2> ^^nii,if.i3 1^ 
 
 REVIEW^x 
 
 S E E M O N, 
 
 * PRH ACHED BY Tflte 
 
 REV. G. M. INNES, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 QUEBEC CATHEDRAL, on SUNDAY the 5th APRIL, 1868, 
 
 AND 
 
 PUPLISHED IN THE 'QUEBEC MERCURY,' 9th APRIL. 
 
 i 1 n 
 
 p. E. GRAFfON, 80 GREAT ST. JAMES STREET* 
 
 1868. 
 
 Price 5 cents. 
 
 - • 
 
* ■ /, 
 
 
 y ( V\\ 
 
 
Dear Mr. Innes, 
 
 Had you confined your sermon to the church in 
 ■which it was preached, I should never have taken any 
 notice of it. You were within the sphere of your own 
 labors. If you thought we were an evil people, you were 
 right to warn your congregation against us. At any rate, 
 I have no thought of answering the thousand and one 
 attacks which are made upon us. The best way is to 
 work on and take no notice of them. If we are according 
 to God in our doctrire and walk, the Lord will answer for 
 us ; if not, it is well we should be judged. I am convinced 
 that, though failing, as every Christian will own he does, 
 in carrying his convictions out, and admitting that all who 
 advocate the truth are not wise in their way of advocating 
 it, I am convinced, I say, we are right in principle and 
 practice ; that our position is the only true, scriptural one ; 
 but that it should be spoken against can neither surprise 
 nor much distress me. It has been the fate of the most 
 undoubted truth ever since truth is published. I have 
 not even read the attacks in the xCecord and Eclio. I 
 never see them unless some one sends me some special 
 numbers, and I go on my way and work quietly. But you 
 have put your sermon in a common political journal, and 
 made it public property, not a pastoral addiess. This 
 paper has been sent me from Quebec ; and some statements 
 in it lead me to take notice of it, because truths important 
 to all Christians are canvassed in it ; and it does not 
 merely consist of attacks on brethren, which I should have 
 left unnoticed. I believe you to be a servant of God. I 
 trust not a trace of unkind feeling is in my heart. I am 
 not conscious of any; but as the truth of Christ is in 
 question, I shall speak plainly. X cannot but think you 
 have been misled by the flattering demand of hearers in 
 thus bringing the Episcopal body into prominent notice a8 
 
a security for truth. I will say more : seeing the inroads 
 of Popery (I may now add infidelity) long after I left the 
 Establishment, I looked to it as a Providential bulwark 
 against these inroad;^. I satisfied the claims of my own 
 conscience, but I would not have lifted a finger, had I had 
 power to do it, against it. I have not the remotest sym- 
 pathy now with the coalition of dissenters in England 
 with papists and infidels to pull it down. They are seek- 
 ing to do so. It is part of the blindness and infatuation 
 of these last days, and they will find it so to their cost. 
 But everything is called in question in these days, whether 
 we will or not, and it is of the utmost importance to know 
 on what ihe soul can rely as sure ground with God. It is 
 this which is now driving hundreds of souls into the snares 
 of Romanism. It proffers certainty, and in this sense 
 gives quietness to the spirit which has no hold of truth, 
 nor sense of its importance for itself Is the Anglican 
 body such a security ? That is the question Mr. Innes 
 has brought before the public. 
 
 To come more directly to his sermon. There are three 
 points it suggests to me. He is thankful for a fixed stand- 
 ard of doctrine. The preacher's words are these : Never 
 before, beloved, has my mind lieen more deeply impressed 
 with a sense of the value of such a fixed standard of doc- 
 trine as we possess as members of the Church of England 
 in our scriptural formularies, as of late. This, then, is 
 the first point I shall speak of. Dot^ the Anglican body 
 aftbrd a security for sound doctrine ? 
 
 The next I shall notice is, the false doctrines he ascrib<^s 
 to those whom his sermon denounces. 
 
 The third question raised by Mr. Inne.^ is, that of an 
 ordained ministry. 
 
 The first point, were I an enemy, an infidel, not a Chris- 
 tian, would furnish subject for laughter and mockery. As 
 
 it is, I feel far more inclined to weep as i believe a 
 
 Christian ought in these evils days. Who are opening 
 the high road to popery ? Is it not the sticklers for the 
 formularies of the Anglican body ? Is Mr. Innes igno- 
 rant of the monastic institutions of Anglicanism ? Is he 
 ignorant that transubstantiation is taught by a vast and 
 increasing body of the English clergy, perhaps I might 
 say a majority? Is he ignorant that the Eucharist k 
 worshipped by a vast and increasing number, on *he ground 
 that Christ is there, and ^rherever He is He ought to be 
 
worshipped ? If he has not, let him get a book called the 
 church and the world, and he will see, not perhaps how 
 many have embraced it, but what they embrace at any 
 rate. He may be aware that at the Pan-Anglican Synod, 
 the prelates could not venture to touch the question, and 
 that a royal commission has met on ritualism, which I 
 adduce only as shewing that the gangrene aflfects the whole 
 church, so that it is felt something must be done, only 
 they know not what to do, and meanwhile time is gained 
 by the ritualist for the wide spreading progress of their 
 popish errors, and I beg Mr. Innes to remark, all is 
 founded on the rubricks and formularies of the church, 
 which have tied the hands of the prelates so that, when 
 inclined, they cannot act ; their popishly inclined clergy 
 defy them. But many of them concur. A large meeting 
 was held at Salisbury of clergy and laity, and parishioners 
 were recommended to go to another parish church if they 
 could escape the popish leaven thus ; if not, to some godly 
 dissenter's chapel, provided he did not speak against the 
 establishment. Does Mr. Innes recollect the last election 
 of a diocesan in a town called Quebec, where the laity 
 would not have Puseyism and the clergy would ; and the 
 present prelate, of whom I would speak without the least 
 idea of disrespect, suddenly found himself such in a way as 
 unexpected to himself as to every body. He might almost 
 with truth take the Archiepiscopal title, * by Divine Provi- 
 dence,' in lieu of the more modest Episcopal one, ' by Divine 
 permission.' Is Mr. Innes aware that the patents, for that 
 is the authority for episcopal pre-eminence now, of all the 
 colonial prelates, have been judicially declared void where- 
 ever there was a Legislative Assembly. And if rumour 
 be not false, he who, as I suppose, ordained, certainly was 
 the diocesan of Mr. Innes, declared to his clergy, on his 
 return from England, that he did not know whether he 
 was their \)ishop or not. I dare say Mr. Innes can inform 
 us how far rumour was exact. I do not know whether an 
 act of Parliament has not been passed, regulating this. I 
 am thankful if it is so, for peace is always desirable, and 
 doubtless the clergy, from higher considerations, would 
 have submitted to prelates who had no legal title at all, 
 and they would have done well while they remained in 
 the system. But we are considering the comfort of hav- 
 ing a fixed standard of doctrine < It is really going too 
 fwf to speak of such a thing when the whole empire 
 
// 
 
 6 
 
 !s reeling under tae effects of the question whether what 
 is substantially popish is not most truly Anglican, and 
 the prelates are unable to interfere, and seek with hope- 
 less anxiety to tide it over, while in the meantime tho 
 tide is carrying the clerical body into popery. Not all, 
 I admit, but this I reserve for further on. But mean- 
 while crowds, tired out, join the Roman Catholic body, 
 and crowds leave the establishment to be cliristians 
 unattached. But the formularies are what Mr. Innes re- 
 fers to. I turn to speak of them. Come. Does Mr. Innes 
 believe that by baptism, every infant baptized is " made 
 a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of 
 the kingdom of heaven" ? Mr. Innes does not use the 
 catechism perhaps; but it is surely a formulary of the 
 body he belongs to. But he does say " that this child is 
 regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church." 
 He gives thanks to the " most merciful Father that it has 
 pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with thy holy spirit, 
 to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to in- 
 corporate him into thine holy church ;" and this after hav- 
 ing prayed : *' that he may receive remission of his sins by 
 spiritual regeneration," and exhorted all to pray : *' that 
 God will grant to this child that thing which by nature he 
 cannot have,"* I believe the whole of this to be false 
 doctrine as to baptism, which does not refer even as a sign 
 to the membership of Christ's body, but to Christ's death, 
 but this I leave. Does Mr. Innes think this formulary 
 gives us a fixed standard of doctrine on which our souls 
 may rest ? Again, if Mr. Innes uses the visitation of the 
 sick, he has occasion to say, must, if he uses the formulary, 
 say : " and by His authority committed unto me I absolve 
 thee from all thy sins in the name, &c." Nor is this a 
 vague matter. In the ordering of priests the formulary 
 says : " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of 
 a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee 
 by the imposition of my hands; whose sins thou dost for- 
 give they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain 
 they are retained." Does Mr. Innes believe this, that he 
 has received the Holy Ghost, giving him this authority, by 
 his ordination ? And this is the more distinct and definite ; 
 
