Chapter 7. — The Governmental Authority — Deposited in the Ordained Eldership.
CHAPTER 7. — THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY —
DEPOSITED IN THE ORDAINED ELDERSHIP.
HAVING seen in the preceding chapter that the inspired apostles, while they remained with the Church, possessed and exercised supreme governmental control over it, we now inquire to whom they committed the permanent exercise of this prerogative.
In the first place, that Timothy and Titus, as evangelists, were commissioned by the Apostle Paul to exercise, under his directions, apostolic jurisdiction — the one at Ephesus, and the other in Crete — is very clear from the apostolic epistles. That this jurisdiction extended not only over Churches, but likewise over ministers, is also manifest. But there is no evidence that the apostles placed a similar control in the hands of an individual minister over the ministers and Churches generally, or in any other place.
Now, the question arises, what is the reasonable inference from the fact, as above stated? That we may be the better judge of this matter, we will examine the record. In 1 Timothy 1:3, 4, St. Paul says to Timothy: “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith; so do.” And in the eighteenth verse: “This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy,” etc. Here we see a solemn charge committed by St. Paul to Timothy, imparting jurisdictional prerogative over the Church at Ephesus, both of the ministers and laity. In the third chapter of this epistle, St. Paul delivers to Timothy minute instructions as to the character and qualifications of bishops and deacons. And this is evidently done that Timothy might be the better able to select and ordain suitable persons for those offices, and retain only such in office; or, at least, call the unworthy to account for improper conduct. He says: “Let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.” Near the close of the chapter, St. Paul adds: “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mightest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.”
In the fourth chapter, after having delivered various directions and admonitions concerning the doctrine that should be preached, he says: “These things command and teach. Let no man despise thy youth” — that is, not only teach the pastors what they should preach, but “command” them, exercise authority over them; and lest they be unwilling to be supervised by so young a man, take heed to be grave in thy deportment — “Let no man despise thy youth.”
In the fifth chapter, Timothy is instructed how to proceed in admonishing the “elders”: “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father.” In the same chapter we read: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his reward. Against an elder, receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 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. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins.” We think it must be apparent to the candid mind that no consistent interpretation can be put upon this paragraph without finding in it the most conclusive evidence that Timothy was invested with the high prerogatives of the apostolate, both as it regards government and ordination. First. His jurisdiction extended even to the matter of the ministers’ salaries: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor.” Chrysostom, Whitby, Scott, Benson, Clarke, and all the best critics, agree that this “double honor” means “a more liberal maintenance.” Dr. Clarke affirms that “almost every critic of note allows that timh here signifies reward, stipend, wages.” Now Timothy, as exercising apostolic rule over pastors and Churches, was to see to it that the pastors’ salaries were adjusted in proportion to the extent of their labors.
Again. Instructions were given as to the manner in which an elder should be brought to account for his conduct: “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” He is also directed how he should administer reproofs: “Them that sin rebuke before all.” He is solemnly charged to “observe these things without preferring one before another.”
Lastly. He is not only fully instructed as to his superintendency over elders, deacons, and people, but he is directed how to proceed in the exercise of his apostolic jurisdiction.
Near the close of this Epistle St. Paul repeats his solemn charge to Timothy in the following words: “I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And again he adds: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust.” We may understand the apostle here, by the word “commandment,” as embracing the entire summary of instruction contained in this Epistle. This he is charged to keep “until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” On this Dr. Clarke comments thus: “Hand it down pure, and let thy conduct be a comment on it, that it may continue in the world and in the Church till the coming of Christ.”
In the second Epistle to Timothy we have his ordination and investiture, with the prerogatives of his office, specifically named: “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 Timothy 1:6. “That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” 2 Timothy 1:14. “And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” 2 Timothy 2:2.
In these passages we see Timothy expressly authorized to invest other “faithful men” with the ministerial functions, implying provision for the perpetuation of an ordained ministry in the Church.
We next examine the Epistle to Titus. In the fifth verse of the first chapter, the investiture of Titus with the prerogatives of the apostolate is set forth: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” Notice, first, the work assigned him: He is to “set in order the things that are wanting.” This is a general, broad commission, embracing every thing pertaining to the organization of the Churches. St. Paul proceeds, as he had done in the case of Timothy, to specify the kind of persons to be ordained to the presbyterate: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, … whose mouths must be stopped.” And in the nineteenth verse, he commands Titus to “rebuke” false teachers “sharply.” Again, in the fifteenth verse of the second chapter, we read these words: “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” In the tenth verse of the third chapter, we have these words: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.”
