I t - »* ryj Irf-I ‘./VT'.O ^v-v W> .fv •• .hrtj-i.* , ' J • '"■•-*» rw • .4 >.-;- v-»i.i*ib «r»n Jwr-j.i,* ,• .^u m >>•*•#•. ‘ ''■vnni'*'!-' ' • - t S \ ‘ J*. : ’ ■ ' -• ■ "'***-; " ' nvw~-., />/l#,.,v.^hi -ovTie *•• . .,._,, t'j! i au'rj: W*'1 ' ' «> w-'w > ■ - ..>4.4 « „V * \y t - .** "■*' ' '0£Se£2t2f*f<*''*w>''J -^nwwtjvvf** .» . i' /*>>'%#•%»%« -y»»v sar-^ >*>-■»»»'• .4 »rfc# v« »«« . *- >,4.^ -,- , . , , ar$ . - » „ V/-V/V I VUtfx»- •■» '*m>v -Aye ■ > #i VW Kfv SSEE SrSbr -VtSSRSk ;;:, r tf - * » -i lr'' s#'v / r. * M *-* .-**♦•»>■« rwr'*-** v, r , ./** . , ;. - '•* >r--*- c tt^vrv \r -u r,, *wrwr*!n* ^vy *»wvmw»»i ■-- '■>-»♦ =H* ^bsoSSSK* HS '. X232XXX' r: 7 - r:^r ' rd^3T£.SS: ~S~ • •ww . • •' WTflfT*T*rT** ^ ■ •- • ». . - - • ✓ „ « rZ - ~r *# **■*% - '-« <-f tW#VM i»w k» w u > 1 v< /uit^L> . -- i . .. — . . . .. ... . . ^»»w» ’ f sfer- m -'• * / -.. - .4 rv IK*** *-~~w Vv 1 SSffiisayft.rs ir^ * * -> vw TCsa^ar.raa*;:.- , : :v,u *55W3?C;“JK :;2'i ;:r, r ;-. w- ^ .4 ifwui/) iv- ^KV # . > . r NfV'V’^piw.^ v >*• w v**f *-» ^ w.v > ... -A*# - ; ^»yyJ|tih»o « [ # y>4||!/V'SO_n> +*P\J ■#>"■» 4 W- 4 -✓ .• •■W^/-^». rfU«/V*JvV ' t ' • * ’ irfwwy • /%-*: r,si*>4' 9‘i ■. ,, _, , _ ■ --■ 'XwXKSKSiasscrjr^ic; j-. , ... abb ■• • • 51 ;H; ,»',‘ -• •■■•u. .' v,/ • .,,; ^ . CClltS f ' * • * -4^ . , « ; ,TC ZYY.VJ ^ '• ■ m •^•■- Tf'^ *'V I*,r, '^Jww ■•' •■•--' » • !« . ♦ . rSWPJSJv ; ^Rstsscfej *; i BiSSsssaSsSSBaSsi^*'' • • ■ - . . ■ ^■' fW»i*.'«#v»wJ ^ *r -» >^v* .. .. w ^ vr rinvvMMmnnRBy^rr'4 v • ,_ ~ . . - ^ r 1 ?\S~ J "* ^Y' *'+*v n ' •* ** •'*■■**-■*■ • 1 • . - ■"‘, « ,1-v ^ ,r«.i ^ *rv.*y* •* < v.. .' ; ■f." • v > - v^v*> m< .. j-fcivi „ .. . ", . :' 2? 1 j- -r . ,, 'v&yt Wv< ^.1 * 41. . 4 fj. »t’ 1 * ' * * ~ "f ■> . r*»* . <■■>'' -r ’'••-♦ "W- ' •* * - ■■■ »r » W-4 + *4t-S,4- . » t^v . . Xi^stf%52scecsccr '. • K ■ SSi • . 1 . 355US^£ V “.t;.'/3f;;;; : MX, .4 /.#..WUV * * ivt ^ " J •' ' •*' • » ' ^ • ' . • ; BTrr •■ *■»•''* w p* vf w fVL^ , ■/;%'/' ■ ii '. « ' :-4/ • r;..' i-w.j Av^ijy'»>'-y^n^w ,u, , J-v.j r y * * ' *irW H v* -' •» v/ ’Vw , / . < / , . m yf^-V rf-.v y V »u u* ^ ^ ..- .rW'.r/-ji .viv .. . . ^ PPWPWWiBW^Biil _ --irr raBriii nnn TS* v *^““ -*** « •:<*v...... . .. ... . . . ,;■ ^ • -.-4 4 v.: . ;■ , ^7t;'.' tr* v ' ^U> K/ *i'*,--JM' *■% " ■ * < i V f u rf-v »r># 4 •WytJWT •n-^ - ■■< xefe;. -..- ■, v.-.i -'. . . ••- ■ •., . . .-. •.': ^*W yvvwv t/'^r ♦v’Wvvf') VV’Uv 4 ' ■mJ- " VVUsf^tf. ■ t . 5^ ;gyjg358^r.-- VtJ .r- . •w, -a i^w :/ .^-v* ++*\*u, *•'■* w *•■'''''' r •4 ' # J » - w'-* H .4-f .» .. 1J...J M ^ ' L )L ^ '*»># .#■ a .» / '•»« * W / -# r / ^ ,^s 7. 'jVw ' 1C wSfi*'® ■*** "?*f ^•o-M -TM". • J .#*r^v4 ,4,, ^ , 1-»»• - .# ^ wF^;: * V J ■ ' 4 # »~aT 1 : '* - *v* ^ w Cetj5}%8x& L # "J' ‘ *■')*•***' v,./-»w\. ,'^.4i»vr.)v -rvJSIRJL .., Jl .fyyyy^ • ^ • • ■*> •■ ; Jr#.* T' f •• ■' • " '■ * ^ m w ^ v w . w .^4 ,- 4 ., j ,. JCC X. r J OuSti * * # ' ^': * ** f ' « * / . «U - . •*W '•#■ - •'■> * /•*»>♦-*-• *-\.rv- 4 Z” " *'•’ '*"*■ -‘ ••«•' '**\*y*U 4 -.. .. . ' • rW- n|H | ,w‘: ' ■%♦*#«# -.4 v. *:}-,*-.. f .XKvet- ■*'■***'* ■ ^^,-....4 -.•»..%» j .. rZ£f ^.^r: * S.'S?5 Sv;^^fW" ' ; d£t .•,'•. • rr.-,- WifMK'VV’ 4#^ . >... .4, , , . . . ■*•.► > Kvw*, v- ., v ^ 7-f, CV: , >k4 »Kri -v w%< f , , , , ‘ . h.iH-.r\ , , , • , , • ■■ ' • < fc4J4*4Vx,j4.„,^M.„C, .„. rt.yyvK. JT ' ^5*' “V ■* • 44 .. 4 •»....< . . .,. , .4 . l'4»WU'4*vi.|^i .,-*4.v ,• i- ... fr'V!'‘ V ^,/.> . . Ktutym, V yy^-v>«yS4WV 4- 4 V.4U 14.. , „ •4 >♦ 4 .. - »v»-/ J ,/v, ,»-v ■*#krv^v '+Vb‘>pH? x- v* *•> - .4- /"M W\;v if '.rt J ’i J « l . 1. ..4 r h 4V^-| ... ■ ' - »4 -»-»4 V ■ • I 4aa. xr v •.^'-7 v' •••*! ^S^BBm^Eir!>fv*3aarJ3; .XY ;;„ ... ■" V •- »' - rm .^,r n, , V vfrf** ->•»•««> • »%■ >t*y i'wwwv^:rr,n.f1n,4 , , '’^WVin'/ V V* ■ - « ' - •■ -• • < 4 1 ■ . . .< k ^i«) v ,-• » i, j, :. »w%»vr'J- ' 4- ||jUlW#)M>)*..f'' 1 y » •W n ' . .1 •- ...,'* »14... . .1.4 i’v- '•Wi r^vM 'U ' *■> r -f «r v* V"\ r < '_. * “ ' V 4. , .4 , .. . , , , , , , . .WW4 4-, 4.4" i^.v. . 2x7: , 1a-vM - - 2 4/ t ,. itiu, . .** rTi-^ »_ - V**rtf>' ^ ■■■• ^2£5,'f ^ **•**■> ' * *.v -■ Lj • j . t»»’VV| V *1 -* I .4 > U lrt4Wl . 1 ....... rZ?’ u-,4,.., w;rx.'^.r ;’ , “ ”' “' ***••'•' - •'X'.,z;r73»« >'wv4>|.-^V<4^t4 .< 40V4.V4-. , wXiXZ-. .232* 7T,1’I'7 32^W” ' ^‘-J •■•‘*w«<'' . w*4y...--v«^(^5CC;^y,rr:. '•;n:r • <; Sftftf ****+ ^ v *•*» 739 1 <* v “v*V‘,r-^v1( >4 w -r »• . i V’fwwMTrrw^m ►‘•wwviiTWVlrv^w^'.iswW^X*. ■•-iXLT z ’ ' r ‘ / .. ^ . ./• - . 1 K ,. 4 • . 3g g* ^ ^ . ^rvv /*rw y > . A# ■ , vr *Tyf-+x . 4 ,.JX; y ^ JJJJ-f*. ,- ; ►* ■ ■ »52XQ0^7XJlrjfrZ;; . :.' ^vv fTy - - ^/‘YW **'■* t fVv --n# * 1 tfyt •» ,r *■ ' ” ” -4 rw »4v . . .'yMW»wy'#LAfWV'»YV4Y . erw it# •« Wirv^^V’-'-fW tJ- • ■ru «-v-’'-i kf^-r.r .•.■ •W*U> -kl-Jtfuv * r- * W^»v-v**l Y-,|.| . uyfVWV4 /v^fv'M-^iJ»*».i »,. i*,.: iifi . ’’’ "Tl » • ” J H ’'wv >.»- jy.rxi - ®«fC5«s5s2 - 4- ;' 7C.;C2U7 ; ;. : ,xr,jr^ •^^yn/vrov'.. .-v#v ^w- , 1,/^.. jr*' ■ w ./WU #..‘/v f • M • f.4- / , f m ./-,* ;vi4y -w -vvv iSX 'iX'Z-'I ST ■-' 4'1 rt>»4M ■ . ... 4- . ; , ... »w -. ' B t . j 'WMrtfVV’IV-., WYVa ,p., .'-w .. — 4* r^vH. -‘‘I? ' '’**** ",-,w *1--. »v. .#„. -M>4., rfV^U*^*./V>^t4-%4>VM^wviV^hp7Xy'%rlr>^^I?*;4 Xt)C21'rWlfw>'#v-. 4 .4 - »'ttSf. -w 4 ***'<.! -■«.•■ .*,*^Tf. y^n>yy> *y.yiuw>>*fc»vN ,ww< Jk4 ^4%iv»i !T7 vr *^-w»j av»».kr./ , v ,-W(.vti HHw«. ..jjvvw'u V..777CC..1 .xsr^ i./!fki>-.' *.~ • fctbrarp of Che Cheological ^erotnarp PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY •d^SD’ Presented by the Society of inquiry on missions BV 4521 .D43 1923 _ A Defence of lay-teaching _ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/defenceoflayteacOOunse A ?2iijre£!TQr| TZZQLQGIC3 ► « * r • * * 13 DEFENCE “ They that were scattered abroad went every where preaching.”— St. Luke. “ After the martyrdom of Stephen, all the disciples, except the twelve only, being scattered through Judea and Samaria, preached to the Jews.” — Eusebius • “ Laymen — are invited to preach by the— bishops.”— Alexander, bishop of Jem- salem,—in Eusebius. “ He that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet if he be skilful in the word, and grave in his manners, let him teach.” — Constitutions. “ In the beginning of Christianity— a general commission was granted unto all,— to preach the gospel in ecclesiastical assemblies.”— Hilary. PHILADELPHIA : Published by E. Littell, No. 88, Chestnut Street. Clark & Baser , Printers , 33 Carter’s Alley, 1823. * Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to irit. BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the twenty-sixth day of April, in the forty- seventh year of the independence of the United States of America, A.D. 1823, Eliakim Littell, of the said district, hath deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as proprietor, in the words following, to wit: 6i A Defence of Lay-Teaching. “ They that were scattered abroad went every where preaching." — St. Luke. “ After the martyrdom of Stephen, all the disciples, except the twelve only, being scattered through Judea and Samaria, preached to the Jews.’' — Eusebius. “ Laymen — are invited to preach by the — bishops” — Alexander , bishop of Je¬ rusalem, , — in Eusebius. “ He that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet if he be skilful in the word, and grave in his manners, let him teach.” — Constitutions. u In the beginning of Christianity — a general commission was granted unto all,— to preach the gospel in ecclesiastical assemblies.” — Hilary. In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled “ An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned” — And also to the act, entitled, “ An Act supplementary to an Act, entitled, ‘ An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned,’ and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of design¬ ing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints.” D. CALDWELL, Clerk of the Eastern District ol Pennsylvania TO THE TEACHING AND ITI-PRESBYTERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. Reverend Sirs, Nothing is to be said here of your virtues or your faults. Being assured of your safety you may now begin to think of your rights. An apology would seem necessary for this freedom. But it will he neither * gain nor loss to you : Except that some of you may be induced to purchase a copy of this Defence. It w ould not be proper to ask such to read it. More valuable books lay in libraries unread, and all your leisure is not more than sufficient for the awful charge you undertook, when you were ordained presbyters of the congregations of which you arc bishops. You are all included. For those of you w ho were first ordained * rulers of nobody , were afterwards (installed or) really ordained. One important end will be answered, whether you read this Defence or not. It is designed to make it aid in building a small house of worship for the occasional EPISTLE DEDICATORY. iv use of Presbyterian, German-reformed, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, and Schwenkfeldter Christians. These are the principal denominations near it, and having a considerable resemblance in their creeds : But it will be open to others. It is desirable that you should be better acquainted with the last mentioned denomination. They are a moral and industrious people. Their creed permits only the baptism of adults. The reason for presenting this worthy people to your observation is, that while they are in many re¬ spects a pattern to others, in one they are a warning. They acknowledge, as fully as you do, the duty of bap¬ tizing : But they do not practise it. They think con¬ formity to the apostolic church, in doctrines and mo¬ rals, sufficient. Other denominations generally dis¬ pense with principles, important as regards the exten¬ sion of Christianity, yet acknowledged to be scriptural: They dispense with the Christian rites. What reason do they assign ? What reason do other denominations assign, for a total and determined aban¬ donment of principles just as sacred ? Men have not the right to decide on what truths may be rejected most safely. To claim such right is to assume as true that false and dangerous maxim which tempted to the first human sin. EPISTLE DEDICATORY. V But it may be said, with confidence, that the reli¬ gious advantages, and the necessity, of a plurality of teaching pastors in a congregation, are more obyious than those of baptism. Each truth is disputed : But each is perfectly plain. The only plausible ground on which either can be denied is, that the Scriptures are not inspired. No blame can attach to any one of you on account of this Defence. For this epistle dedicatory (like some irregular ancient ordinations done without the know¬ ledge of the persons ordained) is without your consent. May your remaining days be crowned with increas¬ ing usefulness and honour, and their end find you pre¬ pared for the lot of those who turn many to righteous¬ ness ! Peace be within the walls of your sacred build¬ ings! May Christianity prosper in these palaces of the Most High ! Your senior-bishops would, in almost all cases, either consign their faithful presbyters to the diaconate, or, in spite of St. Paul, ordain bishops not apt to teach ; ' or rather, what that blessed martyr probably never imagined , not having the right. Yet more than one of them possess the glory of hav¬ ing almost alone among the bishops adjacent in city and country , declared openly their opinion in behalf of VI EPISTLE DEDICATORY. the right of all the brethren to teach truth (not only that of little value to mankind, but that) infinitely im¬ portant for men to understand. Yours, kc. &c. PREFACE. Having little hope, when commencing, of pleasing many of our readers, we determined to gratify our¬ selves in a few particulars. We hate notes : The rea¬ der will not find himself interrupted by one. If lie please, he may conceive of a portion of the book as transferred to the margin : But he can certainly read it as easily in the text. We would think it absurd for as to sacrifice the subject to the style, as if writing poetry, and then plague him with illustrations, either at the bottom of the page or the end of the book. We determined also to be as brief as practicable. If any one do not see, that we have avoided quotation as much as possible, it will be his own fault. If lie be not convinced that we have also avoided unnecessary discussions, we shall regret it: For we are just now giving ourselves great credit for this uncommon virtue. Throughout our short course we preferred proposing our sentiments at once, where they could be presented without preface, to introducing the subject again in a new section, at a greater expense, to the reader, of money, time, and attention. But still if, as often happens to A Presbyterian, ano¬ ther think not as highly of us as we do of ourselves, we beg him to remember, that we have laboured for him and for the public. Mil PREFACE. We claim the right, as we do others, to quote an ancient author in a modern. Nor do we think the quotation less valuable, because taken from such men as those of whose researches we have availed ourself. Even they, however, may have made an unintentional mistake, in transcribing or translating. If we shall have committed an error of this kind, we assure the reader it will not have been for want of a sincere, and anxious desire, to give him true information. We have not endeavoured to convince him, at the expense of a single shade of truth. We wish to anticipate one thing that will certainly occur. It will be said that such a Defence should have been made only bv one who had careful! v read through all the writers cited as authorities, and others of the first ages. Now we admit the value of such scholars. But they are