SECTION I.--MINISTRY OF THE WORD
The ministers of Christ are a separate class of persons, distinguished by a special
divine call to preach the word.
A DISTINCT CLASS
The ministers of Christ are, like ordinary Christians, separate from the world. They are partakers
of the heavenly calling, by which men are brought out of the world, and made the servants of
Christ. In all his epistles to the churches, Paul claims to be a fellow-saint with them, a member of
the same spiritual family, and an heir of the same heavenly inheritance. Throughout the Scriptures,
the ministers of Christ are spoken of as persons who love Christ, and are from the heart devoting
themselves to his service. They must therefore be of the number who are "called to be saints."
The ministers of Christ are also separate from ordinary Christians. They are one with ordinary
Christians, as being called in one hope of their calling; but, besides the call to repentance and
faith, which they have received in common with their brethren, they have been called to special
service in the Lord's cause. It is clear, from the Holy Scriptures, that there were, among the first
Christians, persons to whom the work of the ministry was specially intrusted. Paul says,
concerning these, God "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."(1) "Giving no offence, that
the ministry be not blamed."(2) "Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament."(3) He speaks
of himself, as counted faithful; and put "into the ministry;"(4) and of the special grace given to him,
that he should preach among the gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.(5) The bestowment by
the Holy Spirit of special qualifications for special service in the Lord's cause, is plainly taught in
1 Cor. xii., and Eph. iv. The inquiry, "Are all apostles? are all prophets?"(6) &c., shows that the
offices designated did not belong to the whole body of the saints.
The separation of the ministry from the mass of ordinary Christians, is not like the separation of
Christians from the world. In the latter case, they cease to be of the world, and become strangers
and pilgrims in the earth. But men who enter the ministry, do not cease to be saints. Saul and
Barnabas were separated unto the work to which the Holy Ghost had called them; but this
separation did not take from them a place among the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus. John
speaks, concerning the whole company of the saints: "We are of God; and the whole world lieth in
wickedness."(7) Here is a strong line of division, like that which separates land and water. But the
ministry appears, among the people of God, like the mountains on a continent, forming a part of it,
and closely united with surrounding lands. Eminent spiritual gifts distinguish the ministers; but
the same spirit that actuates them, pervades the whole body of Christ. All the disciples of Christ
are bound, according to their ability, to advance the cause of- their Master, and labor for the
illumination and salvation of men: and the diversity of talent among the ordinary disciples, may be
compared to the diversity of hill and valley in the ordinary face of the country. But ministers are
distinguished, by their superior qualifications for service, from the ordinary mass of Christians,
like mountains rising above the common undulations of the surrounding landscape.
The special qualifications which the Holy Spirit bestows, bind him on whom they are bestowed to
use them in the service of Christ. They are given to fit him for this service, and they constitute a
divine call for him to engage in it. They are not given to confer a privilege merely, but they are a
solemn call to duty--a call demanding the service of the whole life.
The apostles, when called by Christ, immediately left their secular employments, and gave
themselves ever afterwards to the service of their Lord. Paul, when called, conferred not with flesh
and blood. The work of the ministry did not cease, when these holy men left the earth; but other
persons have been fitted to carry it on, by the same Spirit that qualified them for the peculiar
service. He bestows his gifts "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."(8)
The ministers of Christ are not a separate class of men in such a sense as to constitute them an
organized society. They are fellow-laborers in the Lord's service, but have no power over one
another; and have no authority from Christ to combine themselves into an ecclesiastical judicatory
to exercise power in any manner. They are all on a level as brethren; are the servants of Christ, and
the servants of the churches.
The special service for which the ministry is designed is the preaching of the word. The obligation
to spread the knowledge of Christ is shared, to some extent, by all Christians. The effectual call of
the Holy Spirit, by which any man is brought to repentance and faith, imposes on him an
obligation to show forth the praises of him who hath called him out of darkness into his marvelous
light; to let his light shine before men, that they, seeing his good works, may glorify his Father in
heaven; and to hold forth the word of life. Every Christian is bound to do what he can for he
conversion of others, and for spreading the knowledge of the truth. But special gifts are conferred
on some, accompanied with special obligations. These constitute a special call to the ministry of
During the Saviour's personal ministry he made many disciples: but he did not intrust to them
equally and indiscriminately the work of spreading the knowledge of his religion. He sent forth
seventy with a special commission to preach the kingdom of God. He chose the apostles to be his
immediate attendants and special witnesses, and gave them a commission--"Go preach the gospel
to every creature....Go make disciples, teaching them," &c. Preaching and teaching were
prominent and important parts of the service required of them. When Paul was made an apostle,
the commission to him, as explained by himself, was to preach the gospel: "Christ sent me, not to
baptize, but to preach the gospel." The obligation which he felt to perform this service was beyond
that imposed on ordinary Christians, and was exceedingly pressing: "Necessity is laid upon me;
yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel."(9) With him, to preach the gospel was not to utter a
proclamation in a brief sentence; but at Troas he preached to a late hour of the night. In his
ministry teaching was conjoined with preaching, and included in it: "Whereunto I am ordained a
preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. "(10)
The obligation of particular men to give themselves to the ministry of the word was intended to be
a perpetual arrangement, and not confined to the ministers appointed by Christ in person. Timothy
was specially appointed to this service, and was commanded, "Preach the word; be instant in
season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all long suffering and doctrine."(11) "Make
full proof of thy ministry."(12) "Neglect not the gift that is in thee."(13) A special gift and a special
obligation are here clearly recognised, and the duty to be performed is clearly preaching, in the
comprehensive sense in which teaching is included. Paul had committed the gospel to Timothy;
nor was the succession to cease in him. "The things which thou hast heard of me, the same
commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."(14) Special ability and special
obligation to preach and teach were to be perpetuated in men, separated to the service from the
body of Christ's disciples.