On the subject of the quotations just made we need not enlarge. They are so explicit concerning the authority with which Titus was invested that their force cannot easily be evaded. We here find, first, a minute description of the kind of persons to be ordained to the ministerial office. Secondly, Titus is instructed to silence some, for the apostle designates certain characters “whose mouths must be stopped.”
Again, he is instructed on the subject of official admonitions. He is told to “rebuke with all authority.” Not only to deliver a friendly “rebuke, but an authoritative one — to “rebuke with all authority.” Finally, he is clothed with authority to excommunicate: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.”
In reference to Timothy and Titus, we present the following general remarks:
From the scriptures adduced, it is evident that neither the Congregational nor the Presbyterian form of Church-government could have existed in those districts at that time. On the supposition that either of those forms of government had already been set up, these itinerant intruders, as they would have been considered, would have been promptly met by the congregations or the Church-sessions, as the case might have been, and repulsed with such language as the following: “What high and unconstitutional pretensions are these which you set up over us? We elect and induct our own pastors; we have our Church-session through which we administer discipline, our presbyters judge of the qualifications of candidates for orders, and perform the ordination service.” It is most evident, upon the supposition that either Congregationalism or Presbyterianism had been set up, that the commissions of Timothy and Titus would have come in direct conflict with those systems, and could not have been carried out. And it is also clear that, while those Churches continued to recognize Timothy and Titus with the authority committed to them by the apostle, neither of those forms of government could have originated. That the power of government, in these instances, was vested in Timothy and Titus, is undeniable. It was neither exercised by the congregation collectively, nor by the minister in connection with his lay elders.
The argument for High-church Episcopalianism, founded on the cases of Timothy and Titus, may easily be shown to be sophistical, when met in a proper, scriptural manner. It is not, however, to be overturned by a denial of the fact that Timothy and Titus were invested with episcopal jurisdiction over both Churches and ministers in their respective fields for a specific purpose, and under apostolic appointment. The sophistry in the argument referred to consists in concluding from this fact, that therefore this was the settled apostolic plan, adopted by the apostles everywhere, and by them commanded to be carried out and perpetuated.
It cannot be proved that the apostolic jurisdiction of Timothy and Titus was a permanent settlement of authority in them. Indeed, it is most obvious that they acted in the capacity of temporary agents of St. Paul, doing his specific bidding in reference to matters to which he had not time to give his personal attention.
Again, the fact that the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, and the ministers already among them, were apostolically recognized as such before the episcopal miter, here claimed for Timothy and Titus, had been conferred, together with the fact that, among the numerous other Churches organized, and ministers set apart, under the apostolic administration, there is no intimation that any such arrangement as that in reference to Timothy and Titus was intended or authorized, demonstrates clearly that the plea here urged for Episcopalianism, as of divine right, is unfounded and fallacious. We can find nothing in the case of these evangelists, or anywhere else in Scripture, to sanction the position that the office of a bishop pertains to an order in the ministry superior to that of a presbyter, and by divine right having control over the eldership, and the sole right to ordain. We must conclude that this is an assumption of prerogative wholly unwarranted by the word of God.
Yet since it is clear that Timothy and Titus were endued with a temporary episcopal jurisdiction over ministers and Churches in their respective fields, we may very rationally infer that, under some circumstances, the episcopal form of government may be preferable to any other; and on the ground of expediency, not of divine right, may advantageously be adopted. From what has been already presented from the Scriptures, we think the following positions are manifestly inferable:
1. That during the lives of the inspired apostles, supreme authority, not only to unfold the doctrines of Christianity, but also to organize and govern the Church, was divinely vested in them.
2. That the apostles exercised this authority, so far as practicable, by their own personal agency and immediate supervision, but that in the work of organizing and governing the Churches, as a matter of convenience, they sometimes intrusted their high prerogative to certain approved evangelists (as Timothy and Titus), under specific instructions, as their selected agents or deputies.
3. But since there is no evidence that these high prerogatives of government, so clearly pertaining to the inspired apostles and the evangelists under them, were transferred to any others, therefore the inference is plain that such apostolic prerogatives were extraordinary, and not intended to be perpetuated in the Church.
