sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy." It is not necessary for us to particularize the whole catalogue of blasphemous titles which constitute this plenitude, from the Right Reverend Father in God, or rather from that of HIS HOLINESS, down through all their various gradations, to that of plain REVEREND, in order to make out its claim to blaspherny; it is sufficient to remark, that the Spirit of inspiration has appropriated the title to Deity, Ps. cxi. 9, which we do not find to be the case with that of "Doctor." And this brings to our recollection, the remark of a friend of ours who takes up his residence north of the Tweed. Happening, on one occasion, to fall into company with some young dissenting ministers in England, the conversation turned upon these "honorary titles," and appellations of respect to the clergy now current among us, with which the good man expressed great dissatisfaction. "The pope and you," said he, " appear to have entered into a league to share between you the honours of Deity. He takes the title of "Holy," and you that of "Reverend," and thus between you, the blessed God is robbed of the glory that is exclusively his due." But we have a few words to say to T. N. on the subject of the common distinction between clergy and laity. Need we remind him, that this distinction, as well as the title, REVEREND, comes from Rome! An eminent biblical critic, the late Dr. George Campbell, has been at the pains of tracing these terms to their origin, and we shall content ourselves with here quoting the substance of his illustration. eminence, God's peculium, or special inheritance." So much for the origin of this distinction: let us now attend to the Doctor's animadversions upon it. "The terms clergy and laity," says he, "are derived from two Greek words Anpos, lot or inheritance, and λaos, people. When Antichrist began to make head, the pastors took special care to improve the respect of the lower ranks, widening the distance between their own order, and the condition of their Christian brethren; and for this purpose, they early broached a distinction which, in process of time, universally prevailed, of the whole Christian commonwealth into clergy and laity. The clergy" they appropriated to themselves, intimating that they were selected and contradistinguished from the multitude, the laity or people, as being, in the present world, by way of title of " VOL. VIII. "It is impossible, he tells us, to conceive a claim in appearance more arrogant, or in reality worse founded! God is, indeed, in the Old Testament, said to be the inheritance of the Levites, because a determined share of the sacrifices and offerings made to God was, in part, to serve them instead of an estate in land, such as was given to each of the other tribes. But, mark the dif ference: no where is the tribe of Levi called God's inheritance, though that expression is repeatedly used of the whole nation. See Deut. ix. 29. Here the same persons are, in the same sentence, declared to be both the laity and the clergy! And when we recur to the use of the term in the New Testament, we find one passage, and only one, wherein it is applied to persons; viz. 1 Pet. v. 3. "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, Gr. xλnpw, but being ensamples to the flock." The same persons, who both in this and the preceding verse, are styled the flock, under the direction of the shepherds, are also called his inheritance, xxnpo, clergy, over whom their pastors are commanded not to domineer. It is somewhat extraor dinary, that, in the choice of distinctions, which the church-rulers so soon showed a disposition to affect, they should have paid almost as little attention to the style, as they did to the spirit and meaning of the sacred books. For, let it be observed, that this distinction [between clergy and laity] so far from having a foundation in scripture, stands in direct contradiction both to the letter, and to the sense of that unerring standard." Such is the judgment of this learned writer on the point in question, and we now take our leave of the subject by laying before our readers the following reflections on it, from the pen of the same liberal minded and candid historian. "I have met with the observation, though I do not at present recollect where, that the world is ruled by names. It matters not who said so: but experience shows us, that there is more truth in the remark, than any one at first hearing would be apt to imagine. When names are first assigned to offices, or even to orders of men, there is com 2 U monly an association of ideas favourable or unfavourable in some respect or other, which is derived from the more ancient, to the more recent application of the term. And even if the term should be coined for the occasion, the materials whence it is taken, that is, the known etymology, produces the same effect. It invariably gives rise to certain associations; these influence opinion, and opinion governs practice. We have seen the tendency which the distinction of mankind into clergy and laity had to heighten, in the minds of the populace, the reverence for the sacred order. The effect thus actually produced, in ignorant ages, through the arrogance of the one side, and the superstition of the other, is sufficiently manifest, and perfectly astonishing." See Campbell's Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I. page 297-306, where the reader will find much more on the subject that is worthy of his attention, but which we have not room to quote; and to our correspondent, T. N. a hint may suffice; we hope he will take it. EDITOR. principles of the gospel; and which, All To the Editor of the New Evang. Magazine. live in affluence, to provide for his off SIR, I HAVE lately read a pamphlet intitled, "The duty of Christian Pastors to support themselves." It comprises a series of letters addressed to Mr. Bennett, of Rotherham, upon his late extraordinary sermon. The design of the pamphlet is to shew, that pastors have no claim for support from the churches over which they preside, and, consequently, that the sacred texts which Mr. B. refers to as his authority, are misapplied and perverted. The author's general principle is this, that when Paul establishes a right to maintenance, he limits this right to apostles and evangelists: but that, when addressing Christian elders, he enjoins them to labour with their hands, and in no case requires churches to give, or allows elders to receive, temporal support. The covetousness of the clergy has been long and justly complained of. It forms a most decided contrast to the disinterested spirit exemplified by the