On the face of the epistles one gives us the order of God's house, the other tells of departure and perilous times. All the beloved ones of Asia, whose order he had established, bad turned away from him; and while insisting more than ever on Christian courage, grief comes out in every passage. The scriptures, and immediate apostolic teaching, are the resource when the power of godliness was gone and its form there; and the house, once set as the pillar and ground of the truth, had become as a great house full of vessels to dishonor from which a man had to purge himself, as well as of honor. Nor has Mr. I. paid attention to the directions of this last epistle touching the last and perilous days. To this I beg his attention, and that of every one who may deign to read these pages. The Second Epistle to Timothy states, that in the last days perilous times shall come, which it describes, when there would be a form of godliness denying the power of it. 2 Timothy does not contemplate the godly order of the first epistle, but a state of things in the professing church analogous to the state of the heathen as described in the Epistle to the Romans. And it does direct us to have done with it— “From such turn away.”
It is not a question of breaking up the Church. Alas! what Mr. I. calls the Church is breaking up by its own decrepitude, by the contradictory principles it contains within itself, and the absence of all power of self-government, and leaving us exposed to, or rather dragging us unto, the deadly evil of popery and infidelity, so that we have to inquire where the resource of the individual is when he has to turn away. In 2 Timothy that resource is declared to be in the scriptures, not in the professing church, and not in the clergy. If Mr. I. cannot find out the difference between the directions for godly order in 1 Timothy and the directions to individuals when false profession has brought in perilous times in 2 Timothy, his position must have singularly blinded his eyes.
Nor is this all. In chapter 2 we have a totally changed state of the Church contemplated. In the beginning of the Acts we read— “The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.” To that one well known assembly at Jerusalem, where the whole Church then was, souls were added. In 2 Timothy how different the language! False doctrines are overthrowing the faith of some; but the sure foundation of God abides. There is this comfort— “The Lord knoweth them that are his.” They may not be brought out into the blessed unity of a manifested assembly as at the first; they may be hidden in the recesses of Rome, or in the dark ignorance of Greece; but the Lord knows them, and that is a comfort.
But there is a direction addressed to our responsibility also— “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” If a godly man thinks it iniquity to say that a person has received the Holy Ghost, perhaps from an unconverted man, so as to have the power of forgiving sins, and such like; if his conscience tells him it is iniquity to establish crowds of unconverted men, who hate the gospel, as ministers of God in parishes, what is he to do? Mr. I. may call it breaking up the Church, but the word of God commands him to depart from iniquity.
But while this is a direction for individual conscience of the plainest kind, the passage in 2 Timothy goes farther. The apostle gives what I may call ecclesiastical teaching. When the Church becomes a great house, we must expect this evil. In a great house there are all kinds of vessels, and some to dishonor too. What is to be done? The great house is Christendom. No one thinks of leaving this. We turn neither heathens nor Jews nor Mohammedans, nor renounce Christian profession; but we are called to purge ourselves from the vessels to dishonor who are in this Christendom. Mr. I. may object to this, and call it breaking up the Church; but the word of God directs us to purge ourselves from these, and we must follow it. But if Mr. I. cannot see the difference between this and the beautiful order of God's house, as depicted in 1 Tim. I repeat, his position must have sadly blinded his eyes.
A divinely appointed ministry is then not only admitted but insisted on, in contrast with the apostate and anti-Christian principle of a clergy (which calls the blessed action of the Holy Ghost, and what is admitted to be such, irregular, and puts a human establishment in its place). 1 Timothy does not speak of the appointment of ministry, nor does 2 Timothy take it away. A divinely appointed ministry subsists to this day. 1 Timothy shows the order of the house of God; 2 Timothy tells us what to do in the perilous times of the last days, when we have to say, “The Lord knoweth them that are his.” There was order in 1 Timothy. There is disorder everywhere now.
The clergy means that the title to ministry depends, not on gifts and teaching the truth, but on human establishment, in the immensely vast majority, of unconverted men by unconverted men. The Romish priest, or Greek pope, is a clergyman; so is Mr. I. who is bound to own an ordained man who teaches the contrary of what Paul taught, as a brother minister. Why? Because he is a clergyman. But he cannot own the one sent of God as a brother minister, because he is not a clergyman. He may condescend to own from on high the Holy Ghost's irregular laborers. Let him not be offended by my referring to Romish priests as clergymen. So far does this principle of clergy go, that if a Romish priest came over to the Anglican body to-morrow, he is owned as in holy orders, and a fellow clergyman. If the greatest instrument God had in the world—who was not a clergyman—were to come, he could not be owned. It is this horrible wickedness that I reject, and from which I withdraw—the principle of clergy. And I do so just because I believe in a divinely appointed ministry. I know there are good men among the clergy, and I love them; but the system is a denial of the Holy Ghost and His work, and a substitution of man in His place. Nor did I ever see one who was a good man, who has not suffered in his soul by being of the clergy, by falsifying his conscience in solemn things.
