It is a sophism, and a sophism having the most antinomian tendency possible, to say that, because the law that founds the institution or the dispensation cannot be other than it is, therefore the thing that is founded cannot be corrupted. Nothing can abrogate the authority of that which has been said on the part of God; but if man has entirely failed with regard to it, and if thus a thing which required the power of God to establish it fails in the hands of men (the kingly power among the Jews for example), the pretension to re-establish it is a false pretension, derogatory at the same time both to the judgment which removes the ruined thing, and to the authority of God which alone can establish it. Now I say in the most distinct manner, that the dispensation is not yet brought to an end, and that it will continue to the end of the period ordained by God, until Christ leaves His Father's throne.
The only question is this: if, on account of the iniquity of man” God has in truth set aside institutions which His authority alone had established or could, can man, without His authority and power, set them up anew, when it is a question of things which depend either on His authority or on His power? Is it meet for the church to disown the judgment of God, and without His authority to rebuild what has been destroyed, even though the dispensation still exist?
Thus the kingly power, the Urim and Thummim, and the visible presence of the glory, finally prophecy itself, were wanting to the Jews after their return from the captivity. Did the Jews pretend to be able to re-establish them? We well know that they did not. Nevertheless the dispensation was not definitively abolished.
And now it will be understood to what I apply the word “antinomianism.” It is when, on account of the authority of a law or an institution, regarded as a rule established by God, one seeks to destroy the consequences of man's responsibility, when man has failed in the obedience due to the law, or corrupted an institution which was entrusted to him. The kingly power amongst the Jews, the Lord's Supper amongst Christians, are institutions of God. But they are things entrusted to man; both have been corrupted: the one has been abolished among the Jews; the other has not been abolished amongst Christians. He who would have pretended to set up again the kingly power among the Jews would have fought against God; he who purges the Supper from the corruptions which man has introduced uses it with blessing.
Now I say that the church has failed in faithfulness. Corruption has come in; many things have been lost; the church is responsible for it. There are things which it can still enjoy, and there are others which it cannot re-establish. It is admitted that tongues, miracles, inspired prophecy, apostles, gifts of healing, and many other things perhaps, are lost to the church. The institution of elders had been corrupted in the hands of men. Looking at it from our opponents' point of view, it had been transformed into the seat of the deepest corruption which has ever existed, and of the most awful tyranny of which the world has ever borne the yoke. By mixing ministry with it, it has become the clerical hierarchy. Now, not in order to establish the rule of the institution on paper, but in order to invest persons with the possession of this authority which should rest in the institution, there must be some source for this authority, some persons who, according to the institution of God, according to the rule which subsists in the word, are authorized to establish them. For example, there were none at Geneva; they established some. Do I pretend that the law, the rule of the institution, no longer exists? Just the contrary. I take the rule of the institution, a rule given in the New Testament, and I find that, according to this rule there was a source of authority, on which the whole force of the institution depended. This source is wanting now. It is then said to me, The rule, the law, is there. I know full well that it is there; that is why I reject your so-called elders, because they are set up in open opposition to the rule given by the word.
I am told that we are agreed as to the fact that certain things have been lost among the Jews; and others in the Christian dispensation. Well: the existence of the law of an institution does not therefore imply the existence of the institution nor the possibility of its re-establishment.
Throughout the New Testament it is proved that there were apostles. The word proves that there were elders; but it also proves that the churches had not the power to make them, for the institution is expressly based on apostolic authority, and, instead of commanding the churches to appoint any, the apostle sent Titus to establish them; a clear evidence that he did not commit this task to the churches. Such is the immutable rule of the institution, the law which cannot be corrupted, which, thanks be to God, does not change, and which you have violated—you that pretend on your own authority to act the apostles and the deputies of the apostles, so as to invite Christians who hardly dared to do so to arrogate this right to themselves, in order to spare yourselves an act which, if directly done in your own names, would have rendered apparent your incapacity and want of power to do. Now, in order to strengthen us against the irrefragable proofs that the thing is positively contrary to the rule of the institution, we are told “It was therefore needful that the apostles should give institutions to the church, which might go on after them and without them. It appears to us that, had they not done this, they would have failed in their mission.” Happily you are not in God's place to judge them, although it would seem you think yourselves competent to do so.
