PREFACE
This
recopilation of documents exposes the true attitude of the gatherings
of brethren that spread by the end of the second decade and the third
one of the XIX century in Ireland, England and finally through all the
world, seeking to manifest the truth that all born again Christians are
an only body in Christ and a single reality, constituted by the Holy
Spirit on the earth. These believers sought and seek to give expression
to the reality of the Holy Spirit forming and acting in this body of
Christ, the Church, according to His sovereign gifts and by the
instruction of the Word of God, which reveals unto us the love of the
Father that gives His Son for the salvation of all that believe in Him
and as the center of gathering of His reedemed. These documents are
given as a foundation in agreement with the Scriptures of some
realities that we Christians are called to manifest, maintaining the
doctrine of Christ in the truth (2 John), the gospel in its truth
without admixture (Galatians 1) and a walk in personal purity (1
Corinthians 5), and seeking to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond
of peace (Ephesians 4). Jesus Christ died "that also he should gather
together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (John
11:52). And ultimately, Christ shall fulfil His great purpose in the
gathering of the Church unto Himself. "Christ also loved the church,
and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a
glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but
that it should be holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:25-27).
Santiago
Escuain
J. N. Darby — Letters, Vol. III
p 459
...
As regards
the second question: the principle of meeting is the unity of the body,
so that
a person known as a Christian is free to come: only the person who
introduces
him should have the confidence of the assembly as to his competency to
judge of
the person he introduces. In
London
and elsewhere the name of the person introducing is given out; or if
many know
him, that is mentioned and they are responsible. Looseness is so
prevalent now
among the denominations that more care is needed; but I hold that every
known
Christian has the same title as myself; and membership of an assembly I
totally
reject. But I do not accept running out at a person's fancy: they may
have been
sinning or walking disorderly; and a person breaking bread is thereby
subject
to the discipline of God's house, if called for, just as if he had been
constantly there. Nor do I accept any condition from them, as that they
are
free to go anywhere: the assembly is to follow God's word, and can bind
itself
by no condition. Nor do I impose any; because as the assembly is bound
by the
word and can accept none, so is the person subject to the discipline of
the
assembly according to the word.
I have never
changed my views at all. The practice is more difficult because of the
growing
looseness in doctrines and practice of all around. But if an assembly
refused a
person known to be a Christian and blameless, because he was not of the
assembly, I should not go. I own no membership but of Christ. An
assembly
composed as such of its members is at once a sect. But the person who
brings
another is responsible to the assembly, and should mention it; for it
is the
assembly which is finally responsible, though it may trust the person
who
introduces another in the particular case. If it were a young
Christian, or one
of little maturity and weak in the faith, I should like to know what
sure
ground there was before allowing him to break bread, on the same
principle as
in all other cases.
Yours truly in
the Lord.
[Date unknown.]
J. N. Darby — Letters, Vol. II pp. 10-12
DEAR
BRETHREN,—I write for both, because I hardly know who is in the place,
indeed
for all as to my heart's desire; and you will not be astonished at my
being
interested in the assembly there. I have heard from one, and also
through
another, only one side of course of the circumstances; and consequently
I say
little of them. N., indeed, alluded to the question raised, but not to
circumstances. I shall refer chiefly to principles; for you will feel
that we
are all, as of one body, interested in the position taken, and still
more in
the glory of Christ and our brethren's welfare.
The
question is as to reception of saints to partake of the table of our
Lord with
us: whether any can be admitted who are not formally and regularly
amongst us.
It is not whether we exclude persons unsound in faith, or ungodly in
practice,
nor whether we, deliberately walking with those who are unsound and
ungodly,
are not in the same guilt — not clear in the matter. The first is
unquestioned;
the last, Brethren have insisted on — and I among them — at very
painful cost
to ourselves. There may be subtle pleas to get evil allowed; but we
have always
been firm, and God, I believe, has fully owned it.
The
question is not there; but suppose a person, known to be godly and
sound in
faith, who has not left some ecclesiastical system — nay, thinks
Scripture
favours an ordained ministry, but is glad when the occasion occurs;
suppose we
alone are in the place, or he is not in connection with any other body
in the
place — staying with a brother, or the like: is he to be excluded
because he is
of some system as to which his conscience is not enlightened, nay,
which he may
think more right? He is a godly member of the body, known such: is he
to be
shut out? If so, the degree of light is title to communion, and the
unity of
the body is denied by the assembly which refuses him. The principle of
meeting
(as members of Christ walking in godliness) is given up, agreement with
us is
made the rule, and the assembly becomes a sect with its members like
any other.