not as common as some would imagine. We knew not where to lay our hand on one who was willing to defend all 'ice defend. And lay-teaching itself is de¬ spised by some who admit its correctness. And, in addition, we ask, Does this undertaking, cleared as the way is, require such immense erudition ? Than the truths we defend no truths are plainer. Must we either refuse to decide on the point at issue, or wade through all the rubbish of antiquity ? Men in whom we can confide, and whose systems we can exa¬ mine, have often9 without intending it, led the way. It is a folly to consume life in what has been suffi¬ ciently done. They, indeed, lost theirs in doing nothing laboriously , if their labours are to be accounted of no PREFACE. IX value. Some one was wanting to collect the proofs on this subject. And if of the seniores dignitate sitting in cathedris, some are unwilling to go all the length of truth, and others violently oppose it, and those fol¬ lowing on their lower benches follow their conduct, to one of the novissimi let an opportunity of speaking he given, nor let him be despised . We answer further : Man is a proud creature. This objection will be made by those who have quoted from hooks which they not only never read, hut never saw . We have quoted only from books in our hands, and which, with one or two exceptions, we have carefully read . When we quote ancient authors, it is almost always (as we read them) in the common and well-known translations. This is particularly allowable in a de¬ fence of lay- teaching. And wre here respectfully sug¬ gest that in publications intended for general use, the English of the quotation ought to be given. We do not now speak of passages objectionable on the ground of morals. There is often an affectation of quoting in the dead languages, so as not to scatter scraps of learning among the lay-people, tending to make them heretics or sciolists. Yet perhaps there are several translations of the quotations in common well-know n hooks, and it may he in the very hook whence the quoted quotation is taken. Many sensible and respectable clergymen and lay- teachers are confined to their mother tongue, and others have small Latin and less Greek . It is the case X FKEFACE. with ourself. Yet w e assure the reader, that, in several instances, we have carefully examined the original where we have quoted at second hand. This w as in¬ duced by a regard for truth, and also by the dread of tumbling among six thousand bishops. We w ould fear not getting out as easily as d Presbyterian did on a similar occasion. Knowledge will not injure. It is opposition to truth that often causes it, in the hands of the evil-designing, to burst like a torrent, when at last it tears aw ay the artificial dams that restrain it. Our apology for the want of the page, &c. of the w orks cited, is this : We collected our principal quo¬ tations, and reflected on the subject, before w e ventured to w rite. We did not calculate at first on any thing more than a very small pamphlet and a very few* cita¬ tions. Had we then designed as many as we have made, we would have proceeded on a different plan. In order to prevent certain mistakes, and that our anonymous Defence may not injure others, we say, that the writer has not been assisted, by any one, in any way whatever. “ We shall heartily thank any learned person, that “ will be so kind as to inform us, if he know s us to “ have erred in any one or more particulars, publicly, “ or privately by letter to our bookseller, and we pro- “ mise, if our mistakes are fairly show n, we w ill most 66 willingly renounce them.” dpril 21, 1823. CONTENTS Epistle Dedicatory . Page iu Preface ---------- vii Defence — Sect. I. The World cannot be regenerated on the pre¬ sent Plan. — There are ignorant and vicious Presbyters as well as Lay-teachers. — One probable source of Hostility to Lay- teaching . 13 II. Statement of the Subject. — Uncertainty, of our Opponents’ Claims. — What we do not assert. — What we contend for 17 III. Arguments against Lay-teaching, derived from the Mosaic Economy, unfounded in every respect. — The Jewish Priest¬ hood never claimed the exclusive Right of Teaching. — The necessity of License an absurdity 23 IV. The Lay -teacher has the same Providential assistance as others. — Creeds, as commonly used, are useless and pernicious 26 V. A Knowledge of the Original Language of the New Testament not essential for a Teacher. — License of an Ecclesiastical Coun¬ cil no Diploma . 28 VI. The only Scriptural Council a Session of Teaching Presbyters. — Missionary Associations Scriptural and useful - - 30 VII. Councils injurious to Religion. — Creeds trammel licensed Men. — They have however a legitimate use - - 36 VIII. Lay -teachers have the same promise of peculiar aid as others. — The Claims of the Apostles were not equal in some respects to those of modern Presbyters. — We do not advocate ignorance. — Licensed Men have done mischief in the Church as well as unlicensed . 40 IX. The authority of the Lay-teacher. — Laymen taught in the Jewish Synagogue. — No Lay-elders in the first ages of the Christian Church . 43 X. Hilary’s Se?iiores. — Eminent Men of the Church always con¬ sulted, till near Hilary’s time ----- 51 XI. He knew nothing of a mute Elder. — The chief Men among the Brethren, and the Prophets and Teachers of the Corin¬ thian Church, were Seniores. — In Hilary’s day the people ge¬ nerally were deprived of their Ecclesiastical Rights - 55 XII. The Presbyters had then ceased to be, properly the Bishop’s Council. — Unfair mode of making deductions from Quota¬ tions ...63 XIII. Lay-elder not in the Constitutions 68 XIV. Nor in Ignatius . -72 Xll CONTENTS XV. Bishops and Presbyters in the first age the same. — They dif¬ fered only in degree, throughout the three first Centuries 74 XVI. Re-ordination of Bishops. — New Testament Ordination 81 XVII. Presbyters really rulers of the Congregation where they were ordained. — Deacons . 83 XVIII. Succession of Bishops . 89 XIX. Absurdity of supposing the ancient Presbyter a mute Elder. — Wisdom of the New Testament Ecclesiastical Polity 93 XX. After Stephen’s death the Christians scattered abroad, went every where preaching. — Philip. — Apollos. — The Corinthian Church. — Apostolical Deputies, and common Pastors and Teachers . 97 XXI. Hilary, — and Tertullian, — respecting the original Economy of the Church. — Celsus. — Hermas .... 103 XXII. Ignatius. — Eusebius. — Churches of Lyons and Vienna 109 XXIII. Origen and Demetrius. — Origen preached at Alexandria while a Layman. — A Bishop’s invitation to preach not a Li¬ cense - - - ... - - . - Ill XXIV. Origen’s office as Catechist conferred no right to teach. — No dispute then respecting Lay-teaching. — The case of Ori¬ gen and Demetrius does not prove the infrequency of Lay- teaching --------- 114 XXV. Frumentius. — Monks in time of Athanasius. — Constantine 117 XXVI. Larger Epistles of Ignatius - 121 XXVII. Apostolical Constitutions. — This Book proves decisively that the denunciations of the fourth and preceding ages against invasion of priestly offices, do not refer to teaching 126 XXVIII. The notion of such an inferior order of the Ministry as Catechist , is totally erroneous . 130 XXIX. The exclusion of Deacon from public Teaching. — The word antiquity ambiguous. — Much virtue amidst the vices of the degenerating Christian Church - - - 132 XXX. At an early period most able Teachers would naturally be disposed to enter the clerical orders - 135 XXXI. Leo, in the fifth Century, denounced Lay-teaching 137 XXXII. Dr. Campbell. — Mr. Robinson. — Huss. - And Jerome 140 XXXIII. There is danger that Laymen’s exertions may cease. — A cause that would justify this, would save them much trouble . 142 A DEFENCE I. Miracles, in the opinion of a celebrated writer, must be the medium of introducing the universal reign of Christ, as they were of the establishment of his kingdom on the earth. Let us not, however, de¬ cide too positively, on the future means to be employ¬ ed by infinite wisdom for the extension of the church. The economy of the divine operations would lead us to a different conclusion. Means are not wasted. u Gather up the fragments that nothing be lost,” said our Lord, after a miracle multiplying food. Miracles are not again necessary. The demonstra¬ tion of the power of God was once thus given to the truth. The system of doctrines and morals are still the same. And instruction is sufficient to convey to mankind a knowledge of its nature and evidence. Besides, having no assurance of other means, we ought not to expect them : It leads to the neglect of those we possess . The success of our own age confirms our senti¬ ment. Mere human instruction, displaying the ori¬ ginal truths and proofs of Christian doctrine, unaided by recent miracles, or the pretension to them, has amazed us by the result. But, how little is effected compared with what re¬ mains to be done! We have seen the daybreak: When will the shadows flee away ? When will the earth be u full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the B 14 A DEFENCE OF u waters cover the sea ?” Never , till many shall run to and fro, and thus knowledge be increased. Never, by the present mode of instruction. Real teachers are now too few. Nor can they, according to existing systems, be increased, in a ratio corres¬ ponding with the want of them. The world never will be regenerated on the present ecclesiastical plan. Why is there such an opposition to the increase of knowledge ? Are men indifferent with respect to the end, or averse to the means ? The thought is horri¬ ble, (but, with regard to some, it is too unquestiona¬ bly true,) that many are saying with their lips, u Come Lord Jesus,” wThile in their hearts they are at least wholly indifferent to his coming. There are impious clergy as well as laymen. It is foolish and sinful to pretend the contrary. Jesus Christ and his apostles did not hide this fact. The comparative perfection of human nature and happiness, however, even on earth, is an object so possible, and so devoutly to be wished, that we can hardly conceive of a reflecting man so destitute of humanity, as not earnestly to desire it, and if he be not an unbeliever, to expect it. But when this earth is forgotten, and we view the men around us as heirs of immortality, what idea can we form of him, who interposes between them and instruction, acknowledged to be the truth, and talks of damnation with the same coolness he would of trigonometry ? Can we wThollv excuse a good man who, to every suggestion of the kind just now made, and professing to receive the sentiments by which the suggestion is naturally produced, only replies, Vain, arrogant , superficial, efithusiastic sciolist ! The honour of the clergy ! You must be licensed : and in order to this you must wait some years, before you can venture tc save souls. Why cannot a man teach his more igno¬ rant neighbours, what he has acquired by research , LAY-TEACHING. 15 or excite the thoughtless to reflection, as well as those vicious licensed priests, with whom some parts of the world swarm ? There are enough, all acknozv- ledge , of licensed and ordained ignorant and irreli¬ gious men. This is not contested. It cannot be hidden. We mention it now, only as rendering more cruel the attempt to lessen the number of preachers on principle , whether licensed men or laymen. We abhor the crime of asserting a want of princi¬ ple in clergymen generally. We despise the baseness of wishing unnecessarily to lessen the love of his people, or of the Christian world, for any pious pas¬ tor or teacher, however defective. But the ground zvhich our opponents assume renders it essentially necessary to adduce clerical defects, universally known. This defence will, however, furnish no cause for a charge of hostility to the clergy. Ill temper may make it. We protest against it. We venerate and love the pious pastors of the churches of all denominations , and all pious Christian licensed teachers. The enemy of lay-teaching disclaims any connexion with worthless priests. We use this word, not as a term of reproach ; and not only because some deno¬ minations are so fond of it, but because even presby- terians, to the great regret of some of their hearers, are becoming frequent in the use of it. W e know it may mean presbyter. But we also know that such expressions as this, The functions of the priesthood , are designed to throw a false and unholy air of mys¬ tery around the office of the Christian pastor, and that of the Christian teacher, for which men must re¬ sort, but as we shall show in vain , to a dispensation, long since vanished away. It cannot, with the ap¬ pearance of truth, be derived from the apostolic writings. It existed not either in the Jewish or Christian synagogue . The enemy of lay-teaching disclaims any connexion 16 A DEFENCE OF with worthless priests. But he takes the ground that associates them all with himself. They belong to the corps , (as he must on his own principles acknow¬ ledge,) whose exclusive rights he defends, in opposi¬ tion to every natural advantage, and to every virtue, if unlicensed to do good. They belong to the corps, he must confess, though many of them would, on his own principles, spurn him from it, as a mere layman, licensed by no authority derived from Christ. Do catholics or episcopalians acknowledge that presbyte- rians derive their ecclesiastical power from men em¬ powered to give it ? Do not a large and respectable denomination, whose ministers are becoming ex¬ ceedingly jealous of their ecclesiastical rights , de¬ rive their authority from men not ordained to give it ? A commission to teach, excluding power to or¬ dain, surely does not confer this authority. The clergyman sometimes makes a certain and respectable living as a teacher. And a pious teacher is worthy of his hire. The inducements which the ministry now offers, even to inferior talents, render it more attractive to a good man, (dependent on his exertions for support, and not the less honourable,) than any other of the learned professions. Ministers of no great natural talent, and very defective in ac¬ quirements, even in cities, fill most respectable situa¬ tions. A man of talents may think the gospel under great obligations to him, because he has made divinity the source of his honours and emoluments. But he sees another willing to abandon the pursuit of earthly things, and to devote himself to Him who died for his redemption, without charging the Lord with a salary or cathedral. Does this displease him ? It ought not. If he who rules well and labours in the word is worthy of ample support, he is no less wor¬ thy, his remuneration is no less justly due, because another does not need it. LAY-TEACHING. 