CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 4
I now come to the tract, “Are Elders to be established?”
Its author and those who with him oppose the truth may rest assured that they have something far different to do than to rejoice at the opportunity which the ill-worded sentence of a brother has given them, of falsifying and blackening the principles of “brethren.” They have to do with God, who protects His truth — a God who humbles His own when they have need of it, but who knows how to judge those that oppose Him and His truth.
I now approach the root of the question.+
+Is the Church capable, after abandoning its normal position and its primitive rules, after having committed this sin, to re-enter as of right into that position and to re-establish all that the rules, long ago abandoned, had established, without taking account either of its failure or of the ruin consequent thereon?The question, as I have stated it (and the whole is there) makes us understand without any difficulty the sentence of our brother, M. Foulquier. “Even had there been a positive commandment, I should not submit thereto, bearing in mind the state of the Church.” The form of the statement seems to me faulty, inasmuch as it gives an idea of a refusal of the will to submit; but its sense is very clear, namely, that the actual state of the Church does not suffer the accomplishment of that which such a commandment demands, if it exists in the word, and that in the case where, under the pretence of obedience, elders are pretended to be set up in compliance with such a commandment, he could not submit to it, because of the state of the Church — a reason expressed, moreover, by our brother in a thoroughly explicit manner. The authority of the word is nowise brought in question. That this expression might, for the moment, startle an upright soul, ignorant of what was in question, I can well understand: and it would have been desirable that our brother, M. Foulquier, had paid attention to it. Nevertheless the sense is plain. The manuscript of our brother, M. Foulquier, published by the author of the tract, “Are Elders to be established?” alludes to the passage found fault with, to that which had been said in a public conference, and relates but a portion of it. Further, all are agreed with respect to what was said. Our brother, Foulquier, told me that he added, “It is but a re-establishment of the clergy.” We must remember that those words, on the occasion on which they were so exclaimed against as blasphemous, were spoken at the end of a long discussion on the establishment of elders, as if there had been in the word of God a formal command to that effect. And it was after a discussion on details, on the question of ascertaining if any command to elect elders existed, that Foulquier said, “Even had there ... bearing in mind the state of the Church.” However faulty the expression may have been (and I admit it), I scarcely understand for my part how, if any honestly desired to understand it, he could have misunderstood it, taking into account the subject which then occupied them, and the expressed reason, “bearing in mind the state of the Church.” At the very moment, our brother, M. Kaufmann, said that everyone knew that our brother, M. Foulquier, did not reject any command. Having mentioned the tract “Are Elders to be established?” it is needful to give some statement about the facts. In alluding to some circumstances, the knowledge of which casts a light necessary to the understanding of the question which we are speaking of, I confine myself to that which is rendered indispensable by the tract in question. From the opening of his tract the author declares that M. Foulquier has read the manuscript which he answers in an assembly of persons who share, like F., the opinions of Mr. Darby, and he adds, “None of these persons to our knowledge either disavowed or contradicted it. This silence ... authorises us perhaps to regard it as the more recent expression in Geneva of the principles of our brethren of L’Ile.” This explains to us what the author means by an assembly, and his desire to make the responsibility of the manuscript of M. Foulquier recoil on brethren. Here are the facts: — This manuscript was never read either in the assembly of these brethren, or in any assembly, or in any meeting. Nor only this: the anonymous author had, in the presence of many persons with whom he sides, had conferences with some of these brethren, in which our brother, M. Guillaumet, who was occupied on this subject, had read a totally different treatise, intended to shew plainly the views of brethren on the point discussed. After the conferences the anonymous author had in his own hands the treatise of M. Guillaumet. This is not all. The anonymous author, returning on various occasions to the words of M. Foulquier, as unveiling the principles of the system and rendering the assembly of L’Ile responsible for the principle which he pretended to have found there, and which he denounced as a great sin, one who had been the chief organ of brethren in the conferences addressed the following note to him: “I have just learnt, with much sorrow, that the expression dropped by