Authority in the Church - Glenn Conjurske

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” (Heb. 13:17). This and other scriptures plainly teach that there is and ought to be authority in the church. Before we speak, however, of the scope and purpose of that authority, we must clearly establish the nature, the necessity, and the purpose of authority in general.

All rightful authority proceeds from God. “There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Rom. 13:l)—-where the meaning of the words “power” and “powers” is “authority” and “authorities.” Any authority which any man rightfully possesses has been delegated to him by God, and is therefore an extension of the authority of God himself. God has established the authority of parents over their children, husbands over their wives, kings and magistrates over their citizens, masters over their servants, and elders over the church.

What is authority? The authority of God consists of the right and the power to enforce conformity to his will, and this is the nature of all authority. The authority of parents over their children consists of the right and the power to enforce conformity to their will. So the authority of masters over their servants. So the authority of kings over their subjects. But since their authority comes to them from God, it must be understood that their own will is not the final standard, and it is an abuse of authority to make it so. Authorities themselves are under authority, as the centurion who said, “I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me.” (Matt. 8:9). All human authorities are ultimately under the authority of God, so that their authority does not consist of the right to require conformity to their own will as such, but to their will as it is conformed to the will of God. Authority exists, and has been established by God, for the purpose of requiring and enforcing conformity to what is right. Nevertheless, in most cases where authority is abused, and used for selfish purposes at the expense of its subjects, God still recognizes that authority, and requires submission to it. “Servants be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” (I Pet. 2:18). The same is true if authorities are ignorant and incompetent, so that those who are under them actually know better than they do. God still recognizes the authority of those whom he has placed in power, and requires submission to them.

To this principle, however, there are two exceptions. The first is that in every case in which any authority requires of us anything which we know to be wrong, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29). To that there is no exception. We are to suffer wrongfully under tyrannical authority if we must (I Pet. 2:19), but to do wrong we never have any right. The other exception is that no abuser of authority or incompetent authority is to be tolerated in the church of God. A father, a mother, a master, a king, may all of them be selfish and abusive, or ignorant and incompetent, and yet God recognizes their authority still, and requires submission to it in all things, excepting only that in which it would be sinful to comply. The only qualification necessary to exercise such authority is to hold the position which gives it to them. Not so in the church of God. There God lays down stringent qualifications for those who are to rule in the flock of God, and no man has any right to exercise authority in the church of God unless he meets those qualifications. Neither has the church any business to recognize the authority of a man who fails to meet those qualifications.

Authority exists for the sole purpose of enforcing conformity to a standard. Where there is no authority to enforce, there is no authority at all. Authorities do not exist merely to suggest and advise, but to require and enforce. Were it a mere matter of advising, a subject has as much right to advise the king, as the king has the subject. A wife has as much right to advise the husband as the husband has the wife, but she has no right to require submission of him. A child may suggest to his parents (providing he does so with proper deference and respect), but he may not require anything of them. Servants may give advice to their masters, but they may not require them to act upon it. The person, on the other hand, who holds the place of authority has the right to require and enforce.

The Bible uses several emblems of authority, and these emblems clearly set forth the nature of authority:

Bands and cords. “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us,” say sinners who cannot brook the prohibitions of God (Ps. 2:3). Bands and cords are to restrict and restrain, and obviously to do so forcibly.

The yoke. “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour.” (I Tim. 6:1). “Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee.”

(I Kings 12:4). “Take my yoke upon you”—-that is, submit to my authority (Matt. 11:29). The yoke is to restrain and control, to enforce the will of the driver upon the team.

The rod. “If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments, then will I visit their transgression with the rod.” (Ps. 89:31-32). “Withhold not correction from the child, for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.” (Prov. 23:13-14). “And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power [authority] over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.” ( Rev. 2:26-27). “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron.” (Rev. 12:5). “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom” (Heb. 1:8)—-where “sceptre” is the same word in the Greek as “rod” in the other scriptures. The rod is the obvious symbol of enforcement—-of enforcing conformity to a standard by inflicting punishment.

The sword. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power [authority]? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Rom. 13:3-4). “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, … And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” (Rev. 19:15-16). The sword obviously signifies the power to enforce by inflicting punishment, even to the taking of life.

