Images de page
PDF
ePub

THE ORIGINS OF THE CHRISTIAN

MINISTRY

A PRESBYTERIAN VIEW

BY REV. B. V. MILLER

IN the following pages I propose to give a brief exposition of Mr. H. J. Wotherspoon's book, The Ministry in the Church, in relation to Prophecy and Spiritual Gifts.1 Although it was published early in 1916, I have seen no review of it in any Catholic periodical, with the exception of that most readable and trustworthy organ of the Catholic Truth Society, Catholic Book Notes. Support from those who are without is always doubly welcome, and Catholics, especially all interested in the question of the beginnings of the Christian Ministry, should be grateful to Mr. Wotherspoon, who is a Scottish Presbyterian, for his contribution to the solution of this important and difficult problem. In spite of its origin in a quarter which would seem to have but little in common with ourselves, this book may well be regarded as a most valuable addition to the library of Catholic apologetics and historical theology.

Even though, on one or two minor points, the views set forth may prove to be not wholly acceptable, this is a matter of small moment, and no more than is commonly to be found in any work of non-Catholic authorship; even if an occasional phrase, here and there, may betray the fact that the writer is not of the household of the faith, or even indicate that on other questions of importance he may hold unorthodox opinions-and such phrases are extremely few-this may even be looked upon as an advantage, since it is evidence that he is not out to grind the Catholic axe and proves him to have no bias in the Catholic direction.

While making no claim to any original research, Mr. Wotherspoon has clearly long been a keen student of all

1 Longmans, 48. 6d. net.

the work that has been done in recent years. He professes to do no more than examine with care all the evidence that has been collected and sifted by others, but he holds that, without overstepping the bounds of modesty, he is entitled to criticize their theories, and even to correct their conclusions when they run counter to the evidence available. He shows throughout an independence of mind wholly admirable; he is not overawed by the glamour attaching to great names, German, English, or Scottish, and, though a Presbyterian, is not ashamed to find confirmation of his views in the work of Catholic scholars, quoting with approval the opinions of Mgr. Batiffol. This, in a Protestant writer, is most welcome, but unfortunately most unusual, evidence of an outlook that is really broad, and an attitude of mind truly scholarly.

For years past nothing in the whole field of religious scholarship has been more distressing than the apparently complete blindness, or at least indifference, shown by English non-Catholic writers to the excellent work of Catholic scholars, and their avid acceptance of everything coming from the German Protestant or Rationalist. One had hoped that a minor result of the war would be the awakening of our scholars to the pretentiousness of so much of the German work, and to the existence in France of a body of Catholic savants who, in all fields of historical science, have proved themselves the equals, and in many respects the superiors, of their German rivals. So far, however, we have seen but few signs of liberation from this intellectual slavery to the German. To take but one example, books dealing with Christian origins are still liberally besprinkled with appeals to Harnack, as to the final authority, but are without a single reference to Batiffol, even in those matters concerning which the German himself had the honesty to admit, a few years ago, that his conclusions had been overthrown by the Frenchman. It is, therefore, with an added sense of pleasure, that we find Mr. Wotherspoon showing himself independent of such a malign tradition, and not afraid, when truth urges, to stigmatize the Berlin professor as a creator of evidence rather than a collector, and bold enough to think for himself even in the face of all the German heavy artillery. I pass now to an exposition and examination of our author's thesis.

There are two opposite conceptions of the nature of

the Church, which are logical, which both make an appeal to the human mind, and in favour of both of which may be alleged argument and authority of quite respectable, but not equal weight and authority. The one looks at the Church as a visible and corporate society, with definite organization, government, and ministry, all given to it in the beginning of its existence by its Divine Founder, Jesus Christ. This is the Catholic view. According to it, all power of rule and government and sacrificial ministry is from Jesus Christ through the Apostles, by means of appointment and ordination. The society is essentially hierarchical, the ministry exclusively institutional.

[ocr errors]

On the other hand, in complete antithesis to this conception, we find Independency, in which the Church is conceived of as adequately given in the giving of Spirit, and as summed up in the fact of that gift, rather than as a divinely organized society, inhabited by the Spirit' (op. cit. p. 4). According to this view association and incorporation are the natural result of impulse, caused by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a number of regenerate individuals. Such association is necessary in order that the working of the Holy Spirit may attain to full activity and efficiency, but it is not dependent upon any divinely appointed organization, much less upon any institutional ministry. It may be combined with both, but in that case, what is gained in outward strength, is lost in the inward spiritual force of logical consistency.