Allow me to tell you that the church, which went on badly enough with them, has gone on very badly without them, and that the institutions which they gave to the church have not gone on without them, unless you call the horrors of papacy the progress of the apostolical institutions.
The endeavor is made to persuade us, in the face of the church's history, that the apostles necessarily gave institutions which should go on without them. Is it possible to imagine such arguments as these? Poor apostles!
Hence, therefore, the use of the word law is only a wretched sophism, because a man in whom an institution is realized is not a law; and not only is a law necessary to establish a man in that position with the authority of God, but also the authority for doing so must be vested somewhere: otherwise it is not with the authority of God, unless it be a divine mission which is legitimate itself by its own power, as that of the prophet; but there is no occasion for a nomination.
No; by wearying the patience of God with his sin, man cannot reduce Him to the incapacity of using His laws. The execution of the just judgment of God is not want of power. When I say “He can no longer make use of them,” it is only the expression of the feeling contained in the words “until there was no longer a remedy.” Sin has reached such a point that God can no longer bear with it. Is this want of power? No, it is holiness. Such an argument is really not worthy of an answer. Can God use fallen Adam, such as he is, for the kingdom of His glory? Is it imputing to God a want of power to say that it is impossible? Does the apostle accuse God of powerlessness, when He says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and that God has introduced something better in the Second Adam?
Corruption is not a law of God. Man, under the law of innocence, was an institution of God: corruption has come in; the institution is marred, corrupted, ruined; it has not been immediately abolished by God, but it has not been re-established. God has introduced something better. Can there be anything plainer or more evident? Well, that is the law of man, one may say, of every creature placed under his responsibility, without being sustained by direct power from God. God was pleased to show this under every form, without law, under law, under promises, in the priesthood, in the kingly power, in the presentation of His Son to the husbandmen. The institutions were according to God; man has always failed in them, and, save that they are to be made good in Christ, the institutions, as ordained of God, have been set aside one after the other. The weakness of man, of the creature, has been proved. I do not believe that the elders of form any exception.
But to say that “the dispensations are not responsible for the whole of men's actings with regard to them” is to say, if the phrase has any meaning at all, that even when men have failed, to whatever degree it may be, with regard to the institutions under which God has placed them, their sin will be no reason for God to put an end to the dispensation which receives its form from those institutions. And I say that such a system is iniquitous, antinomian, and unscriptural.
There is another idea which I wish to take up. “The written word now designates them [the elders] by making known to the churches the brethren who are fit for these offices.” First, it was not to the churches that the apostle made them known, but to those who were employed by him to establish these brethren in the bosom of the churches which were not competent to do it. But this is not all.
If the word pointed them out then, there was no need of Timothy or Titus. And if it be the word that designates them, in this case all those who have these qualifications are designated by the word. Every man who is blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that “ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;” all persons who have these qualities are designated; and, the word having designated them, there is no election, there is no nomination (that is to say, designation). The system of choosing of elders falls by this very fact. All those who are such are nominated with the same authority as if an apostle had set them apart. Now, if this be the case, the thing is done, and they who accept them without choosing them, are nearer the truth.
If the apostle had appointed elders, would it have been the church's place to choose them afterward, to nominate them, or do whatever it might be, except to obey? Clearly not. If the word designates or establishes them with the same authority that the apostles did, you have nothing to do, except that the apostles did something that the word does not do, and which you pretend to do with apostolic sagacity and authority. Paul, Barnabas, and Titus did something besides pointing out the desirable qualifications. They never designated the elders to the churches in an abstract manner by qualifications. Such a designation has never been addressed to a church.
I said that “the New Testament dispensation will, without any doubt, accomplish the period assigned to it.” We are agreed that the period is not accomplished. As a deduction, it is said “Consequently the New Testament and the institutions which concern the formation, government, and service of the churches exist in full force.” Why so? The period of the Jewish dispensation was not fulfilled before the coming of the Savior. Were all the institutions of God in full three? The kingly power, prophecy, trim and Thummim, the presence of God in the temple, the ark with the mercy-seat, on which was put the blood which maintained the relationship of God with Israel, was all that in full force? But I shall be told, The things were found in scripture. Granted; but what does that prove, except that your reasoning from beginning to end is only a miserable sophism, which seeks to destroy the responsibility of man, and the consequences which flow from the fact of his having failed as to it? These things of which I have just spoken were lost, lost on account of the sins of men, although the end of the dispensation had not yet come. Man could not set them up again. The fact that they were to be found in the scriptures was only the humiliating proof that the Jews had lost them through their sins.