A few words will suffice for Mr. I,'s select passages. He tells us Christ ordained twelve apostles. No doubt. What Christ ordained, we own, of course. Yet even this, most assuredly, was not the Christian commission nor the Church of God. When they were sent out, they were forbidden to go to the Gentiles, or to any but Jews; they would not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man was come. Is this what Mr. I. presents to us as ministry in the Church? It was after Christ's death and resurrection that they received their commission for the world, and were then told to tarry at Jerusalem till endowed with power from on high. It is in this character accordingly Paul owns them as apostles—in their church character. He ascended up on high and gave gifts unto men, and he gave some apostles, &c. But it is natural for those imbued with the idea of clergy to overlook all the doctrine of the Holy Ghost.
As to the seventy being deacons, it is a new notion, if I am not mistaken, not very long got up, and absurd as it is new; or if indeed not new, an old absurdity. The seven are not called deacons, but Mr. I. cannot reject their being So, for the Anglican service for the ordination of deacons, treats them as such, and they are generally so accounted. They were to serve tables, as contrasted with the word, as every one knows; they were the ministering servants of the Church. The seventy were sent before. Christ's face, wherever He was coming, as a last warning to Israel, on Christ's last journey up to Jerusalem, to warn their cities that the kingdom of God was come unto them, the devils being subject to them as a testimony. (Luke 10:9, 11, 179And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. (Luke 10:9)
11Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. (Luke 10:11)
17And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. (Luke 10:17).) No one, I conceive, but a clergyman, could have dreamed of connecting this with deacons The next proof is that the apostles ordained a successor to Judas. This is an unfortunate example. Peter takes up Psa. 109 to show that the word of God expressly taught that another was to take his office; of ordination there is nothing. “Ordained” is an interpolation—with what good faith others must judge. All that is said is, “must be a witness.” They, the 120, it would appear (for no others are spoken of in the plural), set forth two as answering Peter's description, and then they cast lots which it is to be, after the Jewish manner, for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, and he was numbered with the twelve. The choice was given to the Lord by lot, and there was no ordination of any kind, nothing regular. Deacons are set apart, if so we are to call them, to serve tables that others might give themselves up to the ministry of the word. Was this setting apart to rule and teach—ordaining to serve that others might have full time for teaching? It is the only express case of laying on of hands for office we have in the New Testament. True, some of them who had gift became “irregular laborers,” but no wit, even of a clergyman, can make out of it an ordination to rule and to teach. We read that they who use that office of service well would acquire a good degree and great boldness in Christ Jesus—would be efficient irregular laborers, as Philip and Stephen were in Jerusalem and Samaria, and in the desert of Gaza, according to the power of the Spirit of God.
In Acts 14 Paul and Barnabas chose elders (“ordained” is really a false translation) and rulers in a true scriptural sense; but of teaching there is no question. There is no doubt that the apostle appointed several elders as overseers or bishops, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, in churches which he founded. I say by the authority of the Holy Ghost, because in Acts 20 Paul says of the elders of Ephesus “The Holy Ghost has made you bishops.” They were to shepherd the flock of God (feed is a different word). It is ruipaive, not pdarce, Yet it was desirable they should be apt to teach; and, in such case, doubtless did so. But we also know, by the same apostle, that some did not.
As to Timothy's being the first bishop of Ephesus, it is a mere fable. Every one who has inquired into these things knows that the superscriptions of the epistles have no authority whatever. Some, as on the face of it 1 Corinthians, are notoriously false. All of them were sentences tacked on by late copyists. But Acts 20 is a clear proof that Timothy was not so; for the apostle calls for the elders of Ephesus on his last voyage; and there is not the smallest hint of any Timothy, or any other bishop. On the contrary, language is used which excludes such an idea. “Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you bishops;” and then he commends them to God, and the word of His grace. It is not merely the word bishop applied to them, though it does show those whom he owned as alone made their bishops by the Holy Ghost, but he looks to them as the ones to watch for themselves and all the flock; and the fancied bishop is ignored in the most absolute and unceremonious way. No man in his senses can suppose that there was another superior functionary to whom the chief care of the flock was entrusted. Besides, Timothy, and so Titus, was called away when his special service was ended. They were employed as confidential agents by the apostle to complete needed order in new churches, but permanent bishopric they had none. Gifted saints they were, and the apostle's own sons in the faith, in whom the apostle, as he declares, reposed especial confidence.
