Blackheath, January, 1875.
My Beloved Brother,
The effect of the meeting which I described in my last letter was as unexpected as it was wonderful. I felt like a bird which has just escaped from the snare of the fowler—so great was the liberty and freedom of soul on which I was entered. More than this—there was another consequence. Truths which my mind, if I may so speak, had previously held in solution were, by the influence of this meeting, precipitated in solid forms, and they glistened in my eyes like newly-discovered treasures. And hence, when I was still urgently entreated by many friends to remain with my people, as I was continually, both by letter and in personal conversation, with the assurance that I might preach any and all things which the Lord had revealed to me, I could not for one moment entertain the thought. My heart yearned over the souls which had been given me in the gospel; the ties which Christian fellowship had formed drew me very close to many believers amongst the people; temporal maintenance seemed, humanly speaking, bound up with my continuance at my post; but all these things together could not draw me back, or compel me to recall the word I had spoken. The fact was, having uttered the truths as expressed in my paper, I felt that I could never more consent to hold them in subordination; and I began to long after a position which could bear the test and application of the word of God. One thing more followed. Having expressed in public my regret for the publication of my book, I felt that I was bound to say as much to those against whom it was written. Accordingly I wrote a brief letter to Mr. Kelly—as one well known amongst “Brethren”—stating what I had done, and expressing my sorrow that I had written and published the pamphlet.
This done, I was entirely free from all entanglements, and I now determined, by the help of God, to bring the light of Scripture to bear upon everything connected with my position, that I might obtain guidance for my future path; for as yet all was uncertainty beyond the truths I have named (that is, as to the exact position I should take on my separation from my people). Several distinct paths opened up before me, with many promises of support, which I gratefully record, but my only desire now was to know the will of the Lord.
The first thing that demanded my attention and examination was The Ministry as exercised amongst Dissenters. This sentence recalls a strange incident. Some eight or nine years ago I wrote a pamphlet under this title, and actually took it to my publishers, but afterward decided that it should not be issued; for I shunned the controversy which might be awakened, as many of the statements there made would bear a very distinct resemblance to some that will follow in this letter.
You, dear brother, and myself have been for years past in the public estimation (though I admit, as I have said already, that we were both unwilling to accept the appellation) Dissenting ministers. How did we come to occupy this position? That no mistakes may be made, I will answer only for myself. After I had confessed Christ I became possessed of an ardent desire to “enter the ministry.” I was young and uninstructed, and, according to the practice of the denomination, naturally turned my eyes to one of the colleges for the needful preparation. Recommended by two ministers (though I had never preached but once, and then not in their hearing), I obtained admission, and, after the customary probation, was received for the usual curriculum of four years. I studied most diligently, but not the Scriptures, though these had their place, if subordinate to that of other studies. In fact I began to study under tutorial advice with a view to the B.A. degree in the London University. I matriculated at the end of the first session; was prepared for the B.A. at the end of the third; but, while waiting for the examinations in October, was seized with typhus fever, and was consequently unable to proceed to my degree. After some months of weakness, I recovered, through the blessing of God; and, then, some six months were all that remained of my term for study. At the end of three out of these six months I was invited to preach on probation, at the end of which “the church” was convened to discuss my merits as a preacher, and so forth, and then by vote I was unanimously elected to be their pastor. In the same way I was elected to the pastoral office at L. R.
Now I will not here enter upon an examination of the mode of preparing young men for the ministry, though I am sure you would agree with me that it is fraught with evils of the worst possible kind, and utterly unwarranted by Scripture, as well as singularly unadapted to secure the end proposed; but I shall confine myself to one question, Is there any Scripture authority for the election of a pastor or minister (either term is in use among Dissenters) by the vote of the church? This, indeed, was the question which, with Bible in hand, I sought to answer.
The first passage to which I turned was Acts 6; and there we do find something like an election of “church” officers by the believers in fellowship (vs. 5). But may I ask you to note several things? First, that though they were chosen by the multitude, it was by direction of the apostles; and that the appointment was confirmed, if indeed not made, by the apostles (vs. 6). Secondly, that though they were chosen by the multitude, the word used to indicate the act of their choice is not the peculiar word on which the vote-by-suffrage theory is founded. It is ἐξελέξαντο, which indicates simple selection. Thirdly, that the officers chosen were not elders or bishops; they were appointed solely for the purpose of attending to the daily ministration of relief to widows—of serving tables (vss. 1-3). It is true that we find Stephen afterward preaching the word in the power of the Holy Spirit; but no one contends that this was in consequence of his appointment “to serve tables.” There is, therefore, nothing whatever in this chapter that bears upon the election of “pastors” or “ministers.”
