∞∞∞§Ş
```````
````
șÈ
&&&&&&&&

（~~~~ ~~~~（_）~~~::~~~~*~*~ ~~~~*~~~~ ~~~~.~ ~*~*=~~~~ ~~~~）;.*，,+，-,-..- .--->->--~~~-r
|=
№rfº i - ~ 4 ~~~~*~*~*~~~~--~~~~~--~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~--~~~~ ~~~~--~~~~-------.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-…È#ffffffffffffĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪ
~~~~-x-º.-.cr*…***-* * *>.<•••:-） ----+-------
F=ŒŒŒŒŒ№ſſ№;，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，（' ）*，，，，，，，，， sae aetae
Ìì
EJŲĮĮĶĶĹĹĻĻĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪ#ÎÏÏĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪ
ķīļĪİIĮĮĶĪĪĪĪĪİIĮĮĶĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪNiş
~~ ~~~~ --> --~~~~ ~--~~~~--~~~~ ~~~~.~~~~ -…-----∞∞∞
* *|-ºv.·----&\，----• + .
ſiſſiſſiſſiſſiſſiſſiſſiſſiſ
T
fºLIII.IIIIIIII
sººººººººººººº-
º
º
ūrīrātīgrgºň
|H||||IIII
ūgºtſ.
3.
§§
§xºxº
:-
º
Iſſ,
ºlº tºº wººººººº
sº
||||||
Zae，
īīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīī
•••••••*~~~. --~~~~.~*~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~. -- **~*~~~~ ~~~~*~*~~~~ ~~~~------
IIIIIIHIIIIſſä
º
º dº º ſº ºr as
！
±
E
№
ģ=
№
*
WITTElliſſ
El

*: restºw-º-º-º:
- * * * - -- •º.
. - * - * . 3.
3.
-
i
.
:


AN
EXPOSITION AND DEFENCE
OF THE
PRESBYTERIAN FORM
CHURCH G O WERNMENT,
IN REPLY TO EPISCOPAL ANDiNDEPENDENT
WRITERS,
BY
THE REV. DAVID KING, LL.D.,
GLASGOWe
§ºrmii &iſitimſ—Brmigri.
EDINBUR. G. H.;
JOHNSTONE AND HUNTER.
LONDON : B. TEIEOBAL.D. GLASGOW : J. R. MACNAIR.
*mºnº
M.DCCC.LIV.
EDINBURGH =
PRINTED BY JOHNSTONE AND HUNTER,
HIGH STREET.
TO
JOHN HENDERSON, ESQ.,
OF PARK.
MY DEAR SIR,
You have, in the Dedication of this Work to
you, a token of the value which I attach to your ever-faithful
friendship, and to the great encouragement which your most
kind co-operation has afforded me in the discharge of varied
duty.
That you may be long spared to be a blessing to your
friends; to promote abounding charity among all the friends
of Christ; to give effective countenance to pure literature
and evangelical religion; and to carry on those measures of
benevolence which are the honour of our day and country
—and some of which, under God, owe their being to none
so much as to yourself—is the fervent desire and prayer
of,
MY DEAR SIR,
Your Friend and Pastor,
DAVID KING.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
THE alterations made in this edition are not
numerous or extensive. Some typographical
errors have been corrected; a few paragraphs
have been modified for the sake of greater
precision and perspicuity; and, finally, several
references and notes have been introduced in
elucidation and support of my principal positions.
Though these changes may seem individually
small, they will be found collectively to be of
some importance, and to render the work, as I
trust, more readable and convincing.
I have to acknowledge the courtesy of re-
viewers who differ from me in their views of
Church Government. The spirit of their stric-
tures gives perhaps more promise of union than
even the frankness of their concessions.
277 : 30
ii PREFACE,
Excellent amendments have been suggested
to me by friends whose judgment I highly
respect. But some of the topics they propose
for consideration, such as the Spirituality of the
Church, and the Administration of Discipline, I
have treated of elsewhere—in my volume on the
Lord's Supper, and that on the Ruling Eldership
of the Christian Church. And almost all the
improvements recommended are of the nature
of additions, which appear to me on that ground
questionable, as, to a large class of readers, “a
great book is a great evil.”
I conclude by expressing my heartfelt delight
that Christian Churches have so much in com-
mon; and I am fully persuaded that if we only
worked out faithfully our agreements, most of
our differences would speedily disappear. The
Lord hasten it in his time !”
* The above Preface, and the amendments to which it refers,
were jotted a number of months ago, without being regarded
by me as finished. I was prevented, however, by severe and
protracted illness from revising them; so that the printers
had to do their best with somewhat illegible markings, and
the correction of the proofs devolved on the Rev. Dr Gardner,
of Edinburgh, who honoured me by performing this friendly
service. It is superfluous for me to speak of the value of his
writings; but having occasion to mention his name, I cannot
forbear from calling special attention to his “Christian Cyclo-
PREFACE. iii
paedia,” as being a work of unusual importance, and supplying
an important desideratum in Christian literature.
Dr Wardlaw is no morel Much delightful co-operation I
have had with him in philanthropic and religious movements.
But he is gone from us. Bereaved kindred—his attached
church—an admiring public—will see his face no more | There
are few such men in any religious connection. It is a dis-
tinction to a country and an age to possess a minister and a
writer of such high and varied eminence. But the small and
the great go hence; and now we recognise the value of his
presence in the blank, and gloom, and weakness attendant on
his removal. His usefulness, however, is not closed: he being
dead yet speaketh : he will do good by his writings for many
ages to come; so that while he rests from his labours he will
be followed by his works. His name is largely introduced in
this volume; and I cannot help feeling as if a melancholy
were cast over the whole discussion by his lamented decease.
I am pleased, however, that he had an opportunity of replying
to the strictures here offered if he had been so disposed. And
far more gratified am I to think that our interchange of con-
troversial criticisms never Suspended or in the smallest degree
qualified the friendliness of our intercourse.
ROSENEATH, Jan. 2, 1854.
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION,
A VOLUME which I published some years ago on
the Ruling Eldership of the Christian Church was
partly argumentative and partly practical. The
argumentative part elicited some strictures from
Drs Wardlaw and Davidson. In preparing a new
edition I was led to reply to such objections; but
I found the work assuming both a magnitude and
a controversial character altogether unsuitable to
a simple manual for elders. I therefore changed
my plan, and made the Third Edition of my
treatise on the Eldership more specially didactic,
with only a brief statement of the proof for the
office of Ruling Elder, of which I there delineate
the duties, and intimated my intention to merge
the reasoning formerly employed, in such a gene-
ral defence of Presbyterian Church Government
as is now offered to the public.
Under the circumstances just stated, I might
vi PREFACE.
have made a free use of that portion of my former
volume which accorded with my present design,
since it was not to reappear otherwise. But re-
newed examination of the subject led me into
new trains of thought, proof, and illustration;
and the result is that few passages are common
to the two treatises. • *
From the title of this volume the reader will
be prepared to find that I take decided views, and
vindicate one system of polity in preference to
others. It does not follow that I advocate an
existing Presbyterianism unqualifiedly and indis-
criminately—that I perceive everything among
ourselves to be right, and all things in which our
neighbours differ from us to be wrong. Such
partisanship will never promote the discovery of
truth, nor bring our debates by one step nearer
to a conclusion.
We are sadly ignorant of ourselves, and fre-
quently we know not what spirit we are of That
I have nowhere in these pages transgressed the
laws of Christian charity and courtesy, I dare not
assert. But I have certainly aimed to treat op-
ponents respectfully, to meet their arguments
fairly, and to offer no reply to the reader which
I did not feel, on calm reflection, to be satisfac-
tory to myself.
PREFACE. vii
While I have defended Presbyterianism in the
honest belief that it is defensible on good grounds,
though admitting in various points of nearer
approximation to the primitive model, I have
rejoiced to find, that without underestimating a
single argument, or compromising one iota of my
convictions, I have been induced to moderate, in
several important particulars, my estimate of
denominational differences; and I would reckon
myself favoured beyond expression if this small
work should convey to others the same per-
Suasion, and thus advance Christian conciliation
and co-operative beneficence.
It will be easy for an objector to complain of
omissions, and to mention able defences of Epis-
copacy and Independency of which I have not
taken any notice. My answer is, that I could
not undertake to answer all such writings, how-
ever deserving they may be of consideration; and
that no one will accuse me of a deficiency of
courage in my selection of opponents, if, under
any aspect, I may apply that name to my distin-
guished and venerable friend, Dr Wardlaw.
It will not be supposed that in bringing out
anothervindication of Presbyterianism with special
adaptation to the present day, I undervalue prior
publications in behalf of the same cause. I freely
viii PREFACE.
acknowledge my obligations to them, and I have
doubtless derived from them more benefit than I
am now able to trace to its sources. Not to speak
of older works, much valuable service has been
rendered, of late years, to the Ecclesiastical Polity
of which I approve, by such men as Drs Miller,
Smyth, and Barnes, in America, and by Drs
Brown, Mitchell, Lorimer, and M'Kerrow, in
this country. The strictures on Dr Wardlaw's
defence of Independency, by the last-named
writer, which appeared in successive numbers of
the United Presbyterian Magazine, will amply
reward careful perusal.
In preparing thisvolume, I havefound brethren
of different denominations so ready to afford me
all facilities in the prosecution of my undertaking,
that I cannot here specify their acts of helpful
kindness. I must not, however, fail to acknow-
ledge the valuable aid afforded me by my learned,
judicious, and highly-esteemed friend, Professor
LINDSAY, who revised the whole work as it was
passing through the press, and in different in-
stances suggested amendments of material con-
sequence.
As the general line of argument which I have
here followed has engaged my thoughts through
a course of years, I do not feel entitled to make
PREFACE. ix
any apology for it, or toask for it any forbearance.
But my plan has been worked out amid numerous
and distracting engagements ; and therefore I
fully anticipate that flaws will be detected in the
details of execution. As to the main principles
I have no misgivings; and I invite a thorough
scrutiny of them, in the conviction that they are
scriptural, and that the more they are examined,
they will the more appear worthy of Him who is
not the author of confusion, but of order, as in
all churches of the Saints.
DAVID KING.
GLAsgow, 10th March 1858.
PART I.
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.
I. Our appeal must be to Scripture; not for minute details, but
for guiding principles—The 'office of reason not thereby
disparaged — Reasoning without revelation would here
afford no sure direction. Of importance that Christ should
be the legislator of his church in respect to its peace, to
Secure for it a constitution worthy of his wisdom, and for
the sake of the invaluable benefits resulting from good
government. II. The primitive churches unquestionably
had a constitution. All that was extraordinary in it is
inimitable, and must be held to have been temporary; but
all that admits of adoption retains its obligations—Illus-
trative examples. Local usages are not authoritative pat-
terms—Examples. Institutions which were then common
to churches of all climes must be binding on churches of
all ages. 2VAt . . Čy UHCVn OV)
I. ANY form of church government is satisfactorily
defended only in sofar as its essential constituents are
proved to be in accordance with Scripture. It is true
that we are not furnished, under the dispensation of
the Spirit, with any such formal pattern of ecclesias- \).
tical polity as was shown to Moses in the mount. The \\
hints and examples which the New Testament affords
for our guidance in this department often indicate ** d
B
I8 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.
rather than delineate duty, and leave room for the
exercise of Christian expediency in executing our in-
structions. But without alleging that a Divine hand
has here discriminated for us the legitimate and the
forbidden grounds by completed fences, having every
post and stake precisely adjusted, we may yet look
for those landmarks which shall betoken the general
divisions of the country, which shall assist without
superseding minuter measurements and partitionings,
and which have only to be known and respected to
secure the invaluable blessings of a kind and righteous
administration.
These observations disparage in no degree the
healthful exercise of judgment: let a sound mind do
all it can accomplish. Reason and revelation have
one Author; and where in any case they furnish
direction on the same subject, they are mutually
illustrative and confirmatory of one another. But,
though we may take advantage of the light of nature
so often as it shines with appreciable distinctness,
yet if we had no other guidance in our examination
of ecclesiastical polities, I see not that we could reach
any clear and well-established conclusions regarding
their merits. In all reasoning we must have some
data. It is impossible to argue from expediency
itself without laying down common principles. But
the principles of expediency—what are they, and
—where to-be-found?– Whether sought in the human
constitution, or the social compact, or the pages of
history, they are so hard to be ascertained and settled,
and our estimate of them is so exceedingly affected
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. I9
by our position, education, and interests, that we
could hardly determine, by merely prudential con-
siderations, what we were to take for granted; and
for want of premises, we should be precluded from
drawing deductions.
No doubt important treatises have been written on
the comparative advantages of different forms of civil
government. But even the best of these works evince
a frequent perplexity in the absence of authoritative
and indisputable postulates. And were the relations
and duties of temporal citizenship ever so lucidly ex-
pounded, and unerringly demonstrated, there is so
much of peculiarity in the nature and obligations of
ecclesiastical confederation, that just notions of poli-
tical fitness might only mislead us, if we applied them
without modification and without exception to the
government of Christ's house. Therefore we must
have some other and better ground than expediency
to stand upon in deciding between rival schemes of
church order, and our determining query must be—
What saith the Scripture?
This preliminary question, as to how far proof
may be here expected and sought from the Word of
God, is important, essentially affecting the validity of
all our subsequent reasoning, and, at the risk of being
tedious, I solicit for it deliberate consideration. That
Christ should assign his church no form of government,
is, I submit, a position highly improbable in itself.
The church must have some constitution; and on
many grounds it appears of great and manifest im-
portance that he should be its Legislator.
20 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.
(1.) He is the Prince of Peace, and he promised
peace to his people. But how could the societies of
his worshippers be peacefully organised if the mode
of organization were optional, and left to be deter-
mined by their ownfallible and conflicting judgments?
TJnder such conditions discord would be inevitable.
It is true that strifes about church government have
actually arisen, and that no extent of privilege secures
an imperfect discipleship against their occurrence.
But the conflicts which result from the neglect of a
standard are always more or less restrained, even while
they last, by that standard; and they admit of even-
tual and satisfactory settlement. Whereas differences
accruing from want of a standard have no moderating
element, and furnish no means either of prevention or
of cure. Therefore they must yield unavoidable and
interminable troubles.
(2.) It was of high importance that Christ should
legislate for his church in order to secure for it a
constitution worthy of his wisdom. We have seen
that the peace of the church requires that its King
and Head should furnish its constitution. This con-
sideration holds good, irrespectively of the merits of
different forms of government. Although they were
equally eligible in themselves, it would still be of im-
mense consequence for the peace of the church to
have a preference of one above another appointed and
enjoined. But different systems of ecclesiastical ad-
ministration have no such parity of excellence. Few
things, not identical in kind, have the same value in
themselves, or fitness for a specific end. That diverse
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 21
forms of rule should form an exception, and should so
approximate in worth as to make the choice between
them a matter of indifference, is inconceivable; for
nowhere is a happy medium more liable to be missed
than in the modelling of superintendence; and no-
where does human nature show a stronger proneness
to incline to one or other of opposite extremes. In so
far as good government is secured, it is inexpressibly
valuable in itself. It treats the governed as citizens'
and not as serfs; it allows the greatest freedom con-
sistent with order; it establishes presidency without
oppression, and liberty without licentiousness.
(3.) That Christ should legislate for his church will
appearhighly important if we look to practical results.
Under this aspect, government is of moment, if any-
thing be of moment in the Christian church, inasmuch
as all interests are affected by its influence. According
as rule is good or bad, truth will be maintained or
betrayed, and the administration of scriptural disci-
pline will be enforced or relaxed. Principal Campbell,
though he is very moderate, not to say latitudinarian
in his views, as to the divine appointment of any form
of church government, yet acknowledges that “a cer-
tain external model of government must have been
originally adopted for the more effectual preservation
of the evangelical institution in its native purity, and
for the careful transmission of it to after ages; and that
a presumptuous encroachment on what is evidently so
instituted is justly reprehensible.” Elsewhere he says:
“Certain it is that one model of church government
may be much better calculated for promoting belief
22 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.
and obedience than another. Nay, it is not impossible
that such changes may be introduced as are much
more fitted for obstructing the influence of true reli-
gion than for advancing it; nay, for inspiring a
contrary temper, and nourishing the most dangerous
vices.” The influence of government is thus most
extensive, not to say all-comprehensive, for goed or
evil; and if we could trace all the impression it has
made on doctrinal belief and ecclesiastical supervision
and practical piety, there would be no longer any pre-
text for classing the subject here to be discussed with
the idle questions which minister strife rather than
godly edifying. -
II. But in all this line of remark we are reason-
ing, it may be said, from mere probability—stating
what we might expect, and not what we actually
find. To come to facts, then, ascertained and un-
doubted facts, we know that the primitive church
had a constitution. Who can deny that its affairs
were regulated in a definite and orderly manner ?
“For God,” says the apostle of the Gentiles, “is not
the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all
churches of the saints.”f If, then, a certain order
was instituted in the primitive church, by which
confusion was excluded, why should not this “church
order” be retained? Although the apostles had said
nothing about retaining it, yet as they set it up, and
acted on it themselves, should we not recognise, in
* On Ecclesiastical History. Lect. iv. and Lect. viii.
* 1 Cor. xiv. 33.
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 23
their example, an imperative precept? “Those
things,” says one of their number, “which ye have
both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in
me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.”
It may be objected, that a retention of the primitive
system is impracticable—that it was adapted for its
own day, and no other; and now, when it is gone,
admits not of being recalled. But let this ground
be considered before it is occupied. What does it
suppose? That Christ appointed a government for
his church which could not be perpetuated; that he
nurtured habits and attachments in favour of a certain
system, to be ruptured almost as soon as matured!
It supposes that the church had a constitution by
which to guide itself under the apostles, and was then
cast on a sea of change, just when apostolic pilotage
was withdrawn! It is surely more credible that the
apostles set in operation a plan which the churches
would do well, after their decease, to have always in
remembrance.
Still it may be objected that much of the apostolic
administration was manifestly extraordinary, and
therefore cannot be upheld in ordinary times. The
reply is obvious, that what was manifestly extraordi-
nary can give us no perplexity, as on that very ac-
count it is manifestly not binding. The apostolic
office, as I shall afterwards endeavour to show, was
itself of this character. The same doctrine will be
established as to the evangelists, who performed like
work as the apostles, under their direction; and no
# Phil. iv. 9.
24 INTRODUCTORY ORSERVATIONS.
demonstration is needed that miracles, and gifts of
healing, and diversities of tongues, belonged exclu-
sively to the age of supernatural endowments.
If, then, all the offices in the primitive church had
borne the impress of this uncommon and transient
character, there would have been no ground for
pleading their permanency. But if some were dif-
ferent in their nature; if some had duties attached to
them which may still be performed, and qualifications
required for them which may still be possessed; if
these were instituted universally in the primitive
churches; and if the discharge of their functions
would secure, at all times, the maintenance and ex-
tension of the Redeemer's kingdom, then are we not
equally bound to hold such offices inviolate, as if they
alone had subsisted from the beginning? If ever they
could have been readily dispensed with, it was surely
in the apostolic age, when inspiration and miracles
might have accomplished their objects; and why
should they, even at that time, have been assigned to
the churches, if not to mark the more emphatically
their indispensable and ever-enduring character?
Thus far the case has been stated hypothetically,
that the nature of the argument might be better ap-
prehended. But I now state positively that there
were such divinely-appointed offices, and that we
have no right whatever to abolish or alter them.
Whenever a number of persons were converted under
the preaching of the apostles or their fellow-labourers,
these converts were formed into a society, and ob-
tained for their stated and proper officers, bishops
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 25
and deacons. Only some churches were favoured
with the ministrations of apostles and evangelists,
and these churches enjoyed that distinction only for
limited periods, and at remote intervals; but every
church, no matter when planted, or by whom watered,
or to what country belonging, had bishops and
deacons for its fixed and abiding office-bearers. The
epistle to the Philippians is addressed to “all saints
in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the
bishops and deacons:” no mention is made of other
office-bearers. In the first epistle to Timothy, Paul
gives directions about the necessary qualifications of
the same office-bearers, and he speaks of no others.
The Rev. Herbert Thorndike, a learned divine of the
Church of England, who flourished in the reign of
Charles I., says of the apostle Paul, that “neither in
the relation of his planting and ordering the churches,
nor in the style of his epistles, nor in his instructions
concerning ministers of these churches, is there any
remembrance or respect to be found but of presbyters
[identified in Scripture with bishops] and deacons.”
Here, then, is a great and palpable fact: the pri-
mitive churches had stated functionaries, readily dis-
tinguishable from extraordinary office-bearers wielding
* Government of Churches. Cambridge, 1641.-The words
presbyter and bishop denote the same class in Scripture. In mo-
dern works they are sometimes called “presbyter-bishops,” to
distinguish them from the “diocesan bishops” of our existing
episcopal churches. The word elder is a translation of presbyter.
Let the reader then keep in mind that bishop, presbyter, elder,
are three expressions for one class of office-bearers. The truth
of this statement will be made apparent afterwards.
26 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.
a preternatural and temporary sway. To this extent
we can, and therefore should, be followers of them
who were the immediate followers of Christ. We
cannot have apostles; but we may have presbyters—
we may have deacons; and we act dutifully in seeking
the closest attainable assimilation to the churches of
the apostolic age. “All Christians,” says an eloquent
writer, “are under a solemn obligation to follow the
ascertained universal practice of the primitive churches,
founded and regulated by Christ's commissioned ser–
vants, the apostles. Paul manifests much solicitude
upon the subject, and most solemnly enjoins upon
the churches adherence to all his injunctions.” Nor
is he sparing of approbation where obedience has
been implicit: ‘I praise you, brethren, that ye re-
member me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I
delivered them to you.”f Nor is he less prompt in
his reprobation of novelties and innovations: ‘If
any man seem to be contentious, we have no such
custom, neither the churches of God.”f The doc-
trine of these Scriptures unquestionably is, that one
general practice prevailed at the beginning, and that
churches were not permitted to deviate from that
practice.” $
If any particular rite or agency were mentioned in
connection with only one church, or a few churches,
we might suppose that it originated in peculiar cir-
cumstances, and had no claims on adoption beyond
the bounds of a local propriety. On this ground,
* 2 Thess. ii. 15. + 1 Cor. xi. 2. : 1 Cor. xi. 16.
% Campbell's Church Fellowship, p. 12.
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 27
Dr Wardlaw maintains that we are justifiable in
dispensing with deaconesses. “There were no
deaconesses,” he says, “in the first church—the model
church, that of Jerusalem. Although the class of
persons of whom the neglect complained of occasioned
the institution of the office was a description of
females, those appointed there to hold it were men—
seven men of honest report. The evidence of the
existence of deaconesses afterwards, in any of the
other churches, is so exceedingly scanty as to make
it matter of surprise that it should have been so
generally assumed. There is one passage only, and
that a merely incidental one, that at all bears upon it,
and that passage is Rom. xvi. 1. . . . If in any
case females were installed in office, it was where the
customs of society did not admit of such easy freedom
of intercourse between the sexes, as existed among
the Hebrews, and exists among ourselves.”*
The same writer offers proof, in another part of his
work, that like observations are applicable to a com-
munity of goods—to the kiss of charity—to the
washing of the disciples’ feet, and to love feasts.
All these usages, he contends, have been magnified
beyond their reality, and were, besides, limited to
particular spots or districts, and cannot be justly
said to have prevailed in the primitive churches.
But a different character attaches to any constituent
of primitive order which can be shown to have be-
longed to the churches generally. Of these churches,
some were in towns, others in the country; some
* Cong. Indep., pp. 146, 147.
28 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.
in barbarous regions, others in states highly civilised.
The churches of different localities presented, in fact,
as much diversity of external condition as can well
pertain to churches of different ages. In vain, then,
should we argue that we may institute other rites and
ceremonies under other circumstances, since the plea of
dissimilar circumstances existed from the first, and was
overruled by apostolic authority. An argument from
convenience, which would discharge us from the per-
manent retention of an ordinance, would have dis-
charged the primitive churches from its universal
adoption. And when we omit all consideration of
miraculous functions and endowments, as neither re-
coverable nor imitable, we are safe in laying down
this rule—That we should adopt every associating and
assimilating feature of identity in the primitive churches,
which they allowed no casualties and no vicissitudes to
molest; and should be careful to hold that in common
with them which they held in common with one another.
PART II.
O N D E A C O N S.
CHAPTER I.
That the primitive churches had deacons, universally admitted
—Proofs of the existence of this order in the apostolic age
—The special nature of their office disputed—Paul's
Epistles do not indicate their peculiar functions—The
seven spoken of in Acts chap. vi. are not called deacons—
That the seven, however, were deacons, and that their
charge shows the character of the deacon's work, may be
inferred from the manner of their appointment; from the
language used respecting them; from the qualifications re-
quired of deacons; and from historical testimony.
IT is universally admitted that the primitive churches
had a class of office-bearers called deacons. Explicit
mention is made of them in the epistles of Paul, and
in the writings of the early Christian fathers. The
epistle to the Philippians commences thus: “Paul
and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all
the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with
the bishops and deacons.” From these words we na-
turally infer that the deacons were a stated order of
functionaries, equally as the bishops, with whom they
are here associated and addressed. After describing,
in the first epistle to Timothy, the qualifications needful
30 ON DEACONS.
in a bishop, Paul says: “Likewise must the deacons
be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine,
not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the
faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be
proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being
found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave,
not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the
deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their chil-
dren and their own houses well. For they that have
used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves
a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which
is in Christ Jesus.”* It will be observed that the
apostle does not in these verses speak problematically
of the existence of deacons. He does not say that if
they are appointed, or where they are appointed, they
should have the endowments and character which he
describes. He takes for granted their appointment
as equally indispensable and undoubted with that of
bishops, of whom he had spoken previously. The last
verse of the passage above cited, “They that have
used the office of a deacon well purchase to them-
selves a good degree, and great boldness in the
faith which is in Christ Jesus,” is evidently a compre-
hensive proposition applicable to churches generally,
and not to any one church exclusively. Deacons
are not alluded to expressly under that title in any
other part of the New Testament. But these pas-
sages are clear in their import; and they leave no
room for reasonable doubt that the institution of
deacons both existed and prevailed in the primitive
* 1 Tim. iii. 8–13.
ON DEACONS. 31
churches. If we pass from inspired to uninspired
writings, we find ecclesiastical history abounding in
evidence to the same effect.
But what was the special work of the deacons?
Here opinion becomes divided. The passages which
have been quoted from the epistles of Paul teach us
that churches should have deacons, and that deacons
should be men of high Christian character. But they
do not inform us what specific duties the deacons are
to perform. Can we not learn their distinctive em-
ployment elsewhere? It has been generally supposed
that light is thrown on this subject by the following
verses: “And in those days, when the number of the
disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring
of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their
widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples
unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should
leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore,
brethren, look you out among you seven men of honest
report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we
may appoint over this business. But we will give
ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of
the word. And the saying pleased the whole multi-
tude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and
of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and
Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas a
proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before the
apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their
hands on them.” The Hebrews mentioned in the first
* Acts vi. 1-6.
32 ON IDEACONS.
verse were Jews who spoke the Hebrew language,
while the Grecians were mostly foreign Jews, or
proselytes, who had come from countries where the
Greek language was in more general use. A misun-
derstanding had arisen betweenthese sections of Israel,
in consequence of the foreign Jews imagining, with
or without reason, that their poor widows were not
equally provided for as those of their Hebrew brethren.
The apostles declared that they could not, consistently
with a faithful discharge of other duties, conduct this
business, when it had become so involved in misap-
prehension and strife (whether they had done so
before or not), and therefore they gave directions for
the election of persons, having suitable qualifications
and character, to whom it should be given in charge.
So far the meaning of the passage is obvious. But
the question now arises, whether the seven of whom
it speaks were deacons?
“The seven,” says Archbishop Whately, “are no-
where in Scripturedesignated by thistitle [of deacons.]
They are referred to, in Acts xxi. 8, not as the ‘seven
deacons, but simply as the seven. And the primary
and especial office for which they were appointed—
that of stewards and almoners—is not referred to at
all in what Paul says of the office of a deacon. Hence,
some have inferred that the seven persons mentioned
in Acts were appointed to a temporary office for a
temporary and local emergency.” Several writers
have lately advocated the view which Archbishop
Whately here notices, and have contended with much
* Kingdom of Christ, p. 124. Note.
ON DEACONS. 33
ingenuity that the seven were not deacons; and that
their appointment, consequently, gives us no insight
into the deacon's duties. On this hypothesis, the
deacons mentioned by Paul may have been spiritual
officers, and had no such pecuniary trust as the seven
were elected and ordained to discharge.
I shall state as briefly as possible my reasons for
believing, after a careful examination of the proof
offered to the contrary, that the seven were deacons;
and that the serving of tables is the proper work of
the deaconship.
1st, The supposition adverted to by Archbishop
Whately, of the seven having been appointed to a
temporary office, for a temporary and local emer-
gency, does not appear very accordant with the mode
of their appointment. The choice and ordination of
them were conducted with a solemnity, and have
been recorded with a particularity, not adequately
accounted for by transient adjustments, but which
appear perfectly reasonable, if we recognise in the
transactions the origination of a general and abiding
institution.
2d, The language used by Luke, in speaking of the
seven, favours the belief that they were deacons. He
does not indeed expressly call them by that name,
but he represents them as appointed (810.20wº) to
deaconise in respect to tables, if I may coin a word
for the sake of literal translation; and when we after-
wards read of deacons in the epistles of Paul, we
are led by the use of the cognate terms to think of
the same class of functionaries and the same species
C
34 ON DEACONS.
of ministration. This is not a conclusive argument
on the question at issue, but it creates a presumption
in favour of the view which I defend.
This presumption is the stronger, when the verb
(312xováo), diaconeo) used in relation to the seven, is
observed to have respect very generally to pecuniary
trust or allied service. It occurs thirty-three times
in the New Testament; and I find that in two-thirds
of the whole, its application to such occupation as
may be fitly called a serving of tables, is evident and
unquestionable; while, in some of the remaining ex-
amples, it also admits, without demanding, this in-
terpretation. Does not this use of the verb so
general, and so marked, dispose us to find a like
meaning in the cognate substantive officially appro-
priated ?
We are reminded, however, that Paul speaks of
going to Jerusalem to act as a deacon to the Saints;
that he tells us of his deaconship for Jerusalem; that
the Hebrews, in the epistle addressed to them, are
commended indiscriminately, in that they had acted,
and did act, as deacons unto the saints.”
These, and such passages, prove, I acknowledge,
that the verb used by Luke in the Acts, and the
cognate substantive employed by Paulin his epistles,
do not, by their sameness of etymology, unquestion-
ably identify the seven, and deacons. "But these
citations, so far from annulling, strengthen the pre-
sumption, for which alone I plead, in behalf of that
conclusion. When Paul speaks of himself and others
* See Rom. xv. 25, 31; Heb. vi. 10.
ON DEACONS. 35
deaconising, in respect to the relief of the distressed,
it is by no means evident, because he and his com-
panions were not, strictly speaking, deacons, that he
has no allusion to the deacon's office. It is more
natural to understand that the deacon's office and
its eleemosynary functions are presupposed in such
language. This point may be illustrated by analo-
gous phraseology. Saints are said to reign, and to
offer sacrifices, though they have not actually regal
or sacerdotal functions. Still, in such language,
there is a reference to office, and to its characteristic
engagements. There is allusion to the offices of
kings and priests; and believers are declared to be
these functionaries, under certain aspects, and in re-
lation to certain engagements. So they who are said
to deaconise, though not necessarily averred to be
literally deacons, may be thus exhibited as exemplify-
ing the deacon in relation to the matters spoken of.
If Paul had been said to go to Jerusalem ölcºxovºv,
doing the deacon’s work, and we had known nothing
of the object of his visit, we might have supposed that
the language was descriptive simply of apostolic or
spiritual labours. But he went bearing a collection
for the poor saints; and when in fulfilling this ser-
vice he executed the deacon's functions, is not the
inference strong that the business of deacons was to
do what he did? He acted the deacon—how? By
conveying alms to the poor.
Dut the presumption, it may be said, that Luke, in
the sixth chapter of the Acts, uses the verb, instead of
the substantive, cannot be very strong, unless we find
36 ON DEACONS.
the same substitution made on other occasions. That
is what we do find, and find, too, oftener than once.
The verb is twice employed in the first epistle to
Timothy, as I suppose it to be in the Acts, in lieu of
the substantive. When Paul says, “Let them use the
office of a deacon;” * and again, “They that have
used the office of a deacon well,”f he employs the
identical word which occurs in the phrase, “It is not
meet that we serve tables” f—that we use the office
of deacon in respect to tables. Surely, then, we
are not rash in believing, till contrary evidence is
furnished, that the common meaning of the verb
ôtoxováo (diaconeo) has entered into the official de-
signation 31&zovog, (diacon0s,) deacon; and that the
verb is actually used for the substantive in the 6th
chapter of the Acts, as we find it to be unquestion-
ably a first and a second time in the first epistle to
Timothy.
3d, Though Paul gives us no statement of the
duties of deacons, he specifies, in the first epistle to
Timothy, the qualifications which they needed; and
among these qualifications there is none that has par-
ticular relation either to teaching or ruling, and none
that would not be of manifest value to ecclesiastical
almoners. It is true that the deacon is required to
* 1 Tim, iii. 10. f Ver. 13.
# Letthereader compare these passages:—Acts vi. 2, oix
&ptorów irriv #22; . . . . 312xovii, Tpoºréâzıs. 1 Tim. iii. 10,
Kai oºro. 3; 3oxiºzłodorov ºrpºrov, sºro. 312xovstraozy. And
18,-Oi y&p xzxas 3iazováozvrts g2%ay icvroſs zoxy ºrigi-
ºrdſ009?"ºle
ON DEACONS. 37
be a man “holding the mystery of the faith in a pure
conscience.”* If we understand these words to mean
that he should be conscientiously orthodox, still there
is no necessary connection between orthodoxy and
public instruction or government. A deacon dispens-
ing the bounty of the church could not fail to be a
person of influence, and also to come much into com-
munication with fellow-worshippers; and it was
greatly to be deprecated that such a functionary
should be of erroneous or questionable opinions,
when he could so easily pervert the power insepa-
rable from his station to the disparagement of truth,
or the propagation of heresies. An appointment of
this description was the more to be dreaded, when,
as all great authorities on Christian antiquities ac-
knowledge, the members of the churches exercised
so much liberty in exhorting one another.
4th, That the seven mentioned in the Acts were
deacons, appears from historical testimony. An appeal
must here be made to the Fathers. That many ob-
jectionable notions are to be found in their writings,
I readily allow. But even if we attach no weight
whatever to their speculative opinions, we may give
some consideration to their earlier and fuller know-
ledge regarding a matter of fact. It is essentially a
matter of fact we are now seeking to determine, viz.,
whether the appointment of the seven originated the
order of deacons. The Fathers may give us, and do
give us, strange views about the duties of the deacon-
ship, as about other things. But if they help us in
* 1 Tim. iii. 9.
38 ON DEACONS.
determining the fact that the seven were deacons, we
shall go to Scripture itself to learn their obligations.
Coleman says:—“It is particularly important to
remark that the word 312xováo [diacomeo] has in many
passages reference to an office in the church in-
stituted by the apostles; and that the appellation of
ôuo.zovog, deacon, denotes one whose duty it is to
receive the charities of the church, and to distribute
their alms. . . . . An explicit account of the first
appointment of a deacon in the church at Jerusalem
is given in Acts vi. 1–7. . . . . It was their duty to
receive and disburse the charities of the church. In
the discharge of these duties they were styled the
mouth, and the heart, or soul of the bishop. In this
sense they were accounted the indispensable assistants
of the bishop, without whom he could do nothing.
Their duties increased with the possessions of the
church, so that they acted essentially as the account-
ants and clerks of the bishop.”
Here Coleman, speaking in the name of history,
alleges that the seven mentioned in the Acts were
deacons in the official sense of the term, and that the
deacons spoken of in the Epistles were a continua-
tion of the same order. In a work more recently
published, the same author says, -“Besides the
elders, there was, in the apostical and primitive ages
of the church, only one other office, that of deacon.
The specific duty to which the deacons were ori-
ginally appointed was to assist in the distribution of
alms. The care of providing for the poor, the sick,
* Antiq., chap. iii., Sec. x.
ON DEACONS. 39
and of bestowing other needful attentions upon the
members of the community, for the relief of those
who were occupied with the duties of the ministry,
devolved upon them. They also, in common with
the other officers of the church, laboured in the word
and baptised; so, at least, it is related of two of the
seven deacons at Jerusalem, Stephen and Philip.–
(Acts vi., vii., viii.)”* Here we are referred to Acts
vi. for an account of deacons; and while they are
represented as discharging other functions, we are
told that the specific duty to which they were ori-
ginally appointed was to assist in the distribution of
alms.
In the clear understanding that the seven were
deacons, some of the early churches adhered to the
precise number seven in their diaconal staff, aiming
at a perfect conformity to apostolic example, and rigid
fulfilment of a divine appointment. The learned
Bingham says indeed that “the number of deacons
usually increased with the necessities of the church,
and the Church of Rome was singular in the con-
trary practice.”f But the word “singular * is not
there to be taken absolutely, for Bingham says in the
same paragraph that “in some churches they were
very precise to the number seven, in imitation of the
first church of Jerusalem. The Council of Neocaesarea
enacted it into a canon that there ought to be but
seven deacons in any city, though it was never so
* Ancient Christianity:Exemplified, &c., chap. vi., sect. vii.,
ź 6. Philadelphia, 1852.
+ Antiq., b. i., chap. xx, Sect. 19.
40 ON DEACONS.
great, because this was according to the rule sug-
gested in the Acts of the Apostles.”
Amid the multiplicity of engagements which came
to be assigned to deacons, the original duty of serving
tables everywhere maintained its place; and the uni-
versality of this usage strongly indicates its high
antiquity and divine origin. They were employed
not only in dispensing supplies from the table of the
poor, but also in conveying the symbols from the table
of the Lord, as if all tables, having any connection
with the church, came within their administration.
“It belonged to them,” says Bingham, “to take care
of the holy table, and all the ornaments and utensils
appertaining thereto. . . . . It was appropriate to them
to assist the bishops or presbyters in the administra-
tion of the eucharist, where their business was to dis-
tribute the elements to the people that were present,
and carry them to those that were absent also, as
Justin Martyr acquaints us in his second apology.”*
Since the church showed a disposition to multiply
the functions of deacons, it was against the current of
the times to found the validity of the office on a pas-
sage in the Acts, which gave no countenance to these
many inventions; and we cannot understand why
parties, introducing deacons so different from the
seven, should yet have acknowledged the seven to be
the model deacons, unless under the pressure of his-
torical evidence, which, with better and fuller means
of information than we possess, they felt to be irresis-
tible.
* Antiq., b. i., chap. xx., Sect. 4.
ON DEACONS, 4l
Bingham, in treating of deacons, cites many pas-
sages, “to show the sense of antiquity concerning
their original.” By his quotations he seeks to prove
two things; first, that the seven were deacons, and,
as such, charged with the service of tables; and,
secondly, that in the judgment of ancient writers, the
serving of tables was not the only work of deacons.
His authorities are unanimous as to the former pro-
position identifying the seven and deacons.
He tells us that “Ignatius styles them (deacons)
expressly ministers of the mysteries of Christ, adding
that they are not ministers of meats and drinks, but
of the church of God.” The meaning of this asser-
tion he justly understands to be that deacons were not
ministers of meats and drinks only. The language
implies that deaconshad such an appointment as might
tempt people to think that they had to do exclusively
with meats and drinks. And this very special con-
nection of their office with meats and drinks, points
clearly enough to the serving of tables; for to serve a
table, and serve the meats and drinks placed on it,
marks a distinction without a difference. Ignatius,
then, in speaking of deacons, had in view the sixth
chapter of the Acts, as in part, at least, explanatory
of their functions.
“Cyprian speaks of them,” says Bingham, “in the
* The learned author does not give the words of the original,
which are these:–Asſ 2; x2) robs 312xovovs, wres Azvoºrhploy.
1. Xart., xzºr& révro, rpázroy ºrgavy &pírzely, Oi y&p gp%azroy
zz, rorov sirly 312xovo axxx xxxngſz.: 9ao; bornpéra-Epist, ad
Trall, chap. ii.
42 ON DEACONS.
same style, calling them ministers of episcopacy and the
church, withal referring their original to the place in
the Acts of the Apostles, which the Council of Trullo
disputes about.” The author does not give us the
words of Cyprian, but he refers us at the foot of the
page to the 68th epistle of that Father, and in that
epistle this passage is to be found: “We perceive
that the apostles observed this public appointment, not
only in the ordination of bishops and priests, but also
of deacons, regarding which also it is written in their
Acts: “And the twelve called together the whole mul-
titudes of the disciples, and said to them,” &c.” Here
the original appointment of deacons is traced to Acts
vi. in the most unequivocal manner. Jerome, we are
informed by Bingham, “sometimes in an angry hu-
mourspeaks a little contemptuously of them [deacons],
styling them ministers of widows and tables.” It is
manifest that Jerome, in so characterising deacons,
refers to their original appointment, as recorded in the
sixth chapter of the Acts, the very language of which
he quotes.
“The Apostolic Constitutions,” as quoted by Bing-
ham, “represent the bishop, when ordaining a deacon,
as praying that God would make his face to shine
upon that his servant, who was then chosen to the
* The words of the original are:—“Coram omni synagoga
jubet Deus Constitui sacerdotem id est, &c. . . . . Nec hoc in
episcoporum tantum et Sacerdotum sed et in Diaconorum
ordinationibus observasse apostolos animadvertimus de quo et
ipso in Actiseorum scriptum est, ‘Et eonvocarunt illi duodecim
totam plebem discipulorum et dixerunt iis,’” &c.
ON DEACONS. 43
office of deacon, and fill him with his Holy Spirit
and power, as he did Stephen the Martyr.” The
aptness of this allusion to Stephen—one of the seven
—in the ordination of deacons, wholly depends on
the supposition that he was a deacon, and endowed
as such with the power and Spirit now asked for
other deacons.
Dr Miller, in his work on the Eldership, produces
other quotations from Christian Fathers not less deci-
sive of the point at issue—that in the judgment of
Christian antiquity the seven mentioned by Luke were
deacons equally as those to whom Paul expressly
assigns that designation. The proof might be inde-
finitely enlarged. I do not observe in either of these
writers, or remember to have seen elsewhere, the fol-
lowing passage of Cyril. In his Lectures, as published
at Oxford, 1839, he has this sentence: “Nor in
the twelve apostles only wrought the grace of the
Holy Ghost, but also on the first-born children of this
once barren church, I mean the seven deacons; for
these also were chosen, as it is written, being full of
the Holy Ghost.”
It has been already mentioned that one object con-
templated by Bingham, in his citations regarding
deacons, is to prove the propriety of assigning them,
along with the serving of tables, other important
duties. By his own admission, antiquity is not here
altogether in his favour. He acknowledges that the
Council of Trullo, which was held in the sixth century,
denied to deacons any other character than that of
* Page 233.
44 ON DEACONS.
stewards or almoners, “asserting that the seven
deacons spoken of in the Acts are not to be under-
stood of such as ministered in divine service or the
Sacred mysteries, but only of such as served tables
and attended the poor.” As reported by Bingham,
the Council of Trullo maintained that the seven were
deacons; that these deacons only served tables and
attended the poor; and that the deacons of subse-
quent times were exceeding the scriptural institution
of the office in fulfilling other functions. If we
consult Scripture on the subject, it appears that the
seven were expressly “set over this matter,” and not
any other. They were required, indeed, to be full of
the Holy Ghost and of wisdom; and some think that
such language surely pointed to a higher vocation than
the distribution of money. But though we should
explain the phrase, “full of the Holy Ghost,” as re-
ferring to preternatural endowments, who could say,
that in an age when these were abundant, they might
not be expected with special propriety in a stated
order of officers ? How is it certain that such a gift as
the discernment of spirits might not be peculiarly
called for at times to sift the pretensions of claimants
for relief or the spurious generosity of some Ananias
or Sapphira ! Preternatural endowments, then, might
be very valuable to the custodiers of the church's funds
and the dispensers of its charities. The probability,
however, is, whether the seven were preternaturally
endowed or not, that no allusion is made to such
qualifications in the phraseology we are considering.
Neander tells us that the word Holy appears to be a
ON DEACONS. 45
gloss; and that the word Spirit, which is “the true
reading, denotes that inspiration for the cause of the
gospel which is requisite for every kind of exertion
for the kingdom of God.”
Other attempts to get additional work for deacons
in the Scriptures are not more successful. Stephen
spoke in his own defence; and who may not when he
is unjustly accused ? Philip preached. We do not,
however, require to suppose that he did so as a
deacon, when we are informed that he was an
“evangelist.” But the amount of a deacon's duties is
not the main point now treated of. We have been
adducing the testimony of the Fathers specifically to
the fact that the seven appointed to serve tables
were deacons, though in the sixth chapter of the
Acts they are not expressly so called.