The difficulties of this position have been mainly historical. The whole evidence of Christian antiquity have seemed to be opposed to it. Even within the New Testament writings but little real support for it could be found, as compared with all that most naturally seems to favour the Catholic view. The arguments sustaining it are mainly a priori, coupled with the democratic tendencies of the modern mind. But the deficiency of historical foundation was, in some measure, made good by the discovery, in 1884, of the Didache,' which, on the presumption, very widely adopted, that it was a Christian document of the first century, seemed to show that, in those days, the ministry of the Church was mainly prophetic, not institutional. This document, moreover, has been worked to its full value to prop, co-ordinate and develop a theory that had already been adumbrated by Hatch in 1881, that was formulated by Harnack immediately after the 'Didache's '

discovery, and that may be most conveniently set forth in the words of Mr. C. H. Turner, M.A., in the Cambridge Medieval History1 :

[ocr errors]

These purely local officials (i.e., bishops, presbyters, deacons) were naturally chosen from among the first converts in each district, and to them were naturally assigned the duties of providing for the permanently recurring needs of Christian life, especially the sacraments of Baptism. and the Eucharist. But the evidence of the earlier epistles of St. Paul is decisive as to the small relative importance which this local ministry enjoyed the true ministry of the first generation was the ordered hierarchy, 'first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers,' of which the apostle speaks with such emphasis in his first epistle to the Corinthians. Next in due order after the ranks of the primary ministry came the gifts of miracles- then powers, then gifts of healing-and only after these, wrapped up in the obscure designation of helps and governments,' can we find room for the local service of presbyters and deacons. . . . . The powers of the local ministry were narrowly limited, and . . . to the higher ministry, the exercise of whose gifts was not confined to any one community but was independent of place altogether, belonged not only the general right of supervision and ultimate authority over local churches, but also in particular the imparting of the gift of the Spirit, whether in . . . Confirmation or . . . Ordination. . . . The 'Didache' shows us how right down to the end of the first century, in remoter districts, the communities depended on the services of wandering apostles, or of prophets and teachers, sometimes wandering, sometimes settled, and how they held by comparison in very light esteem their presbyters and deacons. On the other hand most of our documents of the second century . . . shew us the local churches complete in themselves, with an officer at the head of each who concentrates in his hands both the powers of the local ministers and those also, which had at first been reserved exclusively for the 'general' ministry. . . . When we have explained how the supreme powers of the general ministry were made to devolve on an individual who belonged to the local ministry, we have explained the origin of episcopacy.

[ocr errors]

Such in merest outline is the theory of twofold ministry. It is clear at once that it directly contradicts the Catholic view, and that it is subversive of the Catholic doctrine defined by the Council of Trent, wherein it is laid down that the hierarchy of bishops, priests, and ministers is of divine institution. Now, though Mr. Wotherspoon is not bound by the doctrinal decrees of Trent, though, as we may without offence presume, he would repudiate not only the authority, but probably also the competence of those who formulated them, yet on this point his theological conception of the Church approaches very closely to the

1 Vol. i. ch. vi. pp. 144, 145.

2 Sess. xxiii. can. 6.

Tridentine, and it is primarily on theological grounds that he feels a repugnance in accepting the theory of twofold ministry, and a corresponding preference for the theory of simple institutional ministry, provided that the available evidence will support it. His discussion from a theological point of view of the weak points of the former theory, and of the reasonableness of the latter, is an able and persuasive piece of work, which I can do no more than summarize very briefly. In the first place there is a natural unwillingness to ascribe to the Church herself any initiative or authority in what is essential to her equipment. Power of change and control in accidentals may be freely granted. Such power is necessary if she is to be a perennial society, capable of adjustment to all the changing environment of varying times, peoples, secular institutions and human temperaments. But give her the right to establish her own ministry, and at once you make her as independent of Heaven as she would be if she had the power of instituting her own sacraments. For both are equally means of grace. And no system of theology will grant

her that.

Christ is still the Head of the Church. He is to be thought of not only as transcendent to her, reigning in Heaven, but also as immanent in her, and working in her through the Holy Ghost, who is His Spirit. And with regard to the Church, it must be noticed that the Holy Spirit does not create or initiate, He only vitalizes that which is already instituted. At His first great coming at Pentecost, He came as the envoy of the ascended Christ'I will send you another Paraclete '-and He found the Church already in existence, with the Apostles in possession of their mission and their commission to teach, baptize, forgive sins, offer the Eucharist, and make disciples of all men. The Spirit descending upon them gave them no new powers as the legates and representatives of Christ, and conferred on them no new commission. He vitalized and energized the powers they had already been taught, but had understood in part only, or not at all; He roused them to the active exercise of the commission already entrusted to them: in a word, He put life and activity into the institutions already established; He found the Church in being but in a state of quiescence, He made of it, to use, with all reverence, a colloquialism, 'a going concern.'

But

« PrécédentContinuer »