That God has appointed or given a ministry in His Church, for its edification and for the evangelizing of the world, is as certain as the word of God can make it. The question does not lie there, but in this: Is the clergy that ministry? Mr. I. [a colonial clergyman] would permit irregular ministrations. He is very kind, no doubt, if God sent them. But there is another question: Is not his own position the false and irregular one, and a hindrance and denial of true ministry If there be a ministry given of God, and man has set up another, it is this which is in fault, this that is false, evil, worse than irregular. I will make what I mean very plain. If the Apostle Paul were to come to Quebec, he could not preach, according to Mr. I.'s system. He has never been ordained. It will be said, This is ridiculous; he is an apostle, and would preach of course. I agree—sovereignly ridiculous; but the ridiculousness is in those who have concocted a system which leads to such a result. Paul would preach assuredly (and no thanks to Mr. I. or his clerical system), because God sent him. And so would every one sent of God. The irregularity, according to the word of God, is in the clergy, not in the preaching of those whom God has sent.
I will put another case, one which Mr. I. knows to be quite common (alas! the most common): an unconverted clergyman in a parish, and the parish spiritually in the dark; or, if the clergyman be converted, a determined Puseyite, teaching to worship the Eucharist, as hundreds do now in England. Well! an evangelist sent of God is blessed to the conversion of many souls: that is, the Holy Ghost has wrought by him, and souls are brought to Christ. Which is irregular—I appeal to Mr. I.'s conscience—the evangelist who has wrought with God, or the unconverted clergyman? Who brought the latter there? Not God: it were a heinous blasphemy to say so. Who brought the evangelist there? God's grace; but this on Mr. I.'s system is irregular. Well, in this world it is so. But it is a mercy there is such. But perhaps Mr. I. will say, Let him keep to his place as evangelist, and put these converted souls under the existing orderly pastoral care. What pastoral care? That of an unconverted man? or a worshipper of the Eucharist? or a rationalist? aye, or even a man who, if he is honest, believes he was made a child of God and a member of Christ by his baptism? is this regular? What is the real state of the case according to the system (imperfectly carried out perhaps in a colony, because they cannot help themselves, and are happily more irregular)? The country is divided into parishes; and universities and other schools supply incumbents, without the smallest or most distant reference to the Church of God, or gift fitting on God's part for the office. If they are good men, so much the better—if, indeed, it do not help on delusion. But, good or bad, the ordaining prelate gives, if they are priested, the Holy Ghost to all alike, in order that they may have power to forgive sins. Is this what Mr. I. calls regular, and the free action of the Spirit of God according to the word irregular ministry?
A sober, godly mind, a mind taught by the word, let me tell him, will count such a system worse than irregular. He may—ought—to mourn and weep over it, not expose it, save as the growing power of evil forces us to inquire what can be trusted in as true, and what cannot. This feeling alone makes me speak thus. An Edomite— “down with it, down with it” —I have no sympathy with whatever. But we are forced (and, as an occasion, forced by such statements as Mr. I.'s) to inquire what is of God and what is not—to separate the precious from the vile.
I would receive every saint, episcopal or anything else, with my whole heart; but the system is leading souls by thousands into popery and falsehood on one hand, and infidelity on the other, because there is no plain, solid truth in it. Evangelicals do not believe what they sign and acquiesce in. Can Mr. I. be surprised if I doubt that he believes the bishop conferred the Holy Ghost on him that he might have the priestly power of forgiving sins? And it is a serious thing to trifle and make empty forms of serious things—a serious thing for the state of the soul. The state of things is forcing all this into view. It may be so best in God's wisdom, for all is surely hastening to the end; but, at any rate, it is sorrowful. Whether it be wise in Mr. I. to draw attention to it, he must judge. I should have a great deal more to say on this head, but I refrain. The great principles are what we have to inquire into.
I turn to more general points; and I will state some general principles—I am bold to say, incontrovertible according to the word of God. Mr. I. will see it is not against his system more than another, but that I speak of what the word of God teaches.
Member of a church is a thing unknown to scripture. The words, the thing, the idea, are unknown there. Christians are members of Christ, and, if you please, one of another, and of nothing else; and membership of anything else is only schism, and denying the true meaning of the word.