The concurrent understanding of the church, in
the times of Ignatius, Cyprian, the author of the Con-
stitutions, Jerome, Cyril, the Council of Neocaesarea,
&c., undoubtedly was, that the seven mentioned by
Luke were deacons, and were of the same order with
the deacons mentioned by Paul. There is no testi-
mony that can be called opposing. The prevalent
belief does not appear to have elicited any protest, or
to have occasioned any controversy. In fact, it is a
novelty of modern times to dispute whether the seven
were deacons. And still the position is disputed by
few. “The current opinion,” says Dr Miller, “of all
the most learned and judicious Christian divines of all
denominations, for several centuries past, is decisively
* Hist. of the Planting, &c., vol. i. p. 39.
46 - ON DEACONS.
in favour of considering the passage in Acts vi. as
recording the first appointment of the New Testa-
ment deacons. Among all classes of theologians,
Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinistic,
Presbyterian and Episcopal, this concurrence of
opinion approaches so near to unanimity, that we
may, without injustice to any other opinion, consider
it as the deliberate and harmonious judgment of the
Christian church.” *
In these views Neander concurs. He says, in one
of his works, “It would be wrong to deny that the
later church office of this name developed itself from
the first, and might be traced back to it. Although,
as is usual in such affairs, when the ecclesiastical sys-
tem became more complex, many changes took place
in the office of deacons; for example, the original sole
appointment of deacons for the distribution of alms,
became afterwards subordinate to the influence of
the presbyters, who assumed the whole management
of church affairs; f and though many other secular
employments were added to the original one, yet the
fundamental principle [the relief of the poor], as well
* On the Ruling Elder, chap. x.
f On the subordination of deacons to presbyters in the recep-
tion and disbursement of funds, Neander says, “From Acts xi.
30, nothing more is to be inferred than that when presbyters
were appointed for the general superintendence of the church,
the contributions intended for the church were handed over
to them, as formerly to the apostles, when they held the
exclusive management of affairs. It may be fairly supposed
that the presbyters entrusted each of the deacons with a sum
out of the common fund for distribution in his own depart-
ment.”
ON DEACONS. * 47
as the name of the office, remained. In later times
we still find traces of the distribution of alms being
considered as the peculiar employment of deacons.””
A full view, then, of the scriptural records, of ancient
notices, and of monumental usages, will probably
secure in time coming, as in times past, very common
assent to the conclusion, that the seven were deacons,
and that their appointment to serve tables instructs us
in the nature of the deacon's duties.
CHAPTER II.
The deaconship of the seven derives confirmation from the
consequences of controverting this position.
DISINCLINED to protract discussion on a subject which
to some readers may have no special interest, I shall
reserve the consideration of some objections to the
views which have been advanced, for a note at the
close of this volume, and shall here only glance at the
consequences of controverting the position that the
seven were deacons.
On this supposition we have, as the epistle to the
Philippians and the first epistle to Timothy show, a
stated order of functionaries in the primitive church,
which is our model, but, without Acts vi., no index
to their characteristic employments. And when we
shall have appointed deacons, in due regard to the
* Hist. of the Planting, &c., pp. 39, 40.
48 ON DEACONS.
apostolic pattern, we are left wholly uninformed what
these office-bearers are to do! There is, I confess, no
formal statement of the duties of elders; but then we
have unequivocal intimations about their teaching
and ruling. For deacons we have, when the seven
are denied to have been such, nothing of the kind—
no hint whatever as to their functions. To no pur-
pose is it here said that with the mode of instruction
we have no right to quarrel; and that God may reveal
his will as it pleases him, by words or facts, systema-
tically or incidentally. This is true; but to insist on
this truth is nothing to the present purpose. If the
seven were not deacons, and the serving of tables be
not the deacon's work, then every avenue to know-
ledge is here shut—the Oracles of God are absolutely
dumb ; and I submit that a divine warrant for an
office, without divine announcement of any kind about
its engagements, is a case without an explanation
and without a parallel.
Suppose that we take tradition for our rule, where
we have no better directory, and elect deacons to be
“adjutants to bishops,” what adjutantship is to be
given? How are superintendence and subordination
to be meted out between the helping and the helped;
and where, in churches having elders, shall we find
other men to take the duties of elders subordinately,
while denied the office itself with its encouragements
and honours?
It may be said that our Presbyterian churches
have in effect such adjutants now, and that we may
recognise them in missionary collectors, Sabbath-
ON DEACONS, 49
school teachers, &c. &c. But these undefined, mul-
tiform, and ever changing agencies, cannot for a
moment be mistaken for an order of deacons, equally
specific as an order of elders, and jointly mentioned
with them in the Epistles of Paul. Under the vague
title of adjutants to bishops, we may institute al-
most any order of functionaries, and give almost
any powers we please, and wander ever so widely
from apostolic precedents, till our traditionary lamp
prove no better than the meteoric light arising from
swamps, and seducing us into their mire. I prefer
the persuasion that the seven were deacons, as fur-
nishing a solution of the main difficulties—a solution
which is reasonable in itself, accordant with Scrip-
ture, confirmed by history, and happily exempted
from these distressing consequences.
CHAPTER III.
The scriptural model of Deacons has not been closely adhered
to by Episcopalians, Independents, or Presbyterians.
IF we bring the principles which have been stated
and defended in the foregoing pages to bear on
existing facts, we do not find much adherence, in
this province, to the primitive model. It is the doc-
trine of Episcopacy, that there are three orders of
clergy, bishops, presbyters, and deacons—the last
named being the lowest. Certainly, the sixth chap-
D
50 ON DEACONS.
ter of the Acts would never suggest this spiritual
office as appropriate for deacons, or give us at all the
idea that they are to be accounted ministers of the
Word. When they are constituted clergymen of
the third degree, they must be invested with distinc-
tive clerical duties, about which Scripture gives no
direction. They are allowed in England to baptize,
to read in the church, and to assist at the celebration
of the eucharist. They are not eligible to ecclesias-
tical promotion, but they may be chaplains to fami-
lies, curates to beneficed clergymen, or lecturers to
parish churches. The serving of tables, or oversight
of the poor, is no longer in their hands, but has been
transferred to church-wardens, annually elected in
each parish by the vestry. The power which can
so far fashion ecclesiastical office may consistently
introduce other modifications; and the Church of
England, besides deacons, has archdeacons. The
archdeacon ranks next to the bishop; sways a kind
of episcopal authority, once derived from the bishop,
but now distinct and independent; holds his court,
and punishes offences. But though archdeacons were
originally of the order of deacons, the functionaries
so called are in these days chosen from the order of
presbyters; so that they have the title of one order,
and the office of another.' The church also created
for itself an order of subdeacons. In times more
ancient they were a sort of ecclesiastical porters and
door-keepers, and by the Council of Laodicea were
forbidden to sit in the presence of a deacon without
his leave. In the Roman Catholic Church the duties
ON DEACONS. 51
of a deacon are very multifarious. He perfumes
with incense the officiating clergyman and the choir;
lays the corporal on the altar; transfers the patten,
or cup, from the subdeacon to the officiating prelate;
and the pix from the officiating prelate to the sub-
deacon—and many such like things he does. Such
ceremonies appear to us very idle; but where is the
principle that will condemn them and justify the
complex clerical deaconship of Anglican Episcopacy 7
Independent churches have deacons. But their
occupation is not limited to the serving of tables.
“Among Congregationalists,” says Dr Henderson,
“ the deacons, besides attending to the temporal
concerns of the church, assist the minister with their
advice; take the lead at prayer-meetings when he is
absent; and preach occasionally to smaller congre-
gations in the contiguous villages.” “It is true,”
says Mr James, “that by the usages of our churches,
many things have been added to the duties of the office
[of deaconj beyond its original design; but this is
mere matter of expediency.”f “A multitude of
duties,” says Dr Campbell, “connected with the wor-
ship and the house of God, have been attached to
the office as a matter of convenience and utility.
This scheme is without any express Scripture autho-
rity; and we think that the Scriptures permit, if
they do not require, an arrangement somewhat dif-
ferent.”f
* See Buck's Dictionary, by Dr Henderson, Art. “Deacons.”
f Christian Fellowship, p. 130.
: Church Fellowship, p. 60.
52 ON DEACONS.
Such Independent deacons are in effect Presby-
terian elders; under all the disadvantages, however,
of performing duties to which they have not been
appointed, while they are in danger of omitting much
of the elder's work when it has not been expressly
given them in charge, and of carrying undefined
and usurped power to despotic excesses. This con-
dition of the deaconship too easily explains those
abuses of the office which Mr James, Dr Campbell,
and other Independent writers, impressively deplore.
I am not here in a condition to justify the general
usage of Presbyterian churches; and I will not at-
tempt to underestimate or excuse what seems to me
their common departure from apostolic precedent.
The Free Church of Scotland deserves honourable
mention for reviving this institution in a scriptural
form within its pale. In some points its system of
deaconship may admit of amendment, and special care
may be needed that “deacons' courts” do not ex-
ceed their legitimate functions, and create troubles.
But the plan in its great features exhibits an honest
and praiseworthy effort to set up a Christian office as
it was at the beginning; and I am assured that with
few exceptions the measure is working peacefully and
beneficially.
In former times the Scottish Establishment had
also this class of office-bearers. Their office is cha-
racterised in the Second Book of Discipline as “an
ordinary and perpetual function in the kirk of
Christ;” and they are retained in some of its churches.
The United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, of
ON DEACONS. 53
which I have the happiness of being a minister, per-
mits the appointment of them when they are approved
of; but it has not embodied in its constitution the
principle that the deacon (charged with the serving
of tables) is a divinely instituted office; and the num-
ber of its churches provided with such office-bearers
is comparatively small. In most Presbyterian deno-
minations throughout Great Britain, Ireland, and
America, such deacons are generally dispensed with;
and the charge of ecclesiastical funds is divided be-
tween elders and managers, or allied agencies.
I am aware that specious statements can be made in
defence of this procedure. It can be urged, that even
the apostles took charge, for a time, of eleemosynary
funds, and did not resign the trust till they were con-
strained to do so, by an exigency which exists no
longer. Are not elders, then, imitating apostolic pre-
cedent, when they retain this stewardship as long as
they find it manageable 2 If disinterested zeal were
to cast as much into the church's treasury as in pri-
mitive times, or if persecution were to render as many
dependent on Christian bounty, then there might be
need to recall the deacon’s office; but why adopt, in
common times, an uncommon expedient? No doubt, if
the elders were burdened by monetary affairs, it would
be proper to relieve them; but the serving of the poor
requires little time; and as for transactions more
strictly secular, they are disposed of by managers or
trustees appointed for the purpose. This, I think, is
the amount of all that can be pleaded for the non-
*ppointment of deacons in any of our congregations;
54 ON DEACONS.
and whether it be satisfactory to the reader or not,
I confess that it is not convincing to myself. It has
already appeared that deacons were appointed, not
only at Jerusalem, in a season of emergency, but in
the churches generally, for an indefinite period. And
we have no warrant to explain every example of the
prevailing usage, by imagined peculiarities of time
and place. Nor can it be safely averred that the want
of deacons has been productive of no practical evils.
It is greatly to be feared that many elders, from having
a charge of the poor, think they have done enough
when they have attended to this province ; and that
the poor also have suffered from receiving half atten-
tions, when they had a scriptural claim to a distinct
and entire guardianship. As for managers, they are
a class who have rendered valuable services to our
churches; but the nature of their commission is ano-
malous, and it would be far better if the same indi-
viduals were set apart to their functions by regular
and solemn ordination. We should not then have the
strange and unseemly phenomenon of secular appoint-
ments in spiritual societies. All the vessels in our
Sanctuary would correspond with its sacredness, and
exhibit, in legible characters, the inscription, “Holi-
ness unto the Lord.”
“Whereas it is our duty,” says Dr Owen, “in all
things to have regard to the authority of Christ and
his appointments in the gospel, if we claim the privi-
lege of being called after his name, some think that
if what he hath appointed may be colourably per-
formed another way without respect unto his institu-
ON DEACONS. 55
tions, that is far the best. But omitting the practice
of other men, the things that concern this office in the
church, are, as we have said, clear in the Scripture.
“First, The persons called unto it are to be of
‘honest report, furnished with the gifts of the Holy
Ghost, especially with ‘wisdom.”—(Acts vi. 3.) And
those other endowments useful in the discharge of
their duty, mentioned 1 Tim. iii. 8.
“Secondly, The way whereby they come to be made
partakers of this office, is by the choice or election
of the church (Acts vi. 2, 3, 5), whereupon they are
solemnly to be set apart by prayer.
“Thirdly, Their work or duty consists in a “ daily
ministration unto the necessities of the poor saints,’
or members of the church, ver. 1, 2.
“Fourthly, To this end that they may be enabled
so to do, it is ordained, that every ‘first day’ the
members of the church do contribute according as
God enables them of their substance, for the supply
of the wants of the poor.—(1 Cor. xvi. 2.) And also
occasionally, as necessity shall require, or God move
their hearts by his grace.
“It belongs therefore unto persons called unto this •r
office,
“First, To acquaint themselves with the outward
condition of those that appear to be poor and needy
in the church, whether by the addresses of such poor
ones, who are bound to make known their wants,
occasions, and necessities unto them, or by the infor-
mation of others, or their own observation.
56 ON DEACONS.
“Secondly, To acquaint the elders and the church,
as occasion requireth, with the necessities of the
poor under their care, that those who are able may
be stirred up by the elders to a free supply and
contribution. -
“Thirdly, To dispose what they are entrusted with
faithfully, cheerfully, tenderly, “without partiality,”
or preferring one before another, for any outward
respect whatever.
“Fourthly, To keep and give an account unto the
church when called for, of what they have received,
and how they have disposed of it, that so they may
be known to have well discharged their office; that
is, with care, wisdom, and tenderness, whereby they
procure to themselves “a good degree, with boldness
in the faith; ? and the church is encouraged to
entrust them farther with this sacrifice of their alms,
which is so acceptable unto God.””
This subject is engaging much attention at present
in several Presbyterian denominations, and we may
hope that the renewed consideration of it will tend
to the removal of doubts and difficulties, and bring
about a closer agreement between the primitive
pattern and modern practice. -
* Worship of God by way of Question and Answer, Works,
vol. xv., pp. 507, 508. I cite Owen's Works as published by
the Messrs Johnstone & Hunter, ably edited by Dr Goold,
and enriched by an elegant and interesting Memoir of Owen,
by Dr Andrew Thomson, of Broughton Place Church, Edin-
burgh. s
PART III.
ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH
BY PRESBYTERS.
CHAPTER I.
The primitive churches had Presbyters or Elders—Whether
above these office-bearers there was an order of Prelates,
to be afterwards considered—The power of Elders now
viewed in relation to popular rights and Congregational
principles—Acknowledgment due to Congregationalists—
Dr Wardlaw's definition of Independent polity—Inde-
pendents concede that Presbyters were rulers of the
primitive churches; yet assign such duties to the mem-
bers of a church generally, as to annul the distinctive
rule of Elders, and even bring the governors under sub-
jection to the governed : then to qualify the unworkable-
ness of democracy, they impose such restraints on the
people as in effect to crush their freedom, and lodge in the
pastorate a despotic authority.
THE primitive churches were presided over by Pres-
byters or Elders. Whether the oversight assigned
by Scripture to these elders be such as to preclude a
higher oversight by prelates, I propose to inquire in
a more advanced part of this work. Now, I am to
consider presbyterate authority in relation to the
rights of the Christian people, and more particularly
58 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
to the principles of Congregationalism. That our
Independent brethren have rendered an important
service in so emphatically calling attention, as they
have done, to the membership of the church, with its
proper obligations and privileges, I am forward to
concede. The claims of the clergy have never
wanted prominent exhibition. There has been often
need to remind us that every member of a con-
gregation has functions and duties, and should be
encouraged, in fact, to do all the good really within
his power. It is only when governing and judicial
functions are claimed for all members of the church,
of whatever age, sex, or attainments, that we discern
in the Congregational scheme opposition to Scrip-
ture, as well as inherent and insurmountable diffi-
culty, with certain and speedy ruin to popular
liberty itself.
But let our Independent brethren state their own
CàSé.
We are informed by Dr Wardlaw that the distinc-
tive polity which he defends consists in the two par-
ticulars: “First, that each church is entrusted with
its own government; and second, that government
is to be conducted, not by the office-bearers alone, as
its representatives, but by the office-bearers and the
congregation conjointly.” “ There is here involved
the doctrine to which Presbyterians assent, that
each church should have spiritual office-bearers; and
by these office-bearers Dr Wardlaw understands, in
common with ourselves, the functionaries called
* Congreg. Indep, p. 234.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 59
Sometimes presbyters or elders, and sometimes
bishops, in the New Testament.
Beyond this degree of concord we differ; and I
cannot help considering his definition as being not a
little remarkable: “Government is to be conducted
by the office-bearers and the congregation conjointly.”
Are the parties so conjoined in government to govern
equally and in the same respects 2 Then what was
the use of distinguishing them at all ? If the office-
bearers are not to have a distinct rule, why give them
distinct mention ?—unless it be to impart the impor-
tant information, that office-bearers, for being such,
are not to be denied the privileges of unofficial Chris-
tians ! That much, without formal announcement
in a definition, we might have taken for granted.
But if the special mention of office-bearers points to
special powers in their hands, and intimates that the
parties éonjoined are, after all, not levelled or equa-
lised, but exhibit in their conjunction difference of
grade, then what is the superior power of office-
bearers ? what is its nature, and what are its limits 7
These are natural, not to say unavoidable questions;
and to any one adopting Dr Wardlaw's definition,
they present enough to do in the way of clearing up
obscurities and obviating difficulties. Dr Payne,
who occupies like ground as Dr Wardlaw, remarks,
“that there may be thought to be some degree of
indefiniteness” in statements made by himself in
explanation of congregationalism. He contends,
however, that “a similar difficulty is connected with
the injunctions which bind the subject to obey the
60 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
governor, the wife to obey the husband, the child to
obey the parent. They seem to leave no case open
for the refusal of obedience, yet all admit that such
cases may occur.” In other words, there is inde-
finiteness connected with all authority. But in all
the cases cited, Scripture is perfectly explicit in so
far as our argument is concerned. It leaves no
doubt where authority is lodged. We may be at a
loss after what manner, or to what extent it should
be exercised, but we cannot question in whose hands
it is placed. Shall we say that “the government of
a house is to be conducted, not by the father alone,
but by the father and his children conjointly 7°
All must be sensible that this definition of household
rule would be unscriptural. To the parent alone the
rule is assigned, and Congregationalists in assimilat-
ing pastoral and parental authority, demolish, instead
of establishing their conjoint government hypothesis.
It is proper, however, to see how Dr Wardlaw carries
through his definition in the discussion which it pre-
faces. I readily admit that he has applied to his
task a masterly hand. I acknowledge also that, in
practice, Congregational churches may often conduct
their business in a very becoming manner, by com-
mitting it, in effect, to a few persons who can do it
justice. There is not always the same amount of
difference between Christian denominations, as be-
tween treatises written for and against their respec-
tive polities. But now I have to do with books, and
with Congregationalism in print; and to act fairly
* Church of Christ Considered, pp. 61, 62.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 61
by my argument, I shall be constrained to show, that
while our brethern concede, in their able treatises,
that elders (in the sense of teaching elders or pastors)
were rulers of the primitive churches, they yet assign
such duties to the members of a church collectively,
as to annul the distinctive rule of elders; and then,
to qualify the unworkableness of democracy, impose
such restraints on the people as in effect to crush
their freedom, and lodge in the pastorate a despotic
authority. I will then endeavour to show that Scrip-
ture does not warrant any such conjoint system of
government; and finally, that it is not needful or
conducive to Cristian liberty.
(1.) Our Independent brethren concede that Elders
(in the sense of teaching elders or pastors) were rulers
of the primitive churches.—Some Independents may
withhold this concession; but it is made by so many
of their best writers, that I am fully warranted in
assuming the position as admitted. Indeed, some
of them speak of us as doing them and their system
great injustice, when we charge them with a denial
of authority to ministers. “We have pastors,” says
Dr Wardlaw, “over our churches, and we regard
them as having, in Scripture phrase, the rule over
them.” “The titles of ruler and president,” says Dr
Davidson, “imply that the pastors or elders of a
church, govern, rule, or exercise authority over it;
which is farther evident, because the people are re-
quired to obey, to submit themselves to them that
* Congreg. Indep., p. 311.
62 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
have the rule. In like manner, the flock is under the
shepherd.”* “There is authority,” says Mr James,
“belonging to the pastor; for office, without autho-
rity, is a solecism. “Remember them that have the
rule over you,” said St Paul to the Hebrews (xiii. 7.)
‘Obey them that have the rule over you;’ ‘Sub-
mit yourselves,’ &c.—these are inspired injunctions,
and they enjoin obedience and submission on Christian
churches to their pastors.”f “That the bishop or
pastor,” says Dr Payne, “is by ordination actually
invested with authority, is manifest from the ex-
hortation of the apostle, (Heb. xiii 7.) . . . . . The
proper business of the pastor is, to expound, apply,
and execute the laws of Christ.”f I might multiply
such citations indefinitely, but for the present let
these suffice. They establish my proposition, that
Congregationalists claim authority for pastors.
(2.) Our Independent brethren assign such duties to
the members of a church collectively, as annul the dis-
tinctive rule of Elders.—“The submission enjoined,”
says Dr Wardlaw, “is submisson to the presiding
and directing pastor or pastors, as the divinely-
authorised organ by whom, in each case, the law of
Christ is to be pointed out, and with the concurrent
judgment and voice of the church, to be carried into
execution.”S Dr Wardlaw here supposes that a
plurality of pastors may preside and direct. I know
not well how an assembly can have more than one
* Eccles. Pol., p. 269. f See Chris. Fellow., pp. 56, 57.
it Church of Christ Considered, pp. 59–61.
ź Congreg. Indep, p. 318.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 63
president; and as for direction, if the pastors differed
among themselves, it would be hard for the people
to know which director to follow. These are diffi-
culties inseparable from the Congregationalist system,
when we take into account that every primitive
church had, and that every Christian church should
still have, a plurality of elders. But these are not
the points of the argument on which I desire to fix
attention at present. I request consideration of
“the concurrent judgment and voice” assigned to
the church, as being incompatible with the power
which we have already seen to be committed to pas-
tors. The pastor, says Dr Wardlaw, is to point out
the law of Christ, and the church is to have a con-
current judgment and voice. To what does this
amount 7 Is the minister to expound the law, and
is the church bound to “concur” in his exposition—
to be guided, not by Scripture, but by his interpre-
tation of Scripture ? The members of a jury hold
themselves warranted to understand and apply the
law, as explained from the bench. But our Inde-
pendent brethren, in availing themselves occasionally
of this forensic allusion, forget that though a jury-
man takes his exposition of the law from another, a
judge would not do so; and that it is not the capa-
city of jurymen, but of judges, which they claim for
all persons in Christian communion. Dr Wardlaw
characterises it as an extraordinary assertion, that
there was no recognition of power in the Corinthian
church to “judge or to censure.”* And he declares
* Congreg. Indep, p. 238.
64 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
that when Paul speaks of the people judging, “it is
hot of mere assent that he speaks, but of bona fide
judgment.” It follows, that when the pastor shall
have pointed out the law, the people are bound to
judge whether it has been pointed out correctly, and
not to yield a thoughtless or passive assent to the
view of it which has been offered them. “It is their
right and their duty,” says Dr Wardlaw, “to judge
his (the pastor's) doctrine, by the instructions of
Christ; and it is equally their right and their duty to
judge his administration by the laws of Christ.”f Dr
Davidson speaks in the same strain: “The church,”
he says, “will be slow to question the contrariety
[conformity?] of his (their pastor’s) proceedings to
the Word of God. Still, they are at perfect liberty
to do so, since they have the Bible in their own hands,
and are commanded to think for themselves in every
thing relative to the church.”f The pastor, then,
is to point out the law, and the people are to judge
whether the law be as stated, and whether it should
be applied as proposed. Suppose, farther, that a
member of the church believes the law of Christ to
have been incorrectly propounded, and believes that
many are in danger of being misled by the error, is
he at liberty to say so 2 May he rise and set forth
where and on what grounds he differs from the ex-
planation of the law given by his pastor? If not,
what is meant by “the church's voice?” They have
a “concurrent voice” with their teacher. Is the use
* Congreg. Indep., p. 249. i Ibid., p. 321.
i Eccl. Polity, p. 273.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 65
of his voice, then, to give a view of the law against
which none may whisper a doubt; and when he has
delivered his sentiments, is the use of the church's
voice simply and exclusively to say, Amen? Dr
Wardlaw, I am sure, would not sanction a conclusion
so preposterous in itself, and so insulting to Christian
society. He must hold, then, that the members of
a church, as “bona fide judges,” are entitled to inves-
tigate laws, facts, everything connected with a case
under judgment, and to declare what they think, and
why they think so, in the same free and unrestrained
manner as do the judges of the land. This is ex-
pressly avowed by Dr Davidson. “The church,” he
says, “may fairly judge of the authority which a
pastor ought to exercise agreebly to the tenor of
the New Testament; and should he transgress that
boundary, he may be tenderly told of it.” These
things being so, where is the power of the pastorate?
We found Dr Wardlaw contending that ministers
have rule; to what is it now reduced 2 A pastor
points out the law of Christ. Yes, but the members
are bound in duty to judge whether the comment
accord with the text; and if they think that Scripture
and the commentator differ, they are to take an in-
dependent view of the law, as he did, and to lift up
their “voice” in declaration of their mind, as he did,
and to decide for themselves, as he did, and all this
though it should be in opposition to his judgment.
Where, then, is the power of rule? There is “a
conjoint government,” says Dr.Wardlaw; for “govern-
* Eccles. Polity, p. 273.
E
66 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
ment is to be conducted by the office-bearers and
the congregation conjunctly.” The pastors are to
govern with the people. But since there is a conjoint
government, the converse proposition must hold true
also, that the people are to govern with the pastors;
and so nothing is said of one of the parties that is
not said of the other. None are distinctively gover-
nors, for all govern conjointly; i.e., all are governors
together. But that is just to say that none are
rulers, properly so called; for when we speak of
any bearing rule in Society, we always mean a dis-
tinctive rule; and if a person were said to be ruler
of any community, we would hold ourselves to have
been misled by the language, when it turned out to
mean that the individual had no rule beyond the
rights which he held in common with all others. It
appears to me, therefore, that the advocates of Con-
gregationalism build a wall and pull it down again—
first insisting that authority and rule are vested in
ministers, and then assigning the same authority and
rule to a whole society, in which the pastor acts as
an individual, as one of many, and has no power,
except what he exercises conjointly with all others,
and they with him. He judges, but they judge his
judgment; “it is their right and their duty to judge
his doctrine and to judge his administration;” and if
they reach a contrary conclusion, they of course carry
it over him by their majority. Dr Wardlaw speaks
much about the church concurring; but if there
arise a collision of judgment in their conjoint govern-
ment, the concurrence must be on the side of the pastor.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 67
In all cases of difference, the part of the ruler is to
submit or to resign.
(3.) Our Independent brethren, to qualify the unwork-
ableness of democracy, impose such restrictions on the
people as in effect to crush their freedom, and lodge in the
pastorate a despotic authority.—We have found the
members of churches declared to be judges in eccle-
siastical cases, to have the power of bonafide judgment,
and to be united in the government with their spi-
ritual teachers. This is high privilege to look upon.
But is a community of rulers an idea reducible to
practice 7 If every one in a multitude were to deport
himself or herself as a conjoint governor or governess,
and use a freedom of thought and “voice” accordant
with the pretension, could any business be transacted,
any progress made in improvement and enterprise?
Our Congregational friends have no notion of making
the experiment. None are more averse than their
ablest writers to popular licence; and having raised
the spirit of democracy to demolish sessions,” they
forthwith circumscribe and shackle it, that it may not
be insubordinate and troublesome to ministers. Dr
Wardlaw asserts in capital letters that “ALL ARE NOT
RULERs.”f He holds that pastors are the sole rulers.
But how is this? Each church, he maintains, is en-
trusted with its own government, and that government
is to be conducted, “not by the office-bearers alone
as its representatives, but by the office-bearers and
* A session is a company of elders who rule, presided over
by an elder who both rules and teaches.
t Congregational Independency, p. 310.
68 , ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
the congregation conjointly.”* One would think that
where there is a conjoint government there must be
conjoint governors; and yet the people, though conjoint
in the government, are not governors—not rulers at
all ! This is a somewhat startling announcement to
parties triumphing in the establishment of their judi-
cial and self-governing powers, to the utter exclusion
of sessional interference. Nor do fuller explanations
dissipate the apprehensions which may thus be awak-
ened. “Others,” says Dr Davidson, “would limit it
(the authority of pastors) to advice or counsel. But the
terms employed in the New Testament, namely, rule
as applied to the elders, obedience as applied to the
church, mean more than this, else they have been ill
chosen. It is not natural to dilute the whole autho-
rity possessed by pastors into mere advice or counsel.”f
A minister, then, may point out the law of Christ,
and advise and counsel the people to follow the course
which he thinks scriptural; but if he can do nothing
more, “mere advice and counsel” are defective (Dr
Davidson thinks) in efficacy, and constitute at the best
a diluted authority. He would arm pastors with more
of the executive principle. “1st, (he says) They pre-
side in all meetings of the church. 2d, They call
the attention of the members to the principles or
laws laid down by Christ, and insist on obedience to
them. . . . . . In meetings of the church, no mem-
ber should speak without permission of the elders
(teaching elders), nor continue to do so when they
impose silence. The elders give and withhold liberty
* Congreg. Indep, p. 234, t Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 273.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 69
of speech when the church is assembled. In such
meetings, no member should oppose the judgment of
the presiding elder.”* Do Independent ministers
adopt in sober earnest these maxims, and reduce them
to practice? If so, we must sympathise with the
ejaculation of Dr Wardlaw—“Let it not be said to
Independents, Your pastors have no power!”
Where, again, shall we find an assembly of “judges,”
or an assembly called deliberative, or an assembly of
any kind, except a church, that would endure such
control? . Every tongue is tied till the chairman
looses it; and so soon as it offends him, he can tie it
again. The church has the privilege of concurring
in his sentence, but opposition to his judgment is an
impertinence or a crime. s
And what if any have “ajust and sufficient reason”
for non-compliance? Dr Davidson himself supposes
such a case. And what redress does he provide for
such grievance, what relief from such oppression? “In
the position they occupy,” he says, “they should have
a thorough persuasion of the propriety of resistance,
by virtue of Christ's laws, before they venture to
assume an attitude of insubordination. And not only
must they have this conviction, but be also able to set
it forth before the church, commending it to them
as reasonable and right. They must explain the
grounds of their conviction, placing them in the clear
light of reason and Scripture, and demonstrating
their adequateness to justify disobedience.”f There
is something like privilege here, I confess; something
* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 274. f Ibid., p. 274. ,
70 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
of the nature of judicial prerogative—a warrant to
exercise personal judgment in relation to the mean-
ing of Scripture—to form a conviction, and express
that conviction, and explain the grounds of it, and
all this in direct contradiction to the declared views
of the minister. Armed with this permission, an ag-
grieved member rises to address the chair. His ex-
pression is not promising to the eye of the chairman,
who, believing good order to be perilled, forthwith
beckons him to hold his peace, and reminds him that
“in meetings of the church, no member should speak
without permission of the elders, nor continue to do
So when they impose silence.” “I stand upon my
rights,” exclaims the complainant. “And I stand
upon mine,” responds the pastor; “and it belongs to
the elders to give and withhold liberty of speech when
the church is assembled.” What is the aggrieved
member to do then? Dr Davidon has not told us,
and I am not able to discover. Yet he declares that
“simplicity is another excellence of the (independent)
system. . . . . . In the accomplishment of its objects,
nothing is so complicated in its nature as to bewilder
the judgment of its members. All is plain and intel-
ligible because of its simplicity. The brethren know
immediately how to proceed in the adjustment of a
matter when it arises.”*
Some may object that Dr Davidson is but one
Writer, and that very much stress should not be laid
on the unguarded expressions of any individual. I
answer that many of the most eminent Independents
* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 383.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 71
have expressed themselves similarly : — “It is my
decided conviction,” says Mr James, “that in some of
our churches the pastor is depressed far below his
just level. He is considered merely in the light of
a speaking brother. He has no official distinction
or authority.” ” In another part of the same work,
Mr James says, “Real Congregationalism is not
democracy. It maintains, indeed, that every sepa-
rate congregation of believers has the entire power
of government within itself; but it does not teach
that that power is vested in the private members of
the church. It admits and affirms, in common with
other systems, that pastors alone are the rulers of
the church; but it more fully explains the nature,
and limits, and extent of this authority than they.”f
Still farther on, in the same treatise, we are told—
“All the proceedings at a church meeting should
either emanate directly from the pastor, or from others,
by his previous knowledge and consent. If this be
neglected, and members are allowed to introduce
any business which they please, our church meetings
would very much resemble the scene which was ex-
hibited at the tower of Babel.”f “As LITTLE DIS-
CUSSION,” he says, “AS IS REALLY POSSIBLE should
take place at our church meetings. The admonition
of the apostle is always in season, but never more so
than in reference to the times of the assembling of
the saints: ‘Let every man be slow to speak. No-
thing but the most obvious necessity should induce
* Christian Fellowship, p. 57. + Ibid., p. 164,
† Ibid., p. 170.
72 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
a single individual to utter a syllable; and when any
one does deliver his opinion, it should not be in
a prating dogmatical manner, but in few words,
modestly spoken. Talking assemblies soon become
disorderly ones.”* Mr James gives the minister
an absolute negative on the admission of members to
the church, and says, “No member should presume
to bring forward a candidate in opposition to the
opinion of the pastor.”f Dr Campbell goes further,
and not only lodges with the minister a negative on
the admission of members, but makes the whole
matter of admission rest with himself. “There is
not one instance,” he says, “in the New Testament,
of a case being submitted to the scrutiny of the
church in order to baptism, or of any confession of
faith being made afterwards to the church in order to
admission into fellowship. The commission of Christ
to his apostles clothes the evangelist or pastor at
once with the authority and responsibility of admi-
nistering the ordinance of baptism, and, consequently,
of admitting members.”f These writers are de-
voted friends of freedom, and of all human rights.
Why, then, do they assign such extraordinary power
to a pastor? Because he must have it if he is to
conduct a conjoint government with a multitude.
When matters of importance and delicacy are to be
judged of by assembled hundreds of men and women,
old and young, experienced and inexperienced, the
* Christian Fellowship, p. 171. I give italics and capitals
as they are found in the original. -
f Ibid., p. 172. † Church Fellowship, p. 19.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 73
alternative lies between this absoluteness and anarchy.
An old and well-trained church may know how the
business needs to be managed. They may be aware
that Scripture must be held as “not teaching that
power is vested in the private members of the
church;” that “no member should presume to bring
forward a candidate in opposition to the opinion of
the pastor;” that “all proceedings must emanate di-
rectly from him, or from others, by his previous
knowledge or consent;” that “talking” is out of
the question; and that a “syllable” is not to be
uttered, unless in so far as the pastor sees urgent
necessity for it, and “gives liberty of speech,” which
he is equally entitled at any moment to “withhold;”
in a word, that “no member should oppose the judg-
ment of the presiding elder.” These rules, to the extent
they are observed, will no doubt secure tranquillity.
But can a new society be expected on a sudden to
conform itself to this restraint” When told that they
have “a conjoint government with the pastor;” that
it is “ their right and duty to judge his doctrine by
the instructions of Christ, and equally their right
and duty to judge his ministration by the laws of
Christ;” and that all this language is to be under-
stood of “bona fide judgment,” they must be tempted.
to think that they have some “power,” and to essay
the exercise of it, and to become restive or even
tumultuous when they are told that they are “not
rulers,” and have “not power,” and that they are
not to speak when their president imposes silence.
My Independent brethren will bear me witness that
*
74 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
there is here a real difficulty—a difficulty which pre-
vents many new churches from being formed in the
large towns of England, and causes the very inade-
quate substitute of preaching stations to be preferred
as safer.
Such are the conclusions to which able and ex-
cellent men are driven, when, in denying superinten-
dence to sessions, they lodge self-government in a
whole society, and are ready to be overpowered by
the democracy which they have sanctioned. In the
truest love for the church, they are constrained to
repress popular licence. We shall perceive in the
sequel that a true popular liberty must be sought for
by “a more excellent way.”
CHAPTER II.
Scripture does not teach us that pastors and their flocks
should be conjoined in the government of the church—In
behalf of this system of polity our Lord's law for the
settlement of private offences, Matt. xviii. 15-17, and the
functions assigned to ordinary members of the church, 1
Cor. v., vi., are vainly pleaded.
However ill-assorted and incongruous any scheme
of ecclesiastical administration might appear to our
view, yet, if it had the plain and explicit sanction of
revelation, our duty would be the utmost possible obe-
dience; and where we could not reconcile seeming
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 75
contradictions, it would become us to wait patiently
in the dark till more light should be afforded us.
But I cannot think that we are subjected in this
case to any such necessity—that we are required by
Scripture to regard pastors as rulers, and sole rulers;
and then conjoin the people with them in the govern-
ment; and then, in terror of popular commotion,
assign to pastors a despotic control of church meet-
ings. It is allowed, on our part, that churches are
addressed and exhorted by the inspired writers
both in regard to the exercise of discipline and the
settlement of differences; and the only question
is, whether a Christian society may, like other
societies, transact its business through chosen and
proper functionaries, or, unlike other societies, must
be understood to manage all its affairs directly and
collectively?
The law which our Lord lays down for the settle-
ment of private differences * has been frequently
adduced as shedding much light on the scriptural
mode of conducting discipline. It has been con-
fidently pleaded, however, in behalf of contrary
systems of procedure. Our Lord directs that when
a person who has committed an offence continues
obdurate and impenitent, the party offended, after
taking other steps fruitlessly, shall in the end “tell
it to the church.”
I readily concede that by the church we naturally
understand here a religious society. But the ques-
tion remains whether the use of the word church
* Matt. xviii. 15–17.
76 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
requires us to understand that all the members of
the society are to be convened, and to sit in judg-
ment on the accusation; or whether we are allowed
to suppose—and other passages of Scripture require
us to believe—that the church may be regarded as
conducting such affairs through fitting functionaries,
and committing the disposal of them to wise men,
able to judge between their brethren. When offend-
ing parties are dealt with by our sessions, and yield
the penitential obedience required of them, they are
said, in common phrase, to “give satisfaction to the
church.” The elders are regarded as acting for the
church, and the church as acting through them.
But the controversialist of future times would reason
hastily in seizing on the phrase, “satisfaction to the
church,” and arguing from it that all the business of
each church was conducted by its assembled members.
I accept the rule which Dr Wardlaw here prescribes,
that “in any particular passage, a word should be
understood in the sense in which it is commonly
used, unless reason of necessity, or at the least of
strong propriety, can be shown for understanding it
otherwise.” What, then, does the common use of
language indicate as to the mode in which “the
church,” of which our Lord speaks, managed cases
of discipline ! The question may be regarded as
referring to the practice of the synagogues as then
existing, or to the subsequent practice of the Chris-
tian churches. Dr Wardlaw quotes from Principal
Campbell a long passage, in which it is contended
* Congreg. Indep., p. 64.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 77
that the ecclesiastical administration of the syna-
gogue, at least in cases of trespass, was entirely
popular. An opposite opinion has been learnedly
maintained; and Dr Wardlaw says, “I am aware
that a good deal has been made, by the advocates of
representative church government, of a supposed
allusion to the Jewish synagogues, and to the con-
stitution and practice of discipline in them.” There
is little satisfaction in pondering the erudite disqui-
sitions of Vitringa, Lightfoot, and others, regarding
the synagogue; the very ingenuity of these writers
is constantly reminding us of the paucity of their
facts, and the defectiveness of their proofs. “It is
exceedingly difficult,” says Dr Davidson, “if not
impossible, to ascertain the condition and form of
the Jewish synagogue in the time of Christ. . Those
who have tried to describe it can go no higher for
definite information than to writers of the second
century, Philo and Josephus furnishing very meagre
notices,—while authors belonging to the third, fourth,
eighth, and ninth, even Moses Maimonides in the
twelfth, are appealed to. All these are too recent
to be of much weight, or entitled to implicit credit.
Jewish writers of a comparatively late period were
scarcely competent to give an accurate account of
the synagogue service and government in the time
of Christ, especially as they were accustomed to
transfer later customs to much earlier times. Doubt-
less the mode of worship in the synagogue was con-
siderably changed after the Jewish polity became
extinct. It is also generally admitted that the Jews
78 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
borrowed, it may be unconsciously, several things
from the practice of Christians, particularly of Chris-
tian apostates. That uncertainty attaches to the
Sources whence our knowledge of the synagogue has
been derived, is apparent from the fact, that Vitringa
and Lightfoot differ in their opinions on several im-
portant points of its constitution; that the former is
compelled to resort to conjecture in not a few cases,
for the purpose of making out an analogy; and that
occasional assertions are made, virtually amounting
to a concession of the untractableness of the argu-
ment undertaken.” If I may offer an opinion on
likelihood where we can learn little more, I venture
to say, that the supposition of a popular administra-
tion prevailing in the synagogues appears extremely
improbable. That it ever did so is not proved; that
it would continue to do so through successive cen-
turies is almost incredible. Principal Campbell
shows how, in Christian societies constituted analo-
gously to the synagogues, if not after their model,
small distinctions were gradually widened, to the
injury and restriction of general freedom; and,
through the tendencies of our nature operating on
such elements, the people were finally subjected to
the lordly dictation of their pastors. Did the dis-
tinctions in the synagogue not so widen ? did the
tendencies of our nature fail to operate there ? and
down to the times of our Lord, were the rights of
the poor, in despite of all contrary influences,
triumphantly ascendant? An affirmative answer is
* Eccles. Polity, pp. 48, 49.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 79
not favoured by the spirit of the country or of the
epoch. Much is said, and with too much truth,
about prelatical aggressions in the earlier centuries
of the history of the Christian church. But culpable
as prelates are known to have been, it cannot be
alleged that they were more grasping or intolerant
than the Pharisees. Various incidents mention-
ed in the New Testament serve to show that the
Pharisees did usurp the discipline of the syna-
gogue. The Jews had agreed,” “that if any man
did confess that Jesus was Christ, he should be put
out of the synagogue.” This language seems to be
sufficiently general, and viewed by itself it might be
interpreted as comprehensive of the whole Jewish
nation. But Scripture abounds in general terms
used in a limited sense. If we inquire what Jews
had the making of this agreement, or by what agency
it was carried into execution, we have these queries
answered in the context: “They brought to the
Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.” “The
Pharisees also asked him how he had received his
sight.” “Therefore, said some of the Pharisees,
This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the
Sabbath-day.” In the spirit of despising others,
these self-righteous inquisitors said to the subject of
miraculous cure, who had modestly vindicated his
benefactor, “Thou wast altogether born in sins, and
dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.” The
men who plumed themselves on being THE TEACHERs
were the same who cast people out of the synagogue,
* John ix. 22, &c.
80 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
and who deemed the arrogance of saying a kind word
for their benefit a sufficient crime to merit such
excommunication. If, then, the appeal is made to
the synagogue as it subsisted, in the days of our
Lord, I suspect that little can be expected from its
decision in favour of Congregationalism.
It is proper to add, that Dr Wardlaw lays no
stress on the passage which he quotes from Dr Camp-
bell in favour of synagogue democracy. That our
Lord makes any allusion at all to the synagogue he
considers “little more than conjectural.” He asks,
“Why not regard our divine Master as then speak-
ing for the future, and in this, as in some other
matters, reserving the clear and full understanding
of his words till the time when the Holy Spirit was
to lead them into all truth 7 . . . . In this way the
precise meaning of the words of the Lord will fall to
be ascertained from the subsequent record of apostolic
practice, and from the counsels given by apostolic
authority.” To this statement of the case I accede.
The command to tell an offence, not repented of, to
the church, does not give its own full meaning; there-
fore it is not decisive of the controversy between Con-
gregationalists and Presbyterians; and to know how
the church is to dispose of the offences of which it is
told, we must turn to passages which exhibit to us
the Christian church in existence and action, and
which develop more clearly its organization and
working; for the terms employed by our Lord, says
Dr Wardlaw, ought to be understood according to
* Congreg. Indep, p. 72.
CHURCH BY PRESIBYTERS. 81
the sense in which they are afterwards, by his in-
spired and commissioned vicegerents, applied to the
constitution and transactions of the New Testament
church. Let us turn, then, to those subsequent
writings on which Dr Wardlaw places his reliance,
as expository of the direction which Christ gave by
anticipation. Dr Wardlaw lays great stress on the
fifth and sixth chapters of 1st Corinthians, as showing
that all members of a church are to be conjoined in
the government with the pastorate. This, in fact,
after the passage just considered, is the only portion
of Scripture by which he seeks to establish the con-
joint system of government, in opposition to the
pervading language of the New Testament, which
assigns superintendence to presbyters, and subordi-
nation to the people.
