has stated his reasons for secession from us in a candid and honourable manner, and has, therefore, done no more than, with his views, he ought to have done. So far as I understand him, though I think he is not always perspicuous or consistent, he regards the ministry, not as a distinct office, but as belonging to all persons who possess gifts which may be variously exercised by different persons, as one to teach, another to preside, and so on, and that the church has no power to appoint such ministers, but merely to receive them, duly gifted as messengers of God.

I think all the objections alleged against our ministry in this statement, I am sure all the principal, may be refuted in the illustration of three remarks.

The pastoral office is a permanent institution in the churches of Christ.

Pastors and deacons are the only officers necessary in an organized church.

Of such a church the appointment of the pastor is vested in the members.

I. The pastoral office is a permanent institution in the churches of Christ.

Here I appeal to the passage which we have read. A glance at its connexion is sufficient for our purpose. The apostle recommends that unity of spirit be carefully preserved amidst the diversity of gifts. He then enumerates the various gifts which the glorified Redeemer has bestowed upon his church, which gifts of Christ are the several offices of the ministry. "And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers." From the subsequent verses, it is most evident, that some of these offices are permanent. They are" for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." It is not implied that all these offices unitedly are necessary, but it is most evidently implied that one of them, at least, is necessary to accomplish these purposes. Although the various gifts may be variously dispensed in the varying circumstances of the church, yet the argument is, that without one of the offices enumerated, that is, without one of the gifts of Christ, the saints cannot be perfected, the ministry cannot be worked, the body of Christ cannot be edified. If it can, Christ's gifts were superfluous, then hath he given gifts unto men in vain. That such is a correct inference, from the apostle's language, is confirmed by the following verse-"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." As long, therefore, as we are to "grow up unto him in all things, which is the head;" as long as the whole body of Christ is to be "fully joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working of the measure in every part;" so long the gifts of Christ, by which the body is edified, are to be gratefully retained and highly valued.

A

It may be asked which of the gifts of Christ were intended to be permanent? Certainly not the apostles, for no man living has seen

the Lord Jesus;-certainly not the prophets, for prophecies shall cease; certainly not the evangelists, for they were assistants of the apostles, endowed with supernatural gifts, like Mark and Philip, Timothy and Titus-assuredly the pastors and teachers, for here we exhaust the compliment, in whose office and gifts there was nothing supernatural, or exclusively appropriate to the apostolic age.

This passage then seems to me completely to establish the perpetuity, as well as the absolute necessity, of the pastoral office, especially on the cessation of apostles, prophets, and evangelists, Unless one of the gifts of Christ be perpetual, the argument of the apostle cannot be sustained. It may therefore seem superfinous minutely to examine any other passage; or even to observe that our inference is confirmed by the apostolic practice of ordaining elders in every church, by their leaving evangelists to ordain elders in every city, by the recognition of bishops and deacons only in the apostolic epistles, by the full and explicit statements of the qualifications for their offices among which is found nothing extraordinary or peculiar to the apostolic age.

I am, however, far from intimating that the persons who object to our ministry, expressly and in so many words, deny the perpetual necessity of pastors and teachers. Their language upon this subject is, I think, somewhat inconsistent. They admit the exercise of the gifts of teaching rather than the office of teacher, and object to the restriction of the ministry to any one class or office. Our text, however, speaks not of the pastorate and of teaching, as belonging to the whole church, but of pastors and teachers as the gifts of Christ. It restricts this ministry to certain persons, some pastors and teachers. Whenever a service is restricted to some persons, an office is necessarily constituted. Besides the very names imply such restriction, for if all were teachers, where were the taught? If all were pastors, where were the flock? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?

Should it be said that some Congregational churches flourish without pastors; I can only reply, I must leave their defence to abler disputants. They appear to me to reject the gift of Christ, and to refuse the evangelic ministry of edification. The occasional supplies of pastors from other churches is no scriptural substitute for their own proper ministry. What right have they to assume the licentious power of living in communion without an authorized superintendent?