This is not the place for discussing the extent of the new covenant, nor its relations to the Christian dispensation; but I do not believe that the new covenant is set aside, because the Jews will be brought in again by means of this covenant, when the church is in heaven. If the covenant were set aside, the dispensation founded on it would necessarily fall at the same time; but God, by taking up the church to heaven and by rejecting the order of things which has existed in connection with it on the earth, can deal with Israel on the ground of the covenant founded on the blood of Christ. The church, properly speaking, the body of Christ, is not a dispensation; it does not belong to the earth; but there is an order of things connected with it during its sojourning here below—an order of things whose existence is linked with the church's responsibility. The dispensation of the new covenant is, properly speaking, the millennium on the earth, as it is easy to be convinced of by reading the prophecy of Jeremiah who speaks of it. But, the blood of the covenant having been shed, Christians enjoy the practical and spiritual effect of what has been done (and this even in a more excellent way than that in which the Jews will enjoy it in the age to come), although the Jews as a nation have refused to avail themselves of it.
But if, according to the general language of the Christian world, we call the present order of things a dispensation or economy, it has not yet been rejected, as I have already very plainly said. It does not follow from this that Christians have not lost some things which they cannot again re-establish, nor that they are not guilty, and already, in the main, guilty of that which, in spite of the longsuffering of God, will bring down judgment and cause Christ to sew the whole system from His mouth.
Let us now see how the question is presented through the use of the word “law,” to the exclusion of “covenant and institutions.” It is said, “God punishes the sinner, but He does not abrogate His laws on account of sins.” And who imagines such a thing, if it is a question of abrogating the authority of the law? But God certainly has set the whole covenant of the law aside, and the whole system from beginning to end, viewed as being the principle of God's relationship with man on the earth. No one would dare deny it, not even an unbelieving Jew, who suffers the consequence of it. He expects something better—the corning of the Messiah. To pretend that the change has not taken place is folly; it is the denial of Christianity: to present the thing as if it meant that God abrogates His laws because man has sinned is a wretched quibble, worthy of the cause it is employed to uphold.
Then it is said that, since I acknowledge that the New Testament dispensation is not yet at an end, and that the new covenant consequently still continues, “it is a strict duty of obedience for the churches, to return to what it teaches no doubt according to the measure of what is possible.” Certainly, as far as regards my walk in the position in which God has placed me; but the question is quite different here. This is it:—Am I placed by God in a position which authorizes me to establish elders? and where ought I to establish them? In every town? This is truly what Titus had to do. You are not therefore in the position to which these instructions are addressed. This is what I deny—your authority. Your teaching here is, however, very harmless. Obedience, according to the measure of what is possible, you say, is a duty; and you affirm that it is possible to fulfill it. There is only one thing you have forgotten here, namely, that the word possible is a relative word, and that it answers to the power of him who acts. It is your power that I question. One may have the pretension to appoint elders; this is certainly according to the measure of what is possible. But the question is this: When you have appointed them, can it be said, “The church of God,” “over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers?” If you cannot say this, what is your appointing worth? What I doubt is your power to do it.