I begin the consideration of Paul's language re-
garding church order addressed to the Christians at
Corinth, by remarking, that Dr Wardlaw's principle
of interpretation would assign to private church
members a regulation of those duties which he him-
self elsewhere restricts to ministers, such as the
administration of ordinances. The apostle speaks
in language equally general about the dispensation of
the Lord's supper as about the trial of offenders. So
palpable is this fact, that Dr Davidson thinks the
elders would certainly, in such a case, have been
addressed, if there had been elders; and he con-
cludes, therefore, that this church was yet in a
nascent state, and not fully organised—on which
supposition its practice would prove nothing regard-
F
82 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
ing a church with perfected order, and in full
organization. “From the first epistle to the Corin-
thians,” says Dr Davidson, “we infer that the church
at Corinth had no office-bearers at the time when
Paul wrote to them. . . . . In the observance of
the supper, certain abuses prevailed which the apostle
wished to correct. His exhortations and rebukes,
however, are not addressed to the elders, but to the
disciples themselves. The brethren are addressed, not
the authorised administrators of ordinances. Should
not the latter have been addressed, had the church
been provided with them?” Other expositors of
Scripture have expressed the same view. “That
some of the churches,” says Principal Campbell, “to
which Paul's epistles were directed had no fixed
ministry, is evident from the tenor of the epistles
themselves, particularly from those written to the
Corinthians.”f These chapters, then, on Dr Ward-
law's principle of interpretation, would prove too
much for his cause; they would prove not only that
the people should have judicial functions, but be
charged with the due administration of ordinances.
And if Dr Davidson's opinion be received, that this
church had not yet stated officers, an exceptional state
can be no model for ordinary procedure.
But let us take the case as Dr Wardlaw presents
it, and allow him all the advantage of his own
exegesis of the epistle. The fifth and sixth chapters
are allowed to present cases of like character, and to
* Eccles. Polity, p. 285.
f On Church Hist, vol. i. p. 154.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 83
be explicable on like principles. The sixth chapter
opens thus: “Dare any of you, having a matter
against another, go to law before the unjust, and not
before the saints 7 Do ye not know that the saints
shall judge the world? and if the world shall be
judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the
smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge
angels 7 how much more things that pertain to this
life? If then ye have judgments of things pertain-
ing to this life, set them to judge who are least
esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame.
Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you ?
no, not one that shall be able to judge between his
brethren 7”
In Dr Wardlaw's general explanation of these
verses I am disposed to concur. It seems strange
that the church should be directed to set them who
were least esteemed to judge. But “least esteemed,”
observes Dr Wardlaw, “is not a translation of the
original word 83000syn/Levovg. It means neither more
nor less than despised, treated with contempt. They
were so treating their brethren when they thus
passed them by as incompetent or as undeserving of
their trust, and carried their matters of difference
before the heathen; and his injunction is, that they
should no longer act thus contemptuously towards
them, but constitute those their judges whom they
were in this manner despising.”
* Congreg. Indep., pp. 250, 251. Billroth translates the term

ižovſkynſzévove, “those whose reputation is impaired or little
thought of.”—See Biblical Cabinet, No. XXI. This rendering
84 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
That these verses relate to ecclesiastical procedure,
though about secular differences, Dr Wardlaw ex-
plicitly maintains. “We know,” he says, “from
1 Cor. vi. 1–7, that the churches did take cognisance
of differences even as to secular matters which were
amongst their members.”
After these preliminary remarks, we are prepared
to consider the bearing of the passage on the question
at issue. So far the language of the apostle has that
generality on which Dr Wardlaw founds so confi-
dently, as proving the judicial status of all church
members. “Are ye unworthy to judge the smallest
matters ?” Here all seem to be addressed, and to
have worthiness to judge ascribed to them without
exception. But so much the more adverse is this
phraseology to Dr Wardlaw’s argument, when the
rest of the verses show us how to understand this
general language wherever it may occur, and plainly
demand for it a restricted signification. “Set them
to judge,” says the apostle. But why set any to judge
if all were judges? “His injunction is,” says Dr
Wardlaw, “that they should constitute those their
judges,” &c. But why should some constitute others
judges, if they were all judges without exception ?
“Is it so,” says Paul, “that there is not a wise man
among you ? no, not one that shall be able to judge
does not give exactly the same sense. The apostle, if Dr
Wardlaw's exposition is correct, does not speak of general
“reputation,” but of parties being treated, in the particular
matters alluded to, as if they were of no repute or conse.

quence.
* Congreg. Indep., p. 335.
CHURCH BY PRESIBYTERS. 85
between his brethren?” Does not this language of
the apostle imply that there might be some in the
church who were not wise, in the sense of competency
to settle differences—nay, that there might be very
many who might not be able to judge, and whom
therefore it would be absurd to bid do what they
were not able to do; but that the apostle was clear
in his cause if only one in all the church was fit for
the duty, because this one should then be set to judge
between his brethren? The argument of Paul de-
manded that one competent to judge should be found
in the church—“is there not a wise man among you?
no, not one;” the argument of Dr Wardlaw demands
that every one in a church shall be a judge, and of
course fit for his calling. Suppose that the apostle's
counsel was followed, that some wise men were set
o judge, and in accordance with their character
judged wisely; suppose that this church came after-
ards to elect rulers, would not these wise men be
lected ? and if judgment was vested in them before
rdination to office, would it not be so after ordination,
nd would not this church present the exact aspect
Df a Presbyterian church acting judicially through its
session ?
How does Dr Wardlaw get out of this position ?
‘The procedure recommended,” he says, “as the
est for bringing all to a clear understanding and a
atisfactory issue, appears to be the nomination of
ch individuals of their number as, from character,
ccupation, and habits, might in each case be best
ualified for the task, who should institute a full










86 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
investigation of the facts, should form a judgment
on the merits, and should report both, more or less
minutely, as the nature of the matter in controversy
might require, to the church; that thus enlightened,
they might pronounce their collective and authori-
tative sentence.””
In this delineation there is a little phrase which
greatly affects the meaning of the whole—the phrase
I allude to is that of “forming a judgment.” By form-
ing a judgment we commonly mean forming an
opinion; and thus Dr Wardlaw intimates that the
parties set to judge were not to judge after all, but
only so consider what should be judged. The pro-
nouncing of a judgment Dr Wardlaw reserves for the
collective and authoritative sentence of the church.
But where does Dr Wardlaw find that to judge means
to form an opinion ? In contending for the judicial
functions of church members, he claimed for the word
judge all that is needful to “bona fide judgment;”
why does he strip it of this signification now, and
dilute judgment into indecisive and unauthoritative
notion ? And where does the record say a syllable
about reporting to the church, and the church pro-
nouncing sentence 7 In Paul's language there i
nothing of the sort; these clauses are pure glosses
If I were to speak of Dr Wardlaw's reasoning in thi
case as he does of Dr Mason's in another case,
would say that these clauses are “a presumptuou
apocryphal interpolation. . . . . Have the supporter
of Presbyterianism [Independency] any right t
* Congreg, Indep., p. 251.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 87
blame us for declining to own ourselves bound by
such apocryphal matter, or for marvelling at the pre-
sumption of foisting it into the text?”* I think,
however, that this phraseology is too energetic. I
am sure that Dr Wardlaw meant nothing presump-
tuous, and that he would relinquish Independency
the same hour in which he saw it to be at variance
with God's Word. I therefore merely say, in terms
with which Dr Wardlaw has elsewhere supplied me,
that “if we are allowed the free use of probabilities
and suppositions for getting over difficulties, they
can seldom be long in our way.”
I have noticed the difficulties attaching to the posi-
tion of Drs Wardlaw and Davidson, as it is defended
by themselves. Principal Campbell occupies sub-
stantially the same ground, but, with enough of dif-
ference to obviate, apparently at least, some of the
foregoing objections. He thinks that the Corinthian
church was instructed to refer disputes about property
to the decision of arbiters. “It is manifest,” he says,
“that the apostle does not recommend it to the people
to take such secular matters under their own cognis-
ance collectively, but only to appoint proper persons
to judge in them.”f On the other hand, if cases were
of a moral nature, they were to be adjudicated on,
he thinks, by the entire society: “Not only were
private offences then judged by the church, that is,
the congregation, but also those scandals which af-
fected the whole Christian fraternity.”f While secular
* Congeg. Indep., p. 289.
t On Church Hist, vol. i. p. 58. + Ibid., p. 55.
88 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
cases were thus to be referred to arbiters, and moral
cases to the whole church, the pastor, in all spiritual
matters lying beyond these provinces, was to be in-
vested with authority; and Principal Campbell thinks
that his power among Independents is net, generally
speaking, sufficiently maintained. “That the pastors
were from the beginning vested with a superintend-
ence over the congregation purely in what concerned
spiritual matters, cannot,” he says, “be questioned.
Some of the titles that are given them in Scripture
(hyovºsyol, ºrgoloropeyot, guides, governors) undoubt-
edly imply this much, as do also the terms in which
the duty of the people to their pastors is recom-
mended: ºrg/0800s, Jºrapºre, obey, submit—which mani-
festly require a respectful observance on their part.
For this reason I imagine that the generality of those
modern sects which have adopted the Congregational
or Independent plan, as it is called, have gone to an
extreme, though not the most common extreme, in
bringing the pastor's authority too low.” At the
same time, Dr Campbell is careful to remark, that his
demand for authority to pastors does not apply to
administration which he had already claimed for the
flock. “All, however, that I purpose,” he says, “by
quoting the aforesaid titles and commands (titles of
ministers, and commands to obey them), is to show
that in what related to the peculiar duties of their
office a reverential attention was acknowledged to be
due to them as the guides and guardians of the flock.
There were some things which from the beginning
* On Church Hist., p. 174.
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 89
were conducted in common by the pastors, the
deacons, and the whole congregation.” * Here con-
fusion is avoided by division of labour. It is not in
the same matters that all are to decide, and a few
arbiters are to decide; nor is it in the same province
that the people are to govern with the pastor, and
yet be subject to him. These inconsistencies are
here avoided. Arbiters are to get temporal questions
committed to them; the church collectively is to dis-
pose of moral offences; and the pastor in all things
else is to have a spiritual control. There is here no
contradiction. This very dissipation of obscurity,
however, makes some difficulties more palpable and
dismaying.
(1.) Why should the church entertain in any man-
ner disputes plainly and merely civil? If parties
differed about a purely secular business, there might
be good reason why they should themselves choose
arbiters, but not why the church should take up such
a question, and choose arbiters for them. Does it
belong to the church to set some to judge in such
matters? Principal Campbell says of Christ, that
“far from affecting any secular power himself, he
refused a royalty of this sort when the people would
have conferred it, and would not take upon him to
decide in a matter of civil right and property, though
desired. ‘Man,” said he to the person who applied
to him, ‘who made me a judge and a divider over
you?”f But if it was unsuitable for Christ, is it not
also, and on like grounds, unsuitable in his church
* On Church Hist., p. 175. + Ibid., vol. i. p. 42.
90 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
to affect secular power, and to decide in matters of
civil right and property, either after one fashion or
another?
(2.) There is no discoverable reason why a secular
question should demand for its settlement wise men
able to judge, and a question of guilt or innocence
should be safely committed to a whole society, and
thus to the comparatively unwise and disqualified for
judgment in that society. Where criminality is
charged, and the charge is repelled—where sophistry
has to be exposed, and evasion intercepted, and
loquacity restrained—and the course of impartial
justice composedly prosecuted amid encompassing
temptations to excitement and temper—one might
suppose that in these circumstances, if in any cir-
cumstances, the attribute of wisdom would have its
appropriate exercise, and find all its resources needed
for its exigencies.
(3.) Since Paul speaks as if secular matters were
to be judged by “saints” generally, and in addressing
the Corinthian church says, “If the world shall be
judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest
matters?” and yet in the language which follows
expresses himself restrictedly, and makes it unequi-
vocally evident that the church was to fulfil this duty
by setting some to judge who were competent for
the task—why should we not explain his language in
regard to moral causes on the same principles, and
understand him as there also ascribing to the church
what he designed it should perform by selected and
competent functionaries?
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 91
(4.) If presbyters had no more authority than others
in the trial of offenders, and it were distinctly under-
stood that the passages ascribing superintendence to
the pastorate had no application to this department
of duty, then orderly administration of discipline
would become impossible. I do not wonder that Drs
Wardlaw and Davidson do not avail themselves of Dr
Campbell's distinctions. To have a trial conducted
by a whole society, and whatever passions might be
stirred, whatever turbulence occasioned, there existed
no recognised government for the enforcement of law
and the repression of tumult, this would be a mode
of administration imprinted with folly, and pregnant
with ruin. Here our Congregational friends do not
put off pastoral authority, but bring into requisition
all its succours. Here it is that no case may be
broached without previous communication with the
minister, or even without his express consent. Here
it is that no person may speak without permission
from his teaching presbyters, or continue speaking
when they have imposed silence. Here it is where
none may oppose the judgment of the presiding elder.
This is a practical repudiation of Dr Campbell's
hypothesis.
(5.) When civil causes have been referred to ar-
biters, and matters of scandal have been entrusted
to the whole church, it is difficult to say precisely in
what the spiritual control claimed by Dr Campbell
for pastors is to consist. Doctrine remains: but the
minister is not surely to dictate a creed to his people.
They are to search the Scriptures daily, whether these
92 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
things be so. It is rather hard, then, to blame
ministers for letting down their authority while in-
terdicting its introduction wherever it might be sup-
posed to be exercised. Having so largely reduced
the exercise of it, and yet censured the depression of
it, Dr Campbell should have said where and how it
was to be upheld.
(6.) It does not appear, from a careful perusal of
the sixth chapter of 1st Corinthians, that the disputes
for the settlement of which Paul recommends the
appointment of competent judges, were entirely of a
secular nature. It is true, as Principal Campbell
says, that persons may differ in regard to the title
to a particular subject, each claiming it as his, and
yet neither may accuse the other of injurious or un-
christian treatment. But it is by no means evident
that the cases spoken of in the chapter under con-
sideration were of this nature. Had they been so,
little scandal could have resulted from bringing them
before the ordinary legal tribunals. It was the wrong
perpetrated in such transactions, and the mutual re-
criminations to which injustice gave rise, that exposed
Christianity to reproach in the courts of Pagan magis-
trates. “Now, therefore,” says the apostle, verses
7–9, “there is utterly a fault among you, because ye
go to law one with another: why do ye not rather
TAKE WRONG! why do ye not rather suffer yourselves
to be DEFRAUDED? Nay, ye Do WRONG, and DEFRAUD,
and that your brethren. Know ye not that the UN-
RIGHTEOUs shall not inherit the kingdom of God?”
With no probability can it be maintained that dis-
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 93
putes so described by the apostle had in them no
moral element, and embodied no accusation of inju-
rious or unchristian treatment. The language has
quite as much suitableness to a criminal as to a civil
process; and we have therefore the distinct authority
of the apostle for saying that when charges of wrong
and unrighteousness are made, the church can best
dispose of them by referring adjudication upon them
to a select body, to a set of wise men able to judge
between their brethren.
CHAPTER III.
The Congregationalist System of government is not necessary
to Christian freedom.
CONGREGATIONALISM wears a popular aspect in de-
claring that all communicants are bona fide judges,
and that they are conjoined in government with the
pastors. These judicial and governing functions do
not amount to very much when they are explained
and qualified to render them compatible with peace
—when we are told that the people are not rulers,
and that pastors are the sole rulers—when we are
assured that true Independency is not democracy,
and that power is not lodged in the private members
of the church—when freedom of speech is meted out
to the people in syllables, or positively withheld;
and when in church meetings all business must ema-
94 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
nate from the pastor, and no member may oppose
the judgment of the presiding elder. Still, some may
think that popular assemblages, however conducted,
afford a certain guarantee, wanting in Presbytery, for
the maintenance of general freedom. If the Pres-
byterian polity were characteristically tyrannical,
this objection to it would be fatal. Where the Spirit
of the Lord is there is liberty. I would rather have
free institutions, with many inconsistencies and con-
flicts, than the yoke and the spirit of bondage. But
however Presbytery may have been abused to pur-
poses of intolerance, it is not in its own principles
oppressive. While contending in the preceding para-
graphs that elders should have rule, I have not con-
troverted the true liberty of the church. I have
defended the only system by which true liberty can
be preserved, that of popular election and represen-
tation. Only some are to judge, but they are to be
set to judge by Christian suffrage. The judges are
to be chosen by the people, and are to form a con-
vention small enough to judge calmly and dispassion-
ately, and yet large enough to defend the weak
against the strong, and keep at bay the aggressions
of anarchy on the one hand, and despotism on the
other. That is the truest freedom which affords the
strongest guarantees for impartial and upright deal-
ing; and if these are best to be had by an aggrieved
individual from a large and miscellaneous assemblage,
the students of government have strangely erred in
all their principles, reasonings, and deductions. I
admit that sessions, presbyteries, and all such bodies,
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 95
should enter into office through a Christian suffrage.
On no other footing do I, or can I, defend their pre-
sidency. The right of the people to choose their
office-bearers we hold to be most sacred and inalien-
able: “Whereof the Holy Ghost is also a witness
unto us;” for appointments to office in the apostolic
age were either directly by the call of God, or in-
strumentally by the call of the church; and when
the former has been withdrawn, and is no more ac-
cessible, the latter is alone scriptural, and comes to
us with all the force of a pattern and a law.
Election of rulers, then, should lie with the mem-
bers of the church, and be unfettered in every element
and aspect; and, if it be so, that election secures, and
not only secures, but constitutes liberty. What is
the palladium of political citizenship? It is repre-
sentation. The keenest reformer asks nothing more
than to be fairly represented; and it would be strange,
indeed, if the palladium of civil liberty were the oc-
casion and implement of ecclesiastical domination.
Some have objected that elders, in being placed on
the same footing, as to rule, with ministers, cease to
be representatives, because ministers hold office from
Christ, and are responsible, not to the church, but to
its Head, for the discharge of their functions. This
objection is more specious than solid. There are, no
doubt, points of difference between civil and ecclesi-
astical representation. The members of the church
are not at liberty to institute within it what offices
they please, or to dispense with any which their
divine Master has appointed. Persons filling these
96 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
offices may not take the popular will for the supreme
rule, or imagine that they hold office merely to give
that will effect. If, then, it be understood by repre-
sentation that office-bearers are merely to echo the
sentiments and fulfil the wishes of their constituents,
we must acknowledge that neither ministers nor
elders are in such a sense representatives. But this
definition would be extreme even in secular relations,
for it would reduce parliamentary representation to
mere delegation, and leave no room for intrepid and
self-denying conscientiousness. That spiritual func-
tionaries, when freely elected, and forming ecclesiasti-
cal assemblies, are representative so far as to secure
the benefits of representation to the church, appears
in many particulars. Protestants are generally agreed
that the commission of Christ was given to his church;
and all, whether ministers or elders, who exercise
functions included in that commission, are, in this
view, the church's representatives. These office-
bearers are further elected by Christian suffrage. In
the case of elders, they are chosen by the people from
their own number. While acting for the church, they
have a manifest interest to please the church, in so
far as duty will permit them. And, finally, these
freely chosen councils are numerous enough to check
individual tyranny, and yet sufficiently select to ex-
clude anarchy. An obscure church member supposes
himself aggrieved. In seeking redress, he might have
little hope from a minister whom he had offended,
and as little from an excited throng, swayed by a dic-
tator or a demagogue. But he brings his case before
CHURCH BY PRESBYTERS. 97
chosen judges—mostly chosen from the people, as
well as by the people—expressly appointed to con-
duct these matters—having a character to keep or
lose in the mode of settling them—the ornaments
of their station—whom any court or country would
think eligible as jurymen. If even they be swayed
by personal or local prejudices, he can carry his cause
to a larger and more disinterested tribunal, just as
freely elected. This is representation, and this is
liberty—the liberty of states, the liberty of churches,
the only liberty which truly consists with the being
of society. “Nations have become free,” says Dr
Waughan, “in proportion as they have been able to
give power to the representative principle, along with
the other elements of society, and only in that pro-
portion. The representative principle may rarely
appear to be all that it should be. But without it
nothing is as it should be. It may not seem to be
perfect, but it is the only power that has proved
effectual, permanently, to diminish the evils which
must otherwise blight and destroy humanity without
end. It may have its defects, its faults, its revolting
abuses; but it precludes greater evils, and brings an
amount of good which nothing else can bring. . . . .
If a nation [or a church], therefore, is to possess a
system of liberty, the nation [or church] must rea-
lise it, and realise it through the medium of a repre-
sentative government.” These are the words of
an eminent Independent; but whether they plead
more for Independency or Presbytery, I leave the
* Congregationalism, p. 29.
G
98 ON THE GOVERNMENT, ETC.
reader to determine. Dr Wardlaw sometimes utters
like sentiments as I have cited from Dr Waughan.
At page 340, he praises the British Constitution as
giving us civil liberty. I invite him, with all respect,
to consider, that, without popular representation, the
popular element which he so highly and justly eulo-
gises would be speedily and utterly annihilated.
PART IV.
ON THE DISTINCTION OF TEACHING
AND RULING ELDERS.
CHAPTER I.
The Question stated.
IT is conceded by those with whom I am now reason-
ing, that churches should have Presbyters or Elders.
Some, however, maintain that all elders should be
preaching elders, that is, pastors, in the technical
sense of the term. It is the doctrine of Presby-
terians generally, that churches, besides elders who
preach, should have elders who do not preach, but
confine themselves to the work of superintendence.
Though all elders rule, those who are appointed to
rule only are, for the sake of distinction, called ruling
elders. Dr Wardlaw characterises “this subject as
being one of the great turning points of the contro-
versy between Presbyterians and Independents.”
But Dr Wardlaw knows that in former times Inde-
pendents highly approved of ruling elders; and this
will abundantly appear before my argument is con-
cluded. Here I shall introduce only a few sentences
*
sº
*
*
º," a tº e • * * *
gº & e * * * * ,
• * a
&
&
gº
en Q
100 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
from the writings of Dr Thomas M'Crie, showing
that the article of a ruling eldership was not anciently
a party question: “It would appear that these elders
were not only approved of by the earliest English
Independents during their exile in Holland, but that
they existed in their churches; for we are informed
by Hoornbeek, that one of their principal objections
to the continental Presbyterians was, that they
appointed these elders only from year to year, and
not for life. ‘Propter mutationem Presbyteriorum
apud nos annuam, qui juaſta ipsos debent esse per-
petui.” They were approved of by Dr Owen, who
has furnished one of the best and most able vindica-
tions of the office of these elders that ever was
published,f and who, even as he is quoted by Mr
Orme (Append., p. 515), seems to express his regret
to his church in London that they wanted these
office-bearers. They are asserted by Mr Cotton f to
have been instituted by Christ, and are represented
as having been established very generally in the Ameri-
can churches. The same, too, is the doctrine of
Goodwin. $ And it is observed by the Westminster
Independents, that ‘ the Scripture says much of
* This was the practice, for a long time, of the French and
Dutch churches. See, too, Altare Damascen., p. 927; Summa
Controv., p. 767.
According to the First Book of Discipline, new elders and
deacons were to be elected every year, and the practice con-
tinued in many congregations down to a very late period. See
Scott's Regisler of the Kirk Session of Perth, MS., Adv. Lib.
* Book on the Gospel Church.
t Way of the Churches of Christ in New England, pp. 13–35.
& % Catechism on Church Government, p. 19.
* * tº * * * *
& * * **
º • * , * *
© &
* • * ~ *
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I01
two sorts of elders, teaching and ruling, and in some
places so plain, as if of purpose to distinguish them;
and that the whole reformed churches had these different
elders.”* f I am now to defend the office of ruling
elder, by arguments drawn, in no small measure,
from such writings as those of Owen, Goodwin, and
Cotton; and I will leave it to the candour of the
reader, after carefully pondering them, to say
whether it would be to the disadvantage of modern
Independents to revert to the principles of their
venerated forefathers.
CHAPTER II.
The distinction pleaded for has its foundation in facts.
WE naturally expect that churches will have members
qualified to direct their affairs, who would not be
qualified to deliver public instruction, and that these
men should have positions assigned them correspond-
ing with their gifts, and be appointed directors or
rulers, but not preachers.
Dr Wardlaw urges the plea of “naturalness” in
favour of the distinction of elders and deacons.
The charge of churches naturally divides itself, he
contends, into the two departments of spiritual and
secular oversight. But spiritual oversight is not less
* Reasons against the Third Proposition concerning Presby-
terial Government, pp. 3 and 40.
f The Miscellaneous Writings of Dr M'Crie, pp. 490, 491.
I02 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
naturally divisible into ruling and teaching functions.
Wherever an important cause has to be advanced,
men to speak and men to guide are equally in requi-
sition. Is the traffic in slaves detested, and is a
British public invoked to put it down?—then public
meetings are held; the best speakers who can be
had are engaged to address these assemblages;
boards of direction are formed to take charge of
petitions, and to ply the legislature; and very likely
the speakers are appointed members of these boards,
in consideration of their office, services, and character.
But when was it ever known that all the hearers
were made directors, or that the direction was con-
fided to the speakers alone? In such cases, it is at
Once seen that the work, to be well conducted, must
be in the hands of a select agency; and the conclu-
sion is just as speedily reached, that individuals who
could not have spoken three continuous sentences in
the presence of a multitude, may yet be far better
fitted than the speakers themselves to turn to prac-
tical account the desirable impression which their
speeches have produced. Thus, in the walks of
philanthropy, the working of a beneficent measure
is not retained by the crowd, neither is it committed
to one or two oratorical debaters; but a board of
management is appointed, and in that board the
eloquent and the practical members sit side by side,
having the same privileges and the same powers. It
is superfluous to demonstrate how unlike this pro-
cedure is to Episcopacy on the one hand, and to
Independency on the other—to the exclusive rule of
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I03
bishops and the universal rule of church members—
and how closely analogous to the appointment of
an eldership, in which the minister or public speaker
is included. -
CHAPTER III.
Teaching and Ruling Elders are distinguished in Scripture—
Full consideration of Rom. xii. 6-8; Cor. xii. 28; and 1 Tim.
W. 17. - -
THE New Testament indicates, in various passages,
that, while all elders were rulers, only some of them
taught publicly, so that a distinction existed among
them of teaching and ruling elders.
In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul says, “Having,
then, gifts, differing according to the grace that is
given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy ac-
cording to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let
us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on
teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he
that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that
ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with
cheerfulness.” That the apostle, in this language,
points out a number of distinct offices, appears plainly
\
gºe e ele Af
* "Exovires 3: 2.xpíogara zarz rhy záply rhy?oësiazy #27, 314-
3/ A * * 2 z * A • e? 3
(popo, sire ºrpoºnºrsiov, x2'rà rhy &vox.oyízy rhs ºria Tea’s sire ouxxo-
gº - gº y
wizy, by r. 312xovíg. ērs à 31%azov, #y r? 3/320x2xf4: tºrs à
ºrapazz»ov, iv rà rapaxxâzsi é Azero.3,3obs, #y &rAérnºr. 3 ºrpor-
wrézsvos, iv arovää. 3 #xiàv, #y ixopórnºr.—(Rom. xii. 6–8.)
I04 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
enough from the connection. He exhorts, in the third
verse, that no one “should think of himself more
highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly,
according as God has dealt to every man the measure
of faith.” No one was to exalt himself above his
brethren, as possessing higher gifts than they. The
faith exercised in performing duties, or working
miracles, was the most important element in them;
and as this faith refers all to divine favour, it would,
in the measure of it, produce sobriety of thought as
to personal attainment. The apostle continues—
“For as we have many members in one body, and
all members have not the same office; so we, being
many, are one body in Christ, and every one mem-
bers one of another.” Each member of the body, it
is here reasoned, has a distinct office; but none of
them is so independent of the rest that it may glory
over them. They are one body; and if, therefore,
one member should disparage others, it would, in vir-
tue of this relation, be disparaging itself—it would
be dishonouring the whole, of which it formed part.
Each member is to be honoured, not by degrading
other members, but by executing effectively its own
particular work. “Having, then,” the apostle pro-
ceeds, “gifts, differing according to the grace that
is given to us, whether prophecy,” &c. No candid
reader, I think, can follow this train without perceiv-
ing that the persons spoken of are here represented
as having distinct offices, like the members of the
body, and are cautioned against making the difference
between them an occasion of vain-glorious strife.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I05
If it be so, “he that ruleth” is a member of Christ's
mystical body, holding a distinct office—an office
which may be held separately from other offices; and
he ought not, in consequence of any views entertained
as to its relative importance, either to despise others
or to be despised by them.
It is no objection to this interpretation, that we
cannot now define with clearness or certainty all the
offices mentioned. An attempt has been sometimes
made to discriminate completely their respective pro-
vinces. One hypothesis which has been proposed is,
that the first two terms in the apostle's enumeration
(prophecy and ministry) are general heads, and that
under one or other of these all the particulars which
follow must be classified. Prophecy is supposed to
have for its subdivisions “teaching” and “exhort-
ing;” while ministry is subdivided into “giving,”
“ruling,” and “showing mercy.” If this exposition
be at all just, the ruler, instead of being confounded
with the teacher, is placed in a separate registry.
Various attempts, which I am not careful to con-
fute at length, have been made to evade the force of
this passage. The apostle has been said to speak of
gifts, and not of offices. In the immediate context we
find both words used; and they are so with marked
propriety, inasmuch as gifts qualified the recipients
for office, and the offices themselves were gifts, both
to the persons clothed with them, and to the church
benefited by them. Does office then cease to be office
because it may be viewed in the light of a boon?
The apostle has been alleged by others to speak of
I06 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
ruling one's family. There is here an important ad-
mission, that ruling in the strict sense of the term is
intended; but when the subject of the whole passage
is the church, how can an individual word be under-
stood of domestic superintendence?.
Dr Wardlaw says, “The whole passage might be
interpreted as a simple direction respecting the spirit
and manner in which the duties of prophecy, of
ministry, of exhorting, of giving, of ruling, and of
showing mercy, ought to be fulfilled without design-
ing to express any distinctive appropriation of each of
these to a particular official class.”* This exposition
is not accordant with the illustration drawn by the
apostle, in the context, from the human body. The
corporeal functions, besides being exhibited as fitly
fulfilled, are assigned to their respective organs; we
have “a distinctive appropriation of each” office “to
a particular” member. But, says Dr Wardlaw, “if
the principle of interpretation must be that of official
distinction; then let it, in this sense, be consistently
carried out. And if it be so carried out, a Presby-
terian can have no more right to assume (as, from
the power of habitual association, he may be apt to
do) that “he that teacheth’ is a ruler as well as a
teacher, than another has to assume that “he that
ruleth’ is a teacher as well as a ruler. So far as the
fair exegesis of this passage goes, the teacher is as
distinct from the ruler, as the ruler is from the
teacher.”f -
Here it is supposed that teaching and ruling do
* Congreg. Indep, p. 194, t Ibid., p. 196.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I07
exhibit official distinction. On that supposition, I so
far agree with Dr Wardlaw as to admit that, if this
were the only passage treating of these departments
of office, we might imagine just as readily that
teachers only taught, as that rulers only ruled. But,
as Dr Wardlaw himself has ably shown, all public
teachers are declared in other parts of Scripture to be
also rulers, and so to combine the two departments
of duty in their appointment; and if we were, in
the absence of such proof, to assume the converse to
be true, and to hold that all rulers are also public
teachers; then, be it observed, we should have here
two descriptions of one class of persons, having pre-
cisely the same engagements. While, if we under-
stand that rulers only ruled, then teachers, though
rulers, are still distinguished by their teaching, and
a sufficient ground is plainly afforded for a discri-
minative classification.
The views now expressed have had the concur-
rence of eminent men of all religious parties. Peter
Martyr, a distinguished Italian reformer, who, on
the invitation of Edward VI., became afterwards
professor of divinity at Oxford, having cited the
words, “He that ruleth with diligence,” proceeds,
“Although I doubt not that there were many rulers
in the church, yet, to confess the truth, this appears
to me to be most aptly understood of elders, not,
indeed, of those who presided over the dispensation
of word and doctrine, but of those who were given
as assistants to pastors. These, as being prudent,
zealous, and pious men, were chosen from the laity.
I08 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
Their business was to take charge principally of
discipline—to see what every one did—and in every
house and family to afford aid, as it was needed,
whether for the mind or for the body. For the
church had its elders, or so to speak, its senate, who
consulted about things as the time demanded. Paul
describes this sort of ministry, not only in this place,
but also in his first epistle to Timothy; for he thus
writes, ‘Elders are worthy of double honour, espe-
cially they who labour in word and doctrine.’ By
which words he seems to intimate, that there are
some elders who teach and propound the Word of
God; and that there are others who, while they do
not this, nevertheless preside in the church as pres-
byters or elders.” “
Dr Thomas Goodwin, one of the Westminster As-
sembly of Divines, who ranks with the most learned
Independents of the seventeenth century, says, in
commenting on the 12th chapter to the Romans, and
more especially the 8th verse, “Though to rule is
a pastor's office as well as an elder's, yet the elder
is more especially said to rule, because he is wholly
set apart to it. It is his proper calling, which
he is wholly appointed to mind, and in a special
Iſla ſiller. . . . . . Though the superior (officer) in
common performs the same work with the inferior;
yet the inferior is set apart to it wholly, which the
other is not, but to some other of a higher kind,
by reason of intending which he cannot so fully
and wholly intend the other; and, therefore, it is
* Loci Communes. Class, quar, cap. i., p. 746. Lond, 1583.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I09
$
observable, that speaking of a ruler's office in ruling,
he says, Let him do it with diligence, for that is his
work which he is to mind; and there will be enough
of it to fill his hands.” *
The Rev. Thomas Hooker, a celebrated Indepen-
dent pastor of New England, in his “Survey of
Church Discipline,” resolutely defends the ruling
elder's place. He declares that Rom. xii. 7 gives
its testimony to this truth, where all these offices are
numbered and named expressly.f *
Dr. Davidson says of “him that ruleth,” “Could
he not have been a bishop or elder who devoted
himself to the department of governing, because he
had talents for it, leaving the preaching of the word
to those who excelled in preaching 7 Surely this
idea is probable, as it is consistent with less obscure
passages which allude to elders.”f It is here ad-
mitted by Dr Davidson, that “he that ruleth’ may
be naturally understood of elders who in fact ruled
only, though he claims for them the right to have
also preached. This doctrine, of men having been
appointed to preach who were incompetent for the
duty, and by whom it was in consequence neglected,
will be considered afterwards. Enough for the
present that Dr Davidson speaks of it as “surely
probable” that the elder spoken of did not preach,
and had not talents for preaching, and was in practice
a ruling elder.
* The Government of the Churches, book vi., chap. 8.
f Quoted by Dr Miller—Office of the Ruling Elder, chap. 7.
# Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 192.
II0 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
A similar passage occurs in 1 Cor. xii. The
apostle there says, verse 28: “God hath set some in
the church: first, apostles; secondarily, prophets;
thirdly, teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of
healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.””
We have here an enumeration of the offices, ordinary
and extraordinary, subsisting in the primitive church;
and among these, express and separate mention is
made of “governments.” In the preceding verses
the apostle censures all jealousies and feuds about
the endowments possessed, and the places occupied,
by different members of the church. He draws
argument and illustration, as in the epistle to the
Romans, from the complex membership and yet
harmonious action of the human body—one bodily
organ need not glory over another, for each is hon-
oured or dishonoured in all the rest: “Whether one
member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one
member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
Now, ye are the body of Christ, and members in
particular. And God hath set some in the church:
first, apostles,” &c. Is it not perfectly plain that
the ecclesiastical offices and the bodily members are
exhibited in this connection as equally distinct, and
as having equally little cause for relative boasting 2
And if so, governments, that is, governors, hold a
distinct office, which may be filled separately. “Are
all apostles?” (the inspired author proceeds) “are
* Kø ot's giv #'s ro à es?; iv rº, ixzanzig ºrpärov &rarráxous,
A -
*sūrºpov reophras, rpfroy 3,320x4xous, aruro. 3vydasis, fra zºpio-
Pºrz izºrov, &vrixáspels, zváspyńrsus, yśyn yxovačy.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. III
all prophets?” This language marks yet more em-
phatically the demarcation of the offices before
mentioned. Does every officer fill every office?
No.: each office has its own officer. The higher
office, indeed, includes the lower, but the lower
does not include the higher; for, as Dr Goodwin
remarks, “that which is common to a superior officer
with the inferior, may yet be made a proper differ-
ence of that inferior officer; ”* and, as there are
prophets who are not apostles, and teachers who are
not prophets, so there are governors who are not
any one of the three; and who, nevertheless, should
be contented and faithful in the situation assigned
them. Dr Wardlaw says, “Helps and governments
are the two items in the list from which the con-
clusion [in favour of ruling elders] is drawn. The
one is made to signify deacons, and the other ruling
elders. And I think this is just as likely to be the
true interpretation as any other, perhaps the most
likely—understanding ruling elders, however, not
in the Presbyterian sense of elders, whose office it
was to rule apart from teaching, but of bishops,
whose office included both instruction and rule.”
Dr Wardlaw here allows that governments are most
likely to be ruling elders, only he will have them
to be also teaching elders. It is a strong objection
to this exposition, that teachers, whom Dr Wardlaw
most reasonably identifies with preaching bishops,
[“all teachers were pastors,”f] had appeared already
* Government of the Churches, book vi., chap. 8.
f Congreg. Indep., p. 183. -
I 12 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
in the enumeration here given, and needed not to
be reintroduced. We accept this acknowledgment
that governments are “most likely ruling elders,”
but we see no reason to combine with ruling what
had a prior and separate place in the list. And,
indeed, to append the teaching here is to make the
ruling elders the same as the teachers, and so to
charge on the apostle a vain repetition.
To weaken our conclusions derived from this pas-
sage, Dr Wardlaw quotes comments from many
authors, to show how variously it has been inter-
preted. And what passage of Scripture relating to
government or doctrine has not received conflicting
interpretations? If, however, an appeal is to be
made to authorities, then it cannot be denied that
the passage has been understood as we understand
it by many able and disinterested judges. The Rev.
Herbert Thorndike, of the Anglican church, says, in
his “Discourse of Religious Assemblies: ” “There is
no reason to doubt that the men whom the apostle
(1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11) called doctors or
teachers, are those of the presbyters who had the
abilities of preaching and teaching the people at their
assemblies; that those of the presbyters who preached
not, are called here by the apostle governments. . . .
There were two parts of the presbyter's office, viz.,
teaching and governing; the one whereof some
attained not, even in the apostles' times.”* I give
the passage as quoted by Dr Miller, in his excellent
work on the “Ruling Elder,” because I have not
* Discourse of Religious Assemblies, chap. iv., p. 117.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 113
access to the original at present. I find, however,
in other works of Mr Thorndike, that he is very
angry with those of his own day who made like use
of his observations, as Dr Miller and others have
made since. In his “Right of the Church,” &c., he
says, “Myself have the honour to be alleged, for one
that approve lay elders, even in that place of that
very discourse where I answer the best arguments
that ever I heard made for them, only because I said
then, as now, that we are not bound to think that all
presbyters preached during the apostles' times,” &c. *
To settle the dispute with this learned prelatist, we
concede to him that there should be no lay elders,
for all elders are spiritual office-bearers; t and he
concedes to us, as does also Dr Davidson, first, that,
every church should be ruled by a body of elders; and,
secondly, that we are not bound to think that all the
presbyters preached in the apostles' times. Points of
difference remain, but with so much in common we
are not disposed to quarrel. The learned Pareus, a
German divine of the era of the Reformation, says,
in his commentary on this passage: “He so desig-
nates, undoubtedly, the elders who presided over
discipline. For the primitive church had its senate
who preserved good morals among the people, while
the apostles and teachers were left free to preach.
The apostle indicates this plainly enough (1 Tim. v.
* Chap. iii., p. 127.
+ Dr Wilson, in his “Primitive Government of Christian
Churches,” constantly stigmatises ruling elders as being lay
elders, and founds on this misnomer a large proportion of his
reasoning against them. Dr Davidson follows the same course.
-- H
114 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
17), where he specifies two kinds of presbyters.
These governors, then, were not princes or praetors
armed with the sword, but presbyters, excelling
others in gravity, experience, authority, chosen from
amidst the assembly with the church's consent, who
aided or relieved the pastors in administering dis-
cipline.” .
Dr Whitby, a learned Episcopalian, tells us that
the elders among the Jews were of two sorts: first,
such as governed in the synagogue; and, secondly,
such as ministered in reading and expounding their
Scriptures and traditions. The second class he pro-
nounces to have been the most honourable, and adds,
“Accordingly the apostle, reckoning up the offices
God had appointed in the church, places teachers
before governments,” (1 Cor. xii.)* In these words,
governing is allowed to be a distinct office from
teaching.
The celebrated Dr Owen, one of the brightest
ornaments of Independency, says, in his treatise on
Worship and Discipline, by way of question and
answer: “Question 31. Are there appointed any
elders in the church whose office and duty consist
in rule and government only 7 Answer. Elders not
called to teach ordinarily, or administer the sacra-
ments, but to assist and help in the rule and govern-
ment of the church, are mentioned in the Scripture.
(Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28; 1 Tim. v. 17.) . . . . .
Besides, that some light in this matter may be taken
from the church of the Jews, wherein the elders of
* See Commentary on 1 Tim. v. 17.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. II5
the people were joined in rule with the priests, both
in the Sanhedrim and all lesser assemblies, there is
in the gospel express mention of persons that were
assigned peculiarly for rule and government in the
church, as 1 Cor. xiii. 28; and it is in vain pretended
that those words, “helps,’ ‘governments, do denote
gifts only, seeing the apostle expressly enumerates
the persons in office, or officers, which the Lord
Christ then used in the foundation and rule of the
churches as then planted.”
The most decisive passage in favour of ruling elders
remains to be considered. Paul says, “Let the elders
that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,
especially they who labour in word and doctrine.”*
On all sides, it is admitted that the word double, as
here used, simply denotes ample or abundant. It fre-
quently occurs in Scripture in the same sense. Of
Jerusalem it is said, “She hath received double for
all her sins.” f The sentiment is not that Jerusalem
had been afflicted twice as much as was necessary
or suitable, but that she had been amply chastened
for her transgression. So double honour does not, in
the passage under consideration, denote twice as much
honour as some other parties received, but simply
much or adequate honour. Elders who ruled well
were to be liberally honoured. And what kind of
honour were they to get? The word honour admits
of being rendered pay or wages, and this interpreta-
g gº
* Oi xzxas wrposer&res ºrpsgºrspoº Bºrx?is ripºs &loſſadagas,
24xiora of xoriðvres v 2.6% zi_31320x2xfº.—(1 Tim. v. 17.)
‘i Isa. xl. 2.
116 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
tion is rendered the more probable here by the allu-
sions afterwards made to the feeding of the ox, and
the rewarding of the labourer. The office-bearers
in the primitive churches were generally poor men;
and when they sacrificed time and substance in rul-
ing the church well, it is very conceivable that Paul
should require the loss to be fully made up to them
by the societies for whose sake the sacrifice was made.
He did not, as Drs Wardlaw and Davidson seem to sup-
pose, arbitrarily limit pay to preaching, but enunci-
ated the general principles, that they who “ have sown
spiritual things should reap carnal things;” that all
who “wait at the altar are partakers with the altar;”f
and that the Scripture saith, “Thou shalt not muzzle
the ox that treadeth out the corn; and the labourer
[whatever be his department of labour] is worthy of
his reward.”f Many elders are still in circumstances
which would render such compensation both equit-
able and advantageous. At the same time, some able
expositors, irrespectively of the question now agi-
tated, regard the tone of the passage as lowered by
the explanation of honour as meaning money. They
explain it of respect, and understand the apostle to
say, that the office-bearers mentioned ought to be
honoured in a way becoming them, as the ox and the
labourer have their appropriate remuneration. Our
Independent brethren consider the pecuniary view
the more favourable to them, and I will assume it to
be correct. The apostle on this supposition claims
a sufficient pecuniary acknowledgment for elders who
* 1 Cor. ix. 11. + 1 Cor. ix. 13. f 1 Tim. v. 18.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 117
rule well. But let it be observed that he does not
claim it for all of them equally. He requires it espe-
cially for them who labour in the Word and doctrine.
If any simply ruled well, they were to get liberal
remuneration ; but if any, in addition to ruling well,
also laboured in the Word and doctrine, they were
to receive a specially ample salary, since they devoted
themselves more entirely to the service of the church
—spending and being spent for its sake. This is the
simple and palpable import of the apostle's words;
and so understood they draw a line of demarcation
between elders who restricted themselves to ruling
well, and others who associated with ruling the
labours of teaching. The primitive churches had
elders who ruled, and among these some elders who
also taught, as Presbyterian churches have in our
own times. Various attempts have been made to
invalidate this conclusion.
