Images de page
PDF
ePub

Editor's Table.

ORDINATION WITHOUT INSTALLATION. We need not commend the elaborate and thoughtful article upon this subject (pp. 151-9) to a more than common attention. It concerns a vital feature in our polity and practice. We are sorry that we cannot assent to its argument entire. While we agree with the object aimed at, - the equal standing of all ministers, whether pastors or not, we do not agree with the theory adopted to reach that end,- the theory that there are two perpetual, scriptural "orders " in the ministry, namely, "pastors" and "evangelists." We believe that there is but one "order" of ministers, namely, "ministers of Christ."

[ocr errors]

istry; one which strips of ministerial character almost every minister mentioned in the New Testament. The logic of events showed their error. As soon as the population got out of the sound of the Atlantic surf, and especially when Christians undertook to preach the gospel to every creature," the absurd idea that no man could, as a minister of Christ, preach the gospel or baptize a convert, except where some church had elected and inaugurated him, disappeared. In an editorial note to the "Cambridge Platform," in the work prepared by Drs. Leonard Bacon, Field, and Gillett -a note signed "B."- the change in opinion is thus stated:

Our brother seems, naturally, touched by large

some denials of ministerial character to all but settled pastors. He need not be. Such a theory is held by very few persons; and by them from a kind of antiquarian reverence for the New England fathers, rather than from any practical belief. Nobody acts upon such a view.

The early New England theory was as described by our contributor. They began with the theory that there is no minister except a pastor. Elected and inaugurated to the pastoral office in a particular church, he begins to be a minister; dismissed, he is no longer a minister, —just as a railway superintendent comes into office and goes out. "Ordination" was nothing more than inaugurating into the chief office of a local church; and "deposition" was dismission from that office. Even the pastor was a layman to all the world except his own congregation; and had no right to exercise any clerical functions elsewhere."

But the fathers soon became inconsistent. Almost immediately they recognized former ordinations in England. They ceased to reordain re-settled ministers. Theoretically they clung to their early view, which arose, evidently, from their opposition to having a minister imposed upon any church by outside authority. To secure this immunity-in which we all believe-they resorted to a defective and unscriptural theory of the min

"This platform recognizes no ministry at -no minister of the gospel other than the pastor or teacher of a particular church. But now all the Congregational churches acknowledge the difference between a minister of the gospel and a pastor of a church. The former has no official power in any church or over any Christian. He is only a man set apart to preach the gospel where God in his providence may call him."

So far, we agree with our contributor. But when he advances the theory, to find a ministerial status for our nearly two thousand ministers not pastors, that there are two "orders," pastor" and "evangelist," to be, on scriptural grounds, perpetuated in the Christian church, we separate.

[ocr errors]

Taking it for granted that "pastor" is one "order," he endeavors to prove that ". evangelist" is another. He speaks of the " "permanent existence" of this "order." He argues that a man is to be ordained as such. The distinction between the two is one requiring distinct ordinations. Of course, one ordained a pastor is permanently of a different "order" from "evangelist," and vice versa. His theory necessarily is that it is not a distinction of work, but of “order;" for it requires a peculiar “ordination." "Ordination without Installation" is not quite an accurate heading; he argues for ordination as an evangelist." All ministers not pastors are "evangelists" or nothing. That is, this is the logical theory.

66

But it is not satisfactory:

66

1. Our brother agrees that a pastor may become an eyangelist or an evangelist become a pastor at pleasure, without re-ordination. This is totally destructive of a permanent" "order"-ship. An essential, scriptural, distinction in ordination itself, can not be ignored in this way. Any distinction of "orders," so clear as to require distinct "ordination," is an essential and permanent distinction.