 * The Presbyterians aud Lutherans also teach that a child 
 is born again in baptism, Oaly the Presbyterians confine it tp 
 the elect. 
 
because when the deacon is ordained there is nothing of 
 the kind. It is merely, " Take thou authority to read the 
 gospel in the church, and to preach the same if thou bo 
 thereto licensed by the bishop himself." So that it cannot 
 be pleaded that the pretension to confer the Holy Ghost is 
 merely communicating an orderly authority. That is dono 
 to the deacon, so called . But in the case of the priest the 
 ordaining prelate professes to confer the Holy Ghost so as 
 to make a priest competent to forgive sins. Hence the 
 deacon, when he reads the morning service, is not allowed 
 to read even the declaratory absolution which follows the 
 confession of sin. Alas! Does Mr. Innes accept all this 
 as a fixed standard of doctrine ? It was not these things 
 which drove me out of the establishment, but the discovery 
 of what the true church of God was, and consequently that 
 the establishment was not it. But can we be surprised at 
 the nation's running into Popery, or at the perplexity of 
 souls attached to the establishment, when the fixed 
 standard of formularies fully authorize the clergy, yea, 
 bind them, if they are honest, to believe such things as 
 these. It may be alleged that this practically only concerns 
 the clergy, and that the laity do not enter into these ques- 
 tions. It is an unhappy state of things, if that were true, 
 that all the teachers are bound to doctrines which are 
 popish in their character, even if the taught do not find 
 it out. But it is not so. Every one knows that it is infect- 
 ing the whole establishment, or dividing it. And as re- 
 gards the catechism and baptismal service, it concerns the 
 flock as much as the pastor. I have no desire to seek ob- 
 jects of attacks, or I might say much on ihe liturgy. I 
 notice only the second of the 39 articles. I suppose it 
 moans to affirm the vital doctrine of atonement, or propi- 
 tiation, the just appeasement of God's wrath by the blessed 
 sacrifice of Christ : A vital doctrine assuredly ; but it is 
 put in a way in which no intelligent Christian could sign it, 
 " to reconcile his Father to us." As if atonement was not 
 something which met the immutable righteousness of God, 
 and glorified it, but meant that the love being in Christ 
 changed the Father's mind where that love was not. This 
 is a most evil way of putting it, though I am willing to 
 think they meant right, and erred through ignorance and 
 tradition. But scripture aflfords no ground whatever for 
 such a statement. 
 , But I have said that there is not in all the clergy, that 
 
n 
 
 tendency to Rcmanism, and adoption of its essential prin- 
 ciples in baptismal rcjrcnerMtion, pricsfly absolution, and 
 the worship of the Eucharist. But what is the character 
 of the other chief part of the Anf^licau establishment ? The 
 name of Colcnso is in every moutli, and the Essays and 
 reviews familiar to every person acquainted with current 
 literature: that is, open infidelity in the hi;j;hest authori- 
 ties of the Church. But this is not all. vSuits have been 
 instituted and decided in the hijzjhest Court of ecclesias- 
 tical appeal. And as to the Essays and reviews it has been 
 decided that no English clergyman is bound to believe in 
 the inspiration of the Scriptures or in eternal puDishment, 
 and Colenso remains recognized by the same authority, 
 and we have had the scandal of his shutting his Cathedral 
 against the Metropolitan of the Cape, and the latter break- 
 ing it cpen with axes and hammers ; the said Metropo- 
 litan having deposed Colenso and determined to consecrate 
 another, and the English prelates remonstrating and de- 
 claring it illegal if done in England. I do not blame tie 
 Metropolitan, who, however, has the reputation of Semi- 
 Romanism. But what are we to say as to the certainty of 
 a fixed standard ? All this is notorious from the public 
 papers. It is a very serious thing its having been decided 
 that no clergyman is bound to hold the Scriptures to be 
 inspired, and that infidelity has full swing in the clergy. 
 A very large body of them indeed are known to be ration- 
 alist. Let no one suppose that I say all this without pro- 
 found sorrow. I believe the Lord is soon coming, and that 
 all this is the power of evil allowed to rise up rampantly 
 before judgment comes. But our enquiry is whether, in 
 this uprising of evil, such a system can afford any security 
 or standard of truth. I might in conscience leave it on ec- 
 clesiastical grounds, yet believe it was in the main a bul- 
 wark against error and the power of evil. But it is not so. 
 It is torn into popish and infidel factions, a few pious ear- 
 nest souls in vain struggling in the stream. It is no security 
 for one single truth (save such as it holds in common with 
 popery) and is the sanction for a great deal of popish er- 
 ror I have stated above from its own formularies in 
 what that conformity to Romanism consists. I think 
 we need some sure fixed standard, but it is not to 
 be found in that which allows denial of the inspira- 
 tion of scripture and infidel chief ministers on the 
 one hand^ and on the other holds the baptized chil() 
 
to be regenerate by the Holy Spirit in baptiflra, and the 
 power of tlie pi iewt to abfiolve from sin by an authority dis- 
 tinctly committed to him of God. I mourn over Ruch a 
 need, but I do feel, in the present upheavini^, that it is well 
 to know what we can trust to for truth. I believe the word 
 of God, the Scriptures, with the help and guidance of tho 
 Holy Spirit, to be tho only standard or fixed rule, while 
 the gifts of teaching and the faithful confession of tho 
 Church of the living God may be useful as means of ac- 
 quiring and holding the truth fast. The word of God tho 
 only rule, and grace the only power. Selfwill will go astray, 
 the humble soul be kept and prosper, and God means it 
 should be so. 
 
 I may now take up a far less important pirt of the sub- 
 ject, the points on which brethren are attacked, come of 
 them by name. Mr. InncH says: Mr. Macintosh prac- 
 tically denies the entire humanity of the blessed Siiviour. 
 This is simply, I may say it as it does not concern myself, 
 a foul falsehood. He holds it, and states he holds the full 
 true humanity of Christ. I do not charge Mr. Innes with 
 inventing the false statement. But he who picks up dirt 
 made by the wheels of others, to throw at his neighbours 
 is like to get dirty hands at least himself. I dare say Mr. 
 Innes may have the statement second or third hand. Mr. 
 Macintosh called the Saviour a heavenly man and I think 
 a divine man too. I think the words most seemly of a 
 man who was also God, and divine in all his ways, of one 
 who could say ' the Son of Man who is in heaven ' : The 
 charge was made in an attack by one in the greatest spiri- 
 tual ignorance, and two pages beyond that in which the ac- 
 cused terms occurred there was the denouncement as vapid 
 and worthless theories of the very thing he was accused of 
 holding, and the true humanity of Christ fully insisted upon, 
 and in the clearest terms. (See note.) Either Mr. Innes 
 knows this, aud it has been fully pointed oui , or he has 
 taken up a false accusation against an active servant of the 
 Lord at second hand without giving himself the trouble of 
 ascertaining \7hether it be true or not. It is for Mr. Innes 
 to say which it is. Mr. Macintosh's writings are too widely 
 spread and too well known, more especially that very one 
 to which Mr. Innes' accusation applies, to make Mr. Innes' 
 judgment of him of much moment. 
 
 Mr. Innes' statement as to myself and imputed righteous- 
 ues3 is pot much more honest, I have pubUsbed four 
 
10 
 
 considerable tracts on the subject, as it raised a great deal 
 of enquiry at the time, and the subject itself was important. 
 Either Mr. Innes has read the controversy or he has not. 
 If he has he is personally dishonest in his statement. If he 
 has not he has no right to say what I hold. (Note 2.) I 
 have stated there and I state here, I have no idea of any 
 one being righteous before God but by righteousness being 
 imputed to him as contrasted with inherent righteousness, 
 though never actually separated from it, or the life that 
 produces fruits of righteousness. I hold the statement in 
 the articles of the establishment to be sound and just. 
 What I deny is the doctrine that, while the death of Christ 
 cleanses us from sin, his keeping the law is our positive 
 righteousness, and that his keeping the law is imputed to 
 us as ourselves under it, and that law keeping is positive 
 righteousness. I believe that Christ perfectly glorified God 
 by obedience even unto death, and that that is to our profit 
 in such sort that while his death has cancelled all our sins 
 who believe, we are accepted according to his present ac- 
 ceptance in God's sight according to the value of that work, 
 being held to be risen with Him, that our position before 
 God is not legal righteousness, or measured by Christ's 
 keeping the law, but His present acceptance, as risen, 
 in the whole value of the work, and we accounted righteous 
 according to the value of that. 
 
