1600's Baptist Confession appeals to original

[Logos1560]

The 1677 Second London Confession of Faith by Baptists maintained that a bishop or elder is “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself,” and it cited Acts 14:23 in the margin with the comment “See the original” (Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, p. 287; McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 266). The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith by Baptists retained the same words that had been based on Acts 14:23: “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself” (Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopaedia, p. 1320).

In a 1611 Confession of Faith thought to have been written by Baptist Thomas Helwys, Article 21 noted “that these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament (1 Timothy 3:2-7, Titus 1:6-9, Acts 6:3-4) by election and approbation of that church or congregation whereof they are members (Acts 6:3-4 and 14:23) (Lumpkin,p. 122).

In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith of Man, p. 98).

 

[rsr]

Interestingly, the Bishops' Bible — following Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva — had retained "by election."

 

[rsr]

You can see a critical edition of the confession (with the annotation mentioned above) at:

http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/the-second-london-confession.

The original post set me wondering where this interpretation of Acts 14:23 originated. It can be traced to Tyndale, but there my trail grows cold. Beza translated it the same way, as evidenced in the General Baptists' Orthodox Creed of 1660, which gives the Latin translation of Beza, quumque ipsis per suffragia creassent presbyteros. While Beza is likely the source of the rendering in the Geneva Bible, Tyndale was earlier than Beza and thus must have gotten it from a different source.

My suspicion is that Tyndale's rendering came from Luther or even Erasmus, but I am unable to pin that down.

BTW: Modern Baptist confessions (including the New Hampshire Confession and the Baptist Faith and Message, continue to use Acts 14:23 to support their doctrine of democratic polity.)

 

[Logos1560]

My suspicion is that Tyndale's rendering came from Luther or even Erasmus, but I am unable to pin that down.

It does not come from Luther although Luther may have been the influence behind Tyndale's use of "ordain" in the verse.
Concerning the first part of Acts 14:23 in the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, David Brown commented: “Literally, ’Having chosen them elders by show of hands’--that is, having superintended such choice on the part of the disciples; and there is the best reason to conclude that this is the sense intended by the historian, and not ’ordained’ (as our version, following in this case the Vulgate and Luther, rather than Beza, have rendered the term” (III, p. 99). Brown added: “The expression used (says Lechler) leads to the idea that the apostles appointed and conducted a congregational election; and to this also points the precedent (in chapter 6) of the election of the seven deacons in Jerusalem, conducted by the apostles” (Ibid.). Michael Baumgarten also maintained that Martin Luther had rendered the Greek word at Acts 14:23 by “ordain” (Acts, I, p. 456). Baumgarten noted: “We must allow that Rothe is right, when, with regard to the passage before us [Acts 14:23], he maintains that the most natural interpretation of cherantonesantes autos is assuredly the one which adheres the closest to the original acceptation of the word: ‘they-the two Apostles--allow presbyters to be chosen for the community by voting’” (Ibid.). Concerning this verse in The Complete Biblical Library, Stanley Horton wrote: “The Greek word for ‘ordained’ here is cherantonesantes, where cheir means hand, and the whole word means they conducted an election by show of hands” (p. 351).

Erasmus could be one influence since the Latin New Testament of Erasmus has "suffragns" at Acts 14:23 [et cum suffragns creaffert illis per singulas ecclesias psbyteros].

Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible all have ("ordained them elders by election") at Acts 14:23. Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill asserted that Acts 14:23 was actually one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24). Edward Hiscox quoted Matthew Tindale (around 1709) as follows: "We read only of the Apostles constituting elders by the suffrages of the people, Acts 14:23, which is the genuine signification of the Greek word, cheirotoneesantes, so it is accordingly interpreted by Erasmus, Beza, Diodoti, and those who translated the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out, the words, 'by election'" (Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, p. 351).

 

[rsr]

Erasmus could be one influence since the Latin New Testament of Erasmus has "suffragns" at Acts 14:23 [et cum suffragns creaffert illis per singulas ecclesias psbyteros].

Thanks. I had been unable to locate Erasmus' Latin NT.