They meet on their principles, Baptist or other — you on yours; and if
they do
not belong to you formally as such, you do not let them in. The
principle of
Brethren's meeting is gone, and another sect is made — say with more
light, and
that is all. It may give more trouble, requiring more care to treat
every case
on its merits, on the principle of the unity of all Christ's members,
than to
say, "You do not belong to us, you cannot come"; but the whole
principle of meeting is gone. The path is not of God.
I have
heard (and I partly believe it, for I have heard some rash and violent
people
say it elsewhere) that the various sectarian celebrations of the supper
are
called tables of devils. But this proves only the unbrokenness and
ignorance of
him who says it. The heathen altars are called tables of devils
because, and
expressly because, what they offered they offered, according to
Deuteronomy 32:
17 to devils, and not to God. But to call Christian assemblies by
profession
(ignorant of ecclesiastical truth, and hence meeting wrongly) tables of
devils
is simply monstrous nonsense, and shews the bad state of him who so
talks. No
sober man, no honest man, can deny that Scripture means something
totally
different.
I have
heard — I do not know whether it be true — that it has been said that
Brethren
in
England
act on this ground. If this has been said, it is simply and totally
false.
There have been new gatherings formed during my absence in America
which I have
never visited; but the old ones, long walking as brethren, have always
received
known Christians; and everywhere, I have no doubt, the newer ones too;
and in
every country. I have known individuals to take up the thought — one,
at any
rate, at
Toronto;
but the assembly always received true Christians. Three broke bread in
this way
the last Lord's Day that I was in
London.
There
cannot be too much care as to holiness and truth: the Spirit is the
Holy
Spirit, and the Spirit of truth; but ignorance of ecclesiastical truth
is not a
ground of excommunication when the conscience and walk are undefiled.
If a
person came and made a condition to be allowed to go to both, he would
not come
in simplicity in the unity of the body. I know it to be evil, and
cannot allow
it; and he has no right to impose any condition on the
church of God.
It must exercise its discipline, as cases arise, according to the word.
Nor,
indeed, do I think a person regularly going from one to another
systematically
can be honest in going to either; he is setting up to be superior to
both, and
condescending to each. This is not, in that act, a pure heart.
May
the Lord guide you. Remember you are acting as representing the whole
church of God; and if you depart from a
right path
as to the principle of meeting, you are separating yourselves from it
to be a
local sect on your own principles. In all that concerns faithfulness,
God is my
witness, I seek no looseness; but Satan is busy, seeking to lead us one
side or
the other — to destroy the largeness of the unity of the body, or to
make it
mean looseness in practice and doctrine. We must not fall into one in
avoiding
the other. Reception of all true saints is what gives its force to the
exclusion of those walking loosely. If I exclude all who walk godlily
as well,
who do not follow with us, it loses its power, for those who are godly
are shut
out too.
There
is no membership of Brethren. Membership of an assembly is unknown in
Scripture. There it is members of Christ's body. If people must be all
of you,
it is practically membership of your body. The Lord keep you from it:
that is
simply dissenting ground.
I
should, if I came to —, require clear evidence what ground you are
meeting
upon.
Kingston,
April 19th., 1869
J.
N. Darby — Letters, Vol. II pp. 349-351
Not
quite at the end till I turn round towards
England
again, the Lord sparing me
and holding me up.
I have
just made ninety-six hours of railroad, without stopping, and am all
well. My
mind fully turns to
England
when I have done in these parts.
Were I
young, with (humanly speaking) life before me, there would be ground
for
staying, for the work is opening. It is in many respects on a new
footing, and
the question of this position and the truths of Scripture as to the
full
position, and the walk too, of the Christian is raised everywhere. But
I am not
young, and cannot think to carry out the work myself; and God, I trust,
will
raise up instruments, as He has a few. It is not His mind, I believe,
to be out
of weakness. In the state of the church it becomes us to take part in
her
sorrows.
As
regards your first question, I think there is a mistake as to the
position of
the assembly, both in the sister and also of the brother who objected,
perhaps
in all. When a person breaks bread, he is in the only fellowship I know
— owned
members of the body of Christ. The moment you make another FULL
fellowship, you
make people members of your assembly, and the whole principle of
meeting is
falsified. The assembly has to be satisfied as to the persons, but, as
so
receiving to break bread, is supposed to be satisfied on the testimony
of the
person introducing them, who is responsible to the assembly in this
respect.