 The statement of the XI Article, I hold to be perfectly 
 sound that we are accounted righteous before God only 
 for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by 
 faith, and not for our own merits or deserving. What 
 I object to is the doctrine of such books as Theron and 
 Aspasio, and the imputing Christ's keeping the law to 
 us as our positive righteousness ; we being under it and 
 not having kept it, and Christ having kept it for us. 
 The controversy arose out of a statemont of Mr. Molyncux, 
 a clergyman, in Exeter Hall, that if a man was cleansed 
 from his sin in the blood of Christ, and sanctified by the 
 Spirit of God, he cannot then go to heaven; and that 
 there was written up over the gate of heaven, " Do this 
 and live!" — to this I demurred. I hold, then, righteous- 
 ness imputed without works, to be a vital truth : Christ's 
 work being, of course, the sole ground of it. I do not hold 
 that a Chr'stian is under the law, and that his keeping it 
 is the righteousness which entitles him to heaven, but that 
 be not having l^ept it, Christ has kept that hw for him : aucl 
 
11 
 
 thus has given him the title. I hold that he is in Christ, 
 risen and Himself as man glorified according to the whole 
 value of his work, and accounted righteous, (the true sense 
 of righteousness being imputed), according to the price of 
 that blessed work in God's sight, and withal as in Christ 
 himself. Yet 1 have no quarrel with any Christian who 
 holds this legal righteousness to be his title. All I think 
 is, he is not clear on this subject, and deprives himself of a 
 very blessed and glorious privilege in connection with a 
 risen and glorified Saviour. 
 
 The next point is the Lord's prayer. Here, too, I have 
 no quarrel with any. I leave every one perfectly free to use 
 or not to use it. No Christian, in his senses, but thinks 
 whatsoever the Lord did, or said, was absolutely perfect in 
 its place. The question is, what is the place He gave it ? 
 I add, further, I think the argument against its se, drawn 
 from asking forgiveness, is weak. The forgiven state is 
 the witness of our being that in which we have forgiveness, 
 like all other proof of life. But for all that, the demand 
 of it is generally a proof that true forgiveness is not known ; 
 but this is a question of spiritual perception and judgment . 
 But Mr. Innes is singularly unhappy in his way of insist- 
 ing on it. He takes the Lord's Prayer, in Luke, because 
 it is said : ' When ye pray, say !' But nobody says the 
 Lord's Prayer as it is in Luke, but as it is in Matthew. — 
 But more than this : probably Mr. Innes' military educa- 
 tion has given him little opportunity for critical enquiry. 
 Nor is this any blame if he attends to what is more impor- 
 tant. But if he had attended to it he would know that the 
 superstition as to the Lord's Prayer has led to the interpo- 
 lation of Luke, in order to assimilate him to Matthew, and 
 that in fact we have two Lord's Prayers ; both assuredly per- 
 fect in their place, and given by Inspiration. Tho pra^ dr in 
 Luke really runs thus ; ' Our Father, Thy name be hallowed. 
 Thy kingdom come ; give our needed bread for each day, 
 and remit us our sins for we also remit to every one indebted 
 to us ; and lead us not into temptation.' Now for the pur- 
 pose for which the Holy Ghost gives this version of it here, 
 I believe this to be perfect, and for that for which it is given 
 in Matthew it is perfect there, only there too : ' For Thine 
 is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and 
 ever,' has been added from ecclesiastical use of it, and is in- 
 terpolated. But this makes sad havoc of its use as a pres- 
 cribed formulary ; for which are we to use, Luke's Lore' ' 
 
/ 
 
 12 
 
 I 
 
 Prayer, or Matthew's Lord's Prayer; for they are not the 
 same. I repeat, no Christian in his senses, doubts of 
 the perfeciness of the Lord's words, and in principle 
 every desirable thing is summed up in this prayer. — • 
 But there is a very important feature in the nature of this 
 prayer which Mr. Innes has overlooked ; it is not, and could 
 not then be, in Christ's name. The Lord's own statement 
 is distinct on this point : " Hitherto have ye asked nothing 
 in my name." Now that Christ has accomplished redemp- 
 tion, and gone up on high, as the Saviour who has finished 
 His work, our Great High Priest, the essential character 
 of true prayer is, that it is in Christ's name. The Lord's 
 prayer, as decidedly, was not, because it was perfect. But 
 the truth is, that the brethren assailed have never given 
 any judgment or prescribed any rule whatsoever about it. 
 Individuals may have done so. Its habitual use has 
 dropped out as it has amongst many other Christians, 
 generally, I believe, save among Bomanists and Episcopa- 
 liaiis. (See note 3.) Just as we never find it in the 
 prayers of the New Testament after Pentecost, because the 
 Holy Ghost led them on each occasion according to the 
 particular wants of the moment. All surely consistent 
 with the summary so beautifully given in this prayer ; but 
 in the freedom given by the Spirit to express every want 
 as it arose. The use of it as a mere paternoster, having 
 some virtue in it, is a superstition and nothing else. Mr. 
 Innes' statement is a mere blunder, because nobody ever 
 says it as it is in Luke, and it is, in fact, not simply re- 
 cited, as it is in Matthew, but as tradition has given it from 
 the Church use. The passage in Matthew having been 
 interpolated to suit this, and nen-rly half added in Luke to 
 make it in some measure agree with Matthew. Tamper- 
 ing with God's word is the constant and sure effect of eccle- 
 siastical traditions, when that word is not set aside by them. 
 The third point which calls for remark is, an appointed 
 ministry. Now, that God has appointed or given a minis- 
 try in His Church for its edification and for the evangeliz- 
 ing of the world, is as certain as the word of God can make 
 it. The question does not lie there, but in this : Is the 
 clergy that ministry ? Mr. Innes would permit irregular 
 ministrations. He is very kind, no doubt, if God sent 
 them. But there is another question. Is not his position 
 the false and irregular one, and a hindrance and denial of 
 true ministry ? If there be a ministry given of God, ftn4 
 
( 
 
 13 
 
 man has set up another, it is this which is in fault, this 
 that is false, evil, worse than irregular. I will make what 
 I mean very plain. If St. Paul was to come to Quebec, 
 he could not preach, according to Mr. Inres' system. He 
 has never been ordained. It will be said this is ridiculous. 
 He is an apostle, and would preach of course. I agree : 
 sovereignly ridiculous. But the ridiculousness is in those 
 who have concocted a system which leads to such a result. 
 Paul would preach assuredly, and no thanks to Mr. Innes 
 or his clerical system, because God sent him. And so would 
 every one sent of God. The irregularity, according to the 
 word of God, is in the clergy, not in the preaching of those 
 whom God has sent. I will put another case, one which 
 Mr. Innes knows to be quite common, alas, the most com- 
 mon : an unconverted clergyman in a parish, and the parish 
 spiritually in the dark ; or, if the clergyman be converted, 
 a determined puseyite, teaching to worship the Eucharist, 
 as hundreds do now in England. Well 1 an Evangelist sent 
 of God is blessed to the conversion of many souls : that is, 
 the Holy Ghost has wrought by him, and souls are brought 
 to Christ. Which is irregular — I appeal to Mr. Innes' 
 conscience — the evangelist who has wrought with God, or 
 the unconverted clergyman ? Who brought the latter 
 there ? Not God. It were a heinous blasphemy to say so. 
 Who brought the evangelist there? God's grace. But 
 that on Mr. Innes' system is irregular. Well, in this world 
 it is so. But it is a mercy there is such. But perhaps 
 Mr. Innes will say, let him keep to his place as evangelist, 
 and put these unconverted souls under the existing orderly 
 pastoral care. What pastoral care ? That of an uncon- 
 verted man, or a worshipper of the Eucharist, or a ration- 
 alist ? aye, or even a man who, if he is honest, believes he 
 was made a child of God and a member of Christ by his 
 baptism. Is that regular ? What is the real state of the 
 case according to the system, imperfectly carried out perhaps 
 in a colony, because they cannot help themselves, and are 
 happily more irregular. The country is divided into 
 parishes, and universities and other schools supply incum- 
 bents, without the smallest or most distant reference to the 
 Church of God, or gift fitting on God's part for the ofl&ce. 
 If they are good men so much the better, — if, indeed, it 
 do not help on delusion —but, good or bad, the ordaining 
 prelate gives, if they are priested, the Holy Ghost to all 
 alike, in order that they may have power to forgive sins. 
 