And observe at this point, this God-given right to require and enforce conformity to a standard exists for two distinct reasons: for the good of the individual who is under the authority, and also for the good of the society of which he is a part. The parental rod is used for the good of the child, to correct him and deliver his soul from hell, but it also exists for the good of the family to which the child belongs, to prevent the unruly individual from destroying the peace and harmony, or ruining the name and prospects, of the whole family. The magistrate’s sword is also for the good of the individual, to deter him from doing evil, but where that fails, a greater good must take the precedence, and the offender be cut off for the good of the commonwealth. All of this is clear in the scriptures quoted above. The King of kings and Lord of lords comes with both a sword and a rod—-a rod to govern and control, and a sword to cut off those who will not be governed. I shall have more to say on this when we come to speak of authority in the church.

Such is the nature of authority. What is the necessity of it? It is needed because many are ignorant of what ought to be done, and because many are unwilling to do it. The ignorant need a teacher, of course (and the rulers in the church must be “apt to teach”—-I Tim. 3:2), but they need a ruler also. It may require a great deal of time and pains to bring the ignorant to understand what is good and right and wise, and are they to be left to do as they please in the mean time? Their own good, as well as the good of the society (family, church, etc.) to which they belong, forbids this. Children do not possess the wisdom of their parents. They do not understand as their parents do what is right and wise. Parents are therefore given authority to require them to do what is right and wise, whether they can understand it or not. Those parents who allow their children to do as they please, while they endeavor to guide and advise and persuade and instruct them to do better, fail entirely to exercise the authority which God has placed in their hands. Children ought by all means to be given guidance and instruction, but they ought first to be required to do what is right. This is necessary for the good of the child and the good of the family.

But there is another reason for the existence of authority, more compelling than that of people’s ignorance. If we could suppose every human being to know what the will of God is, yet we cannot suppose them all willing to do it. Every child who knows the will of his parents is not necessarily willing to do it. The yoke may be enough for those who are willing to submit to it, but for those who are not, the rod is in order. The power to enforce implies the power to punish. The parent holds the rod. The king holds the sword. I believe that there is only one exception to this rule, which is that, so far as I can see, Scripture gives no such power to the husband, and in the nature of the case there ought to be no occasion for it.

The necessity of authority among the people of God is graphically set forth in the last five chapters of the book of Judges, all of which C. I. Scofield’s Reference Bible very aptly labels “Confusion: civil and religious.” The reason for that confusion is set forth in the last verse of the book: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 17:6 says exactly the same thing also, and twice more (18:1 and 19:1) we are told that “there was no king in Israel.” There was confusion because there was no authority.

This confusion is apparently not to be attributed to the determination of the people to do wrong, for the Scripture twice tells us that “every man did that which was right [righteous, or upright] in his own eyes.” The difficulty was “in his own eyes.” He had no proper understanding of what was right. And it is evident that this is essentially the state of things we may expect to find in the church of God. The church is a

society composed of the godly, and, except in the case of false converts admitted unawares, it may be assumed that the first principle of their lives is to do the will of God. Yet they may have very faulty notions as to what the will of God is, and they may be very conscientiously stubborn in clinging to those ideas—-and to the practices which those false notions dictate. One conscientiously believes in laying up treasures upon the earth. Another conscientiously believes in worldly sports and recreations. Another conscientiously believes in polygamy. Another conscientiously believes in admitting the unconverted or the disorderly to the Lord’s table. One believes he should not work to earn his living, but trust God and spend his time praying. A woman believes in adorning herself in gold and silver and fine apparel. Another believes herself called of God to speak in the church. A man believes the same, though he has no gift or ability for it. They are all wrong, but they all think themselves right. They need to be taught, to be sure, but in the mean while are we to allow the church to be a scene of confusion? Not so, for God has established authority in the church, and that authority exists for the purpose of requiring conformity to a standard of righteousness, holiness, and order. This is the nature and purpose of all authority, and all who belong to the church are required by God to “obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.”

Here we must again insist upon the fact that it is the responsibility of those who “have the rule” in the church to rule in the church—-not merely to preach, to exhort, to advise, to counsel, to persuade, but to rule. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.” (I Tim. 5:17). He must 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.” (I Tim. 3:4-5). This plainly indicates ruling by authority, as do also the words “obey” and “submit” in Hebrews 13:17. This means requiring obedience, enforcing submission, as is obviously the case when a man “rules well his own house.” I have known good preachers, with high standards, who failed altogether to rule or exercise any authority in their churches, and the churches were in a muddle of disorder, apparently having no standards at all. The business of elders is not merely to preach, but to rule, and the best of preaching cannot take the place of good discipline.

