“ God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14).
To treat with apparent lightness of spirit anything that concerns the church of God I hold to be a great sin; and though there are a few occasions, very few, and those not connected with the humiliation of Jesus, in which the folly of evil may be brought before the eyes of the many, yet my present subject, although absurd to the moral mind, leads me to no such feelings, nor do I desire to treat it in any such spirit. Looking upon it as a matter wherein the Holy Ghost is grieved and dishonored, if I speak under the influence of that Spirit, I shall feel grieved also: and such is my feeling whilst observing how much of that which wears the fairest appearance, and ranks highest in ordinary estimation—nay, which is considered as the very triumph of Christian skill, and perfection of ecclesiastical arrangement—is actually at utter variance with the mind of God, and consequently with essential beauty and truth, which are only expressions of that mind.
It is often thought that the complaint of the church is a wild feeling, taking the dissatisfaction of self-will for the freedom of God's Spirit, and seeking licentiousness under the name of liberty, and in defiance of order. But, where principles are not assumed (which is often the unsuspected foundation of many a pile of well connected reasoning), it would not be difficult to prove that such a complaint is not necessarily fanatical or visionary, and that the plain and practical path of obedience is marked out on the other hand by nothing more than common spiritual discernment, and common honesty of heart toward God. Now it appears to me that the present circumstances of the church have destroyed order, as well as liberty, which two things, at any rate while man is a sinner, must go together; and this is shortly proved.
Take the existing state of things in its broad lines: it is not order, that all or the majority of those called pastors should be, instead of pastors, unconverted men. Yet this is admitted, even by many who acquiesce in the circumstances which have of necessity produced this fruit. It cannot be called order, that they should be appointed by man (by men perhaps not members of God's church) and not by God. This is not order, nor does it produce order but dissent and schism and confusion. But this is a fact not only in its results, but in its principle—namely, that in what is called order the appointment of the pastors flows from men not members of God's church at all. Succession, in whatsoever degree it may be rested upon, comes not from Christ the minister of God's power, but from the prime minister.
In days of infidelity or indifference it must be immediately evident to any one, into what danger this at once throws the church, as far as it depends on this succession. Nor is this a speculative apprehension; for the danger is oven now in full operation, and by no means a mere probability, but in fact working in its worst possible form, namely, in showing itself as the instrument of evil principles, not of good. Where such a fact is evident, and that on all sides, it may seem superfluous to reason on the principle of the succession itself, for we have its legitimate results before as; but as many who are children of God hold by it, and seek to defend it, it may be of some service to the truth to state it on their own principles.
The ordinary arguments against all objections are usually these—that in theory the appointers are members of the church of God, that in this view only they can look at it, and that the actual evil is no ground to go upon. But, as will be seen, Christians will often find themselves in strange situations who disregard actual evil on the assumption that the system which produces it is theoretically correct; for in this manner there may be no limit to the measure of practical wickedness which will be tolerated, while conscience satisfies itself on the plea of an abstract excellence which may turn out to be a mere shadow, or worse. Such, however, is not the path of sound and Christian principle, which at once pronounces that the actual evil is the ground to act upon. God acts upon it, even though the system may be His own, as in the case of the Jews. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore will I punish you for your iniquities:” and the church is bound to act upon it, having the intelligence of God's Spirit to discern the evil. The distinctive character of the church, of the individual informed by the Holy Ghost, is this, “Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity;” but the argument used admits the actual evil, yet, whilst avowing the name of the Lord, does not depart from it.
I ask high churchmen in particular, is it not iniquity that pastors, chief pastors, should be appointed, not by the church, by Christ, but by men, be they what they may? Is not this the fact? and if so, do they then depart from it? Is it the church that appoints them? If the predicament into which they are forced by this question is sought to be evaded upon the plea that the Congo d' elire saves them, (a drowning man will catch at a straw) the answer does but further prove the iniquity of this system, from which men should depart. For it assumes that the persons in ecclesiastical office have the power to elect, or the argument is null; and consequently shows only the uniform betrayal of the interests of Christ by them into other hands than those of the church. They are thus driven to an extremity, where choice is to be had only between two conclusions; the last of which, i.e., the surrender of the power if possessed, exhibits the constant iniquity of the church: whilst on the other hand, if not possessed, the church is proved no longer to exist in the exercise of its habitual and necessary functions. Indeed practically, it seems most honest and simple to say that the sovereign appoints to the bishopric. In Ireland even the poor excuse of the Congo d' elire is taken away, for the bishops are appointed by letters patent openly by the crown. I have touched on this ground because refuge is sought in it by some who feel conscientiously upon the subject. Let us return to the plain facts of the case.
The minister of the crown appoints the pastors to the flock of Christ; but churchmen defend themselves on the plea that it is still the church that does it. The simple answer is this—it is not so now, even in theory. No religion is necessary to the prime minister, nor does it practically constitute part of the theory of the state at all. But even on the supposition that it did, and that all the persons appointing were churchmen and Christians, it is not as such that they have to act in the capacity of appointers. But supposing it still further to be so, what at best is the state of things? We have Christians and laymen (I speak upon the church theory) appointing to the highest ecclesiastical offices, the superior pastorships of the church, because they have secular office which the church, save in civil subjection, knows nothing about. Now I say this is disorder and not order: the real bishops of the Established Church are the king and ministers of the day; for there cannot be a more important function of the church in its order, than the appointment of fit persons to feed the flock.
I can see nothing which seems to me Christian order in such appointments of bishops or chief pastors of God's flock; it presents nothing but immense disorder. I cannot recognize the hand of the church in the bishop of Exeter, or the archbishop of Armagh, though I do the church's responsibility. He may, through God's mercy, be a very good man, nay, he may have eminent qualities for the pastoral or, Episcopal office. Yet there is no order of God's church in it, but the order of the prime minister of England, or the lord lieutenant of Ireland, who are not God's constituted officers for the appointment of the bishops of His flock, in any church order. In point of fact, the necessary consequences have resulted in confusion and discord in the church of God. For while there was nominal order to which holy minds might desire to be subject, there was at the same time the complete amalgamation of the church and the world, which the Spirit of God loudly testified against, and holy men must separate from, and the professed church become the great author of schism.