This, or two or three visiting, is to me the question of adequate
testimony to
the conscience of the assembly.
At the
beginning it was not so, that is, there was no such examination. Now I
believe
it a duty according to 2 Timothy 2. Nobody comes in but as a believer.
This
again makes the distinction of member of the particular assembly. Still
I do
not think a practice such as this sister's is satisfactory. I admit
fully every
case must stand on its own merits, and so be dealt with. Where breaking
bread
is intermitted, it is all well to mention it, though this be in some
cases
uncalled for, where the assembly knows about it and is satisfied; but
if
persons break bread, they are as subject to discipline as if always
there,
because it is the church of God which is in question, though
represented by two
or three: Christ is there. If it is merely an occasional coming as a
stranger,
the person not being known, it is well to mention the fact.
What
is not satisfactory in such cases is, first, it is accepting the person
by the
assembly as if they had another fellowship besides membership of
Christ, which
I do not recognise at all. And, secondly, I should fear there was a
reluctance
to take honestly the reproach of the position, the true separated
position of saints,
and [the wish] to be able to say to others, I do not belong to them, I
only go
as a believer.
I only go as a
believer, but then I accept the position. Waiting for them to get clear
is all
well. A true believer has TITLE at the table; but if they meet as
members of
Christ's body, they are all one body as partakers of one loaf.
I do not admit them. I own their title, wait
upon their
want of light, but would not allow them to put me in the position of a
sect
(and "full fellowship" means that) making allowance for their
ignorance, and waiting upon it. They do not come really to break bread
with us
on the ground of the unity of the body, if they think they are not one
with us
in coming; for if we are true and right, they are not one with the body
of
Christ, the only principle of meeting I know at all.
I
repeat, in the present state of the church we must have much patience,
as their
minds have been moulded in church membership; but I ought not to
falsify my own
position, nor sanction it in the mind of another. If the person is
known to
all, and known to be there to break bread, all mention is needless; it
is a
testimony to the unity of the body. If an occasional thing, the person
who
introduces is responsible.
I
remember a case, where one growing in truth came to help sometimes in a
Sunday-school, and from the other side of London, and asked the
brethren if he
might not break bread when there — time even did not allow of him to
get back
to his Baptist service — and he enjoyed the communion of saints.
Brethren allowed
him gladly; and, if my recollection is right, his name was not given
out when
he came afterwards. Very soon he was amongst Brethren entirely, but his
fellowship was as full when he was not; and had he given occasion, he
would
have been refused in discipline, just as if there every Sunday.
The
other question is for me a more delicate one, because it is a question
of the
state of the soul, as of the church, when darkness covers it. Many,
many souls
cry Abba Father (that is, have the Spirit of adoption), which are clear
in
nothing, save that their confidence is in Christ and His work only; and
as
doubting is taught in the church, and a plain full gospel unknown and
even
rejected by teachers, this state is the natural consequence; and it
often
requires spirituality to discern the real state of a soul, if really
under law,
undelivered or legalised by teaching. Hard cold knowledge of doctrine
is not
what I seek. Then there is the danger of throwing back a soul just when
it
wants to be encouraged. Doubts brought in by conflict, when a soul can
really
say Abba, are not a ground of rejection, though it shews a soul not
well
established. Yet a soul exercised, but not yet resting in Christ's
work, is not
in a right state for communion. So with young converts — it is far
better for
them to wait until they have peace, only carefully shewing it is not to
reject
them but for their own good. I should not look for understanding
deliverance,
but being personally able to say, Abba, Father. The intelligence of
deliverance
is the consequence of sealing. But if a man be not sealed, he is not in
the
Christian position. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is
none
of his." Peace through forgiveness is, as to Christ's work, the
evidence
of faith in Christ's work, and that work received by faith is the
ground of
sealing. Then one is delivered; but the intelligence of this is another
thing.
Israel out
of
Egypt
was brought to God —
delivered. Through
Jordan
they entered in, were circumcised, and ate the corn of the land. But a
sealed
person alone is in the true Christian position; and this is founded on
the
sprinkling with blood, that is, faith in Christ's work, by which we
have
redemption, not in the knowledge of deliverance. This is its effect.
From “The Brethren” commonly
so-called: Their Origin, progress and testimony
By Andrew Miller
It is
also said, we know, that the
Exclusive Brethren
— as the protesters against
Bethesda's
course
were now called — will receive persons to the Lord's table from the
church of
England where much error is held, but refuse the most godly saint from
a
Bethesda
gathering. This
is true and often most painful and distressing to those who have it to
do.