How are elders to go about this business? Very simply. They must determine according to the wisdom which God has given to them what things are essential to the good of the church and the people in it, and require submission to those things. What if people will not submit? Then they prove themselves to be people of the wrong spirit, such as do not belong in the church, and they are to be excluded from it. Their presence in the church will foment discord and discontent, undermine the authority of the elders, and destroy the harmony and the testimony of the church. It is to be taken for granted that those who are humble and godly will submit to the authorites which God has established in the church. Those who will not do so are to be excluded from the church, both for their own good, and for the good of the church.

There is room here, of course, for a great deal of abuse, as there is with all authority. This is so because in the final analysis every position of authority gives to its holder the power to enforce his own will upon those who are under him. In the church of God, therefore, the place of authority itself is protected by stringent qualifications, in order to assure that the will and understanding of the men in authority will be governed by the will and word of God. Some may wonder why God does not dispense with authority altogether, and instead of requiring the saints to submit to their elders, simply require all to submit to himself. He does require all to submit to himself, yet many have but a very limited understanding of what his will is, and others have little intention of submitting to it, though they are determined to remain in the church. A ruler in the church is there to insure that the will of God is done there, and of course he must exercise his authority in accordance with what he understands the will of God to be, though the people under him may have different ideas. Their understanding of certain things may be the exact opposite of what their elders think, yet they are responsible to submit to their elders.

And here I must affirm that such a situation is precisely the reason for the existence of authority in the church. If everybody in the church, if every babe in Christ, understood as well as the elders do what the will of the Lord is, there would be no reason for the elders’ authority. When the babe in Christ and the father in Christ are perfectly agreed as to what is right (and both, of course, determined to do what is right), what possible occasion could there be for authority? What need to obey or submit? It is only when the shepherd and the lambs disagree that there can be any occasion for the lamb to submit and obey—-and it is for such occasions that authority exists in the church.

But as said, there is room for a great deal of abuse here, either in the case of a Diotrephes, who uses his authority for his own ends, or in the case of a sincere man who is ignorant and unspiritual. For this cause God has placed some very precise safeguards around this position of authority. In the first place, the persons who are to exercise this authority are called elders. This assumes that they are men old enough to have some experience and wisdom, which will fit them to rule others. Age, however, is not enough. Scripture lays down some rather stringent qualifications for those who are to rule in the house of God, one of which is that he must demonstrate his ability to do so by ruling his own house well (I Tim. 3:4-5). All of these qualifications are obviously given to keep unqualified men out of the place of authority. The church has no business to put unfit men into authority, nor to acknowledge the authority of those who may be there.

This is a very serious matter, for the church, and the individual saints who comprise the church, are commanded by God to submit to those who rule in the church, and to obey them. And this submission and obedience is in matters of the utmost consequence, for this life and the life to come. The church has no right to acknowledge the authority of unfit men, any more than it has to refuse the authority of those men who are fit, and whom the Holy Ghost has made overseers over the flock of God (Acts 20:28). The fact that the qualifications for elders are twice (I Tim. 3 and Tit. 1) so largely and carefully laid down in Scripture indicates that the church has a solemn obligation to know the men who are so qualified, and acknowledge the authority of them, and of them only. “And we beseech you, brethren,” writes Paul, “to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.” (I Thes. 5:12-13). And not merely to esteem them, for Paul says also, “I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.” (I Cor. 16:15-16).

This is not even necessarily a question of official position in the church, but of character, though it is to be presumed that those who have the character should occupy the position—-and certainly none others should. All of this is of the utmost importance. The men who are in authority over you have the power to determine to what you will submit. You had therefore better exercise the utmost care in determing to whom you will submit, precisely as every woman ought to do when she marries. Nor are you at liberty, as she is, to determine that you will retain your independence, and submit to nobody. A woman is at liberty not to marry, but if she does determine to marry, she is not at liberty to refuse her husband’s authority. In determining to marry at all, she determines to submit to her husband. And in determining to identify with the people of God, you determine to submit to those whom God has placed in authority over them, assuming that such men exist. If there are such, whom the Holy Ghost has made overseers in the church of God, you must submit to them in order to submit to God, for God commands it. And as you must do this, so you may do it, for Scripture is clear and explicit in its statements of the qualifications. Yet so careless are Christians and churches about this matter, that the places of authority in many churches are filled by men who lack half the qualifications.