17 But let not laymen triumph in the faults or frail¬ ties of the clergy. These faults are theirs. And they have no real interests distinct from each other. The sins of both clergy and lay-people each should mourn. Let them not imitate each other in insinuations of ambition and envy: For the same charge may attach to each — in part real, in part unjust. II. We assert the reasonableness of lav-teaching, — the safety 'of the lay-teacher, — and his authority from the Scriptures, — confirmed by the practice of the primitive church. Let us state the question. It is not done by our opponents, in their late attacks. There is a surpris¬ ing want of precision in their mode of treating it. u A Presbyterian,” in the Christian Advocate for Jan. 1823, would have done it : But in the course of that piece, he found it u not an easy thing” to exhibit his own sentiments, without his-self refuting them. He had too much information to pretend to discuss the subject at all, without adverting to the practice of the Jewish and Christian synagogue. But how pain¬ ful is it to see a good man betrayed by prejudice into an attempt to wring inspiration into the presbyterian variety of elder. We are informed that these un¬ happy thoughts , which have weakened the hands of some of the most judicious lay-teachers, are not those of the pious and learned editor of the Chris¬ tian Advocate, though we doubt not he would advo¬ cate them. Sometimes our opponents contend for license , sometimes for ordination. There are presbyterians who consider mere license as insufficient to give a man authority to pronounce in a large assembly this text of holy writ, u Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ “ and thou shalt be saved.” We have heard of pres¬ byterian ministers who said, that while only licensed, they scrupled to offer Jesus Christ to sinful men. Sometimes what they contend for is the act of one B 2 A DEFENCE OF 18 man. In some churches, the pastor of a congregation, or of several congregations, gives a student a general (we believe verbal) license or permission to preach in these, when invited by him, {in or out of his pre¬ sence,) and, we believe, in others, if invited ; and to read the funeral service ; and, perhaps, to perform some other ministerial functions. This permission, however communicated, is, by his authority, founded on examination, (for he is his student, ' and arrived at that point when he is judged jit .*) And it is de¬ fined, though verbal. “ A Presbyterian’s” notion of the right of students of divinity cannot be referred to this head without doing others injustice. We are afraid to touch it. We cannot comprehend it. There is something rational in saying a bishop may license his student when he judges him fit, and examination is especially necessary with a boy perhaps of fifteen. But a presbyterian’s license is founded on the lad’s having commenced the study of Christianity. This, he says, makes it proper for him to teach others . If a man have the unblushing effrontery to reply that those called students are always young men who have studied truth, we would only say we wish we did not know otherwise. Let the reader recollect that w A Presbyterian,” and we, in our assertions, include students of all denominations. In any thing we have just said, we do not design to admit St. Paul and the ancient church to have been in an error. Says Lord King, speaking of the candidate for ordination, u It was necessary for tl him to have been of a ripe and mature age, for u they ordained no novices or young striplings. u That was the practice of the heretics.” There were, no doubt, exceptions to the general rule. Sometimes what they contend for is the act of a diocesan bishop ; sometimes it is the act of three or more laymen. Some presbyterian clergymen con¬ sider the last as sufficient to authorize them to per- LAY-TEACHING. 19 mit such licenciate to preach in their pulpits. Some¬ times it is the act of an ecclesiastical court ; some¬ times of a simple association , disclaiming the powers of a court. Sometimes what they contend for, is the act of men mad with orthodoxy ; sometimes of persons hardly Christians in any sense. There are sects de¬ scribed in church history who perform u ecclesiasti- u cal acts,” but whose Christianity is problematical to any historian. The loose and unmeaning phrase just quoted, is from that strange piece, in the Presbyterian Maga¬ zine for February, 1821, so replete with assertions utterly destitute of proof, and in the face of fact. We believe the gentleman did not wish to be under¬ stood as proving his positions. Presbyterians sometimes reason as if the license of any Christian denomination was sufficient, yet they reject the authority of some ; and no man could say beforehand how they would decide with regard to others. The license which one presbyterian indi¬ vidual or council rejects, another receives. Besides, the license of some of the most worthless men is precisely that which cannot be rejected , unless the validity of the authority depends on the piety of those who give it. Sometimes the opponents of lay-teaching contend for the exclusive right to teach, not only of men or¬ dained to teach , but also of men ordained, not to teach , but to assist the pastor in ruling. We know at least one gentleman of this kind. He tells the presbyterian lay-elder^, that their ordination gives them a right to teacrq zohich they had not before. The book which he holds in his hand while ordain¬ ing, most decidedly and absolutely excludes from teaching all except pastors, and candidates for the ministry , who have been examined with respect to their qualifications to teach, and licensed. By a 20 A DEFENCE OF teaching elder that book surely means a clergyman. But the lay-elder is told that he now receives a right to do, what he is just then pledging himself not to do. For is he not then subscribing to the book held up before him ? We do not now meddle at all with the question how far each kind of elder in that church is bound by his subscription. What we assert is, that the lay- elder derives from his ordination no right to teach. But if it were admitted that any one clergyman is at liberty to make essential alterations in the frame of its government, our defence would be almost unne¬ cessary. There are individual pastors who have sanctioned lay-teaching as far as we ruish it. The precise difference, as we understand it, which is sup¬ posed to exist between the two kind of presbyters, is this : The one derives from his office no right to teach, be, And this fact alone , if real , would prove that private Christians possess no such right. Where, then, does the lay-elder’s right come from ? Sometimes they admit a right to exhort, but dis¬ tinguish between the exhortation of a man possessing a competent knowledge of the doctrines of the gospel and his teaching. Is it probable that he can exhort without teaching? If possible, it were a cruel impo¬ sition to tell a man to exhort men to faith in Jesus, and yet under the penalty of the curse of Korah, and of other sinners, held up for our warning by inspi¬ ration, forbid him to explain what faith is, or to propose the evidence on which faith rests. If they do not, (by preaching, in opposition to exhortation,) in¬ tend the discussion of such themes as these two, we confess ourselves ignorant of what they mean. Every man who reflects will see the extreme diffi¬ culty of deciding on the question, what kind or quantity of instruction, necessarily in some degree introduced with exhortation, changes it into teach¬ ing. Now they tell a man, too ignorant in their opi- LAY-TEACHING. 21 nion to teach, to discriminate accurately between the one and the other. Whereas the teaching requires no extraordinary talent, this discrimination requires almost superhuman penetration. Does exhortation in the New Testament always mean something inferior to teaching ? Says Luke speaking of Paul, “ When he had gone over these u parts , and had given them much exhortation.” If we recollect right, an ancient writer understands by teachers those who instructed children. Did the first Christians waste their time and energy in such employments as calculating what the difference con¬ sisted in? To urge exhorters to the duty of exhorta¬ tion is quite another thing than debarring them from teaching. “ A Presbyterian,” however, gives up this old distinction. He places lay-exhorters also among the children of “ sorrow,” “shame,” and “ sin.” We do not assert that a layman, or a clergyman, has any other than a knowledge, more or less imper¬ fect, of the sacred Scriptures. We do not defend a clergyman or layman in attempting to discuss that of which he is ignorant. We do not question that anciently the apostles in¬ dividually, and the apostolical college, and the apos¬ tolical deputies, and the presbytery, (or college of pastors,) of one congregation, meeting for divine worship in one room , or the brethren and teachers of one congregation, if there were yet no pastors ordain¬ ed over it, committed the gospel to faithful men, and sent them out to the world, as teachers, and invited and urged them to preach the gospel. W e do not pretend that any man, in the apostolic day, or now, consistently with the Scriptures or sound sense, can teach in an assembled congregation, without the approbation of the rulers of that church. We do not consider the “ pulpit free” from the in¬ spection of the rulers. But the earth is the Lord’s. And we do not admit that because that venerable A DEFENCE OF 22 pastor who oversees the episcopal church in Penn¬ sylvania, has individuals of his flock throughout the state, the preaching of other men on that ground in¬ vades his parish. That good bishop never made such claims. The claims of Rome are not more absurd. The pastors of one congregation are not pastors of the world. Jesus Christ is the only uni¬ versal bishop. His apostles and their apostolical de¬ puties had extraordinary powers : But the want of inspiration cuts off the succession. The duty of adhering to pious teachers is opposed to a criminal love of novelty. But to debar men from teaching and from hearing important truth, overwhelms the world with spiritual darkness. We cannot draw the line except by this plain scriptural distinction : The pulpit is the pastor’s ; it is mine if he allows: But a mountain in Judea, the Hill-of- Mars, the sea-side, or a market-house, (if unoccu¬ pied by a religious teacher) is mine without his per¬ mission. We contend that any Christian teacher, though not the pastor of one congregation, may teach and con¬ vert the world if he can. He is answerable to God, however, that he do not endeavour to disturb the congregation of a pious bishop. Within a reasona¬ ble distance of such a pastor’s altar, he should among other things exhort to attendance on that parish church. He should rejoice if the man who hears him to day, on the next Lord’s-day hastens devoutly to the house of the Lord. We contend that it is the right of all Christians, with humility and caution, to judge how far they are capable of teaching others the way to everlasting life ; and, if they think themselves in any degree qualified, so far to exercise their talents. This is the doctrine we defend. We assert that nothing but claims and habits, in¬ duced and fostered by corruption in the church. LAY-TEACHING. 