What about ministry? One is as far from the Establishment and from the denominations on this ground as on that of the unity of the body, while owning that real ministers may be found, even if in a false position. Indeed the two subjects cannot be separated. For all ministry is the exercise of the gifts which are in the members of the one body.
And now I must beg to say, that the denial of this is alas! (for I say it with unfeigned sorrow) true as to the English system. It has a mediatory, absolving priesthood. The deacon cannot say the absolution, the deacon cannot consecrate the sacramental elements. It must be a priest. In the Visitation of the Sick it says, “By his authority committed unto me I absolve thee from all thy sins.” And in the Ordination of the Priest it is said, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest! . . . whose sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whose sins ye retain they are retained.” Nor is this for orderly ministry, for the same man as deacon had received authority to preach the word when licensed by the bishop.
Not only so, in the last conference on the Liturgy, the Presbyterians asked that “priest” might be put out, and “minister” used throughout, and it was peremptorily refused. And where the question was of importance on the very point, it was changed from “minister” to “priest,” that there might be no mistake. Where the people are to join, as in the Lord's Prayer, the “Amen” is printed as the prayer; but, as has been carefully noticed by liturgical authorities, in the other prayers it is printed differently, that it may be understood that the priest is to say it for them as a mediator, and they are only to signify their assent by saying, “Amen;” and that it is quite out of place for them to accompany him. The English system makes an infant a member of Christ and a child of God by a sacrament, and has a priest on whom the ordaining prelate professes to confer the Holy Ghost that he may have the power to forgive sins, which accordingly, as the service reads, be does. What more could the most regular mediatorial priest do? The English priest forgives sins: it is the distinctive point of his ordination. The English priest says the prayers alone for the people, who are only allowed to add, “Amen.”
The difference is this—priesthood supposes the other worshippers cannot approach God in the sanctuary themselves (this belonged to Judaism); ministry is the outgoing of God's love to others through the instrumentality, according to their gift, of those who know it. This belongs, I hold, distinctively to Christianity: so far am I from denying ministry.
On the continent of Europe, the liberty of exercising gifts is called universal priesthood, but the term is a blunder. Priests go to God for men, ministers to men from God. However, the principle of a universal title to minister is admitted—in theory, the battle is won on this subject. Competence to do so is a question of gift.
But we have now to inquire what is the scriptural view of ministry and gifts, and whether ordination is required for their exercise. Men in general make the common confusion between gifts which are exercised in the whole church, or in the world to call sinners, and local offices which might be without any gift at all—though one particular gift was perhaps desirable for one of these offices. A teacher was a teacher everywhere; an elder was an elder only in the city where he was appointed. Let us first take the gifts.
The Lord gave talents to His servants when He went away; the point of faithfulness—of being a good servant—was to use them without any further authorization. The mark of unfaithfulness was the not doing so, through want of confidence in Him who gave them; and looking for some other security and warrant in doing it. Peter tells us, “As 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 4:1010As 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).) If we do not minister the same one to another, we are bad stewards. Paul, in 1 Cor. 12, gives us a full survey of the whole question. The Holy Ghost distributes to every man severally as He will, and the administration resulting from the gift is under the authority of the same Lord. Each member fills up its own place in the body—another very important truth. These gifts are set in the church, are not local; but act as such or such a member in the whole body. He hath set in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles, and so on. Some have disappeared; but all are alike set in the church, the body. A worker of miracles was not such in a particular church; he wrought them where God pleased he should, nor an apostle, nor a prophet, nor a teacher, a bit more. They were alike gifts which were set in the church as a whole. If Apollos taught at Ephesus when there, he taught at Corinth when there—as a prophet wherever he might be. Gifts and ministry were not localized; they were not in a church, but in the church, and so set by God. In Eph. 4 we have a list where, unless we except apostles and prophets (which the same epistle tells us were the foundation), the gifts are the ordinary gifts of ministry. Christ ascended up on high, and gave them (not as local offices, but) for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. In Rom. 12 it is the same thing. “We, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching,” &c. They differ according to the grace given, they are in the one body. He who has a gift is to labor in his own gift. There is nothing local—no hint of ordination, nor of anything but the gift. In none of these passages is there a hint of any other authorization than the possession of the gift or talent; in none is there an idea of their being local, or in a church: as a man has received it, he is to minister it, to wait upon it, to trade with his talent, not to go beyond his measure; and in none of them is there a question of elders or local offices. They are exercised in the whole church. This is singular, if the later local system is the true, original, godly order.