I was aware of the Tindal quote. Adam Clarke and John Gill follow a similar line, as does Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (much to my surprise.)

The NIV gives a footnote that "Or Barnabas ordained elders; or Barnabas had elders elected." Otherwise I am hard-put to find a recent version that follows Tyndale, Geneva et al. or even mentions an alternate rendering. (An exception is Young's Literal Translation of 1898 and its modern revision, which retain the language on election.)

 

[Logos1560]

(An exception is Young's Literal Translation of 1898 and its modern revision, which retain the language on election.)

Joseph Rotherham's Emphasized Bible began Acts 14:23 with "Moreover appointing unto them by vote, in each assembly, elders."

 

[Logos1560]

Adam Clarke and John Gill follow a similar line, as does Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (much to my surprise.)

Could you share these statements of Thomas Hobbes, Adam Clarke, and John Gill or at least give the name of their book where found and the page number?

 

[rsr]

I cannot give the page number for Gill (because I use only an online reference for his Exposition of the Entire Bible), but his commentary on Acts 14:23 is:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]As soon as ever any number of disciples were made, or souls were converted to Christ in any place, they were at once formed, by the apostles, into a church state; and as the gifts, as well as the grace of the Holy Ghost, attended the ministry of the word, so among those that were converted, there were some that were honoured with ministerial gifts, qualifying them to preach the Gospel, and take upon them the care of the churches: these the apostles directed the churches to look out from among themselves, as in the case of deacons, an inferior office, who by joint suffrages declared their choice of them by the stretching out, or lifting up of their hands, as the word here used signifies, and not the imposition of them; and the apostles presiding in this affair, they were installed into the office of bishops, elders, or pastors over them; which expresses the great regard the apostles had to the order, as well as to the doctrine of the Gospel, and the concern they had for the welfare of souls converted under their ministry, by making a provision for them when they were gone.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]

Similarly with Clarke in his Commentary:

[/FONT]

Elder seems to be here the name of an office. These were all young or new converts, and yet among them the apostles constitute elders. They appointed persons the most experienced, and the most advanced in the Divine life, to watch over and instruct the rest. But what is the meaning of the word χειροτονησαντες, which we translate ordained? The word ordain we use in an ecclesiastical sense, and signify by it the appointment of a person to an office in the Church, by the imposition of the hands of those who are rulers in that Church. But χειροτονια a signifies the holding up or stretching out the hand, as approving of the choice of any person to a particular work: whereas χειροθεσια signifies the imposition of hands. "Zonaras gives he proper meaning of the word in the text, in his Scholia upon the first canon of the apostles, νυνμενχειροτονια καλειταικτλ 'Nowadays, a course of prayers and invocation on the Holy Spirit, when one is initiated into the priesthood, and receives consecration, is called χειροτονια, cheirotonia, so termed because the bishop extends his hand over him whom he blesses, when he is chosen into holy orders. Anciently, the choice or suffrage was called cheirotonia; for, when it was lawful for the multitude in their cities to choose their priests or bishops, they met together, and some chose one man, some another; but, that it might appear whose suffrage won, they say the electors did use εκτεινεινταςχειρας, to stretch forth their hands, and by their hands so stretched forth, or up, they were numbered who chose the one, and who the other; and him who was elected by the most suffrages they placed in the high priesthood. And from hence was the name cheirotonia taken, which the fathers of the councils are found to have used, calling their suffrage cheirotonia.' St. Paul, 2 Corinthians 8:19, intimates that St. Luke was thus appointed to travel with him χειροτονηθειςυποτωνεκκλησιων, who was chosen of the Churches. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Philadelphians, uses the same term, πρεπονεστινυμινωςεκκλησιαθεουχειροτονησαι επισκοπον, ye ought, as a Church of God, to choose your bishop." Much more on this subject may be seen in Sir Norton Knatchbull, who contends that cheirotonia implies simply appointment or election, but not what he calls ordination by the imposition of hands. I believe the simple truth to be this, that in ancient times the people chose by the cheirotonia (lifting up of hands) their spiritual pastor; and the rulers of the Church, whether apostles or others, appointed that person to his office by the cheirothesia, or imposition of hands; and perhaps each of these was thought to be equally necessary: the Church agreeing in the election of the person; and the rulers of the Church appointing, by imposition of hands, the person thus elected.

