CHAPTER 4

I now come to ministry. I think that the work of Mr. Monsell on this subject may perhaps be of much use, and that so much the more, as emanating from an adversary.
He overthrows the system of our other adversaries with much clearness and logical consequence. As to elders, I think his work may be also very useful. I scarcely see anything except the point of the investiture of the elders, on which I have any remarks to make.
As regards elders, the imposition of hands is insisted on, election by the faithful or by a presbytery; and they are not content with their practical existence, even when they are owned with thanksgiving before God.
Let us see what Mr. M. admits on these points, as the result of his study-a result at which I have arrived, and which the adversaries of brethren are one after the other forced to admit.
Mr. M. says on the subject of elders, " At most we can only guess that their installation was accompanied with the imposition of hands: finally, no positive measure was taken to render this institution permanent.... The meaning of so marked an indifference is evident, when we remember that the fundamental corruption of Christianity was to be the transformation of these officers into an order of priests, resting its pretensions on apostolical succession.
It is certain in effect that the word does not contain one word about the imposition of hands, so far as being laid on elders is concerned. What precious care is that which God takes of His Church, and that in all times! According to the customs of those times I have little doubt that hands were laid on the elders; but the Holy Ghost, who foresees everything, and who knows what He ought to say and what He ought to omit, carefully avoided stating it (and for my part I have no doubt that the reason given by Mr. M. is the true one, as also for that which concerns the virgin Mary). The Spirit of God, I say, avoided carefully giving a statement as to the imposition of hands on elders, in the inspired word, our one and only guide; and now, in contempt of His wisdom and goodness, men try to impose upon us the thing which God in His goodness, has taken care to pass over in silence, in that which He has preserved for us and handed down for the blessing of the Church in all times.
I do not insist on the strange consequence which Mr. M. draws, both from the fears of this abuse and from the determination which he has formed to have the imposition of hands, in order to keep up appearances for the flesh. " Take," says he, " for ordaining, those who are the least esteemed in the Church." And nevertheless, he would prefer it should be those who possessed its respect. It is nothing but the natural consequence of departing from the wisdom of the word; but I confine myself to insisting on the fact that imposition of hands on elders is nowhere found in the word.
" I think," says also Mr. M. " with one of the opponents of Mr. Darby, that the institutions of the Apostolical Church are not an absolute model. Therefore I do not insist on the establishment of elders as on a command of God."
Hence Mr. M. does not try to show a passage where the word declares that some must be established; at the same time he declares that nothing is said on the mode of their establishment. He even adds, "we know neither where, nor when, nor why, nor how this religious magistracy was established." There is not the slightest allusion to an official source of this authority; he dares not insinuate that the people chose them.
Mr. M. touches upon the accusation made against him of establishing the democratic principle. His answer may be read: it is very insignificant. He agrees that he cannot " present as being of divine authority," the system he wishes to establish. To present it as such, would be, he adds, " to deprive the bride of her privilege of ordering the house of God according to the wisdom He gives her day by day, as directed by His Spirit and enjoying His fellowship... and were it not for the conviction which I have of the practical advantages of primitive episcopacy, I would adhere fully to these words (of Mr. Scherer) ' The meaning of the apostolic example is confined for us to a very general indication of the propriety or necessity of the direction of the Church by some of its members.' "
We see what place the word of God holds in these theories.
Mr. M. avoids all discussion on Acts 14:23. On the other hand, he admits that Titus was sent to Crete, not to recognize elders, but to establish them there This is to allow that, in the only case where we find in the word anything precise, it is the apostles and their delegates who alone establish, an important principle where gifts are not in question. And here is the reason: Christ is " Son over his own house." Authority comes from Him, and the bride cannot confer it. It is not a question (and on that we are agreed) of ministry, but of government, of authority, of oversight. Now Christ alone is Head, as the man is of the woman. Christ not only gives gifts; He, further, established the twelve and that was a charge. Paul received his authority from Christ. He commits a charge to Timothy who had been designated by prophecies; he leaves Titus in Crete to establish elders. These are not merely isolated facts, but a chain of facts, which flow from the principle that authority belongs to Christ, and that Christ is " Son over his own house."
