Ephesians
4: 7-11
1. GIFTS - their source and character. (Click here)
2. The GIFTS of the Lord. (Click here)
3. He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some
evangelists, and some pastors and teachers. (Click
here)
4. Apostles and Prophets – the foundation. (Click here)
5. The Lord ordains the apostles for their work. (Click here)
6. The Lord ordains the prophets for their work. (Click here)
7. The laying on of hands. (Click here)
8.
Ordaining elders. (Click here)
9. Ministerial gifts were given by the Lord, wherever and to
whomever He pleases. (Click here)
10. Two great principles. (Click here)
11. The apostle was inspired to write epistles to churches
where there were no elders. (Click here)
12. His far-reaching wisdom is sufficient to meet the
difficulties of any day. (Click here)
13.
Acts 14:23 – On the election of elders. (Click here)
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
1. GIFTS - their source and character.
I should feel tonight that my subject was dry indeed and
promised little profit to souls, if we had only to look at gifts and offices in
themselves. It is thus that the subject is often regarded, and is therefore apt
to become not only a barren speculative question for some souls, but also a
snare to others — barren to such as, looking upon it from outside, think that
they at least have nothing to do with gifts and offices, and a snare perhaps as
often to those who conclude that they themselves are especially, if not
exclusively, concerned in them. The truth is, these spiritual functions closely
and materially affect both Christ and the church of God. Attached to Christ as
their source, they (at any rate gifts) flow down from the same reservoir of
rich grace on high, whence all the main characteristic blessings of the church
proceed. They proceed from Him in heavenly places, and therein is the true
answer to much, the greater part, of the aversion some feel to the subject, as
if ministerial gifts were only a means of giving importance to their
possessors. It would be hard to think that such a turn can be anything but a
gross perversion of what comes from Christ or heaven. In truth they are of the
deepest moment in God's eyes, as He deigns to use them for the glory of His
Son; and surely the consideration of the light that scripture affords should be
precious to those whose joy as well as responsibility it is to profit by them;
and not least to those who have personally and most jealously to watch how the
gift of Christ's grace is used, lest it should be diverted from the object for
which the Lord gave it to some selfish or worldly account. It is evident, I
think, that simply to state the source is, in the principle of it, to cut off all
excuse for the earthly aggrandisement, in various forms, which the Lord's gifts
are too commonly made to serve.
But then there is another remark to be made. Not only do
these gifts of Christ spring from Him in heaven, and therefore must, if
anything can, refuse to mingle with the vanity of the world and the pride of
man (I speak, of course, of the gift itself, and not of the flesh's perversion
of it); but besides there is another feature of these gifts, which is of
immense interest to us as believers in the Lord Jesus. They are essentially
bound up with Christianity, not on the contemplative side, but in what is
equally needful, its active and aggressive character. But whether you look at
the source or the character, all is founded on an eternal redemption that is
already accomplished. The more these considerations are weighed, the more their
importance will appear; the more also, it seems to me, the subject of the gifts
of Christ will be seen to be entirely above that earthly and barren domain to
which theology at least would consign it.
Further, is there not a wrong done to God and His saints,
wherever that which the Lord deigned to make known to us in His word — that
which constitutes, rightly applied, so essential a part of the blessing of the
church — is viewed as but a secondary matter that can be taken up or laid aside
at will? In point of fact, such indifference to His truth is deep dishonour
done to Him, and a corresponding loss invariably to the souls of the saints who
thus slight His will. It must be evident, if it were only from the scripture
just read, that the Holy Ghost does not in any way banish the subject of gifts
into some dark corner — if such there can be in the scriptures — whence we may,
if we please, draw it forth from time to time, and wield it to the best account
of our party. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, where the Holy Ghost has shown
both heights and depths of blessing in Christ and in the church — in the very
centre where He shows us too the Lord Himself in His own glory at the right
hand of God — it is there beyond almost any other part of the New Testament,
that we find the Spirit launching out into an account of the gifts' of the Lord
to the church.
But, observe, I say the "gifts of the Lord," because
so it is that they are regarded here, rather than gifts of the Spirit. Indeed
it would be difficult to find such an expression in scripture. There is a
passage which seems to say as much in Heb. 2; but it is properly "the
distributions of the Holy Ghost." You will find also in 1 Cor. 12 that
wisdom, knowledge, and the rest are said to be given by "the same
Spirit." But still, in these things, the Holy Ghost, properly speaking, is
not regarded as the giver, save mediately. The Lord is the real and proper
giver; the Spirit of God is rather the intermediate means of conveying the
gift, distributing or making it good, — the energy by which the Lord acts. And
I conceive it to be of moment, practically, that we should see that the gifts
which are used to call out and build up the church, and which are the only true
basis of ministry, take their rise from Christ Himself.
Ministry then may be defined to be the exercise of gift, and
therefore it is evident that these gifts of grace are bound up with it in the most
intimate manner. There can be no ministry of the word (properly speaking)
without gift by the Spirit from Christ.
But let us look for a moment at the development which the
Holy Ghost gives to the truth that these gifts flow from Christ. "Unto
every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of
Christ." It is not a bare question of qualities possessed; still less is
it merely a matter of attainment, let it be ever so well meant to give honour
to the Holy Ghost. It is a new thing given, the positive consequence of grace;
it is the fruit of the free favour of the Lord, who in these things acts
according to His own sovereign will and for the glory of God.
"And unto every one [or each] of us is given grace
according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, [taking up
Psalm 68] 'When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave
gifts unto men.'" Although the Lord Jesus was in His person, one need
hardly say, competent at all times, still He was pleased, in the order of the
ways of God, to wait for the great work to be done — and done too, not merely
as regarded man in divine mercy towards him, but in view of the enemy who was
to be dealt with; the power must be broken that had led captive the children of
God. Hence the spiritual enemies were first disposed of, and the Lord is
accordingly represented here as ascending up to heaven on the defeat, the total
defeat before God, of all the once mighty unseen power of evil. Upon this
foundation ministry is built. The Lord Jesus goes up into heaven. He has
Himself confronted and defeated the powers of darkness. He has led captivity
captive; and thereon "He gave gifts to men." How completely the door
for man's energy and ambition is closed! How carefully God — alone able to
teach us on this subject, and in His revealed word having, in fact, given us
the perfect truth — shows us the Lord Jesus, from first to last, the one means
of good to us, and glory to God the Father by the Holy Ghost! Do you view Him
only as Saviour and Lord? The truth is, there is not a single seed of the
Church's blessing, there is not a means of acting upon the souls of ourselves
or of others, that is not, every whit of it, connected with Christ. Where we
have not apprehended this vital all-embracing connection with Him, and where
that which assumes to be ministry, for instance, does not flow from Him only,
it is clear there is a something not to be held fast, but on the contrary to be
got rid of; an object not to be fought for as if it were a prize, but to be
suspected as contraband, brought into the light of God, and judged in His
presence. For whose ministry is it if it be not of the Lord Christ? and for
what are we contending if it be not for the gifts of Christ?
The Lord then is ascended on high, and from that height of
bliss and glory He has given gifts to men, and the Spirit of God carefully
turns aside for a little, and puts us in the very presence of the mighty work
on the ground of which Christ took His seat there. "Now that he ascended,
what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the
earth?" What grace in Him! What infinite love to us, that He might bless
us — eternally bless us! He had, with the Father and the Spirit, a divine
co-equal right to that place of supreme majesty. They alone were competent to
fill it. But He descended first into the lower parts of the earth. He had the
highest place above, if I may say so, naturally and intrinsically. It belonged
to Him as the Son of God, who counted it not robbery to be equal with God; but
He deigned to be made flesh; for, as a part of the counsels of God, it was
needful that He should be man. Without the incarnation there could have been no
retrieving of the universal ruin of man, and of the dishonour of God through
sin; there could have been neither defeat of Satan, nor an adequate and
righteous deliverance for man. But now He descends first into the lower parts
of the earth. He takes upon Him the sorrow, the shame, the sin. To have
condescended to become man, and to live as He lived rejected and abased on
earth, would have been much; but what is this to the cross? He went down to the
very uttermost, and in consequence of this humiliation, He is now as man
exalted to the highest. In His death He retrieved all that was ruined — indeed,
I may say, infinitely more. He "restored that which he took not
away." He brought a new and better glory to God than had ever been thought
or even prophesied of in any respect; for I fear not to say that, as all types
and shadows are but the feeble heralds of His glory, so too there is, there
could be, no prediction rising up to the height of blessing that was found in
Christ, nor fathoming the depth of His moral glory in the sight of God. Himself
was needed to come forth — Himself needed that the full worth of His sufferings
and cross might be known. Before that there could be no sufficient expression
of His glory. It was out of this descent into the lower parts of the earth that
He went up — out of this thorough coming down by Him who was as truly God as
man, in the very nature which before had borne such fruits of shame and
disgrace to God.
But what a change! Humanity is a nature in which the blessed
God could delight, as He looked upon it in the Lord Jesus. Now too He ascends;
and this, not as He came down; for, descending simply as the Son of God to
become the Son of man, He goes up, not the Son of God only, but also the Son of
man. Indeed, it is especially in this very character of man that we find Him
seated in heaven now. "He ascended up," as it is said, "far
above all heavens, that He might fill all things." On this magnificent
ground, whether one looks at the humiliation on the one hand, or at the
exaltation on the other — on this twofold ground of a height of glory,
consequent on a depth of abasement beyond all thought, is founded that ministry
which is according to God, being the simple exercise of the gift of Christ. And
yet could it be credited, if one did not know it, that there are men, and
Christians too, who can look upon such a scene unmoved, if not moved only to
spite and sneer and reproach? But it must be so. To work thus belongs to Him
whom the world knew not. No wonder therefore that it recognizes not the gifts
of His grace. Whatever can be made to merge into the world's greatness,
whatever can be altered to suit the age's taste, the world can admire. Even
Christianity and the name of Christ — perverted, no doubt, and regarded only in
some partial way — may be adopted. Why even the heathen were willing to do it!