Another great evil in our day is that many who fill the places of authority in the churches have no idea that they are there to rule. They preach, and may do a good job of it, too. They advise, and exhort, and instruct, and persuade, but they do not rule, but rather allow every man to do that which seems right in his own eyes. The result is a lowering of all standards, and a weakening of the testimony of the church. And those who ought to rule, but fail to do so, seem to have little sense of the fact that Christ will hold them responsible for the state of the churches under their care. “They watch for your souls as they must give account.” (Heb. 13:17). The angels in the second and third chapters of Revelation are held responsible by Christ for the state of their churches. “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast them there that hold the doctrine of Balaam. … So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.” (Rev. 2:14-15). The angel’s wrong was in having them there—-in the church. He ought to have used his authority, and the one tool of discipline which God had placed in his hands, and excluded them from the church. The error of the people was in holding evil doctrines. The sin of the angel was in allowing them in the church, and this Christ held against him.

To the angel of the church in Thyatira the Lord says, “I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.” (Rev. 2:20). The angel suffered her, allowed her to continue in her course. He ought to have used his authority to put a stop to her course, excluding her from the church if she would not change her course. So with all who walk disorderly, and all who live in sin. Yet I have known elders grieved to gray hairs over the disorders in their churches, who yet “suffered” them to go on. They might advise and exhort and preach and pray and weep, but they did not rule. I surely believe in all of those other means. I believe that a man who rules well will do so primarily by those means, rarely using the rod, and using it only when other means fail, yet if he does not use the rod at all, he does not rule at all. Many will contend that it is not the business of elders to exclude the refractory from the church, but the responsibility of the whole church. I do not doubt that it is the responsibility of the whole church, yet it is peculiarly the responsibility of the elders, as is evident from the fact that Christ holds the angel, not the church, responsible for having unfit members in the church.

All of this concerns authority in the church, but there is a further thing taught in the Bible, which is authority over the churches. The apostle John in his second and third epistles styles himself “the elder,” yet it ought to be evident that this cannot mean he was an elder in a local church, for if that were all that were meant by it, there would certainly be no propriety in using the title when addressing others at a distance, for he would not have been an elder to them. The nature of what John writes also indicates his authority over the churches, for he says, “I wrote unto the church, but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.” (III Jn. 9-10). This was not a local church to which John belonged, or where he lived. “If I come,” he says, intending to visit the place and deal with Diotrephes—-and deal with him, no doubt, as an elder would deal. That is, he did not intend merely to give advice, either to the church or to Diotrephes, but to rule well in the matter—-to bring Diotrephes to submission, or exclude him from the church, for those are the only two alternatives open to elders in the church.

Paul, too, exercised authority over the churches, as is evident in the fact that he “ordained them elders in every church,” (Acts 14:23), and sent Titus to ordain elders in every city, and set in order whatever was lacking (Tit. 1:5). And to Corinth Paul writes, “For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: that I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters; for his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.” (II Cor. 10:8-11). His word consisted of instruction, exhortation, and entreaty. In contrast with this he sets his deed. His deed will not consist merely of more words, but of something more than words. It will consist of enforcement, which is the proper business of authority.

So he writes elsewhere to the Corinthians, who were puffed up, thinking they knew better than Paul, “What will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?” (I Cor. 4:21). The rod, of course, is the emblem of authority. If they would yield to his instruction and entreaties, well: if not, he would use the rod.

On the former of these passages Charles Hodge writes, “The apostle had authority (i.e. the right to rule) and he had ability, inherent power, to enforce that authority.” On the latter passage he says, “It is plain from this, as from numerous other passages, that the apostles exercised the right of discipline over all the churches; they could receive into the communion of the church, or exclude from it, at their discretion.”

From all of these scriptures it is plain that the Bible presents to us a picture of authority over the churches every bit as much as it does of authority in the church—-yea, even where there was no authority in the church, where no local elders had been established. But here arises a difficulty. Who is to exercise that authority? The answer is really simple enough. All authority comes from God, and he to whom God commits it is to exercise it. The real question is, To whom has God committed authority over the churches? And the answer which will generally be given is—-to no one at all. That authority was given to the apostles, because they were apostles, and to no one since the apostles. So Hodge continues, in the same places already quoted from him, “The authority in question was given when he was constituted an apostle, with not only a commission to exercise dominion, but a grace, or inward gift of the Spirit, rendering him infallible as a teacher and investing him with supernatural power.” And again, “This prerogative was inseparable from their infallibility as the messengers of Christ, sent to establish and to administer his kingdom.” But in this we see a strange thing. Hodge, as a Presbyterian, certainly believed in authority over the churches. Indeed, he happens to be the Presbyterian who wrote a set of two large volumes, The Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, the purpose of which is to demonstrate that presbyteries and synods did both claim and exercise authority over the churches. Thus in practice he disallows the only authority over the churches which he will allow doctrinally, confining that to the apostles only, while he sets up in actual practice that which he disallows doctrinally.