Dr Wardlaw thinks that the word translated rule
does not here signify to rule only, but is a general
expression for ministerial duty, comprising the func-
tions alike of instruction and government. The first
part of the verse, then, simply denotes that faithful
ministers are to be amply recompensed; and as for
the latter part of the verse, Dr Wardlaw thinks that
its import is intensive, and that it claims special libe-
rality towards presbyters, who are not simply faithful,
but who are excessively laborious. In support of this
exposition, Dr Wardlaw pleads that the word trans-
lated labour, in the last clause, denotes emphatically
to be laborious. This, he tells us, is its proper mean-
II8 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
ing: “It does not denote work merely, but labour,
and labour of an exhausting kind and degree.”.” An
examination, however, of the passages of the New
Testament, in which the word occurs, does not bear
out this criticism. It usually denotes, not extraordi-
nary labour, but labour simply considered. When
intensity of toil is to be expressed, some additional
epithet is introduced for that purpose. “I sent you
to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour.”f Our
Lord did not mean to say that the apostles were sent
to reap produce on which they had bestowed no
extraordinary labour, but which had cost them no
toil whatever. This is evident from what follows:
“Other men laboured, and ye are entered into their
labours.” “I have showed you all things,” says Paul,
“how that so labouring ye ought to support the
weak.”f “Let him that stole steal no more: but
rather let him labour, working with his hands.”$ In
these passages labour has plainly the sense we attach
to it, when we speak of men labouring for their bread,
and call them labourers; and, in the latter, Paul ex-
pressly explains labour by common manual occupa-
tion: “Let him labour”—how? “working with his
hands.” “Greet Mary,” says Paul, “who bestowed
MUCH labour on us.”| If the word labour had de-
noted extraordinary effort of itself, there would have
been no need to conjoin with it the epithet much to
give it force. The same remark applies to the 12th
verse of the same chapter, where it is said, “Salute
* Congreg. Indep, p. 212. + John iv. 38.
† Acts xx. 35. 3 Eph. iv. 28. | Rom. xvi. 6.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. II9
the beloved Persis, which laboured MUCH in the
Lord.” In these and many other passages the word
is descriptive of duty only, and does not of itself
mark excessive labour. The expression, “To rule
well,” is acknowledged to denote praiseworthy labo-
riousness, or, as Dr Wardlaw says, “superior fidelity
and zeal;” and hence Paul claims for all so ruling
double or ample honour. To speak of still greater
laboriousness than what was confessedly “superior.”
—creating by intensity, which far exceeded superio-
rity, a still more special claim on the liberality of the
church—would be a remarkable climax, rearing su-
perlative above superlative, and would require very
emphatic phraseology indeed. But we have in the
clause under consideration nothing of the sort. We
have the word labour simply, without any such epi-
thets as the same writer elsewhere introduces, when
he designs to convey the idea of severe toil. Hence
we conclude that the distinction made by the apostle
does not respect the intensity of labour, but the kind
of it. To rule well entitled the ruler to ample
honour, but those rulers who were distinguished from
others by the special employment of labouring in word
and doctrine were specially entitled to generous con-
sideration.
I have supposed, in the preceding remarks, that
the word rendered to “rule” might denote ministerial
duty in general. Dr Wardlaw says, “It is suscepti-
ble of a more general or a more special signification,
according to the circumstances and connection in
which it is found. It may denote the general duty
I20 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
of “being over” the church, considered as compre-
hensive of both the departments of teaching and rul-
ing. It is equally appropriate when used of either;
or, if it happens to be introduced where the former
of the two departments is otherwise mentioned, and
is thus used distinctively, it may denote more speci-
fically the latter, the department of ruling.”
With all respect for Dr Wardlaw, I must controvert
his assertion that the word translated rule is equally
appropriate when used either of government or teaching.
Its more usual and proper meaning is to govern, as
§
any Greek lexicon will testify; and it should be so
understood, unless there be very strong reason to the
contrary. But the reason is here all on the side of
the ordinary signification. The department of teach-
ing is, in the language of Dr Wardlaw, “otherwise
mentioned,” namely, at the close of the verse. The
word translated to rule “is there used distinctively,”
and should be held to “denote more specifically the
department of ruling.” Our former conclusion is
hence confirmed, that Paul claims especial honour for
a special department of service. All elders ruling the
church well, deserved well of the church; but they
who superadded to ruling the distinctive labour of
teaching, brought the society instructed by them
under special obligations.
Dr Wardlaw thus paraphrases the passage:—“Let
the elders (presbyters, bishops) who fulfil well—with
superior fidelity and zeal—the duties of their over-
sight, be counted deserving of the more ample recom-
* Congreg. Indep, p. 206.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I21
pense; especially those of them who give themselves
assiduously to the department of the ministry of the
gospel,—who “labour in word and doctrine.’”
The element of which Dr Wardlaw is desirous to
get rid, is not here eliminated. The labouring in
word and doctrine, mentioned in the close, is surely
no part of the faithful and zealous oversight noticed
at the commencement; else why give us the same
thing a second time, and to what novel element could
the “especially” then have regard? We have plainly
in the paraphrase, as in the passage, two sections of
elders discriminated, and the discriminating circum-
stance is the work of teaching, with which one section
of them are charged. It would seem as if Dr Ward-
law must, in homage to the text, and in contradiction
to his own comments, distinguish between oversight
in the sense of rule, and that department of the
ministry of the gospel which they have who labour
in word and doctrine.
The import of the passage, in relation to the ques-
tion now debated, depends mainly on the meaning
attached to the term especially. I have said else-
wheref that I accept the exposition of it given by
Dr Wardlaw. His language is, “According to what
may, I think, be called invariable usage, it must be
understood as representing those who are described
in the latter part of the verse, as comprehended
under the more general description in the former,
* Congreg. Indep., p. 217.
† See Ruling Eldership of the Christian Church, third
edition, p.21. . 4.
I22 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
not as a distinct class of persons, but a select portion
of the same class, distinguished by a specified par-
ticularity.”* Dr Wardlaw here tells us that, from a
general class described, “especially” singles out a
select portion distinguished by a specified particu-
larity. In this instance, elders are the general class
comprehending all presbyters; from this general class
the word “especially” singles out, in the latter part
of the verse, those among them who were distin-
guished by the “specified particularity” of public
teaching. Dr Wardlaw cites some very appropriate
examples: “But if any man provide not for his own,
and specially for those of his own house, he hath
denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”f
“Here, ‘those of his own house,’” says Dr Wardlaw,
“those belonging to his own family, are a specifically
distinguished portion of the more comprehensive de-
signation ‘his own, which may be understood of his
relations at large.”f This example is clearly in
favour of my argument. The phrase “his own” de-
scribes relations at large. The term “specially”
marks off from these relations some distinguished
from the rest by the peculiarity of being of his own
house. So far all relations are identified, as they are
all a man's own; so far they differ, as only some of
them belong to a man's own house. In like manner,
faithful elders are so far identified, as they all rule
well; and so far they differ, as only some labour in
the word and doctrine. Surely no illustration could
be more to my purpose. Paul says, “We trust in
* Congreg. Indep, p. 213. + 1 Tim. V. 8. J. P. 214,
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 123
the living God, who is the Saviour (or preserver) of
all men, specially of those that believe.” ” “Those
that believe,” says Dr Wardlaw, “were included
among the ‘all men, but distinguished from the rest
by their faith.” Quite correct; and so pastors are
included among elders, but distinguished from the
rest by public teaching. If “specially” can distin-
guish believers from infidels, surely it may suffice to
discriminate elders who rule from elders who rule
and teach. “On no other principle,” says Dr Ward-
law, “can that adverb (especially) have its legitimate
signification—the signification which the idiomatic
use of it in the original language has fixed as its ap-
propriate import, except on the principle that the
“elders whe rule well,’ in the beginning of the verse,
are the same order of office-bearers of which those
in the end of it, who “labour in word and doctrine,’
are a still more select description, adding to the dis-
tinguishing excellence of the former a farther dis-
tinguishing excellence of their own—those elders,
namely, who to eminence in ruling joined laborious-
ness in teaching,” &c. f. In accordance with this
language, to which I readily subscribe, as fully con-
ceding and clearly enunciating the distinction I have
contended for, the members of faithful sessions are
all one order of office-bearers as rulers; the faithful
ministers in these sessions are a still more select
description, adding to the distinguishing excellence
of other elders the further distinguishing excellence
of laboriousness in teaching. The delineation thus
* 1 Tim. iv. 10. + Congreg. Indep., p. 215.
| 24 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
given by Dr Wardlaw seems to me to express, in
most fitting words, the identical conclusions which I
draw from the passage.
Dr Davidson expressly admits that this text dis-
tinguishes elders who simply ruled well from elders
who publicly taught. He quotes from me the follow-
ing comments: “These words could suggest to an
unbiassed reader only one meaning, that all elders
who rule well are worthy of abundant honour, but
especially those of their number who, besides ruling
well, also labour in word and doctrine. Of course
the passage so interpreted bears, that of the elders
who rule well, only some labour in word and doc-
trine; that is, there are ruling elders, and among
these teaching elders, as we have at the present day.”
Having cited this passage, Dr Davidson says,
“Few would object to this reasoning, understood in
its obvious sense; for a distinction is manifestly im-
plied between those elders that rule well, and those
who labour in word and doctrine.” He speaks of
Presbyterians as “proving that some elders in the
primitive churches ruled, while others preached.”
“That,” he adds, “is a position too manifest to be
called in question. Other parts ºf the New Testa-
ment would warrant that conclusion, had the text in
the epistle to Timothy been wanting.”f The entire
position contended for is here conceded, so far as
regards practice. As we have teaching and ruling
elders, it is admitted that the primitive churches also
had preaching elders and elders who ruled without
* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 183. + Ibid., p. 186.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I25
preaching; and if we are right in fact, where do we
errº Dr Davidson thinks we are wrong in making
any official distinction between elders. They should
all get the same appointment, though eventually they
may devote themselves to different occupations. He
contends that “the nature of the destination is merely
such as arises from the possession of various talents,
directed to the discharge of different duties, while all
have an equal right to perform the same functions.” *
This interpretation appears to me to be full of unlike-
lihood and difficulty. Would modest and conscien-
tious men accept a solemn appointment to preach the
gospel, when they knew that they had not “talents”
for this duty, and had no serious purpose to attempt
the discharge of it? If incompetent men were willing
to be appointed preachers, would the apostles have
affixed the seal of their approbation to any such pre-
sumption? Under the guidance of the apostles, it
seems, a number of men were solemnly set apart, not
simply to rule, for which they were qualified, but also
to administer the word, for which they were not
qualified—a duty which they were neither competent
for nor expected to discharge; and for such men,
living in the neglect of important functions with
which they had been solemnly invested, Paul asked
from the church ample honour ! Is it not far more
conceivable—and the question is one of rational in-
terpretation—that so many were appointed to teach
publicly as were needed and fitted for public teach-
ing; and that they who did nothing more than rule,
* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 183.
126 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
had nothing more included in their commission ?
Facts are here exponents of principles; what faithful
men did, shows us what was given them in charge.
But the facts of the primitive church are confessedly
in our favour : only some elders taught—the rest
restricted themselves to government; and so it is
now in our Presbyterian congregations.
The contempt which Dr Davidson expresses for
ruling elders is rendered more extraordinary by his
admission, that, in the first instance, elders were ap-
pointed only or mainly to rule. He says, “All the
circumstances that have relation to the point conspire
to show that the elders were chosen in the first in-
stance mainly for government.”* He elsewhere cites
with approbation the statement of Neander, that
“ruling and governing (ºrgoornyol and xv8sgyőy) evi-
dently exhaust what belonged from the beginning to
the office of presbyter or bishop, and for which it was
originally instituted.”f Surely elders who were not
appointed to preach, but simply to rule or govern,
were, in the strictest sense of the words, ruling elders;
and how vain is it then for Dr Davidson to speak of
Calvin as having invented the office | Nor does Dr
Davidson deny that teaching elders were associated
with ruling elders. He thinks that some, having the
gift of teaching, came to be admitted into the elder-
ship, and that these parties thenceforward both ruled
and taught officially. “When the charism (or en-
dowment) of teaching,” he says, “became an ordinary
gift, such as might be attained by many Christians
* Eccles. Polity, p. 149. ‘f Ibid., p. 193.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I27
in the exercise of their abilities, it is probable that
these teachers were often taken into the college of
elders, and thus formally constituted officers.” Here
was a college of ruling elders, and among them were
teachers. Our churches have, in like manner, col-
leges of elders, and among them teachers; are we
not then adhering to the apostolic pattern?
The only evasion I can think of is, that the primi-
tive churches at a later period were otherwise consti-
tuted—that elders appointed in the first instance to
rule only, were eventually appointed always to rule
and preach. But where is the record of any such
changes? and where the likelihood that the Christian
church of the apostolic times resembled a sea of sand,
shifting its proportions and outline with all fluctuating
breezes? If it were so, then the apostles sanctioned
nothing so much as versatility—as a fickle and time-
serving expediency: they have set us conflicting
examples in relation to the same point of duty, and
have, in important matters, so turned their back on
their own practice, that if we do as they at one period
confessedly did, our conduct merits to be attacked
with asperity, or hooted at in derision I fear that
Dr Davidson has allowed himself to give too much
heed to German speculations, in lending his respected
name to such volatile principles. If it be allowed
that the primitive churches, under the direction of
the apostles, had elders appointed to rule only, and
elders appointed both to rule and teach, I am inclined
“to stand fast in the apostles' doctrine” under any
* Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 148.
128 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
circumstances, and at all hazards. “Those things,
which ye have both learned, and received, and heard,
and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be
with you.”
CHAPTER IV.
That the primitive Elders were not all Teaching Elders, appears
from their number.
IT is a very unfair statement of our argument to refer
to the passages already considered as if they consti-
tuted the entire scriptural proof for the office of ruling
elder. The evidence now to be adduced is not less
scriptural, and, though somewhat indirect, not less
pertinent, and not less decisive. If each of the primi-
tive churches had been presided over by one elder,
the inference would have been strong that he united
the functions of ruling and teaching; but if it appear
that every church, however small and poor, had a
company of elders, the supposition of these elders
having been all public instructors is attended with
obvious and insuperable difficulties.
This view of the matter has presented itself strongly
to some intelligent Congregationalists, and they have
exerted themselves to controvert the fact of a plurality
of elders in the primitive churches as the best method
of evading our disrelished deductions. Dr Bennet,
* Phil. iv. 9.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 129
in his “Theology of the Early Christian Church,” a
learned and valuable work,” says, “The language of
Scripture often leads to the conclusion, that it was not
the design of Christ to require a plurality of bishops
in every church; for this office is mentioned in the
singular, when the deacons are spoken of in the
plural. (1 Tim. iii. 2, 8.) The argument of the
apostle, derived from the father of a family, as
Clemens Alexandrinus observes, leads to the same
conclusion: ‘A bishop must rule 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?” Here
a single ruler is supposed to preside in the church,
as in a family. In the Revelation, the seven stars
are the angels, as Origen observes, or presidents of
the seven churches. The term pastor supposes one
shepherd over one flock.”f
In this passage, the supposition of each of the pri-
mitive churches having had a plurality of elders is
controverted, and an attempt is made to show that
Scripture favours the one-elder system now common
with Independents. What, then, are the defences of
this position ? We are told that this officer is men-
tioned in the singular, when the deacons are spoken
of in the plural; and we are referred for an example
of this to 1 Tim. iii. 2, 8. In the second verse of
that chapter it is said, “A bishop must be blameless;”
* Delivered as a course of lectures under the auspices of the
Committee of the Congregational Library; published in 1841.
f Page 223.
I
I30 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
in the eighth verse it is said, “Likewise must the
deacons be grave.” Does not this look as if there
were to be one bishop and a number of deacons?
Such is the argument of Dr Bennet; but it surely
rests upon a very small circumstance. If we read
the first verse, we easily perceive why one bishop is
mentioned in the second. The apostle says in the
former, “This is a true saying, If a man desire the
office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” Here
it is plain enough why one bishop is specified: “If
a man desire the office of a bishop.” Could the
apostle have said, “If a man desire the office of two
bishops, or a college of bishops?” It is surely enough
that one man desire the office of one bishop. When
the apostle, then, had used the singular in the first
verse, was it not most natural and proper to continue
it in the second, and to say, “A bishop then must be
blameless?” Again, Dr Bennet argues that the com-
parison instituted by the apostle between ruling one's
own house and taking care of the church of God,
implies that there is to be one ruler in the church, as
there is in the family. The danger of thus extend-
ing the emblems of Scripture beyond the exact use
which Scripture makes of them, could easily be shown.
But, in this case, the task is superfluous. When the
phrase “church of God” is used, as it is here, without
any locality being mentioned, it denotes, not a frac-
tional society of Christians, but the church universal.
Surely in this church there is more than one subor-
dinate office-bearer; and to it, therefore, the criticism
of Dr Bennet cannot apply. That the apostle is to
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 131
be so understood in this connection, is farther evident
from what he says in the fifteenth verse of the same
chapter: “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest
know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the
house of God, which is the church of the living God,
the pillar and ground of the truth.” What the
apostle had before called the “church of God,” he
here calls the “church of the living God;” and when
he represents it, moreover, as the “pillar and ground
of the truth,” we see that he speaks of the faithful
collectively, over whom there are many office-bearers.
Once more, Dr Bennet tells us, that in the Revela-
tion the seven stars are the angels or presidents of
the seven churches. By this he means to prove, that
each church had a single president. But one of the
seven churches was Ephesus; and Dr Bennet admits,
that, “as the church at Ephesus had more than one
elder, the apostle addresses them in the plural as
bishops.” What, then, becomes of the angelic argu-
ment 7 Who was the one president at Ephesus, when
the church in that city had more than one elder?
By the author's own showing, we have elders at
Ephesus, and among them a presiding elder. So it
is not in any Independent church; but so it is exactly
in Presbyterian churches, where elders who rule are
presided over, in their sessional assemblages, by one
elder, who both rules and teaches. Finally, Dr
Bennet argues that the term “pastor” supposes one
shepherd over the flock. This argument is not hap-
pier than the rest. One flock may have a plurality
* Theology of the Early Christian Church, p. 222,
132 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
of shepherds. The term “shepherd” in the plural is
associated with the term “flock” in the singular, very
often in the sacred volume. “Neither did my shep-
herds,” says God by Ezekiel (xxxiv. 8–10), “search
for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and
fed not my flock: therefore, O ye shepherds, hear
the word of the Lord; thus saith the Lord God,
Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will re-
quire my flock at their hand,” &c. In addressing
the Ephesian elders, Paul exhorts them “to take heed
unto themselves, and to all the flock.” So that we
have here one flock, and a number of shepherds; and
how then does the emblem of a shepherd suppose
singleness of superintendence? Bishop Stillingfleet,
after quoting this passage, says, it is “observable,
first, that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called
the flock of the church, and not the several flocks
and churches over which God hath made you bishops.
Secondly, that all those spoken to were such as had
a pastoral charge of this one flock.”
On a review, then, of these arguments, I feel war-
ranted to say that they utterly fail of their object,
and that the language of Scripture never leads to
the conclusion of its not being the design of Christ
to require a plurality of bishops in every church.
But there is much evidence leading to a conclusion
directly the reverse. It is admitted that there was
a close resemblance between the Jewish synagogues
and the first Christian churches; and we know that
every synagogue had at the fewest three elders. Dr
* Irenicum, p. 347. .
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 133
Goodwin says, “They (the synagogues) used to have
three at least, that a major vote might cast it among
the rulers.” Dr Neander says, “Since the appoint-
ment of presbyters in the Christian church entirely
corresponded with that of presbyters in the Jewish
synagogue, at least in their original constitution, so
we may conclude, that if a plurality of elders stood
at the head of the synagogue, the same was the case
with the first Christian church.”f If this reasoning
be objected to as analogical and inferential merely,
there is no want of direct scriptural testimony to the
same effect. We read of elders in each of the churches
of Jerusalem, Ephesus, and Philippi. Paul, in ad-
dressing the Hebrews, says, “Obey them that have
the rule over you.”f James exhorts him who is sick
to “call for the elders of the church.” These are
individual cases; but we have more comprehensive
examples on record. Paul says to Titus, “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.”S Nor is this
the only instance where such comprehensive language
occurs. We read of Paul and Barnabas, that “they
ordained elders in every church.”| Here it is not
said “in every city,” but “in every church; ” so that
no room is left for dubiety. The early Christian
fathers, in speaking of churches, always suppose each
of them to have a number of elders, so often as they
* Government of the Churches, book ii., chap. 4.
+ Planting of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 41—Note.
† Heb. xiii. 17. 3 Titus i. 5.
| Acts xiv. 23.
134 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
give us any intimation on the subject. Dr Owen
says, “The pattern of the first churches constituted
by the apostles, which it is our duty to imitate and
follow as our rule, constantly expresseth and declares
that many elders were appointed by them in every
church. There is no mention in the Scripture, no
mention in antiquity, of any church wherein there
were not more elders than one, nor doth that church
answer the original pattern where it is otherwise.”
The proof, then, we hold to be complete and decisive,
that each of the primitive churches had, not one elder,
as the Independent churches have now, but a number
of elders, as we see exemplified in our Presbyterian
polity.
The more recent works of Independent writers
wisely cede the position, that the primitive churches
had each a plurality of elders. Dr Halley, in his
Congregational Lecture, maintains that this charac-
teristic was common to the Christian churches and
the Jewish synagogues.f Dr Waughan, in his trea-
tise on Congregationalism, says, “The existence of
such a practice in all the early churches whose usage
in this respect is come down to us, is a remarkable
fact, and enough to justify suspicion as to the wisdom
of our own prevalent usage.” Dr Wardlaw assents
to my declaration, that every church had bishops and
deacons for its fixed and abiding office-bearers. He
elsewhere observes more expressly, “I must candidly
say that the evidence for the fact of a plurality of
• True Nature of a Gospel Church, chap. 7.
f See page 63. f Congreg. Indep., p. 178.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 135
elders or bishops in the apostolic churches is of the
two sides the stronger.”* Dr Davidson says, “No-
thing seems to us more certain, than that there was
a plurality of elders in the primitive churches.”f
If the elders of a primitive church were all public
teachers, where was the room for that exhaustive
labour in teaching which Dr Wardlaw supposed the
term “especially” to indicate 2 If one church had a
number of ministers, each taking his proportion of
work could preach only occasionally; and surely
an occasional sermon could not impose “labour to
fatigue.” “What would have been the use,” I for-
merly asked, in my treatise on the Ruling Eldership,
“of so many stated instructors? Had they been all
ministers of the word, and had twelve, or six, or so
few as three of them, been placed over a handful of
people, how would they have found room for the
exercise of their gifts : There would have been here
such a waste of means as we nowhere find in a divine
administration. Our Independent brethren allow of
no elders but teaching elders; and what is the con-
sequence? With very few exceptions, each of their
churches has but one elder, where each of the primi-
tive churches had a council of them. A fact of this
kind is very significant, and deserves to be well pon-
dered. Each of our Presbyterian churches has a
number of elders; each of the primitive churches had
a number of elders; but our Independent friends,
who plead so earnestly for scriptural institutions,
have in this instance departed from apostolic prece-
* Congreg. Indep., p. 226. f Eccles. Polity, p. 357.
I36 , ON THE DISTINCTION OF
dent, and, even in the case of their largest churches,
have substituted one elder for a college of them.
. . . . . Should they not doubt their interpretation
of Scripture, when it brings them into collision with
scriptural facts? Should they not reason with them-
selves: One teaching elder suffices for a large congre-
gation; therefore they cannot have been all teaching
elders of whom the apostles assigned certainly more
than one, and likely a considerable number, to the
most diminutive of Christian assemblies 7”
Dr Wardlaw, having quoted this passage, says,
“We “suffer the words of exhortation.” We make
no pretensions to infallibility. Nor are we less liable
than our neighbours to fall into inconsistencies.”
Elsewhere Dr Wardlaw says, “The inconsistency of
any body of men with their own principles, is but a
pitiful proof against the principles themselves.”f I
grant that persons may have good principles and not
practise them, and that the erring practice is no valid
argument against the good principles. But Dr
Wardlaw himself argues, page 89, from inconsistency
as indicating the lessons of experience. And if nu-
merous churches, independent of each other, and all
venerating Scripture, take up a principle that leads
them all away from universal primitive usage, there
is room to suspect that a principle found to be un-
workable is not scriptural, and that it is not the
practice so much as the principle that is in fault. I
am not urging any personal charge of inconsistency
against our Independent brethren, but only asking
* Congreg. Indep, p. 221. + Page 210.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 137
them to consider of what their experience is sugges-
tive. If the notion of all elders being public teachers
throws them on a system of eldership so arduous and
unworkable that a plurality, which in the beginning
was always attained, is now almost never attained,
surely this result casts doubt on the hypothesis, and
creates a presumption that the primitive churches
had that system of teaching and ruling elders which
prevails with us, and which is still found equally
practicable as was a collegiate eldership in the first
century.
The passage of my volume on the Eldership which
I have just mentioned as quoted and commented on
by Dr Wardlaw, is attacked with much vehemence
by Dr Davidson.” He is quite indignant at the idea
of one public teacher being considered sufficient for
any church. Since I was speaking of Independent
practice, and of what it indicated, his anger at me
falls really on his party.
What says Dr Wardlaw on the subject? “I have
been amused,” he observes, “ sometimes at certain
churches pluming themselves on their strict confor-
mity to apostolic practice in having their plurality of
elders—and teaching elders too—while the plurality
is the one concern, not the amount of actual efficiency
with which the ends of the office are answered; for
it has just been a plurality, and no more; and the
two composing that plurality, instead of giving them-
selves wholly to the duties of their ministry, have had
their mind and their time occupied, from Monday to
* Eccles. Polity, p. 359.
T38 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
Saturday, with the engagements of their secular
calling. With how much greater effectiveness are
the ends of the office likely to be served by the un-
divided labours of one devoted pastor, than by the
limited and necessarily distracted attendance upon
their official functions that can be given by any two
whatever, so circumstanced [** By such representa-
tions, Dr Wardlaw convinces me that two public
teachers are not needed for one moderately-sized
church, and leads me to infer that a large proportion
of the primitive elders must have been ruling elders,
since I cannot suppose the apostles to have provided
numerous instructors, so clearly shown by Dr Ward-
law to be supernumerary. If a single church has
many pastors, the utmost that can be expected is
that one of them, or two of them, will be adequately
educated and tolerably supported; and under such
circumstances, the uneducated elders will soon shrink
from unequal competition, and leave the higher ser–
vices to superior qualifications. In other words, the
many elders will be such as we have—some of them
thinking it enough to rule well, while others will
labour in the word and doctrine. On these grounds,
I feel warranted in saying with confidence, that Drs
Wardlaw and Davidson, unless they are to part with
an educated ministry altogether, cannot give effect
to their own principles without passing into our prac-
tice; and that when they shall have persuaded the
Congregationalist churches to act on their acknow-
ledgment, that a plurality of elders is the rule of
* Congreg. Indep, p. 225.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I39
Scripture, they will assimilate our religious denomi-
nations, and will prove the most successful Christian
unionists in these honoured days of love and brother-
hood.
But Dr Davidson formally disproves the office of
ruling elder, and I may seem to do him injustice,
unless I meet the objections which he sets in array
against it. “The following considerations,” he says,
“disprove the office of lay eldership:—1. It implies
that a distinction between the laity and clergy was
made in the apostolic period.” In my treatise on the
Eldership, which Dr Davidson honours with his
strictures, I disclaimed the advocacy of lay eldership.
It is a spiritual eldership for which I plead. Will
Dr Davidson maintain that in the apostolic period no
distinction was made between unofficial church mem-
bers and their spiritual office-bearers? Unless he do
so, his first objection is wholly nugatory. “2. Elders,”
he says, “is the appropriated appellation of bishops in
other places of the New Testament. It is therefore
agreeable to usage to understand it of bishops alone
in the present text.” I admit that all elders were
bishops in the primitive churches; for these words,
“elder” and “bishop,” are used interchangeably in the
New Testament. On the other hand, Dr Davidson
admits that all bishops were not in fact public teachers,
and had not the requisite “talents” for such occu-
pation. “Some elders,” he assures us, “ruled, while
others preached. That is a position too manifest to
be called in question. Other parts of the New Tes-
tament would warrant that conclusion, had the text
140 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
in the epistle to Timothy been wanting.” I am per-
fectly willing that all elders be called and considered
bishops, while the distinction of teaching and ruling
bishops is admitted also, and declared too manifest to
be called in question. If it be still said that the dis-
tinction was practical, and not official, I still reply,
that I esteem it a great matter to have the practice
of the primitive churches, and that I am disposed,
moreover, to regard primitive practice as expository
of primitive principles, and to believe that elders who
only ruled, and who were qualified only to rule, had
only ruling assigned them in their appointment. “3.
Stated and ordinary bishops,” says Dr Davidson, “are
elsewhere said to rule.” I admit that all elders should
rule. The question is, whether some should confine
themselves to ruling; and that question is not touched
in this third objection. “4. Double honour, of which
the elders who rule well are counted worthy, must
mean double maintenance, as the succeeding context
shows. But in no passage of Scripture do we find the
least intimation or command towards contributing to
the temporal support of an order of men who do not
teach or preach in public. Such contributions are
due to pastors and bishops—to speaking, not to silent
elders.” This is saying and unsaying to perfection.
Of the elders for whom double honour or pay is
claimed, Dr Davidson admits that “some ruled, while
others preached;” and yet he declares now that
double honour was demanded for speaking elders only.
We have Dr Davidson's admission that some elders
had not aptitude for teaching, and were wise enough
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 141
not to attempt things too high for them. Were these
elders, if they ruled faithfully, to be denied compen-
sation? No, says Paul, as Dr Davidson understands
him ; let those elders ruling well be amply recom-
pensed. “5. In enumerating the qualifications of
elders, the apostle Paul says of all, without exception
or distinction, that they should be apt to teach,
(0162xtuzot.) But if some had no concern in teaching,
this qualification was absolutely worthless.” In thus
expressing himself, Dr Davidson has not a little the
appearance of taking the apostle to task for appoint-
ing men to be elders who had not the requisite
“talents” for teaching, and then saying of them all,
without exception or distinction, that they should be
apt to teach. Some of them, by Dr Davidson's ad-
mission were inapt teachers from natural defect.
Why, if they should have been apt, did Paul appoint
them, knowing their inaptitude 7 When Dr David-
son acknowledges that some taught publicly, and
some did not, he is equally concerned as I am to
understand that aptness for teaching, which is de-
manded of all elders in a varied sense, as applying
either to public instruction or to those more private
modes of teaching which are scarcely less important
than pulpit teaching itself. I now leave the reader
to judge whether Dr Davidson is warranted in say-
ing, “These arguments [which have just been an-
swered] are sufficient to overthrow the hypothesis of
ruling elders.” His objections cannot be brought into
harmony with each other, without admitting every-
thing essential to my position. Certainly they have
I42 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
little weight against his acknowledgments, that Paul
in his epistles to Timothy and elsewhere, plainly dis-
tinguishes between elders who only ruled, and elders
who both ruled and taught; that the primitive
churches had elders whose functions were exhausted
by ruling and governing, and that with these elders
were associated preaching presbyters in the same
college, session, or consistory.
CHAPTER. W.
The distinction of Teaching and Ruling Elders has been very
generally acknowledged by Christian authors and Christian
denominations down to a recent period.
HERE we naturally begin by appealing to the Chris-
tian fathers. As theologians, they are not entitled to
the idolatrous deference with which they are sometimes
regarded. But their testimony is occasionally of weight
in relation to matters of fact; and all we seek to ascer-
tain from them here, is whether there were such office-
bearers as ruling elders in the early Christian church.
The first witness I cite is Justin Martyr, whom I do
not remember to have found adduced by other writers
who defend the elder's office. Indeed, he has been
quoted with confidence on the opposite side. That
Christian philosopher, who was converted about the
year 132, and who suffered martyrdom about 163,
has occasion in his pleadings for the persecuted Chris-
tians, to give repeated descriptions of their worship.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 143
A resolute opponent of the ruling eldership thus
translates one of these passages: “Upon that, which
is called the day of the Sun, there is an assembling
together of all of the respective cities, or residing in
the country; and the recollections of the apostles
[the gospels], and the writings of all the prophets, are
read as long as time permits; when the reader has
ceased, he who presides (6 ºrgosgrog) by a discourse
(316. Aoyov) admonishes and exhorts to the imitation of
things that are good. We then all rise up together,
and offer prayer, and as already mentioned, when the
prayer is ended, bread is brought, and wine and wa-
ter. And he who has the first place (6 ºrgosgrog) again
prays and gives thanks, according to his ability (ign
ôvvoplug ovrº), and the people add their approbation,
saying, Amen. And a distribution and delivery of
the things, upon which thanks have been given, are
made to all, and sent to those who are absent, by the
deacons.” He then speaks of the lifting of a collec-
tion for widows, orphans, prisoners, and strangers,
which is deposited ºrogo, rq ºrgosorori, “with the presi-
dent.” This paragraph is introduced by the late Dr
Wilson of Philadephia, as one of innumerable proofs,
that ruling elders, in our sense of the terms, were
unknown to the Christian fathers. He tells us, “that
Justin Martyr has here a second time described the
officers of a Christian church employed in the most
solemn act of public worship, the eucharist; and
again he has said, they were the ºrgosgrog, scil. Tºgo-
8vrºgog, presiding elder and the deacons.””
* Primitive Government of the Church, p. 19.
I44 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
If the author's theory had been, that every church
had one pastor and a number of deacons, the quota-
tion would have appeared more to his purpose. But
he maintains “that though one person presided, every
presiding presbyter had his co-presbyters or bishops,
for such existed in all the churches, and have appeared
in those of Smyrna, of Philippi, Corinth, and Rome.”
He agrees with us, then, that each church had a num-
ber of presbyters, and quotes a passage from Justin
Martyr, which bears that only one of these admini-
stered the word and sacraments. Surely this au-
thority, instead of being against us, is wholly on our
side. If, in the opinion of Dr Wilson, the elders had
presided by turns, there would have been room for
alleging, that now one conducted worship and now
another, and that they were all public teachers. But
he looks on the presidency as having been a perma-
ment distinction, and tells us, that in the primitive
ages “it was accounted one characteristic of the or-
thodoxy of a church, that it could show a line of
presiding presbyters or bishops from the days of the
apostles.” The amount of this testimony therefore
is, that each church had a company of elders, and
that one of these presided at meetings of his bre-
thren, and conducted the public worship of the Lord's-
day.
This testimony of Justin Martyr is in every view
highly important. He is a very early writer. He
was a man of extensive and accurate information.
He professedly described the condition and worship,
* Prim. Gov. of the Church, p. 92.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 145
not of a single congregation, but in general, of Chris-
tian churches. And Dr Wilson admits, “that when
he wrote his two apologies for the Christians which
were within fifty years of John, there were only pres-
byters, whereof one in each church was the presiding
presbyter, who administered the eucharist; and dea-
cons who carried it to the people.”* Dr.Wilson should
have said, that one in each church preached, prayed,
and administered the eucharist; for in the passage
quoted from Justin all these duties are equally
ascribed to one functionary. Each church had then
a number of elders, of whom one only conducted pub-
lic worship. What evidence, not inspired, could be
more decisive of the question at issue 2
If it be said, that more than one elder certainly
preached in some of the churches; the reply is easy,
that some churches have two or more ministers still,
and along with them a company of ruling elders.
And even though it could be made good that pres-
byters in general began to preach after Justin's days,
we need not marvel that ambition should show itself
in this class as in others—that ruling elders should
become preachers, when preaching elders were be-
coming prelates, and deacons themselves were arro-
gating the functions of the holy ministry.
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who embraced Chris-
tianity in 246, and suffered martyrdom in 258, has
many distinct allusions to this class of office-bearers.
His 29th epistle, for example, is addressed to the
elders and deacons; and the manner in which he
* Prim. Gov. of the Church, p. 227.
K
I46 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
there speaks of the elders, has led his commentator,
Bishop Fell, to remark, in a foot-note, that “ St
Paul appears to have distinguished (1 Tim. v. 17)
anciently between ruling elders and teachers.”
Origen, who was born at Alexandria, A.D. 185,
gives an account (Adv. Celsum, lib. iii. p. 142, edit.
Cant.) of church discipline as administered in his
age. Archbishop Potter, in his “Discourse of Church
Government,” chap. v., thus translates a portion of
it: “The Christians try and examine as far as 'tis
possible the very souls of those who desire to be
their hearers; they first instruct them privately, and
when they are found sufficiently disposed to lead a
good life, they introduce them into a public assembly.
Here they who have been but lately introduced, and
have not received the symbol of purification (that is,
baptism), are assigned to a different place from the
rest, who have already given full proof of their sin-
cere resolution to addict themselves wholly to the
Christian doctrine and way of life. Some of these
latter are ordained to inquire into the lives and con-
versations of those who present themselves to be
admitted, in order to prohibit infamous and vile per-
sons from coming into their assembly.”
It will be observed, from this passage, that of the
Christians who were fully proved, some were ordained
to inquire into the lives and conversations of applicants
* Epistola, xxix. Cyprianus Presbyteris et Diaconibus Fra-
tribus, Salutem. [Aut modo cum Presbyteris.] Inter Pres-
byteros, Rectores, et Doctores, olim distinxisse videtur Divus
Paulus, Epist. 1 ad Tim. c. iv. 17. (A misprint for v. 17.)—
Bremae, M.D.C.xc.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 147
for admission. What could be said more character-
istic of the position and functions of our ruling elders?
Hilary, deacon of the church of Rome, who wrote
in the fourth century, and whose writings are found
at present among the works of Ambrose, tells us, in
his comments on this chapter, that “the synagogues,
and afterwards the church, had elders, without whose
counsel nothing was transacted in the church. By
what negligence it fell into disuse I know not, unless,
perhaps, by the indolence, or rather by the pride, of
the teachers, while they alone wished to appear
something.”* Here the counselling and teaching
office-bearers are clearly distinguished; the antiquity
of ruling elder is explicitly asserted; and while the
office is represented as falling into disuse, the writer
ascribes the suppression of it to indolent or tyrannical
bishops, who wished to rest or reign undisturbed by
associates. Some have tried to torture the words of
Hilary into another meaning, but their testimony to
a ruling eldership has been owned by eminent men
of all parties—by Bucer, Peter Martyr, Calvin,
Whitgift, Zanchius, &c., &c.
Augustin, in the fourth century, makes frequent
mention of this class of officers—to the extent, at
least, of showing that he and many other pastors had
elders who did not preach associated with them in
the superintendence of their flocks.
* “Synagoga et postea ecclesia seniores habuit quorum sine
consilio nihil agebatur in ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia ob-
soleverit nescio, nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia,
dum Solivolunt aliquid videri.”—(Commentaria Sancti Ambro-
sii, 1 Tim. v. 1.)
I48 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
Regarding the testimonies of some of these Fathers,
as formerly cited by me, Dr Davidson says, “Surely
if Dr King had known the thorough examination to
which these quotations [from Cyprian, Origen, and
Hilary] have been subjected by Rothe and Neander,
he would have allowed them to sleep undisturbed,
rather than affix interpretations to them which they
refuse to bear.”
Dr Davidson has not adduced the reasoning of
Rothe and Neander on which he lays so much stress,
and I am not bound to answer a pointless reference.
I may remind the reader, however, that Neander
believed elders to have been appointed, in the first
instance, specifically to rule. He says, “They were
originally chosen as in the synagogue, not so much
for the instruction and edification of the church, as
for taking the lead in its general management.”
Dr Davidson quotes with approbation his saying,
that “ruling and governing evidently exhaust what
belonged from the beginning to the office of presbyter
or bishop, and for which it was originally instituted.”
When there were elders who only ruled, were there
no ruling elders? Surely there must have been, for
elders who only ruled could be nothing else than
ruling elders; and by the united testimony of Neander
and Dr Davidson this state of things existed from the
beginning.
For the legitimacy of the appeal to Cyprian, I
have cited the acknowledgment of Bishop Fell; for
that to Origen, I have given the translation of Arch-
* Planting of the Christian Church, p. 42.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I49
bishop Potter; for the view taken of Hilary's words,
I have pleaded the sanction of such men as Peter
Martyr, who was Professor of Divinity at Oxford,
and Canon of Christ's Church. The concurrence of
such men in an interpretation of the Fathers favour-
able to Presbytery will not be considered either in-
terested or insignificant. But suppose that Scripture
and the Fathers were alike to fail us, it would still
be extraordinary that Dr Davidson could speak of
Calvin as inventing the ruling elder's office.
The churches of the Waldenses had ruling elders,
when sound doctrine and pure discipline, banished
from the world besides, took refuge in their valleys
and fastnesses during the Dark Ages. This fact is
abundantly proved in Blair's history of that interest-
ing people. “To another book of authority,” he says,
“we must pay particular attention, which is entitled,
‘The Ancient Discipline of the Evangelical Churches
in the Walleys of Piedmont.' . . . . . No writer men-
tions any copy as dated earlier than 1120.”* This
book of discipline, as contained in Mr Blair's appen-
dix, has one article concerning pastors, and a distinct
article concerning elders. Of the latter it says,
“Rulers and elders are chosen out of the people,
according to the diversity of the work in the unity of
Christ.” In a separate article on excommunication,
it says, “But in case all these chastisements produce
no amendment of life, nor forbearance of evils, Christ
himself teacheth us how we ought to proceed against
* History of the Waldenses, by the Rev. Adam Blair, vol. i.,
book ii., chap. 1: Twelfth century.
l60 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
such an one: if he hear not those, tellit to the church;
that is, to the rulers by whom the church is governed
and conserved.”* In relation to those passages, Mr
Blair remarks, “They had three orders of men above
their ordinary members: the bishop, or teaching
elder; the lay elder; and the deacon. The existence
of the second class is clearly expressed in article 4th
of the foregoing discipline, for they are called rulers
and elders chosen out of the people.”f
At the time of the Reformation, when the church
cast off the accumulated abuses of many centuries,
and reappeared in all the loveliness of its primitive
simplicity, the creeds and confessions of almost all
reformed countries emphatically avowed the divine
appointment of this office, and exhibited, in vivid
lights, its high importance to the prosperity of Christ's
kingdom. It was thus owned by the reformed churches
of Switzerland, Poland, Germany, Holland, Belgium,
and France. Even the Church of England is no excep-
tion. The same convocation which passed the Thirty-
nine Articles, sanctioned a catechism drawn up by the
Rev. Dean Nowell, in which the maintenance of disci-
pline by a ruling eldership is unequivocally advocated.
In the concluding part of Mr Nowell's catechism,
the following answer is given as to the best means of
remedying impure communion: “In well-constituted
and well-regulated churches, a certain plan and order
of government, as I have already said, was instituted
and observed. Elders were chosen, that is, eccle-
* History of the Waldenses, by the Rev. Adam Blair, vol. i.,
pp. 534–536. f Vol. i., p. 540.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I51
siastical rulers, in order to maintain and conduct
ecclesiastical discipline. To these belonged authority,
reprimand, and chastisement by censure. These, with
the co-operation of the pastor, if they knew any who,
by false opinions, or turbulent errors, or silly super-
stitions, or a vicious and profligate life, brought pub-
licly a great reproach on the church, of God, and
could not, without profanation, approach the Lord's
Supper, repelled and rejected such from communion,
and would not again admit them till they had satis-
fied the church by public penitence.” ” In support
of these views, we are referred, in the margin, to a
number of texts, and among these, to 1 Tim. v. 17.
Respecting this publication, Bishop Randolph says,
in the preface to the first edition of his Enchiridion,
“It is another object of the present plan, to show the
genuine sense of the Church of England, in her ear-
liest days, both as to the grounds of separation from
the Church of Rome, and the doctrines which, after
a long struggle, having entirely emancipated herself
* “In ecclesiis bene institutis atque moratis, certa, ut antea
dixi, ratio atque ordo gubernationis instituebatur atque obser-
vabatur. Deligebantur seniores, id est magistratus ecclesias-
tici, qui disciplinam ecclesiasticam tenerent atque Colerent.
Ad hos, authoritas, animadversio, atque castigatio censoria per-
tinebant: hi, adhibito etiam pastore, si quos esse cognoverant
qui, velopinionibus falsis, vel turbulentis erroribus, vel anili-
bus superstitionibus, vel vita vitiosa flagitiosaque, magnam
publice offensionem ecclesiæ Dei adferrent, quique sine coenae
Dominicae profanatione accederenon possent, eos a communione
repellebant atque rejiciebant, neque rursum admittebant,
donec poenitentia publica ecclesiae satisfecissent.”—(Noelli
Catechismus, contained in the “Enchiridion. Theologicum ” of
Bishop Randolph.)
I52 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
from that yoke, she at length finally adopted and rati-
fied. For this purpose, my choice has been princi-
pally directed to such works as had the sanction of
public authority, and which may therefore be relied
on as containing the final and decided opinions of our
Reformers, approved of in the general by the church
at large. . . . Of this kind (that is, thus pub-
licly received) were “Jewell's Apology,’ and “No-
well's Catechism,' the former of which is said to have
been published with the consent of the bishops, and
was always understood to speak the sense of the
whole church, in whose name it is written; the latter
had the express sanction of convocation.”