A flock, other than God's flock, is equally unknown. God's flock alone is known in scripture, of which Christ is the Chief Shepherd. There is one flock, and only one, meeting it may be in different localities, and elders belonging to those localities, but all the faithful there at any time were of it, because they were of God's flock. A pastor and his flock, in the modern sense, is wholly unknown to scripture, and an utter denial of its contents, if it be not of the words: “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,” &c. These statements I leave for every honest-minded saint, to see whether they are according to scripture or not.
I will now take up the proofs by which Mr. I. attempts to justify the ecclesiastical forms of his system. I only press the fact, that these forms say nothing as to the substance of the system—namely, sacramental birth to God, priestly forgiveness of sins, pretending to confer the Holy Ghost by ordination in order to that power. Anglicans must accept this; they must pretend to do it, at any rate; they all sanction it. It is important to keep this clearly before us. A man may prove meat to be good; but if poison is in it, the proof of its goodness means nothing, or a snare.
But I will take up the alleged proofs of the forms, and show what scripture teaches as to the ministry. In doing this, I must apprize my reader that there is a constant confusion in most minds between ministry and local office. I do not reproach Mr. I. in particular with this. I remember when, from habit, I made the same confusion. But, for all that, the difference is important. Nay, my own conviction is, that the gradual decline of gift led to the confusion of the two, ministry and office, and, thus establishing the clergy, led the way for papal anti-Christian claims. The elders and deacons were local officers; ministry, in the sense of the exercise of gift for edification, was not. It was a given member (eye, foot, ear, as is said) of the whole body of Christ. Elders were ordained in every city; but God set in the Church various gifts. This difference is all important as to the nature of ministry, and the whole clerical and denominational system crumbles together under the unquestionable scriptural fact.
Let me add a question here, which I have often and long ago put, as showing the practical result—If Paul were to address a letter to the Church of God which is at Montreal, who could get the letter It was necessary for me to begin with this distinction, because Mr. I.'s first question involves the denial of it. His question shows, indeed, ignorance of what he might see all over Canada and Europe, and everywhere else. It is this: Has God ordained a divinely appointed ministry to rule and teach in the Church? Now, it is perfectly clear that scripture recognizes teachers who do not rule, save as far as general influence goes, and rulers who do not teach. That teaching was a desirable qualification for those who ruled, but that all had it not. The, whole Presbyterian body, whatever their other defects may be, recognize ruling elders who are not teachers. But, further, Mr. I. having his mind filled with the identity of ruling and teaching, supposes that the admission of a divinely given ministry is rested, by those whom he opposes, on 1 Timothy, and that they think that 2 Timothy has set it aside. He deceives himself and his hearers altogether. It is because we believe in a divinely given ministry, that we do not believe in the geographical system of parishes, and a ministry ordained of man and not of God. Some clergymen may be ministers; but a divinely given ministry sets aside the clerical system, in which Paul and all the early laborers of scripture could not have been permitted to exercise their ministry.
I shall quote the passages which speak of a divinely appointed ministry, quite distinct from local elders, that we may know how scripture presents the ministry to us. In Eph. 4, which Mr. I. quotes, when condescending to sanction what he calls “irregular laborers,” we shall see what ministry is. Christ, who descended into the lowest parts of the earth, is ascended above all heavens, and has led captivity captive, and received gifts for men—a glorious origin and source of ministry. “And he gave some apostles and prophets; some pastors and teachers, and some evangelists, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ, till we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” We cannot conceive a more full or glorious expression of ministry than this, complete in every possible respect, in its source, in the sphere it belongs to, in the completeness of its objects, and in the enduringness of its character. And note, we have no miraculous gifts, no tongues, no healings, no miracles. It is proper ministerial service. The apostles and prophets, we read in this Epistle, were the foundation; they have had their place, but pastors, teachers, evangelists abide. Nor is there an idea of ordination: Christ “gave.” They are, Mr. I. being witness, the irregular laborers, though Timothy, he tells us, proves there were regular ones.