The Hobbes quotation may be found in the 2004 edition published by Kessinger Publishing, Chapter XLII: Of Power Ecclesiastical, pp. 224-225.

As the Apostles Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas were not made by our Saviour himself, but were elected by the Church, that is, by the assembly of Christians; namely, Matthias by the church of Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas by the church of Antioch; so were also the presbyters and pastors in other cities, elected by the churches of those cities. For proof whereof, let us consider, first, how St. Paul proceeded in the ordination of presbyters in the cities where he had converted men to the Christian faith, immediately after he and Barnabas had received their apostleship. We read that "they ordained elders in every church";[Acts, 14. 23] which at first sight may be taken for an argument that they themselves chose and gave them their authority: but if we consider the original text, it will be manifest that they were authorized and chosen by the assembly of the Christians of each city. For the words there are cheirotonesantes autois presbuterous kat ekklesian, that is, "when they had ordained them elders by the holding up of hands in every congregation."

 

[Logos1560]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT]
The Hobbes quotation may be found in the 2004 edition published by Kessinger Publishing, Chapter XLII: Of Power Ecclesiastical, pp. 224-225.

Thanks.
I found the Thomas Hobbes' (1588-1679) quotation on page 369 in the edition of Leviathan by www.forgottenbooks.org that is available at books.google.

 

[Logos1560]

In the Pious Annotations Upon the Holy Bible, John Diodati (1576-1649) translated a portion of his Italian Bible into English at Acts 14:23 as
follows: "when they had by common votes ordained."

 

[4His_glory]

Here is what Dr. Gill had to say in The Body of Divinity concerning the Scriptures.

But before I proceed any further, in the proof of the divinity of the sacred Scriptures, I shall premise the following things.
...This is to be understood of the Scriptures, as in the original languages in which they were written, and not of translations; unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into each of the languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose. The books of the Old Testament were written chiefly in the Hebrew language, unless some few passages in Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, and Esther, in the Chaldee language; and the New Testament in Greek: in which languages they can only be reckoned canonical and authentic; for this is like the charters and diplomas of princes; the wills or testaments of men; or any deeds made by them; only the original exemplar is authentic; and not translations, and transcriptions, and copies of them, though ever so perfect: and to the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried and judged, and to be corrected and amended: and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule to go by; for it must be either all the translations together, or some one of them; not all of them, because they agree not in all things: not one; for then the contest would be between one nation and another which it should be, whether English, Dutch, French, &c. and could one be agreed upon, it could not be read and understood by all: so the papists, they plead for their Vulgate Latin version; which has been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes; nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to submit to, and be corrected by their version; which is absurd and ridiculous. Let not now any be uneasy in their minds about translations on this account, because they are not upon an equality with the original text, and especially about our own; for as it has been the will of God, and appears absolutely necessary that so it should be, that the Bible should be translated into different languages, that all may read it, and some particularly may receive benefit by it; he has taken care, in his providence, to raise up men capable of such a performance, in various nations, and particularly in ours; for whenever a set of men have been engaged in this work, as were in our nation, men well skilled in the languages, and partakers of the grace of God; of sound principles, and of integrity and faithfulness, having the fear of God before their eyes; they have never failed of producing a translation worthy of acceptation; and in which, though they have mistook some words and phrases, and erred in some lesser and lighter matters; yet not so as to affect any momentous article of faith or practice; and therefore such translations as ours may be regarded as the rule of faith. And if any scruple should remain on the minds of any on this account, it will be sufficient to remove it, when it is observed, that the Scriptures, in our English translation, have been blessed of God, either by reading them in it, or by explaining them according to it, for the conversion, comfort, and edification of thousands and thousands. And the same may be said of all others, so far as they agree with the original, that they are the rule of faith and practice, and alike useful.

Rather long I know but a good read nonetheless.

 

[TomVols]

John Gill is always a good read