Since these, then, were the principles of the Eng-
lish Church, why were they not carried into effect 7
Bishop Burnet lets us into the secret. He informs us,
in the preface to the second part of his “History of
the Reformation,” that “there were many learned and
pious divines in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's
reign, who, being driven beyond sea, had observed
the new models set up in Geneva, and other places,
for the censuring of scandalous persons, of mixed
judicatories of the ministers and laity ; and these, re-
flecting on the great looseness of life which had been
universally complained of in King Edward's time,
thought such a platform might be an effectual way
for keeping out a return of the like disorders.” Then
we are told of certain statesmen who demonstrated to
the Queen, “that these models would certainly bring
with them a great abatement of her prerogative, since,
if the concerns of religion came into popular hands,
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 153
there would be a power set up distinct from hers,
over which she could have no authority. This she
perceived well; and therefore resolved to maintain
the ancient government of the church.”
The present churchwardens appear to be the wreck
of this scriptural order of functionaries. In their
annual attendance on the visitations of the archdea-
con, they swear that they will present to that digni-
tary the names of all parishioners who are notoriously
immoral.” The oath has become a dead letter; but,
though inoperative at present, it may be deemed
commemorative of past realities.
The earlier Congregational churches also had their
elders. This was general in America. The earlier
Independents of New England were English Puri-
tans, who sought refuge on a foreign soil from the
convulsions and persecutions of their native country.
For a considerable period, the only work on church
government at all acknowledged by them as an ex-
position of their polity, was John Cotton's well-
known “Book of the Keys.” This author assigns the
government of the church to elders, while he concedes
certain privileges to the brethren or private mem-
bers; and he also asserts “the necessary communion
of churches in synods,” in order to rectify maladmini- .
stration. “But it was convenient,” says Mr C. Ma-
ther, “the churches of New England should have a
system of their discipline extracted from the Word of
God, and exhibited to them with a more effectual ac-
* Tracts for the Times, 59, quoted in the Plea of Presbytery,
p. 164—a Work which contains much valuable information.
154 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
knowledged and established recommendation.” With
this view, a bill was presented to the “general court”
in the year 1646, for the calling of a synod, to pre-
pare a directory of government.
The synod met at Cambridge (New England), and
produced the famous “Cambridge Platform of Church
Discipline.” When this work was finished, “the
Synod broke up with singing the song of Moses
and the Lamb, in the fifteenth chapter of the Reve-
lation.”
The platform was presented by the synod to the
general court which convened it, in 1648; and more
than thirty years afterwards, it was unanimously
approved of by a synod of all the churches in the
colony assembled at Boston. What, then, is the
teaching of this important and venerable document
On the question at issue?
Its seventh chapter treats “of ruling elders and
deacons.” “The ruling elder's office,” we are there
told, “is distinct from the office of pastor and teacher:
the ruling elders are not so called to exclude the
pastors and teachers from ruling, because ruling and
governing is common to those with the other: where-
as, attending to teach and preach the word is peculiar
unto the former. The ruling elder's work is to join
with the pastor and teacher in those acts of spiritual
rule which are distinct from the ministry of the word
and sacraments.” Then follows a very excellent
summary of the duties of elders.
The Independents of England witnessed in times
past to the same principle. Neal tells us, that “to
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 155
inform the world of the real principles of the Puritans
of those times, the Rev. Mr Bradshaw published a
treatise, entitled, ‘English Puritanism, containing the
main opinions of the rigidest sort of those that went
by that name in the realm of England, which the
learned Dr Ames translated into Latin, for the bene-
fit of foreigners.”
I have the tract itself before me, and shall adduce
its testimony in its own words. In chap. iii., the
Independents of those days are alleged to “hold that
the pastors, teachers, and ruling elders of particular
congregations are, or ought to be, the highest spiri-
tual officers in the church.” The fourth chapter
purports to be “concerning the elders,” and its open-
ing section is as follows: “Forasmuch as, through the
malice of Sathan, there are, and will be, in the best
churches, many disorders and scandles committed
that redound to the reproach of the gospel, and are
a stumbling-block to many both without and within
the church, and sith they judge it repugnant to the
Word of God that any minister should be a sole ruler,
and, as it were, a pope, so much as in one parish,
much more that he should be one over a whole dio-
cese, province, or nation, they hold, that by God's
ordinance, the congregation should make choice of
other officers, as assistants unto the ministers in the
spirituall regiment of the congregation, who are by
office, jointly with the ministers of the word, to be
as monitors and overseers of the manners and conver-
sation of all the congregation, and one of another,
* History of the Puritans, part ii, chap. i. p. 449—4th edit.
I56 w ON THE DISTINCTION OF
that so every one may be more wary of their ways,
and that the pastors and doctors may better attend
to prayer and doctrine, and by their means may be
made better acquainted with the estate of the people,
when other eyes besides their own shall wake and
watch over them.”
The celebrated Dr Owen, one of the brightest
ornaments of Independency, has a strong passage on
1 Tim. v. 17, in his “True Nature of a Gospel .
Church,” where he chastises objectors to the office of
ruling elder with a zealous severity. After copying
the pithy paragraphs, I have erased them, to give
another passage, quite as persuasive in itself, from
another of his works which is less known. In his
treatise on “Worship and Discipline, by way of Ques-
tion and Answer,” he says, “Question 31. Are there
appointed any elders in the church, whose office and
duty consists in rule and government only 7 Answer.
Elders not called to teach ordinarily or administer
the Sacraments, but to assist and help in the rule and
government of the church, are mentioned in the Scrip-
ture, (Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28; 1 Tim. v. 17.)
. . . The words of the apostle to this purpose are
express (1 Tim. v. 17), “Let the elders that rule well,
be counted worthy of double honour, especially those
who labour in the word and doctrine. For the
words expressly assign two sorts of elders, whereof
some only attend unto rule; others, moreover, labour
in the word and doctrine. . . . And besides what is
thus expressly spoken concerning the appointment of
this sort of elders in the church, their usefulness, in
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 157
the necessity of their work and employment, is evi-
dent. For whereas a constant care in the church,
that the conversation of all the members of it be such
as becometh the gospel, that the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ be not evil spoken of, is of great concern-
ment and importance; and the pastors and teachers,
being to give up themselves continually unto prayer
and the ministry of the word, cannot attend unto the
constant and daily oversight thereof, the usefulness
of these elders, whose proper and peculiar work it is
to have regard unto the holy walking of the church,
must needs be manifest unto all. But whereas, in
most churches there is little or no regard unto the
personal holiness of the members of them, it is no
wonder that no account should be had of them who
are ordained by the Lord Christ to look after it, and
promote it.””
Dr Doddridge, another eminent Congregationalist,
says, in commenting on 1 Tim. v. 17, [“especially
they who labour,”] “This seems to insinuate that
there were some who, though they presided in the
church, were not employed in preaching.”
Dr Dwight, whom Mr Orme, himself an Inde-
pendent, characterises as a distinguished American
divine of the Congregational order, thus writes in
his “System of Theology” (vol. v. p. 171), “Preach-
ing is everywhere in the Scriptures exhibited as an
employment superior to that of ruling. In the pas-
sage quoted from 1 Tim. v. 17, this truth is decisively
* See works, vol. xv. pp. 504, 505. Johnstone and Hunter,
Edinburgh, 1853.
lö8 * ON THE TOISTINCTION OF
exhibited. Here St Paul directs that preaching
elders should be accounted worthy of more honour
than ruling elders.”
Later writers of the Episcopalian and Independent
persuasions have become more chary of eulogising
the ruling elder's office, as considering it a con-
stituent of presbytery, antagonist to their systems.
Occasional admissions of the same character, how-
ever, are still to be met with in modern publica-
tions.
“In two passages,” says the late Dr Arnold
(Gal. vi. 6, and 1 Tim. v. 17), “he asserts the claim
of the governors of the church to be maintained by
the church. In the first, indeed, he speaks only of
such governors of the church as are instructors:
‘Let him that is taught in the word, communicate
unto him that teacheth in all good things;’—but,
in the second passage, while he acknowledges the
especial claim of such, he extends the right to all
rulers of the church generally, whatever may be
their particular functions: ‘Let the elders that rule
well be counted worthy of double honour.’”* We
are told, in this paragraph, that Gal. vi. 6 speaks
only of such governors as are instructors, and thus
far differs from 1 Tim. v. 17, which treats of rulers
generally, including those who are not instructors:
in other words, the distinction is acknowledged of
ruling and teaching elders.
Archbishop Whately says—“The plan pursued by
* Fragment on the Church, by Thomas Arnold, D.D., chap.
ii., p. 25.
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I59
the apostles seems to have been to establish a great
number of small, (in comparison with most modern
churches,) distinct, and independent communities,
each governed by its own single bishop, consulting,
no doubt, with his own presbyters, and accustomed
to act in concurrence with them,” &c. * As to the
mutual dependence, or independence, of Christian
communities, I am not now called particularly to
speak: but here is a distinct admission on the sub-
ject in hand, that, on the plan of the apostles,
every bishop or pastor consulted his elders as Pres-
byterian ministers do, and acted in concert with
them.
A powerful lay petition has been recently present-
ed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It recommends
that the clergy be increased in number: but that is
not the only burden of its prayer. “Secondly,” it
says, “provision must be made for a more systematic
employment of laymen in the exercise of functions
which do not belong exclusively to the clergy.” It
urges the propriety of “sanctioning and encourag-
ing the employment of a class of laymen, who, with-
out altogether abandoning their worldly callings,
might be set apart, under episcopal authority, to act
as visitors of the sick, Scripture readers, catechists,
and the like, in parishes where their introduction
should be approved of by the parochial clergy.”
“The system of district visiting,” say the peti-
tioners, “ and the appointment of lay Scripture
readers under clerical superintendence, have already
* Kingdom of Christ, p. 165.
160 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
been adopted, we believe, with much success, in
many populous parishes; but the present state of
society requires that both these means of usefulness
should be greatly extended, and brought into more
immediate connection with our ecclesiastical arrange-
ments; for we are fully persuaded that the true
strength of our church can never be completely
known until, by some such means, her lay members
are enabled, under direct sanction and control, to
take part in the discharge of all those offices which
are not, by her constitution, restricted to the three
orders of the ministry.”
The idea of organic change being contemplated in
this improvement, is emphatically disclaimed in the
following terms:—“In venturing to urge upon your
Grace the adoption of these measures, which would
supply a link much needed between parochial clergy
and the community at large, we are far from desir-
ing to make any innovation in our ecclesiastical
policy. We only seek to restore to full vigour and
efficiency one of the orders in our church, and to
promote the appointment of officers already recog-
nised by ecclesiastical authority, and for which, at
no period since the Reformation, has the position of
the church more imperatively called.”
These are the admissions of modern Episcopalians.
Our Congregationalist brethren occasionally favour
us with kindred acknowledgments. In a discourse
preached at the setting apart of the Rev. John Rey-
nolds, quoted in an able sermon on the Presbyterian
eldership, by the late Dr Stewart of Liverpool, the
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 161
late Dr Bogue says: “Congregational churches, in
general, employ deacons to perform in part the office
of the elders who were ordained by apostolic autho-
rity to rule. Presbytery here comes nearest to the
primitive pattern, though some difference still re-
mains. Besides the pastor, it has both ruling elders
and deacons.” “To speak,” says Dr Vaughan, “of
one man as being the pastor of a church, including
from six to eight hundred members, and of a con-
gregation making much more than double that num-
ber of persons, is assuredly preposterous. The
pastoral duty of such a minister must necessarily be
left in much, very much, the greater part undone,
and be devolved, if performed in any shape, on a
number of deacons, when they become co-pastors in
every respect, except that they may not be preachers.”
Dr Vaughan would prefer a plurality of ministers,
but he admits that deacons, as a matter of fact, be-
come in the larger churches co-pastors in every
respect, except that they are not preachers—in other
words, they are ruling elders. Let them be called
what they are, and have all the advantage of know-
ing expressly their duties, and being solemnly ordain-
ed to the discharge of them, and the consequent
benefits will be such that Dr Vaughan may be led
to admire the theory of a ruling eldership, of which
he has confessedly got the practice. s
* Congregationalism, p. 189.
l62 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
CHAPTER WI.
Benefits which would result to Independent Churches, and
to the Methodist Connection, from instituting a Ruling
Eldership.
ON the grounds which have been stated, I conclude
that it is the duty of every church to have a com-
pany of ruling elders. Congregationalist churches,
by adopting this polity, would gain these great and
obvious benefits:—
First, Ministers of the word, when associated in
the government of the church with elders who do
not preach, would have a shared, and consequently
diminished, responsibility. Congregationalists admit
that elders are specially entrusted with ruling ; but
when, as with them, there is only one elder who
both rules and teaches, this special trust, in resting
upon one individual, cannot fail, more particularly
in critical junctures, to be disquieting and oppressive.
Besides, if the course pursued by the minister give
dissatisfaction, all the odium recoils on, himself, and
he is placed personally in a false position with the
people of his charge. Hence alienations, and too
frequently separations, result from such feuds. The
case is totally different when the minister, finding a
difficulty in superintendence thrown in his way,
consigns the removal of it to the session. There he
is one of many. What is done is not his act indivi-
dually or prominently; and the people, so far from
being disposed to accumulate blame on his head, are
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 163
glad, so far as possible, to hold him excused, and to
censure his confederates; for churches like to think
well of their teachers, and take any alternative that
offers itself rather than quarrel with the hand that
dispenses the bread of life.
The elders of a church, being associated with the
minister in important work and by the most sacred
ties, become emphatically his friends; and as they
are usually men of influence, they diffuse their own
feelings of attachment throughout a congregation;
and hence the pastor becomes more and more en-
deared to his flock, so that a severance of their rela-
tion is felt to be very painful, and in a country where
the system of eldership is in healthful operation,
seldom occurs. It is happily a rare thing in Scotland
to hear of a minister demitting his charge on account
of misunderstandings: I am afraid that the same
remark is not applicable to Congregationalism in
England.
Secondly, The sessional system would secure for
Congregationalist churches a more thorough superin-
tendence. Deacons so far do the work of elders;
but when that work devolves on parties to whom it
has not been professedly committed, and who have
besides their proper and distinctive duties, it is then
but partially and irregularly discharged.
To compensate for this felt deficiency, some churches
of the Independents appoint Committees of Discipline
and Committees of Wisitation. But these are sorry
substitutes for scriptural office-bearers. If an indi-
vidual come into a house to counsel or reprove some
I64 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
member of the family in a case of delicacy where
words need weight to give them persuasiveness, what
force will there be in the announcement—“I appear
here as one of a Committee ?” Widely different is
the effect when an individual, clothed with an office
of Christ's appointment, interposes to plead His cause
and enforce His commandments. There is something
dreadfully wrong where the suggestions of such an
adviser are refused deference and consideration.
Elders who do their duty are not only respected
but beloved by the people; and hence they form a
bond of connection between worshippers themselves,
by which many a church has been held together and
brought safely through difficulties when there was no
stated pastor, or the condition of the pastoratetended
to dispersion and ruin. If at the present time all the
Independent churches of England had companies of
elders, and each"elder visited half-yearly a section of
the Christian people assigned to his more immediate
charge, we should hear less of the conquests effected
by the searching proselytising zeal of Popery and
Puseyism.
Thirdly, The adoption of a sessional system by the
Independent churches of England would have a
tendency to retain in their communion persons of
superior endowments. They who are qualified to
be useful would not then need to join such sects
as that of the Plymouth Brethren to find room for
the exercise of their gifts. It is true that deacons
take a spiritual charge; but their avowed business is
the serving of tables, and extraneous and unacknow-
z
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 165
ledged functions are always executed at disadvan-
tage. It is true also that committees may help the
pastor, and make amends to some extent for his
lack of service; but this expedient has no aspect of
scriptural warrant, and rather acknowledges a void
than fills it effectively. The church should surely
have offiges bearing the stamp of New Testament
sanction, which will give to competent persons all
facilities for usefulness, without rendering them liable
to the charge of irregularity or assumption. The
institution of a ruling eldership plainly opens such a
channel for the free development and action of bene-
ficence. Presbyterial churches are so desirous to
have well-qualified elders, that whenever an indivi-
dual evinces qualifications for superintendence, and
is of consistent character, his difficulty is to avoid the
office rather than to obtain it; and I have no doubt
that this fact presents in part the reason why the
Plymouthist system is almost unknown in Scotland.
Fourthly, The adoption of a sessional system tends
to the conservation of sound doctrine in churches.
Elders find it necessary, for their character and for
the comfortable performance of their work, to be
familiar with Scripture and with the best known
evangelical treatises. They are not engaged in eru-
dite speculations which, in exercising reason, are
easily perverted to foster its pride and turn it away
from fundamental truths and practical godliness.
That reading which suits their functions best is that
which is fullest of Christ—that which with least
artifice and eloquence feeds the soul, and which,
166 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
above all, supplies a word in season for a death-bed.
For such a class of men rationalism has few charms,
and German neology will penetrate with difficulty
into any church of which the views and spirit bear
the impress of their oversight.
Fifthly, The adoption of a sessional system by
churches devoid of it, would lead gradually and
guardedly to other improvements. Few will deny
that amendments are called for, even in religious de-
nominations the most exemplary and useful, to meet
the exigencies of the times. The Independent Eng-
lish churches, in a season of trial, are, by their own
confession, not manifesting all that unity or power
which are essential to progress and victory. But
changes are hazardous, and we are tempted to bear
with existing evils rather than encounter the per-
adventures of innovation. In the multitude of coun-
sellors there is safety; and in no case is this maxim
more applicable than to a body of men chosen to
office because of their sound judgment and excellent
Christian character, and interested alike in the
honour of their minister and the prosperity of the
flock. If every Nonconformist society of Christians
had its assembly of freely chosen elders, materials
now loose within these societies would come to be
cemented, and this internal consolidation would fa-
vour a stability of mutual support between churches; ,
and the charges of incoherency and feebleness brought
against Nonconformity, both by its friends and foes,
would be speedily refuted by the mighty acts of an
aggregated and ever-gathering strength. And why
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 167
should Independent churches have each its con-
sessus of elders in our days as in former times?
That every church should have a plurality of presby-
ters, is on all hands admitted; and that single admis-
sion, fully acted on, would work a reformation, and
bring us towards agreement. But we have other
elements in common. Dr Davidson admits and con-
tends, that of the primitive elders some ruled only,
while others ruled and taught. He does not think
that eventually this was a difference of principle, but
he argues strenuously that the difference existed.
Both he and Dr Wardlaw think that the payment of
elders may occasionally be dispensed with.* They
both think that there may be a president among the
elders, or, as we should say, a moderator of session;f
and the Rev. Dr Halleyi and the Rev. John Kelly Š
have expressed the same sentiments. The only re-
maining point of difference respects the sort of ordi-
nation elders should have. Is it to be the same for
all elders, whether they rule only or teach also 7 I
have reasoned that it is most scriptural and reason-
able to ordain men only to those functions which they
are actually to discharge. BUT I SHALL CONSIDER
THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN US VERY SMALL IF ONE
GENERAI, FORM OF ORDINATION IS ALLOWED TO IN-
TRODUCE AN ADEQUATE NUMBER OF LABOURERS, AND
SUCH A DISTRIBUTION OF THEIR WORK AS WILL SECURE
TO THE CHURCH THE WARIED BENEFIT OF DIFFERENT
* Eccles. Polity, p. 369; Congreg. Indep., p. 223.
+ Eccles. Polity, p. 38; Congreg. Indep., pp. 174, 175.
it Congreg. Lect., p. 63. ---
º
º
3 Speech reported in the British Banner, Oct. 22, 1852.
168 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
GIFTS-THE GUIDANCE OF THE WISE AND THE PRELEC-
TIONS OF THE ELOQUENT.
A ruling eldership is nowhere more needed than
in the Methodist Connection. The Wesleyans have
done a great work. They have directed their efforts
to the necessitous in every clime; and whether we
mark their progress in Great Britain, or on the Con-
tinent, or among the heathen, it is everywhere
radiant with the inscription, “Unto the poor the
gospel is preached.” Deeply calamitous would it be
for the interests of our common Christianity, if a
denomination of Christians so energetic and useful
should be arrested or enfeebled in its course. But
the divisions now existing in its ranks are formidable,
especially when viewed in relation to their cause—a
dislike of exclusive and irresponsible pastoral power.
“Liberty,” says Bunsen, “is inseparable from abuse,
and therefore from scandal: the political history of
the politically freest nation in the world is the best
proof of that. But men and Christians ought not to
be frightened by such abuse and such scandal into
a betrayal of the sacred cause of liberty and truth.”
The same writer observes, that, “in all congregational
and ecclesiastical institutions, Christian freedom,
within limits conformable to Scripture, constitutes the
first requisite for a vital restoration.”” These words
should have more weight, as coming from a distin-
guished foreigner, f whose country is less favoured
* See Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i., Pref. xix., and vol. iii.
Introd. xv.
‘i: “The distinguished representative of the Sovereign of a
great kingdom, a zealous and influential member of the Evan-
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. 169
than our own with free institutions. The British mind
is averse to despotism, and most of all to clerical des-
potism; and a religious party regarded as wearing this
badge, and refusing, when entreated by thousands of
its members, to popularise more liberally than the Wes-
leyan Connection has done its administration, must
henceforth contend with extraordinary difficulties.
The eminent talent, piety, and services of such men as
Dr Bunting, may do much, very much, for any cause
favoured with them; but in these latitudes it is hard for
any man, however good and great, to pilot and impel a
vessel against the current of public opinion. I have
endeavoured to show that the Scriptures do not assign
to ministers of the word this invidious position; and
if the case be so, we are not at liberty to brave popular
disapproval founded in scriptural conviction. A free
choice of office-bearers, more especially as exemplified
in a ruling eldership, is the cure; and if the denomi-
nation contain any number of men approaching in
excellence to some of its members with whom I have
the happiness to be acquainted, their admission into
Conference would be an accession of strength to all
holy influences, and would promise to the Connection
a brightening future, by which the lustre even of its
own past history would be surpassed and eclipsed. *
gelical Church of Germany, who for nearly twenty years was
the King of Prussia's minister and plenipotentiary at Rome, and
has subsequently held the same reponsible office for more than.
twelve in London.”—Edinburgh Review, Jan. 1853, Art. i.
* The Watchman and Wesleyan Advertiser has honoured me
with at least two able and elaborate articles on this volume.
The writer expresses himself energetically, but at the same
time with kindness and courtesy. In the second article (of
I70 ON THE DISTINCTION OF
date July 13, 1853), the reviewer “endeavours to show into
what difficulties.” I am “brought when called upon to defend
the peculiar tenet of Presbyterianism—the ruling eldership—
whether against Congregationalist, or (more especially) Epis-
copalian opponents.” This ruling eldership he pronounces to
be a “figment; ” “the weakness and difficulty of the Presby-
terian Church in theory, involving its expounders and defenders
in inconsistency at every turn.”
And what is the reviewer's own mind on the subject 7 “That
there were some who laboured in the word and doctrine less
frequently and systematically, less formally or publicly, than
others,” he “thinks no ingenuous and well-informed student
of Scripture and early ecclesiastical history will deny.” There
is thus admitted to have been a distinction between elders who
ruled, and elders who both ruled and taught in the primitive
churches—a distinction confessedly pointed at and recognised
in Paul's Epistle to Timothy, of which the language is quoted
by the reviewer. So far well. The writer to this extent
agrees with us, and differs with others as to the just interpre-
tation of an important and much-disputed passage of Scripture.
But he considers this distinction to have been “practical,”
and to have involved no sort of principle; to have been, “so to
speak, accidental,” and, in every view, a matter of So little con-
sequence that no place should be assigned to it in a discussion
on church government. I cannot acquiesce in this conclusion.
The distinction is allowed to have existed in apostolic times;
its existence is confessedly recognised in the language of Paul,
who does not speak of it as either improper or insignificant,
but requires the church to act in accordance with its claims;
and the fact that every church, no matter how small, was by
apostolic requirement to have a company of elders—who could
have found no place for their functions if they had been all
public teachers—shows, I apprehend, that every church was
expected and appointed to have elders who rule well, in discri-
mination from elders who also labour in word and doctrine;
and that, to use language which the reviewer repudiates, this
was designed to be “a permanent, official, and definite distinc-
tion in the church of Christ.” No other explanation harmo-
mises with the facts. Nor can we revert in our usages to the
apostolic multiplicity of elders, without reverting to the apos-
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I71
tolic distribution of them into rulers and teachers. Get a num- .
ber of elders for each church, and, if instruction is to be efficient,
some will rule simply, while one or more will teach also; and
however much some may scorn this inevitable distinction as
accidental and diminutive, it has only to be adopted and al-
lowed free course in order to modify beneficially the entire
complexion and spirit of ecclesiastical rule.
But the reviewer argues that I declare ruling elders to be
“spiritual office-bearers” equally as teaching presbyters.
Therefore they cease to belong to the people, they become a
branch of the pastorate, and lay liberty is consequently defunct
in Presbyterian churches. “What becomes,” he asks, “of the
special representativeship of elders—of popular election and
representation—of the popular element in Presbyterian church
assemblies? All these fancies are dissipated; and when closely
sifted, nothing is found in Presbyterianism except mere clerical
exclusiveness.” My answer is, that the liberty of Presbyterian
churches does not lie mainly or essentially in the distinction of
teaching and ruling elders, but in the popular choice of all
office-bearers, to whatever grade or order belonging—a view
which my language in this part of the volume failed in the
first edition adequately to express, though it had been unequi-
vocally presented in prior pages, towards the close of chap. iii.,
part 3. For further elucidation of the point, an illustration
may be derived from the British Constitution. The House of
Lords is not anti-popular, simply as being composed of Peers;
nor the House of Commons democratic, simply as being com-
posed of Commoners. The main difference lies in having or not
having a privileged constituency. The rights of the Peerage
are no doubt hereditary; but if the people came to elect the
members of the House of Lords, that assembly would have “a
popular element,” though it still consisted of Peers. And if the
House of Commons were a self-elected body, or packed by the
nominees of aristocrats, it would become essentially anti-
popular and despotic, though the members composing it still
bore the appellation of Commoners. Freedom depends on the
franchise. A church having pastors only would be a free
church, if the pastors were popularly elected; and a church
having elders would be enthralled, if the elders were the no-
minees of the minister, and he the nominee of a patron.
I72, ON THE DISTINCTION OF
At the same time, there is much in the circumstance—of
which the reviewer makes little account—that ruling elders
are chosen from as well as by the people. Here, again, temporal
polity may illustrate the spiritual. Our cities have a surer
freedom and a better guarantee for the right understanding of
their interests, and true sympathy with them on the part of the
powers that be, that their magistrates are fellow.citizens and
not strangers, still belonging to the people in all that concerns
civic occupation and prosperity. And how this fact should be
of vital moment in a city, and of no moment at all in a church,
I leave with the reviewer to discover and to demonstrate.
But the doctrine of a ruling eldership nullifies, it seems, my op-
position to Episcopacy. “Who,” asks the reviewer, “who could
believe that this opponent of three orders of clergy is himself
a maintainer of three orders of spiritual office-bearers in the
church? My reply is, that I have no special objection to the
number three, but that I cannot find one of the three orders of
Episcopalians in the New Testament Scriptures. I answer far-
ther, that, by the showing of Episcopalians themselves, there
may be an important distinction among office-bearers, who may
belong to the same order notwithstanding. A bishop is a dis-
tinguishable personage from an archbishop; their powers in all
things are not coextensive or identical; and yet, in Episcopal
theory, they are of the same order. If, then, elders unitedly
superintend the flock; if the minister is one of them, and has
only one vote in the session of which he is chairman; if the
word presbyter, as Neander and others affirm, had primarily
and principally reference to such rule; then why may such men
not be as rulers one order, though a distinction obtain in the
extent and mode of their teaching? Let an Episcopalian prove
to me that bishops and archbishops are found and discriminated
in Scripture, while they are yet both spoken of as diocesans
and I shall not consider the internal distinction he contends
for as seriously imperilling the loftiest grade in his hierarchy.
Here Prelatists and Presbyterians occupy analogous footings.
The former have a distinction among their bishops, the latter
among their elders—the only difference being, that Prelatists
here plead expediency, while Presbyterians appeal to Scripture;
and I therefore see no call for the Watchman's observation, “We
never feel so much disposed to think there is reason for the
TEACHING AND RULING ELDERS. I73
moderate Episcopalian theory, as when we are reading a Pres-
byterian's argument in favour of the ruling eldership.”
But the reviewer has another argument against ruling
elders, regarded as spiritual functionaries, and, being his last,
it is probably not considered to be the least objection, since no
controversialist is disposed to conclude weakly. Elders have
“their business.” They “buy and sell, and get gain.” “But it
is only,” says the reviewer, “those who have relinquished every
other aim and pursuit, that they may devote themselves to the
work of the ministry and to the Salvation of Souls, who have
any title to be esteemed presbyters, elders, or bishops of
Christ's church.” Quite as conclusively might it be reasoned
that it is only those who have relinquished every other aim and
pursuit, that they may give themselves to the work of the magis-
tracy, who have any title to be considered mayors, or subordi-
nate rulers of our cities. But why go so far for a case in con-
futation? Paul was a tentmaker, and he made tents while
planting the churches. Did this “pursuit ’’ annul his apostle-
ship? Perhaps, however, his case was extraordinary, and not
designed for imitation. What, then, did he say to the elders
of Ephesus? “Ye yourselves know that these hands have
ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.
I have showed YoU all things, how that So LABOURING, YE ought
to support the weak.”
With all respect, I invite the reviewer to reconsider the doc-
trine of a ruling eldership, though he applies to it such epi-
thets as “farce,” “monstrous,” “incredible,” if he have no
stronger grounds than those we have been examining on which
to base his opposition to this article. Such argumentation as
he has offered, though ingenious—perhaps puzzling—is not
likely to convince the Christian world—shall I say the Wes-
leyan Connection itself?—that elective Presbytery has in it no
popular element, or that a Conference, invested with Supreme
and absolute power, and embracing not one member chosen by
Christian communicants, can exemplify a constitution in which,
after a fair and open manner, “the laity are taken into most
influential and extensive conjunction with the ministry in ec-
clesiastical government; and yet the scriptural authority of
the presbyter bishops of the church is preserved intact.”
PART W.
ON THE SUBORDINATION OF PRESBYTERS
TO PRELATES ; OR, DIOCESAN
EPISCOPACY.
CHAPTER I.
High ground taken by a portion of Episcopal writers—Impor-
tance attached by them to Apostolical Succession—Conse-
quences of the doctrine—The Episcopal form of government
might be the best, independently of the doctrine of Suc-
cession.
MANY Episcopal writers take high ground in defend-
ing their church order. In their view, ministers not
episcopally ordained are mere laymen. And with-
out a regular ministry, there can be no valid ad-
ministration of ordinances — no true church— no
covenanted mercy. Some of them, in very plain
terms, represent an Episcopal administration of the
means of grace as not only essential to good order,
but as in all ordinary circumstances indispensable to
salvation. The famous Dodwell, in a work full of
anathemas against schism, supposes himself to evince
no schismatic spirit in declaring of every dissenter
from Episcopal communion, that, from “being dis-
ON THE SUBORDINATION, ETC. 175
united from the church, he loses his union with
Christ, and all the mystical benefits consequent to
that union. He has thenceforward no title to the
sufferings or merits or intercessions of Christ, or any
of those other blessings which were purchased by
those merits, or which may be expected from those
intercessions. He has no title to pardon of sin, to
the gifts or assistances of the blessed Spirit, or to
any promises of future rewards, though he should
perform all other parts of his duty besides this of
reuniting himself again to Christ's mystical body in
a visible communion. Till then there are no pro-
mises of acceptance of any prayers, which either
he may offer for himself, or others may offer for
him. And how disconsolate must the condition be
of such a person!”* When this writer and others
undertake to prove that all persons who are not
“of the episcopal communion are guilty of the sin
of schism,”f what do they mean by communion? Is
it mere attendance at church 7 or is it rather, as
they seem to think, the state into which parties are
brought by baptism, episcopally administered 7 The
New Testament allies communion more expressly
with another sacrament: “The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the
blood of Christ 7 the bread which we break, is it
not the communion of the body of Christ?”f Of
the millions who professedly belong to the Episco-
pal Church, comparatively few care to have com-
* Separation of Churches, &c., Preface, p. xii. London, 1679.
f Ibid., p. xxv. # 1 Cor. x. 16.
176 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
munion in this scriptural sense of the expression.
Should not such a fact awaken other sentiments
than those of exclusiveness and intolerance 7 Should
it not create a doubt whether the immense power of
the church be a true index of devotional frame and
spiritual prosperity ?
More recently, the celebrated Dr Newman, while
Vicar of St Mary the Virgin's, Oxford, maintained,
in a sermon which, under Church of England
patronage, has been printed in different forms, and
which has passed through successive editions, that
no Dissenters are regenerated, and that “regenera-
tion is the peculiar and invisible gift of the church.”
He there expresses, however, the strange opinion,
which he may since have retracted, that though we
cannot have the new birth in our state of schism,
yet “men have, through God’s blessing, obeyed,
and pleased him without it,”—a species of comfort
this, which it will be well for us neither to value
nor to accept. Bishop Hobart, in his “Companion
for the Altar”—Meditation for Saturday Evening—
has avowed, that “where the gospel is proclaimed,
communion with the church, by the participation
of its ordinances at the hands of the duly-authorised
priesthood, is the indispensable condition of salva-
tion.”f
“The Right Reverend Bishop Doane,” in “a
Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of New Jersey,
* Parochial Sermons, vol. iii. Second Edition. London :
Rivingtons.—As a Tract. London : J. Burns. 1841.
+ See Dr Mason’s “Claims of Episcopacy Refuted,” chap. i.
p. 2.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. I77.
in America,” delivered in May, 1842, and repub-
lished the same year in London, for the benefit of
the English Church, placidly confounds “the church
of the apostles” with the church of their alleged
successors, and says, “It is through them whom
He (Christ) instructed, and appointed, and com-
missioned to make all believers one with Him, in
baptism, that the communion of the mystical body
on earth is formed and held with the divine and
glorious Head in heaven. . . . . . It thus becomes
a very serious question, whether they who are not
“built on the foundation of the apostles’ are ‘of
the household of God;’ whether they who have not
been ‘added in the church “to them” are “added
to the Lord.” Certainly there is no warrant for
such a hope in all the holy Scriptures. Certainly
it finds no encouragement in all the writings which
come down to us from the first days. It certainly
would be out of harmony with all the dealings and
with the whole providence of Him who doeth all
things well. . . . . . Let none of us therefore count
it an indifferent thing whether we are in the church
or not,” &c.
The circumstance of belonging to an established
church affords no refuge from these denunciations.
All are dissenters who belong to state churches
which are not episcopal. The established clergy
of Scotland are characterised by Dr Hicks, in the
preface to his “Answer to the Rights of the
Christian Church,” as “a band of rebels;” “the
abomination of desolation in the house or king-
M
I78 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
dom of God; ” “not pastors, but wolves of the
flock.” +
Nor is it enough, according to these parties,
to adopt episcopal forms. “Episcopacy,” says Mr
Lawson, “without the succession, is nothing, and
differs in no respect from Presbyterianism; for it is
the apostolically-derived succession which constitutes
the Episcopate.”f The same writer declares, that
the prelacy which was introduced into the Scotch
Church in 1572 by the Convention of Leith “was
more objectionable than Presbyterianism, because .
it was the mere shadow without the substance.”
Even a bishop would run without being sent, and
would have no more authority than a lay preacher,
if he did not derive his commission through a suc-
cession of bishops from the apostles. The Lutheran
Church in Germany may be said to be episcopal in
its structure. It has superintendents who so far
fill the place of bishops. But that avails nothing.
Luther was only a presbyter; and he, with others
of like status, ordained their successors; and ordina-
tion by presbyters is nominal and worthless. The
ordaining virtue is incommunicable, save by the
hands of bishops who trace their appointment to
apostles as predecessors.
And what if Luther could not have obtained office
from such ordainers? Was the work of reformation
* See Introduction to Dr Mason on Episcopacy, by the Rev.
J. Blackburn. London, 1838.
f Hist. of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, from Refor-
mation to Revolution, chap. iv. p. 112.
f Ibid., p. 110.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 179
to break down for want of this qualification in the
reformer ? To this query Bishop Onderdonk, who
is more liberal than most advocates of Episcopacy,
replies, “We think it doubtful whether Luther and
his associates, and Calvin and his associates, were
prevented from obtaining episcopacy by difficulties
strictly insuperable. It is well known to those ac-
quainted with ecclesiastical history, that Novatian, a
schismatic bishop, induced three obscure bishops to
consecrate him: and among the multitude of Papal
bishops, could not those reformers have found three,
elevated or obscure, to give them the succession, or
else to join with them, and preside over their purified
church 7 and this, without resorting to the culpable
methods ascribed to Novatian?” ” We are not pre-
pared to acknowledge that the multitude of Papal
bishops are all lineal successors of the apostles.
Where is the promise in the New Testament that
the Papal Church, or any church, would have this
uninterrupted succession? Who is to harmonise the
conflicting lists of successors furnished by the earlier
Christian fathers ? Where is the evidence that in
later times of darkness and confusion no irregular
appointments have broken the continuity of the chain 7
Dr Alexander has well asked, “What should we think
of a man who should claim a dormant peerage on
such pretences as those on which the Anglican clergy
claim spiritual descent from the apostles, whose gene-
alogy, when it came to be examined, was found to
contain the names of persons who apparently never
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 49. London, 1840.
180 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
existed; of persons of whom it was not known which
was the father and which was the son—one document
averring that Richard was the son of John, and
another that John was the son of Richard ; while a
third omitted the existence of Richard altogether?
and yet it is just upon such evidence as this that the
successionists rest their claim to an official descent
from the apostles, and demand, for that shadowy
Eidolon which they have set up, the religious homage
of all people, nations, and languages.”* If such a
succession has not been promised, and if it do not
admit of actual proof, are we to base the validity of
the ministry, and of all Christian ordinances on a mere
peradventure ? A bold assertion is it, that if a single
link in the succession be wanting or amiss, then the
institution of the pastorate, with all its attendant
privileges, has ceased, so that we have not, and can-
not again have, any Christian ministry whatever! f
Regarding the abettors of this doctrine, Archbishop
Whately, in his work on the Kingdom of Christ,
says, “They make our membership of the church of
Christ, and our hopes of the gospel salvation, depend
on an exact adherence to everything that is proved,
or believed, or even suspected, to be an apostolical
usage; and on our possessing what they call apos-
tolical succession; that is, on our having a ministry
whose descent can be traced up, in an unbroken and
* Anglo-Catholicism, chap. iv. Sec. i. p. 237.
t Dr Brown of Langton adduces and substantiates numerous
examples of “succession destroyed "in his work on the Exclu-
sive Claims of Puseyite Episcopalians, Letter xy., &c. See also
Dr Alexander's Anglo-Catholicism, chap, iv.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 181
undoubted chain, to the apostles themselves, through
men regularly ordained by them or their successors,
according to the exact forms originally appointed.
And all Christians (so called) who do not come under
this description, are to be regarded either as outcasts
from ‘the household of faith, or at best as in a con-
dition “analogous to that of the Samaritans of old,’
who worshipped on Mount Gerizim (John iv.), or as
in “an intermediate state between Christianity and
heathenism,’ and as ‘left to the uncovenanted mercies
of God.” Those who on such grounds defend the
institutions and ordinances, and vindicate the apos-
tolical character of our own (or indeed of any) church,
—whether on their own sincere conviction, or as be-
lieving that such arguments are the best calculated
to inspire the mass of mankind with becoming rever-
ence, and to repress the evil of schism,-do seem to
me, in proportion as they proceed on those principles,
to be, in the same degree, removing our institutions
from a foundation on a rock, to place them on sand.
Instead of a clearly-intelligible, well-established, and
accessible proof of divine sanction for the claims of
our church, they would substitute one that is not
only obscure, disputable, and out of the reach of the
mass of mankind, but even self-contradictory, sub-
versive of our own and every church's claims, and
leading to the very evils of doubt and schismatical
division, which it is desired to guard against.” "
‘. And in what a position does this theory of succes-
sion place Luther ? He should, it seems, have gone
* Essay ii., § 17, 18.
I82 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
the round of the multitude of papal bishops to find
three, elevated or obscure, willing to ordain him, or
to go along with him, and make amends for his in-
capacity, by doing episcopal work for him. In the
act of protesting against Rome, Luther should have
enacted the suppliant to its bishops, beseeching them
to make him a bishop, and confessing his dependence
on Rome for those same functions with which he
should attack its Antichristian domination!
Bishop Onderdonk thinks, however, that apostolic
succession is, in our days at least, of easy attainment.
“Allowing for former periods,” he says, “all that is
ever claimed on that score (of impossibility), there
has been no difficulty at all in procuring a Protestant
episcopate, or else in finding one to conform to, and
unite with, since the Scotch bishops consecrated
Bishop Seeburg, the first on our American list.””
There may have been no difficulty felt, and yet
the absence of felt difficulty is no demonstration of
being in the right. Dr Campbell, and other learned
men, have maintained that the ordination of our pre-
sent Scotch Episcopal clergy is solely from presbyters.f
If it be doubtful whether our Scotch bishops have,
it must be equally doubtful whether they can give,
apostolical succession. Irrespectively of this ques-
tion, the Scotch Episcopal Church rebukes the pre-
tensions with which its name is here identified. As
a church established by law, it owned the Confession
of Faith, which was drawn up in 1560, and legally
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 51.
f On Eccles. His, vol. i. p. 355.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 183
ratified in 1567; and which, though replaced for a
time by the Westminster Confession, came again into
force after the Restoration, and was the authoritative
standard of doctrine till prelacy was abolished at the
Revolution.* I perceive that Mr J. P. Lawson, in
his History of the Scottish Episcopal Church, while
he speaks disparagingly of the Westminster Confes-
sion, which he calls a “lengthy compilation,” ex-
plicitly acknowledges that “the old Confession,
drawn up by the early Scottish reformers, and rati-
fied in 1567, had been all along the received and
common standard of both parties,” Episcopal and
Presbyterian. f. He says still more explicitly, “This
Confession is chiefly remarkable as having been the
common creed of the Established Episcopal Church
in subsequent times, and of the Presbyterians, until
they adopted the Westminster Confession.”—(P. 44.)
And what is the doctrine of this Confession as to
successional virtue 2 Its eighteenth article treats “of
the Notes by which the True Kirk is discerned from
* I am aware that some of our Scotch Episcopalians do not
like to be charged with the Confession of 1560, drawn up in four
days by John Knox, John Row, John Winram, John Douglas,
and John Spottiswood; and that Bishop Skinner, in his
“Primitive Truth and Order,” has endeavoured to parry this
blow. (See chap. ii. p. 172.) Dr Campbell expresses himself
somewhat strongly, when he characterises that Confession as
containing “the Doctrine of the Episcopal Reformed Church
of Scotland" (On Eccles. Hist, Lect. iv.); and Dr Brown of
Langton, when he calls it “their Confession ” (On Puseyite
Episcopacy, Letter xiv). But the argument, to the extent of
Mr Lawson's admission, quoted above, is, I think, legitimate
and incontrovertible.
+ Chap. iii. p. 52.
i84. ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
the False.” It there says, “Becaus that Satan from
the beginning hath laboured to deck his pestilent
synagogue with the title of the Kirk of God, and
hath inflamed the hearts of cruell murtherers to
persecute, trouble, and molest the true Kirk and
members thereof; as Cain did Abel, Ismael Isaack,
Esau Jacob, and the whole priesthood of the Jewes,
Christ Jesus himself, and his apostles after him, it is
a thing most requisite, that the true Kirk be dis-
cerned frome the filthie synagogues, by cleere and
perfyt notes, least we, being deceaved, receave and
embrace, to our owne condemnation, the one for the
other. The notes, signes, and sure tokens whereby
the immaculat spous of Christ Jesus is knowne frome
the horrible harlot, the kirk malignant, we affirme,
are neither antiquitie, title usurped, lineal descent,
place appointed, nor multitude of men approving an
error.”” Here lineal descent is expressly disclaimed
as a note of the true kirk. This Confession also
maintains, article 22, concerning the Papistical kirk,
that “their ministers are no ministers of Jesus Christ.”f
Here the doctrine of lineal descent is again discarded,
and Papal ministers are declared not to be Christian
ministers—so that were succession ever so necessary,
it would have in them no medium of transmission.
Yet succession is the one thing needful to ecclesias-
tical order, and even to acceptance with God and
admission to glory, in the estimation of numbers who
are confident of possessing the treasure themselves,
* See Calderwood's Hist, vol. ii. p. 28. Edinburgh, 1843.
i Ibid., p. 33. º k
preSBYTERS TO PRELATES. 185
and who ally the want of it in others with helpless,
hopeless destitution.