There was an emperor, as probably many of you know, who would have been glad to
put the Lord Jesus as a god in the Pantheon. And so it is now. Has not
Christendom something akin for its success? It has taken up piecemeal this
institution and that; it has made them the means of adorning the scene into
which God "drove out the man," exiled by Him because of sin.
But we who believe are assuredly entitled to look above this
world, and there to see, higher than all heavens, our Lord and Master. And what
is He doing there? What is His present occupation, according to that which the
Spirit of God tells us here? He is giving gifts unto men. Let us bless Him for
it! He (Himself a man, for so it is that He has taken this place) is giving
gifts unto men. From on high He looks round about upon this world, and His
grace makes man to be the vessel of these precious gifts, which savour not only
of the person who is there, and of the work He has done, but also of the glory
from which He gives them. They are heavenly gifts. They will not, if He be
consulted, conform to the world's thought or measure; nor were they ever
intended to serve the world but the Lord Jesus, though surely for His sake
serving any and every body.
Let us take care then that we truly are subject to Him in
whom we believe. And let us beware of the evil heart of unbelief, lest we treat
a word of His lightly. Let us remember how easy it is pretending to honour His
word, to let it slip away from us, counting it something of the past — no doubt
to look back on it with reverential awe, but still as a thing gone by. Is this
the living word of a God that lives for ever and ever? Are you going to treat
the Head of the church as if He were dead? Nay, He never was dead as the
church's Head. Indeed! He only took that Headship as One alive again from the
grave, and so giving life; He only took it when both raised from the dead, and
gone up to heaven: and yet men act as if the Head of the church were a dead and
not a living Lord! And if He is thus living, what is it for? Is it merely as
High Priest, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, to bring His people
through the wilderness? There is some tendency in Christians to overlook the
priesthood of Christ; but there is a far greater danger of their forgetting
Christ as the living Head, who still stands at the fountain-head of blessing,
ever in faithful love giving His gifts to man. No doubt it is all summed up as
if it were a given thing here — "He gave;" and there is a very
interesting reason for such a way of presenting His gifts. Assuredly the Lord
would not Himself put the gifts of His grace in such a form as to interfere
with the church's constant hope of His own return. On the contrary, He would
fix the church in the attitude of expecting Himself from heaven. Accordingly
not even the supply of ministerial gift is so put as to defer the fulfilment of
the "blessed hope" from age to age. On high is the Head of the
church, and as Head it is part of His work to vouchsafe all needed gifts for
men.
3. He gave some apostles, and some
prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.
Here then is the whole scene of His grace summed up in one —
the Lord gave gifts to men; "and He gave some apostles, and some prophets,
and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers." We have not a
catalogue of all the gifts. It is not at all in the manner of scripture or of
the Lord to furnish a mere formal list; for the truth is not written in the
word of God so as to satisfy human curiosity or form a system of divinity. What
is done is infinitely better. He has given us exactly what suited His wisdom in
each particular part of scripture. Hence if we compare, for instance, what we
have here with the first Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall find striking
differences. There are some gifts found here, not there; and some found there
which are not here. Now this is not a thing of chance, nor a matter in which
the apostle used merely his own judgment and decided things after his own mind.
Nobody denies that his heart and mind were deeply exercised. God forbid! But we
may bless God that there was an infinitely wise mind directing all things, and
that there was a judgment which knew the end from the beginning. We shall find,
accordingly, that the apostle mentions these gifts according to that divine intelligence.
Indeed, the reason of it, to some extent, may appear as we proceed.
First of all, the gifts (δόματα) here enumerated are in view
of the perfecting of the saints, which is the great primary object, branching
out into the work of the ministry, and the edifying the body of Christ, as
connected with it. Now, there, at once, may be discerned the key, or divine
reason for presenting here certain gifts and not others. Here we have nothing,
for instance, about speaking in a tongue; neither have we any mention of
miracles. Why so? What have they to do with the perfecting the saints? The
reason seems to me clear and adequate. Those gifts for signs were of all
consequence in their place; but how could a tongue or a miracle perfect a
saint? We see, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, that, instead of
perfecting, they on the contrary became a very great snare for the saints. No
doubt the Corinthians were carnal, and therefore they were like children amused
with a new toy — with that which was, indeed, an engine of power. And we know
how great a danger this is, just in proportion to our unspirituality. We have
the very solemn lesson, that even the greatest powers and most astounding
manifestations of the Holy Ghost in man cannot give spirituality, and do not
minister to the edification of the saints necessarily in any way; but, if there
be a carnal mind, they become a positive means of the soul exalting itself,
turning away from the Lord, losing its balance, and bringing discredit upon
that which bears the name of Christ on the earth. In this Epistle, however, God
is occupied with His counsels of grace in Christ for the church, beginning
primarily with the saints as such. He always takes up the question of
individuals before He deals with the church. And how blessed and wise is this!
He does not begin with the body of Christ, and then end with the perfection of
the saints. This would be, very likely, our thought, but it is very far from
His. He first puts forward the perfecting of the saints, and then shows us the
work of the ministry, and the edifying the body of Christ. Thus, the true
explanation of the passage is, that it is the development of Christ's love to
the Church. His eye is fixed upon the blessing of souls. It is Christ not only
gathering in, but building up — causing them to grow up to Him in all things.
Accordingly, He gives the gifts which are of grace suited to this end. "He
gave some apostles and some prophets."
4. Apostles and Prophets – the
foundation.
These are the two gifts which the second chapter of this
epistle shows to be at the foundation, we may say, of this new building, the
church of God. Thus, in the 20th verse, we read, "They were built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief
corner stone." Evangelists, evidently, are not the foundation; neither are
pastors and teachers; but prophets, as well as apostles, are. And we can easily
understand this. We can see that, as God was introducing into the world a
wholly new system when He set His Son at His own right hand — a new work of God
in the church, so there was a new word which had to accompany this work,
whereby He would act upon the saints so as to give them to grow up to the
perfecting of His will and the glory of His Son in this unprecedented thing,
the church of God. Accordingly then we have the foundation laid, and here not
Christ alone. Of course He is, in the greatest and highest sense, the
foundation — "Upon this rock I will build my church:" the confession
of His own name, His own glory as the Son of the living God, is this
unquestionably. But still, as the means not only of revealing the mind of God
touching the church, but also particularly of laying down with authority the
landmarks of His husbandry in the earth — the church of God, the apostles and
prophets were thus used. To distinguish them the former were characterized by
an authority in action, the prophets by giving out according to God His mind
and will about this great mystery.
It is hardly worth while to disprove the notion that the
prophets here refer to the Old Testament. The phrase "apostles and
prophets" is strictly limited to those that followed Christ. Had there
been the inverse order — prophets and apostles, there might have been some
shadow of reason for this idea; but the Spirit of God, in His wisdom, has taken
care to exclude the thought. The work spoken of is altogether new. The apostles
and prophets seem to be expressly introduced in this order. But in the third
chapter a decisive reason is furnished by the Holy Ghost. It is written in the
5th verse that the mystery of Christ, "which in other ages was not made
known unto the sons of men, is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets
by the Spirit;" so that we have there with the most perfect clearness not
only the same order still preserved, but the positive expression "now
revealed." The prophets of the Old Testament, therefore, are necessarily
excluded. These prophets are of the New Testament as well as the apostles.
But more than this, let me make the remark before going
farther, that this character of ministry was altogether new. When our Lord was
upon earth. no doubt there was more or less preparative action for it. He sent
out first twelve apostles; then He sent out seventy to carry a final message to
His people. All this was a thing never found in any age previously. It was
wholly without precedent on the earth — an activity of love that went out with
a blessing to others. God Himself had not done it; for the solemn word by a
prophet, and the secret action of His grace before, are too distinct to be
confounded with it. Who had ever seen or heard such a thing as a Man on earth
gathering men to Himself first, and sending out from Himself afterwards a
message of love, the glad tidings (not yet, of course, in the fulness which was
afterwards imparted when the great work of redemption was done, but at any rate
the blessed news) of the King on God's part of the kingdom of heaven on the
earth? This is what the Lord did on earth: He sent out disciples or apostles
with the message of the kingdom. And no doubt it was in man's eyes a strange
and to faith a blessed thing, suitable only to Him who had divine grace as well
as divine authority, worthy of and reserved for the Lord Jesus here below. But
it is remarkable that in Eph. 4 all the earthly part of our Lord's action is
left completely out, and the gifts here spoken of are beyond controversy dated
from the ascension of the Lord, and shown to hinge on it.
Do I mean to deny that the apostles were included — the twelve,
or, strictly speaking, the eleven along with the one supplied to fill the place
of him that was cut off? In no wise; but nevertheless their earthly call and
mission are quite passed by. We can all understand that the Lord as Messiah
might prepare a mission suited to Israel, as I have no doubt that "the
twelve" had this distinctly as its reference; for the twelve apostles
naturally answer to the twelve tribes. The sitting on twelve thrones, spoken of
in connection with them also in Matt. 20, clearly confirms the thought. What
hinders these same men afterwards from becoming the vessels of a heavenly gift?
Thus we can recognize in the earlier apostles a sort of double relationship.
There was a link with Israel which was conferred by the Lord when He was upon
earth in the midst of His people, dealing with them; but a new place became
theirs when the Lord ascended on high.
