The Rights and Duties of
Laymen
By J. C. Ryle
"Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus—To all the
saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and
deacons" Philippians 1:1
This opening verse of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians
is a very remarkable text of Scripture. I suspect it receives far less
attention from Bible readers than it deserves. Like the gold of California,
men have walked over it for centuries, and have not observed what was under
their feet. In fact, if some Anglican divines had stood at the Apostle's
elbow when he wrote this verse, I believe they would have hinted that he had
made a mistake.
Now what do I mean by all this? What is the remarkable
point to which I refer? The point on which I place my finger is Paul's
mention of "the saints" before the "bishops and deacons." He places the
laity before the clergy when he addresses the Philippian Church.
He puts the body of the baptized in the front rank, and the ministers in the
rear.
There is no room for dispute about the various readings
of manuscripts in this case. It was unmistakably given by inspiration of
God, and written for our learning. As such, I see in it the germ of a great
truth, which demands special notice in the present day. In short, it opens
up the grave subject of the rights and duties of the lay members of a
Christian Church.
I approach the whole subject with a deep sense of its
delicacy and difficulty. I disclaim the slightest sympathy with those
revolutionary counselors who want us to throw overboard Creeds, and turn the
Church into a Pantheon, in the vain hope of buying off invaders. I desire
nothing but scriptural and reasonable reforms, and I know no reform so
likely to strengthen the Church as that of placing her laity in their
rightful position. One of the best modes of promoting effective Church
defense in this day—is to promote wise Church reform.
What, then, was the position of the lay members of
Churches in the days of the Apostles?
Let us imagine ourselves
paying a visit to the baptized communities at Rome, or Corinth, or Ephesus,
or Thessalonica, or Jerusalem, and let us see what we would have found, and
what Scripture teaches about them. In this, as in many other matters, we
have a right to ask, "What light can we get from the New Testament?"
This is an inquiry which deserves special attention, and
I am much mistaken if the result does not astonish some people, and make
them open their eyes.
I say then, without hesitation, that you will not find a
single text in the New Testament in which the ordained ministers alone are
ever called "the Church," or ever act for the Church without the laity
uniting and co-operating in their action.
Are the deacons appointed? The apostles recommend their
proposal, but "the whole multitude" choose (Act. 6:5).
Is a council held to consider whether the heathen converts should be
circumcised, and keep the ceremonial law? The decision arrived at is said to
come from "the apostles, and elders, and brethren," with "the whole Church"
(Act. 15:22-23). Are inspired Epistles written
by Paul to particular Churches? In eight cases they are addressed to "the
Church, the saints, the faithful brethren"—and in only one case (the Epistle
to the Philippians) is there any mention of overseers and deacons" in the
opening address. Does Paul send instructions to the Church about the Lord's
Supper, and about speaking with tongues? He sends them to "them that are
sanctified in Christ Jesus" not to the ministers. Is discipline
exercised against an unsound member? I find Paul giving directions to the
saints at Corinth, without mentioning the ministry, "Put away from among
yourselves that wicked person" (1Co. 5:13). Is
a man "overtaken in a fault" to be restored to communion? Paul tells those
who are "spiritual" among the Galatians to do it, and does not refer it to
their ministers. (Gal. 6:1). Is an Epistle
written to the Christian Hebrews? Not a word is said about "rulers" until
you come to the last chapter. Does James write a General Epistle? He
addresses the "twelve tribes," and only names "teachers" in the third
chapter. Does Peter write a General Epistle? He writes to the whole body of
the elect, and says nothing to the "elders" until he arrives at the last
chapter, and even then he is careful to remind them that they are not "lords
over God's heritage." As for the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistles
of John and Jude, they never touch the subject of the ministry at all.
Now let no one mistake me. That there was to be a
distinct order of men to minister to the Church is, to my eyes, most plainly
taught in the New Testament. Paul, we are told, "ordained elders in
every Church" (Act. 14:23). See
1Co. 12:28; Eph. 4:11;
1st and 2nd Epistles to Timothy; and Titus. But that "the Church" in any
city or country meant especially the laity, and the ministers were
only regarded as the "servants of the Church" (2Co.
4:5), seems to me as clear as the sun at noon-day.
As for a Church in which the clergy acted alone, settled
everything, decided everything, judged everything, and managed everything,
and the laity had no voice at all, I cannot find the spirit of the shadow of
such a thing in the Acts or Epistles of the New Testament. On the contrary,
while Paul tells the Thessalonians to "esteem their ministers very highly,"
it is to the laity, and not the clergy, that he addresses the words,
"Warn those who are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak" (1Th.
