CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 5
At last we come to that which we asked. The anonymous author alleges a distinct command. Titus was left in Crete to appoint elders. That is clear. No one denies it. But here is the question.
How does that authorize it, or, if he prefers it, how does that authorize some believers in Geneva to appoint them? It is very certain that it was not believers who had the power to appoint elders; for had it been so, it was needless to send Titus to Crete to do it.
It was an act for which the believers were not competent, and for the accomplishment of which the presence of the faithful companion of the apostle himself was necessary.
What is there that shews that the anonymous author and the preparatory commission have that competency? They say so, but that is not exactly enough to make us receive it. The order of Paul to Titus speaks evidently of a commission confided to a certain person left there on purpose, because the thing which was the object of this commission could not be executed without him. I ask the reader if that is not the natural force of this passage: a conclusion which the character of Titus supports. The anonymous author tells us that it is “a positive order, a very clear command of the Lord, given by His apostle, not only to Titus, but to all those who later would be called by the Holy Spirit to lead the Churches of God.” This term “to lead the Churches of God” is rather doubtful. Does the author wish to say that the elders of one town have a mission to establish elders in all towns, and that they have a special mission for that? Now that was undoubtedly the case with Titus. He had been left in a peculiar case to set in order the things which the apostle had begun and was furnished for that purpose with the authority of the apostle.
[p. 208] Have the elders a like authority? Are they charged to impose rules on other churches, and furnished for this purpose, with the authority of the apostle? Now that was the case of Titus. And, if one part of the command be binding, why should not the other part be equally so? It is the same authority which is in exercise. The apostle, in imposing on Titus, without any other direction, the task of setting in order that which remained to be set in order, shewed he had confidence in his capacity to do it in a fitting way. It is just the same as to the appointment of elders, which rests exactly on the same foundation. If the author is authorized to appropriate to himself these things, the pope has not less reason to take to himself that which the Lord confided to the son of Jonas.
Many things had been set in order by Paul; others were to be so by Titus; that is, all that remained yet to be set in order. In doing so, Titus used an authority in the exercise of which he could act in a competent way, which gave to his acts the same authority as the acts by which the apostle, whose delegate Titus was, had already set in order other things.+ Had all elders this mission? Was this command always binding? The anonymous author cites not one word of scripture to shew us that this command applies to Christians of the present day. But, says he, it is clear it is a binding command at that time, for he tells Timothy in what way one ought to conduct oneself (not “to behave thyself”) in the Church of God. This point has been already discussed. But, as it is an important point, and the sole and solitary foundation of the author’s system, it is worth while examining it again.++
+This argument has so much the more power that in Acts 14 it is the apostles themselves who appoint the elders.
++This is what I said in my answer to M. Rochat. I take a similar case. My son is chosen a counsellor of state, and I write to him to explain to him how one ought to behave oneself in the affairs of the state. This shews, according to M. Rochat’s way of reasoning, that every citizen may at any time exercise the function of a counsellor of state, because I have told my son how one ought to behave oneself, etc.
[p. 209] We do not doubt that elders had been established in the Church. We wish even to realize and respect all that is possible to be realized of their work in these present times. Brethren have always acted according to this principle,+ on certain occasions with more energy than on others.
I have frequently declared this in the controversy which had taken place: the question of elders has never been a capital point in my eyes. Nevertheless I have always recognized so much of it as existed, and when the occasion offered, I have sought to give activity and development “to that excellent work.” By the grace of God I will do so still, giving to it all the energy which He may grant me. In certain places it has been in exercise happily and with blessing. In others it would be a great blessing if God in His goodness would raise up the instrument. But if, because the name of clergy yet inspires repugnance, it is wished under the name of elders and under the pretext of obedience to re-establish the clergy, I do not let myself be deceived by words. When I am told that I can neither obey the elders nor recognize them (1 Thessalonians 5: 12, 13), unless men have officially set them up, I cannot trust it, although I am told that it has no more anything to do with clergy. I do not see the action of the Spirit of God in the preparatory commission. This commission takes the place of the Holy Ghost; and in taking it, it denies Him, even if they are not aware of it.