The ministers of the word receive a special call from God, directing them to the service. The Jewish priests were a separate class of people, distinguished from the rest of the nation by natural descent from Aaron. The Congregation of the Lord was perpetuated by natural descent; and if the Christian church had been a continuation of it, we might expect its ministry to be perpetuated in the same way. But the members of the church are separated from the rest of the world by a divine call; and it is suitable that the ministers of the church should be distinguished in the same manner; accordingly, their designation to office is ascribed to God. "God hath set some in the church, first apostles," &c., and the qualifications for the work are the special gift of the Spirit.(15)
The Holy Spirit calls to the ministry of the word none but true Christians, members of Christ's
spiritual body. The apostles were chosen to be the personal attendants of the Saviour, and special
witnesses of his daily life and ministry. Though he knew, from the beginning, the hypocrisy and
treachery of Judas Iscariot, he chose to have a traitor among his witnesses. The blameless
character of the Redeemer extorted, even from this man, the testimony, "I have sinned, in that I
have betrayed the innocent blood." This testimony is of great value to Christianity. Had Christ
been an impostor, had there been a scheme to deceive the people, Judas must have known it. His
testimony, confirmed by his return of the money with which he had been bribed, and by his
suicide, banishes every suspicion dishonorable to the Saviour. It was therefore wisely ordered that
Judas should be among the apostles. But he was not among them when the last commission was
given, under which we now act. When the Holy Spirit calls men to the ministry, he bestows on
them qualifications for the work, qualifications both of head and heart. The qualifications of the
heart include a sincere desire to glorify God, and save souls; a desire never felt by the
unregenerate. Hence, the Holy Spirit never makes unregenerate ministers. When such men enter
the sacred office, they, in the language of Paul, are "ministers of Satan."
As true ministers are members of Christ's spiritual body, so their ministry is intended for its
benefit:--"for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body
of Christ." Their office pertains to the spiritual, universal church, of which they are all members.
The ministry of some of them may have a relation also to local churches, placed under their special
charge; but they serve in these for the good of the whole body of Christ.
In Ephesians iv. 11, Paul enumerates the officers whom God set in the church: "Some apostles,
some prophets, some evangelists," &c. Of these the first three are not confined to local churches,
but are ministers of the church universal. This is apparent, from the words of Paul: "Who now
rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ, in my
flesh, for his body's sake, which is the church, whereof I am made a minister."(16)
The apostles were, according to the import of the name, persons sent forth. The term is applied
specially to those whom Christ sent forth in person, and who are called the apostles of Christ.
Paul claimed to be an apostle in this sense: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our
Lord?"(17) And again: "Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ."(18) Paul
numbered himself among the witnesses of Christ's resurrection, and the apostles were chosen to be
witnesses of this fact. Peter, when he proposed the election of one to take the place of Judas, stated
the qualifications necessary for an apostle in this manner: "Wherefore of these men which have
companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the
baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a
witness with us of his resurrection."(19) These qualifications cannot now be found in any man living,
and therefore the apostolic office has necessarily ceased.
The name apostle is applied, in another sense, to Barnabas,(20) the companion of Paul. These two
ministers had been sent forth by the Holy Ghost, from Antioch, to a special work. Barnabas is
probably called an apostle, with reference to this fact; and, in this sense, the term corresponds in
signification to our modern name, missionary. Paul and Barnabas had been sent forth as
missionaries, on a tour of missionary service.
Prophets were persons divinely inspired to make revelation from God, consisting sometimes in the
foretelling of future events. This office was needed, before the volume of divine revelation was
completed. The absence of the prophetic gift in modern times, demonstrates that the Holy Spirit,
who imparts every needful gift, accounts further revelation unnecessary. The absence of the gift
proves the sufficiency of the Scriptures, and the cessation of the prophetic office.
Evangelists were persons employed in the spread of the gospel. They appear to have labored in
connection with the apostles, to extend the religion of Christ and plant new churches. They did not
need miraculous endowments for their work; and therefore their office continues to the present
time. Every minister of the word, when he labors, not for the special benefit of a local church, but
for the spread of the gospel, is doing the work of an evangelist.(21) Timothy was required to do this,
though remaining at Ephesus, and laboring for the interest of that particular church.
A knowledge of gospel truth, an aptness to teach, and a heart moved by the desire to glorify God
in the salvation of souls, are the evidences of a divine call to the work of the ministry. All these
qualifications may exist, in a measure, in ordinary Christians; and a proportionate obligation
accompanies them, to use them in the Redeemer's service. No church, no minister of the gospel,
can, under a proper influence, forbid the exercise of these gifts, where they exist. Moses repelled
the suggestion to forbid some who prophesied; and said, "Would God that all the Lord's people
were prophets."(22) An active, prudent employment of the gifts possessed by ordinary Christians,
would promote incalculably the interests of religion; and the restriction of all labor for the spread
of the gospel, and the promotion of piety, to a select few, is greatly detrimental to the cause of
But it is still true, that there are some whose gifts for public usefulness rise high above the rest;
and, in bestowing superior qualifications, the Holy Spirit, who divides to every man severally as
he will, has indicated his will that the possessor of the qualifications should use them for the work
of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
The Holy Spirit works harmoniously in all the parts of his operation. He diffuses one sympathy
through all the body of Christ, so that the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee. When
qualifications for service are imparted by the Spirit to one member, other members, under the
influence of the same Spirit, welcome its service. Hence, every man who believes alone, that he is
called of God to the ministry, has reason to apprehend that he is under delusion. If he finds that
those who give proof that they honor God and love the souls of men, do not discover his
ministerial qualifications, he has reason to suspect that they do not exist. The Head of the church
has graciously provided, that in the ordinary course of things, men are able to obtain counsel in
this matter, and are not compelled to act on their individual responsibility. If, in some
extraordinary case, he calls some men to stand alone, as Elijah did, in defence of the truth, this
gives no just plea to others to isolate themselves, and act on their own responsibility, when
circumstances do not demand it. Elijah's proof of a divine call to the prophetical office consisted
wholly in his possession of the prophetical spirit; but Elisha had the additional proof, that he had
been anointed to the office by Elijah. Such proof, in -ordinary cases, the Holy Spirit has provided
for the ministers of the word; and the use of it is necessary to the success of the ministry and the
order of the churches.