Nothing but fidelity to Christ and His word could give them firmness in
the
face of the appeals that are made, and the subtle pleas that are urged.
The
explanation is this: strange as it may appear, the
Neutral
Brethren, as they were now called, professedly assembled on
the principle of the church of God as before the division, and owned
the
presence of the Holy Ghost in their midst. Several things might be
noticed
which appear to us inconsistent with this position; still, as this was
and is
the ground taken, the gatherings must be dealt with as one body. By
acknowledging the presence of the Holy Ghost in this way they profess
to be one
body though many members: therefore, in receiving a single member from
a body
that professes to be a
unity, the
whole body, sound or unsound, is, in principle, received. (See 1 Cor.
12.) But
in the church of England and in the various forms of dissent, no such
position
is assumed. They meet on the ground of a particular system; it may be
Episcopacy, Presbytery, or Independency; and the members of the
different
systems remain as so many individuals, and ought to be dealt with as
such. The
ecclesiastical position of such is entirely different from that
occupied by the
Bethesda
gatherings so-called, and each individual must be dealt with according
to the
ground he professedly takes. There may be much sympathy and
friendliness
amongst the denominations, but there is no such thought as unity;
nevertheless,
to refuse a godly Christian from the church of England because he may
think the
Establishment right would be to make light or intelligence a title to
communion, denying the unity of the body and form a sect. It is a
question not
of
degrees of light, but of
holiness and
truth.
Pp. 90-92
The
Latest Sect
W. Kelly.
(
Bible Treasury—Vol. 20, p. 300-302,
368.)
It may
not be generally known, though familiar to many readers, that a
portentous
effort has been recently made in an ecclesiastical way, which is not
without
instruction if only for warning. It emanates from those professing
Christians,
who fell back on compromise when the question of a true or false Christ
was
raised not quite 50 years ago, and ecclesiastical independency was
adopted as
the means of appearing united, notwithstanding real division.
As
nobody who looked beneath the surface could be satisfied with an
expediency so
hollow, the inevitable reaction has come; and conscience at length
confesses
from among themselves that these easy-going assemblies are "lawless."
Throughout a considerable part of
Great Britain this cry has
been
heard from men who ought to be credible witnesses of the facts among
their old
associates; as others outside them had long testified that so it was
and must
be on their principle, or rather on their total lack of it in any
divine sense.
It
seems that three canons are set up as the new distinctive standard.
First, they
are strict Baptists, refusing to receive any member of Christ's body
who has
not conformed to christian immersion as believers. Secondly, they
require that
every one allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper shall have previously
broken
off all ecclesiastical association in order to stand in their ranks.
Thirdly,
they claim to appoint elders over their associates, as the expression
of rule
in the flock of God on earth.
Now on
all three points these retrograde innovators convict themselves,
however
self-confident, of not being guided of God.
First,
it is as certain as some other facts in scripture, that the twelve
apostles,
though charged by the risen Lord to baptise unto the name of the Father
and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit, were not baptised with that baptism
themselves.
Some, perhaps all, were baptised by John; but this was no equivalent,
as Acts
19 proves incontrovertibly. Nor was their own baptism during our Lord's
lifetime christian baptism; for this is based on His death and
resurrection,
and instituted after that. To these we may add other disciples before
Pentecost, of whom we hear of above 500 brethren who saw the Lord risen
at once
1 Cor. 15: 6), and how many more we know not. But we do know that the
Holy
Spirit baptised them at Pentecost into one body. Thus signally even
from the
beginning must letter hide its diminished head before spirit; as of old
the
Lord said, even under law, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice."
Still
more does the principle of grace apply in these days of
Christendom's
moral ruin, when the great majority of the members of Christ must be
owned to
be christened as infants, which they regard as valid baptism even when
confessed to be irregular in some respects, and would conscientiously
object to be re-baptised as unscriptural. Any company therefore that
insists on this
rigid view is of necessity a sect or party; for it sets up a rule which
the
Holy Spirit rejected at Pentecost, and deliberately excludes (without
and
against scripture) thousands of members of Christ who object to their
rule as
not of God.
Hence,
when souls were deeply exercised 60 or 70 years ago through the light
of
scripture and in the hope of the Lord's coming, it was learnt that God
had
provided for the difficulty of jarring views on what was after all but
an
administrative sign, however important in its place. For baptism is
essentially
individual, as the Lord's Supper is plainly collective or
ecclesiastical.