These notions are regarded by most Protestants as
very arrogant in their own nature, and at the same
time as most injurious to other religious denomina-
tions, in unchurching many of the holiest Christian
societies, and denying the ministerial character—
nay, the Christian character—to a large proportion
of the most eminent reformers, ministers, and mis-
sionaries. The footing on which men are to be saved
is often and clearly presented in Scripture: “He that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he
that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the
wrath of God abideth on him.”” “These are writ-
ten, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing ye might have
life through his name.” f “Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”f No men-
tion is made in such passages of any sacramental
virtue depending for its efficacy on a transmission
without breach by prelatic hands, from apostolical
times. Salvation by the faith of Christ was the
apostolic doctrine. Is there no audacity and no
danger in shifting the ground of the sinner's hope 2
Do they who so freely denounce all who are not of
their sect, and who have not subscribed to their un-
revealed and unattested Shibboleth, not fear the de-
nunciation—“I marvel that ye are so soon removed
from him that called you into the grace of Christ
unto another gospel: which is not another; but there
* John iii. 36. ºf John xx. 31. f Acts xvi. 31.
186 oN THE SUBORDINATION OF
be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gos-
pel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be ac-
cursed. As we have said before, so say I again, If
any man preach any other gospel unto you than that
ye have received, let him be accursed”? *
We must not, however, confound all Episcopacy
with the exclusive pretensions of a class of Episcopa-
lians, however numerous and influential that class
may be. The doctrine of succession might be ex-
ploded and abandoned, and yet the Episcopal model
of church government might be the most scriptural
and expedient.
Presbyterians and Independents sometimes evince
a disposition to make short work with Episcopacy;
and there is, I allow, a certain advantage in limiting
attention to the more determining points of a con-
troversy. But when we look at the power of the
Anglican Church, and the vast influence for good or
evil it is likely to exert on the spiritual condition of
the world, surely we do well to scrutinise carefully
and deliberately all its credentials. I propose to
discuss the Episcopal argument as fully as the pro-
portions of a compendious general treatise will allow,
leaving to the reader the alternative, should he find
the disquisition tiresome, of passing to the next Part.
Looking away from abuses, even though they should
be indigenous to the soil, I will examine the simplest
principles of Episcopacy; and all I ask of brethren in
* Gal. i. 6–9.
PRESIBYTERS TO PRELATES. 187
the English Church is to bear with a tone of decision
in the following pages, exempt, I trust, from dog-
matism and uncharitableness.
To give more concentration to the argument, I will
direct my reply principally to Bishop Onderdonk's
“Episcopacy Tested by Scripture.” That production
is able and temperate. It has excited much interest
in America, and has elicited various replies. In this
country it has been republished with much additional
matter, taken from the author's answers to his oppo-
nents. The Rev. Albert Barnes, so favourably known
among us as a commentator, says of it—“It is the
best written, the most manly, elaborate, judicious, and
candid discussion, in the form of a tract, which we
have seen on this subject.” I have not met with Mr
Barnes' contributions to this controversy; and all I
know of any of the rejoinders to the Bishop is derived
from his own treatise, with the appended notes and
essays, as published in London, 1840. These explana-
tions I make, lest I should seem to do injustice to able
allies. Their treatment of the subject would likely
have supplied me with all that needed to be said or
that can be urged with propriety; but their articles
and pamphlets were not at hand; and though it should
be with inferior success, I was willing to give the most
esteemed production of our day on the side of Episco-
pacy a personal and independent examination.
188 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
CHAPTER II.
The leading constituents of the Prelatical system—It finds a
Semblance of support in the language of the New Testa-
ment, which makes mention of Bishops, Presbyters, and
Deacons—But the Bishops and Presbyters of Scripture are
the same class of functionaries under different designa-
tions, and are not two orders—Many Episcopalians, per-
ceiving and acknowledging the identity of scriptural
Bishops and Presbyters, have relinquished all defence of
the divine right of Episcopacy.
IT is the doctrine of Episcopacy that there are three
orders in the Christian ministry. The lowest order is
that of Deacons, whose functions have been already
discussed in the earlier portion of this treatise. In
Episcopal churches they preach and baptise, but are
no longer almoners. The middle grade is that of
Presbyters or Elders, the nature of whose office I
have been latterly considering. The Episcopal Pres-
byters, besides preaching, administer both sacraments.
The highest order consists of Bishops. The peculiar
duties of the bishop are government or discipline,
ordination, and confirmation. The rite of confirma-
tion does not bulk largely in controversy. Hooker
says, in his Eccles. Polity (b. vii.), “I make not con-
firmation any part of that power which hath always
belonged only to bishops, because in some places the
custom, was that presbyters might also confirm in the
absence of a bishop.” Yet, in practice, this right is
sufficiently conspicuous, and greatly contributes to
the special consequence of the bishop. It is admitted
that presbyters have some charge of discipline, but
PRESIBYTERS TO PRELATES." 189
to a limited extent, and only under the bishop's su-
perintendence. As regards ordination, it is denied
that presbyters can ordain even a presbyter, though
by the imposition of their hands they may indicate
concurrence in ordination by the bishop. “Episco-
pacy,” says Bishop Onderdonk, “declares that the
Christian ministry was established in three orders,
called, ever since the apostolic age, bishops, presbyters
or elders, and deacons, of which the highest only has
the right to ordain and confirm, that of general su-
pervision in a diocese, and that of the chief adminis-
tration of spiritual discipline, besides enjoying all the
powers of the other grades.” *
This scheme derives at first sight a semblance of
support from the titles of office found in the New
Testament. We there read of bishops, presbyters,
deacons. These are the three names; have we not,
then, the three orders ? A very slight examination
shows that two of the names belong to one order,
and that bishop and presbyter are titles used inter-
changeably in the New Testament.
Paul, in journeying to Jerusalem, sent for the
“elders” of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus, and he
exhorted these elders to feed the church of God, over
which the Holy Ghost had made them “bishops,”—
rendered in our version overseers. The same indi-
viduals designated elders in the 17th verse of Acts
xx., are designated bishops in the 28th verse; and
how could it be made more manifest that the two
designations respected one class of office-bearers?
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 12.
I90 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
We find Paul saying to Titus, “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. 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.” Here we have
in one verse a requirement to ordain elders; in the
next verse their requisite qualifications; and in the
verse succeeding, a reason why such qualifications
were to be demanded of them: “For a bishop must be
blameless.” It will be observed that the term elder,
used at the commencement, is exchanged for the term
bishop in the conclusion, while the same office-bearer
is spoken of. An elder must have such and such
qualifications. Why? Because “a bishop must be
blameless, as the steward of God.” Does not this
identify the elder and the bishop 7 If not, identifica-
tion is impossible. Were it said the Lord Mayor of
London must devote himself to his duties, for the
chief magistrate of such a city has great responsi-
bilities, would not the language bear, that the Lord
Mayor and the chief magistrate were the same office-
bearer? Otherwise, the representation would be
absurd; for why should the mayor devote himself to
his duties because some other person had great respon-
sibilities? Yet the mayor and the chief magistrate
are not more identified in this comparison, than are
the elder and the bishop in Paul's instructions to Titus.
We never find bishop and presbyter discriminated in
* Titus i. 5–7.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. I91
the Scriptures. Mention is made of apostles and
elders, of bishops and deacons,—never of bishops and
elders. These considerations, as Bishop Burnet ob-
serves, were urged in the fourth century by Jerome,
who, “in his epistle to Evagrius, and on the epistle to
Titus, maintains that all things were at first governed
in the church by the common advice of presbyters,
and that bishops were above presbyters, not by divine
appointment, but by ecclesiastical usage;” and who
quotes the very passage already cited, to show that
“bishop and presbyter were one and the same.” * On
such grounds, Episcopalians are constrained to acknow-
ledge that the bishops and elders of the New Testa-
ment were the same order. Much is said about the
ambiguity of terms, and the sophistry of words; but
there is no eventual escape from the admission that, in
the apostolic age, elders were bishops and bishops Were
elders. “There can be no doubt,” says Bishop Skinner,
“ that those who are called elders or presbyters of the
church are also denominated overseers or bishops.””
“It is proper,” says Bishop Onderdonk, “to advert to
the fact that the name ‘bishop, which now desig-
nates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appro-
priated to that office in Scripture. That name is there
given to the middle order, or presbyters, and all that
we read in the New Testament concerning bishops, in-
cluding, of course, the words ‘overseer' and ‘oversight,’
* See Bishop Burnet's observations on the first and second
of the Canons, commonly ascribed to the holy Apostles, p. 7.
Glasgow, 1673.
f Primitive Truth and Order, chap. 2, p. 180.
I92 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF *
which have the same derivation, is to be regarded as
pertaining to that middle grade.” *
The scriptural identity of bishops and presbyters,
thus unequivocally acknowledged, has been regarded
by many Episcopalians as fatal to the divine right of
Episcopacy, and as requiring them to base the defence
of their system on the power of the state or the
church, and the principles of expediency. They
contend that the Scriptures guide us in regard to
doctrine and morality, but not in regard to govern-
ment; that though the apostles organised the church
on a plan suitable to their own era, they have not
told us how much of their arrangements we are to
adopt, or, with any distinctness, even what their
arrangements were; just because they would not
abridge our Christian liberty, or deter us, if we keep
the faith, from fashioning its ecclesiastical framework
in accommodation to circumstances. Thus Dr Whit-
gift, then Master of Trinity College, and latterly
Archbishop of Canterbury, in his “Vindication of
the Hierarchy,” which was revised by Archbishop
Parker, and the Bishops of London and Ely, and
dedicated to the Church of England, denies that the
Scriptures, though a perfect rule of faith, were de-
signed to be a handmaid of discipline or government.
Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, maintains “that
matters of faith are of a different nature from the
kind of church government: that the one is necessary
to be expressly contained in the Word of God, or else
manifestly collected out of the same; the other not
* Episcopacy tested by Scripture, p. 12.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 193
so: that it is necessary not to receive the one unless
there be something in Scripture for them; the other
free, if nothing against them may thence be alleged.”
He sees “no just or reasonable cause to reject or
dislike this.” *
On the question, “Whether the apostles themselves
left bishops invested with power above other pastors?”
or, “Whether, after the apostles were deceased,
churches did agree among themselves, for preserva-
tion of peace and order, to make one presbyter in
each city chief over the rest?” he speaks undecidedly.
But he argues that God appoints what reason sanc-
tions, and that though the superiority of bishops
should be accounted a thing which “the brain of
man hath devised,” yet “the ordination of officers,
and the very institution of their offices, may be truly
derived from God, and approved of him, although
they be not always of him in such sort as those
things are which are in Scripture.”f The English
Houses of Parliament, for a long period after the
Reformation, “were almost, to a man,” says Neal,
“of the principles of Erastus, who maintained that
Christ and his apostles had prescribed no particular
form of discipline for his church in after ages, but
had left the keys in the hands of the civil magistrate,
who had the sole power of punishing transgressors,
and of appointing such particular forms of church
government, from time to time, as were most sub-
servient to the peace and welfare of the common-
* Book iii., sect. 2, p. 131. Works. London, 1676.
f Ecclesiastical Polity, book vii. sect. xi. (6), pp. 395, 396.
London, 1676.
N
194 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
wealth. Indeed, these were the principles of our
church reformers, from Archbishop Cranmer down to
Bancroft.”* “At the era of the Reformation,” says
Dr Thomas M'Crie, “Episcopacy was not considered
by any of the reformers as a part of divine institution,
but as a mere human appendage.”f
It is reasonable to doubt whether a valid scriptural
argument for prelacy, if it had existed, would have
been missed so generally, and in times of earnest
inquiry, by the Episcopal world. Not a few Episco-
palians in our own day occupy substantially the same
ground. Archbishop Whately holds that “the writers
of the New Testament do not record the number of
distinct orders of ministers, or the functions appro-
priated to each, or the degree, and kind, and mode
of control exercised in the churches.” He argues
that “the institutions of the English Church, though
not at variance with any apostolic injunctions, or with
any gospel principle, are in several points not pre-
cisely coincident with those of the earliest churches.”
One of the “points” which he specifies as discrimi-
nating the actual from the ancient church, is the
modern bishop ruling more than one society. “A
church and a diocese,” he says, “seem to have been
for a considerable time coeatensive and identical.”
Yet he does not condemn the institutions of Prelates
and Sees. He thinks they have been introduced by
the church in the allowable or commendable exercise
of discretionary power.
* History of the Puritans, by Daniel Neal, vol. i. pref. p. xix.
f Miscellaneous Writings, pp. 174, 175.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. I95
In relation to such views, Bungener says, “It is a
point which we can concede (to the Romanists) that
the sacerdotal hierarchy, like the succession of orders,
is not in itself a bad thing, and to be condemned.”
But “however ancient may be the tradition in virtue
of which bishops are chiefs of the church, whatever
reasons of discipline, unity, and order may be urged
in its favour, it remains evident that the superiority
of the bishops over the presbyters or priests is a
matter of ecclesiastical arrangement, and is human
and mutable.” On grounds already stated (Part I.),
I am not careful to discuss those “reasons of discip-
line, purity, and order,” for the appointment of
prelates, to which Bungener here alludes. One cir-
cumstance is important to be remarked, that, by
wniversal admission, the New Testament is clear and
eaplicit about the order of presbyter bishops. Nobody
doubts that they were a stated class of functionaries
in the primitive churches. It is only the diocesan
bishop whose case is in question. He only, as the
matter is stated by countless Episcopalian authori-
ties themselves, is missing in evangelical narrative
and nomenclature; and when he is sought for in
the New Testament, is found—nowhere. But if
presbyters, about whose scriptural status there is
no obscurity or doubt, can adequately superintend
the church, why introduce other superintendents
of whom Scripture says nothing? Above all, why
* Hist. of the Council of Trent, from French of L. F.
Bungener, pp. 377–379. Edinburgh : T. Constable & Co.,
1852. - *
I96 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
subordinate the scriptural institution to the human
and the conventional? We prefer to keep the ordi-
nances as the apostles delivered them unto us.
*º-ºs-ºm-º.
CHAPTER III.
Some Episcopalians hold that their system is sanctioned by
Scripture, and maintain that the Apostles filled the same
office as Prelates, and constituted the highest of three
grades of Clergy.
WE have seen that many who approve of Episcopacy
do not claim for it express scriptural precept or
pattern. They think that Jesus instituted a church,
and endowed it with certain rights and privileges
essential to its well-being, in virtue of which it may
legitimately modify ecclesiastical orders, and bring
them into accordance with times and seasons. Or
if the church would be convulsed by adventuring on
such changes, its ally, the state, may undertake for
it the critical task, and secure unanimity and submis-
sion by the formidable argument of penal sanctions.
But others take a different view of the subject. They
claim scriptural warrant for their polity, and maintain
that bishops are found in the New Testament, though
under a different name. There we meet with them,
say they, tinder the title of apostles. “The highest
grade,” observes Bishop Onderdonk, “is there found
in those called apostles.”* This grade included not
only “the twelve,” but such functionaries as Timothy
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 12.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 197
and Titus, and the seven angels of the Asiaticchurches.
All these teachers, we are assured, were of the same
order; they were all apostles, or, as we should say
in these days, bishops; and they held the same office
as our modern diocesans. This is the ground taken
by Episcopalians who plead Scripture for their hier-
archy; and according as it proves stable or unstable,
the divine warrant for a ministry in three orders
stands or falls. I will endeavour to show—
(1.) That the scriptural argument for Episcopacy,
so presented, wars with the diction of Scripture;
(2) Confounds orders which Scripture distin-
guishes; and,
(3.) Invalidates that authority of presbyters which
Scripture is careful to establish. -
If any one of these positions be made good, the Epis-
copal plea will be confuted; if they all be made good,
the confutation will be more complete and convincing.
CHAPTER IV.
The scriptural argument for Episcopacy wars with scriptural
diction—The examples brought to countenance such
changes as it supposes in the meaning of terms are not
in point—History appealed to without success—The
writings of John do not show that language was then
in a transition state, and verging towards Episcopal
terminology.
THE FIRST DIFFICULTY which meets us in contem-
plating this theory, Is THE FREEDOM which IT USEs
198 oN THE SUBORDINATION OF
WITH LANGUAGE. Names are representative of things,
and any exposition of Scripture which makes havoc
of its nomenclature, may be reasonably suspected of
doing violence to facts. No doubt words, in the
course of time, modify their meaning; but we can
in general discern the cause, and mark the extent,
and trace the progress of the modification: so that
words still prove safe guides in exploring the realms
of antiquity. If supposed changes in diction are
many and great—here varying and there reversing
its sense—we have reason to pause and doubt before
yielding to them our assent. Should it be alleged
that bishops gradually extended their range of influ-
ence, and as ages rolled on, still added to the capa-
ciousness and imperativeness of their sway, till the
name bishop came to include a varied power beyond
what it originally expressed, there is here a modifi-
cation of language, accounted for by a not unnatural
alteration of circumstances. But when we are told
that the title apostle was dropped though the office
was upheld—that bishops also surrendered the name
of bishops, and thereafter passed it over to apostles,
no longer so called, and now in want of a distinguish-
ing appellation—there appears in all this a complica-
tion of revolutions in language resembling, if not
outrivalling, the contortions and inversions of strata
discovered by geologists in the crust of the earth,
for which cycles of ages are deemed necessary to
account. Bishop Onderdonk is entitled to support
his position by examples of terms altering their sig-
nification; and if they are in point, we are bound to
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 199
receive them as proof of such changes as he contends
for being possible. “One irregularity in regard to
the application of names,” he says, “is particularly
worthy of notice. The word Sabbath is applied in
Scripture to only the Jewish day of rest; by very
common use, however, it means the Lord’s-day. Now,
the Sabbath is abolished by Christianity, and the
observance of it discountenanced; yet ministers of
Christian denominations are constantly urging their
Christian flocks to keep the Sabbath.”* We were
told that the apostolic office is continued while the
name is dropped. Is the Sabbath then continued?
Bishop Onderdonk assures us that it is abolished: so
far the parallelism fails. Apostles, we are informed,
lost the name apostles, and bishops lost the name
bishops: has the first day of the week lost its appel-
lation? No, it is still called the first day of the
week, and the Lord’s-day; and so there is no ex-
ample here of a title passing into desuetude. This
is another defect in the comparison. All that can
be alleged is, that when the day of Christ's resurrec-
tion is called the Sabbath, a new institution gets an
old name. But a large proportion of Christians do
not regard the institution as essentially new. They
believe that the Lord’s-day replaces the Sabbath,
and perpetuates the principle of devoting one day
out of seven expressly to God’s worship, and fulfils
the same ends of humanity and devotion. If the
institutions are believed to have so much in common,
or rather to be in substance identical, can we wonder
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 17.
200 on THE SUBORDINATION OF
that they should receive occasionally the same desig-
nation ? Surely a change in language thus simple,
and single, and easily accounted for, appears very
diminutive beside the metamorphoses of signification
which it is adduced to countenance. Bishop Onder-
donk is not more happy in another example, when he
tells us that “the original meaning of emperor (im-
perator) was only a general, but it was afterwards
appropriated to the monarch: and the original mean-
ing of bishop was only a presbyter, but the name
passed from that middle grade to the highest.”
We can easily enough understand how presbyter-
bishops should gradually slide into prelatical bishops
—the men rising in their pretensions, and upbearing
their titles with them. What we find most startling
and most unusual is the alleged abandonment of dignity.
When the tide of aggrandisement had set in, and was
already flowing with no feeble current towards its
consummation in Popery, that a whole order of men,
who were truly and rightfully apostles, should spon-
taneously lay down the most honoured of appellations
and adopt another in its stead, hitherto the charac-
teristic of inferiors, appears a miracle of voluntary
humiliation; and after all the illustrations which
Bishop Onderdonk has supplied, I must pronounce
it alike unexplained and unexampled.
But the alleged transposition of titles is proved,
we are told, from history. “It was after the apos-
tolic age,” says Bishop Onderdonk, “that the name
bishop was taken from the second order and applied
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 15.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 201
to the first, as we learn from Theodoret, one of the
Fathers.”* Nothing is said here about the disap-
pearance of the title apostle. We are not so much
as told whether it was “taken from" its owners or
thrown aside by their own act. But suppose that
the statement of Theodoret comprised the whole case,
what is his testimony worth ? Eusebius, who flour-
ished in the third and fourth centuries, having written
a passage which seemed very unequivocally to coun-
tenance ordination by presbyters, and this passage
having been quoted by Presbyterians, Bishop Onder-
donk replies—“Eusebius here describes what took
place long before his own time, and what therefore
he knew but imperfectly.”f But Theodoret wrote
fully a century later, and he refers to an epoch still
earlier, and must he not then give his testimony
under all the disadvantages of imperfect knowledge?
Bunsen says, regarding writers of the fourth century,
that they were only critics, and most of them very
indifferent and biassed ones. Í For a writer of the
fifth century to tell us what magical vicissitudes befel
names in the age just following the apostolic, is to
come late indeed to the help of the hierarchy. But
is there no earlier witness? None, or he would have
been called. Surely some of the apostles would
object to lay down their honoured title, and accept
another less honourable. Right good reasons could
they have urged for their reluctance. “If we sur-
render the name of apostles,” they might have said,
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 15. f Ibid., p. 41.
f Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i., let. v., p. 321.
202 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
“it will be naturally inferred that we have disclaimed
the office. If we take the title of bishops, it will of
course be understood that we laid claim to no higher
grade; and thus future ages will be snared by our
versatility into misapprehension and strife. And
why should we part with a name which the mouth
of the Lord has named for us, or rob inferiors of
their appropriate designation to clothe ourselves
with the spoil?” But there is no record, no vestige
of any such controversy. All the parties interested
in retaining the title apostles, or the title bishops,
surrendered to some unimaginable necessity without
a struggle, so indifferent to the fact as to say nothing
about it; and in evidence that such a fact ever
happened, we must take the word of Theodoret.
What he may say on such a subject is of little
moment. But the circumstance that none testified
before him to the transference of titles, upwards and
downwards, from grade to grade, is of mighty signifi-
cance, and stamps on the whole theory the palpable
impress of a modern imagination.
But Bishop Onderdonk has some Scripture for this
article of belief. “It is perhaps worthy of remark,”
he says, “that the word “apostle' occurs nowhere in
the gospel of St John; [xiii. 16, forms no exception;
compare Matt. x. 24; Luke vi. 40. Besides, ch. xv.
20 shows that the latter clause of ch. xiii. 16 is merely
expletive of the preceding clause; and therefore
&rogroñog is not used in its proper sense.—ED.]
‘disciple being generally substituted for it. Neither
does it occur in his epistles: nor in the Revelation;
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 203
except in ii. 2, where it is applied to the impostors,
and in ch. xviii. 20, where, engrafted into an exalta-
tion of the latter days, it refers (as in xxi. 14) to the
inspired founders of Christianity. All these writings
belong to the close of the first century. By not
calling the “angels' either apostles or bishops, St
John conformed to the then unsettled use of those
words. And by calling the twelve ‘disciples’ only,
instead of apostles, he avoided giving them a title
which he withheld from their official compeers, the
‘angels.” We build nothing on these facts and
explanations, but they certainly harmonise well with
the historical declaration, that ministers of the
Episcopal grade were originally called apostles; but,
as the first century was passing into the second, that
name was relinquished, and that of bishop assumed.”
Without discussing in what sense John used the term
“apostles” on other occasions, I only ask how the
writer expects to evade the force of Rev. xviii. 20,
and Rev. xxi. 14, by saying that these passages refer
to the inspired founders of Christianity ? “Rejoice
over her, ye holy apostles and prophets.” “And
the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in
them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”
These latter words not only make mention of the
apostles under their appropriate title, but assign to
them a distinctive number, a distinctive position, a
distinctive influence, and in every way mark them off
from that throng of functionaries with whom Bishop
Onderdonk confounds them. “The constant and
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture. Appen., p. 12.
204 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
undeniable parallel,” says Lightfoot, “which is made
betwixt the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apostles
by the New Testament in the four and twenty elders
(Rev. iv. 4), and in the gates and foundations of
the new Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. 12–14), doth argue
and prove the latter order as unimitable as the
first.”%
There is another element which must be taken into
account. It was to the writer's purpose to show, not
simply that in the close of John's life the title of
apostle was going out, but also that the title of bishop
in lieu of apostle was coming in. But John never
calls an apostle a bishop ; and what is yet more
remarkable, he never uses the word bishop nor any
of its cognate terms at all. Such being the case, the
keenest friends of Episcopacy will hold Bishop
Onderdonk justified in “building nothing on these
facts and explanations.” #
,CHAPTER W.
SECT. I.-Episcopacy, in its scriptural argument, confounds
orders widely separated in the New Testament, classing
under one grade the twelve, Timothy and Titus, and the
angels of the churches of Asia—The title Apostle some-
times used generally in the sense of messenger—Examples
—Apostles, in the official sense of the term, were made
cognisant of the whole counsel of God in the gospel by
immediate inspiration—They required to have seen the
* On the Acts, ch. viii. v. 17.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 205
risen Saviour that they mightbewitnesses of his resurrection
—Examination of the objection, that Timothy and others,
without this qualification, were called Apostles—The
Apostles, besides working miracles, were empowered to
confer miraculous gifts on others—From such considera-
tions, it appears that the apostolic office was extraordinary
and temporary, and that the apostles have no successors.
THE SECOND DIFFICULTY which presents itself in a
ministry of three orders, IS THE IDENTIFICATION IT
MAKES AMONG OFFICE-BEARERS WHO IN SCRIPTURE
ARE DISTINGUISHED, AND EVEN WIDELY DISSOCIATED.
Bishop Onderdonk speaks (page 40) of “THE OFFICE
of the apostles, and of Timothy and Titus, and the
seven angels.” Would any simple reader of the New
Testament, who had no theory to prove, and no
purpose to serve, find or imagine that Paul and
Timothy had the same official standing 7 And if this
equalization were effected, would it prepare him to
include in the same list the Asiatic angels? The
apostleship, by this theory, gains little in its pro-
gress—rather it becomes small by degrees, and
beautifully less. Timothy appears very secondary
beside Paul; and the angels are but local men, with
circumscribed influence, beside Timothy. And yet
Bishop Onderdonk assures us—and the Episcopal
hypothesis requires us to believe—that the twelve
apostles and the seven angels were “official compeers.”
Let us see how this official sameness manifests itself
in the New Testament. Bishop Onderdonk is at
much pains to prove what nobody disputes, that
Timothy had a higher office than elders, the stated
office-bearers of the church. In demonstrating this
206 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
undisputed point, the Bishop says, “Let any one
read Acts xx. 28–35, and consider well what St Paul
there gives as a charge to the elders (presbyters or
presbyter-bishops) of Ephesus. Then let him read
the two epistles to Timothy, and reflect candidly on
the charge which the same apostle gives to him
personally (Timothy) at Ephesus. And after this
comparison of the charges, let him decide whether
Scripture does not set that one individual above those
elders in ecclesiastical rights,” &c.” We admit the
interval between Timothy and the elders, but we
think that the apostle, in establishing it, exhibits a
not less considerable chasm between Timothy and
himself. Very noticeable is the demarcation here
presented between the party charging and the party
charged: “This charge I commit unto thee, son
Timothy.”f “These things I write unto thee, hoping
to come unto thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that
thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God,” &c.; “I give thee
charge in the sight of God, . . . that thou keep
this commandment,” &c., “Hold fast the form of
sound words which thou hast heard of me.”|| “Con-
sider what I say.” “Study to show thyself approved
unto God.” “Flee also youthful lusts.”ff “I
charge thee before God, . . . preach the word.”ff
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 31. Bishop Skinner
and others had used the same argument. See Primitive Truth
and Order, ch. ii. p. 180.
f 1 Tim. i. 18. | 2 Tim. i. 13. ff 2 Tim. ii. 22.
# Ib. iii. 14, 15. TI Ib. ii. 7. if Ib. iv. 1, 2.
3 Ib. vi. 13, 14. ** Ib. ii. 15.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 207
“Watch thou in all things.”* “Do thy diligence
to come shortly unto me.”f “Do thy diligence to
come before winter.”f The same apostle speaks in
like terms to Titus, another of his alleged official
compeers: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that
thou shouldest set in order the things that are want-
ing, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed
thee.” $ “Speak thou the things which become
sound doctrine; these things speak and exhort,”
&c.| Is this the style of address from one apostle
to another ? or is not all probability outraged by the
allegation, that we have here the language of equal
to equal, and both of them diocesans ? If by such
phraseology official equality is proved, we beg at least
to know by what selection or combination of terms
the supposition of it could be confuted.
Let us look a little more particularly at the scrip-
tural characters grouped together by Episcopalians
in their highest order, and direct our attention in
successive chapters to the apostles, the evangelists,
and the Asiatic angels, with the immediate view of as-
certaining whether they held the same office. If it be
proved that they did not hold the same office, ourse-
cond main objection to Episcopacy will be established.
We have here THE APOSTLEs. The title signifies,
derivatively, one sent forth, or a messenger, and
sometimes it is used in this primary and unofficial
sense. Many other terms have, in like manner, a
general and an appropriated signification. Of course,
* 2 Tim. iv. 5. + Ib. iv. 9. # Ib. iv. 21.
3 Tit, i. 5. || Ib, ii. 1, 15.
208 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
the question arises, wherever these terms occur,
whether they are used in the one way or the other;
and there is occasional difficulty in deciding the point.
If it were said that certain men had a difference, and
that a certain other man judged between them, we
might be at a loss whether this mediating party was
really a judge, or whether he merely gave the dis-
putants the benefit of his judgment. In one or two
instances, there is a little obscurity of this nature
hanging over the use of the term apostle. But the
obscuration is rare and faint indeed. “The name of
“apostles,’” says Lightfoot, “keepeth itself unmixed
or confounded with any other order. It is true
indeed that the significancy of the word would agree
to other ministers that are to preach ; but there is a
peculiar propriety in the sense that hath confined the
title to the twelve and Paul, as any indifferent eye
will judge and censure, upon the weighing of it in
the New Testament.”* It is universally admitted,
that the word apostle had an official sense; and the
“marks of an apostle” are more definite and more
readily recognised than those perhaps of any other
functionary.
That apostles must have been numerous, Dr
Onderdonk argues from the mention occasionally
made of false apostles. He reminds us of the
commendation bestowed on the angel of Ephesus:
“Thou hast tried them who say they are apostles, and
are not, and hast found them liars.”f And who were
* On the Acts, chap. viii. 17.
t Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 36.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 209
these pretence apostles? “Their assuming the title
of apostles,” says Dr Onderdonk, “shows that there .
were enough of others (besides those usually so
called) who had this title to make their pretended
claim to it plausible.” But if these false teachers.
are not called apostles merely to show their arro-
gance, and as we speak of “an apostle of mischief;”
if they in good earnest laid claim to the apostleship,
and supported their claim by “plausible” arguments,
then what do we make of several seeming apostles
in single churches, where Episcopacy can afford only
one bishop to a whole diocese ? And in what
capacity did the angel try a number of apostolic
claimants? We have no modern dignitary compe-
tent for that task. I suspect that spurious apostles
are not likely to be more serviceable to Dr Onder-
donk's cause than they proved to the Christian church.
This example can establish nothing decisively, since
false apostles were confessedly no apostles at all.
“I supposed it necessary,” says Paul, “to send to
you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in
labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, (lite-
rally apostle,) and he that ministered to my wants.”f
Some, in their eagerness to multiply apostles, place
this Epaphroditus among the number. But he is not
called an apostle; he is called your apostle. The
name befitted Epaphroditus only in relation to those
addressed; and where do we ever find the apostleship
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 20. f Phil. ii. 25.
: Bishop Skinner, for example, in his Primitive Truth and
Order, chap. ii. p. 184.
O
210 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
of one of the twelve so restricted 7 Farther, the
context shows that Epaphroditus had a message or
commission from the Philippians, and consequently
was their messenger, though they could not have
monopolised an apostle. “I have all, and abound,”
says Paul: “I am full, having received of Epaphro-
ditus the things which were sent from you.” The
Christians at Philippi sent things to Paul by Epa-
phroditus—was not Epaphroditus their messenger?
The disputed passage itself has evident reference to
this appointment: “Your messenger, and he that
ministered to my wants.” How did Epaphroditus
minister to Paul's wants?—by conveying to him
things needful from the Philippians. It was kind in
the Christians at Philippi to furnish these supplies—
it was kind in Epaphroditus to be the personal bearer
of them; and is not the twofold kindness delicately
but unequivocally owned in the words, “Your mes-
senger, and he that ministered to my wants?”—your
messenger, in getting a charge from you for me; and
he that ministered to my wants, as he faithfully exe-
cuted his labour of love in my behalf. The messenger,
as distinguishable from the apostle, officially so called,
is clearly exhibited in such language.
But how shall apostles, in the appropriated sense of
the term, be discriminated from other functionaries?
We have found Paul saying to Timothy, “Hold fast
the form of sound words which thou hast heard of
me.”f This verse, and others similar, present Paul
as having indoctrinated Timothy in the embassage he
* Phil. iv. 18. f 2 Tim. i. 13.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 211
was to deliver; and Bishop Onderdonk admits (Note
I., p. 51) that Timothy was not inspired. How does
Paul speak of his own initiation in the knowledge of
the gospel? “I certify you, brethren, that the gospel
which was preached of me is not after man. For I
neither received it of man, neither was I taught it,
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The apostle
expresses himself to the same effect on various occa-
sions; and the two classes of passages brought together
evolve this difference between Timothy and Paul—
that Timothy had his instructions instrumentally
from Paul, while Paul had his instructions directly
from heaven. In other words, THE APOSTLES WERE
AT ONCE MADE COGNISANT BY INSPIRATION OF THAT
WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD WHICH THEY SHUNNED NOT
To DECLARE. We learn from the opening verses of
the Acts of the Apostles, that our Lord led them to
expect this extraordinary illumination as one of their
distinguishing privileges: “He was taken up, after
that he through the Holy Ghost had given command-
ment unto the apostles whom he had chosen. . . . .
And, being assembled together with them, he com-
manded them that they should not depart from Jeru-
salem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which,
saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptised
with water; but ye shall be baptised with the Holy
Ghost not many days hence.”f
Another qualification indispensable to an apostle was
THE COMPETENCY OF TESTIFYING FROM PERSONAL OB-
SERVATION TO THE FACT OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION.
* Gal. i. 11, 12. + Acts i. 2, 4, 5,
212 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
No one could be an apostle who had not seen Jesus
alive after his decease. Of no avail is the reply of
Bishop Onderdonk—“Nor were the apostles thus
distinguished because they had seen our Lord after
his resurrection; for five hundred brethren saw him,”
&c.” It is not alleged that every one who saw the
risen Saviour was thereby constituted an apostle; but
it is alleged that such a sight of Christ was indispen-
sable to the apostleship. Apart from the controversy
between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, there are
difficulties connected with the elevation of Matthias to
the apostolic office, as it was proceeded in while the
disciples were waiting for the promise of the Father,
and were not yet baptised with the Holy Ghost for
the official engagements of the evangelical dispensa-
tion. But if the appointment of Matthias be held to
have been regular and valid, it will establish, as Light-
foot has shown, and not disprove, the extraordinary
and temporary character of the trust to which he was
preferred. “The apostles,” says that learned com-
mentator, “could not ordain an apostle by imposition
of hands; but they are forced to use a divine lot,
which was as the immediate hand of Christ imposed
on him that was to be ordained: that opinion took
little notice of this circumstance that hath placed
bishops in the place of the apostles by a common and
successive ordination.”f As regards the point under
more immediate consideration, we find Peter most
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 20. So also Bishop
Skinner's Primitive Truth and Order, chap. ii. p. 190.
f On the Acts, chap. i. 21.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES, 213
particularly declaring, that the choice must of neces-
sity be among those who had beheld the risen
Redeemer: “Wherefore of these men which have
companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus
went in and out among us, beginning from the bap-
tism of John, unto that same day that he was taken
up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness
with us of his resurrection.”* This condition of the
apostleship is held forth most prominently throughout
the New Testament : “ Thus it behoved Christ to
suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and
ye are witnesses of these things.”f “This Jesus
hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.”f
“Whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are
witnesses.”$ “With great power gave the apostles
witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.”
“Peter and the other apostles said, The God of our
fathers raised up Jesus. Him hath God exalted with
his right hand. And we are his witnesses of these
things.”" In these passages, “apostles” and wit-
nesses to Christ's resurrection appear as allied, and
almost convertible appellations. That Paul might
join in the apostolic testimony, he was preternaturally
favoured with a sight of the risen Saviour: “Last
of all HE WAS SEEN OF ME also, as of one born out of
due time: FOR IAM THE LEAST of THE APOSTLES.”**
The apostles, then, were witnesses to Christ's resur-
rection—such witness-bearing was essential to their
* Acts i. 21, 22. ºf Luke xxiv. 46, 48. : Acts ii. 32.
3 Acts iii. 15. | Acts iv. 33. *|| Acts v. 30-32.
** 1 Cor. xv. 8.
214 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
apostleship—and it is remarkable that the title wit-
*688, assigned so frequently to them, is used of no
others as office-bearers. So broad and clear is the
induction by which we show that a personal testi-
mony to Christ's rising was of the essence of the
apostolic embassage. And when this position has
been made good by such plentiful and unequivocal
proof, we feel warranted in explaining by it a few
phrases which, separately regarded, might have borne
a different interpretation; and in saying that if
Timothy, Silvanus, Andronicus, Junia, &c., receive
this appellation, they were such apostles as Epa-
phroditus was—messengers, but not “called to be
apostles” in the special and official sense of the
expression. Bishop Onderdonk himself admits that
“the twelve apostles were selected as special wit-
nesses of the resurrection.”* This is befitting lan-
guage. It is not said twelve of the apostles, but the
twelve apostles; and they are characterised not
simply as witnesses, but as “special witnesses of the
resurrection.” So difficult is it, with the New Tes-
tament in our hands, to deny to the apostles an
appointment which belonged to them only, and which
therefore ceased with themselves.
And where are Timothy and Sylvanus called apos-
tles? Nowhere directly. But Paul begins an epistle
by saying, “Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto
the Church of the Thessalonians;” and in the sixth
verse of the second chapter of that epistle,f he says,
“We [the parties named in the inscription, says Dr
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 20. , i. 1 Thes. ii. 6.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 215
Onderdonk] might have been burdensome, as the
apostles of Christ.” So very much has been made of
this circumstance, that I am obliged to give it a some-
what ample consideration. In reply, I remark—
(1.) That the headings of Paul's epistles and their
contents have no such punctilious coherence as this argu-
ment supposes. They were still his epistles, though
others concurred with him in sending them ; and
under the term “we” he sometimes includes only
himself, and sometimes other parties than he had
named in the salutation. In the second chapter and
third verse of the epistle in question it is said, “We
sent Timotheus to establish you.” If the term “we”
must be understood strictly of the persons named in
the inscription, we have here Timothy sending him-
self. In the commencement of the first epistle to the
Corinthians, Paul associates Sosthenes with himself.
But there is in the epistle no other allusion to that
“brother.” Where “we” afterwards occurs, as it
does repeatedly, the context always shows that Sos-
thenes is not intended specially, if at all. In the
inscription of the second epistle to the Corinthians,
Paul associates with himself Timothy. But in some
passages of that epistle he evidently means by we the
inspired apostles. Thus it is said, “God, who com-
manded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined
in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” This
language was applicable to those who had their know-
ledge of the gospel by immediate revelation, but
* 2 Cor, iv. 6.
216 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
did not apply to Timothy, who, as Bishop Onder-
donk admits, was not inspired, and was instructed by
Paul.
(2.) To whomsoever the term “WE’ in 1 Thess. ii. 6,
may pertain, it does not seem to relate to Timothy. Mr
Barnes justly calls attention to verse second of the
same chapter, where Paul says, “We had suffered
before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know,
at Philippi.” We read of Paul and Silas having
suffered, and been shamefully entreated at Philippi;”
but nothing of the kind is narrated of Timothy. To
say that he may, notwithstanding, have been there,
and may have suffered, and been evil entreated in
some way not told, is rather to make a history than
to receive one.
(3.) In 1 Thess. ii. 6—the passage in question—
Paul probably uses the plural “we” with a singular
sense. He says in the same chapter, verse 18, “We
would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and
again: but Satan hindered us.” Bishop Onderdonk
replies, “It is not unusual, indeed, for St Paul to use
the plural number of himself only; but the words
“apostles’ and “our own souls’ (verse 8), being
inapplicable to the singular use of the plural number,
shows that the three names at the head of this epistle
are here spoken of jointly. And thus Silas and
Timothy are, with Paul, recognised in this passage of
Scripture as ‘apostles.’”f Although it were shown
that the term “we” had in this passage a plural
* Acts xxvi.
f Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 55.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 217
signification, additional proof would need to be ad-
duced that Timothy is included. We have seen that
there is no such connection usually between the
headings of Paul's epistles and their contents as to
determine this point. By “apostles,” Paul might
mean the apostles, emphatically so called; or he might
use the word in its general acceptation of messengers,
heralds of Christ. When it suits his purpose, Bishop
Onderdonk contends (page 45) for the term “apostle”
not being used in its proper sense. Why fix on it
its proper sense in this connection ? Paul does not
elsewhere say of apostles only that they might de-
volve on the churches the burden of their support.
He lays down the general maxim, that the labourer
is worthy of his hire; and why may he not be here
also understood to say that Christ's messengers are
entitled to support from his people? Although, then,
the term “we” were proved to have here a plural
sense, it might not include Timothy; and although
it were proved to include Timothy, he might be called
an apostle only as being a minister of Christ. So far
are the premises of Bishop Onderdonk from being
commensurate with his conclusion. We do not admit,
however, that the plural sense of the plural pronoun
is established by him. Paul says “apostles” and
“souls” in conjunction with “we.” What of that ?
If, in speaking of himself, he used the plural at all,
would he not naturally and fitly use the plural through-
out, and maintain consistency in his language? He
does so on other occasions. I shall notice only one
example which Bishop Onderdonk has attempted to
218 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
set aside, but in vain. Paul says, “I have said before,
that ye are in our HEARTs to die and live with you.”
The reference to what was “ said before,” carries us
back to the llth and 12th verses of the preceding
chapter: “O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto
you, our heart is enlarged ' " The plural hearts of
the one passage is explained by the singular heart of
the other, and both are expressive of Paul's affection.
“No,” replies Bishop Onderdonk, “‘our heart’ is a
general or collective phrase: ” Paul thus speaks for
himself and others collectively. Such an explanation
is chill and constrained in the extreme. To make
Paul speak at a peradventure for others, is here to
extinguish the fire of his eloquence. The power and
spirit of the phraseology depend entirely on its certain
and felt truth. Who can rid himself of callous criti-
cism, and candidly peruse these words, “O ye Cor-
inthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is
enlarged l’ and not read in them a conscious enlarge-
ment of heart—an irrepressible burst of personal emo-
tion ? -
Such objections, therefore, do not shake the pro-
bability that Paul uses plural language with a singu-
lar sense in the sixth verse, as he does confessedly in
the 18th verse of the second chapter of 1 Thess., and
that he is speaking of himself when he says, “We
might have been burdensome to you as apostles of
Christ.”
On various occasions he speaks in a way leading
us clearly to infer that Timothy was not an apostle.
* 2 Cor. Wii. 3.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 219
The first epistle to the Corinthians thus commences,
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,
and Timothy our brother.” The mere circumstance
of calling Timothy a brother, is not the main stum-
bling-block to Episcopacy exhibited in this inscrip-
tion. The connection in which it occurs constitutes
the grand difficulty. Why did Paul here introduce
his own apostleship with so much solemnity and
amplitude of language Was it not to get suitable
respect for his official standing and duties 2 But if
so, did not Timothy equally need all the homage due
to his functions? Is there any likelihood that Paul
would do so much justice to himself, and in the same
sentence be so wanting to an official “compeer?”
He enjoined on Timothy a carefulness to let no man
despise his youth. But if Timothy was an apostle,
how could Paul more effectually have silenced the
despisers of that fellow-labourer than by asserting,
clearly and emphatically, his apostleship 2 He does
this for himself once and again and often ; but never
for Timothy. Nay, in the act of avowing himself an
apostle, he withholds the title from Timothy, whom
he calls simply brother. Such a procedure on the
part of the generous Paul, forces on us the conviction
that the epithet “brother ” is here discriminative in
its relation to the designation “apostle,” and marks
a wide interval in the positions respectively denoted
by them. So much is this the case, that Archbishop
Potter supposes Timothy to have accompanied Paul
in the capacity of a deacon. Bishop Onderdonk is
very displeased with his Grace for holding such a
220 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
notion: “The cause of the mistake of this able
defender of Episcopacy seems to have been twofold.
He overlooked the passage referred to, which speaks
of Timothy as an apostle; and he was misled by the
word 312xovouvray in Acts xix. 22, where it is said
that Timothy and Erastus “ministered 'unto Paul;
which he supposes to mean ‘were Paul's deacons.”
This is but the old error, so often exposed, of arguing
from names instead of facts.” “. That Archbishop
Potter overlooked 1 Thess. ii. 6, is by no means
likely. He, probably, was of the same mind with
ourselves that it assigns no apostleship to Timothy.
