Church Ministry in Kensington A Recent Case of Hieratical Teaching Scripturally Considered — A Closer Reading

Scripture as the Only Arbiter

Gell also challenges Mayow's use of theological language. When Mayow defines 'the faithful' as baptized Christians, Gell invokes Article XXIX, noting that baptized persons void of lively faith are in no wise partakers of Christ. He argues that all theological language except Scripture breaks down under strict use—a principle that underlies his entire critique. This section reveals Gell's conviction that precision in biblical interpretation is not pedantry but a safeguard against doctrinal error.

The Priesthood of All Believers

He takes particular aim at Mayow's reliance on Bishop Hickes, a non-juring bishop, as an authority. Gell dryly observes that quoting Hickes from an orthodox Kensington pulpit was 'a grand experiment upon the historical predilections of your people.' This remark reveals Gell's awareness of his audience and his willingness to use irony as a rhetorical weapon. He insists that the royal priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9) is the only scriptural standard, and that Jerome's saying 'Ecclesia non est, quae non habet Sacerdotes' is true only when reduced to that standard.

Eucharistic Propitiation and Human Invention

Gell also addresses the phrase 'verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful,' which Mayow uses to assert a real presence tied to priestly action. Gell points out that the Prayer-book itself calls the minister a 'minister of God's Word,' not a priest offering sacrifice. He argues that the real presence is a matter of spiritual reception by faith, not of sacerdotal manipulation. This section shows Gell's skill in turning his opponent's own authorities—the Prayer-book, the Articles, the Fathers—against him.

Rhetoric and the Limits of Inference

One notable feature is Gell's willingness to point out minor inaccuracies—for example, that Mayow incorrectly states Jesus appeared to the Eleven between the resurrection and the breathing on the disciples. Gell says he would not make a man an offender for a word, but the error is symptomatic of a larger carelessness with Scripture. This attention to detail reinforces his authority as a careful reader. The pamphlet's structure, with numbered sections and a clear table of contents, mirrors the orderly argumentation of a legal brief or a scholarly disputation.

Gell's pamphlet is best read as a specimen of Victorian theological controversy, where every clause is weighed against Scripture and every opponent's phrase is tested for accuracy. Readers interested in Anglican debates over priesthood and sacrament will find here a model of close reading and polemical restraint. The work does not pretend to cover all aspects of church ministry; it is a focused response to a specific set of sermons. Gell's method—comparing words, contexts, and consequences—offers a lens for evaluating similar claims in any era.

There’s a strangeness in watching a man argue for his own authority with such exacting care, as Gell does here, turning every phrase of Mayow’s sermons over like pebbles. It makes me think of the quieter, older books that simply assume a pastor’s duty, without the need to defend it — the kind of steady presence found in The Pastor: His Qualifications and Duties — Story, Setting & Ideas. That feels like the difference between a debate and a home.