25 could blind men to the fact, that Jesus Christ and his apostles never, in the smallest degree, discouraged a work so holy and beneficial as teaching the truth. Recommending caution in selecting, from the teach¬ ers, the pastors of a church, was a far different thing. III. The Mosaic system was national, ceremonial, and typical. It was not for the world. We would not be able to see the wisdom of God in it, if it had been designed, like modern conflicting ecclesiastical establishments to cover quarters of the globe. Its creed was simple. What it required (as re¬ gards our subject) under pain of the divine displea¬ sure, could not be misunderstood. Uniformity, and a hereditary priesthood, were both necessary in the age, and circumstances, and with the objects of its institution. To regulate a perfect religion, designed for the world, and for the last and permanent age of the church, by the usages of an institution so much its oppcsite, is not rational. It is not doing justice to the souls of men, or to the character of Him, who was the author and the finisher of our faith, as well as of the Jewish. The arguments for restricting instruction to a selected clergy, drawn from the hereditary rights of the Jewish priesthood, men of sense are now gene¬ rally ashamed of. But still, to say nothing of the habit of describing Christian pastors as priests, we are told roundly you ought not to instruct the ignorant in religious truth, unless you are called of God as was Aaron . Aaron was called by inspiration, and miraculously, in a manner that could not be mistaken. No Jew, not of his family, could suppose himself authorized to of¬ fer incense. The curse of Korah could fall only on wilful disobedience to the known command of God. Not merely were Aaron’s sons commanded to offer 24 A DEFENCE OF incense : All others were most plainly forbidden to do this act . Thus expressly as regards the priestly acts, and plainly, and miraculously, as regards the men, were Aaron and his sons called. But our opponents mean nothing of this kind. They mean called of men , and by men: They mean an “ ecclesiastical act.” And an “ ecclesiastical act” is the permission to preach, of certain persons, some¬ times really too ignorant to judge of the qualifica¬ tions of others, and sometimes most flagitious sin¬ ners. The indecent conduct of some men, deriving their ordination, if any men do, really by uninter¬ rupted succession from the apostles through a line of men ordained to ordain, is distressing often to persons of no pietv. Notwithstanding to be autho¬ rized by such men, our opponents say, is to be called of God as zuas Aaron. No candid man will consider us as referring to bishops and presbyters generally. That there are ignorant and wicked licensing men, surely no man will deny. When Christian ministers began to claim the pre¬ rogatives of Jewish priests, the church was deeply corrupted. We are thankful that a scheme so fraught with crimes and mischief, as the experience of the world has proved it to be, evidently was not the dic¬ tate of inspired men. Besides, we will refer, in the sequel, to the fact, that the Jewish priesthood neither possessed nor claimed the exclusive right of teaching. They were governors in the house of God arranged by Moses. But teaching was common to them and their brethren. We mean the right to teach. It may have been , at some periods of the Jewish church, generally con¬ fined to them in fact: But the right was not ex¬ clusively theirs. With what propriety then is preach¬ ing denominated a function of the priesthood. People do not see the extent of this parallel be- LAY-TEACHING. 25 tween the Jewish and Christian priesthood. The Jewish priest was born such. And the nature of his offices rendered this a wise arrangement. He was educated to sacrifice, offer incense, and perform other similar duties. Thus it was also, in some measure, under the preceding infantile dispensation. If the parallel were just, as it is attempted to be drawn, sincere piety would not be of such importance with regard to the Christian priest as we know it is. The patriarchal dispensation anticipated some parts of the Jewish. The Jewish anticipated some parts of the Christian. The synagogue teachers were neither, born such, nor such merely by education : — They Were pious priests or laymen ; — laymen in every sense. There were other teachers in the syna¬ gogue beside the priests of the temple. There were others beside the sypagogue-rulers. Does it comport with sound reason, that an aged, pious, and sensible man, shall not instruct without the permission (we refer now to two kinds of license,) of a man, perhaps much his inferior in age, piety, sense, and learning. The latter holds the authority in his hands. And without his consent it is Korah’s crime for the other to say to thirty persons collected to hear him , u Repent and be converted.” He must wait, while they are perishing , for this gentleman’s decision ; who perhaps is employed about other matters ; about business, amusement, or science ; or travelling over the world to adjust creeds ; or hunting for heretics in his study; or setting the World in a flame about trifling disputes. Reason is a precious gift of God. It was not given in vain. How are we to believe, without proof, that such contradictions proceed from God. You must be clothed with human authority in or¬ der to pluck brands from the burning. You may advise three men, while you stand on the same ele¬ vation with themselves, to live a pious life ; But you c ( \ 26 A DEFENCE OF 4 must not give this advice to thirty : Or if to thirty not to three hundred. Certainly they must not be col¬ lected to hear you. You may give such advice to a small collection in a lane or alley : But be cautious of open places. You may speak, says one, sitting. Says another, this is more magisterial than standing. We will briefly examine below, whether this tissue of odd things be at all authorized (as is asserted) in the Scriptures. IV. At present we inquire into the safety of the lay-teacher : He is represented as liable to danger, from which a license would guard him ; and more likely to do mischief, than if an u ecclesiastical act” had occurred. The lay-teacher has the same providential assis¬ tance as others. God operates by means. His Spi¬ rit does not inspire fools with genius. A lay-teacher has the same means of information. If he has the meanness to dress himself in borrowed plumes, he has the same access to the compositions of other men. And if he wishes to improve his own com¬ mon sense, he has the means in the most valuable treatises on every theological subject. The reader will please to recollect that it is our decided sentiment, — that for which we contend, — that neither licensed nor unlicensed men are called of God to do, what He has not given them talents to perform. But though both are often very defective on some subjects, they may be adequate on others. Every man ought to make some estimate of his own abilities, natural and acquired. Every man must decide, in a thousand instances, on what he is capable of, or act foolishly. For the piety, humility, and care, exercised in making this decision, he is accountable to God. Nor let a man suppose, that the decision of another man or body of men, that an u ecclesiastical act,” will extenuate his folly, in occu¬ pying a place for which he was never designed. LAY-TEACHING. 27 We have said that a man is accountable to God- alone for his decision with regard to his duty to teach what he thinks truth ; and he is accountable to God alone for his decision what truth is. . Much of the alarm respecting lay-teaching is founded on the danger of error, and the necessity of examination of intended teachers. As if there was more uniformity • among licensed, than among unlicensed men. As if creeds were not the fruitful source pf the most per¬ nicious errors, as well as the most unfair conceal¬ ment, and other detestable vices. Centuries have passed since Cranmer and Serve- tus were burnt. Catholics and protestants have been punished for not being silent. The same things would now be repeated, if the diabolical passions of men were not restrained by wholesome laws. A man who would not suffer to escape, but would pur¬ sue and strip of his ministerial office a fellow clergy¬ man, who would honourably avow a change of opi¬ nion, according to the command of Christ, on pain of his eternal displeasure, (there is danger,) would, though he might not be willing to suppose so, if he had the power, divest him further. There are really good men who might act thus : St. Paul says, u the w law is not made for the righteous man.” His meaning is plain. The view he then takes of it is obvious. He tells us of other views in which it is necessary. And human laws are necessary for amia¬ ble men. Neither Calvin nor Cranmer Were cruel. Both persecuted. We do not say that Cranmer and Servetus were equally correct : But both had a right to live unmo¬ lested. We do not say that he who would not suffer one who differed from him 'in opinion, honourably to retire from his connexion,, and those whom he de¬ nominates heretics, are equally correct. But they may be equally pious men: And they are all ac¬ countable to God alone. We believe that the Word 28 A DEFENCE OF was truly and properly God. But we pity the man (what useless suffering does he endure !) who feels any disposition to injure in speech or action his pious brother who errs on this subject. To excom¬ municate or insult men for a difference of opinion, even on an important subject, is insolent and wicked. It never convinces others : But the temper may ruin ourselves. The opinion that it is lawful to indulge in this sin , is a soul-destroying heresy. We wish calvinists would read the scriptural sentiments of Dr. Doddridge on this subject, interspersed through his commentary, especially in that part on the epis¬ tles to the Corinthians. If any good man think it dangerous to believe some of the New Testament canons, let him read this human authority. V. A lay-teacher has the same scriptures as other teachers. Tell us not of some unable to read Greek. The observation applies to licensed, as well as unli¬ censed men. And many who are licensed, under the idea of being acquainted with this language, know very little respecting it. We admit the advan¬ tage of even that slight knowledge of it which many possess. They can better understand the observa¬ tions of learned men. But the necessitv of the know- J ledge of the original is grounded on this sentiment, that a man does not really read the Scriptures who reads them in translations. We might almost as well assert, that in order to read the Scriptures really , we must read the auto¬ graphs of each book. But allowing the sentiment to be correct ; — does any thing but an accurate know¬ ledge of the Greek, such as very few (we say not li¬ censed but,) presbyterian clergymen possess, answer the design? The pretence of being a good Greek scholar is safely made. Who is to examine ? It is well known that the license of a presbytery or a bishop is^no di¬ ploma. Men are licensed to be pastors, while not £9 LAY-TEACHING. only ignorant of Greek, but very deficient iii English; and really unfit to be teachers, except on this ground, that being good men they will do good ; and the evil feared is chiefly imaginary. To say nothing of the ordained men in other lands, who cannot read translations, (There has been however an “ ecclesiastical act.”) and of the licensed men in our own country, who cannot read English correctly, how many of the ordained presbyterian pastors of New York and Philadelphia could read a Greek author with whom they were not. familiar ? The Greek Testament is easily read : But this is not to understand the language. Our object however is not the defective knowledge of licensed ministers. We contend they are learned enough. This defence is theirs. The means of teach¬ ing exist. There are excellent translations of the holy volume for the use of ignorant bishops and lay- teachers. The number of them is a great advantage, which we enjoy as Christians; and the demonstration which we thus have, in the number of learned and pious witnesses, of their general correctness is a subject of most devout acknowledgment to ignorant teachers, and to all Christians. w No translation,” says Dr. Campbell, u that I “ know has missed the sense in points of principal “ consequence, whether historical events, articles of u faith, or rules of practice - any of the almost in- u finite number of translations” are w amply sufficient u for the all the great purposes of religion and chris- u tianity.” The vulgate would answer well-instructed protes- tants ; and the Socinian translation would nourish the piety of those who worship Christ. Most of the difficulties which God has been pleased to leave in the Scriptures, are such to the learned as well as to the unlearned. If the know- c 2 \ 30 A DEFENCE OF ledge of the original languages could fully remove them, all Christians should go to school again. The pretence (and it is one of the most powerful engines of attack on lay-teaching,) that the know¬ ledge of the original languages of the Bible is essen¬ tially necessary for all teachers, is contradictory. If we cannot rely on the existing translations of men, tried as regards learning and goodness, how shall we rely on one, of whose piety, talent, and integrity, we are utterly ignorant. You tell us he has been examined by an ecclesias¬ tical council. If our common translation is to be improved, the fame of Campbell or Macknight would be more satisfactory to us. A modern license is no absolute proof either of capacity or learning. Ask the members of such councils. It would be hardly proper to cite modern private declarations. Hear Gregory Nazianzen, as quoted by Le Clerc. 44 I always avoid any assembly of bishops — without 44 any exaggeration, the spirit of dispute and ambi- 44 tion is so great in them, that it cannot be ex- 44 pressed.” Again, M I never go to any synod, be- 44 cause there is nothing to be heard there but geese 44 and cranes, who fight without understanding one 44 another.” The evil deplored by Gregory we con¬ sider as the effect of these unscriptural institutions. The men were generally good men. Among the implacable enemies of lay-teaching are these unholy things. We wish to be understood of collections of pastors of different , and especially distant congrega¬ tions, for other purposes than to evangelize the un¬ believing world. VI. The only scriptural ecclesiastical council, possessing the powers of a spiritual court, is the col¬ lege of pastors of one congregation. The best spe¬ cimen now existing, known to us, is the presbyterian session. By 44 ruling elder” its 44 form of govern¬ ment,” means a ruler in spiritual affairs; by deacon LAY-TE ACHING. 