But besides the Lord took care to break in upon this
Israelitish form and order, and the apostleship of St. Paul becomes an event of
cardinal importance in the development of the ways of God, because therein all
thought of Jerusalem, all reference to the tribes of Israel, is dropped, and
that takes its place which is clearly extraordinary in all its circumstances
and heavenly in source and character. More particularly this was plain, that
the Lord made manifest what was really true with regard to the others, that
they on the day of Pentecost received that gift of apostleship which was suited
to the heavenly work which they were afterwards to have, in addition to their
previous earthly call and work. Apart from and towering over the twelve stood
the apostle Paul, bringing out into the utmost prominence the principle that
his apostolic mission was a heavenly thing, entirely and exclusively such as
far as he was concerned. Therefore he was the fitted person to say, as it was
of course by the Spirit of God that he did say, "Though we have known
Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." The glory
of the Messiah on the earth fades away for the time in a deeper and brighter
glory, the heavenly glory of Him who is now at the right hand of God. It is the
same Christ, the same blessed One, without doubt, but it is not the same glory;
and more than this, it is a better and more enduring glory. It is the glory
that is suited to the new work of God in His Church, because it is the glory of
its Head. "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall
straightway glorify him."
Thus, the church being a heavenly body, and Christ Himself,
its Head, being in the actual and fullest sense a heavenly person, ministry
takes a heavenly shape: and these gifts which flow from Him are its first
expression. Hence, then, we have the clear intimation from the scripture before
us that these gifts from Christ on high are heavenly in their character and
source.
5. The Lord ordains the apostles
for their work.
Another thing also may be noticed by the way. If we take the
bestowal of these gifts as dating from the ascension of Christ, where is there
room left for the hand of man? Where can you insert that preliminary ceremonial
on which tradition lays so much stress? Who ordained the apostles for their
heavenly work? Who laid hands upon them, as authoritatively installing them in
that high office? You will say that unquestionably the Lord called them when He
was here "in the days of His flesh." He did call them for their
mission to Israel; and when risen, but still on earth, He charged them to
disciple the nations. (Matt. 10, Matt. 28) But what hands of man did He employ
in setting them apart to their proper heavenly work? Will any believer breathe
the thought that this was an imperfection in their case? Did the new work of
God, based on a dead and risen and ascended Saviour, and carried on by the Holy
Ghost sent down from heaven, want anything for its due commencement? If there
is no appearance then of that rite of laying on of hands, which some count not
merely desirable, but essential for all that minister from the highest to the
lowest grade, how comes this strange omission? Who will venture to impeach the
regimen of Christ? Will any zealots for "holy orders," as men speak,
affirm or insinuate that the Lord did not know better than they what became His
own glory in His chief ministers? Let them beware of their theories and their
practice, if either lead them to become "judges of evil thoughts."
In truth, the Lord took care, now that it was a question of
a new and heavenly testimony, not absolutely to abolish that ancient sign of
blessing, but to break in upon and leave no excuse for the earthly order so
easily abused by man. Hence, as if for the purpose of manifesting yet more
distinctly the vast change which was come in the case of him who styles himself
emphatically "minister of the church" (Col. 1), there is no
derivation from the twelve apostles that were before him. On the contrary, from
His own place in heavenly glory the Lord calls one who was not going up to Jerusalem
but rather from it; one who had no connection with the apostles — nay, so much
their enemy, that most stood in doubt of him, after he was arrested by
sovereign grace in the midst of his determined systematic hatred of
Christianity and persecution of all who bore the name of Jesus. What a proof
that not only the conversion of Saul of Tarsus was of the pure and rich mercy
of God, but that his apostolate sprang from the same source and bore the same
stamp as the salvation which reached him! Thenceforward he becomes the
characteristic symbol, as he was the most distinct and abundant testimony, of
the grace that is now not saving only but choosing vessels and fitting them as
instruments for the active blessing of mankind, and especially of the church of
God. It was the Lord Jesus at the right hand of God calling and sending an
apostle to the church, a chosen vessel unto Himself, to bear His name before
the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel; but first taken out from
both Jew and Gentile and then sent to them. (Acts 26: 17)
The same principle embraced the other apostles no doubt:
because they on the day of Pentecost were made gifts of grace in the highest
degree to the church from the now ascended Lord, its Head. But there is fresh
and brighter light in the case of Paul, who was not more truly "as one
born out of due time," compared with all those that went before, than he
furnishes in the strongest colours the unmistakable intimation of the mind and
will of the Lord as to the future.
But then it will be objected that after all there was a
miracle in Paul's conversion and call, which takes the case out of just
application to ordinary ministry. A miracle most striking and significant there
was, when the Lord in glory revealed Himself as the Jesus he was persecuting in
the members of His body. Notwithstanding it rested mainly on the apostle's
testimony; and there were not wanting, even in the church of God and among his
own converts, it would seem, those who questioned the apostleship of Paul. His
call far from Jerusalem, his isolation from the other apostles, the very
fulness of grace manifested toward him, the emphatic heavenly stamp imprinted
on his conversion and testimony, all tended to make the case peculiar and
irregular and unaccountable, wherever the old earthly order so prevailed as to
cast suspicion on any display of the Lord's ways beyond or different from the
past. Personally a stranger to the Lord during His manifestation here below,
there was no question of his candidateship, like a Joseph or a Matthias, on the
ground of his having companied with the twelve from the baptism of John till
the ascension. There was no decision by lot in his instance, nor any formal
numbering with the twelve. He was a witness of Christ's resurrection no less than
the rest, yet it was from no sight of Him after His passion upon earth. He had
seen the Lord, but it was in heaven. His was the gospel of the glory of
Christ no less than of God's grace. Thus carefully was the great apostle made
the witness of non-succession, that is of a ministry direct from the Lord
independently of man! No doubt the highest expression of that ministry was in
Paul, who thenceforward becomes the most illustrious exemplar of its source and
character.
6. The Lord ordains the prophets for their work.
Allow me also to put another question. Who ordained the
prophets of the New Testament? when and how and by whom were they appointed?
who ever heard of hands being laid upon their heads? Search the New Testament
through, if you wish the best proof that the notion is unfounded. Let me come
to the point at once, and affirm further, that neither prophets nor any other
of these classes were installed of man after that fashion. Here we have
apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers: can you show me a single
instance among these classes where the individual was called by human
authority? Is it denied then that there was such a form of blessing as the
laying on of hands in the New Testament? For my part, I accept the fact not
only in its apostolic application to the sick and to those who had not yet
received the Spirit, but also in its connection with our subject. The question
is as to its scriptural use? Let me ask, When were hands ever laid on any save
to confer a gift by the power of the Spirit, or to commend those already gifted
to God's grace in a special work, or formally to assign men to the charge of
secular work? It is clear, for example, that Philip, along with his six
companions, had hands laid upon him; but was it for his work as preaching the
gospel? On the contrary, he was one of the seven men chosen "to serve the
tables," in order that the apostles might not be distracted from prayer
and the ministry of the word. "The seven" thereon were ordained to be
employed in the external service of the church. Apart from this, the Lord was
pleased to send him forth in the proclamation of the word here and there; as an
evangelist naturally would be a wanderer, not according to the meaning of the
word so much as the exigencies of the work.
Hence, when the persecution about Stephen broke out and
scattered those in Jerusalem, Philip had a new task which had nothing to do
with his local duties as one of the seven. His diaconal service would station
him at Jerusalem, to take care of the poor, for this was the purpose for which
he was ordained; whereas his preaching Christ flowed from a gift of that
character, not from ordination. In fact as far as the New Testament speaks —
and it speaks fully and precisely — no one was ever ordained by man to preach
the gospel. Hands were laid by the apostles upon Philip like the rest,
after he was chosen by the multitude, and thus he was appointed to take charge
of the tables; for the scripture, perhaps because of a certain peculiar state
of things at Jerusalem, does not positively give the title of
"deacon" in this case, though one does not deny its general justice,
for there was something akin in their duties.
It is certain therefore that whether we look at an apostle,
or a prophet, or an evangelist, or a pastor and teacher, or either of these
last, there was no such ministry instituted for the church, which itself
existed not, until after our Lord's ascension; and in none of these cases was
there the laying on of hands as the initiatory sign or inauguration of these
ministers. All admit the imposition of hands in certain cases, ordinary or
exceptional. The exaggeration of clericalism should not hinder the Christian
from being perfectly fair in dealing with this and every other question. There
is nothing that will dispose of prevalent traditions so readily and
conclusively as searching and submitting to scripture. There is full and clear
instruction there, the effect of which is to confute all that tends to exalt
man and lower Christ, whatever support men may try to extract from the word of
God for selfish ends. It is outside the light of inspiration that all these
errors live; once let that in, and it will soon be seen that the Holy Ghost is
not providing for the worldly honour of man on earth, but for glorifying Christ
in heaven.
What, then, is the genuine meaning and scope of Acts 13? It
has long been the well-known stock passage which theological controversialists
are wont to cite for ordination in general. Some insist on it as warranting
their "three orders" of bishops, priests, and deacons; others allege
it as decisive for parity of ministers, whether Presbyterian or Congregational.
The Episcopalian points with triumph to Barnabas and Paul in the first rank; to
Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen in the second; and to Mark in the third (as, after
the dispute with Barnabas, to Paul, Silas, and Timothy respectively).*
So Archbishop Potter, in the well-known text-book, "A
Discourse on Church Government" (pp. 73, 74), if one may, without
unkindness, specify a single defaulter out of the crowd. Yet the Archbishop
evidently gave up the passage as bearing on ordination. "It cannot be
proved that Paul and Barnabas were ordained at this time to be ministers. If
they were ordained to any office or ministry, it must be that of apostles, not
only because they are presently after this called apostles, before they
received any farther ordination, but also because they were prophets before
that time, as shown in one of the preceding chapters [chap. 3]. But this is
very unlikely, because this rite of imposing hands, whereby other ministers
were ordained [an assumption of the archbishop's without and against
Scripture], was never used in making apostles. It was a distinguishing part of
their character that they were immediately called and ordained by Christ
Himself, who gave them [nay, but 'the disciples' and not apostles only, John
20] the Holy Ghost by breathing on them; but neither He nor any other is ever
said to lay hands on them. When a place became vacant in the apostolic college
by the apostacy of Judas, the apostles, with the rest of the disciples, chose
two candidates, but left to God to appoint whether of them He pleased, to take
part of the ministry and apostleship, from which Judas fell. Neither was St.