But in considering Timothy a deacon, he fell, it
seems, into the old error of arguing from names.
And what is Bishop Onderdonk here doing but
arguing from names, from the name apostle, sup-
posed to be given once by implication to Timothy 7
At best, this is a narrow and critical foundation on
which to rear Timothy's apostleship; but it has no
other. As for Titus, the title is wholly wanting for
him, and cannot be made good to him even by
inference or implication. On the whole, the attempt
to establish exceptions to the apostolic qualification of
having seen the risen Saviour, has no semblance of
success in opposition to the clear, decisive, and ac-
cumulated evidence of the rule, that the apostles had
a special commission to attest Christ's resurrection
from the dead, and that persons incompetent to give
this testimony were ineligible to the apostleship.
I only remark farther, in regard to the peculiar
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 58.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 221
qualifications of the apostles, that THEY HAD NOT
ONLY THE GIFT OF MIRACLES IN A NOTABLE AND UN-
USUAL DEGREE, BUT THE SINGULAR POWER OF CON-
FERRING MIRACULOUS GIFTS ON OTHERs. “When the
covetous Simon saw that through the laying on of
the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he
offered them money, saying, Give me also this power,
that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the
Holy Ghost.” * Paul had this qualification; and
having, in virtue of it, communicated preternatural
gifts to the Christians at Corinth, he could say to
them, “I am become a fool in glorying: ye have
compelled me: for I ought to have been commended
of you; for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest
apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of
an apostle were wrought among you, in all patience,
in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” f
From all this it appears that the apostles had dis-
tinctive seals of office; and the possession of certain
qualifications by all of them is the more remarkable,
that one of their number did not obtain these in the
same manner as the rest, and yet was provided with
them in a way suitable to his circumstances. This
conclusion is not held by Presbyterians alone: it is
acquiesced in by able writers of all ages and parties.
Augustine expressly maintained that the office of an
apostle was above that of bishop.f So did Jerome,
as we have found Bishop Burnet frankly acknowledg-
ing. Dr Barrow, an eminent Episcopal writer, shows,
* Acts viii. 18, 19. + 2 Cor. xii. 11, 12.
† De Bapt. C. Don. ii. 1.
222 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
with many citations from the fathers in support of
the proposition, that “the apostolical office, as such,
was personal and temporary, and, therefore, accord-
ing to its nature and design, not successive nor com-
municable to others in perpetual descendence from
them.” He concludes an ample array of proof by
saying, “Such an office, consisting of so many extra-
ordinary privileges and miraculous powers which were
requisite for the foundation of the church and the
diffusion of Christianity, against the manifold diffi-
culties and disadvantages which it then must needs
encounter, was not designed to continue by deriva-
tion; for it containeth in it divers things which
apparently were not communicated, and which no
man without gross imposture and hypocrisy could
challenge to himself. Neither did the apostles pre-
tend to communicate it; they did, indeed, appoint
standing pastors and teachers in each church; they
did assume fellow-labourers and assistants in the
work of preaching and governance; but they did not
constitute apostles equal to themselves in authority,
privileges, or gifts. For who knoweth not (saith St
Augustine) that principate of apostleship to be pre-
ferred before any Episcopacy 7 and the bishops (saith
Bellarmine) have no part of the true apostolical
authority.” Lightfoot, in his commentary on the
Acts, is cogent on behalf of the same conclusions.
Living authors express like views; and Archbishop
Whately merely gives utterance to the sentiments of
moderate Episcopalians in general, when he says,
* Works, vol. i., pp. 594, 595. London, 1741.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 223
“Successors in the apostolic office the apostles have
none. As personal attendants on the Lord Jesus, and
witnesses of his resurrection—as dispensers of miracu-
lous gifts—as inspired oracles of divine revelation—
they have no successors. But as members, as ministers,
as governors, of Christian communities, their succes-
sors are the regularly admitted members, the lawfully
ordained ministers, the regular and recognised gover-
nors, of a regularly subsisting Christian church.” *
CHAPTER. V.
SECT. II.—The ministry of Timothy and Titus considered—
They were invested with high powers, but these powers
were held and exercised in subordination to Apostles—
Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus, nor Titus of Crete—
Py the showing of Episcopalians, Timothy and Titus were
not merely Bishops, but Archbishops; and this preferment
of these office-bearers is fatal to the argument derived from
their practice against Presbyterian ordination.
IN following out our second great objection to Pre-
lacy, that it confounds orders which Scripture dis-
tinguishes, let us consider more specially the post
filled by Timothy and Titus, to see whether it be
identical with that of the twelve. Some Episcopalian
writers, without contending that Timothy and Titus
are called apostles in the New Testament, yet lay
great stress on their ministry as having been prelatic.
These teachers were, indeed, honoured and eminent
* Whately on the Kingdom of Christ, pp. 276, 277.
224 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
servants of Christ; and if modern bishops could
establish a good title to their position and its powers,
the defence of Presbyterian parity might be aban-
doned as hopeless. Everything that Paul could do
in person he orders these office-bearers to do in his
absence. They are commissioned to set churches in
order, to prove and examine deacons, to ordain both
deacons and elders, to suppress heterodoxy, punish
offenders, and enforce a pure administration of word
and sacraments. They exhibit, in relation to the
churches, a Supreme power; but then, in relation to
Paul, they present a not less unqualified subordina-
tion. “They were attached,” says Mr F. W. New-
man,” “to the person of the apostle, and not to any
one church.” His presidency did not terminate with
their ordination: he continued to direct them. He
told them what they were to do, and how they were
to do it; he sent them, and he sent for them. Like
a master speaking to servants, he said, Go, and they
went; or, Do this, and they did it; and all their
movements he made subsidiary to his own. This
charge I commit unto thee—These things I write
that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself—I charge thee—Do thy diligence to come
shortly unto me—Take Mark, and bring him with
thee—For this cause left I thee in Crete—These
things speak and exhort—When I shall send Arte-
mas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come
unto me to Nicopolis, &c. This is the language of
* Late Fellow of Bal. Col, Oxford. See Dr Kitto's Cyclop,
art. “Bishop.”
PRESBYTERs To PRELATEs. 225
authoritative direction; and as we can have no more
superintendents of churches and church rulers them-
selves superintended by an apostle, we equally despair
of replacing Timothy as of replacing Paul. The
functions of Timothy, I repeat, had a dependence as
well as a supremacy; in the absence of either, we have
not the same office-bearer. Timothy was exhorted to
do the work of an evangelist; as Titus did the same
work, the presumption is that he was an evangelist
also. That in the primitive church there was a class
of office-bearers distinctively called Evangelists—
though Dr Onderdonk disputes the point—appears
farther from Eph. iv. 11: “And he gave some
apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and
some pastors and teachers.” Such evangelists, while
adapting themselves in other respects to the functions
of the apostles whom they aided, had a remarkable
accordance with them in this, that both classes of
ministers fulfilled their ministry at large. Strenuous
efforts have indeed been made to find Sees for Timothy
and Titus. It has been often asserted and resolutely
argued that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, and
Titus of Crete. But these assertions and arguments
have little plausibility; the simplest reading of the
New Testament shows them to be forced in the ex-
treme. “I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus.”
Was it needful or decent to beseech a bishop to abide
in his diocese? If so, the vice of clerical absenteeism,
as has been often observed, had a very early and re-
spectable origin. “For this cause left I thee in
Crete.” Is a bishop in his diocese from being left
P
226 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
there? and is he left there for a particular object,
and not to fulfil all the duties of his episcopate?
The epistles bear that the parties addressed had been
fellow-travellers with Paul, and they are required to
make all despatch to rejoin him in his journeys. In
other portions of the New Testament we find them
at various places with the apostle, and sharing in all
the changefulness of his eventful pilgrimage. In the
last notice we have of Timothy, Paul enjoins him to
repair to Rome, “in words which prove,” says Mr
Newman, “that Timothy was not, at least as yet,
Bishop of Ephesus, or of any other church.”* This
view of the subject is well put by Dodwell, one of the
stoutest champions of Episcopacy: “Many arguments
prove that the office of Timothy was not fixed, but
itinerary. That he had been requested to abide still
at Ephesus, is testified by the apostle, (1 Tim. i. 3.)
He was therefore, when requested, an itinerary. His
work of an evangelistisproof to thesame effect, (2Tim.
iv. 5.) His journeys so numerous with Saint Paul,
and the junction of his name, in common with the
apostle, in the inscriptions of the epistles to the
Thessalonians, furnish similar proofs. In like manner,
the same apostle commands Titus, and him only, to
ordain, in Crete, elders in every city, (Tit. i. 5.) He
says that he had been left to set in order things that
were wanting. He must have been a companion of
Paul when he was left. And truly other places also
teach us that he was a companion of Saint Paul, and
no more restricted to any certain locality than the
* Dr Kitto's Cyclop., art. “Bishop.”
PRESBYTERS To PRELATES. 227
apostle himself.”* It is true that Timothy was at
Ephesus, and did important work there. But the
same can be asserted with at least equal truth of his
apostolic superior: “Watch, and remember, that by
the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every
one night and day with tears.”f When Paul could
so speak to the Ephesian elders, why is he not forth-
with proclaimed Bishop of Ephesus?: In these early
times, Paul, Timothy, and other fellow-travellers,
were occasionally together in the same place, so that
a single congregation were favoured temporarily with
a whole college of diocesans. But to counterbalance
this extraordinary privilege, these clergymen of the
first order were liable to quit as they had come, in
company, and leave a church in the sad situation
* Paraenesis, sect. x. pp. 40, 41. London, 1704.
+ Acts xx. 31.
# There is the same sort of reason for calling Paul Bishop of
Ephesus, as James Bishop of Jerusalem. “The power of
James,” observes Stillingfleet, in his, Irenicum, “was of the
same nature with that of the apostles themselves. And who
will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to
the office of ordinary bishops? James, in all probability, did
exercise his apostleship the most at Jerusalem, where, by the
Scriptures, we find him resident; and from hence the church
afterwards, because of his not travelling abroad, as the other
apostles did, according to the language of their own time, fixed
the titledf bishop upon him.” “Such a descent,” says Dr Brown,
“from the office of an apostle, whose diocese was the world,
(Matt. xxviii. 19,) to that of a bishop, whose diocese was to be
Jerusalem, as Jewell observes, would have been in direct op-
position to the command of Christ, and would have been as
extraordinary, as Dr Barrow remarks, as if the King of Great
Britain were to become Lord Mayor of London.”—On Puseyite
Episcopacy, see Letters A.T. and A.III.
228 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
which Onderdonk ascribes to Ephesus, of having “no
bishop.” Truly it is hard to fit and frame together
a primitive order and modern prelacy.
If it be determined that Timothy and Titus were
of the hierarchy, much remains to be settled about
their hierarchical status. In one view, it would suit
best that they were simply bishops. Then it might
be inferred, since they ordained and ruled elders, that
elders want the right to ordain and rule each other.
So Bishops Hobart and Onderdonk will have Timothy
and Titus to have been bishops simply. But then
the extended range of labour comprised in the career
of Timothy, seems to involve a presidency over bishops
as well as presbyters. Theodoret, quoted by Epis-
copalians in proof of the transference of the title
bishops from presbyter-bishops to prelatic-bishops,
says, in the same passage of which so much is made
with so little ground, that “Titus was the apostle of
the Cretians, and Timothy of Asia.” Here Timothy
is not simply Bishop of Ephesus, but Apostle of Asia.
And even as regards Titus, if the seven churches of a
region so limited as the Asia of the New Testament
had seven angels, whom Episcopalians hold to have
been seven bishops, then surely so considerable an
island as Crete had more than one such dignitary Ż
As a matter of fact, the earliest uninspired accounts
assign to Crete (of apostolic times) eleven bishops.
This view of the matter alters and elevates the position
of Timothy and Titus. They become bishops over
bishops; or, as Hammond, Bull, and others, frankly
say, “archbishops.” And if Timothy and Titus, being
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 229
over bishops, were archbishops, what was Paul, to
whom the archbishops were subordinate?—A patriarch
at least. A rich soil there is here for the hierarchy,
when the highest of three orders, viz., bishops, par-
titions itself into other three—bishops, archbishops,
and patriarchs—and only one branch is wanting to
complete the tree of the Papacy. It is a great pre-
ferment to Timothy and Titus from being bishops to
be made archbishops; but the gain of the individuals
incurs loss to the system. For when they were
bishops, the fact of them ordaining was held to show
that elders could not ordain—which incapacity of
the presbyters brought the bishop into requisition;
but now that they are archbishops, the fact of them
ordaining will equally show that suffragan bishops
cannot ordain, else why should their metropolitan
supersede them in the duty 2 But a bishop without
power to ordain presbyters, and needing a superior
to do it for him, is a character to be scared from all
prelatic territory. So here is a goodly elevation to
Timothy and Titus, but demolition and ruin to the
argument for Episcopal ordination. We need not
wonder that many eminent Episcopalians refuse to
espouse an argument of which these are the issues.
“The great controversy,” says Dr Whitby, “con-
cerning this and the Epistles to Timothy is, whether
Timothy and Titus were indeed made bishops—the
one of Ephesus, and the Proconsular Asia; the other
of Crete—having authority to make, and jurisdiction
over, so many bishops as were in these precincts? Now,
of this matter I confess I can find nothing in any writer
230 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
of the first three centuries, nor any intimation that they
bore that name. . . . . . I assert, that if by saying
Timothy and Titus were bishops, the one of Ephesus
and the other of Crete, we understand that they took
upon them these churches or dioceses as their fixed
and peculiar charge, in which they were to preside
for a term of life, I believe that Timothy and Titus
were not thus bishops. . . . . . There is nothing
which proves they did, or were, to exercise these
acts of government rather as bishops than evange-
lists.” #
CHAPTER. W.
SECT. III.—The Angels of the seven churches of Asia declared
to be compeers of the Apostles—Some plausibility in the
allegation that they were superior to Presbyters—The
Revelation is not a book of easy interpretation—The ar-
gument would prove too much for its friends—It is not
supported by the use of the word Angel in other parts of
the Apocalypse—Even in the controverted passage, our
Lord sometimes addresses an Angel in the plural number—
If it were proved that the angels were Bishops, they could
only have been Bishops of parishes, and not of dioceses.
IT remains, in regard to the attempted identification
of certain office-bearers, to say a few words about the
angels of the churches of Asia, claimed by Episcopa-
lians as compeers of the apostles, and belonging with
them to the one order—bishops. The angels were
stated office-bearers, and they had fixed charges.
* Commentary on Titus—Preface.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 231
They are also addressed as having great power and
responsibility, without being extraordinary teachers,
and without depending for their functions on those
of others. In all these views, this plea has plau-
sibility. Whether it has anything more, let the
reader judge after pondering the following consi-
derations:—
1. The Revelation is confessedly an obscure book.--
To cite alone its symbolic phraseology against the
general, diversified, and unfigurative language of the
New Testament Scriptures, is to reverse the natural
order of explaining the shadowy by the clear and the
unclouded.
2. The argument proves alarmingly much even for its
friends.--It not only makes other clergymen less than
the bishop—it makes them nothing; they totally dis-
appear in the absorbing lustre of prelatic ascendency.
The elders of Ephesus, so touchingly addressed by
Paul as having all the charge, are now denied a
word in furtherance of their success or acknowledg-
ment of their existence. The candlesticks are the
churches; the stars, the angels, are bishops; and as
for the elders who went to Miletus, or their successors
in office, we are left vainly to ask, Where are they 7
None of Paul's epistles, or Peter's, or those of any
other apostle, were in this style. Clement of Rome,
in writing to the Corinthians, maintains the prevail-
ing apostolic usage of acknowledging presbyters and
deacons alone as stated office-bearers. So does Poly-
carp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, written about
sixty years after Paul's to the same church. Even
232 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
Ignatius, in the Epistle to Polycarp, though he has
been cited as using the same sort of language with
John, speaks very differently; for he requires sub-
mission from the church of Smyrna to their bishop,
with their presbyters and deacons.” And we must
come far down in the history of usurpation and
tyranny to find letter, decree, or bull, rivalling this
forgetfulness of all clergymen except bishops implied
in the angelic argument. Is not this rather much to
be credited, or even relished; and must there not
be some misapprehension in such an exegesis of
Scripture?
3. John uses the word angel in other portions of the
Apocalypse, where the sense is adverse to the episcopal
argument.—The synagogue had functionaries so called,
and some seek there the import of the appellation.
Certainly no ruler in the synagogue attained to such
exclusive consequence as to present the aspect of
annihilating his brethren, or wielded any authority
beyond the single congregation in which he mini-
stered, and therefore Presbyterians have no party
reason for objecting to this reference. But the
argument from the synagogue is involved, as we
have seen, in much uncertainty; and here it is much
safer to collate John's use of the word in some
passages with his own use of it in others. Now, the
“angels,” as the learned Joseph Mede observes, “by
a mode of speaking not uncommon in this book, are
put for the nations over which they were thought to
preside; which appears hence, that they who, by the
* Onderdonk, p. 46.
PRESBYTERs To PRELATEs. 233
injunction of the oracle, are loosed, are armies of
cavalry sent forth to slaughter men.” In such a case,
the term “angel” has not an individual signification,
but is representative of multitudes. In more immedi-
ate relation to our present purpose, John says, “I saw
another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the
everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on
the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and
tongue, and people.” On this passage, Dr Mason
observes, “‘Heaven,” in this book, is the ascertained
symbol of the Christian church, from which issue forth
the ‘ministers of grace’ to the nations. As this
gospel is preached only by men, this “angel, who
has it to preach to “every nation, and kindred, and
tongue, and people,’ must be the symbol of a human
ministry. And as it is perfectly evident that no
single man can thus preach it, but that there must be
a great company of preachers to carry it to “every
nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, the
angel mentioned in the text is, and of necessity must
be, the symbol of that great company. We might
produce other examples; but this is decisive.”f In
the fourteenth chapter, then, of the book of Revela-
tion, “angel” denotes a company of teachers; is it
incredible that, in the opening chapters of that book,
the same symbol should have the same sense 7
4. In the controverted chapter, our Lord sometimes
addresses an angel in the plural number.—I know the
reply, that in such cases our Lord passes from the
pastor to address the flock—turns from the star to
* Rev. xiv. 6. + Mason on Episcopacy, p. 108.
234 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
the candlestick. But this key, when it is applied,
will not be found so readily to unlock the difficulties
as many have seemed to imagine. “Fear none of
those things which THOU shalt suffer: behold, the
devil shall cast some of You into prison, that YE may
be tried; and YE shall have tribulation ten days: be
THOU faithful unto death, and I will give THEE a
crown of life.” The suffering mentioned in the
first clause is described in the next two clauses; had
this identical suffering different subjects?—now the
pastor, now the congregation? To sustain the per-
secuted in their season of trial, a promise is annexed.
A crown of life is to be given—to whom 7 “Thee”—
the bishop. And were the people to share the tribu-
lation, while the prelate monopolised the recompense 2
Let any one candidly read the passage, and say
whether the reference of “thou” to the bishop, and
“you” to the flock, does not suppose, within the
compass of a verse, frequent, violent, and inexplicable
transitions. But if they are quite natural, they must
be of common occurrence. Produce, then, any modern
document in which the bishop and the people of his
diocese replace each other thus oft and suddenly,
without intimation or ceremony, and we shall admit
that our existing Episcopacy derives much counte-
nance from the phraseology in question. If angel
stand for a company, or for one as identified with
others of the same order, there is no difficulty. The
sense then is, “Fear none of those things which the
eldership of this church shall suffer: behold, the
* Rev. ii. 10.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 235
devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye
may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten
days: but though in the case of any of you a capital
punishment should be inflicted for fidelity, still be
faithful unto death, and I will give the martyr a
crown of life.”
5. If it were proved that angel means bishop, and the
bishop alone, and that no mention whatever is made of
his clergy, or any responsibility of office belonging to
them, we should then have bishops, certainly, most p0-
tent bishops; but they would be parochial bishops after
all, and diocesan Episcopacy would still be in quest of
its evidences.—The Asia of John was but a portion of
Asia Minor, and the seven churches belonged to as
many towns of differing magnitude. No angel had
two towns under his charge. But the bishop of a
diocese, says Onderdonk, is “one having power to
govern many churches and clergymen.”* The sup-
position that each of the seven angels governed
many churches, is in palpable contradiction to the
record. I am not prepared to contend that each
church was absolutely, and in every sense, a single
congregation. I will endeavour to show elsewhere
that this supposition is extreme. Several of the
larger of the Asiatic societies had, I doubt not, sub-
divided themselves, for the sake of convenience, into
distinct worshipping associations. But we should
pass to an opposite extreme in pronouncing every
one of the seven churches to have been a group of
churches; and nobody will assert that the official
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 16.
236 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
status of the angel depended on this circumstance as its
condition. If bishops at all, the angels were paro-
chial bishops; but that is to say that they were
Presbyterian bishops; for Dr Onderdonk defines
such bishops as we acknowledge, and the New Testa-
ment speaks of, “bishops of parishes,” in distinction
from “bishops of dioceses.”* The angel of a single
town and circumscribed neighbourhood could only
be, at most, what he calls “the bishop of a parish,
or a presbyter.” Thus the angels turn out to be
presbyters, and give their evidence for Presbytery,
instead of testifying to Prelacy, which had cited
them as witnesses. Even when Episcopacy had incon-
trovertibly sprung up, and attained to considerable
growth, it continued for ages to be parochial; its
principles, forms, language, were all parochial. Ig-
natius, the favourite Father with Episcopalians, is
equally emphatic as others in enunciating the maxim,
One altar, one bishop—“‘Ey 0001&ongloy dig gig gºrio-
zotog.” Every altar, and therefore every church, had
its bishop. f The recently published work of Hip-
polytus shows, as Bunsen remarks, that even in his
time—the early part of the third century—“a town
was synonymous with a diocese.”f
Since much interest is felt in the work to which I
have just alluded, and a high importance is attached
to the information which it affords regarding the his-
tory and constitution of the ancient church, I may be
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 16.
f See Campbell on Eccles. Hist., vol. i. p. 211, &c.
f Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i., Sec. PostScript, p. 334.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 237
allowed to relieve the argument for a little, by giving
the reader some account of this remarkable treatise,
and of the circumstances under which it is brought
before the Christian world. My summary of the
facts will be collected and condensed from Bunsen's
late publication, in four volumes, and expressed for
the most part in that author's words. Hippolytus
flourished in the reigns of Commodus and Alexander
Severus; and, as a Roman, he recollects and describes,
from his personal knowledge, the secret history of the
Church of Rome, under the former of these emperors.
He is understood to have suffered martyrdom, A.D.
236, in the first year of the reign of Maximin, or be-
fore its close in 238. He was bishop of the Harbour
of Rome—Portus, and also a presbyter of the Church
of Rome; or, in other words, a member of the Roman
Presbytery. Photius, the learned patriarch of Con-
stantinople, mentions regarding him that he was a
disciple of Irenaeus, of whose lectures against here-
tics he made a synopsis, and thus composed a book on
thirty-two heresies, beginning with the Dositheans
[Ophites], and going down to Noetus and the Noetians.
This book of Hippolytus was lost for many centuries,
and has only now been recovered.
“A French scholar and statesman of high merit,
M. Willemain, [then Minister of Public Instruction,]
sent a Greek [Mynas] to Mount Athos [a mountain
of Greece on which there are many monasteries], to
look out for new treasures in the domain of Greek
literature. The fruits of this mission were deposited,
in 1842, in the great national library, already pos-
238 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
sessed of so many treasures. Among them was a
manuscript of no great antiquity, written in the four-
teenth century, not on parchment, but on cotton
paper; and it was registered as a book “on all Here-
sies,” without any indication of its author or age.
The modern date of the manuscript, its anonymous-
ness, and probably, above all, this awful title, deterred
the scrutinising eyes of the learned of all nations who
glanced over it. It fell to the lot of a distinguished
Greek scholar and writer on literature, a functionary
of that great institution [the national library], M.
Emanuel Miller, to bring forward the hidden trea-
sure. He was first struck by some precious fragments
of Pindar, and of an unknown lyric poet, quoted
by the anonymous writer; he transcribed and com-
municated them in 1826 to his literary friends in Ger-
many, who, highly appreciating their value, restored
the text, and urged him to publish the whole work.
It appears that, during this time, M. Miller had
looked deeper into the book himself; for in 1850 he
offered it to the University Press at Oxford, as a
work of undoubted authenticity, and as a lost treatise
of Origen against all heresies. The learned men pre-
siding over that noble institution determined to print,
and have just published it, thus giving the sanction
of their authority, if not to the authorship, at least
to the genuineness of the work. . . . . . The book
was discovered by a Greek sent from Paris, and has
been most creditably edited by a French scholar, and
very liberally printed by an English university press.
The publication has been accomplished by a combi-
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 239
nation of different nations, and could scarcely, at this
time, have been brought about otherwise.”
The learned are agreed that the recovered work
cannot have been written by Origen. Some are dis-
posed to ascribe it to Caius; but Bunsen seems to have
shown most decisively that Hippolytus was its author.
Regarding this work I shall have more to say in
succeeding chapters. For the present, I remark only,
in connection with the topic more immediately in
hand, that it unequivocally assigns a bishop to each
city, and even to every small town, containing any
number of Christians. The towns adjacent to Rome,
instead of being included in the Roman See, had
each its bishop. Portus, besides being the harbour
of Rome, may be said to have formed a suburb of
Ostia; and yet each of these places was provided with
a bishop. The word diocese (6101zngrg) having rela-
tion to a province, made its entry into ecclesiastical
nomenclature at a late period, when the power of
bishops, ceasing to be parochial, and becoming pro-
vincial, demanded an appropriate designation.f
With the exception of one digression, the foregoing
discussion has been condensed as much as possible ;
but I trust enough has been said to convince a candid
inquirer that apostles, evangelists, and apocalyptic
angels were not official compeers, and that they cannot
possibly be proved to have been one order correspond-
ing with diocesan bishops.
* For this extract, see vol. i. letter i., p. 9, &c.
f See Campbell on Eccles. History, vol. i., p. 207, &c.
240 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
CHAPTER WI.
SECT. I.-Episcopacy invalidates that authority of Presbyters
which Scripture is careful to establish, more especially as
regards government and ordination—The evidence on which
Presbyters are denied these functions is almost wholly
negative—This mode of proof is not conclusive, and it re-
coils on Episcopalians.
A THIRD great objection to the episcopal system is,
THAT IT LABOURS TO REDUCE AND ENFEEBLE THE
Power OF PRESBYTERS, WHICH THE WRITERS OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT ARE EARNEST TO UPHOLD. In a
particular manner, it denies to presbyters the functions
of government and ordination. The evidence adduced
in support of this position by Episcopalians is almost
wholly negative in its character. It is not pretended
that presbyters are forbidden by Scripture, as they are
by the decrees of episcopal councils, from discharging
such duties. But it is virtually argued, that whatever
presbyters cannot be shown, by specific examples to
have done, they of course never did, and were inca-
pable of doing. Have we any such annals of the con-
duct of ordinary office-bearers in particular churches
as to render this principle of argumentation safe 2
Even “the Acts of the Apostles” give us only some
acts of some apostles. Nay, disciplinary acts, on which
so much stress is laid, are recorded of Paul only. And
if so little is told us of the great champions of the cross,
shall we measure the rights of presbyters by the few
notices givenusof their actual administration? Surely
if the general statements and pervading spirit of the
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 241
New Testament be in favour of a stated and well-
sustained rule by presbyters, the inference as to par-
ticular functions of superintendence is all in their
favour. What should we think of the argument,
that, as Paul alone of all the apostles is recorded to
have inflicted church censures, therefore the other
apostles neither exercised nor possessed this function ?
Such reasoning would be accounted sufficiently ab-
surd; and yet it is by this plea alone that presbyters
are denuded of their authority.
The demand for examples may even recoil on
those who make it. Bishop Onderdonk says, “There
are no cases recorded of discipline by presbyters.”
And shall we conclude, then, that presbyters had no
power of rule, and exercised no authority whatever
for the maintenance of ecclesiastical purity ? No;
this would be too much for Episcopacy. “Doubt-
less,” says Bishop Onderdonk, “their elders did
[judge] in lighter matters, even to the lesser ex-
communication.” But if no cases of discipline by
elders are recorded, and yet they confessedly did
charge themselves with cases of discipline, this shows
that we should reason inconclusively by inferring
the absence of the power from the silence of Scrip-
ture as to its application. Scripture, we are told,
has recorded no cases of discipline by elders, yet they
did ea:ercise discipline in lesser matters; why, then,
though Scripture (by supposition) has recorded no
such cases, may they not have exercised discipline
in greater matters? The total silence of Scripture
must prove total incapacity in one case as well as
Q
24.2 . ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
another, otherwise the argument is vicious. It will
not do to establish a universal conclusion, and then
take so much of it as suits our purpose. If the fact
be that no cases of discipline by elders are recorded,
and yet in some cases elders did exercise discipline,
then should not Bishop Onderdonk see that he insists
upon more record than suits his own concessions;
and that he has got into a province where a full and
complete history has not been afforded us?
CHAPTER WI.
SECT. II.-There is evidence that Elders were entrusted with
government—The power is expressly ascribed to them—
The ascription of it is not accompanied with reservations
in behalf of Prelates—The administration of discipline in
certain recorded cases was not prelatic—There is sufficient
ground to conclude that Elders, besides ruling the flock,
exercised inspection over one another.
THE remarks in the preceding section were made to
expose a fallacy in Episcopal reasoning, and not to
get rid of an appeal which presbytery is unable to
meet. Whether there be a fair and full view of
the power of presbyters in the statement, that no
cases of discipline by them are recorded, let the
reader decide after pondering the following con-
siderations:—
1. Scripture ascribes the power of government very
unequivocally to elders. It denotes their administra-
tion by the verbs hyāouai, ºrgoformal, Totſugivo; and
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 243
we do not find in the New Testament any stronger
expressions for ecclesiastical rule. “Remember
them which have the rule over you (röy #youpévoy
tºv), who have spoken unto you the word of God.”
“Obey them that have the rule over you (roſ;
hyovſzávous tºy), and submit yourselves; for they
watch for your souls,” &c. f “Salute all them that
have the rule over you” (ºrávrag roºg hyouſºvovg
ūgºw). : Here in the course of one chapter we have
the verb #ysogo.1 used three times in relation to
numerous stated office-bearers, never to be con-
founded with diocesan bishops. “We beseech you,
brethren, to know them which labour among you,
and are over you (ºrgoforouávovg (gºv) in the Lord.” $
“Let the elders that rule well (ºrgosorºrºg ºrgac{3üregoi)
be counted worthy,” &c. || Surely the church in
Thessalonica had not a plurality of diocesans labour-
ing among them. In the passage cited from 1
Tim. the rulers are expressly called elders. “Take
heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers
(bishops) to feed (ºrogo.ſvgly) the church of God.” I
Paul thus spoke to the Ephesian “elders.” In after
times the bishop alone was hyotºgvog and ºrgoforo.p.svog;
but the inspired penmen apply these titles to all
presbyters without distinction; and is it not a sig-
nificant fact, that the ambitious and grasping prelacy
of subsequent times monopolised the scriptural terms
for ordinary presbyterial control as the most emphatic
* Heb. xiii. 7. + Ib. 17. i Ib. 24.
Ž 1 Thess. v. 12. | 1 Tim. v. 17. T Acts xx. 28.
244 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
it could get even then for characterising its usurped
and lordly dominion ? - -
2. Scripture does not qualify such ascription of
power to elders by any reservations eaſpressive of sub-
ordination to higher officers. The elders of Ephesus
convened at Miletus were instructed after what
manner to exercise their episcopate; but though
informed how to feed the flock, they were not bound
over to obey a diocesan. The orders they received
had all respect to superintendence of the flock or
mutual fidelity, and said nothing of subjection to
ministers of a loftier grade. To say that the Ephe-
sian elders were still to obey Paul, though removed
from them, as being a bishop at large, is inadmis-
sible, since his very design was to speak of duties
which would demand fulfilment when communication
with himself should be broken off; and the pathos
of the address obviously and confessedly lies in its
valedictory character.
The emblems by which the power of presbyters
is illustrated in Scripture suppose its elevated cha-
racter. It is likened, for example, to that of heads
of families. A bishop, says Paul, 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?” “ The highest power
in a family resides in its head, It is by a supreme
discipline that he keeps his children in grave sub-
jection. But this rule over one's own house the
* 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 245
apostle employs to illustrate the care which pres-
byter-bishops have of the church; and a proved
competency for the former he specifies as a condition
of appointment to the latter.
3. Scripture exhibits to us important cases of dis-
cipline not administered by prelates. Paul says, “Do
not ye judge them that are within 7 °º “So
doubtless,” says Bishop Onderdonk, “their elders
did in lighter matters, even to the lesser excommu-
nication.” Whether the judgment Paul speaks of
had respect to lighter matters, may be seen from the
context: “I have written unto you not to keep com-
pany, if any man that is called a brother be a forni-
cator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a
drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no
not to eat.” This is the eleventh verse, and the
apostle asks in the twelfth, “Do not ye judge them
that are within 7” A clause, indeed, is interposed
in the beginning of the latter verse: “For what have
I to do to judge them also that are without 7” This
intimates simply that the judgment spoken of was
not for parties without the church. If any that was
called a brother, as being a church member, was a
fornicator, &c., then the case came under ecclesiastical
cognisance, and it belonged to the parties addressed to
judge such offenders as those within its communion. In
the next verse the apostle insists on the ejection of
the fornicator who had his father's wife. The
context, therefore—in what precedes and what
follows—plainly shows, that when the apostle says,
* 1 Cor. W. 12.
246 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
“Do not ye judge them that are within?” his
language comprises matters of judgment of the
gravest description.
But “the action of Paul,” says Dr Onderdonk,
“in this case, shows that they (the Corinthians) did
not inflict the greater excommunication.”* How can
it show so much 7 This conclusion is broader than
the premises. The action of Paul proved only that
where discipline was neglected he could interfere and
cause it to be enforced. “Wherefore put away from
among yourselves,” he says, “that wicked person.”
Has a sea-captain no command of a ship—has he
not, in ordinary circumstances, the supreme command
of his ship—because an admiral may interpose at a
time a superior authority to punish misconduct or
reward merit among the crew 7 The language of
Paul, as has been justly "observed by Mr Barnes,
supposes that the church of Corinth did usually
exercise discipline; nay, that it ought to have done
so in this case. How was the society implicated in
the crime of an individual unless by their neglect of
discipline 7 Their offence plainly was, that the
offender had not with mourning been “taken away
from among” them.
Dr Onderdonk weakly replies by citing acknow-
ledgments about the imperfect qualifications of the
first elders. Such imperfection might render proper
an occasional supervision of their authority, without
destroying it altogether, or superseding it in ordinary
circumstances.
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 15.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 247
It is quite conceivable that churches (whether
acting collectively or through elders) might be usually
charged with discipline, and yet in the infant state
of the Christian cause, and when their own conversion
was recent, might need the interposition at times of
a superior direction. Certainly no stray discussion
about the capacity or incapacity of any parties can
set aside the explicit language of Paul in the chapters
under consideration. He unequivocally complains
to those whom he addresses, that the perpetrator of
the foul deed had not been excommunicated. To
prevent similar neglect in future, he says, verse 7,
“Purge out, therefore, the old leaven,” &c. The “old
leaven” was to be purged out by them, though at his
instigation; and that the “old leaven” does not refer
to this one crime alone, but in general to such crimi-
malities, is plain from verse 8: “Therefore let us keep
the feast not with old leaven, neither with the leaven
of malice and wickedness [most comprehensive terms],
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
In his second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul reverts
to this case of offence, which, in consequence of his
prior expostulation, had been visited with adequate
if not extreme correction:—“Sufficient to such a
man,” he says, “is this punishment, which was
inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought
rather to forgive him,” &c.” Shortly after, and in
the same connection, he says, “To whom ye forgive
anything, I forgive also.” Not only does the apostle
in this language leave it with the Corinthians them-
* 2 COT. ii.
248 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
selves to forgive the offender or discharge him from
corrective discipline; but he generalises his language
—“To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also.”
So often as you see meet thus to release offenders
from disciplinary punishment, you have my approval
and concurrence.
On a review of this proof, it appears that churches
uncontrolled by prelates judged those that were
within. Even where Paul interfered to correct
irregularities, he intimates how like matters ought to
be proceeded with in the absence of such express
and direct interference. His language cannot be
understood of a personal bearing towards offenders;
for it is not the phraseology of private intercourse,
and it occurs, besides, in the midst of statements
and instructions about ecclesiastical discipline. Nor
is there room for pretending that the judgment so
exercised had respect to light matters; for it is spoken
of in immediate connection with heinous and aggra-
vated trespasses. Paul exerted his apostolic authority
in requiring that a certain offender should be brought
under discipline. Even then, however, he did not
inflict the corrective punishment, but left the inflic-
tion of it to others. His language implies, that they
should have set about it sooner, and that his remonstrance
and interference were occasioned by their culpable
remissness. When they had subjected the offender
to adequate censure, and passing perhaps from one
extreme to another, had become over zealously severe,
Paul recommends a relaxation of rigour and an
extension of mercy. And to prevent in future the
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 249
undue severity or prolongation of such discipline,
he gives them the general assurance that so often as
punishment led to penitence, they had his cordial
concurrence in the exercise of clemency. Let any
one read with candour the epistles to the Corinthians,
and say whether such be not their import and spirit
in relation to the subject in debate; and whether, in
consequence, they do not utterly explode the alleged
dependence of discipline on prelacy. -
In the preceding remarks I have allowed it to be
supposed that church discipline might be administered
either by the members collectively, or by selected
functionaries, because the settlement of that point
belongs to another part of the argument; and in
reasoning with the advocates of Episcopacy, it is
enough for me to show that offenders can be dealt
with, and even the gravest discipline administered,
without the aid of a diocesan bishop.
One void may seem to remain. Though elders
ruled the flock, where is the proof that they ruled
each other? Where do we hear in Scripture of
presbyters having brother presbyters under their
jurisdiction ? We have shown that government and
discipline in general are assigned to elders; and if
we have made good the rule, it lies with those who
deem it to be limited to establish their exceptions.
Elders have authority—a general authority—em-
phatically and unrestrictedly ascribed to them: where
is the proof that such authority does not include a
mutual inspection ? Above all, where is the command
to a presbyter to obey his diocesan? Any indications
250 . ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
which Scripture furnishes on the subject look in
another direction. In addressing the Ephesian elders,
Paul said, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves,
and to all the flock.” The elders were to look to
their own order, while maintaining church order.
What follows is yet more explicit: “For I know
this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves
enter in among you, not sparing the flock; also of
your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things to draw away disciples after them, therefore
watch.” No doubt each elder was here instructed
to be on his guard, lest the awful prediction of evil
should be fulfilled in himself. But when Paul speaks
of calamities to the flock, and enjoins watching in
relation to wolves, who can imagine all the duty
enforced to be exhausted when an elder was simply
careful not to be a wolf? Was he to see wolves
come, and to stand by while these depredators com-
mitted their ravages unrestrained 7 Paul forewarns
elders of these destroyers, and speaks of no higher,
no other functionaries than elders by whom the de-
struction may be precluded or qualified. A degenerate
ministry is the evil: the watchfulness of elders is the
remedy, and the only remedy, specified by the apostle.
The reader may naturally be desirous to know
what light the newly-discovered work of Hippolytus
sheds on the powers of presbyters, and their partici-
pation in discipline during the earlier centuries of the
Christian era. We learn from it that there was a
Roman Presbytery, of which Hippolytus and other
suburban bishops were members. To suppose that
+.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 251
the teachers of such inconsiderable places were all
diocesan bishops, would require surely an effort of
imagination. The governing presbytery, however,
included many members resident in Rome. There
could not be numerous diocesans in the same city.
Nor is Hippolytus the only writer who, in relation toº
that period, bears witness to these facts. “We have,”
says Bunsen, “in Cornelius' Letter about Novatian,
the official list of the clergy of the city of Rome.”*
This letter being of the year 250, the presbytery can
scarcely have differed in its principal features from
that of which Hippolytus was a member some twenty
years earlier. “There were under Cornelius, at Rome,
forty-two priests (or presbyters) and seven deacons.
• * These persons, therefore, formed the pres-
bytery. According to the 35th Apostolical Canon,
the bishops of the suburban towns, including Portus,
also formed at that time an integral part of the Roman
Presbytery, called in later times the College of Car-
dinals.”f On such grounds Bunsen concludes that
“the Ecclesiastical Polity” of these times “may be
termed Presbyterianism.”f But what sort of govern-
ing functions did the Presbytery fulfil? Bunsen says,
“All weighty affairs evidently passed still through
the Presbytery; only the decree of the Presbytery of
the Roman Church could expel from its communion.”
A writer in a recent number of the Edinburgh
Review says, “Hippolytus speaks of himself being
* Euseb. H. E., vi. 43.
+ Hipp. and his Age, vol. i., let. V., pp. 310, 311.
f Ib., p. 307 * *
252 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
officially concerned in expelling some persons from
the Roman Church. In the treatise against the
heresy of Noetus, he (Hippolytus) states that the
Presbytery summoned Noetus before their church,
and questioned him as to his tenets, and ultimately
expelled him from the church.” This was not surely
a power of discipline “in lesser matters,” or in relation
to private members.”
* As regards the points of difference between Presbyterians
and Congregationalists which have been already discussed, I
do not find that Bunsen adduces any thing very decisive from
Hippolytus, or that the expression of his own opinions is very
clear and consistent. He says, “The elders are teachers and
administrators. If an individual happen to be engaged in either
of these offices more exclusively than the other, it makes no
real alteration in his position; for the presbyters of the ancient
church filled both situations.” This language seems to inti-
mate that all elders were from the first both teachers and rulers,
although some might exclusively occupy themselves with one
of these departments. (Vol. iii., p. 246.) Elsewhere he de-
clares that “in the earliest church the office of teacher was
Open to all. Every one taught to whom the Spirit gave the
vocation. By degrees the office of the elders became an office
of teachers.”—(Page 185.) Here we are informed that in the
first instance none were officially teachers. Elders, in their
official capacity, exclusively ruled; they were, in other words,
ruling elders. By degrees official teachers found admission
among these elders; at which stage of (supposed) transition
teaching elders and ruling elders would form together one
Council or session.
It seems to me that some ordinances of the ancient church,
which Mr Bunsen supplies in his third volume, point to an
order of elders expressly appointed for superintendence. In
the first set of ordinances of the church of Alexandria respect-
ing the clergy we have instructions “how a bishop is to be
elected, and what is required of him.” Thereafter it is pro-
vided, “that the bishop is to ordain two or rather three pres.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 253
CHAPTER WI.
SECT. III.—On Ordination as a service claimed by Prelates—
The nature of the rite does not show that it is unsuitable
for Presbyters—The refusal of this power to Presbyters is
inconsistent with the argument for three orders founded
by Episcopalians on the Constitution of the Old Testament
Church–No arguments against Presbyterate Ordination
can be derived from Ordination by Apostles and Evange-
lists—Presbyters are not interdicted by Scripture from
Ordaining—The state of the Pastorate in Apostolic times
indicates that the Apostles were not the only ordainers—
An instance of ordination by Presbyters is recorded in the
New Testament—The right of Elders to ordain is confirmed
by history—Result of the argument.
THE prelatic system denies to presbyters the right of
ordaining. Episcopalians attach great importance to
this position, and lay much stress on the proof which
byters.”—(Page 35, &c.) If only a dozen persons in a place
were able to contribute to the support of a bishop, his election
was to be proceeded with ; and while the congregation had
“still to be formed,” as Bunsen remarks, page 220, “the bishop
named the elders.” Could preaching elders, additional to the
bishop, be needed under such circumstances 2 These ordi-
nances expressly require that the bishop be “able to explain
the Scriptures well:” the elders are not said to instruct the
people except to be “all in subjection;” in other words, they
were to preserve order.
In respect to the rights of church members, Bunsen tells us,
that in the days of Hippolytus the only vestige of popular
liberty that was left lay in a tumultuous veto on the appoint-
ment of bishops, And what of the power of the people in earlier
times? Mr Bunsen says, the “congregation was governed and
directed by a council of elders, which congregational council
at a later period was presided over, in most churches, by a go-
verning overseer—-the bishop. But the ultimate decision in
important emergencies rested with the whole congregation:
254 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
they adduce on its behalf. Perhaps the reader will
not consider it so very strong if he duly weigh the
following observations.