M. Foulquier, in our last conference, and which is quite personal to him, has been hawked about by many and put forward as a principle, and not only that, but as the principle of the assembly. I declare solemnly, that it is a notable calumny, and that the brethren of L’Ile walk leaning on the word of God and on nought but that word, rejecting all tradition and every human organisation. And, further, our brother has explained to me the sense which he gives to his words, a sense which is very far from resembling that which has been given them. He rejects not the command, but the application made of it. How great the difference! I beg you to give its due weight to this note with brethren, in order to reassure them concerning our brother Foulquier. Adieu! in Him who has said we should pardon seventy times seven times, and who always does it to usward.” This communication was made to the anonymous author long before the publication of his tract. From the moment when the manuscript of Foulquier had fallen into his hands, he abandoned the treatise which had been read at the conference to occupy himself with this one. He published it, or if he will, he gave it a demi-publicity, without asking leave of M. Foulquier, without acquainting him of it, and stating without proof and without foundation that it had been read in an assembly of persons who shared the views of Mr. Darby, adding that no one had disavowed it or contradicted it. As to the manuscript of our brother Foulquier, this is its origin and history: — At the time when the brethren of L’Ile refused to take part in the proposed conferences, a brother, M.L., went to M. Foulquier to persuade them to go there, adding that they would not be clear of the blood of their brethren if they refused to make known to them the light they thought they possessed. On account of those words, Foulquier, after the conferences, shewed to M.L. a manuscript of some pages, to shew his general idea of the ways of God in regard to this question. Later, M.L. asked him if he might shew it to others. Foulquier replied that he might shew it to any one he wished, and that he, Foulquier, would do the same on his part. The anonymous author addressed himself to Foulquier himself on the subject of the words of which so much has been said, asking him at the same time if he followed the inspiration of the Spirit apart from the Bible. Foulquier replied, No; that he maintained nothing but that which he believed authorized by the word; that he did not know how to express himself as well as he could wish. But that as to the root of the matter, he could not withdraw any part of it, and that, whatever might be its form, the objections of the anonymous author would probably be nevertheless the same.
[p. 192] I say distinctly that I believe the root of the thought which has been called in question is perfectly right, and that the whole question is contained in it — a question too serious to be discarded by a mere personal discussion. The expression of it, it is true, was not accurate, and I think some fault may be found in that it had not been sufficiently weighed before God.+ But I think that to reject the thought is a mark of want of conscience and of heart toward God.
+ When I speak of finding fault, I have no doubt but that fault may be found also with my words, but the expression quoted having been made so public, it becomes needful to give it its true weight, and not to approve that of which God does not approve.Thus far had already passed through the press, when I received from our brother, M. Foulquier, without my having in any way desired it, the following confession, entreating me to insert it in my tract. Many considerations made me hesitate to do so. Nevertheless, on the positive entreaty of our brother I did not feel myself at liberty to refuse his request I confine myself then to yielding to his wish, without adding a single observation, but reserve to myself the right to express that which I think with regard to the whole matter, if the occasion demands it. Here is what our brother, M. Foulquier, says: — “I acknowledge before the Lord who gives me light, and before His Church, that I have often been the cause of stumbling to many brethren by the inexactness of my words, and I ask pardon for them from all my brethren, publicly humbling myself for this evil which I have wrought, before Christ and all those who confess His name. I ask their prayers. [Signed] “J. Foulquier.”
[p. 194] It seems to me to be the pretentiousness of human pride at the time when God calls for humiliation and self-abasement. If, in such a state, one had felt willing to own in fact and in heart those whom God had manifested to be true elders in the midst of all the flock of God at Geneva, I could but have rejoiced at it. Souls alas! have not come to that yet. What has been done is far removed from that. It is said by them that they cannot obey their spiritual leaders, unless a preparatory commission and a popular election had established them as such. On what command is the existence of such commission founded? On what command does the election of that commission rest? And on what does the ancient commission itself rest, which settled matters thus?