Now Mr. M. confesses that there is a " universal disorder ""apostasy "-" the very strongest thing that can be said in any language." He confesses that nothing has been said of the permanence of this institution of elders; that this silence of the word is intentional, because this institution was to become the great corruption of the Church, as it has become in truth. And mark this, that there is a parceling out of the Church, and that, in consequence, if one pretends to establish elders, they will be elders, not of the flock of God, but of a little sect which must have taken from its own bosom persons such as it has been able to find there. Such elders can in nowise answer to that which we have in Acts. It cannot be said to them, " to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood "-" all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers."
Is nothing more told us then in the word of God on the subject of elders and of the guidance of the flock?
Let us examine again the tract of Mr. M.
We read there, " The silent establishment of elders, whose existence is revealed to us only incidentally, is a proof of the small importance attached to these things."
That is to say, that elders held their office without our finding any indication of their official establishment. This is the more easy to understand, as Peter, writing to the Jews of the dispersion, shows us that the idea he had of an elder was not at all that of a man officially established. He, himself an elder, wrote to those amongst them who were elders, and he adds (1 Peter 5:5), " Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder." It is exactly that which would be equivalent to the expression of a president by seniority in age. He contrasts the younger and the elder (neoteroi, presbuterois). That is to say, we have the certainty that Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, did not use the word "elder" to indicate men officially established, but men to whom their age, and the experience which accompanied it, gave a moral weight in contrast with younger men. And it is precisely in this way that the elders at Jerusalem are presented in Acts 15.
As Mr. M. acknowledges, we have no proof that there were elders at Antioch. And he adds, " Six years after the introduction of the gospel at Corinth, the church appears not to have had as yet any more formal government than the moral influence of those who devoted themselves to the work of the Lord; 1 Cor. 16:15, 16. The following year the isolated church at Rome was, to all appearance, in the same situation. The leadership was then still as the exercise of a gift (Rom. 12:8) without having become a regular charge." He says again, " Those who had spoken to the flock the word of God, were by right its leaders," Heb. 13:7.
That is to say, we have a crowd of passages which show us very clearly the position of an elder, leader, and president, as founded on his moral weight and on the gifts, without nomination or official establishment. To those which Mr. M. quotes I would add 1 Thess. 5:12, 13: " And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor 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."
We have then in the word of God a position recognized without controversy, and valid without any other question, wherever it is found. Whilst we fully admit that this was apostolic experience, and that the system of official elders was only established at the end of about thirty years, Mr. Monsell blames us for wishing to go over this experience again. He tell us that in proportion to the growth of the evil, this system was " laid as a necessity on the apostle," particularly on Paul. For my part, I do not oppose this idea, although it appears that even at the beginning Paul established elders; Acts 14. But admitting this, what does this fact show? It shows that in proportion as the evil was increasing, and at the same time the desire of glorifying the Lord, love and interest for the things of Christ, were diminishing, it became necessary that certain persons should be possessed with an authority, which, resting on an investiture which none would dare dispute, might impose silence on every disobedient soul. And thus it is that we find apostles who establish; a Titus who is expressly sent to do so; a Timothy who might be called to receive accusations against elders; but all here depends on the fact that the source of the authority is incontestable. Such was indeed the case with the apostles, and with those who in case of need might appeal to the epistles to Titus and Timothy.
But all does not end thus.
" In proportion," says Mr. M., " that death laid hold on the Church, the elders exclusively arrogated teaching to themselves, and ministry was confounded with office. When they had become a corporation, the ambition of power showed itself among them (a universal rule of corporations): the members of the clergy compared themselves to the priests of the Old Testament, and their functions to all that was already most honored amongst men-hence the word " sacrament." Then came in salvation by means of ceremonies and forgiveness of sins by priests."