And as regards the command itself, the commission with which Timothy was charged, had not as its object the establishment of elders, nor did the apostle give any command like it. Paul, on going into Macedonia, had begged Timothy to remain at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1: 3), a town in the Church of which elders existed, the establishment of which is never mentioned in the word; 1 Timothy 5: 10, 17-19. And see in what terms the apostle expresses the special object of the mission of his son Timothy, “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.”
+Since the beginning (I quote this as an historical fact), those who amongst brethren occupied themselves with souls and looked after them, met together in order that they might do so under the oversight of the Lord, and still do so when the opportunity offers. In places where circumstances have weakened this work I have always sought to give it energy.
[p. 210] Then he enlarges on certain points over which Timothy was to watch for the purpose of putting them in order. In explaining himself on various subjects, he enumerates the qualities and gifts desirable in a bishop. But before entering on all the details of that which was fitting for the Church of God, for the Church of the living God, over which he was thus to watch, the apostle says, My son Timothy, I entrust to thee, I give thee (paratithemai) this command, this charge, according to the prophecies which have been made in former time concerning thee, in order that by them thou mayest war this good warfare. It was a charge confided to him, and for which he had been designed by express prophecies; and consequently, when the apostle was to leave Ephesus, he leaves Timothy there to preserve order, in virtue of the charge he had in the house of God. Finally, after having given him the directions necessary, about a certain number of things, he adds, “These things write I unto thee [not to the Church nor to the elders], hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,” etc.
I ask, Was not the commission entrusted to Timothy a special one, for the carrying out of which the apostle gave+ him the necessary instruction? The apostle says, “If I tarry long.” What matters his return if this instruction concerned at once the behaviour of one particular flock, and that of the universal Church in all times? It is true that since the apostle teaches us in what manner Timothy ought to make Christians walk, this ought also to direct us in the things that concern us, although Timothy was no more there to insist on these things. That is plain.
+It is, as I think, a bad translation to say “In order that thou mayest know how one should conduct oneself,” etc. It might have an appearance of exactness; but in following the spirit of the two languages, this translation does not give the sense. The Greek does not express the word “oneself.” It would be more correct to say, “In order that thou mayest know how to conduct thyself,” or “what conduct is fitting in the house of God.” So it is instruction for Timothy’s conduct in the Church, although Timothy had to be occupied with the conduct of others. “That thou mayest know how others ought to conduct themselves,” would be complete nonsense if he was speaking of any other thing than overseeing.
[p. 211] If Timothy was to watch that the widows were not to live at the expense of the Church, when they had relations who could support them, that remains a rule for the relations of widows, although Timothy be there no longer, because the instruction which was addressed to him is a means of knowing the will of God concerning those persons. But to say that the mission entrusted to Timothy is a rule for all those who conduct the churches, is to attribute to themselves that charge for which direct inspiration had marked out Timothy by prophecy.
Clerical subtlety will ask of me, Why do you make that which concerns the widows a rule good for all times and not the rule for establishing elders?
And, first, no such order was ever given to Timothy. It was given to Titus, a thing which, we remark in passing, proves that since Paul had left Titus in Crete expressly for that, the churches had neither the authority nor mission to do so. And as the order to establish elders was not given to Timothy, the words, “how he should behave himself,” do not in any way apply to the nomination of elders, as has been so assiduously urged on us to believe. Besides, when I find that which concerns widows, the widows of this time can profit thereby, because they are in the position in question. To profit by the directions given to Timothy we must also be in the position in which Timothy was; and if we are not, to pretend to act as Timothy, is not to obey, but to arrogate to ourselves the position of Timothy.+
When I find the qualities required by this epistle, and the excellent work in activity, I will recognize and support, with the energy God may give me, that which God has given and sanctioned. I will engage other persons to use to profit all those of His graces which may be found, if God calls me thereto in His grace. The more I see the losses which the Church has suffered, the more I am desirous of turning to profit in her all that which in His long patience and His supreme goodness, our God has left us, to the end that we may glorify Him, by giving thanks to Him with a feeling even still deeper than if I enjoyed all. This is far different from saying, I can do all that which apostles and Timothies did, and from accusing those of disobedience who do not submit themselves to a like pretension.