/ 
 
 14 
 
 Is this what Mr. Innes calls regular, and the free action of 
 the Spirit of God, according to the word, irregular minis- 
 try. A sober, godly mind, a mind taught by the word, let 
 •ne tell him, will count such a system worse than irregular. 
 He may, ought, to mourn and weep over it, not expose it, 
 save as the growing power of evil forces us to enquire what 
 can be trusted in as true, and what cannot. This feeling 
 alone makes me speak thus. An Edomite down with it, 
 down with it, I have no sympathy with whatever. But 
 we are forced, and, as an occasion, forced by such state- 
 ments as Mr. Innes', to enquire what is of God and what 
 is not ; to separate the precious from the vile. I would 
 receive every saint, episcopal or anything else, with my 
 whole heart ; but the system is leading souls by thousands 
 into popery and falsehood on one hand, and infidelity 
 on the other, because there is no plain, solid truth in 
 it. Evangelicals do not believe what they sign and 
 acquiesce in. Can Mr. Innes be surprised if 1 doubt 
 that he believes Dr. Cronin conferred the Holy Ghost 
 on him that he might have the priestly power of forgiving 
 sins ? And it is a serious thing to trifle and make 
 empty forms of serious things: a serious thing for the 
 state of the soul. The state of things is forcing all this 
 into view. It may be so best in God's wisdom, for all 
 is surely hastening to the end; but at any rate it is 
 sorrowful. Whether it be wise in Mr. Innes to draw 
 attention to it, he must judge, I should have a great deal 
 more to say on this head, but I refrain. The great prin- 
 ciples are what we have to enquire into. I turn to more 
 general points, and I will state some general principles, I 
 am bold to say, incontrovertible according to the word of 
 God. Mr. Innes will see it is not against his system more 
 than another, but that I speak of what the word of God 
 teaches. 
 
 Member of a Church is a thing unknown to scripture. 
 The words, the thing, the idea are unknown there. Chris- 
 tians are members of Christ, and, if you please, one of 
 another, and of nothing else. And membership of anything 
 else is only schism, and denying the true meaning of the word. 
 A flock, other than God's flock, is equally unknown. 
 God's flock alone is known in Scripture, of which Christ is 
 the chief shepherd. There is one flock, and only one, meet- 
 ing it may be in different localities, and elders belonging to 
 those localities, but all the faithful there at any time were of 
 
15 
 
 It, because they were of God's flock. A pastor and his flock, 
 n the modern sense, is wholly unknown to Scripture, and 
 n utter denial of its contents, if it be not of the words : 
 * I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos," &c. These statements 
 leave for every honest-minded saint, to see whether they 
 are according to Scripture or not. 
 
 I will now take up the proofs by which Mr. Innes at- 
 tempts to justify the ecclesiastical forms of his system. I 
 only press the fact, that these forms say nothing as to the 
 substance of the system, — namely, sacramental birth to God, 
 priestly forgiveness of sins, pretending to confer the Holy 
 Ghost by ordination in order to that power. Anglicans must 
 accept this, they must pretend to do it, at any rate ; they all 
 sanction it. It is important to keep this clearly before us. 
 A man may prove meat to be good, but if poison is in it, 
 the proof of its goodness means nothing, or a snare. 
 fli But I will take up the alleged proofs of the forms, and 
 ^' show what Scripture teaches as to the ministry. In doing 
 this, I must apprize my reader that there is a constant 
 confusion in most minds between ministry and local ofl&ce. 
 I do not reproach Mr. Innes, in particular, with this. I 
 remember when, from habit, I made the same confusion. 
 But for all that, the difference is important. Nay, my own 
 conviction is, that the gradual decline of gift led to the 
 confusion of the two, ministry and office, and thus estab- 
 lishing the clergy, led the way for Papal anti-christian 
 claims. The elders and deacons were local officers. Min- 
 istry, in the sense of the exercise of gift for edification, 
 was not. It was a given member, (eye, foot, ear, as is 
 said) of the whole body of Christ. Elders were ordained 
 in every citi/, but God set in the Church various gifts. 
 This difference is all important as to the nature of minis- 
 try, and the whole clerical and denominational system 
 crumbles together under the unquestionable scriptural fact. 
 Let me add a question here, which I have often and long 
 ago put, as shewing the practical result : — If Paul was to 
 address a letter to the Church of God which is at Mon- 
 treal, who could get the letter ? 
 
 It was necessary for me to begin with this distinction, be- 
 cause Mr. Innes' first question involves the denial of it. His 
 question shews, indeed, ignorance of what he might see all 
 over Canada and Europe and everywhere else. It is this : 
 Has God ordained a divinely appointed ministry to rule 
 and teach in the Church ? Now, it is perfectly clear that 
 
,/ 
 
 16 
 
 scripture recognizes teachers who do not rule, save as fa 
 a.« general influence goes, and rulers who do not teach' 
 That teaching was a desirable qualification for those wh 
 ruled, but that all had it not. The whole Presbyteriai I* 
 body, whatever their other defects may be, recognize ru! f 
 ing elders who are not teachers. But further, Mr. Innes ; 
 
 having his mind filled with the identity of ruling and 
 tea hin^-, supposes that the admission of a divinely givci, 
 ministry is rested by those whom he opposes on 1 Timothy, 
 and that they think that the 2 Timothy has set it aside. Ho 
 deceives himself and his hearers altogether. It is because 
 we believe in a divinely given ministry, that we do not be- 
 lieve in the geographical system of parishes, and a ministry 
 ordained of man and not of God. Some clergymen may be 
 ministers ; but a divinely given ministry sets aside the clerical 
 system, in which Paul and all the early laborers of Scripture 
 could not have been permitted to exercise their ministry, 
 I shall quote the passages which speak of a divinely appoint- 
 ed ministry, quite distinct from local elders, that we may 
 know how Scripture presents the ministry to us. In Eph. 
 iv., which Mr. Innes quotes, when condescending to sanc- 
 tion what he calls " irregular laborers :" we shall see what 
 Ministry is. Christ who descended into the lowest parts 
 of the earth, is ascended above all heavens, and has led 
 captivity captive, and received gifts for men ; a glorious 
 origin and source of Ministry. And He gave some 
 Apostles and Prophets ; some pastors and teachers, and 
 some evangelists, for the perfecting of the Saints ; for 
 the work of the Ministry ; for the edifying the body of 
 Christ, till we all come into the unity of the faith and of 
 the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man, to 
 the measure of the statue of the fulness of Christ. We 
 cannot conceive a mwe full or glorious expression of minis- 
 try than this ; complete in every possible respect, in its 
 source, in the sphere it belongs to, the completeness of its 
 objects, and the enduringness of its character. And note, 
 we have no miraculous gifts, no tongues, no healings, no 
 miracles. It is proper ministerial service. The Apostles 
 and Prophets, we read, in this epistle, were the foun- 
 dation. They have had their place, but pastors, teachers, 
 evangelists abide.* Nor is there an idea of ordination, 
 
 *I cannot stop to notice the wild fanaticism of those who pretend that 
 we are all come to a perfect man, &o., they are the striking proof that W9 
 are not. 
 