[p. 195] To insist on the nomination of elders, as if it were an act of obedience, is to betray a want of conscience and of heart towards God, and a plain simile will make it understood. A father desires that his children should go and shew themselves to their grandfather in their clean clothes and in a proper manner, and he orders them strictly to walk on the footpath and by no means to leave it, for fear of dirtying their clothes. The eldest of the boys, whose pride is hurt at the idea of going and shewing himself to his grandfather as a little child, goes and splashes himself with mud whilst on his road thither, and then begins to insist on the duty of walking on the footpath in order to keep himself clean. Is that obedience? Is that conscientiousness? Is that a fitting feeling towards his father? Where, let me ask, is the authority which he claims over his brothers?
The root of the question which has provoked so much indignation is, that considering the state of the Church we cannot act to the satisfaction of those who wish to nominate elders; that this nomination of elders is a proud piece of pretension; that corruption having laid hold on the whole system which God had established by the apostles, men are not capable of establishing anew a similar system, that we cannot now re-found the Church. I speak only of established organization. The Church herself plainly exists at all times.
In reality, what they pretend to do is to lay the foundation of the Church anew.
A fundamental principle in all the argument of our brother, M. Foulquier, is that God never re-establishes the “original state” of things that have fallen into ruin in the hands of man.
The anonymous author denies this principle. Let us see with what success.
He takes the time of the Judges as that of the deepest corruption of Israel, which, under a certain aspect, is so far true that I accept it without raising more difficulties. What then was at that time the primitive state in question? It was that God Himself was their king; just as God Himself points it out to Samuel; 1 Samuel 8: 7, 8; chapter 12: 12. The priest was the point of contact, the bond between the people and God; and God raised up judges when there was need of them.
Has that state of things been re-established? Never. And what is more, it never will be. It would be difficult to find an example more striking and more indisputable of the truth of the principle contested by the anonymous author.
[p. 196] In a certain sense, many things will be re-established under the Messiah; but the counsels of God, as regards the Messiah Himself, exclude the possibility of the return of Israel to the state in which they were under the judges. As regards the priesthood itself, not only another family has been invested with it, but the very position of the priesthood has been totally changed. The priesthood has lost for ever the position in which it was formerly. It continues, it is true, and without it man could not stand before God. But God has said, “I will raise up a faithful priest who will stand before my Anointed.”+
The introduction of the Anointed has changed everything. He it is, the King, who became responsible for the maintenance of order in the midst of the people, who governed them, who judged them, and whose conduct determined so to say the judgment which God passed on His people; 2 Kings 23: 26.
+Here is the great lesson which we find at the beginning of the book of Samuel. The people failed in faithfulness, and this want of faithfulness, as is always the case, shews itself the most in that which is officially nearest to God. God is going to establish the only true remedy for the incapacity, in which man is, of keeping himself in the place of blessing. He is going to set up a Chief who cannot fall short of the glory of the Lord and who will assure the happiness of His people. It is the true King, the Christ. Before doing so, and before manifesting to the full the iniquity which rendered that necessary, or at least before exposing it in full daylight by judgment, God raises up the Spirit of prophecy, which communicates to His elect handmaid (the figure of a feeble remnant desponding and without strength) His power, which lifts up and shall exalt the horn of His Anointed. This grand fact changes all. Christ must be manifested as the support, the stay, of the blessing of His people. Then having shewn these things, God judges the priesthood, and assigns it its place before His Anointed. Nevertheless, He lets the iniquity of His people come to the full, by the contempt of prophecy and by the contempt of God Himself as the immediate King of His people. That is the history of the monarchy of Saul. It is not until the people have rejected God as their King, that the Lord puts into execution His counsels in the setting up of His Anointed. Still, as we well know, He placed the monarchy itself in the responsible hands of men. We know what has been the result of it; and that God was obliged to say that Israel was no longer His people. At the taking of the ark, Ichabod was written upon that people, and on the priesthood whose place was before the ark. At the taking of Jerusalem, in consequence of the iniquity of the kings, Lo-ammi (not my people) was written on all that remained standing of the ruins of Israel. The anonymous author seeks thus a proof that God re-established the primitive state of what is fallen! And Nehemiah, did he re-establish it? Is the fact of being the slave of the Gentiles, of those fierce beasts, the object of the final judgment of God, and at the same time a manifestation of that which the judgment of God had poured out on that people whose King He had Himself been, is this a proof that God re-establishes the primitive state of what is in a falling condition? Let the conscience of a man, endued with spiritual intelligence, judge of it.