+I repeat here that part of my writings which the anonymous author quotes, namely, that to imitate the apostles is not to obey. He quotes that to shew that we may do the same things that they did without being authorized, and consequently in the way we like and without being bound to imitate them. It is wresting my words in a manner unbecoming so grave a subject. I say that to imitate the apostles is to pretend to act with the same authority as they did, and that is not obedience. And the author makes use of these words to shew that we can do it, and do it at our pleasure, according to our views.
[p. 212] And when even Timothy or Titus had a special mission, and for my part I do not understand that a soul truly subject to the word could deny it, do not other parts of the word cast some light on this question? Yes, much.
The epistles instruct us by their absolute silence. If the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are remarkable for the detailed instructions which shew that a special charge had been committed to them, the epistles to the churches never touch on the question of the establishment of elders, surely a curious thing if that establishment was a general duty of the Church in all ages.
The opportunity of speaking of it was not wanting.
Paul had not yet gone to Rome. He writes to the Christians of that town — Christians whose faith was celebrated throughout the whole world. He speaks of the exercise of various gifts and graces according as God had divided to each. Amongst other gifts and graces he mentions those who were leaders, those who went before the flock, who acted to it as guides and “pillars” (proistamenoi); not one word of elders, not a shadow of a command to establish them as the only means of walking in obedience.
If any allusion to that office should be found anywhere it is in the Epistle to the Corinthians. There was at Corinth disorder, sin, details to set in order. No mention at all of elders, no command to establish them.
In the Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, nothing.
In the Epistles to the Thessalonians, which were the first written, the apostle exhorts the faithful to recognize for their work’s sake, or rather to know those who worked, to take knowledge of those who laboured in their midst and who led them;+ a proof more than evident that no one had been officially established among them, and that the apostle did not feel the want of doing any such thing, a no less evident proof that one could love people heartily so useful to the Church, recognize them, and obey them in Christian love, without any official nomination having given them the right to demand that obedience officially, nor to impose that obedience on those who had neither faith nor affection; which is exactly the method in which the clergy act.
+It is the same word which we noticed in Romans 12.
[p. 213] The Epistle to the Philippians mentions bishops without adding a word more. Peter recognized elders, placing himself on the same footing with them.
The Epistle to the Hebrews exhorts to obedience to those who led them by following their faith, because they watched over souls as responsible for that, and not because they were officially established.
Never was obedience placed on this miserable carnal footing: still less is it said that obedience was impossible without it, but just the contrary.
Neither in the epistles to the churches nor in those addressed to Christians in general is there anywhere found the smallest word relative to the choice or establishment of elders, nor to the necessity of choosing or establishing them, whilst one finds in them that there were leaders that the faithful were exhorted to recognize and respect by very different motives to that of an official establishment. What a confirmation of that which we have already abundantly shewn in our examination of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus!
The Acts of the Apostles do not leave on their part any doubt. There the apostles,+ Barnabas and Paul, choose elders for the flock in each town. The anonymous author speaks of the want of exactness in the French translations of this passage. He is right, for they wrongly add “by the suffrages of the assemblies.++
+Our adversaries, driven to an extremity, have wanted to persuade us that Paul and Barnabas were not even apostles. The Spirit of God calls them so in their first voyage (Acts 14: 27). And Paul insists on his apostolate as being independent of all human instrumentality: “not by man.” Also we can see in 1 Corinthians 9: 6 the place which he gives to Barnabas, as well as that which he gives to himself.
++If I am not wrongly informed, our author has given us to understand that the new edition of the translation of Lausanne will give “to establish by imposition of hands.” I cannot believe it; but if it be so, it would be to falsify the meaning of the word. There is some appearance that later at the time when the clerical system displayed itself, this word had been clothed with the sense that they wish here to give it.
