disappeared if he had beer aldi berea

We see then that the decor sm DEN NDO IT secess

cal prejudice, that the origi al veri mets sim

back the official "detova" is it -they who serve well"

à served wea

- Phil i 1. read thus: Paul and mechers, the servINS

We need not, after this, tarry long to pass judgment on the miskes of the traditional school on this subject. In the Church of ngland, in the ordination of deacons the bishop is made to say, at "it appertaineth to the office of a deacon to assist the priest 1 divine service, specially when he ministereth the holy commuion; to read the Scriptures and Homilies in the church, to teach hildren the church catechism, to baptize infants, in the absence of e priest, to preach, if licensed so to do by the bishop, and to point ut the poor and sick of the parish to the curate, in order that the urate may exhort his parishioners to relieve them!" And all this we are gravely told is the office of the deacon, as appointed by the postles, and recorded in the sixth chapter of Acts!

The Dissenters, who can discern clearly enough the errors of the Episcopalians on this question, have nevertheless themselves gone ll astray in their endeavours to realize "the deacon's office." They re not indeed agreed amongst themselves whether "the deacon's office" is to be traced to the sixth chapter of Acts; but they pretty generally affirm that the care of the poor is the proper duty of this officer. I affirm," says the author of the Church Member's Guide, 'that the table of the poor is the deacon's appropriate and exclusive luty. Whatever is conjoined with this is extra-diaconal service, and vested in the individual merely for the sake of utility" (Church Member's Guide, p. 130). Utility" then has with them virtually changed the office; for the same writer further says, "all the temporal affairs of the church should be confided to the deacons; their accounts ought to be annually laid before the subscribing members of the church, and to receive their approbation"-" the deacons from their being officers in the church...... will be considered by every wise and prudent minister as his privy council in his spiritual government, and should always be ready to afford him, in a modest, respectful, and unobtrusive manner, their advice."

This last sentence could scarcely be put into Scripture language; for in making the attempt we should thus read it: "The diaconi, from their being officers in the church,.... will be considered by every wise and prudent diaconus," &c. Tradition has separated the deacon and the minister, but in the New Testament they are one and the same word; and indeed so fully does diaconia mean any service in the church, that it is used in the Scripture as a synonyme also for “the office of a bishop," as the English translators have deceitfully translated iσкоη. Compare Acts i. 17 with verse 20 of the same chapter.

By this examination of Scripture we are now coming to daylight, where much darkness had been allowed to settle, and we are beginning to ascertain that "ministry" is all manner of service, in the spiritual government of the church of God; that "ministers" and "deacons " are simply servants; and that any believer, man or woman, who serves the Lord and his people, is a deacon or minister.

Paul was, in this sense, a deacon, minister, or servant (2

xi. 23; Eph. iii. 7; Col. i. 23). Timothy, in this sense, was a deacon (1 Thess. iii. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 6). Phebe was a deacon (Rom. xvi. 1). Apollos was a deacon (1 Cor. iii. 5). Tychicus was a deacon (Eph. vi. 21). All those who were in service to the Lord in the church at Philippi were deacons (Phil. i. 1). And indeed if we may imitate the translators of the English Bible, and coin “the deacon's office" out of the verb diaconeo, then "all believers that have received the gift are to exercise the deacon's office one to another;" and Paul tells us there are diversities of deacon's offices (1 Cor. xii. 5); and finally, in this mode of translating the Scriptures, our Lord himself has promised that where he is there also shall his deacons be (John xii. 26).

66

Ministry," however, makes its appearance in the English Bible through the medium of another word, which must not be overlooked. That word is inpérns: and in four instances it is so translated as to carry with it a clerical meaning, when the Scriptures are studied under the influence of traditionary prejudices. 'Yanрerns, huperetees, is, in its primary meaning, an under-rower, one who sat in the rower's bench of the ancient trireme-vessels, under the command of a superior officer; but in its secondary sense it is any inferior officer, chiefly of the civil courts, the apparitor, sergeant, or constable; also any servant, official or domestic, stateservants or house-servants; and lastly, any one who renders service in any matter or duty.

66

In the Gospels the word is frequently translated "officer," or servant," as, "lest the judge deliver thee to the officer" (Matt. v. 25); "Peter followed him even unto the palace of the high priest, and he sat with the servants" (Mark xiv. 54); but in the following instances we find it rendered minister: "Who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers [servants] of the word" (Luke i. 2); "And they had also John to their minister [assistant in service]" (Acts xiii. 5); "I have appeared unto thee to make thee a minister [servant] and witness" (Acts xxvi. 16); "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers [servants] of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. iv. 1). This text is probably often read, though unconsciously, as one of the clerical passages of the New Testament; yet when closely examined and compared with others, it appears of rather an opposite tendency. We do indeed often hear the clergy tell us that they are "stewards of mysteries, and ministers of Christ;" but here the minister is simply the servant, and we must not forget that Peter gives the stewardship to all believers, as every man hath received the gift, so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Pet. iv. 10).