31 a person to whom is committed certain temporal matters. If any one doubt this, just let him read ; Nothing can be plainer. However if we are wrong, we are not ashamed of our company. We are sorry, notwithstanding, for the trouble which the mistake has occasioned during centuries. The pious Bishop Hall, for instance, might have been saved much trouble, in addition to the u hard measure,” had he only known that he was contending with a man of straw. Indeed his generous heart would have re¬ joiced, in such ample provision being made for the poor, had he suspected that the ruling presbyters were only deacons. Presbyterian confessions of his day, and of ours, consider them as lay -elders. They are then, in reality , lay-pastors, or lay-bishops. They are wonders on earth, elders forbidden to teach, governors of a congregation forbidden to instruct it, bishops who must not speak to their flock. If any votary of truth wdshes to push the ruling elder from the u second throne,” or to open his closed lips, (in a manner consistent with the solemn engagements of both minister and elder, when each subscribed the confession,) let him openly demand an alteration in the plan of government. And let any minister be cautious how he uses influence arising from his fame for humble piety, to reduce either lay-bishops or deacons below trustees. These might answer the same purpose as the annual elder : But unhappily they comprehend a variety of unbe¬ lievers and others, such as shall not inherit the king¬ dom of God. It does this order , writh whom some clergymen are willing to divide the government of their congregation as regards spiritual affairs, no injustice to say this. For many of them would be hurt at the idea of being supposed Christians. Mes¬ siah never instituted this order of neutrals, — border¬ ers. There is not a more despicable creature than a man belonging to Satan’s camp, who yet cannot 32 A DEFENCE OF keep his hands off the little matters of those pious men whom he despises. If the lay-bishops beside the highest New Testa¬ ment characteristic of a presbyter, or governor in the house of God, which they possess in a sense peculiar to themselves , had in charge the lower (we do not say less important,) offices also, particularly that of teaching, the session were a New Testament presby¬ tery. They are now, in many respects, just what in¬ spiration intended a presbytery to be, and what it was in the ancient church. They are men selected from the very body which they are to govern; men to whom the honour and salvation of the congrega¬ tion are dear. They are independent of the people, yet closely united to them, as neighbours, friends, and fellow-christians ; — and men. of some age and standing in that congregation. Their authority is real. And so is that of a stranger-pastor, after suffi¬ cient residence, or indeed at once if he be a man of well known character in the church. We admit the necessity, under present circum¬ stances, for the translation of bishops and other clergy. At least, we are not satisfied that we would be correct in objecting to it. We must not however reason from a fact wThich did not exist in the first ages, and which never ought to have existed. The moving about of clergymen (We do not speak of missionary tours.) leaves an impression in favour of a general kind of superintendance belonging to the local pastors over the church. Now when Titus (an extraordinary but not a local bishop) was left in Crete to ordain elders in every city, is it supposable that he was to bring them from other parts of the world, than that where he ordained them. Down as late as the fourth century the church made the most vigorous opposition to translations of clergy. A canon of the council of Antioch, in M. Dupin, a Forbids clergymen to forsake their churches LAYVTEACHING. 33 41 to abide in others.” Another 44 Forbids the trans- 44 lation of bishops.” Another u Forbids translation 44 of bishops and priests, and orders that those who 44 shall be translated shall return to their first church.” A canon of the council of Arles 44 Enjoins ministers 44 to continue in the church where they were or- 44 dained.” Another 44 Forbids priests and deacons 44 under pain of deposition to relinquish the church 44 where they were fixed by their ordination.” A canon of the council of Sardica 44 Calls translation of 44 bishops a wicked custom and pernicious abuse.” It was discovered in the council of Laodicea that there was a difference. Some were 44 for the good 44 of the church.” 44 A qualification in a bishop, anciently, very much 44 insisted on, wras, that he should be one ofi the clergy 44 of the same church over which he was to be made 44 bishop.” Thus Mr. Bingham. That the inferior clergy, from whom the bishop was chosen, were or¬ dained, anciently, in and for, the church, to which, before ordination, they belonged, will not be ques¬ tioned. 44 Whosoever,” says Lord King, 44 desired 44 to be admitted into this sacred office, he first pro- 44 posed himself to the presbytery of the parish 44 xvliere he dwelled and was to be ordained .” He was then proposed to the people, who of course knew him, and who judged of his fitness for the ministry. 44 In the ancient church,” says Bingham, 44 there was 44 no such thing as a vague and absolute ordination.” Ordination, not for a particular church, was void . 44 The laws forbad ordination of strangers in any 44 church to wffiich they did not belong.” A few ex¬ ceptions, in extraordinary cases, do not render these general facts doubtful. As we wrould naturally suppose, men first began to ordain more presbyters and deacons for particular churches, than they had any occasion for. They were no inconvenience to the bishop for the power 34 A DEFENCE OF was now his . The superfluous presbyter or deacon was considered as ready (for either presbyter or deacon was then eligible) for any bishopric that of¬ fered. The consequence was wandering clergy, or as they were afterwards called vagabond clerks. But when the detestable practice of ordaining cler¬ gymen without, flocks commenced, the church was shocked at this gross departure from the usages of its age of innocence. It did not declare such ordi¬ nations irregular — it declared them no ordinations . They certainly were a mockery. Thus the bishops and presbyters, in the early ages of the church, arose out of the congregation which they afterwards ruled. The clergy were thus as really the representatives of the people , as the lay- elders now are. A college of pastors in general, thus chosen from the people, we view as the New Testament presby¬ tery, and the only ecclesiastical court authorized by that book. But because we deny th£ authority to expand every vile scandal from the primitive presby¬ tery and congregation where it ought to be censured and die, to the general council of (almost all) North America, because we do not admit the unjust claims of associated bishops ; we beg not to be supposed inimical to the indulgence of pious friendship. We respectfully suggest, however, that it is a great way from the mouth of Columbia river to Cape May. Ought these largest associations to be so frequent? And when pastors do leave their flocks for this purpose, ought not their tour to be a missionary one ? Would it sacrifice a little more time and money ? It would then sacrifice none of either: Especially if they requested the presbyters at home as exiled Cy¬ prian did his, u to discharge their own and his office “ too.” Missionary exertions are the legitimate and pious object of these associations. In this sense we applaud LAY-TEACHING. 35 them, and admit preachers to have the care of the world. The two grand systems, of local pastors and teachers, — and of evangelizing associations, — of which last the twelve were the commencement, must be conceived of, as distinct : And they ought to be kept more distinct than they are. The occa¬ sional missionary service of pastors who have no taste or fitness for it, is really a waste of time and means. These ought to remain at home. Even if they have business at the metropolis , they should not obtrude themselves in the place of more suitable men. On the other hand, to insist on men becoming local bishops, who, to a greater or less extent, prefer itinerating, shows a childish attachment to theory. Both systems are crushed in the attempt to amalga¬ mate them. Providence introduces, what our ridi¬ culous and selfish schemes would prevent. The do¬ mestic itinerating of some of the old denominations is a mere pretence. Gentlemen travelling for exer¬ cise and amusement is one thing : There is another : God has raised up an itinerating denomination, without whom some parts of our country would be in a state of heathenism. A methodist itinerant is a primitive evangelist. And a large proportion of the presbyterian preachers are nothing else than itinerant teachers. They have not the authority of the elder. They must preach as the lay-bishops tell them, and they sit as loose to their congregations as A Presbyterian supposes the ancient presbyter did. The disposition to be every thing, in each indivi¬ dual, is what ruins every thing. The pious itine¬ rant is in danger of envying the dignity of the local bishop, perhaps a more humble man than himself. He is in danger of that mean sin, — calling him a hireling, because he gets perhaps half a maintenance; — charging him with caring too much for the fleece, 36 A DEFENCE OF though, if he depended on his congregation, he would be without a coat. On the other hand some pastors lay a spiritual claim to a piece of ground, (we mean literally,) just as well founded, as the right of certain mendicants to particular streets. We refer to A Presbyterian whose sermon was reviewed by Dr. J. J. J. in the Presbyterian Maga¬ zine for April, 1821. We do not assert that he is the same with u A Presbyterian.” For we do not know it with certainty. In truth we are obliged to consider them the same by common report. We shall be sorry if it be supposed wrong. It. would be more convenient to us to take them separately : But justice forbids it. The Thoughts on Lay -preaching, render the former theories more rational. Take what course here we might, we would be liable to censure. The amount of our error, if it be one, is this : We ascribe to the avowed author of three tracts, the sermon, and two volumes of Letters on the Ministry , another piece better written than either. It excels in shrewdness. We have not disturbed the quiet of a gentleman whose modesty hides his name. VII. And, with regard to the two systems men¬ tioned above, the disposition to rule every thing, is what ruined the church, as far as man could dis¬ grace and destroy it, by means of those ecclesiastical courts, which we consider as the foes of lay-teaching, and to which we oppose the primitive presbytery. Says a catholic historian, M. Dupin, u We do not a find in any credible authors, that any councils u were held to condemn the first heretics. — Every u bishop instructed his own people in the true faith. — u The first councils, — mentioned in antiquity, are u those held under the pontificate of pope Victor.” The reader will please to remember, that the bishop of the two first centuries was the bishop of one con¬ gregation : x\nd that this flaming star (u a man of a LAY-TE ACHING. 37 2 some of these Jerusalem bishops must have been in some sense contemporaries. Says Mr. Bingham, (a staunch episcopalian,) 44 Some very learned persons are — of opinion — there 44 were two bishops in many cities, one of the Jews 44 and another of the gentiles.” The reader will have seen that there were at least three in Rome. The truth is that this is one mode of getting clear of the ancient plurality. 44 Epiphanius takes occasion to say, that Alexan- 44 dria never had two bishops as other churches had.” The reader will see just now that Alexandria had twelve : And these two bishops of other churches is enough. The New Testament proves what ought to have existed in succeeding ages. W ith the New Testament before us, this single historical fact, of two bishops , is sufficient to prove that the plurality did continue for some time. One or two quotations of Bishop Potter are enough to shake his whole system. The first is from Jerome : 44 In Alexandria, — from the time of Mark the evan- 44 gelist, till — the middle of the third century, when- k4 ever a vacancy happened in the episcopal chair, 44 the presbytery elected one of their own number to 44 fill it.” That is, the most proper in the opinion of the presbyters succeeded as chairman. 44 And in 44 other places ,” says the bishop, (yes, in many other places,)*44 if Hilary — or whoever is the author of the 44 Commentary on Paul’s epistles, falsely ascribed to i4 Ambrose, may be credited,” (and he is not op¬ posed to episcopacy, and one of the most sensible ancient writers,) 44 it was customary for the eldest 44 presbyter to succeed upon any bishop's death, 44 without a formal election.” Dr. Campbell tells us, that Jerome says the epis¬ copal order did not exist from the beginning, but was an expedient devised after apostolic times ; and LAY-TEACHING. 