[p. 214] Now that word so paraphrased signifies quite simply “they chose.” According to the etymology, it alludes to the act of extending the hand, a common way of voting; but its regular meaning is to choose, and in this sense it is twice used in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 8: 19; Acts 10: 41, “witnesses before chosen of God”): passages which leave no doubt of its meaning. The authority of the most valuable dictionaries confirms what these passages point out.
The anonymous author speaks of apostles of a lower class, as Junias, Andronicus, and Barnabas, sent by the churches. The word of God gives no room for any such thought. There were, for certain objects, messengers of the churches. But the word of God nowhere says that Junias, Andronicus, and Barnabas had been sent by a church. There is one messenger of a church whom scripture calls “sent.” It is Epaphroditus. But the Philippians only sent him to carry temporal assistance to Paul, a prisoner at Rome; Philippians 2: 25.
When Barnabas was sent, Paul was there as well as Barnabas, and it is the Spirit and not the Church that sent them. So there is no question in this passage of apostles of a lower class sent by the Church. It would be needful, to come to that, to say that Paul as well as Barnabas was an apostle of a lower class, and that would only be to play the part of the evil Jews of his time.
That which the author says on the subject of baptism is sufficiently unfortunate. The apostles hardly ever baptized. They left that care to others. Paul said he had not been sent for that; although other persons did it without any need of being authorized thereto. Further, we have already answered all that.
The author says it is no want of faithfulness to entrust to the presbytery the task of establishing elders. The question is, To whom has God entrusted this task?
Moreover, to entrust this to the presbytery is to conceal a difficulty, in a very curious manner. The care of establishing elders is entrusted to the presbytery. But according to the constitution the presbytery is the assembly of the elders; so that they are already established. And who is it who has done this? The preparation of this difficult and important task has been confided to the preparatory commission. Then it is the members of the Evangelical Church who will carry it out, so that it is entrusted neither to the presbytery, nor, according to the teaching of the author, to the evangelist, unless the presbytery prepare the thing so as to name themselves. It seems that what the word says about it is of no importance; one may as well proceed in one way as in another.
[p. 215] Here then we see the author thrown upon the same ground as the journal “The Reformation,” that is to say, “human order and evangelical liberty,” and that too while at the same time accusing brethren of wishing to put the word aside. He has full liberty to do that which he wishes. It is little matter what the apostles said; little matter the fact that they had entrusted the task in question to special delegates, without ever recognizing in the churches any capacity for its accomplishment. Provided elders are set up, no one is bound in any way to follow apostolical ways. Then the Evangelical Church says a thing, does it, and the anonymous author does it with it.
Here they make resound in our ears a word which sounds very well — that of the presbytery. It is “the presbytery” which acts. But when we translate the word all vanishes. “The presbytery” is exactly the assembly of persons who are to be called into existence.
The anonymous author says again that if the choice belonged to the apostles and to those specially sent for that purpose by them, our view might well be conceived; but that we forget it is the establishment, not the choice, of the elders, which was given to Timothy and Titus; that it is nowhere said that the apostles chose them themselves, and that the French translations are false. We have seen, in effect, that they are so, in that they add “by the suffrages of the assembly.” And it is the suffrages of the assembly that now they wish to follow at Geneva. That is to say, that the sense of the word has been falsified to sanction the system. Timothy did not, as far as we know, set up elders. Titus was sent for this, but nothing else is spoken of but the act of Titus himself. Titus, and Titus alone, set up elders. The apostle does not suffer the idea of another’s acting to appear, outside him whom he had sent into the midst of these Cretans (always liars as they were). Neither does he say that Titus had associated other persons in his work. The anonymous author pretends that scripture says nowhere that the choice of elders pertained to the apostles, nor that they themselves had chosen the elders. Now the fact is, and it has been plainly shewn, that the scripture says very positively that the apostles chose elders for the faithful in each church+ (Acts 14: 23). It is true that the French versions have rendered this passage badly in that they have added “by the suffrages of the assembly.” The author does not say that the error of the translation consists in making the assemblies here to take a part, as he wishes himself to make a certain number of the faithful to act who do not yet even form an assembly.