As regards the angel of the church, who told Mr. I. that he was the presiding officer? It is quite certain that, where all is plainly stated, there were several presiding officers or elders. The angel in the Jewish synagogue was not the presiding officer; that is well known. If the angel was the presiding officer—that is, if the original constitution of the churches had been changed—the Spirit of God would not own directly and openly any such change from His own constitution, but gives a symbolical name. And it was when the Church had left its first love, and was already threatened with having the candlestick removed; while its history is preserved till, having had opportunity to repent, it had not done so, and was threatened with the sorest judgments on one hand, and on the other was found pretending to be rich, and was just about to be spued out of Christ's mouth. I do not believe that the angel was a presiding officer, but a symbolical representative of the Church viewed in those responsible in it. For this reason, that the way the plural is used in Smyrna, Thyatira, and the interchange of it with the singular, as in chapter ii. 10, 24, so, indeed, the language to Pergamos and to Philadelphia—in truth, I might say, to all the churches—makes it impossible to apply it to an individual presiding officer, and obliges us to see a symbolical representative of the Church. This is certain that if it was a single presiding officer, the Holy Ghost would not own him as such, by any direct name of office, and it was so only when the Church had left her first love, and was now threatened with being cut off. I cannot enter into a discussion of the interpretation of the seven churches here: but the plain declarations of scripture present several bishops in a church, never one. That this crept in early, no one denies, when all sought their own, not the things of Jesus Christ. But it is certain that it was not so at first. Acts 20 demonstrates the contrary. And we have the best ecclesiastical authority, Jerome, confirmed by other so-called fathers, telling us that there was no such difference in the beginning, no such presiding officer, but that it was introduced for peace' sake, when the presbyters or elders began to seek to make separate parties for themselves. Clement, the earliest post scriptural authority we have knows only presbyters in Corinth; and if we have Ignatius, who boasts abundantly of them, we have not only interpolations, but forgeries, as has been fully proved, to make good the ambition of men. It is a sad history, but a predicted one. Paul's remedy for the very case Jerome speaks of was not Jerome's. Of that the Papal abominations have been the gradual and legitimate growth. Of this we have too many remains (in the pretension to confer the Holy Ghost in priesthood, which, as a distinct order, is the denial of Christianity, in priestly absolution, in baptismal making members of Christ, where episcopacy prevails, to say nothing of making the whole population the Church) to feel any confidence in substituting such a presiding officer for the word of God, to which Paul commends us in the perilous times of the last days, and the Holy Ghost by which alone the humble soul can rightly use it, and who alone can give a true and effectual ministry.
For my own part, then, I am so far from rejecting a divinely given ministry, that it is because I believe in one that I reject the clergy, which is not a divinely given one, but the fruit of the Church's departure from the faith. I beg Mr. I. to believe I have no enmity against him, or any godly member of the body he belongs to. I receive them as members of the body of Christ; but in these last days, these perilous times, we are forced to see where the sure foundation is. The Holy Ghost, through Paul, assures us it is in the scriptures, not in the professing body. That would come, and it has come, to have the form of godliness and to deny the power of it. The part of the professing body he belongs to is, of all others, a scene of confusion and incompetency, which confounds beholders. Presbyterianism, with its deserted kirk and U. P.'s, and Free Kirk almost split upon the point of which they should unite with, has little to boast over it. I assure him, I say it with profound and unfeigned sorrow. The breaking up of these Protestant bodies will only let in, and is letting in, Popery and infidelity; and I have not one atom of sympathy with the worldly-minded ambitious dissenters who are joining papists and infidels in seeking to pull it down. I must leave all this in God's wise and holy hand; but saints must in such a time look for some sure foundation.
They have it, thank God, in the word of God, in the faithfulness of the true and exalted Head of the Church, soon coming to take us to Himself and set all things right in heaven and in earth (blessed time to think of!) They have the Spirit of God to guide and help them if they are humble, and provision in the word of God for the very times we are in, moral provision for godly rule and order when official has been perverted and corrupted; not, perhaps, the order of the external Church restored, but the presence and faithfulness of Him who can never fail it, an ark of God, which, if its ordered place was in the midst of the camp, can go a three days' journey in condescending grace before the host to find in the wilderness a place where we may rest.
