastors, and teachers—received their gifts for the edification of the saints, and were bound, therefore, in obedience to Him from whom their gifts had emanated, to exercise them to this end. But this, as you know, dear brother, cannot be the case amongst Dissenters, because, in opposition to this plain distinction of Scripture, the exercise of gift is bound up with election to office. Hence a Dissenting minister is said to be an elder or bishop. He is also called a pastor; likewise, he is a teacher; and he is also supposed to be an evangelist—to be, in fact, a compendium of all the Scriptural gifts and offices excepting that of deacon. Is it not strange that we have been so long content with such a system?
Pursuing my subject, however, in all its branches, I found there was yet another difficulty—that connected with the one-man ministry; so that if all the rest had been clear, this would have been insuperable. For I found that there is not a single passage which speaks of an elder or a bishop of the church; nor, as far as I can discover, is the word (in either case) ever found in the singular, except in the pastoral epistles, where, as we have seen, the qualifications of the office are detailed. Take Acts 20:1717And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. (Acts 20:17) (already cited): “He sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church”; Acts 14:23,23And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23) “Elders in every church”; Philippians 1:1,1Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (Philippians 1:1) “With the bishops”; Titus 1:5,5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: (Titus 1:5) “Ordain elders in every city”; 1 Peter 5:1,1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: (1 Peter 5:1) “The elders which are among you,” and so on. If, therefore, every other difficulty were removed, it would be impossible to obtain from the Scriptures any justification for the Nonconformist method of appointing one elder or bishop to “preside over a church.” Not that I think that the practice is ever seriously defended; for I remember some years ago dining with some Congregational ministers, when one of them took opportunity to condemn the practices of “Brethren.” Interposing, I said, “Are you sure of your own position? Show me now from Scripture the justification of the one-man ministry.” He replied, “That can easily be done.” But on being pressed, the only passage he could adduce was, “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches!” The others were equally helpless; and it will suffice to show, not only how entirely indefensible the practice is, but also how easily we are led to assume solemn and responsible positions, without asking ourselves whether we have the guidance and justification of the word of God. But surely, if we have a single eye to the glory of God, if we desire to walk in the light, we shall seek to be separated from all evil, whether of heart or position, to make God’s word the lamp unto our feet and the light unto our path, both for daily walk and life, and for all our church practices and associations. Nay, to set up anything in the house of God which has not the direction and sanction of the Scriptures is practical disobedience to the Lord as Head of the Church.
But I am sure that you will hardly refuse assent to the conclusions I have demonstrated from the Scripture; for I remember how in times past we have longed for some change, and that we cherished at one period a dream of association together in the work of the ministry, so that in union we might be the stronger to (wry out our own plans, unfettered by any other authority than the Scriptures; and how we have often said one to the other, that if anything should occur to separate us from our people respectively, we could not conscientiously offer ourselves for the pastorate of any of the ordinary denominational “churches.” The fact was, we had learned from the Scriptures very much more than we were willing to confess, and hence we were dissatisfied and uncomfortable amid the usual “church” and denominational modes and activities. In truth, we were outside already in spirit, and we needed only to apprehend our responsibility before God for what He had taught us to be outside altogether.
Believe me, beloved brother,
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
E. D.