But are there not elders and deacons in scripture? There are. In Acts 6 they are not called deacons, but they answer to that office, and the Anglican services treat them as such. Now what are they? They serve tables in contrast with the ministry of the word. “It is not meet,” say the apostles, “that we should leave the word of God to serve tables; wherefore look out from among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” That is, they are appointed to quite another business, in contrast with the ministry of the word. Two out of them, to use the language of Paul, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in Christ Jesus, and set themselves of their own zeal to minister in the synagogues and elsewhere. Philip goes to Samaria, giving up consequently his office” this business” —at Jerusalem (we afterward find him as an evangelist), and the other five ordained to serve tables we never hear of ministering the word at all. That is, deacons were established over temporal matters that others might be free to minister the word. Two of them, gifted and earnest, set about preaching of their own movement: one certainly leaving his local office for it, and becoming an evangelist; the other sent to heaven, the first and blessed martyr.
Ordination for the ministry of the word we have not found yet, but ordination to serve tables. The next chapter but one gives us the ministry of the word, so as to preclude all idea of ordination: “They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word.” Was the whole church ordained? But would God sanction such a proceeding? I read in Acts 11:2121And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. (Acts 11:21): “And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned to the Lord.” The solitary case of Cornelius, as an all important testimony to the principle (as to the admission of the Gentiles), excepted, the gospel to the Gentiles began and was established by the voluntary zeal of unordained men, who preached everywhere.
As to Paul, who soon appears on the scene, and stamps his character on gospel activity, he is careful to tell us not only that he was not of man, but that he was not by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. But did not he ordain? For we have no hint of the twelve ordaining any but the seven to serve tables. First, as to the ministry of the word within (for we have seen it was wholly free without), we have that ministry carefully regulated in 1 Corinthians. Every one had a psalm, an interpretation, a doctrine; there was disorder to be corrected. I think it is evident that sometimes two spoke at once. At any rate there was disorder—a disorder impossible if the apostle, who had been some two years at Corinth, had ordained a regular ministry. The disorder was corrected; but how? Not more than two or three at the utmost were to speak, and in succession; that they might all prophesy one by one, that all might learn and all be profited. The prophets were to speak two or three, and the others judge; if they had not the gifts, of course they were to be silent; but of an ordained ministry—not a hint. The use of gifts is ordered for common edification; no symptom of an ordained ministry appears.
If they tell us, All gifts, teachers, pastors, evangelists, have ceased, I answer, from Eph. 4, Then all that was given for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, has ceased. But the apostle says there they were all given till we all come to a full grown man in Christ, not blown about by every wind of doctrine. And the directions for the exercise of gifts exclude the idea of an ordained ministry. The passages I have quoted from 1 Peter 4 and Rom. 12 confirm this same truth.
But do these directions exclude elders? They do not. Elders were local officers appointed by authority; for whom indeed one gift was a desirable qualification, but not indispensable. In Acts 14 the apostle returned to the cities where they had preached, and “ordained them elders in every church.” (Ver. 23.) Gifts, we have seen, are members in the whole body. A real teacher was a teacher everywhere. An elder was chosen for a particular church. I say “chosen,” for the word “ordain” is false. It is never said in scripture that hands were laid on them. I dare say they were, for it was the common sign of imploring and commending to blessing or healing the sick, or conferring gifts, the last an apostolic privilege. The Holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the apostle's hands. But it is never said that hands were laid on elders. I think it is fairly judged to have been so; but scripture is silent as to any direct statement. God knew what the clergy would come to. But elders were chosen in every church. And the word “chosen” is of importance here; the false translation by “ordain” is a mischievous one. The people did not choose their elders. Barnabas and Paul chose them for them—χειροτονήσαωτες αὐτοῖς. (Compare 2 Cor. 8:1919And 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); Acts 10:4141Not 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 10:41), where “chosen” is the only possible sense.) Elders were local officers.