When any one is introduced into the ministry, the highest responsibility, next to that which he
himself sustains, devolves on the ministers with whom he is to associate as a fellow-laborer. On
the ministers a peculiar responsibility rests, to pray that laborers may be sent into the harvest; and
also to seek out and encourage gifts for the work, and thus continue the succession of laborers. It
was made the special duty of Timothy, to look out faithful men, able to teach others, that he might
commit the ministry of the word to them. It was to the ministers of the church at Antioch, that the
Holy Ghost said, "Separate me Saul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them;"(23)
and the public designation of them to the work, appears to have been made by these ministers,
doubtless with the concurrence of the church. In this method of procedure, there is an obvious
fitness. It was fit that Elisha should be anointed to the prophetical office by a prophet. Men whom
the Spirit has filled with a burning desire to preach the gospel, and has qualified for the service,
are the most suitable persons to look out aids in the service, and judge of their fitness. Hence the
obligation was laid on Timothy, already a minister. Hence the duty imposed on Titus: "For this
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city." Hence the instructions
respecting the qualifications necessary for office, are given in the epistles to these ministers, rather
than in those to the churches.
The propriety of ministerial concurrence, in public designation to the ministerial office, appears
from the nature of the case apart from apostolic example. But we have apostolic example to assist
our reasoning. Saul and Barnabas were solemnly set apart by their brethren in the ministry, with
fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands. In this case, he who was not a whit behind the chief of
the apostles, bent before those who had no pretensions to apostolic authority, that he might receive
the imposition of hands. What a sanction did his act give to the solemn ceremony, and to the
established church order, of which it was a part! If such solemn services are appropriate in public
designation to a particular service in the ministry, much more are they appropriate when any one
enters the ministry itself. We learn from other Scriptures that such services were performed. Paul
mentions the appointment of Timothy to the ministerial office in these words: "Neglect not the gift
that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the
It has been a question whether the concurrence of a single minister is sufficient in ordination. We
have no explicit instruction on this point. From the instruction to Titus, it appears that he alone
was authorized to ordain elders in every city. Yet Paul, though a minister of superior authority, did
not ordain Timothy alone. He was the chief agent in the work; and says, "By the putting on of my
hands;"(25) but yet he chose not to act alone, and therefore he says in another place, "By the laying
on of the hands of the presbytery." The concurrence of a presbytery might not be possible in every
city of Crete, where the churches had been recently planted; but where it was possible, even Paul
with his apostolic authority chose not to act without it. We have, therefore, apostolic example
confirming our reasoning on the subject, that where a presbytery can be obtained, its concurrence
ought to be procured. The minister, who, from the direction given to Titus, takes it upon himself
alone to ordain to the sacred office, assumes a power which Paul himself did not assume.
The institution of local churches has divine authority, and ought to be respected by every disciple
of Christ. It is the duty of every one to become a member of some local church, and walk with the
other members in love and Christian obedience. Brethren so connected are bound to exhort one
another to diligence in the duties for which they are severally qualified. The obligation of a
member to labor in the ministry may be recognised by his church, and the church does not go out
of its proper sphere when it exhorts to this duty. Paul directed the church at Colosse, "Say to
Archippus, take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it."(26) He
did not send the message to Archippus as from himself, but instructed the church to perform this
duty. Such exhortation to a minister is therefore proper to be given by a church; and it follows, that
a church is not without responsibility as to the question whether its gifted members are using their
gifts as they ought. This responsibility makes the church a party in ministerial ordination. We
have no express declaration that the church at Antioch concurred in the setting apart of Saul and
Barnabas; but it may be inferred, not only from the tenor of the narrative, but especially from the
fact that these missionaries, on their return, reported their doings to the whole church.
All the parties concerned in ordination ought to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and act under
his influence. The highest responsibility rests on him who is entering the sacred office. He should
act under a deep sense of his responsibility, and with a persuasion, the result of prayerful, heart-searching examination, that he is moved by the Holy Ghost. The presbytery have the next degree of
responsibility. They should be persuaded that the Holy Spirit has called the candidate to the
ministry; and be prepared, under this conviction, the result of due examination, to receive him as a
fellow-laborer with them in the Lord's service. The lowest degree of responsibility rests on the
church; but even this is solemn and important. The same Spirit dwells in the ministry and in the
churches; and every member is concerned in whatever concerns the spiritual body of Christ. A
hearty concurrence of the church is necessary in the ordination; and, without it, a presbytery
should never act. When a candidate has the threefold testimony, of his own conscience, of the
presbytery, and of the church, he may proceed to labor in the ministry, with an assurance that he is
"sent forth by the Holy Ghost."
Every step in the process of ordination recognises the principle that a divine call is necessary to a
proper entrance on the ministerial office. The candidate, the presbytery, the church, all admit it,
and act on it. This principle is of great importance to the preservation of a spiritual and efficient
ministry; and it cannot be neglected, without immense evil to the cause of pure religion. When a
father chooses the ministry as a profession for his son, or when the son chooses it for himself, as
he would choose any other profession, the authority of God is contemned, and the holy office
profaned. If a church should think that they need a minister, and should conclude to appoint one
without regard to a divine call; and if a presbytery should aid them in accomplishing their
purpose; the church and presbytery together may make a minister; but he will be, if not a minister
of Satan, at the best only a minister of men, and not a minister of Christ.