The anonymous author asks, “At what time did royalty fall?” and he answers at once, “It was under the reign of Saul.”
Plainly Saul (asked for by the sin of the people, although allowed of God) is not the monarchy according to the will of God. David and Solomon are those whom we see in that character. It is in Solomon that the fall of the monarchy is shewn. God’s patience was longsuffering for the sake of His servant David. The immovable promise of God to the posterity of David cannot fail in the Person of the Christ; but it is quite clear that the monarchy has never been re-established in its primitive state, and that on the contrary, as far as this monarchy was confided to men in the flesh, it has been judged by God; that, after long-enduring patience, God has put an end to it, and that at the same time He has put an end to the relations of His people with Himself.
Does the anonymous author think that the primitive state of the people was re-established in the time of Nehemiah?
In order to present to the people the Messiah, His Son, come in the flesh, and to place Israel under responsibility on that point, as He always does before accomplishing His designs of grace, God preserved the tottering remnant of a people enslaved by the Gentiles. Was this the primitive state of that people? Was it their primitive state to be slaves of the Gentiles? Was it for this that God had redeemed them from Egypt? Was the name of Lo-ammi recalled? The state in which God called Israel “not my people” (Lo-ammi), was certainly not the primitive state of the people of God. At the command of Cyrus, His king, a residue of the people go up to Jerusalem,+ whilst Daniel, the type and sign of the true position of the people, remains at Babylon, and at the same time tells before God their history according to the counsels of God. The altar was re-established by faith. It was on the one hand the grace of God, and on the other in man the faithfulness which recognized Him in his difficulties, as his safeguard and wall of defence. Look at that beautiful passage, Ezra 3: 2, 3. The people of God are always in their right place when they adore God and recognize Him as their surety and strength.
+It is important also to remark here, that if, as the anonymous author affirms, Haggai did not prophesy before the altar had been set up again, Jeremiah nevertheless had previously announced the duration of the Babylonish power, that Daniel had understood the number of years at the end of which the desolations of Jerusalem were accomplished, and that he had received, as the answer on the part of God to his intercession, the revelation of what was to take place for the rebuilding of the city, for which Cyrus himself gives the order in these terms: “The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah.” Ezra 1: 2. In that I have not the slightest doubt. This just man whom God had raised from the East (Isaiah 41: 2, 25; chapter 46: 11-13), acted on behalf of Him who has said of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” God desired that the order should go forth from the place where He had placed the government of the earth (Daniel 2: 37, 38) when he said, “Lo-ammi” to His people. Haggai and Zechariah encouraged the faith of the people in inviting them to build. The order for it had already been given, and given on the part of him, to whom God Himself, in consequence of the unfaithfulness of His people, had expressly confided the care of them. The anonymous author must have forgotten all that part of the word. At least, he has not profited by it, and he did not know how to commit himself to the wisdom of Him who, on even this point, has confounded the iniquity of the Jews, who availed themselves of the fruit of their sin to perplex Him, in exhorting them to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. For, according to the providence of God, Caesar was the heir of Cyrus as regards the power of the world, if he was not the heir of his piety in recognizing the commands of the Lord.
[p. 198] It is quite another thing to pretend to re-establish, according to the order of the dispensation, that which has been lost. Could he re-establish the kings? Did he place Zorubabel on the throne? By no means. That would have been to have disowned the judgment which God was passing on His people. Did Nehemiah dare even to put in order the priests who could not trace their genealogy? No; he put them aside.
Read Nehemiah 9: 36, 37 and you will see how far the primitive state had been re-established.
