matter.

Observer, Feb. 1, '75.

MR. R. W. DALE ON THE TITLE OF "REV."

I ALWAYS had a vague dislike of the external and formal distinctions which separate ministers from laymen. Without thinking much about them, I felt that they were incongruous with the real character of the ministerial office. What Mr. Gladstone says about the importance of clerical costume for the purpose of "discipline" is very intelligible; but I never like the traditions which constituted the Christian ministry a "profession," and which relied for the protection of ministerial fidelity upon means analogous to those which are employed in the army and navy. These sentiments, however, were too vague and indefinite to lead me to renounce the ministerial title." I did not like to be always suggesting to people that I belong to a particular "order;" but I had no definite reason for indulging in any eccentricity" in the I formed the acquaintance of a gentleman whose knowledge and ability made him a prominent member, and who I knew was officially connected with what is known as the "Irvingite" congregation in the town, the local representative of the "Catholic and Apostolic Church." I saw a great deal of him, but I could not quite make out his position. He was not in trade; he was not a solicitor, surgeon, physician, engineer, or schoolmaster; but was he a minister? He wore no white neckerchief; he did not dress in black. What was heminister or layman? I had to write to him occasionally, and was always perplexed. Ought I to address him as James Esq., or as the Rev. James ? One night, as we were walking towards home together, I told him my difficulty. Are you," I asked, "in orders? Ought I to write to you as the Rev. James

66

or have you some function in your church which may be discharged by a layman?" The precise words of his reply, which was full and characteristically clear, I cannot reproduce; I wish I could. It was to this effect: "Oh, yes; I am in orders, and have been for some time. I am the angel of the church here. But don't address me as reverend.' You Congregationalists and Baptists maintain that the ministers of the Church of Christ should receive no endowments from the State, and that they should not be invested as ministers with any political distinctions. You do not approve of making bishops peers of the realm because they are bishops; you want to exclude them from the House of Lords. We go further. We say that the ministers of the Church of Christ should neither claim nor receive as ministers any social distinctions. What you say should not be done by the law and usage of the State, we say should not be done by the law and usage of society. Ecclesiastical office confers no title to political dignity and power; nor does it confer any title to social position.' Among us the ministers of the church belong to every social rank. Some of them are peers, some of them are cobblers. We do not think that their social rank should be affected by their ecclesiastical office. We cannot ask society to confer a title of courtesy upon a man because the church has invested him with spiritual functions, any more than we can ask the State to confer a title of nobility upon him for the same reason. We take position in the church, not according to our social rank, but according to our ecclesiastical office. Outside the church our ecclesiastical office confers

6

Observer, Feb. 1, '75.

6

no claim to social position. The cobbler is a cobbler to the world, and the peer is a peer to the world, whatever he may be to us. A man need not be, in the ordinary sense of the word, a gentleman,' to qualify him for ecclesiastical office. He may not have the manners, the habits, the training of a gentleman; his ecclesiastical rank really determines nothing as to his social claims. We, therefore, think that his ecclesiastical rank should not be associated with a title implying any particular position in society."

I

may have been wrong, but I thought that there was a great deal of sense in this. The Rev. William Hewgill, in his letter to the English Independent, says, that "only an excessive sacerdotalism, or a morbid sensitiveness, can find anything more in the title than a simple, courteous way of describing a man's position in society as it is determined by the kind of work he does for society." It was precisely that view of the case which first inclined me to waive the claim which the title implies. I know of no particular place in that singular and complex organization called society which belongs to a Christian minister, simply because he is a minister. When my friend told me the reasons for which the ministers of his church abstained from pressing any right to social recognition, it seemed to me that there was no satisfactory reply. The matter, however, seemed a very small one, and not worth troubling myself about.

But not very long after this conversation, it happened that I had to take part in some public services with the minister of a Congregational Church situated among a working-class population on the outskirts of the borough of Birmingham. The church is of some magnitude, containing, I think, more than two hundred members, and in zeal and liberality it is one of the best churches in the town. The congregation numbers six or seven hundred people. The prosperity of the place is owing, mainly, to the vigour, and earnestness, and ability of the present pastor, who held the pastorate for ten or twelve years. But he is an architect; he has his offices in the town like other architects; he was not educated for the ministry; his friends would be startled to see him with a white neckerchief, except at a dinner party; and if you spoke of the "Reverend George I," it is doubtful whether even his wife would know that you were intending to speak of her husband.

me.