The divine call is not only indispensable, but it is also complete in itself. The presbytery do not
assemble to complete it, but to signify their concurrence in the persuasion that it exists. The
earliest and the least hurtful form which the pernicious doctrine of baptismal regeneration
assumed, regarded baptism as the completion of regeneration. It did not make regeneration consist
wholly in the outward ceremony; but it regarded no one, whatever the Holy Spirit may have
effected within him, as fully regenerated, until he had gone through the outward ceremony. A
similar mistake has been made respecting the Holy Spirit's call to the ministry. The call is
supposed to be incomplete, until the outward ceremony of ordination has been performed. In both
cases a distinction should be made, between what the Spirit does, and what it is the duty of him to
do on whom the Spirit operates. The Spirit regenerates; and it is the duty of the regenerated man to
be baptized. The Spirit calls to the ministry; and it is the duty of the man so called, to enter on the
work of the ministry through all the forms which are prescribed in the word of God. Why the Holy
Spirit permits one whom he has regenerated to err so far as to neglect baptism; and why he
permits one whom he has called to the ministry to err so far as to neglect both baptism and regular
ordination; I as little understand, as I understand why God permitted sin to enter the world. The
proof of all these facts is irrefragable; and I am compelled to admit their existence, and believe
that God will overrule them for his glory.
0bjection 1.--The doctrine of a special divine call to the ministry, savors of fanaticism. Such a call was
suitable to the day of miracles, but now the grace of God, like his providence, operates by ordinary means.
The Spirit resides in the church and ministry; and what they do, the Spirit does. To expect any other call of
the Holy Spirit is fanatical.
Had the objection simply maintained that the Holy Spirit uses means, in calling men to the
ministry, the proposition would have been admitted. He uses the word as a means, in his call of
men to repentance and faith; and he uses the same word in calling men to the work of the ministry.
But the objection marks out another channel in which the spiritual influence is supposed to flow,
namely, the church and the ministry; but how can the necessary qualifications for the ministry be
derived through this channel? If the grace of God now operates by the use of ordinary means, we
know that the word is the ordinary means which the Holy Spirit employs in illumination and
sanctification; and the conclusion is rational and not fanatical, that the superior illumination and
sanctification necessary for the work of the ministry, are the effect of the same means more
successfully employed, or more abundantly blessed. The laying on of apostolic hands could confer
spiritual gifts in the day of miracles; but ordaining hands have now no gifts to confer. It is the
objection which carries us back to the day of miracles, and expects effects from causes inadequate
to produce them. A ministry made by outward ordination, without a divine call, is a curse to the
Objection 2.--If a divine call is indispensable to constitute a minister of Christ, since the call is invisible,
we can never know who are true ministers.
The supposed invisibility of religion is presented in various forms of objection. It makes the
church invisible, and the ministry invisible. But in what sense is religion invisible? The power of
gravity is invisible, but we see its effects everywhere; and we feel it binding us to the earth. The
influence of the Spirit is invisible, but its effects are seen and felt as certainly as the effects of
gravity. The Spirit's call to the ministry is unseen; but the effects of it have been displayed in the
successful conflict which the ministry has waged with the powers of darkness, and in the victories
which it has achieved. The history of the world testifies that a divine power has wrought in the
ministry of the word; and, wherever the gospel has been faithfully preached, every one has had an
opportunity to observe such effects as demonstrate that the ministry of the word is the ministry of
the Spirit. Why, then, need we, to render the ministry visible, suppose it to consist in outward
form? There is a proper form for the ministry to assume, but the form may be without the power;
and the mere form does not constitute a minister of Christ. May we not be deceived in this matter?
We may. Ministers of Satan have appeared as ministers of righteousness; and compliance with
external forms is a method by which they recommend themselves. We are commanded to try the
spirits; and this cannot be done by a mere examination of ordination credentials. An obligation to
discriminate otherwise than by ordination certificate, devolves on every church in the choice of its
pastor; and on every pastor in inviting a minister to preach to the people of his charge.
Objection 3.--If ordination does not make a minister of Christ, and does not prove a man to be a minister
of Christ, it may be dispensed with as useless.
This does not follow. Though it may not accomplish either of these purposes, it may, nevertheless,
be of great utility; and if we were wholly unable to see any utility in it, yet, as the will of God, we
ought to observe it. Men may be Christians without baptism; and may profess Christ without
baptism; but it does not follow, that baptism is useless. The Head of the church has, in his
wisdom, made it the appointed ceremony for the Christian profession, and so he has made
ordination the appointed ceremony for a regular entrance into the ministerial office. As every
converted man ought to profess Christ by baptism, so every one who has been called of God to the
ministry, ought to enter on the work by ordination. The proof of the obligation in the latter case, is
not so clear from the Holy Scriptures, as in the former, but it is sufficiently clear to guide our
SECTION II.--ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM
The apostles were commissioned to preach, to baptize, and to teach. If the office held by ordinary
ministers were identical with that held by the apostles, there would be no difficulty in deciding,
that it includes the administration of baptism. But the apostolic office has ceased, and the work
assigned to the apostles has devolved on inferior officers. The apostles could not, in person,
preach, baptize, and teach, in every country of the world, and in every age till the end of time; but
the commission made it their duty to provide for the full performance of this work; and their
apostolic authority, guided by the infallible direction of the Holy Spirit, enabled them to make all
necessary arrangements for carrying it into effect. Now, we cannot determine, from the
commission itself, whether to preach, to baptize, and to teach, would be assigned, as distinct
duties, to three distinct classes of officers; or whether they would be committed, without
separation, to one class. For information on this point, we are left to inquire into the instructions
given by the apostles by precept and example.
Some have argued, that, because preaching is a more important work than baptizing, the authority
to preach necessarily includes authority to baptize. The greater, say they, must include the less.
But this mode of argument is fallacious. The whole includes its parts, but the greater does not
always include the less. A high dignitary of the realm may be guilty of usurpation, if he assumes
the functions of an humble official. So, though preaching is a higher office than baptizing, it does
not necessarily include it.