Paul inferior to the rest of the apostles in this mark of honour; for he often
asserts himself to be an apostle not of men, nor by man, but immediately, and
without the intervention of men, to have been appointed by Jesus Christ, in
opposition to those who denied him to be an apostle as was shown in one of the
former chapters. But then it will be asked for what end Paul and Barnabas
received imposition of hands? To which it may be answered, that this rite was
commonly used, both by the Jews and primitive Christians in benedictions. Jacob
put his hands on the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh when he blessed them; and,
to mention only one instance more, little children were brought to Christ, that
He should put His hands on them and bless them. Accordingly, it is probable
this imposition of hands on Paul and Barnabas was a solemn benediction on their
ministry of preaching the Gospel in a particular circuit to which they were
sent by the Holy Spirit's direction. Hence it is called in the next chapter a
recommendation to the grace of God for the work of ministering the Gospel to
certain cities, which they are said to have fulfilled. So that this rite was
not their ordination to the apostolic office, because the end for which it was
given is here said to be fulfilled, whereas their apostolic office lasted as
long as their lives. And therefore, Paul and Barnabas seem only now to have had
a particular mission to preach the Gospel in a certain limited district, in the
same manner as Peter and John were sent by the college of apostles to Samaria, to
confirm the new converts and settle the Church there." — Crosthwaite's
(or the Seventh) Edition, pp. 201, 202.
This is substantially true and sound, far preferable to
Calvin's remarks (Inst. 55., 3. 14): "Why this separation and
laying on of hands, after the Holy Spirit had attested their election, unless
that ecclesiastical discipline might be preserved in appointing ministers by
men? God could not give a more illustrious proof of His approbation of this
order, than by causing Paul to be set apart by the Church, [?] after He had
previously declared that He had appointed him to be the Apostle of the
Gentiles. The same thing we may see in the election [?] of Matthias. As the
apostolic office was of such importance that they did not venture to appoint any
one to it of their own judgment, they bring forward two, on one of whom the lot
might fall, that thus the election might have a sure testimony from heaven, and
at the same time the policy of the Church [?] might not be disregarded."
The truth is, as to the case of Matthias, it was before the mission of the Holy
Ghost, and there was no question of the Church's policy or election either; but
by the lot the choice between the two was cast, in the Jewish form (Prov. 16:
33), into the sole disposal of the Lord.
Only examine the passage, and the more closely you do so,
the better will you be enabled to judge how little it countenances, how
strongly it condemns, every scheme of ordination which men attempt to base upon
it.
In the church that was at Antioch there were, it is said,
"certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called
Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod the
tetrarch and Saul." That is, we have these five prophets and teachers, while
engaged in serving the Lord with fasting, made the object of an important
communication from the Holy Ghost respecting two of their number.
"Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them." Barnabas had been for years actively engaged in the work of the
Lord; and so had Saul of Tarsus ever since his conversion. Not only was he set
apart in the providential purpose of God before his birth, as we see in
Galatians 1, but he was called by the grace of God from the time when he was
struck down on the way to Damascus. But the Spirit of God now separates him to
a special mission. It is clear that this is not an announcement of the
ministerial call of either Barnabas or Saul: scripture is arrayed against
scripture by all who say so. The previous part of the Acts proves that Barnabas
was long blessed in the ministry of the word within and without, and that Saul
especially was bold and mighty in the work. The latter, indeed, from the first,
brought out the Sonship of Christ in a way which we have no reason to believe
any other had done up to that time, as we learn from that very chapter which
gives us his conversion. The notion therefore that ordination was the question
in Acts 13 is most manifestly false.
But how comes it that the theologians fail to notice that
their determination to see ordination here destroys their respective systems,
as well as contradicts other scriptures? Who was it ordained Paul and Barnabas,
and to what? These are called apostles in the very next chapter (Acts 14: 4);
and hence evidently the notion of ordaining Paul and Barnabas is quite
unfounded, unless those whom God has set second and third in the church can
ordain the first. (1 Cor. 12: 28.) Again, the truth is that there is not the
smallest reason to call Mark a deacon at that time. He accompanied them as
their "minister" (probably to get lodgings, to invite people to come
and hear the word, and in general to serve them on their missionary tour); but,
as for his being their chaplain, it is mere illusion. John Mark preaching to
Paul and Barnabas! The truth is that he then turned out an indifferent help in
the work, because he soon tired and went home to his friends. However this only
by the way.
But it is transparent, that those who turn the account into
the ordination of Paul and Barnabas involve the consequence that it is actually
the inferior class conferring the highest ministerial rank upon them! If they
were not apostles before, they have nothing to allege in support of the dignity
but the sandy foundation that the act of laying on of hands upon them at
Antioch conferred the apostolate! In this case it was an equal, if not a lower
grade, giving a higher rank to those above themselves. Thus, it is evident that
the notion is altogether unfounded.
Is it insinuated then that there was no meaning or value in
this laying on of hands? That would be indeed to treat the word of God
unwarrantably. It was a solemn and precious act of fellowship with these
honoured servants of Christ. It was an act not only valid then but valid now.
But there was no pretence of conferring anything whatever. The real drift of
the transaction is expressed in Acts 14: 26. It is said, that they "sailed
to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the
work which they fulfilled." Such was the aim of the laying on of hands by
their companions in labour at Antioch; for it may not have been the brethren
generally, but only those engaged in the work, and I wish to make every
concession that is fair to those who desire to draw the utmost from the
passage. But the meaning of the act is neither more nor less than a sign of
blessing or of fellowship with those going forth on their new missionary
errand. It was probably repeated. (See Acts 15: 40.)
The laying on of hands was of the most ancient date in the
Old Testament. Thus Genesis gives it in the case of a father or grandfather
laying his hands on the children; and so in the New Testament we have the
frequent use of it where there was no pretence of conferring any ministerial
character. It was a sign of recommendation to God by one who was conscious of
being so near to God that he could count upon His blessing. The Lord takes up
little children, lays His hands upon them, and blesses them; and so with the sick
too when healing some. It was not at all a question of ecclesiastical order in
these instances. No doubt there were cases where hands were laid on for the
purpose of inaugurating an office.
It is often thought that the same rite was used in
instituting elders, as in Acts 14: 22, 23, where the apostles Barnabas and Paul
were "confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to
continue in the faith, and that we must, through much tribulation, enter into
the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and
had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they
believed." But this is an assumption. It is not exactly said here or
anywhere else that hands were laid upon the presbyters. This silence, if the
fact were so, is remarkable. It may have been probably the case; but scripture
takes care never to say it. We have the statement that hands were laid upon
deacons. We know that an elder was a much more important personage in the
church than a deacon. People may reason and speculate; but I have no doubt that
the Spirit of God, seeing the superstition that was attached to the form of
laying on of hands, took care never to connect the two things together in a
positive manner. The passage which some conceive does so is in the first
Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 5: 22), where Paul tells him to "lay hands
suddenly on no man." But the object of this is too vague for a sure
conclusion, the connection being by no means certain. There is no allusion to
elders expressly after verses 17-19. Thus in the 21st verse we read, "I
charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that
thou observe these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing
by partiality." How can one suppose elders in particular referred to
there? I see a general description of his work in verses 20, 21, after which
comes the exhortation on which so much has been built — "Lay hands
suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins." It is
possible that there may be included in this an allusion to the danger of haste
and carelessness in accrediting an elder, but the language is so comprehensive
as to take in, it seems to me, every case which might call for the imposition
of hands.*
Dr. Ellicott goes so far as to think with Hammond, as well
as De Wette, etc., that the words refer to the χειρο θεσία on the absolution of
penitents and their re-admission to church- fellowship. This seems to me too
special in another direction.
But supposing that it did certainly refer to elders and that
hands were laid on these functionaries as well as on deacons, the important and
undeniable fact in scripture is, that elders were never ordained except by
persons duly authorized, who had a real commission from the Lord for the
purpose. Now many may imagine that this is a concession fatal to the free
recognition and exercise of gifts. They may think it yet more strange to find
that those who contend for the largeness of the action of the Holy Ghost lay
the utmost stress upon a divine commission and a definite authority. But be
assured that the two things go together, where they are held according to God.
None will be found to be more tenacious of godly order than the very persons
who plead most for the rights of the Holy Ghost in the church. My assertion is,
that in this very matter of ordination Christendom has missed God's mind and
will, and is ignorantly but not without sin fighting for an order of its own,
which is mere disorder before God. If scripture is to decide, the common plan
of ordination for all who minister to those without and within is a departure
from the order of God prescribed in His word.
Undoubtedly in the case of "the seven" (Acts 6)
you do find apostolic appointment. The great point in this case was, that there
the congregation elected and the apostles solemnly appointed. But it was no
more than the congregation choosing fit persons to take care of their poor,
etc. Nothing could be more proper. It shows the condescending goodness of God
towards those who gave of their substance and those who received it. If the
church contribute, it is according to His will that the Church should have a
voice in the selection of those in whom they have just confidence that they
will distribute in God's sight not only with good conscience and feeling but
wisely. Thus one sees here a conspicuous instance of God's wise and gracious
care. The multitude chose such men as they deemed most suited to the exigency.
But even here the mere choice of the believers did not give them that place in
itself; for if all chose, none but the apostles appointed them over the
business, secular as it was.