 1 
 
17 
 
 5hrist gave. Tticy are, Mr. Innes being witness, the irregu- 
 laborers, though Timothy, he tells us, proves there 
 rere regular ones. And note, these are the talents conferred 
 rhen the nobleman went away to receive the kingdom, 
 ^nd to return, and woe be to that servant, who, in order to 
 rade, waited for any other authority than the possession 
 ^f the talents committed. And it is very striking here, 
 pat so distinct is the characterof giftby an exalted Christ 
 "lat the Apostle knows nothing here of the Apostles till 
 )hrist was gone on high. He recognized of course, as we 
 [now, the fact ; but he cannot know them other than en- 
 lowed from on high, as he did not, in the same sense, know 
 Christ after flesh. But this is certain, we get the regular 
 linistry in the Church, (pastors and teachers),to the world, 
 (evangelists) by gift from on high, without the most distinct 
 hint of Bishop, presbyter, or ordination. It speaks, Mr. 
 Innes does not deny, of the irregular laborers on his system, 
 1 should say, a divinely appointed Ministry in its fullest 
 character, and without any so-called, merely supernatural 
 or miraculous gifts, but that by which the church was to 
 be edified till we all come to a perfect man. I pity the 
 regular ministry, somewhat, if this was the irregular. But 
 let us search if Scripture warrants this view elsewhere. We 
 have a more general list, I Cor. xii. Here the Spirit di- 
 vides to every man severally as he will, and the gifts are 
 given to every man to profit withal, These are various 
 members in the one body. God has set in the church. — 
 The sphere of action is the one body the church : Apostles, 
 Prophets, &c., amongst which we have gifts of government 
 distinct from teachers. Some of these gifts are lost, others 
 not, but I suppose what remains are to be used ; — Yea, 
 I might almost dare to say : it is not irregular to use them, 
 to trade with the talents, if they are given to profit withal, 
 Scripture will surely, and does, regulate their use, both as 
 to order and morally. Not more than two or three were 
 to speak. That is a wise rule of order : ' Be not many 
 teachers,' a moral instruction and warning. But neither 
 could have any application, at all, in the clerical system. 
 They could have had no application to the system Mr. Innes 
 belongs to. We are not talking of what are called extraordi- 
 nary or miraculous gifts, but of teachers ; of divinely ap- 
 pointed ministry. Or does Mr. Innes intend to tell us that 
 the Holy Ghost is no longer in the Church to give teachers, 
 
 B 
 
7 
 
 18 
 
 but to make priests for the forgiveness of sins. Is tha i j 
 what he considers regular? But I proceed. We have in >\ 
 Peter positive orders ou the point. I Peter iv. 10. As h 
 every man has received the gift, so minister the same, ( 
 one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace j 
 of God. Here again it is the irregular labor, but within, ; 
 one to another. Evangelical history tells the same tale, ui- i 
 Mr. Innes admits. *' They that were scattered abroad weni i 
 everywhere preaching the Word." And " The hand of the 
 Lord was with them." Pliilip, one of the seven, purchases 
 to himself a good degree, and an evangelist, Stephen, hah 
 a still brighter crown ; at least as far as man can say, and 
 so in numberless instances. It is the history of the evan 
 gelizing the Gentiles. Paul boasts that he was neither of ij 
 man nor by man. John in his second epistle has no rule , 
 for a woman to go by but the doctrine brought. Gaius, 
 and Demetrius are commended fur receiving these irregu- 
 lar laborers. Diotrephes, indeed, objected. Such are the 
 instructions, rapidly reviewed, which the Word gives us of 
 divinely appointed ministry. We may add, Kom. xii., 
 in which each is directed to confine himself to his own gift. 
 I now turn to Timothy. This does give us order and care 
 of the church, and watching over sound doctrine ; which 
 last was the immediate object of his being left at Ephems. 
 But it does not give us anything of appointment of minis- 
 try. Indeed though Scripture may, and does, regulate the 
 use of gift, if God has given a teacher, or other gift, he 
 cannot, he dare not, wait on man to exercise it, and hide 
 it in a napkin till then. Scripture does regulate and where 
 Prophets were to speak, the rest were to judge, but the gift 
 of God is to be exercised and not wait the permission of 
 man, as to the general fact of serving by it, though all of us 
 have to be subject one to another, and we are to obey God 
 rather than man, if man forbid us to speak in Christ's name. 
 Timothy was left specially to watch over sound doctrine, 
 and watch against false teachers ; but the general order of 
 the church is unfolded. But there is no establishment of 
 a ministry. He was to communicate, to faithful men, the 
 things he had learned, but here there is not the remotest 
 hint of appointing to ofl&ce, and its absence is most sig- 
 nificative. He was to instruct not ordain. No such thought 
 was or could be true. We have seen that the ministry was 
 in full exercise and its order established in i. Cor. It de- 
 pended on gift, and gift had its place in the whole body. If 
 
19 
 
 polios was a teacher at Ephesus, he wrs a teacher at Cor- 
 inth, and so of all. Indeed every Jew was familiar with 
 is, and the rulers of the synagogue were distinct, as to 
 iffice, from the teachers. Christ could stand up to read 
 ^nd teach, so Paul and Barnabas were invited at Antioch. 
 *As to the form, there was thus, a well-known liberty of 
 ^teaching, and the distinction of tcachinf;^ and ruling, thor- 
 oughly understood. They might, doubtless, be united in 
 one person, but they were distinct. It was the habit of 
 our blessed Lord, of Paul, and of Apollos to teach and 
 preach in the synagogue, none pretended to be ruler there. 
 And in the Christian assemblies, elders were local. Thus 
 Paul and Barnabas chosef elders for them in every church. 
 Acts xiv. So, Titus was to establish elders in every city. 
 . Gifts were exercised everywhere, as such or such a mem- 
 ber of the body, as the whole history and doctrinal teach- 
 ing of the New Testament shew. Elders were local officers. 
 For this office it was desirable that they should be apt to 
 teach, but their business was to oversee and guide the flock 
 of God where the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. 
 And we know that some recognized elders, did not teach, 
 though they might rule well. The apostle in this same 
 epistle distinguished those among them who labour in word 
 and doctrine, 1 Tim. v. 17. But, so far from ordaining 
 teachers, or the elders alone being the regular teacliers, there 
 is in tlie epistle a prohibition which makes such a notion 
 ridiculous. Let your women keep silence in your churches ; 
 for I suSev not a woman to teach. Can any one in his 
 senses conceive such a phrase where the only orderly teach- 
 ing was in the hands of elders ? But it is certain that in 
 the synagogue and in the early churches all who could do 
 it to profit VTwre to teach. Elders there were. It was 
 desirable that elders should be apt to teach ; but of their 
 being the teachers there is not a hint, but exactly the con- 
 trary. Women were not to teach ; all men who could were 
 free to do it, according to their gift, and bound, too, so to 
 minister the same as good stewards. No honest man can 
 doubt it if he takes the word of God. In France, Switzer- 
 ,nd, Germany, it is not now denied by those who have 
 lonsidered the subject. It was considered a whole day at 
 e meeting of the Evangelical Alliance at Berlin. Do not 
 ppose I mean that they act, or mean to act on it. That 
 
 'Ordained' is a more ecclesiastical perversion. In Acta i. 22, it is a 
 ' ', interpolation j fUl tbat is tn tbe Acts is : must one t>e a witness. 
 
20 
 
 is a very different thing. One Gorman professor after an 
 evening's discussion with a third person said to mo : It i' 
 impossible that any upright chrintian can deny it is so ii 
 Scripture, but think of the folly of acting on it after 180( 
 years. But Mr. Innes appeals to the word. Lot bin ie< 
 produce the appointment of any one to preach by eoclesi ^ 
 astical authority. Timothy is directed to communicate th- W 
 truths he has learned to faithful men ablo to teach, but U k) 
 ordain teachers, never, neither he nor any one else. Having !• 
 gone thioagh the teaching of Scripture, let us,* now so* t| 
 what Mr. Innes has to say. Ho will already have ^ • 
 ceived that I believe in a divinely appoii ted ministry, and 
 because I do I do not own his office, his system, which 
 denies wholly that of Scripture. Ho will have seen that it 
 is not from 1 Tim. I draw the proof of such a ministry, for 
 there is nothing about it, but, about the order of the house 
 of God, in which the ministry of all is supposed possible to 
 the exclusion of women, aptness to teach being desirable in 
 an elder ; all the New Testament shews tl ere was such a 
 divinely given ministry. 1 Tim. gives the order of the 
 Church. It is not even said that hands were laid on 
 elders. I dare say they were, as it was the common e:Lpre9- 
 sion of commending to God, and communication of blessing 
 or curse ; but it is not said. Such has boon the wisdo a 
 of God. He knew what was before iY6 Church in the way 
 of clergy. We have how Timothy was to behave himself 
 in the house of God, to have it in order : as to Elders, 
 Deacons, Widows &c. 2 Tim. altered no principle as to 
 ministry, as 1 Tim. established none, it gives individual 
 guidance in the last days and perilous times when the 
 Church should be in disorder. Mr. Innes, I cannot help 
 saying, shews much ignorance on Scripture questions, and 
 even as to what he is attacking. He takes Bishop Lloyd's 
 chronology for gospel as to the date of the two epistles to 
 Timothy, and even founds on it his argument as to the dif- 
 ference he supposes we make between the two. I do not 
 pretend to decide any question in so intricate a matter as 
 chronology, still less so vexed a question as that of 
 the two Timothys. Some have thought the second the 
 earlier. I cannot conceive, why, I confess. At any rate 
 it involves the question of Paul's release from captivity oe 
 which voltlmes have been written. He speaks in ii Tim. 
 of events which it is impossible to find in the history of the 
 Acts, hence are to be sttpx)osed to have happened after the 
 