We are further charged with maintaining the anti-christian distinctions of clergy and laity in the church of Christ. We maintain no other distinction than St. Paul's "difference of administrations;" no other than that of our text, "some pastors and teachers." The office may probably have been abused by the intrusion of foolish or wicked men; but which of God's gifts is not abused? In defending a principle, we are not obliged to deny the possibility of its abuse. In the work to which I have already referred, the official character of our ministry is charged with a tendency more especially towards pride and avarice. If it be so, we have, in its specific abuse, a presumption in its favour. We have a clear point of resemblance to

the office of a bishop, as instituted by the apostles. Where, in those days, was the danger of introducing a novice? "Lest being puffed up with pride, he should fall into the condemnation of the devil." And what was the solemn charge of St. Peter to the elders, but "feed the flock of God, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind." Were there among us no danger of pride and avarice, no probability of such an abuse, especially to a novice, no need of the voice of warning and faithful expostulation, our ministry would be purer and less perilous than was that of the apostolic age. But to such immaculate purity we make no pretence.

II. Pastors and deacons are the only offices necessary in an organized church.

It is admitted by our opponents that the deacons are quite sufficient to conduct the secular business of the church: (on this part of the proposition I therefore need not insist;) but it is said that a great variety of gifts and services, assigned in the New Testament to different persons, are by us confined to one man.

If by this assertion it were meant, that in our churches there is frequently but one pastor, where in the apostolic ages there was a plurality of elders, or that in our large churches the strength and talents of any one man are totally insufficient for the edification of the whole body of believers, I should hesitate long before I attempted to contravene the statement. I do regret that, in our large and wealthy congregations, co-pastors and helps of government are not more generally supported. There was in every apostolic church a presbytery or eldership, consisting of the bishops and deacons. I do not say that one bishop and one deacon may not constitute such a presbytery; but I think it would be a very insufficient one for a numerous church.

But the meaning of our opponents is that different persons in the primitive churches possessed different gifts and attended to different spiritual services, as that one ruled and another taught; one presided and another preached; one exhorted the society, and another addressed unbelievers. From this statement we altogether demur.. That there were many extraordinary offices and ministrations in the infant church is undeniable. That it is the duty of every church to select and employ competent persons, neither pastors nor deacons, to exhort and instruct the ignorant, or as the servants of the church to compel them to come in, we freely acknowledge. But that in the church there is more than one spiritual, or more than one secular office is, we believe, an assumption which cannot be sustained, but is easily refuted, on appeal to Scripture.

I appeal to our text, from which it appears that pastors and teachers were the same persons. "And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists;" these were evidently three distinct classes-" and some pastors and teachers." Is it not undeniable that these constituted a fourth class? It is not, some pastors, and others teachers, but some persons, pastors and teachers. It is plain from the turn of the expression, that the pastor was the teacher, and not as the Plymouth brethren assert, that the pastor presided while others taught.

N. S. VOL. III.

Rr

To prove that this is the correct interpretation, we appeal to the parallel passage in the first epistle to the Corinthians. The administrations of the church are there commended in the following order. "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps of government, diversities of tongues." It is evident that in this enumeration the pastors are not specified at all, unless they were the same as the teachers. I am aware it is often said, that this is an enumeration of supernatural gifts, but, if so, why are teachers mentioned? To their function, in itself, belongs nothing supernatural. Again, "are all apostles ? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?" If pastors and teachers were distinct, both would be here in the same category-both excluded if only supernatural gifts be intended, both included if this be an enumeration of both the ordinary and extraordinary endowments of the Spirit. The inference appears to me incontrovertible, that the teachers and the pastors were identical.