93 that he refers to Alexandria (in the passage quoted above from Bishop Potter,) not as a confirmation of an opinion, but as to a fact. A certain pre-emi¬ nence conferred by election was the only difference between the bishop and his colleagues (not neigh¬ bouring bishops,) who placed him in his bishopric. u And, in the fourth century, this was accompanied,” says Euty chius in our author, u by imposition of u hands and benediction” of these presbyters. XIX. Now how can all this consist with the curi¬ ous and singular opinion of “ A Presbyterian ?” The bishop was at liberty to call on any layman : But by the ruling elder of the frst two or three centuries , whom he was at perfect liberty to call ony w A Pres¬ byterian” means such presbyters as those of Ignatius in the second century; and these were just such pres¬ byters as those of Alexandria in the third century — and such as those of the Constitutions between the second and fifth — and such as those of whom St. Paul speaks, and to whom Irenseus attributes the succession of the episcopacy. And at Alexandria, in the fourth century, these presbyters could not only ordain in the absence of the bishop, but could consecrate a bishop . u A Presbyterian” would easily make his escape if all laymen and bishops were mutes. Ton cannot show that the presbyters of Ignatius were other than lay -elders. And a part of the presbyters of the Con¬ stitutions were lay-elders, and of course (There is the same reason to say it.) a part of the Alexandrian were also laymen : But all antiquity is against the assertion with regard to any of them. It is a most unfounded assertion, without proof and against facts. And, says Eutychius, there were just txvelve presby¬ ters, and the remaining eleven ordained the bishop. We really wish this gentleman would give us a schedule of a few consistent heads, showing what he does mean. Does he really think, that some of the pres- 94 A DEFENCE OF byters of Ignatius were laymen; some of those of the Constitutions, and some of those of Alexandria ? And, contrary to all decency , the bishop would, being at per¬ fect liberty, (It was licentiousness!) call on them to preach, while the others — teachers — (of his own order, says APresbyterian ,) were “ sitting byP This explains the direction of Ignatius : w The more any one sees u his bishop silent, the more let him revere him.” The teaching presbyters too must become thus vene¬ rable, while men not calculated to teach , unasked by them , occupy their places. This would try the feelings of any man. There are Christian ministers who would shed their blood for human salvation. But to submit to such conduct in the church is unchristian meanness. It is of im¬ portance to know that we are not obliged to bear any insult an ecclesiastic or other man may choose to in¬ flict. St. Paul who said, “ Let them come them¬ selves, and fetch us out ;” would not have ordained men who would either give or encourage such. To say there were teaching brethren whom the presbytery , by its chairman or other individuals, would often request to teach, is altogether different. With regard to presbyters u Let the presbyters exhort the people a one by one, and the bishop last,” was the general rule. These were all teaching presbyters, and as we have said, when the rule came to be violated, the presence of the bishop was the very thing that forbad the officiating of the presbyter. We think “ A Pres¬ byterian” is very unjust to the memory of the bi¬ shops. It is not enough to divest St. Paul of the manners of a gentleman. The bishops must be made a disgrace to civilized life! We admit that the true system appears on the face of A Presbyterian's u Letters,” &c. For it must be shoxvn in quoting against episcopalians . But he will do any thing rather than adntiit it. LAY-TEACHING. 95 The utmost we believe he means to concede in that book is this : 44 We have also reason to believe that u in large congregations there were several elders 44 who, as assistants, laboured in word and doctrine/’ Why, we solemnly declare, we cannot conceive of a truth plainer in history than that universally each congregation had several elders, who, including the bishop, were co-pastors, and all real presidents and teachers. We will introduce two quotations from A Presby¬ terian himself, Irenaeus is one of the most venerable and celebrated bishops of the latter end of the second century. He was sent, while bishop, by his church to Rome. He carried with him a letter from the presbytery of his church to the bishops of Rome, in which they call him 44 a presbyter, their brother and 44 colleague .” w Bishop Stillingfleet — says — one church — one al- 44 tar — one bishop — with many presbyters assisting 44 him — is so plain as to the churches planted by the 44 apostles — that none but a great stranger to the 44 rules of the church can call it in question. — After 44 some time — they had — presbyters fixed — in distinct 44 places.” That there were some small congregations consist¬ ing of a few Christians who were confined to one pas¬ tor; that is, had only a bishop and deacons, without any other teaching presbyters, Dr. Campbell says, is not improbable . But the quotation from Tertullian, brought to prove the fact , that it sometimes though rarely did occur, he shows to be a false reading. We do really think it very improbable of the New Testament churches : For almost all the first churches were small, and they all as far as we know had a plurality of presbyters. It may be asked, is that then the true svstem which is so little known ? Christians who read little but the Bible, many times the best (with deference 96 A DEFENCE OF to the opinion of a celebrated Friend ,) have -often very erroneous notions of the ancient Christian church. Their good sense cannot explain the New Testament references by modern systems. They often leave the subject, as a chaos which they are un¬ able to reduce to order. Scarcely any pastor likes the New Testament po¬ lity. A congregationalist finds in each church a plu¬ rality of presidents, possessed of a real authority, even when, as in cases of uninspired excommunica¬ tion, the whole church was the consistory approving or rejecting the decisions of its presbytery. He is pious : He is terrified at the thought of attri¬ buting to divine wisdom the oversight of putting in after-ages all the rule into the hands of one man alone, or of the multitude alone led by one man. The wisdom exhibited in that holy book, on that subject, is to us one internal evidence confirming its truth. Its principles of government, like the garment of holiness, fit every age since its commencement, and every land, be its polity or prejudices what they may, and anticipate the wants of every individual. The congregationalist is obliged to drop the subject. The episcopalian hates mute elders as much as the presbyterian does metropolitans. If the first, how¬ ever, unveils the ancient church that he may hear the presbyters speaking, it is one by one and the bishop last, in one congregation. He finds too, that though the youngest official elder submits to the senior elder , he can do all the senior can when requested. A presbyterian also is at a loss what to do with these useless pastors in one parish. Pastors are not employed now as they xvere anciently . The ancient plurality must not be admitted, or a reason must be found for the subsequent change : That reason hides the wisdom of the first arrangement. His best plan is to say they were mute elders, and then, though ordained not to teach, and though no LAY-TEACHING. 97 part of the public instruction was committed to them, compel them to speak whenever it suits his purpose. This is not an easy thing . The consequence is, that the plain and simple plan of ecclesiastical polity in the New Testament is represented as something uncer¬ tain, or something which we can improve and are at liberty to alter as we please, or the subject is avoided altogether. No one likes a plurality of pastors, in one congre¬ gation : It is inconvenient ; it reduces the diocesan bishop to a rector at most ; it places the independent congregation and clergyman under a senate, and it shows that the lay-bishops are of right, what they are in truth, the real governors of the congrega¬ tion. This the presbyterian clergyman is not till age and residence makes him such. The lay-bishops are a wise substitute for the an¬ cient plurality ; and this shows the madness of call¬ ing them deacons. Call them door-keepers, if you please. Bishops (that is rulers) they will be wherever there is no establishment. When the clergyman de¬ parts from the doctrine or discipline which they pre¬ scribe, he soon experiences their rule : He is redu¬ ced to obedience or expelled. Where he is a man of great influence it is different, after a sufficient re¬ sidence : If his co-pastors are mild and yielding men, and he is so disposed, he may reduce them be¬ low trustees. XX. Ordination of pastors of a Christian congre¬ gation, selected from the teachers residing in that congregation, is familiar to every careful reader of the New Testament. They were u apt to teach,” when ordained. There were generally none ordain¬ ed till some time after the existence of a congrega¬ tion. And in this interval, those who planted such church were often absent. When the proper persons had been ordained bishops, the teachers who did not belong to the number of its pastors, would not teach 98 A DEFENCE OF publicly in such congregation, xvithout the approba tion of the pastors , But the necessity of a license, or general permission to teach, is a thing totally un¬ known to that book. This negative proposition can be set aside, only by establishing the opposite affir¬ mative. The Scriptures (not suppositions,) are our guide. Had Paul and his company licenses from the rulers of the synagogue ? The office of pastor or governor, and that of dea¬ con, or superintendant of the charities, are not more evident, than the fact, that bishops, deacons, and brethren, all taught according to their respective gifts, and the necessities of the church. There were generally appointed, in each congre¬ gation, a plurality of pastors, as soon as the apos¬ tles, or apostolical deputies, judged such church able to furnish proper persons from its teachers. It is surprising with what coolness gentlemen tell us of the reasons (no longer existing,) why anciently several pastors were needed for a small congrega¬ tion, while one is now sufficient for a large one-— for duties totally neglected. The reason must be sought elsewhere. “ They have either a very low opinion M of the work of a gospel-bishop, or very little con- u sideration of the zeal, activity, and diligence which u was then used in preaching, reproving, exhorting u in season and out of season, that think one single u person was able to undergo it all.” Men were then u more apprehensive of the weight of their u function than for any to undertake such a care and u charge of souls that it was impossible for them ever “ to know, observe or watch over, so as to give an tc account for them.” There can be no doubt, that among the variety of talent exhibited in each congregation, some persons very desirable to have in the presbytery, or college of pastors, of each congregation, on ac¬ count of piety, good sense, and influence, though LAY-TEACHING. 99 possessing some ability to teach, and perhaps much ability to counsel, would be at first, perhaps during life, not very able to defend, and explain the doc¬ trines of the gospel. While their experience, sense, and influence, would make them useful as governors and private counsellors, other elders and brethren would be more useful as public teachers. Indeed we do not doubt, that there would be those, who, (though possessing as Christians, and as rulers, the right to teach,) did not in fact teach publicly at all : Those elders who laboured in word and doctrine, as well as in governing, admonishing, catechizing, and advising the faithful, were worthy of double honour ; especially if — as need not be questioned — double honour implies a more plentiful allowance for their support. Their whole time was employed in the work of the gospel. And here is the only rational, or Scriptural, foundation of a liberal salary. It is dis¬ honourable for a man to receive the support on any other ground than that which the Legislator of Christians ordained. That brethren and deacons as well as elders did teach is certain, if it be possible, from plain declara¬ tions of holy writ, to establish any fact. After the death of Stephen, during u a great per- “ secution against the church, which was at Jeru- “ salem, — they were all scattered abroad — except the u apostles. And — they that were scattered abroad, “ went every where preaching the word.” They preached Christ. They preached to Jews and Gre¬ cians. Their subjects were the peculiar doctrines and proofs of Christian truth. These facts, and the deductions from them, cannot be perverted. The rules they establish, to us , by revelation , never were altered by that authority. If any one, willing to know the truth , doubts whether we understand this plain passage correctly, let him read bishop Potter’s attempt to put a different sense on it : That will 100 A DEFENCE OF convince him : Besides, we will give him presently the comment of a much more eminent bishop — the father of ecclesiastical history — a man of all the an¬ cients of his day, as far as we know, most capable of deciding on the meaning of this piece of sacred history — if indeed it were capable of two meanings. And the hand of the Lord zvas with them. No one condemned them. No one thought of it. No one knew of any other system than that of those persecuted brethren. Philip was one of them. He and his colleague, Stephen, who was now dead, had been appointed deacons by the Christian church. That their office of superintendants of the charity of the church, con¬ ferred a right to preach, we have not any reason what¬ ever to suppose. Such assumptions, without evi¬ dence, would prove almost any thing# Men would be ashamed of similar reasoning in any other case. The story of Apollos, if it stood alone, would remove all doubt respecting what wTe contend for. Suppose this new disciple mistaken : Did the per¬ fect Christians, with whom he associated, correct his error. They assisted his studies ; and the brethren gave him recommendatory letters to Achaia. But it evidently never was imagined, that there was any thing irregular in his practice. Is the New Testa¬ ment designed to lead us into error ? He was not “solemnly ordained,” or “styled,” an “ elder,” of any kind. He was neither a teaching nor a lay pastor. He was not a licentiate. That fraudulent kind of reasoning which immediately as¬ serts that he must have been something more than appears in the narrative, that there must have been an “ ecclesiastical act,” is a disgrace to religion. Indeed the narrative itself sets all such insinuations at defiance. The story is simply this : A gentleman of Alex¬ andria, of Jewish extraction, before he perfectly un- LAY-TEACHING. 