We learn that the Holy Spirit has called men to preach the gospel, by the qualifications which he
has conferred; but we can have no proof of this sort, that the Holy Spirit has called any one to the
work of baptizing. Spiritual qualifications are not required; and, if we have no other means of
knowing, it may remain doubtful, whether the work may not be done by any one whom the
candidate may select.
Among those who have held that baptism possesses a saving efficacy, it has often been a matter of
pressing importance, to obtain the administration of it, in case of sickness, when a priest was not
at hand. It has been held, that, in case of necessity, the rite may be administered by laymen, and
even by women. Some persons who are free from such superstitious reliance on the outward
ceremony, have held that any one who makes a disciple, may baptize him. According to this
interpretation of the commission, it would be proper for a mother, whose instructions have been
blessed to the conversion of her son, to be the administrator of his baptism. But this interpretation
is inadmissible. If some of the work to which the apostles were specially appointed, may, to some
extent, be performed by other persons, it does not follow, that these persons are invested in full
with the apostolic commission.
The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were to provide. One of these was the administration of baptism. They were commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized; but to make disciples and baptize them. The administration of the rite was to be their care; and, where they could not perform it in their own person, it was made their duty to provide for its performance. This reasoning proves satisfactorily, that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the candidate might select; and it is confirmed by the words of Paul: "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." These words imply, that Christ had sent some persons to baptize. The duty was to be performed; and these words, taken in connection with the fact that John the Baptist and the other apostles were commanded to baptize, confirm the deduction that the work was to be done by agents provided.
On the question, whether the administration of baptism is necessarily included in the commission
to preach, or necessarily connected with it, the words of Paul just quoted, throw some light. The
word translated "sent," is the verb from which the word apostle is derived; and, as used by Paul in
this passage, it imports that Christ had not given to Paul an apostolic commission to baptize, but
to preach the gospel. On comparing the commission given to him, with that given to the other
apostles, the difference in this particular is apparent. This proves that the offices of preaching and
baptizing were not inseparable. Had the greater included the less, the authority and obligation to
baptize were included in Paul's commission, and he could not have said with literal truth, "Christ
sent me not to baptize." To understand the passage to signify nothing more than that baptism was
a less important part of the work which Paul was authorized to perform, does not satisfy the literal
import of the words, and it is a departure, without necessity, from the literal interpretation, which
is fully sustained by a comparison of Paul's commission with that of the other apostles. Moreover,
the literal import best agrees with the context, since, according to it, the fact alleged by Paul cut
off, from those whom he had baptized, all plea to claim him on that account as an apostle for their
party leader. If in baptizingthem, he had not acted as an apostle, the fact gave them no pretext to
claim him as a party leader in that high character. Had Paul's state of mind permitted him to
preach on the next day after Jesus appeared to him, and gave him his commission, he was
authorized to preach; but not to administer baptism. Yet he did afterwards baptize Crispus, Gaius,
and the household of Stephanas; and he must have obtained authority to do this in some way. In
what way? If not by extraordinary commission, it must have been in the ordinary way, in which
others received authority to baptize. He received the command to be baptized himself, in the
ordinary way, and he honored and obeyed the command. In the same way, he must have received
the authority under which he acted, in the administration of baptism.
Although baptizing is not necessarily connected with preaching and teaching; yet the manner in
which it is conjoined with them in the commission, appears to indicate that the connection is
suitable. No separate class of officers is anywhere provided in the New Testament, for
administering the rite, and yet, if we have reasoned correctly, the apostles were under obligation to
provide for it. We are led to the conclusion, that this provision was made, in the ordinary method
instituted for transmitting the ministerial office. Paul had committed the office to Timothy, in the
presence of many witnesses, by the laying on of his hands, and the hands of the presbytery.
Timothy was, in like manner, to commit the office to others, and enjoin on them the same duties
which Paul had enjoined on him. There was a fitness in the arrangement that this ceremonial
induction into office, should add the ceremonial authority to baptize. It cannot be proved to be
given, in the internal call of the Spirit. It was not given in the extraordinary commission of Paul. If
Paul received it in the ordinary way, whether in his being set apart at Antioch, or in some similar
service at some previous time, we have this point established:--the authority to administer
baptism is conferred in the ordinary course of the ministerial succession, when an individual,
called by the Holy Spirit to the ministry of the word, is publicly set apart to this service. The
process of reasoning by which we reach this conclusion, is less clear and direct than that which
many other subjects admit; but it is sufficiently clear to determine our practice, in the absence of
explicit instruction from the holy oracles. We have, moreover, the satisfaction of knowing that this
course of procedure has been generally adopted in the churches which have conformed in their
order most nearly to the Scriptures.
SECTION III.--APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
We have seen that baptism ought to be administered by an ordained minister of the word. A
question, then, arises before every believer who desires to receive baptism, "how shall he know
who is authorized to administer it?" Some have thought, that the candidate may lawfully leave the
whole responsibility of deciding this question with the administrator. But, if he knew the
administrator not to be authorized, it would be wrong to receive baptism at his hands; and it
cannot, therefore, be right, to be indifferent to the question whether he is authorized. Moreover, the
conscientious administrator is deeply interested in the question. He ought not to act without divine
authority, and deceive the confiding disciples, by giving to them for true Christian baptism, that
which is but a human counterfeit. How does he know that he has been duly ordained to perform
this work; that they who ordained him were duly ordained; and that the line of connection with
those who originally received the commission from Christ, has been unbroken? Is there an
obligation, binding on the conscience of every individual who seeks baptism, and still more
binding on the conscience of him who administers it, to know that his right to administer has been
derived by unbroken succession from the apostles?
