THE STEP I HAVE TAKEN
Being "letters to a friend" or "taking his place among the Brethren"
LETTER I.
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875.
Mv BELOVED BROTHER,
Your letter was so full
of gentle and loving remonstrances, and our friendship has been so intimate,
that it is due to you that I should explain somewhat more in detail the grounds
of the change I have made in my position. And since there are many others who
are asking how it is that I, who some years ago wrote a pamphlet against "the
Brethren," have so changed my "views" as to become identified with them, you
will not, I am sure, object to my addressing them through you. It is, indeed,
due no less to the "Brethren" than to my friends to give some account of the
way by which I have been led.
First of all, however, permit me to
recall our past association. Some six years have now elapsed since our
friendship was formed - a friendship that has continued without even a passing
shadow, and which grew ever deeper and more intimate with the lapse of time -
no small evidence, I think, that the blessing of the Lord was resting upon it.
Its very commencement was a prediction of its nature and character; for it
sprang out of fellowship in what we, at that time, held to be the truth, and
until the other day our position, both as regards truth and denominationalism,
was almost identical. What then, let me ask, was that position? Nominally we
were Baptist miniters, but in spirit, and also in practice, we were outside of
the Baptist denomination altogether, so much so that we not only disliked, but
we very often refused, the appellation of Baptist ministers. And wherefore?
Because we had been emancipated from the trammels of theology, and had been led
to prize the Scriptures as the veritable word of God; and hence, having been
taught something of the truth as to the dispensation - the distinctive position
of the Church of God, and teaching, as we did, the true doctrine of the
believer's standing before God through death and resurrection with Christ, the
heavenly nature of our calling, the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the
return of the Lord for His saints before the millennium, and the Messiah's
glorious millennial reign, etc., we found ourselves entirely out of harmony
with our fellow-ministers (so much so that we were afraid to ask them to preach
in our pulpits, lest they should contradict our own teaching), and in
conscientious dissent from all denominationalism whatsoever; for, with the
truths we held, we could not heartily support "our societies ;" we were
constrained to stand entirely aloof from the political proceedings of so many
of the denominational gatherings, and we had no sympathy with the plans for
denominational extension which were so often discussed. The consequence was
that you and myself, when present, were alone in these meetings, and we were
very strongly suspected (as many would phrase it) of a tendency toward
"Brethrenism." Our position was well known, and our isolation was nearly
complete.
The effect of this was that we gave ourselves more heartily
to the work of the Lord, striving to fence off our people as much as possible -
though the task was very difficult - from denominational influences, to train
them to study the Scriptures for themselves, and to build them up in the truth
of God. The Lord graciously blessed our labours, encouraging us by many tokens
of His favour. Indeed, up to the end of 1872 we both had abundant cause for
gratitude; for scarcely a month ever passed without our having to rejoice over
souls brought to Christ under the preaching of the gospel. How often did we at
that time pour out our hearts together before the Lord, in gratitude for His
great condescension in using us for His glory! And you will bear me witness
that in all our prayers our one desire was to become "vessels sanctified and
meet for the Master's use." And while we were speaking our prayers were heard;
for I cannot but see in the experiences of the last two years the answer to our
cries. Our hope was to continue with our people, and to have increasing
blessing resting upon us and our labours in their midst. But we had prayed for
greater consecration, and we were shutting our eyes to the fact that there were
things connected with our position which were not according to the mind of God
(and there were some things, in my teaching at least, which were not according
to the Scriptures). Hence, if our prayers were to be answered, it could only be
by separating us from all, whether in position or in teaching, which was evil
before the Lord; and so it came to pass that He answered us according to His
own thoughts of love, and not according to our desires.
Believe me,
dear brother,
Yours affectionately in Christ,
RD.
LETTER II
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875.
My
BELOVED BROTHER,
How merciful it is of the Lord to conceal from us the
future; for I am afraid that, if we had seen the character of the path by which
we were about to be led, our prayers would have died away upon our lips. How,
then, did the Lord deal with us in answer to our prayers? In both cases it was
by sickness. I was the first to be smitten down. This was in October, 1872; but
having somewhat recovered, I struggled on with my work until March, 1873; and I
may perhaps add, that this period of weakness was more fruitful of blessing, in
the conversion of souls, than any former period of my ministry. It was,
therefore, my earnest desire to remain at my post; but the Lord's design was to
send me away into the desert for a long season of heart-searching in His
presence.