I have done. The clergy I reject, because the system denies, in principle and fact, the title and prerogatives of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, the unity of the body, and the gifts by which Christ, its Head, edifies the Church and calls sinners, and has substituted geographical divisions for faith, or sectional membership for membership of the body of Christ—has substituted human arrangements of one kind and another for a divinely given ministry. There is no scriptural ground of any kind for church membership other than the unity of the body of Christ; none for a pastor and his flock; none for the divisions which have resulted from the attempts to rebuild the church when, three hundred years ago, excessive ecclesiastical corruption in the great professing body, led masses, under God's mercy, to break loose from its galling and degrading chains. But the energy of faith which brought about that result has passed away, and the result is fallen into decrepitude, giving occasion to the energetic recrudescence of popery and the wide spread influence of pretentious intellect, and infidelity. It is under this we are now suffering; but we are forewarned in the word.
I cannot close this without pressing on my reader's attention, though briefly, the warnings I allude to. We have the solemn declaration in Rom. 11 that if the Gentile Christendom (which has taken the place of Judaism) did not continue in God's goodness, it should be cut off. Has it so continued? Was popery continuing in God's goodness? If not, Christendom will be cut of, Laodicea spued out of God's mouth, as Thyatira punished with grievous plagues (both to give place, as you may see, to the throne and scepter of Christ, and, it is added in Thyatira, heavenly possession of the morning star). The mystery of iniquity, begun in the Apostles' days, would continue till it resulted in open apostasy, and the man of sin to be destroyed at Christ's coming. Evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse. Is there fear then for the saints? None. Not more than for the saints of Judaism, who, when it fell, were transferred into the Church of God. But their external props will fail them. They will have to walk by faith as they were ever called to do. The Lord is coming, according to His promises, to receive them to Himself, that where He is they may be also. He will gather the wheat, not into a church on earth as the remnant of Judaism, but into the heavenly garner. Meanwhile they have the word of God, and the Spirit of God—God Himself and the word of His grace—a word able to make them wise unto salvation. Let them recognize every gift God gives, for He is yet calling sinners, or edifying His saints. These will continue in virtue of the faithfulness of Christ Himself, till all the work He has to do is done. The denial of gifts is the denial of the sovereign title of the Holy Ghost, and Christ's authority in the Church, just as the clergy is.
Appointment to office is lost, the Church on earth being in confusion and ruin. If elders are to be appointed, I ask, not only who is to appoint them with authority, and there is no one, but where is the church over which they are to be appointed? A sectional body may choose for itself (an act of mere human will), but they can have no authority beyond the will of those who have chosen them. They cannot be what elders were in the early Church—bishops, whom the Holy Ghost appointed over the flock of God. It is a mere unlicensed powerless imitation by human will over a little self-constituted corner of the Church (perhaps, indeed, of the world). But scripture has provided for this case also, not officially, but morally, not only in the gift to rule, but in faithful service. See 1 Cor. 16:15, 1615I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) 16That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboreth. (1 Corinthians 16:15‑16); 1 Thess. 5:12, 1812And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; (1 Thessalonians 5:12)
18In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. (1 Thessalonians 5:18); Heb. 13:1717Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. (Hebrews 13:17). In none of these is official authority given as the ground of subjection and obedience. It is an exhortation involving the spiritual state and duty of the saints themselves, founded on moral grounds, always true and available, and which, if the sorrowful need arise for it, can be enforced by the saints themselves according to 2 Thess. 3:14-1614And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. 16Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all. (2 Thessalonians 3:14‑16), and Rom. 16:17, 1817Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Romans 16:17‑18).
My object is not now to enlarge on this. I notice it only to show that the blessed Lord has provided in His word, even for the ruin in which our unfaithfulness has involved the Church. Only I beseech every saint to look the confusion and ruin which exists in the face, to see how surely we are in the perilous times of the last days, to be ready for the Lord, loins girded and lights burning, waiting for God's Son from heaven; to arise and trim their lamps, and to see what is the sure foundation of God which will abide, and thus build up according to the grace given to them, and leave to the enemies of the Lord and the selfishness of men and sects to pull down. We shall have enough to do in these days to deliver souls from abounding error, and help them in the path of grace and peace. Only may they remember, that wherever there is a priesthood (save that of all children of God), there is the denial of Christianity. A priest means one who goes to God for you—is between you and God. Christianity is the blessed truth that the veil is rent, and that, through the efficiency of the precious blood of Christ, we can go boldly into the holiest ourselves—that through Him we have ourselves access by one Spirit unto the Father. An ordained or consecrated priesthood is the denial of true Christianity.
(Concluded from page 125.)