21 
 
 d of that history. Thus ho had left Trophimus sick at 
 iletus, but when last at Jerusalem Trophimus was there, 
 d he did not touch at Miletus on his way to Komc. On 
 e other hand, in Acts xx, at Milciushc did not expect to 
 lie their face again. However now (in ii Tim.) he saw his 
 ^d to be close. In Philippians he expects to get free from 
 As first captivity, and in Pliilemon tells him to prepare a 
 tod^inj;. It would rather seetn that ii Tim. is the very 
 ktest of all his epistles. If so it is at least four years later 
 than the first, for we have four years of impri^onment in 
 the Acts, perhaps eight or ten or more later, unless the first 
 Was written af cr getting free from his first imprisonment 
 which is full of difficulty if wc take Acts xx. as a divinely 
 given presentiment; but this is partly met by the direction 
 to Philemon to prepare a lodging. These questions I do 
 not pretend to solve here. On the face of the epistles ore 
 gives us the order of God's house, the other tells of depart- 
 ure and perilous times, all the beloved ones of Asia, whoso 
 order he had established, had turned away from him, and, 
 while insisting more than ever on Christian courage, grief 
 comes out in every passage. The Scriptures, and immediate 
 apostolic teaching are the resource when the power of god- 
 liness was gone and its form there, and the house, once set 
 as the pillar and ground of the truth, had become a great 
 house full of vessels to dishonor from which a man had to 
 purge himself, as well as of honor. Nor has Mr. Innes paid 
 attention to the directions of this last epistle touching the 
 last and perilous days. To this I beg his attention, and 
 that of every one who may deign to read these pages. The 
 second epistle to Timothy states that in the last days peri- 
 lous times shall come, which it describes, when there would 
 be a form of godliness denying the power of it. The ii 
 Tim. does not contemplate the godly order of the first 
 epistle, but a state of things in the professing Church ana- 
 logous to the state of the heathen as described in the epistle 
 to the Romans. Ancf it does direct us to have done with 
 it. " From such turn away." It is not a question of break- 
 ing up the Church. Alas ! what Mr. Innes calls the 
 Church, is breaking up by its own decrepitude, by the con- 
 tradictory principles it contains within itself and the absence 
 of all power of self government, and leaving us exposed to, or 
 j;-jrather dragging us unto the deadly evil of popery and infi- 
 " " "ity so that we have to enquire where the resource of 
 individual is when he has to turn away. In ii Tim. that 
 
 
II 
 
 oo 
 
 resource is doclnred to be i»i the Scriptures, not in tho 
 professing Cliureh, and not la the clergy. If Mr. Innes 
 cannot find out the ditferenco between the directions for 
 godly order, i Tim. and the directions to individuals when 
 false profession has brou«i,ht in perilous times in ii Tim. his 
 position must have singularly blinded his eyes. Nor is 
 this all. In the second ch.iptcr we have a totally changed 
 state of the Church contemplated. In the beginning of 
 the Acts we read: ' The Lord added to the Church daily 
 such as should be saved.' To that one well known assembly 
 at Jerusalem, where the whole Church then was, souls 
 were added. In ii. Tim. how diflferent the language. False 
 doctrines arc overthrowing the faith of some; but the sure 
 foundation of ( jrod abides. There is this comfort : ** the Lord 
 knoweth them that are his." They may not be brought out 
 into tiic blessed unity of a manifested assembly as at the first; 
 they may be hidden in the recesses of Rome, or the dark 
 ignorance of Greece ; but the Lord knows them and that is 
 a comibrt. But there is a direction addressed to our rcvspons- 
 ibility also. " Let every one that names the name of Christ 
 depart from iniquity." If a godly man thinks it iniquity to 
 say that a person has received the Holy Ghost, perhaps 
 from an unconverted man, so as to have the power of for- 
 giving sins, and such like, — If his conscience tells him it 
 is iniquity to establish crowds of unconverted men, who 
 hate the gospel, as ministers of God in Parishes, what is 
 . he to do? Mr. Innes may call it breaking up the church, 
 but the word of God commands him to depart from iniqui- 
 ty. But, while this is a direction for individual conscience 
 of the plainest kind, the passage in ii. Tim. goes further. 
 The Apostle gives what I may call ecclesiastical teaching. 
 When the church becomes a great house we must expect 
 tliis evil. In a great house there are all kinds of vessels, 
 and some to dishonour too. What is to be done ? The 
 great house is Christendom. No one thinks of leaving 
 this. We turn neither heathens, nor Jews, nor Mahoni- 
 medans, nor renounce Christian profession, but we are call- 
 ed to purge ourselves from the vessels to dishonor who are 
 in this Christendom. Mr. Innes may object to this, and 
 call it breaking up the church, but the word of God directs 
 us to purge ourselves from these, and we must follow it. 
 But if Mr. Innes cannot see the diflFerence between this 
 and the beautiful order of God's house, as depicted in i, 
 Tim., I repeat, his position must have sadly blinded his eyes. 
 
28 
 
 (livinoly appointed ministry is then not only adniittcd 
 in.siHt«'d on, in contrast with the apostate and anti- 
 ristian prineiple of a clerpy which calls the blessed ao- 
 of the Holy Ghost, and what is admitted to bo such, 
 3gular, and puts a human establishment in its place, 
 ic first of Timothy does not speak of the appointment of 
 jinistry, nor does second Timothy take it away; a di- 
 inel) appointed ministry subsists to this day. The first 
 timothy shows tlie order oftlie house of (iod, the second 
 'imothy tells us what to do in the perilous times of the 
 ist days, when we have to say : " Tlie Lord knows them 
 lat are Ilis." There was order in i. Tim. There is dis- 
 order every where now. The elerj^^y means: the title to 
 iniiiistry depends not on f^ifts and teachin*^ the truth, but 
 on human establishment, in the immensely vast majority, of 
 unconverted men by unconverted men. The Romish 
 priest or Greek ]*ope, is a clergyman. So is Mr. Innes. 
 Mr. Innes is bound to own an ordained man who teaches 
 the contrary of what Paul taught as a brother minister. 
 Why? Because he is a clergyman. But he cannot own 
 tht) one sent of God as a brother minister, because he is a 
 clergyman. He may condescend to own from on high the 
 Holy Ghost's irregular labourers. Let him not be offended 
 by my referring to Romish priests as clergymen. So far 
 does this prineiple of clergy go that if a Romish priest 
 came over to the Anglican body to-morrow, he is owned as 
 in holy orders, and a fellow clergyman. If the greatest 
 instrument God had in the world, who was not a clergy- 
 man, were to come, he could not be owned. It is this 
 horrible wickedness that I reject, and from which I with- 
 draw, the principle of clergy. And I do so just because 
 I believe in a divinely appointed ministry. 1 know there 
 are good men among the clergy, and I love them, but the 
 system is a denial of the Holy Ghost and His work, and a 
 substitution of man in his place. Nor did I ever see one 
 who was a good man, who had not suffered in his soul by 
 being of the clergy, by falsify fng his conscience in solemn 
 things. A few words will suffice for Mr. Innes' select 
 passages. He tells us Christ ordained twelve Apostles. 
 No doubt. What Christ ordained we own of course. Yet 
 even this most assuredly was not the Christian commission 
 nor the church of God. When they were sent out they 
 were forbidden to go to the Gentiles or to any but Jews ; 
 they would not have gone over the cities of Israel till the 
 