For now, breaking utterly down, I was sent away for a six
months' sojourn on the Continent; and this period was extended to thirteen
months before I returned. And though the Lord has now separated me from my
people,* it is my joy to recall all the tender affection with which they
throughout this period ministered to my need. May the Lord abundantly
recompense them, inasmuch as they did it as unto Himself in the person of His
servant, and "supply all their need according to His riches in glory by Christ
Jesus." (Phil. iv. 19.)
Before, however, I enter upon my exercises of
soul during my sojourn in Switzerland, let me anticipate some few months. Not
long after I had departed, your health also began to fail, and finally you had
to succumb; and yielding to medical advice you likewise were sent away to the
Continent. I need not recall to your mind how unexpectedly we met at Lausanne,
or the pleasure we had the day we spent together at Veytaux. But you will not
forget, how deeply I was impressed with the coincidences in the Lord's dealing
with us, and how consequently I suggested for our consideration, whether there
might not have been something in our position and teaching which had brought
upon us loving chastisement from the hand of the Lord, and whether therefore it
might not be the Lord's design to correct us on these points, and to lead us
into a fuller apprehension of His truth, and a position more in accordance with
His mind and will.
But this very question had sprung out of much
previous self-examination and self-judgment. It is only natural to the child of
God that the time of affliction should be a time of searching of heart; and,
accordingly, no sooner had I reached the Continent than, in my daily walks and
during my sleepless nights, the question which continually presented itself to
my soul was this, What is the Lord's purpose in this affliction? or, What does
He thereby design to teach me? And, by His grace, I was resolved not to rest
until He had been pleased to reveal to me the meaning of His chastening hand;
and hence I examined and re-examined my past modes of work, the truths I had
taught, whether from the pulpit or by the pen, and the position which I had
occupied. Let me, then, detail as briefly as possible the results of my
investigation.
At the very outset, my tractate against "the Brethren"
engaged my anxious consideration. Very soon after it was issued, I regretted
its publication. The reason of my regret then was, that while I at the time
believed all that I had written, I could not but entertain the most sincere
esteem for such of the "Brethren" as I knew. I could not fail to admire their
separateness of walk, their simplicity of life, and their love for the word of
God and the person of our blessed Lord; and oftentimes I felt most acute sorrow
that I had wounded such, and that by my book I had shut myself out from all
fellowship with them. Besides this, I sometimes suspected whether I had dealt
quite fairly with them in criticising detached quotations; whether, in fact, I
had conscientiously sought to ascertain their real meaning, and to test it by
the Scriptures. The consequence was, that I had long since, before leaving
England, ceased to have it advertised (I had never allowed it to be advertised
in a local publication with the rest of my books), and had more recently
determined that it should be discontinued. But now, after having an opportunity
of more authentic information upon many of the points on which I had dwelt, and
having been compelled to renounce, after again searching the Scriptures, some
of the doctrines which I had therein advocated, I was compelled not oniy to
resolve that the book should be withdrawn, but also to confess that I could no
longer adhere to all the statements therein contained. And I further resolved,
that on the first opportunity I would state this much publicly, and express my
sorrow for its publication, on my resumption of work.
Next in order I
examined my practice in the light of my teaching. Had I in this respect been
consistent? Very sorrowfully, I was soon compelled to admit some important
discrepancies. Thus I had held for many years that believers should be gathered
as such on the Lord's day to "break bread," and had often stated this from the
pulpit; so also I thoroughly held the evil of pew rents, etc.; for, apart from
their unscriptural character, I had often noticed that poor believers were
compelled to sit anywhere and everywhere, however uncomfortable it might be,
because that unbelievers who could pay had the option of choosing pews. I had
frequently stated my convictions on these points, and had satisfied myself with
my testinwny. here was the failure. I was responsible for the truth which the
Lord revealed to me, and hence I was bound in faithfulness to Him to seek to
carry it out in action. This I had neglected; but now He gave me grace to
confess my error, and to seek strength for faithfulness on my return.