You say you do not pretend to re-establish that which may have been lost through your fault; yet time was when you had no elders, but now you have some. But this is not all: there is the deplorable indifference to a loss which ought to awaken the conscience of every true Christian. You say, “But it is not a question of knowing whether God withdrew blessings from Israel on account of their sins; that which it is important to ascertain is, whether the Mosaic dispensation continued until the coming of Christ.” And, again, “No doubt God, in consequence of the idolatry and sin of Israel, withdrew His glory, as well as the ark, the Urim and Thummim.” Although He had withdrawn all these, you say, nevertheless, “If, therefore, the ordinances of the law were maintained after the captivity; if Israel were called to serve God by their means....” But is it possible to treat such a subject with such levity? No doubt, God bore with Israel; but He had from the time of Isaiah made the heart of this people fat. The glory with which all the ordinances were connected had been withdrawn; the ark, over which was the mercyseat, by means of which Israel as a people were reconciled; the Urim and Thummim, by which the high priest knew the will of God when he presented himself before Him—all these had been withdrawn. And you dare to say that it is not a question of that? Is it not a question of knowing whether the glory, that is to say, the presence of God, was gone from this people? This was perhaps neither an ordinance nor a law, but did it not change anything? Is it not important to ascertain whether the glory was there or not? But was not the act of putting the blood on the mercyseat an ordinance, the most important ordinance of all? Was that maintained? The temple was empty, deprived of the presence of God. If the pretension to maintain that ordinance had existed, it would, in fact, have been like the appointment of elders, for God was not there. But with my opponents it is not a question of that: what it is important to ascertain is that the dispensation is not at an end. And when the high priest inquired of God by Urim and Thummim, was not this an ordinance of the law? Was it maintained after the captivity? The word in Ezra and Nehemiah proves that these mysterious signs were wanting.
All that gave any value to the priesthood of Aaron, the presence of Jehovah to whom he drew near; the ark, which was the throne of God, and the sprinkling of the blood (on the great day of atonement) by which propitiation was made; the Urim and Thummim by which the high priest received the answer of God for the people, and directed all their affairs—all this was gone. But it is not a question of these! the point is to know whether the priesthood of Aaron was abolished after the captivity.
The case is not the same; for if the priesthood no longer existed according to God's order, Israel could not have re-established one; and that is what you pretend to do with regard to elders. Moreover your remarks throw great light on your thoughts. If you can maintain the form and the official importance of your position without the presence of God, without any of those things which give it force, until the end of the dispensation, you will be satisfied. That the priesthood of Aaron be without the glory in the temple, without the true mercy-seat and without means of atonement, without Urim and Thummim, or the knowledge of God's thoughts, is all the same, according to you; it has its official place: this is what it is important to show. Remember, good sirs, that it was this which brought in the ruin of Israel. The tree was dry, the house was empty: what had God to do then? But you come off nearly as badly about the beginning of a dispensation as you do about its end.
You say, “The apostles did not institute a central power in the church.” This is perfectly true, and the reason of it is very simple: they were themselves that power. And when the twelve at Jerusalem ceased to be such, Paul was it. He established elders in every city, he sent Titus to act, because he was invested with central power in the church assembled from among the Gentiles, invested with this power by Christ Himself. Thus, after all, you are in the beaten path from which the Spirit of God is bringing out Christians. The thing becomes clear enough. There is nothing like searching into truth. You long for independent churches. This is the whole secret of the matter. You say, “They, on the contrary, constituted churches independent one of the other.” This is your whole affair. You cannot deny that the apostles and Paul, in the sphere which God assigned him, exercised a power over all the churches (that is to say, a central power); you cannot deny that the church was one, that the gifts were members of the one body, and were exercised in the unity of this body manifested on the earth. The churches, whilst exercising their discipline each in its own locality, exercised it in the name of the universal church, and there it was valid. Gifts were placed in the church, not in churches. The whole body was but one. But that which you uphold is shown to be only the fancy to have independent churches. He who has drunk old wine does not immediately desire new, “for he saith, the old is better.” The unity of the body is set aside.
You say, governmental authority resides in the scriptures: a singular seat of executive power! Laws are found there; but governmental authority is not a law, although it may act according to law.
Who replaces the apostles? According to you, all the faithful in each locality replace this central power, which certainly did exist, and to which those who were of God listened. But in vain do I seek for some proof that such authority was entrusted to all. You do not and cannot say now that Christian assemblies have the right to choose them, and that it is their duty to do so, but you do not quote any passage.