2. The argument of our brother finds it impossible to preserve any distinction after ordination. He considers a "stated supply" -i. e., an "acting pastor" of a church to be equivalent to "evangelist:" "The ordination of Timothy (p. 158) qualified him to be a stated supply' at Ephesus." "He labored (p. 156) not as a settled pastor, but as a 'stated supply,' an evangelist, at and about Ephesus." But he nullifies the distinction between an evangelist and a pastor: "The work of an evangelist (p. 155) is of the same nature, in its effects, as that of a pastor. ... Persons called evangelists received the same instructions and discharged the same functions as did pastors." But, again, he nullifies the distinction between pastors and stated supplies: The "stated supply' is "virtually just as much its pastor (p. 159) in respect of rights and duties" . . much "to control its pulpit, to represent it in councils." That a stated supply is an evangelist; an evangelist's work, functions, and instructions, the same as those of a pastor; and a stated supply just as much a pastor in rights and duties as if a settled pastor,-only shows that it is utterly impossible for even so clear a mind as that of our esteemed brother to preserve any kind of distinction between these two "orders" in the ministry.

... as

[ocr errors]

3. But our contributor also shows that the "order" of evangelists is not the same in its work, as that of "stated supplies." "This work (page 156) included acting for the church in the ordination of officers, teaching and exhorting and preaching the Word;" referring to Timothy, who, he says, at the request of the apostle, spent several years at Ephesus on a special mission." Now, a stated supply of ours is not on a special mission to a particular church, and is not there to act for the church in ordaining officers ["bishops"]; he is there as a "bishop" himself; acting as pastor in all respects, with the sim

ple distinction that certain things which relate to civil law or ecclesiastical usages are not performed. We do not refer to men who are merely hired to preach,, but to those whom our brother means; men who, by choice of the church, live with them, preach to them, watch over them, and do pastoral work just as a "settled pastor" does, but without certain legal or ecclesiastical forms. There is no identity of work between what our brother declares Timothy's to be, and that of an acting pastor of a church, in the essential particular of ordination of bishops.

4. But the work of Timothy and Titus (he is claimed as an evangelist, though not called one) is not adequately stated in this article. Look at the directions: "rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father." "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor."« Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." "Lay hands suddenly on no man." "If any man teach otherwise. . . . from such withdraw thyself." "The things that thou hast heard . . . commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach." To Titus: "That thou. . . shouldest ordain elders ["bishops "] in every city." "A bishop must be blameless . . . . For there are many unruly or vain-talkers . . . whose mouths must be stopped . . . teaching things which they ought not. . . wherefore rebuke" them sharply." If Timothy and Titus were "evangelists," and are the examples, then evangelists are to select and ordain ministers, to sit in judgment on ministers, to receive accusations against ministers, and pass judicial censure on ministers. Now if we are to have an evangelist, let us have the genuine article. Let him go round among the churches; ordain ministers, try ministers, examine the condition of the churches, and exercise the discipline of censure on their members. For that was what these evangelists were charged to do. But if we must have them, should not we do better to have bishops who are, at least, bound by established church laws? Stated supplies do no such things; if we have any men who are doing it, we should do well to see what has crept into our Congregationalism.

The fact seems to be, that both Timothy and Titus were a kind of deputy-apostles. There is not the slightest appearance of their being "stated supplies." No church called

them; Paul sent them. They had a special work to do. Titus, instead of being a "stated supply" to some church, was to "ordain elders in every city." They had precisely the work to do which Paul would have done if there himself, the work of an apostle, not of "pastor" or "stated supply." And as to this theory's affording any status to ministers other than pastors or acting pastors, there is not the slightest likeness between the work with which Timothy was charged, and the duties of a secretary of a society, a chaplain, a president of a college, or anybody else, unless it be missionaries who go out to missions already established to superintend both churches and native pastors, or district secretaries of the Home Missionary Society, who oversee a general field; and in these we should be sorry to find any exercise of the judicial functions of Timothy and Titus, unless they can show a direct commission from the apostle Paul, or one higher than Paul.

But, do not the Scriptures require that these two, and only these two "orders" be perpetuated, namely, "pastor" and "evangelist"? and that these two are distinct in ordination? Our brother argues so. We are not satisfied that he is right. Not on the question whether there is no distinction of work, such that a minister employed in one capacity is appropriately called "pastor," and one in another capacity called "evangelist." But we see no reason to suppose that this distinction of work is permanent in any man's case, or that two such "orders" of different men are to be perpetuated.

We can not, of course, here go into an exhaustive discussion of this matter; but we make some suggestions for consideration.

The only passage in the New Testament which calls ministers pastors, is Ephesians iv. 11-13: "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints; for the work of the ministry; for the edifying of the body of Christ; 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." This is the only passage, it should be remembered.