The anonymous author wishes to distinguish between the dispensation and the political state. That is really too bold for a reader of the Bible. Was the subjection of the people of God thus to the Gentiles only a political affair? Had the king of Israel no connection with the dispensation? God had abandoned His temple and His throne, and had confided to the Gentiles the power on earth, in saying of Judah, “they are no more my people” (a word which will not be withdrawn till the return of Christ); and they go on to say that it bears no reference to the dispensation but to the political state of the people! This is too violent! What is the political state of the people of God on the earth apart from the dispensation?
[p. 199] Must we then alas! overturn all this to re-establish elders? For my part, I believe that we have the assured promise of the Saviour, who changes not, that He will be always in the midst of two or three met in His name, so that we always have the right to raise our altar. It is our duty. We are always bound to recognize God. Hence by His grace I ought to do all that He may give me the power to do for His glory. To work for Him, He must send us for this object.
As to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the midst of the people, the meaning which the anonymous author attributes to the passage, Haggai 2: 5, is totally foreign to it. God had never withdrawn His Spirit from His people, although He had judged and punished His people (Nehemiah 9: 20). The Spirit instructed and directed the people still. (Compare Isaiah 53: 14.) But it is certain that, in a sense different to that which we have just given the passage, the Spirit of God has not dwelt in the midst of His people till after that Jesus was glorified.+
As to slavery, it is certain that in certain respects the people of God can be in slavery. At the very epoch of which the anonymous author speaks, in saying that Israel was not under the slavery of Satan, “since,” etc., Nehemiah says that he was the slave of kings whom we know to have been the instruments of Satan, like wild beasts. Even were I a child of God, if I put myself under the directions of Rome, led away by the seductions of the enemy, I should surely be under the slavery of Satan, wrongly if you will, but I should be there.
The question is to know, if it would not be the same sort of thing in the case where one puts oneself under elders, who have been chosen apart from the will of God. I say neither yes nor no. Nothing is more simple than what is said of it. The idea that a child of God cannot put himself under the slavery of Satan is a dangerous error.
The remark of the anonymous author in section 17 is totally wrong. The priesthood had been the centre of unity, it was so no longer. The monarchy had become the centre.
+See John 7: 39; ch 14: 16, 17, and many other passages.
[p. 200] As to section 20, with reference to the difference in the directions of God (Isaiah 37: 33; Jeremiah 25: 8, 9), the force of the argument is not apprehended by the anonymous author. The texts are cited quite fitly to shew the principle in question; and that which the texts shew is that what God authorizes at a given moment, does not necessarily become a rule for those who are in a different state. To apply in this state an order of God, is not to have consciousness of one’s sin; it is as if one pretended to walk on the footpath to keep oneself clean, when one had already purposely splashed oneself off the footpath. The worship of Cain was “sin,” because he took no account of his fall. To elect elders, is not to obey; it is to pretend to have the power to do that which the primitive Church did, that which the apostles did.+
As to section 25,++ if we take popery as an example, all the weakness of the arguments of the anonymous author is at once apparent. There Satan governs clearly in the Church under the appearance that that form is one approved of God. It is plain that the anonymous author does not understand what the power of Satan is, nor that Satan can exercise a fearful power, even over the children of God, if they remain in a system where this power acts, and the rather because it is veiled from them, and that they themselves conscientiously hold this system to be the Church of God, thinking that to remain in it is to obey the authority that God had established in the Church, and to keep the unity which ought to be found there.
+As to the absence of proofs drawn from the New Testament, for which the anonymous author reproaches the writing of Foulquier, a few words will suffice. The manuscript of Foulquier contains only a short statement of principles drawn up for a brother. The anonymous author had heard read in the conference a document which, while the work of a single brother, was clothed with the character of being the answer on the part of all; a document furnished with proofs drawn from the New Testament and which is a recapitulation with quotations of all contained in Acts, and epistles bearing on the question of the ministry. At the request of the anonymous author this manuscript was handed to him and he examined it. Afterwards the writing of our brother M. Foulquier fell into his hands. These facts are the best answer to the accusation contained in the following words of his tract, page 20: “Thus, dear brethren of L’Ile, you leave us no other alternative than to believe your word, or to suffer by our refusal the most terrible judgments of God!!! We ask of you examples of biblical commands and you give us human arguments.”