“They rightly believe that, in so acting, they do a work pleasing to the Lord.” This is all you have to say. And then you proclaim, “We have just seen that the churches have the necessary authority for designating their elders and their deacons.” But you must feel the ground slipping from under your feet, and that the whole building is ready to crumble. You wish to prop it up. You say, “The apostles made use of the form of election, they chose Matthias.” Is this a proof that we can choose apostles? You overthrow all your arguments by this example; for, were this example worth anything, it would rightly authorize you to choose apostles. But things did happen thus. The qualifications were plainly pointed out. It must be men who had followed the Lord from the baptism of John; then they set two before the Lord (ἔστησαν δύο) who answered, as one must believe, to those conditions. But they did not dare to choose between the two, and they drew lots. You have altered the sense of the word by saying, “They chose Matthias,” and “This presentation was then confirmed.” They say “Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship.” How dare any one thus alter the word? But all is well, so long as one can maintain one's position.
Deacons were elected: we have spoken of them elsewhere. It was a temporal matter, with which the apostles refused to burden themselves; just as Paul, in another case, wishing to remain free from all reproach, refused to take the brethren's money, unless some one from amongst themselves were chosen to take charge of it with him. But what has this to do with the overseers of the church, who are the servants of God? The deacons were servants of the church, as Phoebe, servant of the church at Cenchrea. They chose deputies at Antioch. You must be much at a loss for quotations, if you are obliged to quote this passage. These were occasional deputies in order to put a stop to a tumult in the church, and this has not the slightest connection with the permanent authorities established over the church, and there is not a word said of their nomination. They decided that Paul and Barnabas, who had argued in vain against the judaizing Christians, should go up, and others with them, to Jerusalem. How were they appointed? There is a perfect silence on this point. I think it very probable that they were chosen by general consent, since they were their deputies. There is not a word which says that they were appointed by lot.
Then you say that the end of 2 Cor. 8 “shows us also brethren, who labored for the glory of the Lord, and who were deputies of the church, being elected and chosen by them.” This is a singular paraphrase. How embarrassing when one attempts to prove a thing which does not exist! They labored for the glory of the Lord. Now, I ask you, for what work were they chosen by the churches? You will tell me, We do not say. Well, neither does the word. And what then do you wish to teach by introducing it? The word is very simple, is it not? It is a pity that you are not so. Doubtless, this cannot be, with the system which you have adopted “rightly,” as it appears, but without the word. The word says that one at least of these excellent brethren was chosen by the churches for the administration of the money sent to Jerusalem, the apostle having refused to take charge of it unless there was one with him, so as to avoid the possibility of a single reproach. And what has all this to do with the choice of the regular authorities of the church, with reference to whom we have passages which you have not quoted at all?
Why, without multiplying questions, did you not draw attention to Acts 14? There it is spoken of the nomination of elders, and this is not the case in any of the passages which you have quoted. Why not mention the passage in the Epistle to Titus, where the apostle clearly speaks of this? Would it not have been more natural, when it is a question of elders, to quote passages which speak of them, than to multiply quotations from passages which do not speak of them? You dared not do it. These passages say exactly the contrary of what you wish to persuade us. There were churches in Asia Minor: the apostles chose for them. There were churches in Crete: Paul sent Titus to establish some in them.
You tell us that ecclesiastical history leaves no doubt on this point. I do not allow that ecclesiastical history is any authority; but whatever the value of its testimony may be, it very plainly contradicts what you say.
Here are the words of Clement, or rather of the whole church at Rome in whose name he writes. There were divisions at Corinth on the subject of elders. The church had set aside certain elders, as claiming the right to do so according to the principles which I contest. In his epistle, 1 Cor. 4:2, “The apostles evangelized us on behalf of our Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ did so on behalf of God. The Christ was sent on behalf of God, and the apostles on behalf of Christ. The two things occurred regularly therefore according to the will of God. Having therefore preached through divers places, in the country, and in the towns, they established their first-fruits to be overseers and deacons among those who should believe, having, by the Holy Spirit, found them worthy. And there is nothing new in this.” Then he quotes the choice of Aaron by the direct testimony of God in what happened to his rod. “And our apostles knew, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be disputations with regard to the name of the episcopacy. Therefore, having received a perfect foreknowledge of this, they established those of whom we have previously spoken and then gave a legal order of succession, how that, when they fell asleep, other approved persons might receive their ministry. Those therefore who were established by them, or afterward by other eminent (renowned) men, the whole church approving them these we esteem wrongfully deprived of their ministry.” Here we have the question expressly treated by one who was a companion of the apostle, who acted in the matter, who was a successor of the apostle as far as any one could be such, and one who is in every way the highest possible authority on such a subject. What he says to be the history of the matter is confirmed by the whole church of Rome, and he declares that the apostle had foreseen the difficulty, and that, when the Corinthians were pretending to exercise the very authority claimed by the Evangelical church at Geneva. He declares that the apostle had established elders and a form of succession; then that other men of repute had established them, the whole church being satisfied with it. It is impossible to have anything clearer or more positive, in ecclesiastical history, to contradict the assertion of my opponents.