The principle tells in a directly opposite way with regard
to the elders, and yet more as to the ministerial gifts of Christ. We have no
such thought expressed as a congregation choosing elders — never in any part of
scripture. On the contrary we have the fact that the apostles went about; and
where assemblies were already formed, in which were persons possessed of
certain spiritual and moral qualifications which pointed them out to their
spiritual and experienced eyes as suitable for eldership, such they chose.
Among these antecedents those who desired the office must be persons of good
report, and who, if married, had only one wife. There were many individuals
brought to the faith of Christ in those days who had several wives. This was a
scandal and sure to be felt the more as Christian truth spread. Such a
direction showed what was in the mind of God. One could not rightly refuse the
confession of a man who had two or three wives, if he were converted; but he
must not expect to become an elder or bishop; he could not be a suitable local
representative of the church of God.
Again take the case of a man who had children brought up
badly. Perhaps this neglect may have been before he was converted; perhaps
after conversion he may have entertained the evil notion of leaving the
children to themselves on the faithless plea that God, if He saw fit, would
convert them some time or other. Such mistakes have been made, and miserable
have been the results. Whatever the cause of an unruly house, its head could
not be a bishop. No matter what might be his spiritual gifts, they could not
countervail; no such man could be charged with the oversight of God's assembly.
For such an office it was not so much a question of gifts as of moral weight. A
man might be a prophet, a teacher, an evangelist — his disorderly wife or
children would not nullify his gifts; but he ought not to be made an elder,
unless he brought up his children with godliness and gravity, and himself
walked with a good report among those without.
Thus the Lord stringently required in such an official these
moral qualifications as well as spiritual capacity for his work. Even if one
possessed all these things, he was not an elder because he had them unless duly
authorized. He needed to be ordained; he must have a legitimate appointment
besides. And in what did this consist? Manifestly the whole value turns upon a
valid appointing power. In what consisted that competent authority? Are we to
set up or to imagine one? It must be according to the Lord and His word. Now
the Scripture allows of no valid appointing power except an apostle or an envoy
who had from an apostle a special commission for the purpose.
Where is there such a delegate now that can produce an
adequate (that is, an apostolic) commission for the work of ordaining? You
never saw, neither do I ever expect to see, the like. The fact is, that the
word of God nowhere hints at the continuance of an ordaining power. It
demonstrates in the most explicit manner that, after the Lord set up churches
here and there, when He established local functionaries in each church,
apostolic appointment or choice and this only was what He stamped with His
approval. The requisite qualifications are clearly laid down; but the fact is
equally clear that none but an apostle or an apostolic delegate was warranted
to nominate the elders to their office, and not a word about perpetuating
that power of appointment after the apostles left the earth. We have an
apostle writing, not to the church or churches to choose elders, but to one who
was specially charged to do this task. Yet even to Titus there is not a word
about another continuing the task; nay, not a hint that Titus himself was to
continue it after the apostle was dead. Neither was Titus authorized to appoint
where he pleased, but the apostle assigns him the sphere of his commission.
Being a special envoy of the apostle, Titus was doubtless a teacher and
preacher. But here there was a definite region where he had the duty of
ordaining elders in every city. Titus was responsible to do this in Crete; but
nothing is said of the establishment of elders elsewhere or at other times nor
of his permanent continuance there. On the contrary — and this would be a
strange direction for a diocesan — he was to be diligent to come to the apostle
at Nicopolis. He was not to be left at Crete.
It is evident that such directions as these from the apostle
to Titus afford no warrant for others to appoint elders now. This is pure
assumption, whereas all depends on a valid authority. Titus was apostolically
commissioned and could produce an inspired letter of instructions to him
personally. Who can today do anything analogous? "It must be so" is a
poor and vain reason to him who respects due authority. It is easy to settle
matters after a sort where this is allowed to pass; but, beloved friends, we
want the word of God. Let me ask for a plain answer to the question, Do you
believe that the word is perfect? Do you doubt whether the Lord, who cares for
His own order in the church, did or did not foresee all the need and
difficulty? Do you insinuate that He forgot anything of real value to us now?
Do you suppose that He omitted to take into account the death of the apostles?
He did nothing of the kind. The apostle speaks distinctly of his death (and
more than one apostle too). He speaks of perilous times and the importance of
scripture after he was gone; but not a thought about a line of successors to
appoint afterwards, not a hint about bequeathing his powers in this case. To
you who are commended to God and the word of His grace, to you who tremble at
His word, is that silence nothing? To my own mind it is a fact not more
surprising at the first blush than increasingly pregnant with meaning the more
it is weighed.
Popery, despising this fact, assumes the contrary from human
reason and is built upon this contrariety. Not that one cares to denounce any
one system in particular by name, save only to bring out the truth which shows
the will of the Lord and proves the evil by the good. In truth every earthly
system, no matter how opposed it may become to the word of God, begins by
adding something of its own to that word. The power of ordination attaches not
to bishops but to apostles and their delegates. The moment you allow men the
principle of development after the scripture canon closed, the moment you
clothe with apostolic authority a body of officials who never were authorized
divinely for the work undertaken, you are off the ground of faith in and
deference to the word of God. The present practice has not the smallest
foundation in scripture.
Indeed one may safely go farther and affirm not only that
the ordination, of which people talk so much, before preaching and teaching
Christ, is not a thing to be coveted in the present shape in which it is found
among men, but that it is now a disorderly institution, a grievous dishonour to
the Lord who gives ministerial gifts by the Spirit. In short it is a mere and
sorry imitation of what is recorded in the word of God. Examine well, and you
will soon find it does not even resemble what we read of there. God's word
remains true, sure, and plain: only there once was a positive personal commission,
armed with a certain apostolic authority either direct or indirect; and this
you ought to have if you pretend to ordain elders as Titus did.
Permit me now to press another question. Which is the most
scriptural course — to do what was always becoming in a Christian, or to copy
an apostolic delegate? Which commends itself most to your conscience, to your
heart, to your faith? We will suppose now in this place an assembly of God's
children. They see in the word of God that, beside the common privileges and
duties of all saints, there were certain gifts for ministry, and that there
were also certain offices which needed an apostle or his representative to fill
them up. They would like to have them all of course; but what is to be done?
Are they to neglect what was written to the assembly at Corinth or to the
saints at Ephesus, and to ape what was not written to the church but to Timothy
or Titus? Would it not be humbler to consult the word of God and inquire of
Him, that they might learn what is His will concerning this matter? What do we
see there? That as to the gifts of Christ they never required any sanction here
below before their exercise; nay, they never admitted of human intervention.
The only exception is where there was a positive power of the Holy Ghost
conveyed by the laying on of the apostle's hands. Fully do I admit that there
was an exception in such circumstances. Timothy was designated by prophecies
beforehand for the work to which the Lord called him. (Compare Acts 13: 1, 2.)
Guided by prophecy (1 Tim. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 1: 6), the apostle lays his hands upon
Timothy and conveys to him a direct power (χάρισμα) by the Holy Ghost, suited
to this special service he had to accomplish. Along with the apostle, the
elders who were in the place joined in the laying on of their hands. But there
is a difference in the expression the Spirit of God employs, which shows that
the communication of the gift depended for effective agency not in any way on
the elders but only the apostle. The particle of association (μετὰ)
appears where the presbytery are spoken of, that of instrumental means* (διὰ)
where the apostle speaks of himself. It was an apostle that communicated such a
gift. Never do we hear of elders thus conferring a gift: it was not an
episcopal function but an apostolic prerogative, either to communicate
spiritual powers or to clothe men authoritatively with a charge. Hence it is
admitted that in the peculiar case of Timothy there was by the laying on of
apostolic hands a very special effect produced; but who can do this now? Were
this the claim (however one might desire to view, not indifferently but with the
patience of God, the prevalent and superstitious perversion of a sign,
admirable in itself when applied and understood scripturally), yet if any man
now presumed to convey a spiritual power like an apostle, should one hesitate
to call him an impostor? A mistaken course in assuming the rights of an earthly
sovereign is or may be treason. What is it to pretend falsely to communicate
the Holy Ghost or a distinct power of the Holy Ghost in the name of the Lord?
Dr. Crawford ("Presbyterianism Defended," pp. 34,
35, note) says that the distinction is groundless, and that the one preposition
no less than the other often signifies the instrumental cause of a thing! The
University of Edinburgh may blush for such a statement from its Professor of
Divinity. In Acts 15: 4, μετ᾽ αὐτῶν means "in connection with them,"
not "by them," like δι᾽ αὐτῶν in verse 12.
Beloved friends, it is a grave thing to trifle thus with the
Spirit of God. There are those in our day whose ignorant boldness fears not to
arrogate the right of conveying the Holy Ghost and ministerial power in this
manner; but, thanks be to God, they are otherwise known to be fundamentally
unsound, so that their influence over the faithful is inconsiderable. Then we
have alas! the Eastern and Western bodies of Christendom, which are hardly less
guilty. But among ordinary Protestants and especially among men of average
Christian respectability, such pretensions are regarded with pity or horror.
Even where the formularies as in the Anglican Communion approach fearfully near
the precipice, the excuse is that their godly framers intended no more than to
impart fitting and scriptural solemnity to various offices in the church. I
admit however, that the excuse is lame, and that it is hard to decide whether
these most suffer in conscience who employ these very serious forms
ecclesiastically without believing them, or those are most injured in faith who
accept as divine pretensions which are doubtless more respectably connected and
venerable but not better founded than those of a modern imposture.
9. Ministerial gifts were given by
the Lord, wherever and to whomever He pleases.