After this I tested the doctrines I had preached by the light of the
Scriptures; and here also I discovered grounds for regret. I had, as already
stated, in the pamphlet to which I have referred, as well as from the pulpit,
advocated the mortality of the Lord's human body - in the sense of being under
the necessity of death - though, I can truth-fully say, that I was not aware at
that time of the nature of the errors with which this doctrine had been
associated, or I should have shrunk from them with horror. Further study of the
word of God now showed me that I had been hasty in my conclusions; that indeed
the Lord's human body was mortal, but only in the sense of being capable of
dying, AND NOT IN ANYWISE AS BEING UNDER TIlE NECESSITY OF DEATH; for to
maintain the latter would be, as I was now convinced, to assail the very
foundations of the atoning sacrifice. The conming of the Lord Jesus for His
saints also occupied my attention. Together with yourself, I had maintained
that, while His coming would be premillennial, there were necessarily
intervening events before the rapture of the saints, and hence that the Church
would have to pass through the final tribulation, and be therefore on the earth
during the power and sway of Antichrist. I devoted the whole winter, more or
less, to the reconsideration of this subject; and as the Lord so ordered it, I
was brought into contact at Veytaux with other Christians, and we searched the
Scriptures together upon this question. You will not expect that I should set
forth the steps by which I finally arrived at the conclusion that the Church
will not be in the tribulation; but I may just say that the perception that
Matt. xxiv. does not apply to the Church, and a closer study of the Apocalypse,
largely contributed to this issue. It was, however, with no small delight that
I saw it to be the believer's blessed privilege to live daily in the
expectation of his Lord's return; for, indeed, I had long had a secret
conviction that, unless it were so, many of the exhortations of Scripture as to
waiting and watching had lost their force, and that such a hope and expectation
must exert, in the power of the Holy Spirit, a most blessed and sanctifying
influence upon the believer's soul. (See 1 John iii. 2, 3.)
The effect
of my change of view on this subject was to modify several other points. It
brought into clearer light the nature and calling of the Church, the contrast
between the earthly hope of the Jew, and the heavenly hope of the believer, the
kingdom and the Church, and led to the readjustment of related truths. But
further than this I did not at that time go; and I can truly say that the above
represents the extent of my change of view during my residence on the
Continent. For though during the winter, at Bible-readings and in conversations
with Christian friends, I had many discussions, and sometimes found it
difficult to defend the "church" practices with which I was associated, I
yetciung most tenaciously to my position. With the exceptions named, therefore,
the close of the winter found me very much where I was before; for I had not
altered any fundamental principle - anything at least which affected my
continuance at the post which I had held for so many years. And if I had
entertained any doubts of this kind, the prospect, now dawning upon me, of
returning to my beloved people would have scattered them, and re-established my
confidence. When finally, therefore, we started on our homeward way, the only
fear I had was, whether, though I was much better, my health was sufficiently
restored to enable me to resume my long-interrupted work. But I will leave the
account of my return until my next letter. In the meantime believe me, beloved
brother,
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
ED.
LETTER III
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875.
MY
BELOVED BROTHER,
On the 6th of May we landed once more upon the shores of
England; and on the 24th it was arranged for me to recommence my ministry. As,
however, I was still far from strong, my beloved people kindly consented for me
to preach but once on the Lord's-day; and through the tender mercy of our God
and Father, I was enabled to do this much with comparative ease, and with no
little joy. Perhaps, never in my past experience did I realize so much of the
presence of God, and the power of the Spirit in preaching the word, as after my
return. The reason, no doubt, was, that never were so many prayers offered as
now that the Lord's strength might be made perfect in my weakness, and truly
those prayers were abundantly answered. But notwithstanding all these happy
experiences, new evidences of the Lord's faithfulness and tender love, the Lord
was about to appear on the scene and constrain me to retire from my work.
Scarcely, indeed, had I settled down before indications began to appear that it
was not His will that I should continue at my post. You, beloved brother, are
acquainted with the peculiar path by which I was led, and therefore know that I
scarcely took a step of my own will, but that when I acted it was because there
were influences from without which compelled me to do so. It thus came to pass,
owing to circumstances over which I had no control, that I summoned a meeting
of believers, and read to them a paper in which I embodied the leading truths
which I at that time held. I read the paper to you before I carried it to the
meeting, but I will insert a part of it here, as it will serve to explain very
accurately the gradual nature of the change which finally I was led to make.