I do not carry out this picture farther. Mr. M. tells us that we do wrong to go farther back than the state of youth of the Philippian church, to the childhood of that of Thessalonica and Corinth. But this is not the question. Infancy and youth are long gone by; and now the question is to know if, in this decrepit state of corrupted old age, of which he gives us the picture, we can return to youth, and do that which the apostles did by the authority of Christ, to bridle the will of man by a recognized authority, and recognized because it flowed incontestably from the authority of Christ over His own house, and because according to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit it answered to that which such a position demands. All depends here on the incontestable authority of the Establisher.
On the other hand, we find that in fact the word of God invests morally with its authority, that is to say, with the authority of God, those who, without having been, in the same way, officially established, can, if God raises them up, act on this ground according to their capacity, wherever they may be found, were it even in the midst of a dozen brethren gathered together.
Well! we have recognized the goodness of God in that, without pretending to appoint elders with an authority which shuts the mouth of the refractory by the very fact of their nomination, as the apostles did, to whom Christ had entrusted the rod in the Church. Who will do so now?
If you appoint elders, and if I dispute their authority, you can only maintain it on the footing of moral authority, which will show, that it is the flesh in me that disputes it. You are, in spite of yourself, on the same footing as I am, unless your act be the fruit of a sect and that you make it a condition of entrance into the flock.
But in reality, as to the care of which we speak, is it found amongst the brethren? It is possible that they have not known how to profit by it everywhere as they ought. But let us leave Mr. M. to speak on this point: " In Switzerland," says he, " and in English towns, the lead falls to those who put themselves in the van (oi proistamenoi), very often devoted, wise, and spiritual men." And that is so true, that in his efforts to overthrow the flocks of Switzerland, and in the directions he gives to those who may be inclined to lend a hand to him to this end, he avows that he despairs of success with regard to the large churches: " these," says he, " are led in general by a little knot of brethren, whose intellectual activity has enabled them to grasp these sacred theories." Mr. M. hopes that the little churches of the villages will be less sheltered from his efforts.
I say nothing of all this part of Mr. M.'s tract, because I do not think that there is one single spiritual soul who does not judge its spirit. One can pardon and pray for the author. If there be any spiritual energy, people will be secured from all his attempts; if there be none, one is always, alas! the prey of such attacks. At least there is straightforwardness in warning us of what he desires to do. Whether it is God who has forced him to this or whether it be irritation, this is certain, that God intended to warn the brethren of it.
Mr. M. finds fault with us, because in the British Isles the guidance of the country assemblies is almost always in the hands of some great or small landowner in the neighborhood. This is a thing I was ignorant of up to this moment; and yet I have been there more than he has. That might easily happen. I can assure my reader that I have thought of it, and that I cannot remember one single example of that which Mr. M. says is nearly always the case, without bringing forward a single instance: and yet I know the work pretty well. For my part, I think that brethren might, or at least that the grace of God could, give more energy to this part of the work. It demands patience, self-denial, a subdued flesh, the consciousness that one is acting with Christ and an ardent desire for His glory in the Church. But, in truth, it is a work which brings its own reward with it. It is a joy, if it is also a toil, to watch that souls, dear to the Lord, may walk well before Him. If there be not this love and feeling of responsibility, one can only do harm in meddling with the office.
I should still have many remarks to offer on the arguments of Mr. M. but I shall not go farther into details on this subject.
To say that Titus was sent to Crete because the churches had not yet made for themselves bishops, is to wrest the word by adding to it one's own inventions. If authority were not necessary to set right those things which remained unordered and to establish elders, why not write to the churches? To dispute the necessity of that authority, is to admit an argument or an insinuation which destroys itself.
I have never read the tract of Mr. Vermont. But the only thing which, in that part which Mr. M. quotes, has struck me as extraordinary, is the very thing which he adopts himself, whilst pitying " those poor brethren at Plymouth " for having such an idea, namely, to be contented with separation if one does not agree. It is enough to compare the expression of his commiseration in page 58, with what he says in page 61. But I do not think that the dear brother who wrote " Mr. Vermont " pretends to render the brethren responsible for what may be there.
I think that Mr. M. is right in combating Mr. Beverly when he denies that the word " deacon " is employed officially. The first Epistle to Timothy, as it seems to me, leaves no doubt as regards this. But there would be no profit for any one in our dwelling here on all these details.