The next passage to which I turned was 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) which is certainly more to the point. We read there that Paul and Barnabas “ordained them elders in every church.” I say that this passage is more to the point, because it is well known that “elders” and “bishops” are synonymous in the Scriptures, or rather, that these two terms indicate the same office; and that the office of the Dissenting minister is supposed, indeed held, to correspond with that so designated, The proof that the two terms indicate the same office is found in Acts 20 In verse 17 it is said that Paul “sent for the elders (πρεσβυτέρους) of the church.” In addressing them, he says in verse 28, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (ἐπισκόπους); that is, bishops. If these, then, were appointed by the suffrages of the church, then there may be a show of justification for the practice of Dissenters. Turning, then, back to 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) let us see what is the exact word employed. It is χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους—that is, literally, “having appointed them elders.” Now it is contended, and until now I had received it on the authority of others, that the word translated “appointed”—“ordained” in the authorized version—means appointed by the vote of the church;’ in other words, that the radical idea of the word is “to hold up the hand,” and hence, that the church first selected these elders by vote, and that then the apostles appointed them, or confirmed or ratified the choice which the church had made. Conceding for one minute that this might be the meaning of the word employed, I yet ask you, dear brother, if this is the usual method of interpreting language? For you will see from the context that the participle translated above, “having appointed,” refers solely to the action of the apostles, and that the pronoun rendered “them” refers to the disciples “in every church.” It is very evident, therefore, that, whatever the word may exactly mean, we are here told of something which the apostles did on behalf of the churches. Or, if you insist that the word does convey the meaning of the exercise of suffrage on the part of the church, I should at once reply, on the authority of this passage, that if the church voted, there could be no valid appointment apart from the presence and action of the apostles.
But is this the meaning of the word? As far as I know, the same word only occurs in two other places in the New Testament—once in the same form, and once compounded with a preposition of time (προ)—which leaves the meaning of the word untouched. The first of these passages is 2 Corinthians 8:19,19And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind: (2 Corinthians 8:19) where we read, “And not that only” (the apostle is speaking of the brother whose praise in the gospel was throughout all the churches), “but who was also chosen” (the word translated “ordained” in the former passage) “of the churches to travel with us with this grace,” and so on. In this place it is the action of the churches in appointing; but we have nothing but the word itself to indicate the mode of appointment, and then you will perceive that it is not the appointment of an elder, but simply of one who was sent by the churches to act with the apostle in the administration of their benefactions—a wholly different thing. Let us, then, turn to the other passage: it is Acts 10:40-4140Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; 41Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. (Acts 10:40‑41). There we have these words: “Him God raised up the third day, and showed Him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen” (the same word) “before of God,” etc. Is not the use of the word in this place decisive as to its meaning? For used as it is here in connection with God, it is impossible to attach any idea to it beyond that of selection or appointment; and hence this passage, concerning which there can be no possible doubt as to the sense in which the word is employed, should govern our interpretation of that which from the very nature of the case is so doubtful. For I repeat that the word is used only in one place in connection with the appointment of elders, or bishops—the office which is claimed to be held by Dissenting ministers—and even in that place the action in the word is ascribed, not to the churches, but to the apostles. Can any unprejudiced mind, therefore, refuse to concede that the Scriptures have actually no proof whatever of the election of “ministers” (elders) by the suffrages of the church? that there is nothing, no idea contained in the use of the word, beyond that of simple appointment? and hence that the elders in the passage referred to were appointed by the apostles? Speaking for myself, this was the conclusion which the word of God compelled me most reluctantly to admit. Nor could I gain any comfort from the apostle Paul’s direction to Titus—“Ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Titus 1:55For 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)); for, first, the word “ordain” is not the same as that already discussed; it is καταστήσης, which signifies “to constitute,” or “establish”; and secondly, what Titus did, he did only under the direction and authority of the apostle.
You have then, dear brother, the results of my investigation, and my conclusion that the mode of our appointment is wholly without the sanction or authority of the Scriptures. If you would like to pursue this subject more minutely, let me recommend to you a pamphlet, entitled Ministry of the Word, Eldership and the Lord’s Supper, by Richard Holden (Broom); and Lectures on the Church of God, by W. Kelly (Broom). And after you have read these, I could not recommend you to a better book (though on the other side) for confirmation of their exposition than Davidson’s Ecclesiastical Polity. But you will find, I doubt not, the Scriptures amply sufficient to show the correctness of the conclusions I have deduced.
There remain other aspects of the subject which I hope to deal with in my next letter. In the meantime believe me, beloved brother,
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
E. D.