There is an intrinsic improbability in the supposition, that the Scripture binds all who receive the
gospel, in every country and every age of the world, to perform a specified duty; and yet leaves that
duty in the dark, so that no one can know what it is, except by the light of tradition? In a former
chapter we applied this consideration to the question, whether the consciences of men are bound
by Scripture authority to receive the traditionary succession of the Sabbath, as of like authority
with Scripture precepts. The examination then made, discovered that the divine precept is most
wisely given, in a manner which secures all the ends of the observance, without binding the
individual conscience with a responsibility to which it is unequal, and for which it has not the
requisite knowledge. The precept does not bind men to observe the seventh day of an unknowable
week; and it does not so bind them to the regular succession, that, if they have lost it by
circumnavigating the globe, they can never regain it. If we find nothing in the Scriptures, when
properly interpreted, binding our consciences to the tradition of the sabbatical observance, we
may, from the analogy, expect to find nothing binding our consciences to the apostolic succession.
An humble disciple of Christ desirous to obey all his Lord's commands, learns his duty from the
Holy Scriptures, and sees in them the order established in the primitive churches. He looks around
him to discover whether there are churches like the primitive churches, and ministers preaching
and baptizing, like the primitive ministers. He finds them. The beginning and the end of the
succession appear. The middle of it he sees not; but he knows that the Head of the church has
lived during all the intermediate time, and that he is the God of providence, and the giver of the
Holy Spirit, by whose influence the chain of succession could be preserved. He feels assured, that,
if an unbroken succession is necessary for any purpose which the Head of the church has in view,
he has preserved it. With this assurance, he proceeds in what appears to him to be the plain path
of duty, the same path in which the ancient saints walked; and he confidently expects that his
obedience will receive his Lord's approbation. Is there anything in the Scriptures which can prove
such reasoning fallacious?
Suppose that at some point in the line the apostolic succession was lost, was it impossible to re-establish the ancient order; or, in other words, was it impossible ever afterwards to obey Christ's
commands? The Holy Spirit qualifies and calls persons to preach the gospel, and teach men to
observe whatsoever Christ commanded, and we have seen that this call of the Spirit is complete in
itself. In the case supposed, how could persons called by the Holy Spirit teach men to observe
Christ's commands, if the observance had become impossible? Surely, the reasoning which infers
the impossibility must be fallacious, or the failure of the succession has never taken place, to
disturb the counsels of him who said, "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world."
Now, whether it be that the chain has been throughout unbroken, or that the Head of the church
has a method of restoring it, the effect is the same to us. It is ours to do our duty, according to the
light which we possess. This mode of settling the question is sufficient for all practical purposes.
As a question of mere theory it may be asked, whether a breach in the succession would render a
new revelation necessary. To set aside any command of Scripture would require a new revelation.
But to depart from the order which Christ has instituted is one thing, and to return to it after
having wandered from it is quite another thing. For the latter we need no new revelation. The
wisdom from above, given by the ordinary influence of the Spirit, is sufficient for such an
emergency, without a miraculous inspiration. If holy men of God have had the responsibility
thrown upon them of returning to the good old path after it had been deserted, they doubtless
sought wisdom from above to direct them, and the success of their efforts to regain the lost way, is
a sufficient assurance to us that the Lord gave them the necessary wisdom.
But is there any wall built along the wayside to prevent the return of wanderers? So far as I can
see, the whole difficulty is resolvable into the question whether ministers of the word, called to the
work by the Holy Spirit, may, in any case, perform the full duties of the office without the regular
ceremonial induction into it. According to the view which we have taken, the call of the Spirit is
complete in itself; but the same Spirit teaches the called to respect the order instituted for
ceremonial induction into office. An obligation to respect this order, when it exists, imposes on
them the duty of deferring the exercise of the ceremonial functions until they have been
ceremonially inducted; but in the case supposed the church order does not exist, and therefore the
obligation to defer does not exist. Their duty is to respect the order when it exists, and to restore it
when it does not. The Head of the church designed that the ministers of the word should make
disciples, baptize them, and teach them to organize churches, to celebrate the Lord's supper,
exercise discipline, and walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. The ministers
of the word are officers of Christ's spiritual church, and derive their qualifications and call from
the Holy Spirit. Like other men, they are bound to observe what Christ commanded, and therefore
to regard established church order. But if church order has become prostrate, their call by the Holy
Spirit requires them to restore it, and not to teach that it must now for ever be neglected.
In the regular course of things, ordination stands at the beginning of the ministry, as baptism
stands at the beginning of the Christian life; but there are several important particulars in which
the two observances differ.
Baptism is enjoined by express precept, ordination is not. Much of the order instituted by the
apostles originated in expediency. The appointment of deacons, recorded in Acts, chapter vi., is
manifestly a case of this kind. Expediency has its obligation, as well as positive precept; and a
question of expediency, decided by apostolic wisdom, binds us in like circumstances. The
community of goods in the first church does not bind us, because our circumstances are different.
Ordination is expedient, and the observance of it obligatory in the regular order of things,
instituted by the apostles; but it cannot be inferred that it is obligatory in all circumstances.
Nothing in Scripture determines the number of the presbytery; and if this may be determined by
considerations of expediency, the same expediency may determine that ordination by a presbytery
may, in some extraordinary circumstances, be dispensed with.
All the disciples of Christ, in the primitive times, were required to be baptized; but all the
ministers of Christ were not ceremonially ordained. We have no proof that the apostles, or the
seventy whom Christ sent forth, were thus ordained. No presbytery was convened in their case, but
they were ordained or appointed by Christ in person. When he baptized disciples, he put the work
into the hands of those who were afterwards to perform it. But his direct call conferred the
ministerial office without human ordination. We have in the New Testament a much larger
number of unordained than of ordained ministers, if imposition of human hands is necessary to
ordination. Saul and Barnabas were so ordained to a missionary service, and Timothy was so
ordained to the work of the ministry, but who else?