The identity of the pastors, teachers, elders, and bishops, may be inferred from several passages in the New Testament. In the church at Ephesus, the elders, the bishops, and the pastors were evidently the same persons. Paul at Miletus called the elders of the church, and charged these elders, "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed," rather to be pastors, to (the verb is cognate with the noun of our text,)"the church of God." In the epistle to Timothy, the bishop, the teacher, and the ruler or pastor, are identified" for the bishop is to be apt to teach," which surely implies he was to be a teacher, be able to rule well his own house, that he may take care of the church of God." In the epistle to Titus, the elder is also the bishop, the teacher, and the preacher to the unconverted. "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders in every city, if any be blameless, for a bishop must be blameless "—then this ordained elder and blameless bishop is also to "be able by sound doctrine," or rather sound teaching; "both to exhort and convince the gainsayers." St. Peter also addresses the churches of the dispersion in the very same terms as St. Paul employed in speaking to the Ephesian elders. "The elders among you I exhort, feed," literally be pastors to "the flock of God, taking the oversight," literally being bishops, "not by constraint, but willingly." We need pursue the enquiry no further, but simply ask, if other offices were intended to be permanent in the church, why should St. Paul, in his minute exhortation to Timothy and Titus upon this very subject, describe the qualifications of only the bishop and the deacon?

While then we maintain the protest of our fathers against the multiplicity of offices in the English hierarchy, we feel compelled by a consistent regard to apostolic authority equally to resist the division of the pastoral office among rulers, pastors, teachers, evangelists, helpers, angels, and other officers, which have been, of late, introduced by the lust of innovation, or the rashness of modern fanaticism. In reply to men of both extremes, those who multiply, and those who divide the two offices of the christian church, I

1

might adduce the authority of the most eminent scholars and ecclesiastical antiquarians of every section of the Protestant church. Two however must suffice. The one is John Wickliffe, who says "only two orders of clerks should suffice in the church, priests and deacons." The other is the declaration made of the functions and divine institution of bishops and priests, which ought to be acknowledged of authority in the English church, as it was officially prepared for Henry VIII. and signed by the king's vicegerent in ecclesiastical matters-Cromwell, the two archbishops, Cranmer and Lee, eleven bishops and twenty canonists, in which it is said, "the truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of ministers or deacons, and of priests or bishops." The same thing is said almost in the same words "in the Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man," approved expressly by Cranmer, Jewell, and the other contemporaneous bishops and divines, and set forth by authority of the king and parliament of this realm." This is, surely, the judgment of the English church against itself.

66

III. The appointment of pastors is intrusted to the members. of their respective churches.

The right of every church to elect its own officers is a distinctive principle of the Congregational body, which has been consistently and perseveringly maintained in opposition to the claims of prelates and patrons, the Vatican and the throne, the assembly of presbyters and the conference of preachers. We are now, however, told by certain seceders, who seem concentrating into a new religious body, that we, in common with others, have fallen into a grievous error in arrogating for men the prerogative of the Holy Ghost. It is said. that the church has nothing to do, but to recognize and receive the ministers, whom the Spirit provides, in such numbers, and with such gifts, as to him may seem proper, communicating to every church separately and as he pleases.

To this we reply, that we believe the Holy Spirit prepares and qualifies some of his servants for the work of the ministry, which spiritual qualifications are indispensable to a pastor; but that he directly appoints any pastor irrespective of human selection, we maintain to be an unscriptural assumption.

If the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, ordained elders in every church, and Titus ordained them in every city, it is manifest that such elders were appointed by the discretion of men. The offices were of divine, but the officers of human appointment. Whether the apostles and Titus ordained these officers on their own authority, or on the election of the churches is not the question in dispute. It is manifest that they were not immediately and directly appointed by the Holy Spirit. His agency was acknowledged, but the human instrumentality was equally apparent.

The reverend gentleman who has lately seceded from us says, no use of these passages can be made by dissenters, because, so far as they are pleaded in this controversy, they will lead to apostolic succession and episcopacy, and there he leaves the argument. But this is an unfair mode of reasoning, bad logic in a bad cause.

Let the