We have now then only to examine the last strong hold of clerical prejudice, the imposition of hands, a subject which to many persons is a mystery, containing in it the whole order of the clergy and all its accompaniments; so great indeed is the influence of this cerny on the minds of many, that they consider the whole

question of the sacerdotal order clearly established by a simple reference to the instances of imposition of hands recorded in the New Testament; and it must be confessed that the Papists, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Independents,* and the Wesleyans, are in wonderful accord on this subject; imposition of hands creating a clerical order, they all discover in the scriptures; only they can not agree amongst themselves who are the true clergy, and in what sect the ceremony is most accurately performed.

But granting that there is any truth in that which has been already argued, then it must be obvious that "the ministry" of the New Testament differs so widely from any existing ministerial order that we need not be very solicitous, after the preceding exhibition, to inquire about "a regular ministry, ordained by imposition of hands;" for unless the advocates of the clerical order can succeed in setting aside these statements from the New Testament, then is their system virtually undermined. But let us, nevertheless, for argument's sake, waive any preceding proofs, and very briefly examine the popular notions of "an ordained ministry." Now, according to popular notions, the regular minister has been ordained "to preach the Gospel, and administer the sacraments," by virtue of imposition of hands of a clerical body already existing.

1st. As to "administering the sacraments" the term is wholly unknown in scripture. There are no "sacraments" in the New Testament: it is only from the papal school that we hear of them. The churches of Rome and England talk much of "the sacraments;" and the dissenters, copying those churches, or rather retaining the practices which they received originally from Rome through the church of England, enlarge on the mysterious theme; but the Christian who is guided by the scriptures, need not trouble himself about any theological language which he can not find in the word of God. As for baptism, which they call one of the sacraments, there is no scripture proof that it was performed by any "minister," taking the word even in the wide sense of diaconos-the baptism of the converts in the house of Cornelius was not performed by any "minister," for as far as we are informed, the only "minister" present was Peter, and "he commanded them to be baptised" (Acts x. 48); that is, he did not baptise them himself: and though doubtless the traditional school would assure us that "the certain brethren from Joppa" who accompanied Peter (verse 23) were clergymen, and "admimistered the sacrament of baptism" on that

* In formal words the Independents do not allow that they create a clerical order; but all their practices, and their habitual language, most clearly shew that they think they have a clergy; their ministers are called clergymen, and always claim the title of Reverend. They distinguish also very accurately between "the secular" and "the spiritual" officers of their churches-the deacon's office they tell us is secular, and the minister's is spiritual. If however "shewing mercy" to the poor and miserable be a part of "the deacon's office," then assuredly is "shewing mercy" reckoned as one of the distinct gifts of the Holy Spirit. (Rom. xii. 8).

occasion, yet no such statement appears in scripture; and therefore it may be dismissed with innumerable other dreams of the school Neither is there any evidence that the presence of a minister or an elder, or a bishop, was considered indispensable in those meetings of the saints, when on the first day of the week they assembled to break bread. Paul gives many directions to the Corinthians. concerning those meetings; but he never once names or even alludes to any elder, bishop, or ordained minister, as likely to be present on those occasions. If there were elders in the church of Corinth, they would of course break bread with the rest, but so little did Paul know about "ordained ministers administering the sacrament" that he neither names the minister nor the sacrament; and how this omission can be accounted for, if in those days there were either "ordained ministers," or sacraments, we see not. Let those who can, explain this difficulty.

The ecclesiastical phraseology of "administering the sacrament of the Lord's supper" is in vain sought for in the New Testament: the Lord's supper is thus described there, "On the first day of the week the disciples met together to break bread" (Acts xx. 7). And this simple statement, made if possible still more simple by Paul's allusions to the mode of meeting in the Corinthian church (see 1 Cor. xi. 20-34), ought to be sufficient to dissipate all our visions about ceremonies and clergymen in the observance of the Lord's supper. The truth is this: on the first day of the week the brethren met together to break bread; and if in those meetings ministers, that is diaconi, were present, or if elders were of the number, they would take the bread and the wine amongst the rest, but the sacrament and the clergyman had not then been invented. In the second century of church-history, they begin to make their appearance.

Then, secondly, as to "preaching the Gospel," no such faculty was conveyed by any imposition of hands or any ordination; for if that had been the case, then of course no other door to preaching the Gospel could have been opened, as the simultaneous existence of ordained and unordained preachers would have made it appear that ordination, for preaching the Gospel at least, was a ceremony that might be dispensed with. Now to the existence of unordained preachers we have a direct testimony, "Saul made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison, therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word" (Acts viii. 4). Was this an irregular and uncanonical proceeding? Of course all clergymen are bound to declare that it was because these preachers had not received "holy orders;" but the scriptures here, as in all other ecclesiastical questions, disagree with the clergy, for it is written further, "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Antioch, preaching the word. And the hand of the Lord was with them? and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord” (xi. 19—21),