4. Since it is indisputable that many Churches existed under the apostolic administration, over whom no minister was placed as superintendent over ministers and Churches, with such high prerogatives as were conferred on Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, it necessarily follows that, though an episcopal organization after that model may be expedient and advisable in certain cases, yet there is no ground for the inference that such high prerogatives pertain to any class of ministers by divine right, or in virtue of a superiority of order; or that other Churches, not thus superintended, are not apostolically constituted, nor the ordinances by them administered valid and efficacious.
Where, it may well be asked, is the first syllable of testimony to show that the apostles placed the Churches at Rome, at Corinth, at Thessalonica, at Antioch, at Philippi, or even at Jerusalem, under a jurisdiction like unto that given to Timothy at Ephesus, or to Titus in Crete? And yet these were all bona fide apostolic Churches, the inspired apostles themselves being the judges. Can it therefore, we demand, be consistent with Christian meekness for any one claiming to be a follower of Christ to denounce as no branch of the Church such Churches as the inspired apostles themselves planted and watered, and recognized?
That episcopacy, in the modern acceptation of the term, cannot be maintained from the Scriptures as of divine right, or as essential to the validity, or even to the apostolicity, of either Churches, ministers, or sacraments, is a position, in connection with Church-polity, Which we consider perfectly impregnable. The impartial student of ecclesiastical history will find that the same ground that we here assume has been occupied by many of the wisest and best informed in the Church from the earliest ages, and at all subsequent periods. It was the platform of Cyprian in the third century, of Epiphanius and Jerome in the fourth century, and was maintained by Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, and a mighty host of distinguished scholars and divines, in more modern times. This position is not only more consonant with Scripture, but is certainly more consistent with the mild charity and wide-expansive catholicity of the gospel than that pent-up and exclusive dogma which struts forth in assumed dignity, exclaiming, “We are the Church: with us alone are Christ’s valid ministers, and all others are intruders — with us alone are the valid ordinances administered, and the covenanted mercies of Heaven sealed!” Let episcopacy, as the Bible warrants, place itself on the ground of expediency, and bishops above presbyters, as Jerome says, “by the custom of the Church,” and not of divine right, and many others may, with Wesley, “prefer the episcopal form of Church-government.”
If, then, as we have endeavored to show, the apostles have not transferred the high prerogatives of Church-government which they possessed and exercised to a superior order in the ministry to be perpetuated in the Church as their successors in this jurisdiction, the question arises, To whom did they transfer the governmental power of the Church? and in what sense is this power to be understood?
To the above inquiry we reply, that the New Testament teaches plainly that the government of the Church is committed to the ordained presbyters, or elders.
This will appear from the following scriptures: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” Acts 20:28. The term here used, episkopouv, means bishops, or superintendents; hence the apostle here teaches that these Ephesian elders were constituted by “the Holy Ghost” the rulers of the Churches. Again, the same apostle, in specifying the qualifications of an “elder,” says, he should be “one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?” 1 Timothy 3:4, 5.
St. Peter says to the “elders”: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof” 1 Peter 5:2. The Greek word here used is episkopountev, meaning that these “elders” were to exercise the office of bishop, overseer, or superintendent, over the Church, clearly implying an apostolic delegation of the ruling power to them. Once more, St. Paul says: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account.” Hebrews 13:17. Here it is manifest that the ruling power in the Churches is vested in those ministers who are placed over them as their pastors or spiritual guides. In the second and third chapters of the book of Revelation, our Saviour delivers a special and solemn address to the “angel” of each of the seven principal Churches of Asia. From these addresses we think it apparent that the power of government in each of those Churches was neither in the whole congregation nor in the minister and his lay elders, but in the presiding minister placed as “overseer” in pastoral charge of the Church. Thomas Scott says this angel was “the stated messenger, or embassador, of Christ among them.” Benson says, he was “the pastor, presiding elder, or bishop, called an angel because he was God’s messenger.” Dr. Clarke says: “By ‘angel,’ we are to understand the messenger, or person sent by God to preside over this Church.” And in reference to Ephesus, he adds: “The angel or bishop at this time was most probably Timothy, who presided over that Church before St. John took up his residence there, and who is supposed to have continued in that office till A.D. 97.”
Critics and commentators are agreed that the “angel” was the messenger, bishop, or pastor, presiding over the Church at the time; hence it appears that the power of government in these Churches, respectively, was vested in this “angel.” To him the addresses were sent. He is admonished, censured, or threatened with punishment for the disorder or heresy of the Church. Now, if the power of government was in the hands of the whole congregation, or of the minister and lay elders, why is this “angel” alone