5:13-14).
Before I go any further in this paper, I think it right
to say a few words in self-defense, to prevent possible misunderstanding. If
anyone supposes that I wish to exalt and exaggerate the position of the
laity at the expense of the clergy, and that I think lightly of the
ministerial office—he is totally mistaken. In a deep sense of the value of
the Christian ministry, as an ordinance of Christ, and a necessity in a
fallen world, I give place to no man. But I dare not overstep scriptural
limits in this matter. I cannot refrain from saying that a sacerdotal
ministry, a mediatorial ministry, an infallible ministry, a ministry of men
who by virtue of episcopal ordination have any monopoly of knowledge, or any
special ability to settle disputed questions of faith or ritual such a
ministry, in my judgment, is an innovation of man, and utterly without
warrant of Holy Scripture. It is a ministry which has been borrowed from the
typical system of the Jewish Church, and has no place in the present
dispensation. The Christian minister is a teacher, an ambassador, a
messenger, a watchman, a witness, a shepherd, a steward—and is expressly
authorized by the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, where his duties are
clearly laid down. But there is a conspicuous absence of New Testament proof
that he is a sacrificing priest!
In saying this I do not stand alone. The learned Bishop
of Durham, in his exhaustive work on Philippians, uses the following
language:
"The kingdom of Christ has no sacerdotal system. It
interposes no sacrificial tribe or class between God and man by whose
entreaties alone God is reconciled and man forgiven. Each individual member
holds personal communion with the Divine Head. To Him immediately he is
responsible, and from Him directly he obtains pardon and draws strength" (p.
174, ed. 3).
Again, he says—"The sacerdotal title is never once
conferred on the ministers of the Church. The only priests under the gospel,
designated as such under the New Testament, are the saints, the members of
the Christian brotherhood" (p. 132, ed. 3). This is sound speech, which
cannot be condemned. First published in 1868, it has stood the test of
eighteen years' criticism, and its principles remain unanswered and
unanswerable. To these principles I firmly adhere, and I press them on
the consideration of all English Churchmen in the present day.
I leave the subject of the lay members of the apostolic
Churches at this point, and commend it to the attention of all who read this
paper. It is my conviction that the prominent position occupied by the laity
in these primitive communities was one grand secret of their undeniable
strength, growth, prosperity, and success. There were no sleeping Christians
in those days. Every member of the ecclesiastical body worked. Everyone felt
bound to do something. All the baptized members, whether men or women, if we
may judge from the 16th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, took a direct
active interest in the welfare and progress of the whole ecclesiastical
body. They were not tame, ignorant sheep, led here and there at the beck of
an autocratic shepherd. The best regiment in an army is that in which
officers and privates take an equal interest in the efficiency of the whole
corps. It is the regiment in which the officers trust the privates and the
privates trust the officers. It is the regiment in which every private is
intelligent, and behaves as if the success of the campaign depended on him.
It is the regiment in which every private knows his duty, and is honorably
proud of his profession, and would fight to the last for the colors, even if
every officer fell. Such a regiment was a primitive Church in apostolic
days. It had its officers—its overseers and deacons. It had orders, due
subordination, and discipline. But the mainspring and backbone of its
strength lay in the zeal, intelligence, and activity of its laity!
I hold it to be a canon and axiom of the Christian faith,
that the nearer a Church can get to the pattern of Scripture the better she
is, and the farther she gets away from it the worse.
A mischievous habit of leaving all religion to the parson
of the parish has overspread the country, and the bulk of laymen seem to
think that they have nothing to do with the Church but to receive the
benefit of her means of grace, while they contribute nothing in the way of
personal active exertion to promote her efficiency. The vast majority of
church-goers appear to suppose that when they have gone to church on Sunday,
they have done their duty, and are not under the slightest obligation to
warn, to teach, to rebuke, to edify others, to promote works of charity, to
assist evangelization, or to raise a finger in checking sin, and advancing
Christ's cause in the world. Their only idea is to be perpetually receiving,
but never doing anything at all. They have taken their seats in the right
train, and are only to sit quiet, while the clerical engine draws them to
heaven, perhaps half asleep.