apostles. But what else is to be expected from the leaders of a church, which is founded in opposition to the spring respectable fortunes, and to enable him to associate with the first of his flock. Such claims are the more disgusting to sober-minded men, as they are made by those who profess to copy the apostles, but who do not imitate them in self-denial, or disinterested zeal. Assuredly some solemn warning was needed, to guard the community against the pretensions of hirelings; to shew men what the first preachers really did, and all others are bound to do; and that, in supporting the present selfish system, they are not benefiting pure and undefiled religion. Wisdom demands, that Christian men, before advancing their money, should duly weigh the purposes to which it is to be applied, and examine whether it is to gratify cupidity and ambition, or to provide what is honest for the humble and contented. Without this, the giver may find himself condemned when he expected praise; for a man may give much without doing good, and spend his substance upon men called religious, without forwarding the purposes of piety. The author of the pamphlet exhibits powerfully, and, I think, successfully, It is as unfair in the author of the pamphlet to infer from these words, that elders are not entitled to support, because of their office, as it would be in another, to contend from the following words, that they are not entitled to rule among their brethren: "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." They are appointed to rule the church of God, and it is their duty "to rule with dili gence;" but they are warned against abusing this through the love of power, so natural to the human mind, by exercising an arbitrary dominion over the disciples. Would it not be unreasonable to maintain, that the warning against misrule teaches the non-existence of the right to rule in any way? Does it not rather teach the duty of ruling well, by persuasion and example, by guarding them against the contrary? the noble and disinterested conduct of 66 a But the command in 1 Tim. v. 17, 18. appears to me quite conclusive on the subject; and, be it observed, rests the claim of pastors for support upon the same authority which is elsewhere produced by Paul to establish the right of apostles and evangelists—a right which, with the author, is no matter of dispute: "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word or doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” In the interpretation given of this passage, two prominent mistakes are committed by the author of the pamph let. The first is, he assigns to the word honour" a sense different from what it must have. For although it means to respect and esteem," yet, from the connection, which must determine the precise meaning, it must refer to temporal support. This is its sense, in the precept "Honour widows that are widows indeed," ver. 3; and it must be the same in the verse under consideration, from the whole drift of the apostle's previous discourse, and from the law, which he subjoins, "The labourer is worthy of his hire." The apostle Peter, when addressing Christian elders, commands them "to take the oversight" of the flock, "not for filthy lucre," but "of a ready mind," 1 Pet. v. 2. As divine wisdom dictates no unnecessary cautions, it is fair to infer, from these words, that elders were exposed to temptations to covetousness, from the circumstances of their official in teaching that "those who labour in station. But if they had had no claim word and doctrine" must mean, not whatever to support, all temptation elders of churches, but evangelistswould have been absent; and, conse-office-bearers, quite distinct from "the quently, this admonitory caution would elders who rule well;" and that it is to have been needless and inapplicable. the evangelists exclusively as labourers The second mistake of the author lies in doctrine, that the law in verse 18 applies. This exposition appears at first sight far-fetched and unnatural; and from its being introduced to support a favourite principle, it may be justly suspected to be unsound, especially when advanced without good evidence. A small knowledge of the original may convince, that this gloss is at variance with the text, and that the labourers in word and doctrine, are the same in office as the elders that rule well. But there is no necessity for this, as there are many passages of a similar construction, equally intelligible to the unlearned as to the learned, which clearly shew, that Paul must mean the same office. Thus, in verse 8, of the same chapter, "If any man provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house;"-it is plain, that his own include those of "his own house." The same observation applies to the following passages: "Let us do good to all men, but especially to the household of faith." Gal. vi. 10." Who is the preserver of all men, especially of them that believe." 1 Tim. iv. 10.-" For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision." Tit. i. 10. In all these, and many others that might be quoted, the first general term includes the particular character subsequently specified. The "household of faith" are compre hended in all men; and they of the cir cumcision are included in the general name first mentioned the deceivers, against whom the writer guards Titus. They are distinguished in the class of deceivers, but not separated from them. Upon the same principle. we must understand the passage respecting Christian elders; that the elders that rule well include the labourers in word and doctrine; and, consequently, that the law enjoining a supply of their wants applies to both. The pastoral office comprehends different parts, ruling and teaching; but ruling is the appropriate and generic term, denoting that superintendence of the flock, which is the design of the office; and, therefore, stands most conspicuous in the list of qualifications. And in the passage before us, to interpret the words, as meaning two distinct offices, is doing violence to the principles of language, and to the apostle's intention; and would serve to countenance the absurdity of Presbyterian lay-elders, and Diocesan bishops. The indisputable conclusion is, that Christan elders have a claim in justice on the churches for support, and that disciples are not influenced by the Scriptures, when they either deny the right, or refuse to practise the duty, when necessary. But, on the other hand, what is the elders' duty; Un * When necessary! We cannot help wishing that our correspondent had been a little more explicit on this point. We are quite at a loss to ascertain