After some personal references, I proceeded as follows:
"I am said to have
taught 'Plymouth' doctrines last Lord's day week. Now it so happens that on two
occasions before I have expressed exactly the same 'views;' and then, as far as
I know, not a single complaint was made. Be this as it may, the question
resolves itself simply into this, Did I proclaim truth or error? For because
the Catholics hold the divinity of the Lord Jesus, am I to reject this most
true and blessed doctrine? But I am free to confess that I do largely agree
with the doctrines usually associated with 'Brethren.' When I commenced my
ministry here, now thirteen years and a half ago, I was a great student, and
read many books. But gradually the Lord opened my eyes to see that, with the
Holy Spirit as guide and teacher, the Bible is all-sufficient for the
instruction of the man of God (John xiv. 16, 17, xvi. 13); and thus my books
became fewer and fewer, until now, for some years past, the Scriptures have
been my chief companion, and certainly my only text-book for the pulpit. The
result was that I had to reject most of, if not all, the views which had
previously been instilled into my mind; and I was soon compelled to confess
that many of the doctrines of 'Brethren' were according to the mind of God. For
instance, I could not but see that it is right to meet as Christians to break
bread on the Lord's-day. Again, in regard to dispensational truth, though
hitherto I have differed from them on some material points, I could not but
agree with 'Brethren' in their general outline, as for example in the
premilennial advent of Christ (speaking now of the general doctrine and not of
its details); in the first resurrection of believers, and the rapture of the
saints; in their association with Christ in the glories of His millennial
reign; in the restoration and conversion of the Jews, and in the conversion of
the world, not by the preaching of the gospel before the second advent, but
after the Lord's return, when 'He will turn to the people a pure language, that
they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent.'
(Zeph. iii. 9.) I agree also with them, speaking generally, in their teaching
on the standing and walk of believers, separation from the world, the
indwelling Spirit, etc. At the same time, I have differed from them on other
points; for had I not, I hope I should have had grace to unite with them; for I
hesitate not to declare to you that if I had been fully convinced of the ground
they take as to worship and ministry, it would have been my pleasure, I trust,
to seek to glorify God by obedience to His will. "I will go farther. I have
often said in conversation with friends that under some circumstances I would
rather be with 'Brethren' than with other Christians; for even now were I in a
place where no definite truth was taught, I should at once seek the privilege
of fellowship with them in the 'breaking of bread.'
"Once more, I have
often expressed regret that I ever wrote my tractate against 'Brethren,' a
regret which some in fellowship with us felt at the time of its publication.
The reason was that I soon found that Unitarians, clergymen, and other
ministers, with whom I had not the least sympathy, were using my book as an
auxiliary to their cause; and I felt therefore that I was in the wrong camp,
that I must have fallen into error. It was also cited in newspapers and reviews
in support of views from which I entirely dissented; and hence I cannot but
express my deep sorrow (though at the time it embodied my sincere convictions)
that I ever published it. For in these days of worldliness and error I would
far rather see Christians with 'Brethren' than in the Establishment, or with
many Independents and Baptists; and I take this opportunity of saying that I
could not now adhere to the statements and views which my book
contains."
Such, dear brother, was the substance of the paper which I
read on that occasion; but I added to it the announcement that, as my teaching
had been called in question, I should "resign my pastorate" at the end of
September. I returned home that evening with more joy of soul than I had
experienced for some time past; for I felt that the Lord had opened a door for
me to declare plainly all the truth that I held. And I was sure that, whatever
might be the trials of faith connected with my separation from my people, He
who had spoken so plainly to me would give me grace to be faithful, that He
would strengthen His feeble servant for the testimony to which he might be
called, and enable him still to follow on, though the character of the path on
which he was entering was at that time entirely concealed.
Believe me,
beloved brother,
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
E.D.
LETTER IV.
BLACKHEATH, January, 1875.
Mv
BELOVED BROTHER,
The effect of the meeting which I described in my last
letter was as unexpected as it was wonderful. I felt like a bird which has just
escaped from the snare of the fowler - so great was the liberty and freedom of
soul on which I was entered. More than this - there was another consequence.
