ON THE NOMINATION OF PASTORS
ON THE NOMINATION OF PASTORS
Before treating the subject of the ruin of the actual economy, we shall speak a little of the nomination of pastors. Our brother does not wish to insist on the passage of the Acts, the only one which speaks of elders being ordained and which could be alleged according to the ordinary translation which renders it, by the opinion (avis) of the assemblies.++ I have no doubt this was done in the unity of the Spirit with all the body,
+I do not speak of the knowledge of this principle, although this knowledge be of great importance to the well-being of the church.
++This is added in French translations — I think from Calvin down.
but by this expression, “they had ordained them elders,” it is evident that the word they refers here to Paul and Barnabas. If I said in an assembly, I select for you such and such a person to be an elder, could it be said that the assembly had made the choice? The introduction of the words “by the opinion of the assemblies” is purely gratuitous. Our brother says that it is through prejudice that the words have been withdrawn. Take Acts 10:41, where the same word is met with in the original, and let us give it the meaning which it is desired to put upon it in Acts 14:23, and the absurdity will appear: “Not to all the people, but unto witnesses+ chosen before of God by the suffrages of the assemblies,” “or by way of suffrage.” Although in the word used here there is an allusion to the custom of raising the hand in voting, it is employed simply to signify the choice, or rather the designation, of some person. The translation “by the suffrage of the assemblies,” is quite false, for if it be insisted on that the Greek word means to vote by raising the hand, then according to that translation, they voted by the opinion of the assemblies; but it is impossible to attribute, by means of this same word, the choice to the apostles and the opinion to the assembly. If it were a case of vote, the assembly should have raised their hands and thus have made their choice. This expression, to choose by the opinion (avis) of the assemblies, I repeat it, is false in every case. The word is made to carry the sense of choosing by the advice of some other. Persons who raise their hands choose; the word cannot thus be cut in two.
The fact is, that it is simply stated that the apostles chose them elders in every assembly. But our brother says, One can appoint when others have made the selection. That is true; but the question is to know if the others have chosen. I reply, that there is no trace in God’s word of election of pastors; we have only the single case of the choice of elders; and, moreover, this selection was made by apostles or their delegates. Titus had been sent as a delegate of the apostle to fill his place in certain respects: and so the means employed for the appointment of elders ever remains outside a church. There may be many pastors in a flock, provided that God has raised them up and given them, without any selection of man; because pastors
+The translation of Lausanne says “designated.” Why have these words been added, “by way of suffrages,” in Acts 14:23, whilst here they have been omitted?
[p. 167] are a gift from on high; and if this be so, to establish pastors is not the act of the Church.+
Besides, I see no voting by the church in any case sanctioned by the Spirit or the word. We are taught in the word (Ephesians 4) that pastors are gifts from on high which Christ distributes. We see in the history of the apostles that they chose elders for the churches, Acts 14. We find also that the apostle sent Titus, to ordain them in every city, following the orders he had given him — the requisite qualities for a bishop or overseer not being described in any epistle addressed to a church, but only in a letter addressed to an individual, who, in this matter, represented the apostle. We have not a single example of the choice of a bishop or of an elder made by a church, nor of a vote on any subject whatever. The question for our decision is, what does the word authorise us to do in this case? The author of the pamphlet admits (page 70), that the word of God does not speak of the choice of the church. This is already a concession which says much: but he adds, that analogy is in favour of this practice; we have the case of Matthias and the deacons.
As to Matthias, not only was he named before the descent of the Holy Ghost, but it was done on an entirely different principle from that of the church’s choice, viz., on the Judaic principle, which consisted in drawing by lot. As to the deacons, or at least as to the seven who were chosen to serve tables, the analogy is contrary to that which our brother wished to shew. The apostles, having received a gift from above, a ministry of God (a ministry of which it is said, “ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you,” John 15:16), did not wish to mix themselves up with a temporal ministry. And the choice was given to the church for the service of tables, because the church furnished the tables; just as the choice was reserved to God when God furnished the gift. It was on this account that Paul, in order that the ministry of the word confided to him by God should not be suspected, refused to take the money which the churches desired to entrust to him, unless someone chosen by the churches accompanied him to take charge together
+I will not reply to accessory arguments; I shall only insist upon what applies directly to the matter in hand. But I may say, in passing, that, if Deuteronomy 1 is closely examined and compared with Exodus 18, it will be found that these passages state quite the contrary to the conclusion our brother desires to draw from them.
[p. 168] with him. Thus, if the passages quoted are examined, it will be found that the analogy is quite contrary to the conclusion sought to be drawn, and one that upholds the principle I have shewn. But in the pamphlet itself I find a full confession of the true state of the matter.
There are the views of the author on this point. Whilst giving his assent to a passage of the tract which advises not to go beyond gifts, he says (page 106), ‘the Head of the church will be well able in His good time to send teachers, elders, deacons, without its being necessary for us to make them before he sends them.’ That is my thought: I believe it is the thought of God on the subject; but I stop there, wishing to walk humbly, praying earnestly to God for the raising up such men for the wants of the church. I bless God also for gifts, perhaps inferior, but useful, which He deigns to bestow in the meantime, and I act upon the universal principles of the word, which are applicable to such a state of things. See 1 Peter 5:5; 1 Corinthians 16:10-12, 1 Corinthians 16:14-16, 1 Corinthians 16:18; Philippians 2:20, 30; and other passages.
It is no doubt a state of weakness, but if in this state God is waited on, and if He is honoured, “to him that hath, shall be given”; He will honour our endeavour. But this is how our brother continues, ‘In the meantime, let us choose, for the sake of order and decency, governing men to carry on the work, who, according to the gift that is in them, may fill up every day, as well as they can, offices which are not yet manifested.’ It is then acknowledged that, pending God’s action, man’s intervention to fill up offices not yet manifested is necessary. That is the knot of the question. Where is such a thing to be found in the word? Where the trace of such a principle, of such an idea? The result is, that if any true gift of ministry, or eldership, is manifested, the organisation being already complete, it follows, that the provisionary substitute must be deposed from his presidentship — an operation calculated to produce the most painful results that could happen to a body of Christians. Such an act would look like ingratitude and selfwill; by many it would be termed revolutionary, and might nourish in the body habits and dispositions most hurtful to true sanctification. This is what will take place necessarily if one will act previous to God’s action. Should not these consequences be arrived at, then the true elder will remain outside his office, and the faithful will in consequence suffer a [p. 169] proportionate loss. The fact is, that the most ordinary effect of this proceeding is the almost entire prevention of the development of real gifts.+
+Note to translation. — Gifts and local offices are not here distinguished clearly; the principle only is in question.