And note, these are the talents conferred when the nobleman went away to receive the kingdom and to return; and woe be to that servant who, in order to trade, waited for any other authority than the possession of the talents committed! And it is very striking here that so distinct is the character of gift by an exalted Christ that the apostle knows nothing here of the apostles till Christ was gone on high. He recognized of course, as we know, the fact; but he cannot know them other than endowed from on high, as he did not, in the same sense, know Christ after flesh. But this is certain: we get the regular ministry in the Church (pastors and teachers) to the world (evangelists), by gift from on high, without the most distinct hint of bishop, presbyter, or ordination. It speaks, Mr. I. does not deny, of the irregular laborers on his system. I should say a divinely appointed ministry in its fullest character, and without any so-called merely supernatural or miraculous gifts, but that by which the Church was to be edified till we all come to a perfect man. I somewhat pity the regular ministry if this was the irregular.
But let us search if scripture warrants this view elsewhere. We have a more general list in 1 Cor. 12. Here the Spirit divides to every man severally as he will, and the gifts are given to every man to profit withal. These are various members in the one body. God has set in the Church—the sphere of action is the one body, the Church—apostles, prophets, &c., amongst which we have gifts of government distinct from teachers. Some of these gifts are lost, others not; but I suppose what remain are to be used. Yea, I might almost dare to say, It is not irregular to use them, to trade with the talents, if they are given to profit withal. Scripture will surely, and does, regulate their use, both as to order and morally. Not more than two or three were to speak—that is a wise rule of order; “Be not many teachers” —a moral instruction and warning. But neither could have any application at all in the clerical system. They could have had no application to the system Mr. I. belongs to. We are not talking of what are called extraordinary or miraculous gifts, but of teachers, of divinely appointed ministry. Or does Mr. I. intend to tell us that the Holy Ghost is no longer in the Church to give teachers, but to make priests for the forgiveness of sins? Is that what he considers regular?
But I proceed. We have in Peter positive orders on the point. (1 Peter 4:1010As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. (1 Peter 4:10).) As every man has received the gift, so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Here again it is the irregular labor, but within, “one to another.”
Evangelical history tells the same tale, as Mr. I. admits. “They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word.” And “the hand of the Lord was with them.” Philip, one of the seven, purchases to himself a good degree, and an evangelist, Stephen, has a still brighter crown—at least as far as man can say, and so in numberless instances. It is the history of the evangelizing the Gentiles. Paul boasts that he was neither of men nor by man. John in his second epistle has no rule for a woman to go by, but the doctrine brought. Gains and Demetrius are commended for receiving these irregular laborers. Diotrephes, indeed, objected. Such are the instructions, rapidly reviewed, which the word gives us of divinely appointed ministry. We may add Rom. 12, in which each is directed to confine himself to his own gift.
I now turn to Timothy. This does give us order and care of the Church, and watching over sound doctrine; which last was the immediate object of his being left at Ephesus. But it does not give us anything of appointment of ministry. Indeed though scripture may and does regulate the use of gift, if God has given a teacher or other gift, he cannot, he dare not, wait on man to exercise it, and hide it in a napkin till then. Scripture does regulate; and where prophets were to speak, the rest were to judge. But the gift of God is to be exercised and not await the permission of man, as to the general fact of serving by it, though all of us have to be subject one to another, and we are to obey God rather than man, if man forbid us to speak in Christ's name. Timothy was left specially to watch over sound doctrine, and watch against false teachers; but the general order of the Church is unfolded. But there is no establishment of a ministry. He was to communicate to faithful men the things he had learned; but here there is not the remotest hint of appointing to office, and its absence is most significative. He was to instruct, not ordain. No such thought was or could be true.
We have seen that the ministry was in full exercise and its order established in 1 Corinthians. It depended on gift, and gift had its place in the whole body. If Apollos was a teacher at Ephesus, he was a teacher at Corinth, and so of all. Indeed every Jew was familiar with this, and the rulers of the synagogue, as to office, were distinct from the teachers. Christ could stand up to read and teach, so Paul and Barnabas were invited at Antioch.