Truths which my mind, if I may so speak, had previously held in solution were,
by the influence of this meeting, precipitated in solid forms, and they
glistened in my eyes like newly-discovered treasures. And hence, when I was
still urgently entreated by many friends to remain with my people, as I was
continually, both by letter and in personal conversation, with the assurance
that I might preach any and all things which the Lord had revealed to me, I
could not for one moment entertain the thought. My heart yearned over the souls
which had been given me in the gospel; the ties which Christian fellowship had
formed drew me very close to many believers amongst the people; temporal
maintenance seemed, humanly speaking, bound up with my continuance at my post;
but all these things together could not draw me back, or compel me to recall
the word I had spoken. The fact was, having uttered the truths as expressed in
my paper, I felt that I could never more consent to hold them in subordination;
and I began to long after a position which could bear the test and application
of the word of God. One thing more followed. Having expressed in public my
regret for the publication of my book, I felt that I was bound to say as much
to those against whom it was written. Accordingly I wrote a brief letter to Mr.
Kelly - as one well known amongst "Brethren"- stating what I had done, and
expressing my sorrow that I had written and published the pamphlet.
This done, I was entirely free from all entanglements, and I now determined, by
the help of God, to bring the light of Scripture to bear upon everything
connected with my position, that I might obtain guidance for my future path;
for as yet all was uncertainty beyond the truths I have named (i.e. as to the
exact position I should take on my separation from my people). Several distinct
paths opened up before me, with many promises of support, which I gratefully
record, but my only desire now was to know the will of the Lord.
The
first thing that demanded my attention and examination was The Ministry as
exercised amongst Dissenters. This sentence recalls a strange incident. Some
eight or nine years ago I wrote a pamphlet under this title, and actually took
it to my publishers, but afterwards decided that it should not be issued; for I
shunned the controversy which might be awakened, as many of the statements
there made would bear a very distinct resemblance to some that will follow in
this letter.
You, dear brother, and myself have been for years past in
the public estimation (though I admit, as I have said already, that we were
both unwilling to accept the appellation) Dissenting ministers. How did we come
to occupy this position? That no mistakes may be made, I will answer only for
myself. After I had confessed Christ I became possessed of an ardent desire to
"enter the Ministry." I was young and uninstructed, and, according to the
practice of the denomination, naturally turned my eyes to one of the colleges
for the needful preparation. Recommended by two ministers (though I had never
preached but once, and then not in their hearing), I obtained admission, and,
after the customary probation, was received for the usual curriculum of four
years. I studied most diligently, but not the Scriptures, though these had
their place, if subordinate to that of other studies. In fact I began to study
under tutorial advice with a view to the B.A. degree in the London IJniversity.
I matriculated at the end of the first session; was prepared for the B.A. at
the end of the third; but, while waiting for the examinations in October, was
seized with typhus fever, and was consequently unable to proceed to my degree.
After some months of weakness, I recovered, through the blessing of God; and,
then, some six months were all that remained of my term for study. At the end
of three out of these six months I was invited to preach on probation, at the
end of which "the church" was convened to discuss my merits as a preacher,
etc., and then by vote I was unanimously elected to be their pastor. In the
same way I was elected to the pastoral office at L. R.
Now I will not
here enter upon an examination of the mode of preparing young men for the
ministry, though I am sure you would agree with me that it is fraught with
evils of the worst possible kind, and utterly unwarranted by Scripture, as well
as singularly unadapted to secure the end proposed; but I shall confine myself
to one question, Is there any Scripture authority for the election of a pastor
or minister (either term is in use among Dissenters) by ties vote of the
church? This, indeed, was the question which, with Bible in hand, I sought to
answer.
The first passage to which I turned was Acts vi.; and there we
do find something like an election of "church" officers by the believers in
fellowship. (v. 5.) But may I ask you to note several things? First, that
though they were chosen by the multitude, it was by direction of the apostles;
and that the appointment was confirmed, if indeed not made, by the apostles.
(v. 6.) Secondly, that though they were chosen by the multitude, the word used
to indicate the act of their choice is not the peculiar word on which the
vote-by-suffrage theory is founded. It is (Greek), which indicates simple
selection. Thirdly, that the officers chosen were not elders or bishops; they
were appointed solely for the purpose of attending to the daily ministration of
relief to widows - of serving tables. (vv. 1-3.) It is true that we find
Stephen afterwards preaching the word in the power of the Holy Ghost; but no
one contends that this was in consequence of his appointment "to serve tables."