I examine Mosheim. He tells me that it is scarcely to be doubted, if one considers the prudence and moderation shown by the apostles in appointing an apostle and then the seven, that the elders of the primitive church at Jerusalem were elected by suffrages of the faithful. Then he says that, when an elder was needed, the body of elders recommended one or two persons to the assembly; and in a note he says that Titus 1:5 proves nothing against it: Titus might have consulted, and doubtless did in reality consult, the wishes of the people. This may be so. It is however quite another thing from a history which, as you wish to persuade us, leaves no doubt that they acted by way of election. And Mosheim is so far from thinking of an election, that he makes use of what he believes to have occurred in order to justify what he calls the right of presentation, as not being repugnant to the practice of the primitive church, adding that a similar right was always acknowledged as belonging to the bishops and the collective body of elders, and he alleges it to the end that he may show that popular election is thoroughly bad. He says, nevertheless, that the people might refuse those presented.
Neander says that one may conclude, from the choice of deacons and deputies, that the church chose other functionaries also, but that, where the apostles had not confidence in the churches, they gave the important office of elders to those who were fitted for it. Then he quotes Clement, to show that it might be the custom for the elders to present a successor in case of death. Where the consent of the church was not a mere form, this might be very useful. The fact is, if one takes history, the only thing which cannot be doubted is that one must be an episcopalian. The reader who is desirous of studying this subject may consult Cyprian's letter 67 or 68, where he seeks to attach the utmost importance to the part which the people took in the election of a bishop, in order to make use of it against the authority of the Pope, against whose acts he was striving. As to the priests, it appears from letter 40, that he ordained them himself alone, and that he then informed the people of it, but this was in a time of persecution. In other letters he excuses himself for so doing on account of that, saying that the testimony of the people was no longer necessary when God had given His, inasmuch as he when he had ordained had confessed the Lord at the peril of his life, but that, when he had entered on his episcopate, he had imposed upon himself as a rule never to do anything without the consent of the clergy and people. So that what you say of history is entirely contradicted by the data with which the old authors furnish us. At any rate, as regards authority, this has only ecclesiastical authority.
It is a question of commencing the existence of a body of elders. The word and history positively declare that it was the apostles who appointed these, and subsequently eminent men. Clement of Alexandria says that when John returned from Ephesus, he, being invited, went through the neighborhood inhabited by Gentiles, establishing bishops (say elders), constituting churches, and placing among the clergy every one of those who were indicated by the Holy Spirit (Eusebius iii. 23, quoting Clement of Alexandria, “Who is the rich man that shall be saved?”) That elders were elected by the faithful is certainly what ecclesiastical history does not state. The idea of presentation (the testimony of the people being received, or, at least, the thing being done in their presence) is what is best established.
Consequently Cyprian makes all the faithful responsible as to this, and tells them that they ought to separate from a bad bishop little by little; this was the cause of a struggle between the two. For a time the people chose them, at least in Italy; blood was shed, and one may say, that there was a civil war. And mark this, it was on the subject of bishops. I know of no testimony which states the election of elders. Certain is it that we have some who relate their appointment differently. The earliest authorities attribute it to the apostles (Clement of Alexandria), or to the apostles and eminent men, all the people consenting to it (Clement of Rome). In the fourth century the people often chose their own bishops, and candidates often canvassed for the office; there were conflicts between the bishops and the people, as in the case of Martin of Tours; or there were factions, as at Rome, in the case of Symmachus. Between these two epochs the forms differed according to circumstances, but episcopacy was established.