CHAPTER V.

What light does St. Paul shed upon this doctrine, in his Epistles to the Corinthians.

WHEN the faith of Christ was embraced by pious Israelites, no difficulty existed in filling up the ministerial offices with suitable men, because the devout Jews were already familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures, accustomed to worship the only living and true God, and of such pure and holy habits of life and conversation as became the sacred profession. Therefore we see how soon the Apostles supplied the order of deacons with men full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,' and very speedily James, surnamed the Just, was appointed the bishop of Jerusalem, presiding, as we read in the book of the Acts, in the first Apostolic Coun

cil.

But it was a very different matter when the Gentiles were converted to the Gospel. The new converts, ignorant of the whole system of God, unacquainted with the Scriptures, accustomed to all the abominations of idolatry, and with all their previous habits opposed to the principles of holiness, would manifestly need some years of training and trial before any of them could be fit to be ordained as instructers and rulers over the rest. Archbishop Potter says well, therefore, (Disc. on Ch. Gov. Phil. Ed. 1824. p. 93.) that Time being required to prove men, before they could be entrusted with the care of the Church, there

fore the Apostles used not to ordain ministers in any place, before the second time of their coming thither: but when they had preached the Gospel, they left the new converts to be farther instructed by some of the ministers who attended them, and staid behind for that purpose, as Silas and Timothy did at Beroea, when Paul went to Athens; or by other itinerant prophets and teachers who travelled from one place to another, as they were directed by the Apostles, or the Holy Spirit. After some time, the Apostles commonly returned to strengthen their disciples in the faith, and then ordained such of them, as they found best qualified to be ministers.' 'Hence in St. Paul's epistles to the Corinthians,' (p. 96.) there is no mention of any standing ministry among them, neither had they any stated method of divine worship and other religious offices: but all was performed by prophets and other gifted men, who acted according to their own judgment, and many times contrary to the rules of order and decency, as appears at large by the directions which the Apostle gives them in the fourteenth chapter of the first of these epistles, and in other places.

Now there is only one point in which I cannot subscribe to the foregoing quotation; namely, where the learned author seems to intimate that the Corinthians had the guidance of prophets, as being gifted men, which in p. 235, he carries still farther by saying, that 'The Eucharist was consecrated in the Church of Corinth, when no minister above the order of prophets, who were next below the Apostles, was there.'

If by this he means that the prophets had any authority to administer the eucharist above others, I must oppose to him both the opinion of Hooker, and the plain authority of the epistle itself. Touching prophets,' says Hooker, (2,

Vol. p. 98.) they were such men as, having otherwise learned the Gospel, had from above bestowed upon them a special gift of expounding Scripture, and of foreshowing things to come. Of this sort Agabus was, and besides him in Jerusalem sundry others, who notwithstanding are not, therefore, to be reckoned with the clergy, because no man's gifts or qualities can make him a minister of holy things, unless ordination do give him power.'

Again, it may be observed, that if archbishop Potter supposed these Corinthian prophets to have been extraordinary ministers raised up for the exigency of the time, and inspired for the ministerial office on the principle of the ancient prophets sent to Israel, such an idea is in total hostility with his admission that they acted according to their own judgment, and many times contrary to the rules of order and decency. And indeed it is in manifest contrariety to the rebukes administered so plainly by the Apostle, who evidently shews that he did not conceive the Corinthians to be under the guidance of any divine direction.

The truth, therefore, appears to be, that the prophesying mentioned by the Apostle was the ordinary interpretation or expounding of divine truth; and in this, there seems to have been no distinction contemplated, for he desires that they may all prophesy, (ch. 14. 5. and 24. v.) and again, (v. 31.) he saith, 'ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be comforted." Plainly, therefore, the prophets among the Corinthians were not a few gifted and extraordinary men, who acted as ministers for the time being, but they were any one and every one who spoke upon divine things in their public meetings, the privilege being not restricted, but universal, and belonging to one man as much as to another.

To prove the absence of any ministerial distinction still more

clearly, however, let us advert to the other circumstances of the case. 'How is it, then, brethren?' saith the Apostle, (ch. 14. 26.) 'when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church, and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.'

But the directions given about the eucharist in the 11th chapter, seem still more conclusive on the same point; for speaking of their defects in this particular, the Apostle saith, 'In eating every one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What! have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.' He then proceeds to set forth the proper character of the sacramental feast, and the necessity of serious self-examination, and concludes by saying, 'Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the

rest will I set in order when I come.'

Now nothing can be clearer, to my mind, than the inference from all this, that the Corinthians had at this time, no official instructers-no ministerial guides-no authorised ministry, whatever. For if they had, the rebukes of the Apostle would have been directed to them, and in the orders which he had to give, he could not have overlooked

them. In his other epistles, he is careful to remember the presbyters and deacons: he inculcates submission to the Spiritual rulers of the flock: but here, it seems that the whole body must act in excommunicating the incestuous person; (ch. 5.) and they are addressed in the next chapter as persons who had no leader or overseer to settle con→ troversies, and therefore the Apostle asks, 'Is it so that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one, that shall be able to judge between his brethren?' And throughout the two epistles, while frequent mention is made of Apollos, Timothy, Titus, Peter, and other brethren whom the Apostle had occasionally sent to them, there is not a single passage that looks like any settled or acknowledged ministry, being then resident among them.

What, then, do we behold in this condition of the Corinthian Church? Precisely what we should expect in every case of a company of Gentile converts, during the first three or four years of their Christian profession. For after the Apostle had remained as long amongst them as he could, and was obliged to transfer his labors to some other quarter, being accustomed to meet together on the Lord's day, to hear his instructions and to unite in the sacramental feast, which was then a regular part of their weekly worship, it would be necessary either that they should continue their meetings, and edify each other as well as they were able or else their faith, for want of mutual encourgement would be liable to die away. Hence we read in another place, this counsel of the same Apostle, (Heb. x. 25.) Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another.' In such an assembly, none was set over the rest, because none were sufficiently advanced or experienced for such an office.