There is, therefore, nothing whatever in this chapter that bears upon the
election of "pastors" or "ministers."
The next passage to which I
turned was Acts xiv. 23, which is certainly more to the point. We read there
that Paul and Barnabas "ordained them elders in every church." I say that this
passage is more to the point, because it is well known that "elders" and
"bishops" are synonymous in the Scriptures, or rather, that these two terms
indicate the same office; and that the office of the Dissenting minister is
supposed, indeed held, to correspond with that so designated, The proof that
the two terms indicate the same office is found in Acts xx. In verse 17 it is
said that Paul "sent for the elders of the church." In addressing them, he says
in verse 28, "Take heed there-fore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over
the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers"; i.e. bishops. If these,
then, were appointed by the suifrages of the church, then there may be a show
of justification for the practice of Dissenters. Turning, then, back to Acts
xiv. 23, let us see what is the exact word employed.
It is (Greek)
-that is, literally, "having appointed them elders." Now it is contended, and
until now I had received it on the authority of others, that the word
translated "appointed "-" ordained" in the authorized version - means
'appointed by the vote of the church;' in other words, that the radical idea of
the word is "to hold up the hand," and hence, that the church first selected
these elders by vote, and that then the apostles appointed them, or confirmed
or ratified the choice which the church had made. Conceding for one minute that
this might be the meaning of the word employed, I yet ask you, dear brother, if
this is the usual method of interpreting language? For you will see from the
context that the participle translated above, "having appointed," refers solely
to the action of the apostles, and that the pronoun rendered "them" refers to
the disciples "in every church." It is very evident, therefore, that, whatever
the word may exactly mean, we are here told of something which the apostles did
on behalf of the churches. Or, if you insist that the word does convey the
meaning of the exercise of suffrage on the part of the church, I should at once
reply, on the authority of this passage, that if the church voted, there could
be no valid appointment apart from the presence and action of the apostles. But
is this the meaning of the word? As far as I know, the same word only occurs in
two other places in the New Testament - once in the same form, and once
compounded with a preposition of time (irpo)-which leaves the meaning of the
word untouched. The first of these passages is 2 Cor. viii. 19, where we read,
"And not that only" (the apostle is speaking of the brother whose praise in the
gospel was throughout all the churches), "but who was also chosen" (the word
translated "ordained" in the former passage) "of the churches to travel with us
with this grace," etc. In this place it is the action of the churches in
appointing; but we have nothing but the word itself to indicate the mode of
appointment, and then you will perceive that it is not the appointment of an
elder, but simply of one who was sent by the churches to act with the apostle
in the administration of their benefactions - a wholly different thing. Let us,
then, turn to the other passage: it is Acts x. 40, 41. There we have these
words: "Him God raised up the third day, and showed Him openly; not to all the
people, but unto witnesses chosen" (the same word) "before of God," etc. Is not
the use of the word in this place decisive as to its meaning? For used as it is
here in connection with God, it is impossible to attach any idea to it beyond
that of selection or appointment; and hence this passage, concerning which
there can be no possible doubt as to the sense in which the word is employed,
should govern our interpretation of that which from the very nature of the case
is so doubtful. For I repeat that the word is used only in one place in
connection with the appointment of elders, or bishops - the office which is
claimed to be held by Dissenting ministers-and even in. that place the action
in the word is ascribed, not to the churches, but to the apostles. Can any
unprejudiced mind, therefore, refuse to concede that the Scriptures have
actually no proof whatever of the election of "ministers" (elders) by the
suffrages of the church? that there is nothing, no idea contained in the use of
the word, beyond that of simple appointment? and hence that the elders in the
passage referred to were appointed by the apostles? Speaking for myself, this
was the conclusion which the word of God compelled me most reluctantly to
admit. Nor could I gain any comfort from the apostle Paul's direction to Titus
-" Ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" (Titus i. 5); for,
first, the word "ordain" is not the same as that already discussed; it is
(Greek), which signifies "to constitute," or "establish;" and secondly, what
Titus did, he did only under the direction and authority of the
apostle.