Baptism is never once tied to the assembly, but might be at the
shortest
notice, by the wayside, or in a prison, or along a river. Therefore
long ago
some of us found ourselves on the ground of that liberty which is due
to
individual conviction, and only opposed to the fanatics on either side,
who
would force the question into the assembly and break it up in honour of
their
predilections. These considerations are evident, which may help: that
baptism,
believer's baptism, is initiatory; that it is an individual confession;
and
that, as scripture demonstrates, none ever thought of getting baptised
after
recognition in the assembly though room may be left for the scruples of
a
troubled conscience. But this is not the only principle, learnt and
acted on
then, which has of late been forgotten in the haste and contention of a
later
day, There are frequent irregularities in baptism; as many feel, who
are not
novices, yet decided against more than "one baptism." To insist
rigidly on letter, especially as things are now and have long been, and
to make
it an assembly question, is to err grossly, and fall into a sect, or
"heresy" in the scriptural sense of the word.
Secondly,
while there is a path graciously provided in a day of ruin for those
that call
on the Lord out of a pure heart, farthest from it are such as assume to
be
"the" church in fact, even though they may verbally avoid the
pretentious claim. And what can one think of Christians whose bond of
union, or
test, is the acceptance of discipline in a local case, at best dubious
if not
mistaken and unjust! If ever so just, it would be sectarian to make it
a test
as is done. The more truth Christians profess to have, the guiltier
they are if
they forget and ignore the members of Christ who in general know scarce
anything of the church, of their own relationship to it, and of their
consequent duties. It becomes those who know these things in their
measure to
act in a spirit of lowly grace toward such as know them not. And so
those acted
who first and most deeply learnt from the scriptures how the children
of God
should walk in the midst of Christendom fallen and departed from His
will,
broken up into sects (misnamed churches), great or small. For
themselves they
fell back on the truth of God's assembly surviving the failure,
claiming
true-hearted obedience, and open to all that are Christ's, were they
but two or
three gathered to His name.
This
is in no way to become a sect, because it abandons sectarianism for the
ground
of His church, and contemplates in faith and love all members of
Christ's body,
save such as are or justly ought to be under discipline. But the
self-same
principle demands our owning and receiving in the Lord's name all
godly-walking
saints who desire to remember Him, notwithstanding their ignorance of
the church
and consequent inability to judge denominationalism. Hence it was ever
felt a
privilege to welcome all saints walking with God according to their
measure,
unless they were tolerating plain heterodoxy preached in the place they
frequented. (For if they held it themselves, there could be no
question). This
were ungodliness, at least as pronounced as any other iniquity.
Some
excellent brothers who detest laxity have wavered as to this
open-hearted
attitude toward saints in the denominations, especially from 1849 and
since.
Such hesitation however is groundless. Largeness of heart is as right
as laxity
is bad. The neutrality which characterises a party then and
subsequently has to
be met on its own ground, to which 2 John distinctly applies, with
other scriptures.
But this is no reason for swerving from a first principle of scripture
and
denying to saints of God that to which grace entitles them, as no less
members
of Christ than ourselves. The denial is itself a false and sectarian
thought,
unless it be for fundamental evil, and betrays ignorance as to the one
body, in
defence of which it is mistakenly invoked. It is the more manifestly
unsound,
because not a few already received know little or nothing of the body
and are
therefore weak in fulfilling their responsibilities. It is lack of
spiritual
intelligence, because it awards to true thoughts or fidelity what is
really due
to the relationship of Christ's members, and therefore puts an
unintended
slight on His name and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11: 17). You
are not
intelligent, if you set up knowledge and attainment, instead of Christ,
as the
title.
But
this new-fangled party goes to the utmost in unitedly rejecting
Christ's
members at large, and claims for itself exclusively all part and lot in
God's church
now on earth. No saints do they receive unless they are decided to
follow
themselves. They are self-condemned, being despisers of Christ's
members, who
may be more intelligent and spiritual and separate to the Lord in every
way,
but are rejected in principle because they utter not their Shibboleth.
Nothing
more ignorant, nothing more presumptuous; and the more so, as they are
on the
same ground of indifference to Christ's truth and glory as the leavened
lump
which was known for more than 40 years ago for its openness to evil.
Thirdly,
their attempt to invest elders with authority is a mere sectarian
assumption.