101 derstood the gospel, without blame, or the least suggestion of it, u taught diligently ;” and when more fully instructed by eminent Christians, without waiting for license of any kind, he publicly shewed, by the Scriptures, that Jesus was the Christ. His conduct was what the church desired and approved. There is not a trace of any other sentiment in the whole New Testament : Read the xiv. chapter of the 1st epistle to the Corinthians, from the 26th to the 31st verse. In that church were many preachers. The apostle blames their want of order : But in the most express terms he says, “ Ye may all prophecy, one bv one, that all may learn and all be comforted .” We are not certain that all these prophets were- In¬ spired on all occasions. Whether inspired prophets or not, they were regulated by rules of common pru¬ dence, as far as they submitted to the apostolic au¬ thority. If teaching was restricted to the episcopal office, in this church, they were all pastors, one by one. They had at this time, however, no ordained pas¬ tors. This seems morally certain. As this church was yet recent in its origin, and surrounded by dissipation and luxury, and the mem¬ bers very defective in Christian knowledge, unless so far as supernaturally assisted, there had yet been no elders ordained over them. Divine wisdom prefer¬ red leaving them till now under the influence and direction of those miraculous powers, which we see from the apostle’s letter, were so richly shed upon them. He had laboured more than eighteen months there, and when he thus addressed them, had been absent probably above three years. “ The apostles used not,” says bishop Potter, “ to ordain ministers in any place, before the second time of their com- u ing thither. There is scarce an instance,” &c. It seems to us unaccountable that any one will attend to this general truth, and read the epistle itself, A DEFENCE OF iu£ and suppose there were such bishops and deacons, a^ afterwards existed, then in the Corinthian church. Many of the apostolic directions are utterly unac¬ countable on the supposition of rulers there. The New Testament proves decisively, and we might justly consider it as certain, if we had no infor¬ mation on the subject, that the rulers governed the teachers who were not rulers. The prophets and teachers at Corinth regulated themselves when the apostles were not there. God had now set in this u church; first, apostles; secondarily , prophets; “ thirdly , teachers ; after that, miracles.” That pastors are not included in this list, is evident, from a similar sentence of the apostle. Some years afterwards, when pastors had been more generally ordained in the congregations, after apostles, prophets and evan¬ gelists, Paul adds, pastors and teachers. That the eucharist was celebrated without pastors is no objection to the acknowledgment of this fact. In cases of necessity the presence of a presbyter could be dispensed with. Two things are extremely plain in the New Tes¬ tament : The system of local bishops and teachers is one : The other is that of extraordinary evangelist- bishops or governors, whether of apostolic or in¬ ferior rank. Perhaps, indeed, not only these but in¬ ferior itinerant preachers of the gospel used great and almost exclusive influence in the first selection of local bishops in the congregations. The apostles, however, when present in any church, acted with its presbytery. Paul and the presbytery of some church, ordained Timothy. Bishop Potter thinks these pres¬ byters must have been all bishops. There can be no doubt of it. Says Eusebius, speaking of the apostolic times, a Many of the then disciples, travelling abroad, per- 4i formed the work of evangelists to those who had a not yet heard the word. — These having laid the LAY-TEACHING. 10$ 44 foundation in remote places, and constituted other 44 pastors , committed to them,” &c. He appears to us to speak of those scattered abroad on the death of Stephen. This history shows us not only what we intimated above, respecting their influence, but that the ordination of a disciple-evangelist, or of a disciple performing the work oj an evangelist , was as good as that of an apostle. The absurd notions of conveying a presbytery to the place, or of con¬ veying the intended pastors to a bishop of another church, did not then exist. XXI. The distinction of which our heads are full, was unknown in the first ages of the church. We do not mean a distinction between governors and go¬ verned — pastors and people — not between those who could and did, and those who could not, and did not teach — but a distinction between those who had an exclusive right to teach, and those who had not a right to impart the knowledge which God had given them. The knowledge we speak of is that of all others the most important to mankind. The course which ecclesiastical affairs took is plain. The 44 Commentary on Paul’s Epistles,” now generally ascribed to Hilary, shows us the sen¬ timents of Christians in the fourth century. Commenting on the iv. chap, of the epistle to the Ephesians, he says, 44 In the beginning of Christianity 44 for the augmentation and increase of the church, 44 a general commission was granted unto all, both to 44 preach the gospel and baptize, and explain the 44 Scriptures in ecclesiastical assemblies. (In ecclesia.) 44 But when the church had spread itself into all 44 places , buildings (conventicula) were erected, and 44 rulers and other officers appointed, (in ecclesiis sunt 44 ordinata,) that no one among the clergy should 44 presume to meddle with any office which he knew 44 was not committed to his trust.” The translation is Mr. Bingham’s. 104 A DEFENCE OF A few lines above this, Hilary says, 44 At first all 44 taught and all baptized.” And mentioning the human improvements in the arrangements of the church, he says it was owing to them that, in his time, 44 Neither did the deacon preach to the people,” (that is, in the church, as will he seen by quotations hereafter,) 44 nor laymen baptize.” Plainly intimat¬ ing that the deacon preached originally, because all Christians were authorized by the general commis¬ sion. The meaning of this writer respecting the origi¬ nal general commission to preach, admits of no doubt. He tells us what we learn from the Serin- * _ L tures and from other sources. The period of the change which he mentions is not so certain. But his opinion regarding that is of less importance. By conventicula , respectable writers understand him to design the people of the church, described before and after by ecclesia . We cannot help adopt¬ ing Mr. Bingham’s translation : Particularly because he was no friend to the result. Says Mr. Thorndike, (after admitting that the Christians in Origen’s time had no stately fabrics ,) they had 44 places which Ar- 44 nobius and Ammianus call conventicula .” He thus appears to connect these alterations with the building of houses for worship, a thing not done in the apostles’ days. We suppose it will be admitted, that till some time after the commencement of the second age, rooms in the houses of the brethren, were for the most part the Christian churches. He connects these alterations also with the rise of epis¬ copacy. By rulers (rectores) he means the bishops, or rulers of presbyters. The alterations are also referred to a period sub¬ sequent to Paul’s writings, — and when Christianity had spread itself into all places. 44 Thence it is,” says Hilary, 44 that the apostles’ writings are not 44 suitable to the present state of the church*” LAY-TEACHING. 105 On the whole, he appears to us to have had in view the gradual alteration by human hands, which had made the church xvhat it was in his day. On this subject he was perhaps obliged to be cautious. On the other hand, the original state of the church was an acknoxvledged fact. It was plainly described in Eusebius and in the Scriptures. Let the reader recollect the state of Hilary's church when he wrote. It shows the necessity of caution on his part. Near his time, in a contention for the place of bishop above other bishops , one hundred and thirty- seven persons were massacred. The bishop of Rome had now stately chariots and sumptuous tables, and surpassed kings in the splendour and magnificence of his entertainments. The testimony of Tertullian in the latter end of the second century, is more valuable, because of a date earlier by a century and a half. w He affirms,” says bishop Potter, u that all Christians were made 44 priests by Christ, so that where three are gathered u together they make a church, though they be all “ laymen ; and, where no clergyman is present, lay- 44 men may baptize and celebrate the eucharist, the u distinction between clergy and laity being only of 44 the church’s appointment.” A Presbyterian states Tertullian’s sentiments thus, referring probably to some other part of his works : u Tertullian does not scruple to say that even a lay- 44 man may baptize with the bishop’s leave.” This book, like ours, was made for lay-people. Tertullian does not scruple indeed. He says, 44 You do baptize He may elsewhere say with the bishop's leave . Here he says, 44 You have the right in yourself.” The passage so scrupled is this : We may read it with the bishop's leave : 44 The difference between clergy and 44 laity the authority of the church made. — When none 44 of the ecclesiastical order is present, you offer the 106 A DEFENCE OF u eucharist, and baptize, and are a priest to yourself, u But where three persons are, though laymen, there w is a church. — If, then, you have the right of a “ priest in yourself, where it is necessary to exer- u cise it, you ought to have also the discipline of a “ priest,” &c. We admit that Tertullian taught that laymen ought, for the sake of order, to waive their right, except in cases of necessity . We defend the same sentiment. And as the salvation of mankind does not depend on them, we conceive no necessity for laymen administering baptism or pronouncing the blessing. Tertullian, or rather the church, then thought baptism essential to salvation. And from this sentiment the propriety of lay-baptism naturally flows. The necessity, in our view, is with regard to instruc¬ tion. Here again we are in circumstances very different from Tertullian’s contemporaries. He does not say to the laic, You preach. This would have proved nothing. For no one then conceived of preaching as peculiar to the presbyter. This was a period when the deacon still preached in the church, and the lay¬ man when invited. There was no restriction on teaching out of the church. In order to prove the fcjght of the priesthood in the layman, Tertullian was obliged to mention acts in common cases peculiar to the presbyter, and not often performed by laymen. The layman’s undisputed Christian right to teach proved nothing. This had not been a priestly act. It never had been restricted to presbyters. But his right to perform in cases of necessity acts usually appropriated to the presbyter did. The reader will please to remark, that as Tertullian died u at a very “ great agef about or before the time of the dispute between Alexander and Demetrius, to be introduced below, this appeal to the practice of Christians was LAY-TEACHING. 107 made long before, perhaps very long before that dis¬ pute. Between these two epochs the church was changing for the worse with accelerating rapidity. Bishop Potter objects to Tertuilian’s testimony the succession of bishops. But neither bishops nor their succession have necessarily any thing to do with the information of Tertullian, though the apostolical practice illustrates it. It is not the distinction be¬ tween bishop and flock, governor and governed, that he affirms to be of human origin. It is the distinc¬ tion connected with the common appropriation of certain ecclesiastical offices to the pastors, to such an extent, as his-self approved, that Tertullian con¬ siders not of divine origin. The well known fact that the apostle Peter calls all Christians God’s clergy , and that no instance can be produced of the term be¬ ing otherwise restricted before the time of Tertullian, explains and confirms his sentiment. It appears to us that Tertullian refers to the change introduced by the church, as an acknowledged fact. Hilary seems to speak of the same thing as if not questioned in his day . But when the former says that there is a church, though a clergyman be not present, he does not deny that where the bishop is, there the people ought to assemble with him. When Tertullian says, “Laymen have power to u baptize, which yet for the sake of order they ought u only to use in cases of necessity,” bishop Potter doubts whether he may be credited . The author of the “general commission to preach,” we know and reverence. The human authority, that reconsidered, and corrected his arrangements, does not bind us. One cause of these changes was the fact in which Paul gloried. God had chosen “ things that were “ despised” to fulfil his purposes. Says Celsus, as quoted by Bingham, “You shall see weavers, tailors, “ fullers, and the most illiterate and rustic fellows, — 108 A DEFENCE OF u set up to teach.” This sentiment of unbelieving Celsus corresponds admirably with some expressions ©f modern good men. Nothing distresses them like the preaching of a tinker or cobbler. And that it was the fact, that unlearned laymen did teach in public, the following passage of the Shepherd of Hermas, alone, would establish. Re¬ fer it to the first or second century. If at the earliest period, it confirms what we contend for, as the prac¬ tice of the first century; if as late as the middle of the second century, it shows that lay-teaching was still notoriously the approved practice of the church. 