Jesus honored the institution of baptism by receiving it from a human administrator, but he did not
so honor ordination. Among the benefits resulting to ministers from ordination, an important one
is, that they go forth into the work with the concurrent testimony of the presbytery and the church,
recommending them to all as the ministers of Christ. Jesus was willing to receive the testimony of
John, but of John as his baptizer, not as his ordainer. "That he should be made manifest," said
John, "therefore am I come baptizing."(27) At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus received baptism
from John in the Jordan; and when he had gone up from the water, and was standing on the bank,
his august ordination took place. The Holy Spirit, by whom his human nature was qualified for the
ministry on which he was entering, descended on him in visible form, and the voice of the Father
audibly pronounced, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."(28)
From this comparison, it clearly appears that ordination does not come to us enforced by like
obligations to those of baptism. If our doctrine of strict communion be correct, baptism is a
prerequisite to membership in the local churches; and, since the administration of baptism
properly belongs to the ministers of the word, the local churches are, in this particular, dependent
for their existence on the ministry. Local churches cannot originate the ministry on which their
own existence is dependent. The ministry originated before the local churches, and might have
been perpetuated without them, if the Lord had so willed. The power from which the ministry
originates is not that of the churches, but of the Head of the Church; and his call to office is the
highest authority. John was sent to preach and baptize, without being baptized or ordained; yet the
evidence of his mission was clear, and the people believed it. Paul was commissioned to preach
the gospel while he was unbaptized and unordained; and the call was not conditioned on his being
afterwards baptized and ordained. The call was complete and unconditional. He was under
obligation to be baptized, as all other converted persons are; and he discharged this obligation, as
every called minister ought to do; but his call was complete while he was yet unbaptized and
In the view which we have taken, the Christian ministry is an institution of surpassing importance.
It does not grow up from the churches, but comes down from heaven. It is a gift sent down to
mankind from the ascended Saviour. After stating that the exalted Redeemer "gave gifts unto
men," Paul proceeds to enumerate these gifts in the following words: "He gave some, apostles;
and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers."(29) To these heaven-bestowed ministers, the Spirit, which qualifies them for their work, gives testimony. The churches
receive the testimony of the Spirit, and, in their turn, add their testimony; and the ministry and the
churches become joint witnesses for God to the world. Whether these two witnesses have lived
during all the dark period of papal persecution, I leave for others to inquire; but if they were ever
slain, I doubt not that the Spirit of God has reanimated them, and will enable them to continue
their testimony to the end of the world.
SECTION IV.--CHURCH OFFICERS
The churches should choose, from among the ministers of the word, bishops or
pastors to teach and rule them.
Numerous passages of Scripture speak of persons who bore rule in the churches. "Obey them that
have the rule over you."(30) "The elders that rule well."(31) The term bishop signifies overseer, and
implies authority to rule. Among the qualifications necessary for a bishop, one was, that he ruleth
well his own house; and the reason assigned is, "If a man know not how to rule his own house,
how shall he take care of the church of God?"(32) It is clear, from this passage, that the bishops were
invested with an authority bearing some analogy to the authority which the head of a family
exercises over his household.
The question has been much discussed, whether the authority of a bishop is restricted to a single
local church. Episcopalians maintain that it extends to the churches of a large district called a
diocese; and that the Scriptural title for the ruler of a single church, is presbyter or elder. Against
this opinion, the following arguments appear conclusive. The single church at Philippi contained
more bishops than one.(33) The elders of the church at Ephesus are styled overseers or bishops.(34)
Peter addresses elders as persons having the oversight(35) of the flock, that is, the authority of
overseers or bishops. In Paul's epistle to Titus, after the ordination of elders is mentioned, the
qualifications of a bishop(36) are enumerated; and the connection plainly indicates that elder and
bishop were titles of the same office.
The bishops were the pastors or shepherds of the flock committed to their charge. The bishops or
elders of the church at Ephesus were required to "feed the flock." The elders whom Peter
addressed were commanded to "feed the flock;" and their office as shepherds is presented to view
as subordinate to that of Christ, "the chief shepherd." Since the churches are to be fed, not with
literal food, but with knowledge and understanding, the office of teaching is included in that of
pastor. Hence a bishop was required to be "apt to teach." In enumerating church officers, Paul
mentions both pastors and teachers. It appears from this that there were teachers in the primitive
churches, who were not invested with pastoral authority. These were ministers of the word,
authorized by the commission to teach the observance of all Christ's commands, but not
authorized to rule. The ministers of the word are officers of the universal church, but, as such, they
have no authority to rule in the local churches. This authority belongs to the pastors or bishops.
The ruling authority of a pastor is peculiar in its kind. Though bearing some analogy to that of a
father in his family, or of a governor in civil society, it differs from these. Christ distinguished His
rule from that of earthly kings by the absence of coercion: "If my kingdom were of this world, then
would my servants fight."(37) So the spiritual rulers under Christ have no coercive power over the
persons or property of those under their authority. A well marked distinction between their
authority and that which is exercised by civil rulers, is drawn in these words of Christ: "Ye know
that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise
authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let
him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant."(38) Another
peculiarity of their rule is that they cannot govern at their own will. This would be to act as lords
over God's heritage. Such power, if exercised by them, is a usurpation, and does not legitimately
belong to their office. The only rule which they have a right to apply is that of God's word; and the
only obedience which they have a right to exact, is voluntary. The civil ruler is armed with the
sword, and coerces obedience. Zion's King has put no carnal weapons into the hands of church
rulers, and all coercion is inconsistent with the nature of the authority intrusted to them. No
submission to the Lord is acceptable but that which is voluntary; and the same kind of submission
which the ancient Christians rendered to the Lord, they rendered to their spiritual rulers:--"They
first gave their own selves unto the Lord and unto us by the will of God."(39)
The surrender of their property was voluntary. Peter's address to Ananias and Sapphira proves,
that this was true, even in the general surrender which was made by the first church; and it is clear
that the contributions afterwards made by the churches, were made not of constraint but willingly.
They who claim or indirectly exercise a coercive power over the property of church-members, are
taking the oversight for filthy lucre's sake, and have no sanction from the authority of Christ, or the
example of his apostles.