According to scripture apostles chose elders in each assembly, as the
Holy
Ghost led them, either directly, or, as in the case of Titus, one
commissioned
by an apostle to appoint elders in a definite sphere. Never do we find
any
minister without such a commission doing such a work; still less do we
hear of
the assembly choosing elders.* Calvin, Beza, and others have laboured
to draw
up the latter brief; but it is labour lost. Scripture not only does not
indicate the least trace of such a practice, but excludes the theory by
the
proof that such local charges required apostolic authority, direct or
indirect.
But there is ample provision otherwise for edification and order as
every
Christian may read in Rom. 12: 3-8; 1 Cor. 12; 1 Cor. 16: 15-16; Eph.
4: 7-16;
1 Thess. 5: 12-22; Heb. 13: 7, 24; 1 Peter 4: 10, 11; 3 John 5-8. The
Holy
Spirit, sent down to be with us for ever, fails in nothing, to glorify
the Lord
and care for His work in every needed way. No doubt, the pretension to
imitate
the apostles in ordaining, without their power or authority, is in no
way
peculiar to the new party, but just a falling into the prevalent
tradition of
Christendom; but here it is the more reprehensible, because they assume
to
reject all such errors, while in fact they only retrograde less
excusably, The
only right walk, in the present broken state of Christendom, is in
obedience
with all humiliation. For ought we not to feel that sin brought about
the
scattering, which is only increased by, the claim of all authority or
power we
have not?
The assembly might choose men in whom they confided to
administer in temporal things; but as the Lord gave gifts in the work,
so He
chose; while the apostles He authorised could authorise for a local
charge.
NOTE TO "THE LATEST SECT."
W. Kelly.
(
Bible Treasury—p. 368, col. 2.)
As a
leader of this movement declares that they do not "appoint" elders,
the writer in the
B.T. feels bound to
accept and repeat the disavowal. It is not denied that they claim to
have
"elders," and insist strongly on their authority, as one of their
cherished and distinctive tenets. Others who make a similar claim,
though not
with the same pretension, have a solemn form of appointment, which
probably led
one to suppose it in their case virtually, if not formally. It looks
rather
like self-appointment.
Now it
is indisputably according to scripture that the apostle
did
"choose" elders church by church (Acts 14: 23), and that
Titus was apostolically commissioned to "appoint" or establish elders
city by city in
Crete. This was
"God's
way for His people having bishops." It was not a question only of such
qualities as 1 Tim. 3 lays down, but of adequate authority appointing
them.
Scripture only recognises as presbyters men thus inaugurated, Whatever
their
qualities, they were only eligible for elders without or before that;
but
elders scripturally they were not till so chosen. It is well to know,
honour,
and obey those who have the requisite traits, as we hear enjoined in 1
Cor. 16,
1 Thess. 5, and elsewhere. But they were not called elders, nor ought
to be so,
until duly established as such. Clearly therefore to dispense with this
is not
subjection to scripture. The brethren of the new movement offend
against God's
word in pretending to "elders" in their midst without the essential
title of a valid appointing authority.
Not to
appoint, then, would be right, if they did not claim to have "elders"
scripturally entitled to rule. To appoint now is altogether invalid,
because
they have not the requisite apostle or his delegate so charged. Hence
to claim
"elders" according to scripture without the due appointing power is
contrary to scripture and presumptuous. The paper on "Bishops and
Deacons," in the little vol. of Addresses is an evasion as to this and
inconsistent also; for it asserts in pp. 90, 91 what refutes p. 93.
A gift
from the ascended Christ made one responsible to exercise it,
evangelist,
pastor, or teacher. Gifts as in 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 4 needed no
appointing
authority; but, if scripture is to decide and govern, the local charge
of an
elder did. It is therefore evil to set 1 Tim. 3 or any other text
against Acts.
14: 23 and Titus 1: 5. The one may be "the only instance where we have
the
apostles pointing out elders." But this one is as conclusive to faith
as
ever so many. And why use men's mistake about Timothy to enfeeble the
certainty
that Titus was delegated to appoint elders in
Crete?
Does either one or other give licence now to claim "elders" without
analogous appointment? To do the work without that claim is what we see
of old
at
Corinth
and
Thessalonica; it is accordingly sanctioned of God as the right, humble,
and
comely way when we have neither apostle nor delegate to appoint. So
Christians
have long learnt and practised; whereas the device of the new movement
on their
own showing is baseless pretension as well as retrograde. They might
and ought
to have known better, but for self-importance, which hinders true
intelligence
of God's mind, never more needed than in a day of ruin. To dispense
with due
appointment is as wrong as to unduly appoint.
P.O. Box 126
08200 SABADELL
(Barcelona) ESPAÑA