Now as to evangelist: the word is used twice besides. Once, "He entered into the

house of Philip the evangelist." Acts xxi. 8. "But watch thou in all things; do the work of an evangelist; make full proof of thy ministry." 2 Tim. iv. 5. It has been made a matter of complaint that the translators of our version used the word "bishop" where that occurs, instead of translating it literally "overseers." Suppose we adopt this principle here; then we find "Philip the preacher of the gospel;" and "do the work of a preacher of the gospel," or, as Barnes calls it (Apostolic Church), "publisher of the gospel." Who would find an "order" here different from any other "order"? Translate it, in the passage in Ephesians, and we have, "he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some publishers of the gospel; and some pastors and teachers." One sees instantly that any distinction of "order" between "preacher" and "pastor," and especially one requiring distinct ordination, is absurd.

But if it is insisted that the passage in Ephesians specifies "orders," and perpetual "orders," then,

1. It proves four orders. There is not a shadow of intimation regarding one which does not apply to four. All were "for the work of the ministry;" all "for the edification of the body of Christ," "until" a time not yet come.

Our Episcopal brethren insist on the permanence of the apostolic "order;" if we assert that this passage proves the permanence of that of "evangelist," it is equally valid for Episcopacy. If we deny the permanence of the apostolic order, then we admit that this passage is not conclusive as to the "evangelist." Our contributor says, "We are not arguing with believers in Episcopacy." True; but a theory which will not stand when we are arguing with them, is not good at any time.

Now we say that the apostles were to have no successors. They were set apart as witnesses of Christ's resurrection, and none others were appointed to succeed them.1 Not

1 This is the usual argument. But we think it should be varied. It does not appear to us that the main object of the apostleship was to bear witness to the resurrection. The original setting apart (Matt. x.) and the great commission state the main object to be, to preach the

that none others could be appointed, (for a time, certainly) for there were "above five hundred" able to testify to this fact; but that none others were so appointed.

[ocr errors]

But the same argument which shows that the apostles' office ended with themselves, applies to evangelists. We take from Barnes' Apostolic Church his argument on the apostolic succession. (1.) "There is no command in the New Testament to the apostles to transmit to others the peculiarity," &c. No more to the evangelists. The direction to Timothy to "commit to faithful men was that they might "teach." (2.) "There is no affirmation that it would be thus transmitted." So of evangelists. (3.) "It was impossible that the peculiarity of the apostolic office should be transmitted." Just as much so as to evangelists of the Timothy kind; for they were as well defined by Chauncy: "Inspired ministers of Christ to his churches, sent by the apostles to places where they had preached, and to churches already planted, to visit, teach, and direct as to the election of officers, and see a supply of what was wanting, or prepare matters for the apostles' coming." It is evident, at a glance, that this office could not be perpetuated. Our churches were not planted by the apostles; they never preached about these parts; they can not send anybody; and if anybody waits till they come, they will wait long. It is just as impossible to have deputy-apostles, as apostles.

2. If the passage in Ephesians makes evangelists a perpetual "order" of ministers, why is the name omitted in the parallel passage, 1 Cor. xii. 28; "God hath set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles," &c. The omission of evangelists is unaccountable, if they were a permanent or

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

this "order," nor for their qualifications, nor for setting them apart. We do find the characteristics of bishops or elders, and deacons, but none of evangelists. We find where apostles were "set apart ;" and elders and deacons ; but not a solitary instance of "evangelist." We find mention of different persons as apostles, and as elders, and as deacons ; but we find only one person called "evangelist," and he was a deacon. We find men doing a work properly called that of evangelist; but we find no distinction of persons whatever. Not an ordination of one as such, nor a command to ordain as such, nor a single individual ever noticed as exclusively such; and, in all the careful directions as to qualifications, not the slightest hint that any such distinct class was ever to exist.