But Hodge makes another mistake. He makes the authority of the apostles to rest upon their infallibility. But there is not a word of Scripture, nor anything in the nature of authority, either, which makes the exercise of it dependent upon infallibility. Not only so, but the notion that the apostles were infallible, or that they were “inspired men,” however popular, is nothing more than a myth. The Scriptures, the writings, which God gave to us through the apostles, are inspired, and so infallible, but the men were neither the one nor the other. What is the meaning of Paul withstanding Peter to the face (Gal. 2:11), if they were both infallible? Nothing of the sort. The apostles were fallible men, the same as the rest of us, yet they were fit to exercise authority over the churches, by virtue of their wisdom, experience, and spirituality.

Two questions, then, face us. First, have there been any since the apostles who have been thus fit to exercise authority over the churches?

I believe few would hesitate to answer that in the affirmative. Next, does that fitness constitute a commission to do so, or is a special, supernatural commission required? If the latter, clearly all are excluded except the apostles—-and it may be that the apostles themselves are excluded, for it would be difficult to prove that they ever received any commission to rule.

But observe, the same reasoning which would restrict authority over the churches to the apostles has been used (by J. N. Darby and the Plymouth Brethren) to prove that we cannot now have elders in the churches. Elders in the New Testament were not elected by the people, but established by the apostles, or by men sent by the apostles, and Darby wrote several lengthy treatises to prove that since we have no apostles or apostolic delegates now, there can be no elders now—-at least none officially established as such. He insists strongly upon the fact that the instructions concerning the qualifications for elders were not given to the churches, but only to Timothy and Titus, who were delegated by Paul to establish the elders.

We of course admit the fact, but deny the conclusion. If these instructions were only for the delegates of the apostle, and none of the rest of us have any authority to act upon them, why are they in the Bible? The fact that they are in the Bible indicates that they are for the churches, and that we may act upon them—-may at any rate recognize such men as are fit to be elders, and submit ourselves to them. Is not this precisely what Paul instructs the Corinthians to do? “I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.” (I Cor. 16:15-16).

And what difference is there between thus recognizing and submitting to local elders, and recognizing and submitting to the authority of a man of God over the churches? Who gave John Wesley his authority over the Methodists? God did. God raised him up—-called him and qualified him for the place—-the same as “the Lord raised up judges” in Israel of old (Judges 2:16), and the people recognized and submitted to their authority. “Judges” by definition are men who have authority to rule. Some of them had a supernatural call (though not necessarily to rule, any more than the apostles had), and some had not—-but even if they all had, that would accomplish nothing unless it were recognized by the people. And in the nature of the case it is a much safer thing for the people to recognize the God-given qualifications of a man, than a supernatural call. And this was really the case with the judges. The Lord “raised them up”; the people submitted to them—-though they had no official position at all.

The fact is, John Nelson Darby was every bit as competent to establish elders as were Timothy and Titus. He had the same instructions in his hands. Moreover, God had “raised him up,” and placed him over a people who could not have existed or been what they were but for him. The people knew this, and willingly followed him, so that some complained that he had more power than all the bishops in the Church of England. Yet doctrinal scruples kept him from actually exercising the authority which God had evidently placed in his hands.

Wesley had no such scruples. He exercised authority over the Methodists. Who would deny his right to it? The Methodists owed their existence and their character to him. God had evidently “raised him up” for the work, and the people readily acknowledged his authority. They knew that the condition of association with the Methodists was submission to his authority, and they refused not to render it, for they believed both the movement and Wesley’s place in it to be of God, and they valued their own place in it enough to yield deference to the man whom God had evidently placed over them. Wesley’s administration was far from perfect, for Wesley himself was far from perfect, and it would be an easy thing to point out defects in his system, yet Methodism was better off under his rule than it would have been without him.

I have no thought of seeking out or electing men to exercise authority over the churches. Such a course would be folly. There have been but few men in any generation (or any century, for that matter) who have been fit to occupy such a place. There were but few judges, few prophets of God, few men of the caliber of John Wesley and Menno Simons. If there are men of God, whom God has raised up to renovate and rule in his church, this will be evident to spiritual minds, and there will be no need to seek or appoint, but only to acknowledge and submit, as Israel did with their judges. They did not appoint them. God raised them up. There were long periods of time when there were no judges, and the nation languished for lack of them, as the churches do at the present moment for lack of competent rulers in and over them. Yet the people had no business to make judges, but to look to God to raise them up. When God did raise them up, it was their wisdom to receive them as benefits from God, and acknowledge and submit to them.

Glenn Conjurske