++It is important that the reader should remember that the division of the tract of Foulquier into paragraphs is not his, and that frequently it injures the sense and cuts the thread of the ideas.
[p. 201] I understand that the anonymous author pretends to escape, in that which he does, from this power of Satan. But to set oneself in principle against the thought expressed in the paragraph of Foulquier, which occupies us, is to deny that which spiritual intelligence ought to understand and recognize as true.
“It is clear that if the adversary gains possession of a thing which God had placed in our hands, to desire to retain it is to remain so far under his power.”
That is clear, if we preserve that which Satan makes use of in the exercise of his power; so far we remain under that power. This is so plain that the proposition demonstrates itself.
That nevertheless is not a sufficient answer. The anonymous author may answer, and does answer in fact in one place: I wish to keep nothing. The Church has not kept the scriptural system. The clergy is of the devil. I want none of it. I want to re-establish elders, such as they were at first. I, for my part, want to begin anew the Church at Geneva, on the primitive footing.+
One can answer, Your elders will be always the clergy. One can answer also, God has given you no mission for that; an answer which we must justify, as to the first point. As to the second, it is for the anonymous author to produce his title and to prove his mission, or that of those who have undertaken that work. If they do not gather with Christ, they scatter.
Let us examine in detail the anonymous author’s objections. Alas! all here is sophistry. He asks when the apostasy begins. Well! we will say with him that the germ of it existed at the epoch which is spoken of in these terms, “The mystery of iniquity doth already work,” 2 Thessalonians 1: 7. After that epoch, says he, the apostle desired there should be deacons. Then our author lets us see that the Church was in a bad moral state in many respects when the apostle directs Timothy and Titus to set up deacons.++ Be it so. He asks in consequence, “How does this same disorder impose upon us at this day the obligation of putting aside this institution?” Finally, he adds, as to the setting up elders, “This state of failure does not dispense with our duty of preserving them in our turn.”
+This is to contradict himself; for he insists here on the preservation of the institution. The fact is that the institution exists no longer. But we may use the word “preserve” in an equivocal manner, because the institution is mentioned in the Bible, which is of everlasting authority. In fact, that of which the Bible speaks, exists no longer. There cannot be a better proof, than that the anonymous author is compelled at this time to establish it anew.
++This was not the mission of Timothy, but we will touch on this later. It is historically very probable that the decline of piety caused the institution of elders to become more prominent.
[p. 202] What an argument! The faithful are in a sad state. Officers have been established to reduce it to order. That is the reason why, when officers, having possessed themselves of the rights of the sovereign, have become the source and instruments of disorder, it is needful to keep them. That is a convincing argument! Also the anonymous author must change totally what Foulquier said! He makes him say that this institution puts us under the power of Satan, because we live in a dispensation in a state of failure. Foulquier said, If the institution itself is under the power of Satan, in that case to retain it, would be to put ourselves under that power. To maintain the institution when it was a barrier against corruption, or to maintain it when it became the source, the power, and the expression of it, these are two very different things. But that is not yet all.
They wish not to give up the establishment of elders, and to maintain it in its turn. Ah! I ask, What is it that the anonymous author retains at Geneva? Are elders established? Where is the institution so dear to him? It has no existence, and, according to him, it is centuries since it ceased to exist. The test consists then not in maintaining but in re-establishing it, in creating it anew. On the other hand, there cannot be any question of giving it up; we cannot give up that which has no existence. There is nothing then which we can give up.
This institution is not then to be maintained but to be produced anew. Our author thinks that his colleagues and he have enough creative energy to do that which the apostles did in the Church.
The following facts will shew us how they are in a state to imitate them.
First, There has been a commission charged to draw out a constitution for the Church.
[p. 203] Secondly, By this constitution, the Church confides its administration to the assembly of the elders. (Art. 14.)