Since the obedience of churches cannot be coerced, no one can begin or continue the exercise of
spiritual rule over them, but at their will. Hence their bishops must be persons of their own choice.
The apostles, though all collected at Jerusalem, and invested with full power from on high to do
all that appertained to their office, did not appoint even the inferior officers of the church until after
they had been chosen by the whole multitude of the disciples. In this procedure they recognised
and established the right of the churches to elect their own officers. Even the appointment of an
apostle to take the place of Judas appears to have been made by popular vote: and much more
ought that of bishops over the several churches. The Greek word rendered ordain in Acts xiii. 48,
signifies to stretch out the hand, and is supposed to refer to the mode of popular election by the
lifting up of the hand; but, whether this criticism be just or not, the proof that church officers were
so elected is sufficient without the aid of this passage.
Because the bishops must labor in word and doctrine, as well as rule, the churches should elect
them from the ministers of the word. As they have no right to coerce the churches, so the churches
have no right to coerce their acceptance of office. The relation must be voluntarily entered into by
both parties. This voluntariness on the part of ministers is necessary to the proper exercise of their
office: "Not of constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind."(40) The minister
cannot coerce a support from the church, but God has ordained that they who preach the gospel
should live of the gospel.(41) The duty of a church to support its pastor is clearly taught in the word
of God; and without the performance of this duty on their part, they have no right to expect his
services; and they, in a manner, put it out of his power to render them.
Deacons should be chosen by the churches, from among their members, to minister in
By apostolic direction, the church at Jerusalem chose from among themselves seven men, honest,
and of good report, who were appointed to serve tables. This measure originated in the
expediency, that the apostles might give themselves to the word of God and prayer. The same
expediency requires that pastors should be relieved from secular burdens, and be left to the
spiritual service of the church. We know that deacons existed in the church at Philippi;(42) and
directions were given to Timothy respecting the qualifications necessary for the deacon's office.
These facts authorize the conclusion, that the deacon's office was designed to be perpetual in the
churches. The mode of appointment should conform to the example of the first church. The
persons should be chosen by popular vote, and invested with office by ministerial ordination.
Some have thought that deacons, as well as bishops, are called elders in the Scripture. We read of
bishops and deacons in connection, but never of elders and deacons;--of the ordination of elders,(43)
without the mention of deacons, when deacons were needed as well as bishops; and of
contributions sent to the elders at Jerusalem,(44) after the deacons had been appointed, who were the
proper officers to receive and disburse them. It is argued, moreover, that the distinction which
appears to be made, in 1 Tim. v. 17, between preaching and ruling elders, naturally suggests that
the ruling elders were the deacons of the primitive churches.
In the Presbyterian church, a distinct class of officers exists, called ruling elders. The only
Scripture authority claimed for this office, is the text last referred to. This text, however, does not
distinguish between different classes of officers, but between different modes of exercising the
same office. The word rendered "labor," signifies to labor to exhaustion. Not the elder who merely
rules, is accounted worthy of double honor, but the elder who rules well; and the special honor is
not due to the elder, as merely invested with the office of ministering in word and doctrine, but as
laboring therein--laboring to exhaustion. Thus interpreted, the text furnishes no authority for
Presbyterian lay elders; and no argument for supposing that deacons are called elders.
The other arguments to prove that the deacons were included in the eldership of the primitive
churches, are not without plausibility, but they are not conclusive; and they are opposed by the
facts, that all the elders of the church at Ephesus are called bishops; that all the elders addressed
by Peter are said to have the oversight or episcopal office; and that the elders whom Titus was to
appoint appear to have been all bishops, inasmuch as the qualifications for the deacon's office are
not subjoined to those which are described as necessary for the other office.
Among the qualifications of the deacons' office, it is not required that they should be apt to teach; and they are therefore not appointed to act as public teachers of the word: but other qualifications are mentioned, which indicate, that they are expected to be forward in promoting the spiritual interests of the church. An obligation to do this rests on every member; and deacons are not released from it by their appointment to minister in secular affairs. Instead of becoming immersed in secularity, they are expected, by the proper exercise of their office, to purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith.(45) If deacons were everywhere active in holding up the hands of the pastors, as Aaron and Hur held up the hands of Moses, the prosperity of the churches would be greatly advanced, and the success of the gospel far more abundant.
1. 2 Cor. v. 18.
2. 2 Cor. vi. 3.
3. 2 Cor. iii. 6.
4. 1 Tim. i. 12.
5. Eph. iii. 8.
6. 1 Cor. xii. 29.
7. 1 John v. 19.
8. Eph. iv. 12, 13.
9. 1 Cor. ix. 16.
10. 1 Tim. ii. 7.
11. 2 Tim. iv. 2.
12. 2 Tim. iv. 5.
13. 1 Tim. iv. 14.
14. 2 Tim. ii. 2.
15. 1 Cor. xii. 11.
16. Col. i. 24, 25.
17. 1 Cor. ix. 1.
18. Gal. i. 1
19. Acts i. 21, 22.
20. Acts xiv. 14.
21. 2 Tim. iv. 5.
22. Num. xi. 29
23. Acts xiii. 2.
24. 1 Tim. iv. 14.
25. 2 Tim. i. 6.
26. Col. iv. 17.
27. John i. 31.
28. Matt. iii. 17.
29. Eph. iv. 8, 11.
30. Heb. xiii. 17.
31. 1 Tim. v. 17.
32. 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5.
33. Phil. i. 1.
34. Acts xx. 28.
35. 1 Peter v. 2.
36. Titus i. 5, 7.
37. John xviii. 36.
38. Matt. xx. 25-27.
39. 2 Cor. viii. 5.
40. 1 Peter v. 2.
41. 1 Cor. ix. 14.
42. Phil. i. 1.
43. Acts xiv. 23.
44. Acts xi. 30.
45. 1 Tim. iii. 13.