But the important truth on this subject to be seen is that
these ministerial gifts were given by the Lord without any form further than
that He warranted and sent them. Beware of disputing His will and wisdom. How
is one to judge of the possession of a gift? Undoubtedly by its due exercise
which finds an answer in the conscience. Let me ask you again, How do you know
a Christian? When people talk theoretically, or discuss polemically, there are
always great and numerous difficulties in the way. But if you went for
practical reasons to a godly clergyman or dissenting minister, he could give
you ample means of judging who are Christians in what he calls his flock.
Listen to many a man on his knees and, if he be a Christian, he will speak as a
child to his God and Father; but hear him on his legs, and he will perhaps
controvert, without knowing it, what he has been just saying in prayer, till on
his perverse principle he cannot tell whether God is his Father or not. How
happy that there are such seasons of devotion where people speak with
simple-hearted truthfulness! Away from their systems let them speak to God, and
their true characters and even condition will soon be manifest as a general
rule. Thus the fact is that in practice Christians have little difficulty in
knowing for the most part who are converted and who are not. There may be a
certain number of doubtful souls of whom we need not speak now. Let a believer
be sent for to a sick man; is he wholly at a loss how to speak? Does he not
seek as soon as possible to gather whether the sick man has peace in Christ, or
is anxious about his soul, or whether he has ever realized his lost and guilty
condition? If the believer finds no sense of sin, he will solemnly warn of
judgment and set before that soul the cross, imploring him to receive Christ;
or he will exhort him to rest in Christ because he is assured of his faith.
If then so little haze really rests on the question who are
and who are not children of God, think you that the possession of a gift is a
question so obscure and doubtful? Some may have more gift than others. But the
gift of teaching implies the power of bringing out the word of God and applying
it aright. Again take the power of ruling — for there is such a thing as rule
in the church, and I hope none here present imagine it is gone — he who has the
gift of rule seeks to exercise it of course according to the word of God.
Scripture knows nothing of a blind obedience. The conscience is awakened, the
heart set free and attracted to Christ. To these is the appeal of Christian
ministry. It is not the blind leading the blind, nor is it the seeing leading
the blind, but rather the seeing leading the seeing. Christ gives liberty as
well as life, and this withal responsible to do the will of God. Therefore it
is that according to the intention of God His children do not well to contrive
systems to escape difficulties; they need faith to go through them with God.
Let them prove their gifts, if indeed they have gifts from the Lord, by real
power. There may be severe trials and difficulties now and then. Even Paul
himself had to do with doubters of his apostleship, and this within the church,
and among his own children in the faith. What true-hearted man should be
downcast if he is slighted? But the time came when the Lord vindicated
His servant, and when the self-will and pride which refused a divine gift was
utterly put to shame, if the heart was not brought back to lowly thankfulness.
The chief mistake we are apt to make is in the way of impatience; we do not
allow time and space for the Lord to work: and that lack of patient waiting
only defers the wished-for solution, because it makes the difficulty so much
the greater.
But as to the discernment of a ministerial gift for
preaching or teaching, it is in general plain and simple. If a brother stand up
to speak in the Christian assembly without a gift from God, he will soon and
painfully find it out. If self-judging, he will learn much from his own
conscience; but he may quite sufficiently soon hear from others that which will
make him understand that he has not a gift in the judgment of his brethren. But
where there is really a gift, is it not possible that prejudice may act, and
this be refused? Certainly it may be so for a time. Perhaps the speaker thinks
too highly of his gift; perhaps he mistakes the character of it, and the right
scene and time for its exercise; perhaps he is too exclusively occupied with
his line of things, and too urgent or anxious to assert his gift. All this may
be, often is, and always creates difficulty. But the truth remains that what is
of God approves itself in the long run. My own experience, as far as my limited
range of observation and knowledge goes, inclines me to think that the children
of God are prone to make too much rather than too little of gift. In the
present state of the church there is but a feeble development of gift, and this
is felt the more in proportion to spiritual intelligence and a true position.
Do you wish to know your place fairly and fully? Look in confidence to God and
search the word of His grace. Many things there are to hinder and to draw away:
partly the effect of education, partly the difficulty of finding an honest
livelihood, especially if a man has been a professional preacher. If he
abandons (not preaching but) that profession as an unscriptural innovation, he
for the most part loses everything, even his bread, unless he have private
means of his own. Hence it is that the inducements for such an one to remain
where he is are enormous; the difficulties of coming out at the word of the
Lord are incalculable. The power of God alone can accomplish the change and
sustain the soul in peace and praise, "steadfast, immoveable, always
abounding in the work of the Lord."
While we may be sure that the word and Spirit of God give us
clearly the true position for the individual Christian and for the Christian
assembly, we ought not (I think, as things are,) to expect a great variety and
strength in the gifts of the Lord's grace. Of course He can work sovereignly,
and assuredly we ought to be most thankful for what is given. No doubt also
there are gifts distributed somewhere or other. There are gifts of Christ in
members and ministers of the national establishments, I do not question; there
are His gifts likewise in the dissenting societies; and are we to suppose there
are none of His gifts of grace in Romanism itself? For my part I cannot doubt
that there are. Who would, who could, reject the testimony of facts that there
have been persons therein — such as Martin Boos, for instance, not very long
ago — used for the conversion of sinners and for the helping on of saints in
some degree? And are such men not gifts of Christ to the church — as truly
gifts though in the false position as if they were out of it? Their being
Romanists — ay, Romish priests — does not destroy His grace, whatever we may
feel as to their faithfulness. The fact is that the Lord gives according to His
own will by the Holy Ghost, and we ought to acknowledge these gifts wherever
they are. If a man be a dissenter, whether a minister or one of the people, in
either case I am satisfied he is in a false position. It is not a question of a
feeling of dislike to dissent, if one believe its foundations to be
unscriptural. I ask the forbearance of any dissenters who may be here in
affirming calmly and solemnly my conviction that dissent is unsound in its
distinctive principles; a thorough contradiction of the very character of the
church as one body; and in the popular call and choice undermining ministry as
a divine and permanent institution flowing from the Saviour's grace. Dissent is
religious radicalism, which essentially opposes God's will as much as and
perhaps more than any other principle. The proofs are too plain. Dissent
substitutes the election of the people in the place of the sovereign choice of
the Lord Jesus Christ whether immediate or mediate.
But how is the truth better secured in the national bodies?
By patronage, clerical, lay, or governmental! And the painful apology for this
systematic self-will is that the men nominated by the government of the day, or
a landlord, or a college, or a corporation, have gone through the usual forms!
Is there the faintest resemblance between this worldly machinery and the divine
system of spiritual gifts from Christ set forth in Eph. 4? I see only One who
has ascended up on high. Are you looking to any other person? to any other kind
of ascent? to any other heaven for the favours you crave after? I appeal to you
as Christians. Do you value the word of God? Do you cherish that word only for
the salvation of your souls? or do you confide in the same word and Spirit for
guidance as to ministry and church office? What subjects more simply belong to
the Lord? For what do we need Him more? As a believer I surely feel the want of
God's word for my daily walk, no matter what my circumstances or sphere or
duties. And do you, can you believe that the word that lives and abides for
ever does not concern itself with so grave, delicate, and spiritually needful a
thing as the ministry of the word; or that, if it speak thereon, you are not
bound to hear and bow?
The sum of what has been said is then that these two great
principles are revealed in scripture and recognized by the early church:
namely, the Lord giving gifts of His own grace which did not require human
intervention; next also a system of authority which did require that
intervention, as in the appointment of elders by the apostles or persons
commissioned to do their work in certain cases. It is clear that we have
neither apostles living on the earth, nor representatives, like Titus, charged
by an apostle to do quasi-apostolic work. The consequence is, that now, if
subject to the word of God, you cannot and do not look for elders in their
precise official form. If any man allege these can be, it might be well to hear
his grounds from Scripture. What has been produced is in my judgment amply
sufficient to disprove it. You cannot have persons formally and duly appointed
to this office, unless you have a power formally and duly authorized of the
Lord to appoint them. But you have not that indispensably needful power
to authenticate elders: this is your fatally weak point. You have neither
apostles nor functionaries commissioned by the apostles to act in their stead;
and therefore the entire system of appointment breaks down for want of
competent authority. Dare you say of your elders that the HOLY GHOST has
made them bishops? You have none really, i.e., scripturally entitled to
appoint.
What then? Are there none suitable to be elders or bishops,
if there were apostles to choose them? Thank God! there are not a few. You can
hardly look into an assembly of His children without hearing of some grave
elderly men who go after the wanderers, who warn the unruly, who comfort those
that are cast down, who counsel, admonish, and guide souls. Are not these the
men who might be elders, if there were a power existing to appoint them? And
what is the duty of a Christian man as things now are in the use of what
remains? I say not to call them elders, but surely to esteem them highly for
their work's sake, and to love and acknowledge them as those who are over the
rest of their brethren in the Lord. I ask you solemnly, beloved friends, do you
acknowledge any to be over you in the Lord? — any living servants of the Lord
to take the lead in Him? Do you imagine such a recognition as this an offence
against the principles of God? Rather let me warn you against picking out
certain favourite texts from God's word to which only you pay obeisance. If we
do so, we are as far as in us lies building up a sect no less truly than our
neighbours. On the other hand, beware of adopting that human invention —
apostolic succession — to escape dilemmas. If under the fiction of succession
we dare to call men apostles who are not, the Lord in due time will not fail to
challenge our word or act, and demand, who entitled us to endorse such an
unheard of thing as this? who gave us leave, without His word, virtually to
acknowledge this or that as an apostolic man by accrediting his claim to
ordain? It is evident that to ordain elders is, however well-meant, an
imitation of what apostles did, and, if unauthorized, not only without validity
but an unwitting usurpation of an authority which reverted and now pertains to
the Lord Jesus Christ alone. Thus in the present state of the church, the
difference between a true position and a false one is not at all that one has
got a due ordination and the other wants it. In truth no body on earth
possesses it now. Do you acknowledge the want? or are you trying to cover the
humiliating but evident fact that you have not the only ordaining power which scripture
sanctions? And yet you go on ordaining, though you have neither apostle nor
apostolic deputy! Which course is most orderly? To do as you do; or to
acknowledge our actual lack, and carry ourselves accordingly before God and man
— to confess that we want apostles or their delegates, and therefore that we
cannot have presbyters duly chosen and formally appointed? There are, I repeat,
men endowed with such qualifications as would render them eligible, so far as
we can pretend to say, if there were a competent ordaining power. And
the general principle of Scripture (Rom. 12) manifestly is, that he who had the
gift of ruling, or of taking the lead among the saints, is bound to use it with
diligence (as the teacher, exhorter, and others, are responsible to discharge
their respective functions), even if circumstances made legitimate appointment
to a charge impracticable.