As to the form, there was thus a well-known liberty of teaching, and the distinction of teaching and ruling was thoroughly understood. They might, doubtless, be united in one person, but they were distinct. It was the habit of our blessed Lord, of Paul, and of Apollos to teach and preach in the synagogue, none of these pretending to be ruler there. And, in the Christian assemblies, elders were local. Thus Paul and Barnabas chose elders for them in every church. Acts 14. So, Titus was to establish elders in every city. Gifts were exercised everywhere, as such or such a member of the body: so the whole history and doctrinal teaching of the New Testament show. Elders were local officers. For this office it was desirable that they should be apt to teach; but their business was to oversee and guide the flock of God where the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. And we know that some recognized elders did not teach, though they might rule well. The apostle in this same epistle distinguished those among them who labor in word and doctrine. (1 Tim. 5:1717Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. (1 Timothy 5:17).)
But, so far from ordaining teachers, or the elders alone being the regular teachers, there is in the epistles a prohibition which makes such a notion ridiculous: “Let your women keep silence in your churches;” “For I suffer not a woman to teach.” Can any one in his senses conceive such a phrase, where the only orderly teaching was in the hands of elders? But it is certain that in the synagogue and in the early churches all who could teach to profit were to teach. Elders there were. It was desirable that elders should he apt to teach; but of their being the teachers there is not a hint, but exactly the contrary. Women were not to teach; all men who could were free to do it according to their gift, and bound, too, so to minister the same as good stewards. No honest man can doubt it if he takes the word of God. In France, Switzerland, Germany, it is not now denied by those who have considered the subject. It was considered a whole day at the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance at Berlin. Do not suppose I mean that they act, or mean to act on it. This is a very different thing. One German professor after an evening's discussion with a third person said to me: It is impossible that any upright Christian can deny it is so in scripture; but think of the folly of acting on it after 1800 years!
But Mr. I. appeals to the word. Let him produce the appointment of any one to preach by ecclesiastical authority. Timothy is directed to communicate the truths he has learned to faithful men able to teach; but to ordain teachers, never, neither he nor any one else.
Having gone through the teaching of scripture, let us, now see what Mr. I. has to say. He will already have perceived that I believe in a divinely-appointed ministry, and, because I do, I do not own his office—his system—which denies wholly that of scripture. He will have seen that it is not from 1 Timothy I draw the proof of such a ministry (for there is nothing about it, but about the order of the house of God, in which the ministry of all is supposed possible to the exclusion of women, aptness to teach being desirable in an elder). All the New Testament shows there was such a divinely given ministry. 1 Timothy gives the order of the Church.
It is not even said that hands were laid on elders. I dare say they were, as it was the common expression of commending to God, and communication of blessing or curse; but it is not said. Such has been the wisdom of God. He knew what was before the Church in the way of clergy. We have how Timothy was to behave himself in the house of God, to have it in order. As to elders, deacons, widows, &c., 2 Timothy altered no principle as to ministry, as 1 Timothy established none; it gives individual guidance in the last days and perilous times when the Church should be in disorder.
Mr. I., I cannot help saying, shows much ignorance on scripture questions, and even as to what he is attacking. He takes Bishop Lloyd's chronology for gospel as to the date of the two epistles to Timothy, and even founds on it his argument as to the difference he supposes we make between the two. I do not pretend to decide any question in so intricate a matter as chronology, still less so vexed a question as that of the two Timothys. Some have thought the second the earlier—I cannot conceive why, I confess. At any rate it involves the question of Paul's release from captivity on which volumes have been written. He speaks in 2 Timothy of events which it is impossible to find in the history of the Acts (hence they are to be supposed to have happened after the end of that history). Thus he had left Trophimus sick at Miletus; but when last at Jerusalem Trophimus was there, and he did not touch at Miletus on his way to Rome. On the other hand, in Acts 20 at Miletus he did not expect to see their face again. However now (in 2 Timothy) he saw his end to be close. In Philippians he expects to get free from his first captivity, and in Philemon tells him to prepare a lodging. It would rather seem that 2 Timothy is the very latest of all his epistles. If so, it is at least four years later than the first; for we have four years of imprisonment in the Acts, perhaps eight or ten or more later, unless the first was written after getting free from his first imprisonment, which is full of difficulty if we take Acts 20 as a divinely given presentiment; but this is partly met by the direction to Philemon to prepare a lodging. These questions I do not pretend to solve here.
(To be continued.)