In Acts 20 we find they were the same as bishops, where again the English translation has hidden the fact of bishops and elders being the same, by translating it (which it has not done in Philip. 1) “overseers,” an excellent word, for it tells us their office very clearly: they were overseers of God's flock, shepherds in this sense, not ministers of the word as such. It was desirable they should be apt to teach—such divinely given power in the word evidently increased their efficiency in oversight. But all did not. They were worthy of double honor, we read in Timothy, specially such as labor in the word and doctrine. But this shows the ministry of the word and doctrine was a distinct thing from their office—very desirable, but not the elder's work. The addition of this made it more efficient. Hence we see that the main qualifications for elders in Timothy and Titus are, gravity, a well ordered family, children in subjection, self-government, qualities for ruling and guiding, and such already demonstrated in practice; so that they should be shown to be fit to guide the church.
Ministers of the word might be young or not; elders and deacons were to be grave, approved, fathers of families. Elders in one place were not elders in another. Titus was to stablish such in every city. Gifts were gifts everywhere. God had set them in the church.
A few collateral proofs may be cited of this scriptural character of the ministry of the word. “Let your women keep silence in the churches.” What can such a direction as this mean if an appointed minister alone were there— “For I suffer not a woman to teach?” Here we have a limit, but not where modern theology has placed it. Again, John, in writing to the elect lady, tells her not to receive those who did not bring sound doctrine as to Christ. The only test of preachers going about was their doctrine. Gaius did well to receive them. Diotrephes did not like it. Ministry then was gift; there was no ordination for it at all: whoever had the gift was bound to use it— “to profit withal.” The word regulated the use of these gifts as to the orderly exercise of them in the assemblies; and he who possessed one exercised it according to these rules everywhere. For there was only one body, and he was that member in it wherever he was. Elders were local officers, overseers, who might, or might not, have gifts.
But was not Timothy ordained? What is the scriptural statement— “the gift that is in thee by the laying on of my hands?” Timothy was pointed out by prophecy, and Paul conferred a gift on him by the laying on of his hands; not an office, but a gift. He had no local office; he might be left at Ephesus, as Titus was in Crete, for special purposes, as the representative of the apostle; but both he and Titus were confidential companions of the apostle: one to leave Crete and come to Nicopolis; and the other seen soon after in the company of the apostle elsewhere. (Acts 20:44And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. (Acts 20:4); Titus 3:1212When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter. (Titus 3:12).) In Timothy's case the presbytery joined in laying on of hands, not to give, but associated with Paul's communicating the gift.
I know that Roman and English prelates profess to give the Holy Ghost; and, as we have seen, not for the ministry of the word, which the deacon was already called to; but to forgive sins as a priest. Are we to believe they have this apostolic power? Did the apostles ever confer it with such an object in view?
If it be asked, Why then have you not elders, official elders, if there were such in the primitive Church, even if gifts be free? the answer is, To have true elders, I must have what the apostle says, “The flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” Where is the flock of God, the one flock, so as to have elders of the assembly? In the next place, we have seen, the assembly never chose them, the apostle chose for them; as be left Titus to establish them in every city. The churches could not do it. Nor even do these churches exist now. If a body of Christians choose elders, it is very possible that not one of those the apostles would have chosen—the Holy Ghost would have made overseers—is there amongst them. No assembly can call itself the flock of God in a place, and of no elders chosen by them could it be rightly said, The Holy Ghost has made you overseers. The state of things is different. The external church is in ruins, cut up into a hundred sects, or gorged with error and evil in Popery.