[ocr errors]

4. The work of an evangelist is ascribed indifferently to all ministers, as well as to others. While the word evangelist is used three times, the verb corresponding is used fiftythree times. Barnes says that the verb corresponding to the noun "bishop" is equivalent to "" 'exercising the office of a bishop." By the same reasoning, the verb corresponding to the noun evangelist is equivalent to exercising the office of an evangelist." Who did that? We find specified, Christ Jesus, Peter and the apostles, that part of "the church which was at Jerusalem," when scattered abroad, Philip, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy. This shows that all these were evangelists, whether our Saviour, apostles, ministers, deacons, or private brethren. Would it not be hard to find any Scripture proof that any one of these was "ordained as an evangelist ?" And is not the indiscriminate application of this word a strong indication that there is no such distinction of persons as to require a peculiar "order" and a peculiar ordination.

5. If one objects to this etymological use of the term, then he must object to the same method when used to disprove the succession of the apostleship. If the term "evangelist" is used three times, that of "apostle" is used more than three, in reference to other persons

besides the twelve. Epaphroditus is called an apostle, Phil. ii. 25; some brethren who accompanied Titus to Corinth, 2 Cor. viii. 23 ; Barnabas, "which when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard,"- Acts xiv. 14; Sylvanus and Timothy, 1 Thess. i. 1, and ii. 6;

James, the Lord's brother, Gal. i. 19. If the use of "evangelist" three times must be in a technical, "order," kind of sense, then the more times' use of "apostle" prove that the twelve had successors.

66

[ocr errors]

between a minister and a local church officer. The minister cannot exercise official powers in a local church without that church's consent; but he preaches, baptizes, and administers the Lord's Supper by an authority de

He is an "ambassador for Christ," not an ambassador from a local church. When he is to become a church officer, if never ordained, he is first ordained a minister, then installed a pastor. A church can inaugurate a pastor, but it does not ordain a minister; that is done by the churches represented in council. If a pastor is dismissed, he ceases to be a pastor; but he does not cease to be a minister; and when resettled he does not require reordination, but only installation, i. e., inauguration. There are distinctions in ministerial work, but none in the essence of ordination. He may be evangelist, chaplain, pastor, secretary, or any other ministerial character which God's providence may make him. A pastor dismissed and assuming the duties of an evangelist, or an evangelist becoming a pastor, needs no new ordination which, on any other theory, he must have.

There are two theories, therefore, about pending on no local church, but on Christ. " evangelist." One defines itself as а "preacher of the gospel;" so that when Timothy is told to "do the work of an evangelist," he was told, among all his other duties, not to neglect preaching. The other, that Timothy's entire work, and Titus' too, tells what an "evangelist was. If the former be true, then the formal enumeration is thus: "He gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some preachers of the gospel; and some pastors and teachers." (It would read queerly to say, He gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some stated supplies; and some pastors and teachers.") If this first view is true, then there is no distinction of "order," but only of work. The same man was apostle and preacher; the same was preacher and pastor. If the second theory is correct, then the "order" of evangelist ended with the apostolic days; or, if Timothy and Titus had successors in selecting, ordaining, trying, and rebuking ministers, and exercising discipline in churches, our Congregationalism is an impertinence.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

are

"ministers of Christ!" Why not say that there is but one kind of ministers, namely, ministers. Ordination is the act of setting apart a man to "the work of the ministry." A local church does not make a man a minister; but it does make him a pastor. The call of God selects the man to be a minister; a local church (in our polity) is the visible medium of that call; and the voice of the churches approves, recognizes, and formally sets apart." There is a clear distinction

Why not ordain a man to the "work of the ministry?" It is a Scripture phrase. Paul makes various subdivisions, but all "for the work of the ministry." "Ambassadors for Christ" have committed to them "the ministry of reconciliation." Paul says, "take heed to the ministry which thou hast received of the Lord." He thanks God for "putting me into the ministry." He tells Timothy, "make full proof of thy ministry." "Who is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed? "Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more." It was "by the gospel, whereof I was made a minister." Tychicus was a " faithful minister in the Lord." Timotheus was a "minister of God." "If thou. thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ." If such passages imply a class of men specially set apart to preach the gospel and administer its ordinances, then that class exists totally irrespective of, and above, all subdivisions. It makes a minister a great deal more than a kind of moderator of a church-meeting; not in power to rule, nor to bind by priestly authority; but a messenger from Christ, who has not got to ask leave of somebody before he can baptize a penitent or a child.

« PrécédentContinuer »