i -24 
 
 Son of Man were come. Ts this what Mr. Innes presents 
 to us as ministry in the church ? It was after Christ's 
 death and resurrection that they received their commission 
 for the world, and were then told to tarry at Jerusalem till 
 endowed with power from on high. It is in this character 
 accordingly Paul owns them as Apostles in their church 
 character. He ascended up on high and gave gifts unto 
 men, and he gave some Apostles, &c. But it is natural 
 for those imbued with the idea of clergy to overlook all 
 the do«3trine of the Holy Ghost. As to the seventy being 
 deacons, it is a new notion, not, if I am not mistaken, very 
 long got up, and as absurd as it is new, or if indeed not 
 new, an old absurdity. The seven are not called deacons, 
 but Mr. Innes cannot reject their being so, for the Angli- 
 can service for the ordination of deacons, treats them as 
 such, and they are generally so accounted ; they were to 
 serve tables, as contrasted with the word, as every one 
 knows, they were the ministering servants of the church. 
 The seventy were sent before Christ's face, wherever he 
 was coming, as a last warning to Israel, on Christ's la^t 
 journey up to Jerusalem, to warn their cities that the 
 kingdom of God was come unto them, the devils being 
 subject to them as a testimony. Luke x. 9, 11, 17. 
 No one, 1 conceive, but a clergyman, could have dreamed 
 of connecting this with deacons. I am aware that the idea 
 has been put forth by a Scotch Episcopal examining chap- 
 lain of the name of Farquhar. Whether he is the father 
 of the bright idea I know not. The next proof is that the 
 Apostles ordained a successor to Judas. This is an un- 
 fortunate example. Peter takes up the 109th Psalm to 
 shew that the word of God expressly taught that another 
 was to take his office ; of ordination there is nothing. 
 Ordained is an interpolation, with what good faith 
 others must judge. All that is said is : must be a 
 witness. They, the 120 it would appear, for no others 
 are spoken of in the plural, set forth two as answering 
 Peter's description, and then they cast lots which it is 
 to be, after the Jewish manner, for the Holy Ghost was 
 not yet given, and he was numbered with the twelve. The 
 choice was given to the Lord by lot, and there was was no 
 ordination of any kind, nothing regular. Deacons are set 
 apart, if so we are to call them, to serve tables that others 
 might give themselves up to the ministry of the word. 
 Was this setting apart to rule and teach, ordaining to 
 
serve that others might hcive full time for teaching ? It 
 is the only express case of laying on of hands for office we 
 have in the new testament. True, some of them who had 
 gift became *' irregular labourers,", but n> wit, even of a 
 clergyman, can make an ordination to rule and to teach, 
 out of it. We read that they that use that office of service 
 well, would acquire a good degree, and great boldness in 
 Christ Jesus, would be efficient irregular labourers, as 
 Philip and Stephen were in Jerusalem and Samaria, and 
 in the desert of Gaza, according to the power of the Spirit 
 of God. In Acts XIV. Paul and Barnabas, chose elders 
 (ordained is really a false translation) and rulers in a true 
 scriptural sense ; but of teaching there is no question. 
 There is no doubt that the Apostle appointed several 
 elders as overseers or bishops, by the authority of the Holy 
 Ghost, in churches which he founded. I say, by the 
 authority of the Holy Ghost, because in Acts xx. Paul 
 says of the elders of Ephesus, ** The Holy Ghost has 
 made' you bishops." They were to shepherd the flock 
 of God, (feed is a diiferent word). It is Truifiaive^ not ("^ock^. 
 Yet, as we have seen, it was desirable they should bo 
 apt to teach , and, in such case, doubtless did so. But we 
 also know, by the same apostle, that fsome did not. As to 
 Timothy's being the first bishop of Ephesus, it is a mere 
 fable. Every one who has enquired into these things 
 knows that the superscriptions of the epistles have no 
 authority whatever. Some, as on the face of it 1 Cor., 
 are notoriously false All of them were sentences tacked 
 on by late copyists. But Acis xx. is a clear proof that 
 Timothy was not so ; for the Apostle calls for the elders 
 of Ephesus on his last voyage ; and there is not the 
 smallest hint of any Timoihy, or any other bishop. On 
 the contrary, language is used which excludes such an 
 idea. '''Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over 
 which the Holy Ghos has made you bishops ;" and then he 
 commends them to God, and the Word of his grace. It 
 is not merely the word bishop applied to them, though it 
 does show those whom be owned as alone made their bishops 
 by the Holy Ghost, but he looks to them as the ones to 
 watch for themselves and all the flock, and the fancied 
 bishop is ignored in the most absolute and unceremonious 
 way. No man in his senses can suppose that there was 
 another superior functionary to whom the chief care of 
 the flock was entrusted. Besides, Timothy, and so Titus, 
 
was*callc(l away when his special service was ended. They 
 were employed as confidential agents by the Apostle to 
 complete needed order in new churches, but permanent 
 bishoprick they had none. Gifted saints they were, and 
 the Apostle's own sons in the faith, in whom the Apostle, 
 as he declares, reposed especial confidence. 
 
 As regards the An2:el of the Church, who told Mr. 
 Innes that he wns the presiding officer ? It is quite cer- 
 tain that, where all is plainly stated, there were several 
 presiding officers or elders. The Angel in the Jewish 
 synagogue was not the presiding officer ; that is well 
 known. If the Angel was the presiding officer, — that is, 
 if the original constitution of the churches had been 
 changed, the Spirit of God would not own directly and 
 openly any such change from His own constitution, but 
 gives a symbolical name ; and it was when the Church 
 had left its first love, and was already threatened with hav- 
 ing the candlestick removed ; while its history is pre- 
 served till, having had opportunity to repent, it had not 
 done so, and was threatened with the sorest judgments 
 on one hand, and on the other was found pretending to 
 be rich, and was just about to be spued out of Christ's 
 mouth. I do not believe that the Angel was a presiding 
 officer, but a symbolical representative of the Church 
 viewed in those responsible in it. For this reason, that 
 the way the plural is used in Smyrna, Thyatira, and the 
 interchange of it with the singular, as in ii. 10, 24., so, 
 indeed, the language to Pergamos and to Philadelphia — in 
 truth, I might say, to all the Churches, make it im- 
 possible to apply it to an individual presiding offi- 
 cer, and oblige us to see a s}/mbolical representative 
 of the Church. This is certain that if it was a single pre- 
 siding officer, the Holy Ghost would not own him as such, 
 by any direct name of office, and it was so only when the 
 Church had left her first love, and was now threatened 
 with being cut offi I cannot enter into a discussion of 
 the interpretation of the seven churches here : but the . 
 plain declarations of Scripture present several bishops in a 
 Church, never one. That this crept in early no one denies, 
 when all sought their own not the things of Jesus Christ. , 
 But it was certain that it was not so at first. Acts xx 
 demonstrates the contrary, and we have the best eccle- 
 fsiastical authority, Jerome, confirmed by other so called 
 Fathers, telling us that there was no such difference in the 
 
27 
 
 beginning, no such presiding officer, but tliat it was intro- 
 duced for peace sake, when the presbyters or elders began 
 to seek to make separate parties for themselves. Clement, 
 the earliest post-Scriptural authority we have, knows only 
 presbyters in Corinth, and if we have Ignatius, who boasts 
 abundantly of them, we have not only interpolations, but 
 forgeries, as has been fully proved, to make good the 
 ambition of men. It is a sad history, but a predicted one. 
 Paul's remedy for the very case Jerome speaks of was not 
 Jerome's. Of that the Papal abominations have been the 
 gradual and legitimate growth. Of this we have too many 
 remains, in the pretention to confer the Holy Ghost in 
 priesthood, which as a distinct order is the denial of Chris- 
 tianity, in priestly absolution, in baptismal making mem- 
 bers of Christ, where episcopacy prevails, to say nothing 
 of making the whole population the Church, to feel any 
 confidence in substituting such presiding officer for the 
 Word of God, to which Paul commends us in the perilous 
 times of the last days, and the Holy Ghost by which alone 
 the humble soul can rightly use it, and who alone can give 
 a true and effectual ministry. 
 
 For my own part, then, I am so far from rejecting 
 a Divinely given ministry, that it is because I believe 
 in one that I reject the clergy, which is not a Divinely 
 given one, but the fruit of the Church's departure 
 from the faith. I beg Mr. Innes to believe I have 
 no enmity against him or any godly member of the body 
 he belongs to. I receive them as members of the body 
 of Christ; but in these last days, these perilous times 
 we are forced to see where the sure foundation is. Paul, 
 that is, the Holy Ghost, assures us it is in the Scriptures, 
 not in the professing body. That would come, and it has 
 come, to have the form of godliness and to deny the power 
 of it. The part of the professing body he belongs to is of 
 all others a scene of confusion, and incompetency which 
 confounds beholders. Presbyterianism with its deserted 
 Kirk and U. P.'s, and Free Kirk almost split upon the point 
 of which they should unite with, has little to boast over it. 
 I assure him, I say it with profound and unfeigned sor- 
 row. The breaking up of these protestant bodies will only 
 let in, and is letting in. Popery and infidelity, and I have 
 not one atom of sympathy with the worldly minded ambi- 
 tious dissenters who are joining papists and infidels in seek- 
 ing to pull it down. I must leave all this in God's wise 
 
// 28 
 
 and holy hanu. But saints must in such a time look for 
 some sure foundation. 
 