You have then, dear brother, the results of my investigation,
and my conclusion that the mode of our appointment is wholly without the
sanction or authority of the Scriptures. If you would like to pursue this
subject more minutely, let me recommend to you a pamphlet, entitled Ministry of
the Word, Eldership and the Lord's Supper, by Richard Holden (Broom); and
Lectures on the Church of God, by W. Kelly (Broom). And after you have read
these, I could not recommend you to a better book (though on the other side)
for confirmation of their exposition than Davidson's Ecclesiastical Polity. But
you will find, I doubt not, the Scriptures amply sufficient to show the
correctness of the conclusions I have deduced.
There remain other
aspects of the subject which I hope to deal with in my next letter. In the
meantime believe me, beloved brother,
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
E.D.
LETTER V.
BLACKHEATH,
January, 1875.
Mv BELOVED BROTHER,
For the sake of perspicuity, it may
be well to sum up in a distinct form the conclusions of my last letter -
changing only the order, for the clearer display of the teaching of Scripture -
before I proceed with the remaining part of the subject. We saw then-
(1.)
That the Scripture contains only one instance of an absolute appointment by the
church; and that, in this case, it was not an elder, but simply a brother who
was delegated by several churches to accompany the apostle, with a view to the
administration of their benefactions. (2 Cor. viii. 18, 19.)
(2.) That
there is only one instance of the selection of' "church-officers" by the
church, and that the duty of these officers was to "serve tables ;" and that
though they were selected by the church, they were actually set apart to their
office by the apostles. (Acts vi.)
(3.) That there is no instance
whatever of the selection or election of elders, whether by vote or otherwise,
by the church; but that, in every recorded case, they were appointed either by
the apostles or under the apostles' direction and authority. (Acts xiv. 23;
Titus i. 5, etc.)
(4.) The inference then from these facts is, that
unless we have apostles, or apostolic authority, we have no Scripture warrant
for the appointment of elders or bishops. Such was the inference forced upon me
by a careful examination of the Scriptures, and, as you know, the episcopalians
affirm this principle, and consequently accept the fiction of apostolic
succession; but I need not point out to you the utterly unscriptural character
of this dogma.
It is possible, however, that you may tell me that in 1
Tim. iii. and Titus i. we have precisely those apostolic directions and
authority which are desidarated. But it is to be remembered, that these
directions were not sent to the churches but to individuals, and to those very
individuals, Timothy and Titus, who were acting under the direction of the
apostle, and who needed therefore just such instructions as are there given. It
is most significant, indeed, that in Titus the qualifications for the bishop
(or elder) follow upon the direction given to "ordain elders in every city."
Thus the very place of these instructions shows that, instead of being our
warrant to appoint elders or bishops, the church, by so doing, is arrogating to
itself a function which was strictly bound up with the apostolic office.
Anything, therefore, more conclusive as to the unscriptural character of the
mode of appointment of "dissenting ministers" it would be impossible to
imagine. And I am convinced that there are hundreds of godly men in dissent who
would be only too thankful to be taught this conclusion. For, while they have
accepted the traditions of dissent on the subject, they have found it hard to
reconcile them with their belief in the divine wisdom. Suppose, now, "a church"
without a minister - what is its resource? First of all, enquiries will be made
of notable men as to any who will be likely to suit; applications will also
flow in from "moveable" ministers. In due course a selection will be made of
one or niore eligible candidates to come and preach, for three or four
Lord's-days, on probation. At the termination of this critical period, a
"church" meeting will be summoned, and the merits of the candidate or
candidates will be discussed and then, finally - all alike being judges, the
aged believer and the veriest babe in Christ, the most instructed as well as
the most untaught, being on the same level - all alike supposed to be able to
pass judgment upon the spiritual qualifications of the candidate for the post
to which he aspires - after many speeches, it may be for and against, a vote
will be taken, and if there be a majority in favour of the candidate, the
invitation to the pastorate (although the candidate has only been tested as a
minister in preaching) will in due course be forwarded, and then the candidate
accepts the invitation or not, according to his own exigencies, or
inclinations, or judgment.
All this, I freely confess, was present in
my mind when I was reexamining the whole subject, and perhaps aided me to come
to the unbiassed conclusion - I say unbiassed, because my own position was
bound up with the investigation - that the ministry, as appointed amongst
nonconformists, is wholly without the warrant of Scripture.