44 Try the man who hath the Spirit of God, be- 44 cause the Spirit which is from above is humble, 44 and quiet, and departs from all wickedness : — The 44 Spirit of God doth not speak to a man when he 44 will, but when God pleases. When, therefore, a 44 man who hath the Spirit of God, shall come into 44 the churches of the righteous, who have the faith 44 of God, and they pray unto the Lord, then the 44 holy angel of God fills that man with the blessed 44 Spirit, and he speaks in the congregation , as he is 44 moved of God. Thus, therefore, is the Spirit of 44 God known, because whosoever speaketh by the 44 Spirit of God, speaketh as the Lord will. — Prove 44 that man by his life and works, who says that he 44 hath the Holy Spirit.” What this writer really means by this inspiration, we know not. The question whether Hermas be correct in these sentiments we have nothing to do with at present. We are not certain, however, that he means the assistance claimed in modern times by some common teachers. A prior part of the book leads us to think he did not. He there speaks of two angels which every man has , one the angel of righ¬ teousness, who in his heart suggests good thoughts. The quotation certainly show’s that lay-teaching publicly in the church was then practised. No doubt LAY-TEACHING. 109 it was regulated by rules of order, and by the rulers of the church mentioned by the same writer in a preceding quotation: Just as the same thing so exists now in some modern congregations of Christians : Any man speaks as he thinks he is moved . The rulers judge and regulate his teaching. XXII. Ignatius, whose epistles, as they now stand, certainly are not wanting in exhortations to obedi¬ ence to the rulers of the church, affords a proof of the existence of lay-teaching; and, let it be marked, There is not a word in any of the apostolical fathers against it. Ignatius abounds with sentiments that one can hardly help suspecting of being corruptions of the text. It is matter of joy to a good man that some of the ecclesiastics later than this martyr, had no inducement to forge references to the New Testa¬ ment. They would, in that case, probably, bv some evident frauds, have deprived us of, or rather ren¬ dered doubtful, what is more valuable than all the rest of their writings. But take the passages of Ignatius respecting the bishop and presbyters, containing a language so dif¬ ferent from the New Testament, and from Clemens, Polycarp, Barnabas, and Hermas, or take the exhor¬ tations to obedience to presbyters ( or bishops) and deacons, in these other apostolical fathers, and com¬ pare with them the fact, that not a word is said in any of the five in opposition to lay-teaching . On the contrary, — says Ignatius in his epistle to the Ephesians : u They who profess themselves chris- “ tians are known by what they do.” “ It is better for a man to hold his peace and be, 44 than to say he is a Christian and not to be. It is 44 good to teach , if what he says he does likewise.” w Brethren , those that corrupt families — shall not inherit the kingdom of God — How much more K 110 A DEFENCE OF u shall he die who by his wicked doctrine corrupts “ the faith.” His manner of addressing ecclesiastical rulers was this: “ Speak to every one as God shall enable thee.” He does not use the above doubtful language to such. In our quotation he speaks to all professing Chris¬ tians. The reader of the epistles could hardly doubt the fair interpretation : But if there were any thing in them in opposition to our construction of it, or if it stood alone, we would not quote it. Says Eusebius, u After the martyrdom of Stephen u all the disciples except the txuehe only, being scat- “ tered through Judea and Samaria, preached to the “Jews.” This passage proves that in the opinion, and according to the traditionary knowledge of the father of ecclesiastical history, all the disciples preached at the period of Stephen’s martyrdom ; and it will be seen in the sequel, that a man long be¬ fore Eusebius, remarkable for industry in collecting ecclesiastical writings, favoured lay-preaching pub¬ licly in the church , as the approved practice of the church : And Eusebius is the historian; and this, were there any possible doubt respecting it, would decide on his meaning here. On the other hand, — is there any thing in Eusebius, or all that antiquity before him, against it? Quoting the letter of the churches of Lyons and Vi¬ enna, of the second century, he says: u Alexander, by “ profession a physician , a person who had dwelt u many years in the Gallias, and was known to almost “ all men by reason of his love to God, and his bold- “ ness and fearlessness in preaching his word,” &c. We cannot doubt, that had he been in orders, it would have been noted, as certainly as his secular profession. Indeed the mention of the one would have naturally suggested the other, had it existed. We wish not to be understood to say, that his secu- LAY-TEACHING. I'M far profession, at this early period, lessens much the probability of his having been a clergyman, because we well know that in this age of the church, it was not deemed inconsistent with the dignity of a bishop to work at a manual employment where it was ne¬ cessary for his support. \Y e think, however, that had he been of no secular profession, the churches of Lyons and Vienna, or indeed Eusebius, would have mentioned that he was a bishop, presbyter, or dea¬ con, had he been either. And especially after hav¬ ing, by saying he was a physician, exposed us to a mistake, Eusebius would not have failed to prevent it by stating his sacred office, if he had one, as was usual where no such reason existed. XXIII. This valuable historian, to whom the Christian world is so much indebted, under divine providence, for the preservation of tracts, which otherwise probably would have been lost, says of Origen : u He withdrew out of Alexandria, went to *4 Palestine, and made his abode in Cesarea, where 44 the bishops of these parts intreated him, although 44 he was not yet ordained priest, to discourse, and 1,4 expound the holy Scriptures, publicly in the church?'1 And he says, w hen Demetrius, bishop of Alexan¬ dria, complained of it , because 44 this thing was never 44 heard of nor done till this time, that laymen should 44 preach in the presence of bishops, these bishops 44 replied, / know not how you came, so apparently 44 to misrepresent the truth. For they are invited to 44 preach to the people , (when they are found lit to 44 profit the brethren,) by the holy bishops.” The answer of these Palestine bishops, were not other facts decisive of their meaning, and were it not plain in itself, is rendered determinate by the re¬ monstrance of Demetrius. That this prelate meant just what he said, — in the presence of bishops , — will receive additional confirmation presently. But the whole drift of that antiquity worthy of attention, and 112 A DEFENCE OF the total absence of objections to lay-preaching, shows that Demetrius said just what he could say with some degree of plausibility. For it is probable in itself, and evident from the answer of the Pales¬ tine pastors, that laymen, in the then state of the church, however fit, would seldom be invited to preach in the presence of bishops. Nor is it at all probable, that at this time there would often be men very -well qualified and not clergymen. This phrase, In the presence of bishops , means almost the same as publicly in the church,— where the bishop was present: Both parties spoke of their own times. The assertion of Demetrius, though not strictly correct, was probably true as far as his knowledge extended. We are not obliged to sup¬ pose that this gentleman, though he acted with his usual rashness, designed to misrepresent the truth. Alexander and he were both confessors, and men of great piety. Alexander died in prison (says Dionysius) a happy death. But Alexander was a patron of learning, and industrious in collecting ecclesiasti¬ cal writings. It would seem that while he was a man of extensive information, Demetrius was igno¬ rant : Good man as he was, he might have been as blind and contracted, and as desirous to evade this particular truth as some bishops now are ; and as some gentlemen in full orders , though not bishops, now are : And we are told he envied Origen, and by later authority that his conduct to him was marked with passion and arrogance. The Palestine pastors assert that the occurrence — not laymen teaching, but laymen teaching publicly in the church, or rather in the presence of the bishop — though rare, did really take place. And they give De¬ metrius the names of persons whom bishops (having learned their fitness to teach,) had invited to address the people , that is, the assembled congregation , — pub¬ licly in the church, — in the presence of bishops. LAY-TEACHING. 113 All this implies that there was now no dispute about laymen preaching , if not in the presence of bishops. The previous history of Origen demon¬ strates the correctness of this deduction. Eusebius tells us of his “ cheerfulness and confidence in 44 preaching the doctrine of Christ ,” prior to this , at Alexandria — not in the church , when the bishop was present, as the objection of his bishop proves. This fact is decisive of the precise meaning of the bishops. Some will catch here at a straw. It may be asserted, that this request of a bishop was of the na¬ ture of an 44 ecclesiastical act.” It might as well be said, that putting on a minister’s spectacles to look at a layman is an 44 ecclesiastical act.” We see that this friendly invitation to a great and good man was not then so considered : Nor was it so in fact. It was considered by the one party as a mere request , and by the other as a thoughtless action of the man. When a similar request was made to a layman a few months ago, in New York, at a missionary meeting, by the holy bishops, who had found hi) report , that he was a fit person to profit the brethren, (He was neither examined nor -watched on the occasion.) the bishops listened with respect. He wras requested to speak to the people, — to a vast congregation, — pub¬ licly in the church, — in the presence of bishops. Some persons wrere pleased, and some perhaps dis¬ pleased : But did any one consider it as what is meant by a license. While the holy bishops listened, he was still a layman : When one of those who had not been present when he was invited, asked him to preach for him , he was still a layman . To some liberal men who were present, it seemed on that occasion like breaking day. It was a happy omen : For when the world is evangelized many of our present ecclesiastical arrangements will be no more. The plan of St. Luke, of Eusebius, and of Hilary, will have succeeded : And A Presbyterian' s k 2 ii4 A DEFENCE OF seniores et novissimi , neither of them despised , will have liberty to teach. And probably will then be seen that ancient and necessary order of — deaconnesses — to assist in female baptisms, and to give private in¬ struction to young, and to attend on sick women. This order was gradually excluded at a late period, and in proportion as the clergy became profligate. In new editions of Confessions of Faith, one might hope to see them introduced, were it not that these human laws, like the proverbial folly of the Medes and Per¬ sians, glory in the shame of altering not. The doc¬ trines and principles of government must remain the same : Human explications are as infallible as inspi¬ ration. XXIV. It is not to be imagined that Origen’s preaching in Palestine, or previously at Alexandria, was in consequence of a right derived from his being head-master of a catechetical school at Alexandria. It was not then so supposed, as appears from the narrative : Origen had the approbation of Demetrius, as the school-master : But when he wanted an usher, Origen electing Heracias, made him his assistant,” says Eusebius. That Origen, when he preached publicly in Egypt, without any censure whatever, was a layman, was granted on all hands: That he was a layman was the very ground of the discussion afterwards respecting his preaching in Palestine, layman as he was , in the presence of bishops; and that this should not take place, was ail that Demetrius then contended for. Origen had been long a lay-preacher in the parish of Demetrius : The pious bishop had encouraged it. This noble presbyter, while a layman , had done im¬ mense good. His school where, zvhile a layman , he read divinity -lectures, and expounded the scriptures, was a school of martyrdom : It furnished martyrs and confessors as wreli as bishops to the church. In more peaceful times this son of a martyr, his- LAY-TEACHING. 115 self a confessor, of the most faultless life, and of “ immense genius” and M extensive erudition,” was not calculated to rise in the church: He went straight forward as a lav-preacher, (and afterwards as a pres¬ byter,) in defending truth, and saving souls, un¬ daunted by danger, and inflexible in sufferings : He was the object of envy and calumny : His good bishop persecuted him. Origen endeavoured to mollify him, but could not sacrifice his conscience or his rights. But all this time lay-preaching was not the subject of contest : It was, Origen preaching before bishops , ordained abroad, and other matters. There does not appear in the life of Origen, the slightest wish,y)*< .