He and I, as I have said, were to conduct some services or to speak at some meeting together. He was announced as "Mr. George Imy name appeared as the "Rev. R. W. Dale." The difference struck I did not like it. Did the "Rev." before my name mean that society acknowledged me as a Christian minister? The architect was just as good a minister as I was; why was not he "Rev." too. I had no mysterious power that he did not possess-no higher authority than belonged to him; why was I the "Rev." and he "Mr."? For him to be "Rev." was impossible. If he were to put "Rev." on his card, a gentleman building a warehouse would never think of asking him for plans; and, indeed, if he called himself "Rev." society would refuse him the title. There was no solution to be found in that direction. Then I came to the conclusion that the distinction drawn by "society" between him and me was likely to affect, if not the judgment, yet the

Observer, Feb. 1, '75.

imagination and sentiment of the church; that the fact that I was called "Rev." and he "Mr." might be associated in the minds of even some members of his own congregation with the feelings that, in some sense, I was more truly a minister of Christ and of the Church of Christ than he. It seemed to me that this title, conceded to myself and refused to the architect, might be one of the innumerable influences which strengthens the reluctance of congregations to elect as pastor a man engaged in a trade or profession. The grocer, the draper, the farmer, the solicitor, cannot be a "Rev." while he continues to follow his business; and congregations have the feeling that somehow not to have a "Rev." for their minister is irregular and derogatory to their dignity.

Now it is among those "eccentricities" of mine, which, I hope, the Rev. W. Hewgill will consider "harmless," that I cherish the hope of a time when, in proportion to the number of church members, the number of men separated from secular occupations and devoted altogether to spiritual duties will be much less than at present. I doubt whether any perfect solution is possible of the financial difficulties discussed at Huddersfield, so long as churches are unwllling to elect tradesmen and professional men to the pastorate. There will always probably be need of a considerable number of ministers specially trained in theological studies, and liberated from the cares of business; but in a thoroughly healthy condition of the church such ministers ought not to be necessary for every separate congregation of Christians. In two cases immediately under my own eye in Birmingham, laypastorates have proved a real and enduring success. I want to see them greatly multiplied and this is one motive for declining to use a title which carries with it the implication that in some sense I am more truly a Christian minister than the two friends of mine—“ lay men "-one of whom is an architect, and the other foreman in a pen manufactory, who have been elected to the pastorate in two of the Birmingham churches. It is not for financial reasons alone that I wish to see lay-pastorates multiplied: there are other and far graver reasons for wishing it; but into these I cannot now enter.

66

And now my kindly critics in the English Independent will see, perhaps, that whether my reasons for disusing the title "Rev." are sound or not, they do not require me to renounce, if for other reasons I desire to retain it, my University degree. When I put M.A. after my name, I am not asking society to concede me any position" on the ground of ecclesiastical office; but to recognise the fact that a chartered corporation, empowered by the State to grant diplomas on an examina tion of literary attainments, has granted me the diploma represented by the letters. It is a mere piece of red ribbon in my button-hole, worn for the same reason for which a man wears any other title which the State, or a chartered representative of the State confers.

"But you are asserting your superiority to your lay friends by using your title of M.A. just as much as by using the title of Reverend; this is objected to in more than one of the letters in the English Independent. The objection shows that the grounds on which the title of "Rev." is given up are not understood. In this small matter of having passe la University examination, I am superior to my two ministerial

Observer, Feb. 1, 75.

friends who are in business; but I am not superior to them in my right to be recognised as a minister of the Church of Christ. If I call myself the Rev. R. W. Dale, M.A., half the difference between my description and theirs-the M.A.-represents a fact, though the fact is not one of any great importance; but the other half of the difference-the "Rev "-suggests a most pernicious fiction.

Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Pearson-if the latter has surrendered the title -may have much better reasons than these for what they have done. My own course was taken several years ago, and before the more recent developments of sacerdotalism in the Anglican Church; but those developments have certainly not induced me to resume the professional distinction.

ANOTHER ON THE "REVEREND."