Those who have given their adhesion to this constitution being considered to compose the Evangelical Church at Geneva, they must needs have elders. They are called together to elect a commission, to be charged with preparing the difficult and important task of the election of elders. There is no enquiry either if there be men fit to be elders, or if the elders desired of God for His Church at Geneva are to be found in the midst of that which takes the name of the Evangelical Church. To obey the word of God, this Evangelical Church is called on to have a presbytery; it ought to choose those whom the Lord calls to be elders or bishops in the flock. What flock? Is there more than a sect there? It is natural that those who have placed themselves at the head of the movement should direct it. Let us suppose even that some will seek to add some persons for the purpose of giving a counterpoise to this establishment of clergy, and that others will oppose it. Is there the slightest resemblance between this and the Epistles to Timothy and to Titus? If not, why speak so loudly of a positive command? Would this positive command be to judge by the facts, to reinstate you in the clerical position, which you have just lost and which you still love? Would this command be to make a trial of a new sect and to attach oneself to it to see if that attempt would succeed? The Spirit of God never makes attempts. Do you think that one who walked after the Spirit would try it? He obeys when he has light; and when he has not, he waits. Do you think that, finding brethren occupied in the midst of Christians assembled out of the world, watching over them, devoted to their service, caring for their souls, and blessed by God in their labour, I should question their service? Never. But, when I see a special class of persons raising the pretension of founding a church, preparatory commissions, and others to install men in their places, and that they appeal to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, whilst accusing me of disobedience to the word of God if I do not submit, I hesitate. I cannot either recognize a like pretence or submit myself thereto, as if it was to yield obedience to the epistles, which they bring forward.
If the author deceives himself, if it is not to assemble with Christ (and if it be a false pretence, it is certainly not to assemble with Christ), it is then to scatter. He presents unity, which we all desire, under the condition of recognizing the elders. He will pardon me if I hesitate. He accuses me of being disobedient in my not recognizing that he has sufficient authority to create them. For it is just this. That I should obey leaders [given of God], well and good. I will do it with all my heart. But that a command to obey implies the power to create that which we are to obey, is going rather too far.
[p. 204] What we ask of you is the command to make elders. We quite recognize the biblical command to obey them. But at this time the elders whom we ought to obey do not exist, and that is the point on which we are all agreed. So to demand, as you do, that we should shew a biblical command to reject the institution of elders, when that institution is no longer in existence, is really to say nothing. I repeat it: I reject nothing. Where are the elders? Ah! says the author, there are none. How then reject them? But we want to make them, says he. I answer, That is another question. Has God sent you for that? Where is His command? I await it.
But, that all may come to nought rather than reject the setting up of elders, the anonymous author asks us why, if the ruin of the Church hinders us from electing elders, we preserve baptism and the Supper. I ask him, in my turn, Have those two things ceased to exist? No. I only have to withdraw myself from the additions and abuses which corrupt them. Besides, in putting them in practice, I create nothing; neither elect nor set up anyone; I make use of no authority.
Pardon me, says the Papist or the Puseyite, and even often the Protestant, in consecrating the Supper you use authority. You arrogate it to yourself in preaching the gospel. What authority have you for that?
I stop. The question is solemn. Am I under the alternative, either of rejecting these privileges and blessings, or of accepting them with every sort of corruption and vitiated by grave errors?
I examine my Bible seriously, and that is what I have done, and I find all liberty. I open it, and the clergy which have corrupted all that, is not recognized there. It teaches me that I may enjoy them freely.
I say then, as regards these things and others like them, I have withdrawn myself from under the slavery of Satan. Yet more, I will recognize, as far as lies in my power, those persons who bear, even in the face of many imperfections, the marks of being overseers. If they insist on the clergy, and if they deny the unity of the Church, I cannot walk in such a path.
[p. 205] As regards the promise of the presence of Jesus in the midst of two or three met in His name, it is not I who institute anything, if I meet with others. It is Jesus who accomplishes that which He promised. The interpretation of the anonymous author is surely totally erroneous. He strives to deprive us of all.
Happily we, with all the Church of God, have too often, unworthy of it as we are, had experience of the faithfulness of Jesus, to be troubled with this interpretation.