Is there no order, no means of it? God has provided it. First, as to the exercise of gifts, if such there are, the rules are there where needed. In the next place, I find (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)) those who had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints; and they were to submit themselves to such, and to all who helped with the apostles and labored. There is a moral action on the souls of those composing the assembly available when official rule does not exist; and it is remarkable there are no elders alluded to in 1 Corinthians, where such disorder was, nor directions to appoint any: the word of God meets the evil. Again, in 1 Thess. 5:12, 1312And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; 13And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. (1 Thessalonians 5:12‑13), “Now, we beseech you, brethren, know them which labor among you and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake.” And in 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), “Obey them that have the rule over you [ἡγουμένοι, the same word as “chief men among the brethren” used of Silas] and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account.” All this can be practiced when there is no official appointment. For that, apostolic authority is needed, and does not exist, nor the one external body in which it was exercised. This rests on the action of the word in the conscience of those who have to submit. If one comes to me as an official elder, he has no scriptural authority to make good his claim. If I am unruly and unsubdued, those who labor, or indeed any Christian, can bring these passages, and I must submit to the word, or brethren can withdraw themselves from me—have no company with me, that I may be ashamed. This is moral power, not official.
In sum then, ministry flows from gift, and is exercised in the whole church of God; or, if an evangelist, in the world. If a man has the talent, woe be to him if he does not trade with it. What was the one church in the apostles' time is sunk into corruption, or cut up into a multitude of sects—does not exist in its integrity and normal condition. There is no authority competent to choose and establish official elders, nor a flock of God existing to which such official appointment could apply. But there is provision in the word for this ruined state of things wherever two or three are gathered in Christ's name, or for the service of any saints, as one gifted to serve has opportunity in redeeming the time, or to poor sinners as an evangelist.
A clergy is a thing which has no foundation whatever in the word of God, still less a priesthood, save as all Christians are priests. A ministry still exists in definite permanent gifts as pastors, teachers, evangelists; but the increase of the body comes also from the ministration of that which every joint supplieth according to the measure of every part. A gift of wisdom— “the word of wisdom” —may keep peace and happiness among God's people, though perhaps in one who never exercises any public ministration of the word. We can ever count on the faithfulness of the Lord for present need, and bringing His people to glory.
It was not the details of the sacramental and priestly system which drove me from the Establishment, deadly as they are in their nature, but because I was looking for the body of Christ, which was not there, but in all the parish perhaps not one converted person; and collaterally, because I believed in a divinely appointed ministry. If Paul had come, he could not have preached, he had never been ordained; if a wicked ordained man, he had his title and must be recognized as a minister. The truest minister of Christ unordained could not. It was a system contrary to what I found in scripture.
It was clear, on the other hand, a multitude of sects did not furnish the one body I looked for.
At the beginning, when the Lord added to the church such as should be saved, and during the whole scriptural period practically (though false brethren even crept in), the true body of Christ and the external sacramental body were the same—had the same limits. Soon they became very different, and perplexed good men, as Augustine on one side, who talked of an invisible Church, and Novatian and even Tertullian, who left it—the last for fanaticism.
But scripture warns us that the external sacramental system would get into a state that would call for withdrawal—a form of godliness denying the power, from which we were to turn away. This external church fell into the grossest corruption—beat the men servants and maid servants, and ate and drank with the drunken—became the sure subject of judgment from the Master, whose return they said would be delayed.
The Establishment in its formularies, and Papists and Puseyites in their doctrine, attribute all the blessing and security of the true body to the sacramental body; they make all uncertain of salvation; and sacraments, and these only, certain grace. Dissenters have left on particular points of conscience, and framed (thinking they could) churches for themselves. “Brethren” so-called would own God's church; but, while looking for true unity as of the one body, symbolized in the one loaf, distinguish (as forced and directed to do) the external form, from which, by the apostle's direction, they have turned away; but have not found in churches formed by man either true separation from the world, or what scripture presents as the path of the saint when the corruption had set in. The so-called churches do not own as a duty on earth one body and one Spirit; a body formed by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, waiting for God's Son from heaven; and the ministry, as stated in scripture, is not more owned among dissenters than in the Establishment.
May all give heed to the solemn warning, “On thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” Has the Christian system continued in the goodness of God, or left its first works?