Thus far, I
have gone on the assumption that there is correspondence between the office of
a Dissenting minister and that of the elder or bishop of Scripture; for I
desired to examine the subject on this ground. But I soon saw - if indeed I had
ever seriously thought otherwise - that there is scarcely, if any,
correspondence between these two things; that in Scripture there is always the
most absolute distinction between office and gift; and that while there was
appointment in time way indicated to the former by the apostles, the possessor
of the gift exercised it in sole responsibility to the Lord, and never was
appointed to exercise it either by the apostles or the assembly. (See Rom. xii.
6-8; 1 Peter iv. 10, 11, etc.) Consequently, it is never said that the Lord
gave "elders" in the enumeration of the gifts (see Eph. iv. 11, 12), though
apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, are all named. The fact
is, elders were appointed for rule, and hence they held an office; but the
possessors of gifts - such as prophets, pastors, teachers, etc.- received their
gifts for the edification of the saints, and were bound, therefore, in
obedience to Him fiom whom their gifts had emanated, to exercise them to this
end. But this, as you know, dear brother, cannot be the case amongst
Dissenters, because, in opposition to this plain distinction of Scripture, the
exercise of gift is bound up with election to office. Hence a Dissenting
minister is said to be an elder or bishop. He is also called a pastor;
likewise, he is a teacher; and he is also supposed to be an evangelist - to be,
in facts a compendium of all the Scriptural gifts and offices excepting that of
deacon. Is it not strange that we have been so long content with such a
system?
Pursuing my subject, however, in all its branches, I found
there was yet another difficulty - that connected with the one man ministry; so
that if all the rest had been clear, this would have been insuperable. For I
found that there is not a single passage which speaks of an elder or a bishop
of the church; nor, as far as I can discover, is the word (in either case) ever
found in the singular, except in the pastoral epistles, where, as we have seen,
the qualifications of the office are detailed. Take Acts xx. 17 (already
cited): "He sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church;" Acts xiv.
23, "Elders in every church;" Phil. 1. 1, "With the bishops ;" Titus 1. 5,
"Ordain elders in every city ;" 1 Peter v. 1, "The elders which are among you,"
etc. If, therefore, every other difficulty were removed, it would be impossible
to obtain from the Scriptures any justification for the Nonconformist method of
appointing one elder or bishop to "preside over a church." Not that I think
that the practice is ever seriously defended; for I remember some years ago
dining with some Congregational ministers, when one of them took opportunity to
condemn the practices of "Brethren." Interposing, I said, "Are you sure of your
own position? Show me now from Scripture the justification of the one-man
ministry." He replied, "That can easily be done." But on being pressed, the
only passage he could adduce was, "The seven stars are the angels of the seven
churches!" The others were equally helpless; and it will suffice to show, not
only how entirely indefensible the practice is, but also how easily we are led
to assume solemn and responsible positions, without asking ourselves whether we
have the guidance and justification of the word of God. But surely, if we have
a single eye to the glory of God, if we desire to walk in the light, we shall
seek to be separated from all evil, whether of heart or position, to make God's
word the lamp unto our feet and the light unto our path, both for daily walk
and life, and for all our church practices and associations. Nay, to set up
anything in time house of God which has not the direction. and sanction of the
Scriptures is practical disobedience to the Lord as Head of the Church.
But I am sure that you will hardly refuse assent to the conclusions I have
demonstrated from the Scripture; for I remember how in times past we have
longed for some change, and that we cherished at one period a dream of
association together in the work of the ministry, so that in union we might be
the stronger to carry out our own plans, unfettered by any other authority than
the Scriptures; and how we have often said one to the other, that if anything
should occur to separate us from our people respectively, we could not
conscientiously offer ourselves for the pastorate of any of the ordinary
denominational "churches." The fact was, we had learned from the Scriptures
very much more than we were willing to confess, and hence we were dissatisfied
and uncomfortable amid the usual "church" and denominational modes and
activities. In truth, we were outside already in spirit, and we needed only to
apprehend our responsibility before God for what He had taught us to be outside
altogether.
Believe me, beloved brother,
Yours affectionately in the
Lord,
E. D. Continued in Part Two