It is a mistake to restrict to discipline the scope of this promise. It is, on the contrary, one reason for which discipline thus exercised is recognized by God; and that reason is, that Jesus is there. But this precious declaration is applicable, and more directly applicable, to requests made in similar circumstances than to discipline. It is a fact always true that, where two or three are met in the name of Jesus, Jesus is there. It is a general declaration given as a reason for which discipline is valid. For, says the Lord, where two or three are met in my name, there I am in their midst. Nothing more simple. I have nothing then to recognize except that the interpretation is wrong.
I have already spoken of Nehemiah’s altar. The passage from Jeremiah proves nothing, unless this principle, namely, that the Lord can put aside that which He has Himself established. In fact, that has come to pass as regards the elders. The question is simply this, Is it the will of God that we should re-establish any anew officially? As to the altar, we have it, and we have it restored through grace. We adore with joy around the table of the Lord. We can do the same in everything, which is not a pretension to that we do not possess.
The anonymous author has marred the meaning of section 28, by separating it from the sentence of section 27, to which the section 28 relates, and which shews very clearly that it has reference to the word of God, but that the power and operation of the Holy Spirit are necessary to give us discernment.
Section 27 speaks of the light of the conscience, of the light of the law, of the prophets, and of the light of the gospel.
Does the anonymous author deny that the witness of the Holy Spirit is necessary in these very times? If he is of this opinion, nothing will surprise me.+
+When he says, he will believe until the dear brethren expressly deny it, that these brethren direct themselves by the Holy Ghost in the absence of the testimony of the word; the answer to it is this: At the moment when he was writing those lines, he had already for some time in his hands the formal denial which he demands; and as a proof, in a long letter in answer to this denial he complains of the strength of the expressions in which this denial was couched. The letter, which contains this denial, is in a previous note.
[p. 206] To quote the conduct of Diotrephes as a sufficient proof that he was an elder, is a curious way of attracting us to this species of authority. Let us congratulate the preparatory commission, that a like argument has not a shadow of a foundation. There are, alas, but too many Diotrephes, without its being necessary to have established elders where to produce them. We can hardly believe that our author seriously wished to say that the fact of desiring to be the first, and in consequence not to receive the apostles, proves to him that a man may be an elder. He asks if we should not separate ourselves for the cause of the presence of Diotrephes. And why separate ourselves from the Church, because it contains an evil man? For my part I would never separate from anything, of which I could have an idea that it was the Church after having left it. Besides, I do not believe that 3 John 10 means “When I come I will shew him what he has done.” Martin employs, it is true, this expression: but upomneso rather means, I will remember that which he has done, or I will make him remember that which he has done, without precisely stating what the apostle proposed to himself to do when he had come.
As to the explanation of the seven churches of the Apocalypse, this is scarcely the place to give the interpretation of them. It would be writing a book. It is clear that when one states that “the angels of the churches can only be their councils of elders,” one can draw what conclusions one wishes. This meaning of the word “angel” is neither that of the word nor that of tradition. It is beyond doubt that, in the word, angel does not mean a council of elders, and tradition also gives a totally different meaning.
The growing failure of the seven churches is a question of interpretation with which I shall not occupy myself here. The anonymous author makes confusion in that which he says of it, for it is evident that the fact of being a candlestick of gold, in no way hinders the fact of failure already pointed out to Ephesus (”remember whence thou art fallen”), and does not even hinder it from being spued out of the mouth of the Lord Jesus, that which was to be accomplished with respect to Laodicea. In that which follows he makes such a confusion between the state of the universal Church, to which the question of failure applies, and the local churches, in which there were elders, that a few words will be enough to shew the weakness of his argument.
[p. 207] We may take the seven churches as churches; or we may, with many Christians, consider them as a prophetic history of the Church as regards its moral state here below. The author says, as regards this last point of view, the elders and the churches ought to exist even to the end. But this is complete confusion. For in this last view we have ceased to regard these chapters as being occupied with the seven [local] churches. The Spirit makes use of it to shew the state of the professing Church in the course of ages.