If an Ephesian or Philippian or Thessalonian layman were
to rise from the dead and see how little work present laymen do for the
English Church, he would not believe his eyes. The difference between the
primitive type of a layman and the English type is the difference between
light and darkness, black and white. The one used to be awake and alive, and
always about his Master's business. The other is too often asleep
practically, and torpid, and idle, and content to leave the religion of the
parish in the hands of the parson. When this is the case—and who will deny
it? there must be something painfully wrong in our system.
With every desire to make the best of our Church, I
cannot avoid the conclusion that in the matter of the laity, its system is
at present defective and sub-scriptural. I cannot reconcile the position of
the English layman in 1888 with that of his brother in any apostolic Church
eighteen centuries ago. I cannot make the two things square. To my eyes, it
seems that in the regular working of the Church of England, almost
everything is left in the hands of the clergy, and hardly anything is
assigned to the laity! The clergy settle everything! The Clergy manage
everything! The clergy arrange everything! The laity are practically allowed
neither voice, nor place, nor opinion, nor power, and must accept whatever
the clergy decide for them. In all this there is no intentional slight. Not
the smallest reflection is implied on the trustworthiness and ability of the
laity. But from one cause or another they are left out in the cold, passive
recipients and not active members, in a huge ecclesiastical
corporation,—sleeping members, and not working agents in an unwieldy and
ill-managed concern. In short, our laymen have been left as unwanted
soldiers—they have fallen out of the ranks, retired to the rear, and sunk
out of sight.
Now, what is the true cause of this anomalous state of
things? It is one which may easily be detected. The position of the English
laity is neither more nor less than a rag and remnant of Popery. It is part
of those "damnable heresies" which Rome has bequeathed to our Church, and
which has never been completely purged away. Our Reformers themselves were
not perfect men, and among other blots which they left on the face of our
Church, I must sorrowfully admit that neglect of the interests of the laity
was not the least one. To make the clergy mediators between Christ and
man—to exalt them far above the laity, and put all ecclesiastical power into
their hands—to clothe them with sacerdotal authority, and regard them as
infallible guides in all Church matters—this has always been an essential
element of the Romish system. This element our Reformers, no doubt, ought to
have corrected by giving more power to the laity, as John Knox did in
Scotland. They omitted to do so. The unhappy fruit of the omission has been
that gradually the chief authority in our Church matters has fallen almost
entirely into the hands of the clergy, and the laity have been left without
their due rights and powers. The effect at the present day is that the
English laity are far below the position they ought to occupy, and the
English clergy are far above theirs. Both parties, in short, are in the
wrong place.
What are the consequences of this unsatisfactory
state of things? They are precisely what might be expected—evil and only
evil. Departure from the mind of God, even in the least things, is always
sure to bear bitter fruit. Lifted above their due position, the English
clergy have always been inclined to sacerdotalism, priestism, self-conceit,
and an overweening estimate of their own privileges and powers. Fallen below
their due position, the English laity, with occasional brilliant exceptions,
have taken little interest in church matters, and have been too ready to
leave everything to be managed by the clergy. In the meantime, for three
centuries the Church of England has suffered great and almost irremediable
damage.
Seldom considered, seldom consulted, seldom trusted with
power, seldom invested with authority—the English layman, as a rule, is
ignorant, indifferent, or apathetic about Church questions. How few laymen
know anything about their own Church work! How few care one jot! How few
understand the meaning of the great doctrinal controversies by which their
Church is almost rent asunder! How few exhibit as much personal interest or
concern about them, as a Roman spectator would have exhibited about the
fight of a couple of gladiators in the arena of the Coliseum! How few could
tell you anything more than this, "that there is some squabble among the
parsons; and they don't pretend to understand it!" This is a melancholy
picture; but I fear it is a sadly correct one. And yet who can wonder? The
English laity have never yet had their rightful position in the management
of the Church of England.
You may lay it down as an infallible rule, that the best
way to make a man feel an interest in a business—is to make him a
"part of the concern." The rule applies to ecclesiastical corporations as
well as to commercial ones. The Church of England has lost sight of this
principle altogether. The laity have never been properly employed, or
trusted, or considered, or called forward, or consulted, or placed in
position, or armed with authority, as they ought to have been. The
consequence is that, as a body, they neither know, nor care, nor feel, nor
understand, nor think, nor read, nor exercise their minds, nor trouble their
heads much, about church affairs. The system under which this state of
things has grown up is a gigantic mistake. The sooner it is cut up by the
roots and turned upside down the better. If we want to remove one grand
cause of our Church's present weakness, we must completely alter the
position of the laity. On this point, if on no other, there is great need of
Church reform.