+The anonymous author calls Mr. Wolff to the support of his assertion by saying that those who appeal to Acts 14: 23 are ignorant that the translation is bad, adding, “See as to this matter, ‘Le Ministere,’ by Wolff, page 20.” I confess I do not understand this. Mr. Wolff rejects, as I do also, the words “by the suffrages of the assemblies”; and insists upon it, that it had no reference to making their vote, and that the apostles had themselves alone established elders. The words, “they had ordained them elders,” exclude even the idea that the flock had taken part in it. The fact is plainly that the Greek word, which means choose, elect, means, first, to vote by raising the hand; then, in general, to elect. The apostles chose the elders for the churches.
[p. 216] As regards deacons there is no analogy. When money is in question, the apostles withdraw from occupying themselves with their work; and later, Paul refused to take on himself the distribution of the offerings of the saints, unless there was one with him chosen by the churches to co-operate with him; so that his conduct should not give place to the smallest suspicion that could injure his ministry. What analogy is there, as to the source of the authority there exercised, between the case of tables and of money, and the care and the rule of the flock of God? The apostles desired that the flock should be satisfied as to temporal matters, so that there should not be any cause for discontent, jealousy, or suspicion. This principle is not applicable to elders, to whom money is nothing, and whose authority is exercised according to that which has been given from on high.
At the end of his work the anonymous author avails himself of the fact that Moses does not say who should pour the oil on the head of the priest, when he succeeded his father after his death.
[p. 217] The analogy which he wishes us to see in this with the question of elders seems to me to be without force, and for this reason: it is because the eventual successor of the chief priest was marked out by God Himself. The eldest son by clear right was priest after the death of his father. Genealogy confined the right of being priest. In the case of elders, the question is one of nomination, of the choice of fitting persons.
All the law hangs on the principle of hierarchy; Hebrews 7: 12. The word “establishing” hides this difference. It has not the same meaning in the two cases.
When it concerns elders, it is necessary that some one should officially name them. If that be done with the authority of God, the imposition of hands will be a matter of small importance. So that the analogy does not exist; because in one case, to establish means to designate, and in the other, this has been already done on the part of God — a difference which goes to the very root of the question.
And as to the other part of the analogy, namely, the imposition of hands, it is nowhere said in the word that hands should be laid on elders. According to the habits of that age, we can well believe it to have been the case, God took care that the fact should not be recorded in the word. His fulness of wisdom knew all beforehand. So that the formal part of the analogy fails also. Thus then the analogy exists neither in the foundation nor in the form.
The designation of priests by their genealogy was of such importance, that, in the time of Nehemiah, as some priests could not shew theirs, they were rejected as defiled. Now what we ask for is exactly this very designation, conformably with what is said in the New Testament. Those who re-establish after the example of Nehemiah ought to respect the New Testament, as that instrument in God’s hand respected the Old Testament, when there is a question on the very point to which the analogy in question is applicable. When disorder had broken the succession, and the office was seized upon by persons who, though priests, had no right to exercise the functions of the high priest (which took place in the time of the Lord Jesus), no one thought of raising up other persons to the high priesthood beside those who wrongfully occupied the place. The faithful sought elsewhere the redemption of Israel.
Speaking historically, the anonymous author would find it difficult to shew that after Aaron the sovereign priest had been anointed. In the case of Eleazar, no mention is made of it.
[p. 218] The anonymous author goes farther, and thinks “that the apostles were in truth themselves mistaken.” It would seem this reassures him about the danger, which he and his colleagues are running, of being mistaken also. But, to say nothing of such an argument (for this anxiety of setting in order a form of government really has no respect for anything), how is it that he has not been arrested by this expression (Acts 20: 28), “The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers”? Was the Holy Spirit then mistaken? Will the author dare to say to those whom he will have established at Geneva, that the Holy Spirit has set them over the flock of God, which He has bought with His own blood?+
That is the root of the question. To correspond to those of whom the word of God speaks, the elders ought to be the elders which the Holy Spirit set over the flock of God. If not, it is but a sect, with the chiefs which this sect would have. And here it is a question clearly of the visible unity of the Church of God, that visible unity which the author allows to be lost. Now the first thing to do is to re-establish it, to form this flock of God.