the import of the words "when necessary" in this connection. For instance, is it intended to say, that "the jus tice of the elders' claim for support from the church," hinges upon their standing in need of it? If so, it stands upon precisely the same ground as the claim of every other poor member of the body; and a church that should either "deny the right” of a poor brother or sister to receive support, or "refuse to practise the duty" under those circumstances, would be unworthy the name of a Christian church. Upon this principle, then, the support of pastors turns out to be an alms dispensed from the churches' bounty, and not" the hire or reward of the labourer;" and the writer of the letters to Mr. Bennett would, we are persuaded, yield his consent to this, after all that he has said upon the duty of pastors supporting themselves. Our correspondent has indeed very satisfactorily exposed the futility of the letter-writer's distinction between the right of apostles and evangelists to receive support, and that of elders; but surely this is a work of super-erogation; for what sober-minded man who reads the Bible with attention, and free from party-bias, or even the letters to Mr. Bennett, can fail to see that this distinction is perfectly arbitrary and grutuitous, totally destitute of support from the oracles of truth, and that to give it an ap pearance of plausibility, the writer has been reduced to the necessity of wresting and torturing the Scriptures in various places, to make them bend to his hypothesis. We only regret to find that our present respectable correspondent, after pursuing a different tract, ultimately meets him at the same point; viz. that elders have no claim upon the churches for a remuneration of their labours in the gospel, except in cases of exigency! There is another point also in this correspondent's favour, on which we hope he will excuse us in offering a remark. Suppose we strike out the words "when necessary" from his letter, and admit the claim of elders to be founded in justice and equity, clear of all qualifications and conditions; let us see how the matter will then stand. Here is a church doubtedly to act as Paul did, and as he enjoined the elders at Ephesus to do: "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to those that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak; and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, "It is more blessed to give, than to receive." Acts xx. 33-35. These words are, in my opinion, imperative; and teach every Christian elder, that if he follows a different course, he is forsaking his duty and happiness. He has a claim to support, but like Paul he is to forego that right, and labouring like him with his own hands, he is to exemplify the generous and disinterested spirit, which the gospel inspires. To me it has often been a cause of surprize, that this solemn recommendation, sanctioned by so high an authority and example should be so seldom referred to by modern Dissenters, or if referred to at all, is represented as an antiquated statute, designed for the infancy of Christianity only, and more honoured in the breach than in the observance. But it is of the same obligation now as it ever was; and is equally imperative with that part of the same impressive charge, "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock,"ver. 28. Let men beware in what manner they treat the word of God; and as its laws are of permanent authority, let them suspect the truth of that system, in which these laws are not, and cannot be reduced to practice. "Those things," says Paul, "which ye have learned and received, and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace shall be with you." Phil. iv. 9. That Paul's doctrine and manner of life may be known and followed is the wish of A DISSENTER. ON THE EXTENT OF MAN'S ABILITY TO DO THE WILL OF GOD. MR. EDITOR, SUFFER me now to assign a few reasons in support of the opinion, that a man's ability to do the will of God is the measure of his guilt in not doing it; or, in other words, that a man's present duty does not EXCEED his present strength. 1. To represent man as unable to believe for want of strength or power, would exempt him from guilt in not believing. Where a man cannot possibly act otherwise than he does, neither praise nor blame can attach to his conduct. He is, in that respect, a mere machine; his actions being the result of dire necessity, over which he has no controul. A man that is really and literally blind has no choice whether he will see or not; and, therefore, no blame attaches to him for not looking upon the beauties of creation with which he may be every where surrounded; nor could we consistently exhort him to look upon them. But would not the case be very different if he wilfully shut his eyes against the light, and refused to see any object presented before him, and also, on this ground rejected the testimony given respecting the existence and qualies of the object itself? A man that is literally deaf, cannot prefer one sound to another. The voice of thunder and we will say, for illustration sake, that recognizes the divine law, admits the justice of the claim, and is prepared to act upon it. Reading the apostolic writings, they find a stigma cast upon the Corinthian church as being "inferior to other churches." 2 Cor. xii. 13. But in what did their inferiority consist? Why in this, that he who had laboured among them in the word and doctrine, had made the gospel without charge-he" preached to them the gospel of God freely,"" yea, he robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do the Corinthian's service." The apostle gives them to understand, that he was fully aware how much, in pursuing this line of conduct, he had injured them, and he handsomely tenders them an apology for it-" FORGIVE ME THIS WRONG!!" Now let us suppose a church in our day, to be fired with a holy indignation on reading this, and to say, solved that no such stigma shall attach to us-we are determined not to withold the just reward of the labourer-our elder shall have no claim upon our justice that is unsatisfied." But what is to be done in this case? According to our present correspondent's doctrine, if the elder allow the church to discharge their duty and their obligations, by remunerating him for his services, "he is forsaking his own duty and his happiness!" Upon this principle, it seems, one of them must transgress. We throw out these hints for the consideration of our friendly correspondent, and shall be glad to see him clear up the point. We think it may be done; but not exactly upon his principle. we are re EDITOR. |