6

THE Christian World says:-" The Rev.' James Fisher, of Wantage, a Wesleyan Methodist minister, suggests to his brethren that it would be a wise and opportune course for all of them henceforth and in perpetuity to repudiate the title of reverend,' as applied to themselves. Mr. Fisher questions the propriety of any mortal man' having such a prefix to his name, and he thinks that its disuse would be a seasonable protest against the apostolical succession assumption of the Anglican clergy."

"NEITHER INVITED NOR EXCLUDED."

We know of no evasion more complete than that of throwing open the Lord's table to all comers on the pretence of neither inviting nor debarring. People who by the teaching and preaching of the Church are declared not to have put on Christ, are invited to attend a service part of which consists in handing round the bread and cup; they are expressly given to understand, both before they come and when there, that without question as to faith, repentance, baptism, manner of life, or anything else, (if they can only count themselves of the Lord's people) they can partake; and the deacons carry the elements to them that they may do so. In this way a man excluded from the church for unworthy conduct is known, week after week, to retain his sitting and receive the bread and wine as before. Upon the plea that the responsibility entirely rests with him he cannot be prevented without a trespass upon his rights and a violation of all logic. This American invention is, like many things in that country, very gigantic; but the vastness consists in its absurdity and in the barefacedness of the delusion. A recent issue of the Christian Standard, which paper records this class of notices without disapproval, reprints the following:

"By an agreement among the pastors of the various churches in this city the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Christian congregations met in the Christian Church building last Lord's day for the purpose of holding a union service.

Observer, Feb. 1, '75.

After some fine music by the choir, the morning lesson was read by the pastor, Eld. Z. T. Sweeney, prayer offered by Rev. A. Parker, of the Presbyterian Church, and the morning sermon delivered by the Rev. Mr. Harrison, of the M. E. Church. At the close of the sermon, Eld. Sweeney stepped forward and stated succinctly the position of his Church on the question of communion. It was that they neither invited nor excluded any one from partaking, and that it was given to the Lord's people to commemorate His death till He came again; for them to examine themselves and partake accordingly. The deacons then passed through the large audience and nearly every one who was a member of any church partook. It was a very impressive and imposing sight, and is a harbinger of that glorious unity of faith when men shall beat their theological weapons into ploughshares and pruning-hooks and learn war no more. Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to

dwell together in unity."

The Methodists and Presbyterians were specially invited to that service, their Reverend Preachers occupied leading positions in conducting it. They knew that the Lord's Supper would be attended to. They were given to understand that it was provided for them as much as for Pastor Sweeney and "his" church, if only they counted themselves among the Lord's people. To say that all this falls short of a real invitation, is to favour a very mean device. Then the application made by Eld. Sweeney of Paul's command to the immersed believers of Corinth (to examine themselves and so to partake) is greatly to his discredit. How is it that he knows not that a command given only to the church does not justify its extension to persons whom he would refuse to enrol in its membership? Not only so, but the command to self-examination has not reference to whether the parties addressed are of the Lord's people, but solely as to whether they discern the Lord's body and blood when partaking of the ordinance. We have not the slightest dislike to communing with Methodists, Presbyterians, and others; none whatever to declaring their church part and parcel of the Church of God; nor are we in the least degree unwilling to receive the unbaptized into the church, provided only we can obtain permission from the Head of the Church, or find apostolic authority for so doing. We profess to be guided by the Bible alone. This is certainly a very rigid profession. It is often unpleasant to be faithful to its requirements, and at times firm adhesion to it does sad violence to what some have termed "heart logic." But we should either openly give it up or stand firmly to it. If we cannot, or will not, bear the pressure of its claims, let us, despising all evasion, have done with it, and let us plainly say so. Then we shall be at liberty to construct a Liberal and Progressive Church," in accord with the tendency of the times. If, in this country, we determine upon this latter course, we cannot do better than send for Pastor Sweeney, and a half dozen other American preachers of like tendency. There are plenty who will be glad to come.

66

NOTES FOR THE SUNDAY SCHOOL.

INTERNATIONAL SERIES OF LESSONS.

ED.

February 7. THE SIN OF ACHAN.Joshua vii. 6-26. The sin of Achan counted to Israel. v. 1. Israel bearing sin cannot stand before enemies. v. 5. Joshua rent his clothes, fell to the earth, put dust on his head, as did the elders. v.6.