11. The apostle was inspired to
write epistles to churches where there were no elders.
But subjection to the word of God discovers readily that a
state of things substantially analogous to our own defective condition is
provided for in Scripture. The Lord in His wisdom let such wants be felt in the
early church. Thus the apostle was inspired to write epistles to churches where
there were no elders; as for instance the epistles to the Thessalonians and to
the Corinthians. The last was notoriously a disorderly church, and elders might
have been thought useful there. Nevertheless not the least word or hint about
elders there is heard from first to last. Had elders been then in their midst,
would not the apostle have called them to account, and blamed their want
of godly care and diligence in oversight? Of this there is not a trace.
Further, we know it was not the practice of the apostles to constitute elders
in an infant church Where Paul and Barnabas chose elders for the disciples, it
was in assemblies that had existed probably for years, and thus there had been
time for spiritual qualifications to be developed. But in a new assembly, where
the saints were young comparatively, a certain time had to be allowed, so that
those who were competent for such a work should be made evident. Accordingly it
is rather a rare thing to read of the apostles choosing or appointing elders.
On the other hand, in the first epistle to the
Thessalonians, we have in the last chapter very important instruction given to
the saints. They, too, are a similar instance of a young church, yet they were
told to own those that laboured among them. Hence all this may be where presbyters
are not. Thus in 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13 the apostle writes, "We beseech you,
brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord,
and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's
sake." The presence of elders is not requisite in order to have and to own
those who are over us in the Lord. There is much of importance for us now in
that Scripture, for we have elders no more than they. I think we ought to lay
its exhortations to heart. There are within and without, not a few
ill-instructed souls who hold the notion that, unless there be official
appointment, they cannot have anybody over them in the Lord. This is all a
mistake. No doubt, when a man was officially appointed, there was a definite
guarantee in the face of the church given by an apostle or an apostolic man;
and there was thereby no little weight given to those who were thus appointed.
Such a sanction had great and just value in the church, and would be of
consequence among the unruly. But none the less did God know how to provide
instruction for assemblies where there was not yet official oversight. How
merciful for times when, for want of apostles, there could be no elders! But it
will be noticed that the Corinthian assembly abounded in gift, though elders
are seen nowhere among them. The Thessalonians do not appear to have possessed
the same variety of outward power, while elders or bishops again are never
hinted at. Yet at Corinth the household of Stephanas devoted themselves
regularly (ἔταξαν) to the service of the saints; and the apostle beseeches the
brethren to submit themselves to such, and to every one that helped and
laboured. The Thessalonians he prays to know those who laboured among them, and
presided in the Lord, and admonished them. Evidently this did not depend upon
their being apostolically appointed, which could hardly have been in their
circumstances as lately gathered. It is founded upon that which after all is
intrinsically better, if we must be content with one blessing out of two.
Surely, if it comes to be a question between real spiritual power and outward
office, no Christian ought to hesitate between them. To have the power and the
office combined is no doubt the best of all, when the Lord is pleased to give
both; but in those early days we see that individuals were often and rightly
engaged in the work of the Lord before there could be the seal of an apostle,
as it were, affixed; and such the apostle encourages and commends earnestly to
the love and esteem of the saints before and independently of that seal. How
precious that we can fall back on this principle now!
Even at Corinth and Thessalonica then those were raised up
in the midst of the saints who showed spiritual ability in guiding and
directing others. That was the work of those to whom one epistle exhorted
subjection, and whom the other epistle commended as "over them in the
Lord." Such men as these did not labour only; because some might be
actively engaged in the Lord's work who might not be over others in the Lord.
But these manifested power to meet difficulties in the church, and to battle
with that which was ensnaring souls, and so to guide and encourage the weak and
baffle the efforts of the enemy. They were not afraid to trust the Lord in
times of trial and danger, and therefore the Lord used them, giving them power
to discern and courage to act upon what they did discern. This was part of what
fitted them to take the lead in the Lord. There were such at Thessalonica as
well as at Corinth, and yet there is not the slightest intimation that they
were regularly installed as elders, but on the contrary the strongest evidence
that elders as yet had not been constituted in either place. The regular
practice was to appoint elders after a certain time; indeed it could only be
when the apostles came round, or sent an authorized delegate to choose fit
persons and clothe them with a title before the church which none but the bad
would dispute.
12. His far-reaching wisdom is
sufficient to meet the difficulties of any day.
Need I observe how God had been graciously providing for the
wants of His children? This subject will come definitely before us on the next
occasion on which it will be my lot to address you. I will not therefore do
more now than draw attention to His far-reaching wisdom in meeting the
difficulties of the day, when a valid authority to ordain as the apostles did
is not left on the earth. Not that His children are left without help; they
have the same Lord and the same ever-present Spirit. Hence there is no need of
some change or new invention to meet the difficulties of the day, but the
return in faith to what was and is the will of the Lord; and this with
intelligence of the actual state of the church, and the feelings which become
it.
We have seen that, as the rule, the Lord alone gave these
gifts of ministry: it depends upon His love to His church, His faithfulness to
the saints. Is the Lord Jesus one whit less tender and true now than He was on
the day of Pentecost? Who would insinuate it? Neither can I sympathize with
those who look wistfully back on the earliest times, as if they only afforded
scope for faithful souls. No doubt a bright halo of grace surrounds the scene
where the Holy Ghost was first poured out on men with a simplicity and power
which carried all along; but who was the spring and whence the energy which
produced fruits so much the more wondrous when we think of the soil once so
hard, and stubborn, and cold? Was it not the Lord acting for His own name by
the Holy Ghost after He took the place, in risen and ascended glory, of giving
gifts to men? Is not His grace as equal to these perilous times as He proved
Himself when ushering in the mystery that was hid from ages? Are there saints
to be perfected and ministerial work to be done? Does the body of Christ need
to be built up? Then assuredly His gifts cannot fail till the work is done and
all are brought into the unity of the faith; and the many adversaries and
subtle snares and increasing perils will only draw the more upon the faithful
love of the Lord of all. There is fulness of blessing in Christ for the church
now as truly as then. Would that we but confided in Him more for every
exigency!
Are we then to disparage the truth or to doubt His grace by
setting up some work of our hands, some calf of gold, as if we knew not what is
become of Him who is gone on high? Far be it from God's children! Let me
suppose you come together as God's assembly; you know not who is to speak,
exhort, give thanks, pray. To unbelief this is but confusion. Certainly it
looks unwise if I forget who is in the midst; it is unpromising if I do not
believe that the Lord is there; but if assured that He, who has all power in
heaven and on earth, loves and cherishes the church, and that the Holy Ghost,
divine as He is, dwells with and in us, what need I fear? If this position is
true for one saint, it is true for all. For my part I would not dare for a
moment to stand upon any foundation which did not contemplate the whole length
and breadth of the church of God, which did not in its faith and love go out to
and embrace all the saints of God. Of course allowance must be made for
exceptional states, as for persons guilty of sin that would require their
exclusion (immorality, bad doctrine, and such like).
But then if I know that this is the ground of the
church according to Scripture, and that there was no other from the first taken
and acted on by the holy apostles, the question is, Am I upon it? If I am
called to labour in the word and doctrine, the Lord points me out the way. He
opens the door which none can shut, He shuts and none can open. He finds a path
for the feeblest of His pilgrims, and gives them courage, and makes it plain if
they have to serve Him. Let us never doubt Him.
But may there not be a number of gifts? So much the better.
If there are five or twice five gifted men in an assembly, let us thank the
Lord: there is room for all. God forbid that we should sanction the novelty of
each minister having his own little flock! Is it not a degradation for those who
so speak, and for those so spoken of? No one behaves himself — nay, he does not
even know how to behave himself — who does not bear the sense in his soul that
the saints are "the flock of God." But evidently men do not speak of
God's flock, if the divine ground of the church be forgotten: then it is
"my flock," or "your flock." There is always room for the
exercise of His gifts, whatever and however many they may be. Besides it is a
strange time to fear that any could be spared as superfluous.
The hour warns me that this subject must now be closed. My
endeavour has been to expound and enforce the fundamental distinction between
gifts and offices — the one, we saw, flowing from Christ on high, the other
requiring appointment here below of men themselves authorized of the Lord for
the purpose. As for gifts, they always remain sure as truly as Christ abides
the head and source of supply. As for formal authorization, it is no longer
possible because you have not a duly authorized power to appoint. All you can do
in the direction of appointing, if you will do something, is to set up a paltry
and rather arrogant imitation of the apostles and their delegates. But if you
really love the Lord and value godly order, is it not your bounden duty in the
name of the Lord to acknowledge all His gifts in a way you have never done?
Acknowledge them privately and publicly in the work He has assigned them. If
the gift be small, acknowledge the Lord in it as heartily as if it were a great
one; and if it be a great one, acknowledge it as humbly and unjealously as a
small one. On the other hand do not try to imitate what the apostles did;
beware of pretending to do what ought not to be thought of unless there were
apostolic power. And as to appointing deacons or choosing elders, scripture
affords no warrant unless there was direct or indirect apostolic authority
which does not now exist.