 They havo it, thank God, in the word of God, in the 
 faithfulness of the true and exalted head of the Church, 
 soon coming to take us to himself and set all things right 
 in heaven and in earth, blessed time to think of. They 
 have the Spirit of God to guide and help them if they are 
 humble, and provision in the word of God for the very 
 times we are in, moral provision for godly rule and order 
 when official has been perverted and corrupted ; not, per- 
 haps, the order of the external Church restored, but the 
 presence and faithfulness of Him who can never fail it, an 
 ark of God which, if its ordered place was in the midst of 
 the camp, can go, a three days journey in condescending 
 grace before the host, to find in the wilderness a place 
 where we may rest. 
 
 I have done. The clergy I reject, because the system 
 denies, in principle and fict, the title and prerogatives of 
 the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, the unity of the 
 body, and the gifts by which Christ, its head, edifies the 
 Church and calls sinners, and has substituted geographical 
 divisions for faith, or sectional membership for membership 
 of the body of Christ, has substituted human arrange- 
 ments of one kind and anotlier for a divinely given minis- 
 try. There is no Scriptural ground of any kind for 
 church membership other than the unity of the body of 
 Christ. None for a pastor and his flock, none for the di- 
 visions which have resulted from the attempts to rebuild 
 the church when, three hundred years ago, excessive ecclesi- 
 astical corruption in the great professing body, led masses, 
 under God's mercy, to break loose from its galling and 
 degrading chains. But the energy of faith which brought 
 about that result has passed away, and the result is fallen 
 into decreptitude, giving occasion to the energetic recru- 
 descense of Popery and the wide spread influence of pre- 
 tentious intellect, and infidelity. It is under this we are 
 now suffering ; but we are forewarned in the Word. I can- 
 not close this without pressing on my reader's attention, 
 though briefly, the warnings I allude to. We have the solemn 
 declaration in Romans xi. that if the Gentile Christendom, 
 which has taken the place of Judaism, did not continue in 
 God's goodness, it should be cut off. Has it so continued ? 
 Was popery continuing in God's goodness ? If not Chris- 
 tendom will he cut off, Laodicea spued out of God's 
 
29 
 
 mouth, as Thyatira punished with grievous plagues, both 
 to give place, as you may see, to the throne and sceptre of 
 Christ, and, it is added in Thyatira, he:.ve ily poLsession of 
 the morning star. The mvstery of iniquity began in the 
 Apostles' days, would continue tiP it resulted in open 
 apostacy, and the M^n of sin, to be destroyed at Christ's 
 coming. Evil men ai d seducers would wax worse and 
 worse. Is there fear then for t 'le saints ? None. Not 
 more than for the saints of Judaism, who, when it 
 fell, were transferred into the Church of God. But 
 their external props will fail them ; they will have to 
 walk by faith as they were ever called to do. The Lord 
 is coming, according to his promises to receive them to 
 Himself, that where He is they may be also. He will 
 gather the wheat, not into a church on earth as the rem- 
 nant of Judaism, but into the heavenly garner. Mean- 
 while they have the word of God, and the Spirit of 
 God ; God himself and the Word of his grace ; a Word 
 able to make the q wise unto salvation. Let them recog- 
 nize every ^Ift God gives, for yet calling sinners, or edify- 
 ing his saints. These will continue in virtue of the faith- 
 fulness of Christ himself, till all the work he has to do is 
 done. The denial of gifts is the denial of the Sovereign 
 title of the Holy Ghost, and Christ's authority in the 
 church, just as the clergy is. 
 
 Appointment to office is lost, the church on earth being 
 in confusion and ruin. If elders are to be appointed, I 
 ask, not only who is to appoint them with authority, and 
 there is no one, but where is the church over which they 
 are to be appointed ? A sectional body may choose for itself, 
 an act of mere human will, but they can have no authority 
 beyond the will of those who have chosen them. They 
 cannot be what elders were in the early church. Bishop-, 
 whom the Holy Ghost appointed over the flock of God. — 
 It is a mere unlicensed powerless imitation by human will 
 over a little self constituted corner of the church, perhaps 
 indeed, of the world. But Scripture has provided for this 
 case also, not officially, but morally. Not only in the gift 
 to rule, but in faithful service. — See 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16; 
 1 Thess. V. 12, 13; Heb. xiii. 17. In none of which is 
 official authority given as the ground of subjection and obe- 
 dience. It is an exhortation involving the spiritual state 
 and duty of the saints themselves,founded on moral grounds, 
 always true and available, aud which if the sorrowful need 
 
30 
 
 arise for it, can be enforced by the Saints themselves 
 according to 11 Th' ss. iii. 14-lG, and Rom. xvii. 17, 18. 
 My object is not nov to enl:ir<^c on this ; I notice it only 
 to shew that the bh ssed Lord lias provided in His Word, 
 even for the ruin in which onr unfaithfulness has involved 
 the church. Only T beseech every saint to look the con- 
 fusion and ruin, which exists, in the face, to see how sure- 
 ly we arc in the perilous times of the last days, to be ready 
 for the Lord, loins girded and lights burning, waiting for 
 God's Son from heaven ; to arise and trim their lamps, and 
 to see what is the sure found ition of God which will abide, 
 and thus build up according to the grace given to them, 
 and leave to the enemies of the Lord, and the selfishness of 
 men and sects to pull down. We shall have enough to do in 
 these days to deliver souls from abounding error, and help 
 them in the path of grace and peace. Only may they re- 
 member, that wherever there is a priesthood, save that of 
 all children of God, there is the denial of Christianity. 
 A priest means one who goes to God for you, is between 
 you and God. Christianity is the blessed truth that the 
 veil is rent, and that through the efficiency of the precious 
 blood of Christ, we can go boldly into the holiest ourselves 
 that through him we have ourselves access by one Spirit 
 into the Father. An ordained, consecrated priesthood is 
 the denial of true Christirnity. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 1.— Mr. Macintosh's words are these : " It was a real human 
 body — real flesh and blood. There is no possible foundation 
 here on which Gnosticism or Mysticism can base its vapid and 
 worthless theories. The early promise had declared that the 
 seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, and none 
 but a real man could accomplish this prediction, one whose na- 
 ture was as pure as it was incorruptible," and he continues largely 
 to tlie same purpose. This was not only published before the 
 attack was made, but is in the publication which forms the sub- 
 ject of accujation. 
 
 2. — My words in Brethren and their Reviewers are these : " A 
 man is held to be righteous in God's sight. Here it is the estim- 
 ate God forms judicially, not the intrinsic state. If the state be 
 such, he will hold it such, but this is impossible for sinful men. 
 Hence if a man partakes of the divine nature, loves righteousness, 
 and, as to the new nature, nothing else, yet relatively and judi- 
 cially because of the old man, he cannot pretend to be, is not in 
 himself truly righteous in God's sight, because of what He is. 
 
31 
 
 " Because of Christ God holds him relatively and judicially to 
 be perfectly righteous, according to his own divine estimate, 
 Righteousness is imputed to him." 
 
 3.— I have met providentially with an unlooked for confirmation 
 of what I have here said as to other Christians, in " The worship 
 of the Presbyterian Church, by Samuel Miller, D.D., extracted 
 by the Presbyterian Board of publication, Philadelphia" ; so that 
 it is accepted so far by the Presbyterian body. 
 
 " The Lord's prayer, given at the request of the disciples, forma 
 no objection to this conclusion. It was evidently not intended 
 to be used as an exact, and far less as an exclusive form. It is 
 not given in the same words by any two of the Evangelists. As 
 it was given before the New Testament Church was set up, so it 
 is strictly adapted to the old rather than to the new economy. 
 It contains no clause asking for blessings in the name of Christ, 
 which the Saviour himself afterwards solemnly enjoined as indis- 
 pensable. After the resurrection and ascension of Christ, when 
 the New Testament Church was set up, we read nothing more in 
 the inspired history of this form. And it is not till several cen- 
 turies after the Apostolic age that we find this prayer statedly 
 introduced into public worship. Accordingly it is remarkable, 
 that Augustine in the fourth century, expresses the decisive opi- 
 nion " that Christ intended this prayer as a model rather than a 
 form ; that he did not mean to teach his disciples what words 
 they should use in prayer, but what things they should pray fot." 
 
 Poor unhappy Augustine ! 
 
 Since writing the above a Montreal Episcopal Journal has re- 
 ported Mr. Hook's teaching a number of doctrines against which 
 it warns its readers. Most of the statements are unfounded ; the 
 principal one arises from the ignorance of the writer, who evi- 
 dently does not know what justification is, and is the result of 
 confounding the perfect putting away of sin by Christ for us, 
 and the absence of sin in the individual. But the statements do 
 not deserve any further notise.