13. Acts 14:23 – On the election
of elders.
NOTE ON ACTS 14: 23.
This opportunity is taken to furnish clear and conclusive
evidence against the notion that the elders were chosen by the votes of the
churches. The word χειροτονέω, if etymologically viewed, means to stretch out
the hand; hence it was applied to election, as we say by show of hands, and,
generally, to choice or appointment without reference to the manner. Just so
ψηφίζομαι starts from mere reckoning with pebbles, and was used for
voting thus; then for voting in general, and lastly for the simple resolve or
decision of the mind. The context, not the word in itself, shows which is to be
understood. Hesychius explains χειροτονεῖν by καθιστᾳν (compare Titus 1: 5),
ψηφίζειν ; as Suidas for χειροτονήσαντες gives ἐκλεξάμενοι. With all
this accords the usage of Aristophanes, as well as of AEschines, Demosthenes,
etc., both in the narrow and literal sense, and in the general meaning of
choice or designation. Appian, Dio Cassius, Plutarch, Lucian, and Libanius
afford many examples where the word conveys no more than choosing. In these
therefore the idea of popular suffrage with or without the hands stretched out
is quite excluded.
But a few instances must be given from Hellenistic writers
familiar with the Old Testament and contemporaneous with those inspired to
write the New Testament. Thus Philo (περὶ Ἰωσὴφ) repeatedly uses χ of Pharaoh's
appointing Joseph his prime minister, and of Moses in the place to which he was
chosen by God, and in his selection again of Aaron's sons for the priesthood.
So Josephus (Ant. 6. 13. 9) speaks of Saul as "chosen king by God,"
ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ κεχειροτονημένον Βασιλέα, and also (Ant. 13. 2. 2) represents
Alexander as writing to Jonathan in these terms, χειροτονοῦμεν δέ σε σήμερον
ἀρχιερέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων. "We constitute thee this day high priest of the
Jews." This may suffice to prove what we are to judge of Dr. J. Owen's
statement (Works, vol. 15. pp. 495, 496, Goold's edition) that "Paul and
Barnabas are said to ordain elders in the churches by their election and
suffrage; for the word there used will admit of no other sense, however it be
ambiguously expressed in our translation." Indeed, Beza, Diodati, Martin,
and others had committed themselves to the same thing. Dr. G. Campbell,
however, Presbyterian as he was, repudiated this version of the text, and (in
his Prelim. Diss. x., Part v. § 7) pronounced per suffragia in the Latin
of Beza "a mere interpolation for the sake of answering a particular
purpose." If one do not endorse so strong a censure, the only alternative
is that the gloss sprang from inadequate research and strong prejudice.
The truth is that we need not go beyond the New Testament to
demonstrate the error; for here as elsewhere, even when applied to the most
rigid election, χ. never means choosing by the votes of others, which it
must mean to bear the alleged sense. Wherever the word occurs technically, the
person intended does not take the votes of others merely, or preside as
moderator of the election, but is the voter himself. Now in this
case the subject in question is beyond doubt not the disciples but Paul and
Barnabas. If any voted by stretching out their hands, it was the apostles only.
Hence the authorized version rightly dropped "by election," the sense
given in some of the older English and foreign translations which had been too
much influenced by the Genevese school and even Erasmus.
The true meaning is that the apostles chose elders for
the disciples in each assembly (not the disciples for themselves). And this is
entirely confirmed by Acts 10: 41 and 2 Cor. 8: 19; in one of which passages
God is said to have chosen beforehand; in the other the churches are the
choosers precisely as here the apostles. Neither God nor the assemblies
gathered the votes of others: no more did Paul and Barnabas. But this is the
sole testimony which has ever been imagined directly to favour the popular
election of elders; and we have seen that the inference drawn is assuredly
fictitious. For the matter in hand the usage of the word in the political or
civil affairs of Greece is no evidence.
It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that χ. does not mean
the imposition of hands, for which scripture supplies another phrase never
confounded with the word in question. But this confusion soon began to show
itself in ecclesiastical authors, who not infrequently employ χειροτονία where
we might expect χειροθεσία or ἡ ἐπίθεσίς τῶν χειρῶν. This error occurs in the
so-called Apostolical Canons, Chrysostom, and subsequent writers; and it may
have led the authorized translators to give "ordained" rather than
"chose" or "designated." Bishop Bilson, in his
"Perpetual Government of Christ's Church," is guilty not of this
confusion only but of the strange error that "the elders" included
"deacons." (See chaps. 7 and 10) But really the discord of
commentators is almost past belief, unless one have read extensively and proved
the fact by experience. Thus Hammond tries to extract from this verse the
appointment of a single bishop to each church or city; whereas one might have
inferred (without appealing to such incontestible proof to the contrary as Acts
20: 17, 28) that the plurality of the presbyters with the singular distributive
was as strongly against him as language could make the case short of an express
contradiction. Had Hammond's idea been meant, nothing could have been easier
than to have written πρεσβύτερον κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν or πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽
ἐκκλησίας. On the other hand, if I may trust Mr. Elsley's report, Whitby
opposes this ultra-Episcopalianism on the equally untenable ground that these
elders were such as had miraculous endowments either directly from God (as in
Acts 2, 4, 9, 10, 11) or through an apostolic medium (as in Acts 8), and who
had the care at first of the churches; not fixed ministers, but nearer to the
apostles in rank. Can any statement be conceived more random and unfounded?
The last and perhaps the worst specimen of this speculation
I take from Calvin's Inst. 4. 3. 15, 16, where, according to the author,
"Luke relates that Barnabas and Paul ordained elders throughout the
churches; but he at the same time marks the plan or mode when he says it was
done by suffrage. The words are χ. πρ. κ. ἐκκλ. (Acts 14: 23.) They
therefore selected (creabant) two; but the whole body, as was the
custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the
two they wished to have." It has rarely been my lot to meet with a
more glaring perversion of the facts and language of inspiration than this
passage exhibits, the refutation of which has been already anticipated. The new
translation by E. Beveridge is purposely cited to cut off cavil on that score;
and the original is given underneath for verification.* It is consolatory
however to find that so untoward a construction was destined to no long
existence; for its own author smothers it though with reluctance in his
commentary on the passage: — "Presbyterium qui hic collectivum
nomen esse putant, pro collegio presbyterorum positum, recte sentiunt meo
judicio." (Comment. in loc.)
"Refert enim Lucas constitutos esse per ecclesias
presbyteros à Paulo et Barnaba: sed rationem vel modum simul notat, quum dicit
factum id esse suffragiis, χειροτονήσαντες, inquit, πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽
ἐκκλησίαν. Creabant ergo ipsi duo: sed tota multitudo, ut mos Graecorum in
electionibus erat, manibus sublatis declarabat quem habere vellent."
(Genevae, 1618.)
But the close of the chapter is still more full of perplexity
and error. "Lastly it is to be observed, that it was not the whole people,
but only the pastors who laid hands on ministers, though it is uncertain
whether or not several always laid their hands. It is certain that in the case
of the deacons it was done by Paul and Barnabas, and some few others. (Acts 6:
6; Acts 13: 3) But in another place Paul mentions that he himself without any
others laid hands on Timothy. 'Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou
stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.' (2
Tim. 1: 6) For what is said in the epistle of the laying on of the hands of
the presbytery I do not understand, as if Paul were speaking of the
college of elders. By the expression I understand the ordination itself (!); as
if he had said, Act so, that the gift which you received by the laying on of
hands, when I made you a presbyter (!), may not be in vain." That
apostolic hands appointed the seven men whom the multitude elected for the
service of tables is clear. But scripture is silent whether imposition of hands
was practised in the establishing of elders; and to me that silence seems
admirably wise, even if in fact hands were imposed, as a divine provision
against superstitious abuse. But what can be meant by the reference to Acts
13: 3, connected with the allegation that Paul and Barnabas, etc., laid their
hands on deacons? As for the notion that τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου (1 Tim. 4: 14) means
not the elders as a body but eldership, and so is to be in sense dislocated
from its evident and necessary connection with χειρῶν at the end of the verse
and put in apposition with χαρίσματος at the beginning, I maintain that the
grammar is not more harsh and unexampled than the resulting doctrine is
strange. Eldership in scripture is not a gift but a local charge.
The modern defences of this system are of no more weight than those of older date. I have before me now Dr. Crawford's "Presbyterianism Defended," and Mr Witherow's Inquiry; but they seem to me neither candid nor successful. The insuperable difficulty is that presbyters in scripture were never the ordaining power, though they might be associated with an apostle even in conveying an extraordinary gift as to Timothy, who is never represented as an elder. Further, the minister is as distinct from the elders in Presbyterianism as he is from the deacons in Congregationalism, and is a personage of as high moment in both systems as he is unknown to scripture. Again, to say that elders are not as distinctly laymen as the minister is clerical among Presbyterians is inconsistent with the notorious difference as to style of address, and salary. Both their systems err in maintaining that the office-bearers were chosen by the people; only those were whose duty it was to disburse funds or its equivalent. And if there was a plurality of elders (who were identical with the bishops), there was the fullest opening for all the gifts of the Lord, instead of that invention of men, the minister. Elders never ordained elders, but only apostles or their delegates; and gifted men required no ordination before exercising their ministry. Nor does Acts 15 resemble a church-court, i.e. a representative assembly of ministers and elders from all parts of the sphere of jurisdiction. This scripture shows us the apostles with universal authority from Christ, and the elders of the Church in Jerusalem, with the whole Church joining in the decision. Hence the decrees were delivered to be observed far beyond the cities of Jerusalem and Antioch, in total discord with Presbyterianism.