I. The reasonableness of refusing to presbyters the
power of ordaining does not appear from the nature of
ordination. In being ordained, a person is regularly
set apart to official duty. They who ordain him,
thereby affix the seal of their approbation in the most
solemn manner to the appointment, while they invoke
for him the aid of that Spirit who divideth to every
man severally as he will. If the individual who is the
subject of ordination has the countenance of brethren
already established in office and character, and through
their prayers is strengthened with all strength by the
Spirit in the inner man, he will not be deficient in
sanction or encouragement. The service may have
bishops and elders were its superintending members—its guides,
but not its masters.”—(Page 220.) And who was to decide
what emergencies were important, so as to bring these cases,
and these only, before the whole congregation ? or by what
decision regarding these emergencies was the ultimate deci-
sion preceded ? Surely “the whole congregation” was not
a court of review, which sat in judgment on appeals from the
inferior council of elders. This is not meant; but I do not
see what meaning precisely is to be conveyed. Mr Bunsen tells
us elsewhere, that Clement of Rome wrote his epistle to the
Corinthians about twenty years before the gospel of John was
written, exhorting them to respect the well-founded right of
venerable elders; and that the “Philippians appear to have lived
under the same aristocratic constitution when Polycarp addressed
his epistle to them.” He asserts with axiomatic explicitness,
that “bishops and elders are essentially rulers,” and that
“rulers must have power.”—(Page 245.) I have already en-
deavoured to show what confusion results from such represen-
tations, giving presidency now to the people, and now to the
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 255
been accompanied in primitive times with the impar-
tation of preternatural endowments, qualifying the
person for the trust committed to him. On such
occasions hands were imposed; and we know that the
imposition of hands was significant in many instances
of the communication of the Holy Ghost. His gifts
were certainly most needed by office-bearers in the
church who sustained a principal charge and respon-
sibility; and there is nothing improbable in the sup-
position that these gifts may have been conferred in
special abundance when new obligations were in the
act of being undertaken. Of this miraculous nature,
probably, was the gift that was in Timothy, “which
was given him by prophecy, with the laying on of the
hands of the presbytery.” * Taking this view of the
pastor; how little countenanced they are by Scripture; and
how fatal the attempt to carry them into effect proves to the
liberties of Christian societies. If, through any misapprehen-
sion, I am doing Mr Bunsen injustice, I shall be glad to be
shown my error. It is evidently his desire to state facts un-
disguisedly, and to prefer divine truth to all human systems
and human favour. I regret that he has introduced into his
four elaborate volumes speculations on different points about
which Hippolytus confessedly says nothing, and about which,
as the Edinburgh Reviewer observes, information has been de-
rived “from other sources.” This is a plan no doubt which the
author was entitled to adopt; but a distinct, candid, and com-
pendious view of the additional knowledge furnished to church
history by the recently-discovered work of Hippolytus remains
in consequence a desideratum. That a Roman Presbytery ex-
isted in the time of Hippolytus, and that the presbyters exer-
cised discipline in matters great as well as Small, are facts
unequivocally attested in the work “Against all Heresies.”
* 1 Tim. iv. 14.
256 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
subject, some have hence questioned whether the
imposition of hands in ordination, as practised by the
apostles and their fellow-labourers, had not exclusive
reference to extraordinary endowments, and ought
not to be dispensed with when these endowments have
ceased. The Church of Scotland, under the guidance
of its Reformer, John Knox, discarded for a time
this symbolic act. “Albeit,” says the First Book of
Discipline, “the apostles used the imposition of hands,
yet seeing the miracle is ceased, the using the cere-
mony we judge not to be necessary.” We still need,
however, the aids of the Spirit; they are specially
needful to ministers of the Word; and the imposition
of hands may fitly indicate our dependence on His
help, and express our desire and prayer that it may
be vouchsafed to us. There is no evidence that the
imposition of hands denoted spiritual influence of only
one kind—only the miraculous, to the exclusion of
the sanctifying, agency of the Holy Ghost—and why
then should not the rite be retained as symbolic of
divine succours, which are still afforded us?
I have said that, in being ordained, a person is
set apart to official duty. The more essential idea
may seem to be, that he is set apart to office; and I
do not object to this mode of expression. Only we
find in the early and inspired history of the Chris-
tian church that persons already in office, without
being preferred to any other office, were sometimes
set apart with all the form and solemnity of an ordi-
nation to some particular appointment. The Holy
Ghost said, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 257
the work whereunto I have called them. And when
they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands
on them, they sent them away.” As regards
presbyters, it is of importance to remark, that they
were ordained not to office in the abstract, or to be
performed anywhere, but to official oversight in a
particular church. Nor was ordination restricted to
spiritual office-bearers, ordinary and extraordinary ;
we find that deacons charged with the serving of
tables were also ordained. In all cases the service
was conducted by ecclesiastical rulers, who also
pointed out the qualifications indispensable to the
office which was to be filled. But the people were
not therefore slighted or superseded. They had
the right of choosing their office-bearers. f The
multitude, after suitable instructions regarding the
sort of candidates to be sought out, elected seven
deacons, and set them before the twelve, who, when
they had prayed, laid their hands on them.
* Acts xiii. 2, 3.
+ It is curious to observe how much importance is attached
by Episcopalians to the imposition of hands in the ordination
of office-bearers, and how little to the elevation of hands in
their election. “The charm of the succession,” says one of
the most esteemed writers of our day, “must be ascribed to a
mysterious virtue derived from the hands of the apostles; but
the apostles did not lay on hands arbitrarily—the Cheirothesia
(to use a Greek term familiar with the readers of the Greek
New Testament, and of Harrington) required to be preceded by
the Cheirotonia: none were ordained who were not popularly
elected. Where there is no foundation, there is no super-
structure; where the beginning is wanting, the consummation
is wanting also.”—(Popery and Infidelity, by J. Douglas of
Cavers, p. 12.)
B.
258 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
These observations have been made with little
reference to controversy, in order to collect the
more obvious intimations of Scripture on this sub-
ject. From what has been adduced, it appears that,
in ordination of a scriptural character, the rulers
of the church set apart to official trust a person
duly called by the Christian people, under guidance
as to the necessary qualifications. This ordinary
form of procedure does not provide for the extra-
ordinary case of a number of private Christians
being wholly without Christian rulers, and reduced
by their local situation to the necessity, in order
that they may have teachers, of appointing indivi-
duals apt to teach from among themselves to take
the pastoral care of them. Under such circum-
stances, Presbyterians do not, as Bishop Onderdonk
says they do, “insist on ordination by succession
from the apostles,” or imagine “if this succession is
broken,” that “ordination becomes of mere human
authority.” Such was not the doctrine of the
Reformers. Saints are themselves a royal priest-
hood; and strange would it be if they depended
absolutely for a ministry on a thing of circumstances
—on successive manipulations, either by prelates or
presbyters. Christ's final commission was in the
words, “Go ye and teach (make disciples of) all
nations, baptising them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” These
words were spoken in the hearing, not of the twelve
only, but of assembled hundreds of disciples re-
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 52, Note G.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 259
presenting the Christian church. “It was,” says
Dr Smyth, “‘unto this catholic visible church Christ
gave the ministry.’ ‘The whole church visible,”
says Hooker, “ was the true original subject of all
power.’ ‘God,” says Bucer, ‘gave the power of
ordination to the church (simpliciter), and not to
individuals, and the presbytery are but the servants
of the church.” “We lay it down, to use the words
of Dr Rice, “as a fundamental principle in our
system of polity, that ecclesiastical power is by the
Lord Jesus Christ vested in the charch; it belongs
to the body of the faithful people.’ And hence it
follows, that, should any interruption or removal
of the true and lawful ministry take place, God's
church and people are in such a case thrown back
upon their original rights—are empowered, by autho-
rity of this commission, to call any individuals whom
Christ has gifted to officiate in the church, until in
this way a gospel ministry is again instituted, and
the church permanently officered and organised.
In such a case as this, the church has power to
set up the ministry and to restore it, according to
Christ's own institution; and the inward call of
God enlarging, stirring up, and assisting the heart,
together with the good-will and assent of a people
whom God makes willing to receive him, can fully
authorise and consecrate any man to the ministerial
office.” Extraordinary events may indicate the will
of God even more clearly than usual forms. But
ordinary forms are for ordinary circumstances most
* Smyth on Presbytery, pp. 60, 61.
260 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
valuable, and they should never be neglected when
they can be observed. Therefore, in churches
having rulers, these rulers should formally ordain,
or solemnly set apart, to the ministry those qualified
individuals whom the church calls to the office.
If there be more in ordination, what is it 2 The
most vague notions about its efficacy have been
widely entertained. It has been regarded as im–
printing a character thereafter ineffaceable, save by
the hand of Omnipotence. The Council of Trent
was much occtupied in determining wherein this
character consists, and whereon it is imprinted. Dr
Campbell, who gives an amusing summary of the
points in debate, says, “The whole of what they
agreed on amounts to this, that something—they
know not what—is imprinted—they know not how
—on something in the soul of the recipient—they
know not where—which can never be deleted.””
Few Protestants will care to enter into such dis-
quisitions. But many who speak loudly against
Rome share its mysterious ideas about ordination.
They regard it as fixing on the ordained a hallowed
signature, at once imperceptible, incomprehensible,
and ineffaceable. In this mood they are quite pre-
pared to make prelates the ordainers; for they
readily believe that high functionaries must be
needed to produce in a man this remarkable me-
tamorphosis, by which he is for ever discriminated
from ordinary men, and imbued with a certain
sacred inscrutable officiality. Bishop Onderdonk,
* On Church Hist., vol. i., p. 365.
A
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 261
with all his enlightenment, talks obscurely enough
on this subject. He states that “what is given in
ordination is given unreservedly, and it is never,
except for discipline, retracted, or suspended, or
modified by the giver or givers,” &c. We desire
the opening pronoun of this enunciation to be ex-
plained—to be replaced by its noun or nouns.
Unveil to us the “what ” of ordination, and then
we shall see, peradyenture, how it is given, and
may discern its compatibility or incompatibility with
reservation, retraction, suspension, or modification,
by giver or givers. 4.
To those who consider ordination a sacred inscru-
table something, standing absolutely by itself, and
insusceptible of being denoted save by its one awful
name, I recommend a careful perusal of the following
passage from Dr Davidson:—
“The word ordain, as employed to denote desig-
nation or setting apart to the duties of an office con-
nected with the Christian religion, is represented by
six different terms in the original Greek.
“‘Jesus ordained twelve to be with him, àºroſzog
6666x2.—Mark iii. 14. +
“‘Must one be ordained to be a witness, yeyá690.1.
—Acts i. 22. - -
“And when they had ordained them elders in
every church, Žalgorovágoyrāg.—Acts xiv. 23.
“‘By that man whom he hath ordained,’ diglos.
—Acts xvii. 31. * •
“‘Whereunto I am ordained a preacher,’ 3réðny.
—1 Tim. ii. 7.
262 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
“‘That thou shouldest ordain elders in every city,
%270.07% ong.—Titus i. 5.
“This induction affords an intimation that ordi-
nation, in the scriptural sense of the term, differs
from ordination in the current use of it. At the
present day, it denotes something talismanic and
mysterious—a certain undefinable process which
metamorphoses a layman into a clergyman. A won-
drous virtue or efficacy is assumed to lie in the act
which it is employed to express. But had this been
the New Testament usage, we should have expected
that one word only in the Greek would have been
uniformly adopted. A thing of so much importance
and efficacy must have had its own appropriate repre-
sentative. Six different verbs could scarcely have
been found to symbolise a single transaction of unique
character.”* -
If in ordination a person is simply set apart, in
an orderly manner, to official trust, then no reason
appears, in the nature of the case, why presbyters
should not ordain presbyters. A prelate is exalted,
no doubt, in being made the exclusive depositary of
this power. But it is not the spirit of the Bible to
make distinctions in themselves arbitrary, and having
no practical use, except to depress one class of office-
bearers, and elevate the pride of an ecclesiastical
superior.
2. The refusal to presbyters of the right to ordain
is incongruous with the appeal often made in behalf of
prelacy to the constitution of the Old Testament church.
* Eccl. Pol., pp. 219, 220.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 263
Episcopalians have laid great stress on the analogy
subsisting between their ministry, in three orders,
and the Mosaic ministry, consisting of High Priest,
Priests, and Levites. It has been often and zealously
contended, that the former ministry typically fore-
shadowed the latter. This argument has been shown
to be so feeble in its grounds, and so calamitous in
its consequences, that it is getting out of favour
apparently with its friends. The priests were
typical of Christ. “He,” says Bishop Skinner,
“was the real, permanent object shadowed out by all
these figurative, temporary representations of the
Mosaic ritual; and the whole order of the sacrifices
—the whole disposition of the tabernacle—the
whole ministry of the priesthood, pointed to Him
as the one true, propitiatory sacrifice—the true
tabernacle—the eternal high priest, who is passed
into the heavens, there to make continual inter-
cession.” * If we say that the priests were also
types of the Christian ministry, then Christian
ministers are priests, and in their priestly character
must have somewhat sacrificial to offer. Nay, being
anti-types—the substance foreshadowed—they be-
hove to offer true sacrifices, and to ground on them
true and effective mediation; and all this to the
exclusion or disparagement of the Lamb of God, and
the one mediator between God and man, the man
Christ Jesus. In the New Testament, sacerdotal
terms, such as priest, priesthood, sacrifice, are never
applied to Christian ministers and their functions.
* Primitive Truth and Order, c. i. p. 53.
264. ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
When we think how familiar the writers were with
such phraseology, and how prone they must have
been to use it, if its use had been still allowable,
we are led, with Archbishop Whately and others,
irresistibly to conclude that they designedly withheld
it, as absolutely inapplicable to the functions and the
institutions of the evangelical dispensation.* -
We cannot admit, then, that the Aaronic priest-
hood prefigured Christian pastors as a priesthood.
But we do admit that the ancient priesthood consti-
tuted a regular and duly-appointed ministry. What-
ever was essential to the status of a clergyman was
surely to be met with in that economy of exact and
ample ceremonial. Was it needful, then, to the
ministry of the second order under the law that they
should be ordained or invested with office by the
high priest, constituting in himself the highest order ?
No ; ministers of the second degree did all that was
necessary to the induction of equals into office. As
regards the high priest, he could not, in the nature
of the case, be ordained by a compeer; for while the
Mosaic ordinances were observed, there could not be
two such office-bearers contemporaries. Till the
Sanhedrim latterly invested the ecclesiastical head of
the nation with his high-priestly robes, the priests
did all that was required for the regular installation
* “I cannot well conceive any proof more complete than is
here afforded, that Christ and his apostles intended dis-
tinctly to exclude and forbid, as inconsistent with his religion,
those things (sacrifices, altars, priesthood, &c.) which I have
been speaking of.”—(Kingdom of Christ, Essay ii., S. xiv.,
p. 135.)
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 265
of the high priest, their superior. How comes it,
then, that service of the nature of ordination can no.
longer be conducted by the second order, to use the
language and speak on the principles of Episcopalians?
and whence is it that a spiritual dispensation is here
more jealous about grades first, second, and third,
than was the ritual dispensation itself?
3. That apostles and evangelists sometimes ordained,
is no proof that elders never did, and might not, ordain.
The churches when newly formed had no elders, nor
for some time afterwards. Gifts supplied the place
of offices, and private members exercised freely the
privilege of exhorting one another and comforting
one another. With the apostles it was an express
rule not to appoint a novice, or recent convert, to the
eldership. Ordination by apostles might, therefore,
indicate, not the incapacity of elders for this service,
but simply the want of them. Even if churches had
elders, there might be sufficient reason why apostles,
if present, should, in the exercise of higher superin-
tendence, ordain just as they preached, in lieu of the
teaching eldership, or should take a prominent lead in
fulfilling this duty.
4. Presbyters are nowhere in the New Testament
interdicted from ordaining. Such prohibitions have
been plentiful in ecclesiastical decrees of more recent
date. One of them, found in the apostolic writings,
would have been very appropriate and very precious
for the vindication of prelacy. Presbyters are
instructed to rule, and churches to obey them, but
neither presbyters nor churches are here pointed to
266 OF THE SUBORDINATION OF
an important reservation in the instructions, or warned
by precept or proposition that a diocesan bishop is
the sole ordainer in the Christian economy.
5. The accounts given us of the state of the pastorate,
in a proportion of the primitive churches, appears in-
compatible with the doctrine that apostles alone ordained
to the pastoral office. In the age of the apostles
many false teachers and wicked men found their way
into the ministry. We cannot easily explain why
such persons in such numbers were able to enter the
ministerial office, if the door of entrance had been
kept exclusively by apostles. The churches were
blamed for heaping up to themselves unsuitable.
teachers; but how was the impropriety possible, and
why was not caution duly enforced in the right
quarter, if apostles only might ordain? Why blame
the churches only, and not the ordainers also 7
The matter of reproach, let it be also observed,
was simply that such teachers were sought and
relished, and not that apostles were superseded
in the mode of their appointment—not that they
had entered otherwise than under the hand of a
diocesan. Paul said to the elders of Ephesus, “I
know this, that after my departing shall grievous
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”*
But how could these wolves get in if only Paul or
some brother apostle might admit them 7. The infer-
ence from such considerations is, that the agency
engaged in ordinations was not always apostolic, and
that where churches and their stated pastorate were
* Acts xx. 29.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 267
in a wrong state, the usual mode of appointment to
office rendered possible and easy the introduction of
very objectionable office-bearers.
6. Though little is recorded in the New Testament
of the actual administration of presbyters, mention is
made of presbyterial ordination. Paul says, “Neglect
not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery.”* The gift that was in Timothy, as has
been already remarked, probably included with office
preternatural qualifications for its duties. It had
been prophesied of him that he would be such a
gifted labourer. The prophecy was fulfilled through
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Inge-
nuity has been tasked to the utmost to get rid of
this example of ordination by presbyters. Bishop
Onderdonk thinks that the laying on of the hands of
the presbytery on Timothy may have been connected,
not with his ordination, but with some missionary
appointment, such as was assigned, in a similar
manner, to Paul and Barnabas. But the two events
are spoken of in very different terms. Nor is there
any mention of a particular missionary appointment
in the case of Timothy. The language of Paul in
relation to him appears quite detached from any
special commission—occurring among general coun-
sels, and designed to stimulate him in the habitual
discharge of official duty.
Should the language in question have respect to
ordination, Bishop Onderdonk thinks that the word
* 1 Tim. iv. 14.
268 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
presbytery may denote the office to which Timothy was
ordained, and not the persons who ordained him. It
was a laying on of hands to confer the presbytery-
ship, or office of presbyter. Calvin, in his Institutes,
noticed this interpretation favourably, but he after-
wards revoked his approval of it in his Commentary.
Will Bishop Onderdonk really accept of this expla-
nation of the passage? Will he admit the office of
Timothy to have been that of presbyter? No; this
rendering is no sooner sanctioned to get rid of or-
daining presbyters, than it must be moulded and
mutilated into accordance with prelacy. The pres-
byterial office, contends the Bishop, must here mean
the clerical office, without specification of grade; and
when Paul names the presbyteryship, he must have
intended the apostleship ! But Bishop Onderdonk
has not produced a single passage, either from the
New Testament or from the Fathers, in which the
word rendered by our translators presbytery means
undefinedly clerical office. When the word, in its
Latinised form, denotes office in ancient writers, it
is always specifically the office of presbyter. This
translation, then, is adverse to Episcopacy, for it
assigns to Timothy the office of presbyter, and makes
all the ordinations which he presided over presby-
terial, and not prelatical.
But is the rendering now discussed at all admis-
sible 2 Did Paul not mean to be specific, and did
he merely remind Timothy—as the least noted elder
or deacon might have been reminded—that he held
an official trust 7 The stress of obligation, it seems,
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 269
is laid on the office, and yet the office is not speci-
fied
There is no need for straining after such improbable
interpretations. In the absence of controversy, the
word presbytery would at once be understood to
denote a council composed wholly or mainly of pres-
byters. It occurs three times in the New Testament.
In two of these instances it denotes the Sanhedrim,
or assembled elders of the Jews. “As soon as it was
day,” says Luke, “the elders [the presbytery] of the
people . . . led him into their council.” ” No one
thinks of proving that presbytery here means, or can
mean, something else than a deliberative body taking
its name from presbyters as its members. “The high
priest,” said Paul, speaking from the stair of the
castle, by the permission of the chief captain, “doth
bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders,” f
—all the presbytery. Who tries to establish that
presbytery here denotes a certain office, and not
office-bearers, or a class of functionaries among
whom presbyters had no place 7 It is the same word
which Paul employs when he speaks of the laying on
of the hands of the presbytery; and if it denoted a
company of elders in the examples formerly noticed,
we naturally suppose that it does the same here.
The early Christian fathers frequently call the de-
liberative council of a particular church its presbytery.
Even when the imposition of a bishop's hands came
long after to be pronounced the essential act in ordi-
nation, elders were permitted to impose hands with
* Luke xxii. 66. f Acts xxii. 5.
270 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
the bishop, in evident allusion to the passages now
commented on, to avoid open collision with apostolic
usage. “The sense of the word ºrgaſ3vragog” [pres-
byter], says Principal Campbell, “as well as the
application of the word ºrgsg3vragoy [presbytery]
in other places to a convention of those called
Tge66vragot [presbyters], determines the sense of the
word in this passage; and, indeed, all Christian an-
tiquity concurs in affixing this name to what may be
called the consistory of a particular church, or the
college of its pastors.” * *
Suppose that the word presbytery might signify
something else than a council of elders, why leave
this more obvious sense, sanctioned as it is by New
Testament usage, and search about for other possible
meanings, unless it is determined beforehand that
presbyters shall not ordain, and that Scripture shall
not countenance such ordination ?
There is no collision between the views which have
just been offered and the words of Paul : “Where-
fore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up
the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on
of my hands.” f On the understanding that the
same act of ordination is here intended, we learn that
Paul was a party to it; but so was each member of the
presbytery, otherwise one of the passages contradicts
the other. Any office-bearer who takes part in an
ordination bears the responsibility of it, and may
fitly speak of it as his own act, especially when he
claims attention, on the ground of it, to his own ex-
* On Eccles. Hist, vol. i., p. 132. f 2 Tim. i. 6.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 271
hortations. Such language would have a peculiar
propriety, if, as is probable, Paul presided on the
Occasion.
What other solution can we adopt? That Paul
ordained, say prelatists, and that the presbytery
merely signified assent. This explanation is arbi-
trary. It is extremely unlikely that the identical
act should, to several parties simultaneously engaged
in it, have totally different significations; and there
is not a syllable in Scripture which countenances the
notion. Wherever the purpose of imposing hands is
indicated, it is something very distinguishable from
mere concurrence. In this case, if in any case, the
imagination is totally inadmissible; for how can it
be conceived that in one of the passages cited, Paul
should have mentioned the presbytery, and the presby-
tery alone, if the act of the presbyters was a mere
adjunct to the service 7
Bishop Onderdonk, after rejecting the conclusions
drawn from this passage in favour of presbyterial
ordination, contrasts with its “shadows, clouds, and
darkness,” the noontide radiance of the Episcopal
argument. “Timothy and Titus,” he says, “had the
ordaining power individually. Timothy was to have
it “till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ the
end of the world: that is, such ministers as Timothy
were to be perpetuated while the earthly church
should endure—what he had received of Paul was
to be “committed to faithful men’ successively. Is
there any flaw in this chain of proofs? do any rea-
sonable doubts obscure this argument from Scripture?
272 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
No! we aver it to be as clear as any matter of
doctrine or discipline drawn from that holy volume.
This is enough for an inductive proof of episcopal
ordination.” Here very much is assumed, and not
a little is unintentionally conceded. First, it is taken
for granted that what Timothy was to keep till the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ was the ordaining
power. We have only to read the passage in its
connection, to see that the apostle had his thoughts
on far different topics: “But thou, O man of God,
flee these things; and follow after righteousness, god-
liness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the
good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto
thou art also called, and hast professed a good pro-
fession before many witnesses. I give thee charge
in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and
before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate wit–
nessed a good confession, that thou keep this com-
mandment without spot, unrebukable, until the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.”f Secondly,
it is taken for granted that Timothy here represents
an order of ministers holding the identical office to
the close of time. But no language could be more
pointedly personal than that which Paul employs:
“I give thee charge that thou keep.” In terms so
precise does the apostle urge on Timothy his indi-
vidual preparation for the appearance of Christ.
Accordingly, Bishop Onderdonk says elsewhere, “Till
the appearing of Jesus Christ, i.e., till Timothy's own
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 80.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 273
death.”* If we were to generalise the passage, we
should apply it to all to whom it is applicable; and
Surely all ministers, irrespectively of “grades,” have
need to exemplify that sustained fidelity which Paul
here inculcates, as they would have confidence, and
not be ashamed before Christ at his coming. Thirdly,
it is assumed that what Timothy received from Paul
was to be committed to faithful men successively, in
the sense of perpetuating through successors the
apostleship. The word successively is not in the text;
it is not Paul’s but Bishop Onderdonk's. Paul re-
quires only that the men, whether associates or suc-
cessors, shall be faithful. The stress is laid, not on
succession, but on fidelity. In appointing men, says
the apostle, look to their faithfulness. And what if
the men should not be faithful? What if they should
be in the last degree faithless 7 What if they should
corrupt Christ's doctrine, tyrannise over his people,
lead dissolute lives, and make no use of their sacred
office but to aid and screen their multiplied abomina-
tions? When the faithfulness of which Paul speaks
is wanting, does the succession, of which Paul does
not speak, hold good? Is that which Paul alone
insists upon of so little consequence that it can be
dispensed with, and these faithless functionaries
may still impart the apostolic virtue 2 Nay, and it
depends on the touch of their polluted fingers for
transmission and preservation't
These are Bishop Onderdonk's assumptions in the
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 73.
f Some strange examples of the “faithful men” through whom
S
274 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
words I have quoted; but they also embody a con-
cession. If the faithful men were of Timothy's own
order, and perpetuated the apostleship, why did
Timothy continue to superintend them; and why
did he still ordain, as if they wanted the power?
In other passages, Bishop Onderdonk gave us to
apostolical virtue has been transmitted are furnished in the re-
cently-discovered work of Hippolytus The following account
is derived from Mr Bunsen's four volumes, and is expressed for
the most part in his own language:—There was, under Com-
modus, while Victor was Bishop of Rome, a good Christian soul
called Carpophorus, who had a Christian slave of the name of
Callistus. To help on this slave, his master gave him the
administration of a bank, which he kept in that celebrated
quarter of Rome called the Piscina Publica. Because of the
excellent character of Carpophorus, brethren and widows had
entrusted him with their money; but Callistus was a rogue,
and abused his master's confidence. When the sums which
had been deposited were asked for, they were not to be had, and
Callistus being called to account, made his escape. He ran
down to the harbour Portus, about twenty miles from Rome,
and embarked in a ship that was ready to sail. Carpophorus
pursued him, and reached the vessel by a boat, when Callistus,
finding that he was to be caught, threw himself into the water,
and narrowly escaped drowning. The runaway slave and
swindler was brought back to Rome, where his master put him
on the domestic tread-mill of the Roman slaveowner, the
pistrinum.
In the meantime, the Christians at Rome, following a practice
not uncommon with them, and willing to commend their Chris-
tian sympathy in a way which cost them nothing, remonstrated
with Carpophorus in behalf of Callistus, urging that a new
chance should be given him for well-doing and character. It
was represented by Callistus himself, that if he were allowed to
go at large, he could collect moneys which were due from the
Jews. On these pleadings, he was released from the tread-mill;
but finding himself in a wretched position with society, he
determined to do something remarkable, which would give a
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 275.
understand that the parties ordained by Timothy
were presbyters; and now it appears that these
faithful men—these trustworthy presbyters—can
hand down their charge successively through all
generations ! -
7. Ecclesiastical history shows that the incompetency
new turn to his fortunes for the better or the worse. With
this view, he went into a synagogue on the Sabbath-day (our
Saturday,) and created a riot by interrupting the worship.
The Jews fell upon him, and beat him, and carried him before
Fuscianus, the prefect of Rome. By the decision of that judge,
he was Scourged, and exiled to the unwholesome parts of
Sardinia, so fatal to life in summer.
From this situation he was extricated by the kind offices of
Marcia. That lady was mistress to the Emperor; and when his
temper became afterwards unbearable, she was privy to the
conspiracy which put him to death by poison and suffocation.
Yet this Marcia had the profession of a Christian and church
member. The legal concubine of an unbeliever was not ex-
cluded, by the canons of the times, from the communion of the
church, as long as she kept only to the man she lived with ;
but there was this awkward circumstance in Marcia's case,
that she was also the wife of the captain of the guards. Being
very friendly to the Christian cause, and wishing to do it good
service, she sent for Bishop Victor, and told him that if he
would give her the names of Christians transported to Sardinia,
she would intercede for them with the Emperor. Victor made
out a list, from which he omitted the name of Callistus, as con-
sidering him a base criminal, who was suffering the penalty
due to his misconduct.
Marcia obtained a letter of pardon for all the parties named
by Victor; and Hyacinthus, a eunuch of the palace, and a
presbyter of the church, was despatched to the governor of the
island to recall the martyrs. Hyacinthus delivered his list, and
Callistus, finding that his name was not there, began, by tears
and entreaties, to move Hyacinthus to obtain his liberation
also, which, by Marcia's influence, was accomplished. When
the exiles returned, Victor, the Bishop, was ashamed and vexed
276 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
of elders to ordain was a doctrine gradually introduced
into the church, and not held or acted on from the begin-
ning. I do not constitute the Fathers the interpreters
of Scripture, and then overrule Scripture by their in-
terpretation. We are quite as free as they were to
ascertain the sense of Scripture for ourselves. Their
tenets must be tried at the bar of revelation ; and it
is our solemn duty, as well as lofty privilege, to search
the Scriptures daily whether these things be so. The
earlier Christian writers, however, as I have before
intimated, may be expected to throw some light on
matters of fact; and in so far as they record ancient
to find that Callistus was among them ; for his master was still
alive, and the scandal of his misconduct was still fresh. There-
fore, to get him out of the way, Victor sent him to Antium,
and allowed him a certain sum a month. When Carpophorus
was dead, Zephyrinus, who had succeeded Victor, also deceased,
in the Bishopric of Rome, made Callistus his coadjutor in col-
lecting his revenues and keeping his clergy in order. This
Zephyrinus was stupid, ignorant, and fond of bribes; and by
studying his humour and doing his pleasure, Callistus got
everything his own way. At last Zephyrinus died; and so well
had Callistus prepared the way for what should follow, that he
was elected Bishop—so that a convicted swindler became first,
as we should say, Cardinal Vicar, and then Pope I
His episcopacy corresponded in character with his previous
career. He espoused and propagated Sabellian doctrine, and
yet, to serve a purpose, treated Sabellius harshly. He gave
ready pardon to excommunicated offenders, and set up a school,
in which he taught those flocking to it that discipline was un-
scriptural—that the tares should be allowed to grow with the
wheat; and as there were unclean beastsin the ark, so unclean
persons should find room in the church. In a word, this Cal-
listus was, in the opinion of Hippolytus, (who on some points
may have judged too severely), at once the moral and doctrinal
Corrupter of his church and age. Must we consider such a
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 277
usages on their own observation, or from information
ample and recent, we should attach some consequence
to their testimony. Under this aspect alone I now
appeal very briefly to their writings.
Clemens Romanus, supposed to be the Clemens
mentioned by Paul, speaks, in writing to the Corin-
thians, only of two orders in the ministry—bishops
and deacons, and requires obedience only to these
guides.* Polycarp, writing to the Philippians about
sixty years after the date of Paul's letters to them,
makes mention, in like manner, only of presbyters
and deacons. These fathers, in knowing nothing of
teacher one of the “faithful men” through whom Paul's instruc-
tions to Timothy have been carried into effect 2 Surely such an
opinion may be left to the Romanists, who have canonised
Callistus as a saint, and who celebrate his festival on the
14th of October.
One of the most esteemed Scripture expositors of our country
and age (Rev. Dr Brown) says, in a note with which I am
favoured, Bunsen’s “Hippolytus” “is a most remarkable book.
It shows how very soon the ancient church became a very differ-
ent body from the apostolic church, and how very different a
body the Roman Church is from the ancient church. How far
were they from the apostles, though the last of them was not one
hundred years dead when the baptismalwater was to be prepared
by being prayed over at the hour of the crowing of the cock, and
when a man like Callistus could be made a bishop ! The book
clearly proves that there is nosafe ground beyond the limits of the
New Testament. I believe Bunsen is quite right when he says,
that the publication of the work, which I think he has satisfac-
torily proved to be Hippolytus', has fully doubled our accurate
information respecting the church of the age immediately
succeeding the apostolic.”
* “Clement speaks of an ordinance which supposes only two
orders in the church : elders, called also overseers, or bishops,
and deacons.”—(Bunsen's Hippolytus, vol. ii., p. 231.)
278 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
prelates, have sufficiently discountenanced prelatic
ordination. Much stress is laid by Episcopalians on
the testimony of Ignatius, who wrote between Cle-
ment and Polycarp, and who is the first to speak of
three orders. But his writings, by their anachronisms
and other marks of spuriousness, give unmistakeable
evidence, if not of wholesale forgery, at least of
abounding interpolations.” And even his writings
have not been sufficiently modernised to suit our
existing prelacy. His bishop is only the presiding
presbyter of an individual congregation, aided by
other presbyters of the same society; or, in other
words, he is the moderator of the session. In this
sense we have three orders also—pastors, elders,
and deacons. As Ignatius says nothing of diocesan
* “Letter to the Trallians, said to be by Ignatius, a fictitious
epistle.”—Bunsen's Hip., vol. i., see let. p. 59. “Bunsen has
shown that four of the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius as
those of Ignatius are forged, and that the three only found
in the Syriac are genuine.”—Edin. Review for Jan. 1853, art. i.
The accomplished Editor of Owen's Works, as lately published
by the Messrs Johnstone and Hunter, Edinburgh, has a note on
the Epistles of Ignatius, giving a clear and compendious view of
the controversy regarding their genuineness. In that note it
is said—“The conjecture of Usher respecting the probability of
a Syriac manuscript was verified by the discovery of a Syriac
version of the Epistle to Polycarp among some ancient manu-
scripts, procured by Archdeacon Tattam, in 1838 or 1839, from
a monastery in the Desert of Nitria. Mr Cureton, who dis-
covered the epistle among these manuscripts, set on foot a
new search for other manuscripts. The result was, that the
archdeacon, by a second expedition to Egypt, brought home in
1843 three entire epistles in Syriac, to Polycarp, to the
Ephesians, and to the Romans. . . . At present the amount of
evidence seems in favour of the three Syriac epistles, as all the
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 279
bishops, his testimony is all against their right to be
in the church, and, of course, against their exclusive
right to ordain. Cyprian, in his fifth epistle, writing
to his presbyters and deacons at Carthage, from whom,
for the time, he was separated, implores them to “dis-
charge both his functions and their own, that nothing
might be wanting, either in discipline or diligence.”
His functions, as discriminated from theirs, could
only be his peculiar functions, consisting, as Episco-
palians tell us, in ordination and government. Yet in
the opinion of Cyprian, presbyters might replace him
in the fulfilment of them. Firmilian, in writing to
Cyprian (epist. 43 in some editions, and 75 in others),
speaks of “all power and grace being constituted in the
congregations presided over by elders (majores natu),
who have the power of baptising, imposing the hands,
genuine remains of Ignatius we possess. It is possible that
Syriac manuscripts of the other epistles may be discovered,
although the claim of the former to be not only paramount but
exclusive has been argued with great force, on the ground that
had the latter existed, they would certainly have been the
subject of appeal in many controversies by many fathers who
utterly ignore them, as well as from the closing words of the
recently discovered manuscripts, “Here end the three epistles of
Ignatius, bishop and martyr.' . . . But how fares the question
of ecclesiastical polity,+the point which brought these epistles
into dispute between Owen and Hammond,-by the discovery
of the Syriac manuscript 7 All the passages in favour of the
hierarchy disappear in it, except the following from the epistle
to Polycarp, ‘Look to the bishop, that God also may look upon
you. I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to
the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons.’”
* “Peto vos pro fide et religione vestra fungamini illic et
vestris partibus et meis ut nihil vel ad disciplinam vel ad
diligentiam desit.”
280 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
and ordaining.”.” Hilary, the Roman deacon, who
wrote in the middle of the fourth century, and whose
valuable commentary on the Epistles of Paul is bound
up with the works of Ambrose, tells us in his com-
ments on 1 Tim. iii., that the bishop was merely the
oldest presbyter, and that he had the same ordination.
The learned Jerome, who wrote about the close of
the fourth century, in his epistle to Evagrius, repre-
sents Paul as “perspicuously teaching that presbyters
were the same as bishops.” In declaring these office.
bearers to be identical, he of course identifies their
ordination and ordaining power.
Eusebius, who wrote in the third and fourth cen-
turies, has a passage in his Ecclesiastical History,
lib. iii., c. 33, of which Bishop Onderdonk quotes an
old translation, and in which, as thus translated, the
following sentences occur: “The greater part of the
disciples then living, affected with great zeal towards
the Word of God, first fulfilling the heavenly com-
mandment, distributed their substance unto the poor:
next, taking their journey, fulfilled the words and
office of evangelists, that is, they preached Christ unto
them which as yet heard not of the doctrine of faith,
and published earnestly the doctrine of the holy
gospel. These men having planted the faith in
sundry new and strange places, ordained there other
pastors, committing unto them the tillage of the new
ground, and the oversight of such as were lately con-
* “Omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta sit ubi
praesident majores natu quiet baptizandi et manum imponendi
et ordinandi possident potestatem.”
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 281
verted unto the faith, passing themselves unto other
people and countries, being holpen thereunto by the
grace of God which wrought with them; for as yet
by the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought mira-
culously, so that an innumerable multitude of men
embraced the religion of the Almighty God at the first
hearing, with prompt and willing minds.”* “These
men ordained.” What men ordained 2 The antece-
dent is “the greater part of the disciples then living.”
It would be difficult to assign any sense to these
words that would make the greater part of the dis-
ciples then living diocesan bishops. The evasions of
Bishop Onderdonk are not satisfactory. To say that
Eusebius describes what took place long before his
time, and what he therefore knew imperfectly, is in
effect to allege that his history is never to be trusted,
unless when he narrates the events of his own day.
Even were it so, the language of Eusebius shows what
he considers to have been allowable, and likely to have
happened. To say that Eusebius speaks only of the
rich among the disciples, and that, even as thus under-
stood, the expression is magniloquent and oratorical,
and not fit to be the basis of any argument concern-
ing the number of the early evangelists, is not to
explain but to annul history. But “ecclesiastical his-
torians,” we are told, “ sometimes speak of a person's
ordaining, who did not perform the rite himself, but
had it done by another; as the historian Socrates says
of the Emperor Constantine, “when he had builded
churches among them, he hastened to consecrate them
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, Post., p. 41.
282 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
a bishop, and to ordain the holy company of clergy-
men.' If it be thus said that Constantine consecrated
and ordained, though he only employed bishops to do
So, it is competent for us to infer that the same must
be meant, if Eusebius is understood to say that evan-
gelists, not of the highest ministerial rank, ordained;
they only caused persons to be ordained by the minis-
ters of that rank.” Here the “sometimes” is sup-
ported by a solitary instance ; and what is it? The
emperor, who acted as head of the church, ordained
by his ecclesiastical creatures! Principal Campbell
says of the rulers of the church of those times, that
“ the very erection of the dignities, and the investiture
of the dignitaries, were generally effected by the im-
perial edict.”f We need not wonder, under such cir-
cumstances, that ordination should be ascribed to the
emperor. This was the case of a superior acting
through inferiors. Where is an example of an act being
ascribed to inferiors which they performed through
superiors? Where, again, have evangelists the praise
where prelates did the work? But Eusebius, we are
reminded, speaks elsewhere of ordination by apostles
and bishops. Yes; but we have also seen that he speaks
of ordination by evangelists. Between these modes of
speaking there is no contradiction. Ordination may
have been conducted by all the parties named—
apostles, bishops, evangelists. He is also full, we are ad-
monished, of the successions of various lines of bishops
down from the apostles. Neither is that circumstance
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, Post., p. 42.
+ On Church History, vol. i. p. 394.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 283
at all decisive of the question in dispute. It is still
considered by ministers an honourable distinction to
Succeed an eminent minister: but though that suc-
cession may be valued and recorded, it is not there-
fore deemed essential to the ministry. It is plain,
also, that if presbyters, who never attained to higher
than presbyterate functions, were in some instances or-
dained to them by apostles, and might be able to
traee their ordination to some member of the apos- .
tolic college, evangelists might, in the same sense,
claim succession without leaving their proper status,
or pretending to prelatic dignity. The testimony of
Eusebius to ordination by a throng of evangelists, who
could not have been all diocesan bishops, is not impaired
by such objections.
I trust that the right of elders to ordain, as well as
to rule, has been satisfactorily established. If we
suppose the proof to have been inadequate, what fol-
lows? Certainly not the vindication of prelacy. Paul
ordained, Timothy ordained; but we cannot bring
back apostles and evangelists; and having proved
their offices to have been extraordinary and tempo-
rary, we call in vain for their successors. Are we,
then, to create a new class of functionaries, and con-
stitute them the sole ordainers, in order to keep
clear of presbyters? Surely it were better to explain
the power of presbyters liberally, than to enact the
twofold invention of calling into being a class of dio-
cesans unknown to the inspired penmen, and then of
assigning to these man-made superiors a higher grade
of duties than we think fit to confide to presbyter-
284 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
bishops, a confessedly scriptural order of ecclesiastical
officers.
If the foregoing discussion has any conclusive-
ness, the doctrine of a Christian ministry in three
orders is not to be found in Scripture. Let it be
remembered that many who are opponents on the
general question are here of our opinion, and that,
in times the most searching and enlightened, the
divine right of Episcopacy has been given up by
Episcopalians with general consent. The celebrated
Dodwell maintained that the apostles instituted only
the order of presbyters, and left the order of pre-
latists to arise out of facts. Even Hammond, who
reversed the supposition, and regarded the apostles
as appointing only diocesan bishops along with dea-
cons, found in Scripture only two orders, and left a
ministry of three orders to the origination and defence
of expediency. In the “Erudition of a Christian Man,”
a treatise drawn up by a committee of bishops and
divines, approved of by both Houses of Parliament,
and published with a Preface in the name of King
Henry VIII., it is said, “Of these two orders only,
that is to say, priests and deacons, Scripture maketh
express mention, and how they were conferred of the
apostles by prayer and imposition of hands; but the
primitive church afterwards appointed inferior de-
grees, as sub-deacons, acolytes, exorcists, &c.; but
lest peradventure it might be thought by some that
such authorities, powers, and jurisdictions as patri-
archs, primates, archbishops, and metropolitans now
have, or heretofore at any time have had, justly and
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 285
lawfully over other bishops, were given them by God
in holy Scripture, we think it expedient and neces-
sary that all men should be advertised and taught,
that all such lawful power and authority of any one
bishop over another were and be given them by the
consent, ordinances, and positive laws of men only,
and not by any ordinance of God in holy Scripture;
and all such power and authority which any bishop
has used over another, which has not been given him
by such consent and ordinance of men, is in very
deed no lawful power, but plain usurpation and
tyranny.”
CHAPTER, WI.
SECT. IV.-Concluding Remarks.
THERE are many able and excellent ministers in the
Church of England. One cannot enter their society
without being charmed by their mental cultivation,
their refined manners, their deep-toned piety, and
official devotedness. Many of the private members
of the English Church command like respect and
admiration by their decided godliness. It is to these
excellent of the earth we specially make our appeal,
in beseeching the friends of Episcopacy to reconsider
its grounds. Is a system of such complication, and
pomp, and lordly control, really sanctioned by the
New Testament, or compatible with the simplicity
* Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 25.
286 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
that is in Christ 7 At the present time there is
special need to consider whether it has any affinity to
Romanism. The Rev. J. M. Rodwell, Bishop Onder-
donk's editor in this country, speaks of the Church
of England as “the authorised protester against
Rome.” * But how does this appear when Puseyism
is active and powerful in that church, and in no
other? Is the fellowship of Episcopacy and Puseyism
a thing of chance? Surely the facts should be pon-
dered before this exposition of them is adopted. Let
any one examine carefully the Episcopal controversy,
and he will perceive that a great portion of the
proof adduced in behalf of the Anglican hierarchy
will favour Rome also, and Rome more. “There is
always the feature,” says Bishop Onderdonk, “in
civil governments of magnitude, that many officers,
and several grades of them, have a common head
above all.”f But whether does a host of bishops or a
single pope answer best to the description of a com-
mon head above all 7 “Another presumptive argu-
ment for Episcopacy,” says the same writer, “is, that
in the ministries of all false religions, if extensively
professed, there are different grades, with a common
superior.” Here the query again presents itself,
Whether does a multitude of prelates or one spiritual
superior present most analogy to the old Pontifex
Maximus of the city on seven hills? Many have
been the reasonings in favour of Episcopacy drawn
from the Mosaic priesthood; and in all these disqui-
* Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. viii.
f Ibid., Introduction, p. xi.
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 287
sitions the high priest answers to the bishops.” But
one high priest has surely more resemblance to one
pope than to a prelatical army. Often has the
Aaronic ministry been asserted by Episcopalians, in
defending their system, to have been typical of the
Christian ministry. But what plea could more avail
Romanists in justifying the sacrifice of the mass and
human mediation ?
In her twenty-ninth article the Church of England
claims power to decree rites and ceremonies, and
authority in controversies of faith. Such power and
authority could alone warrant her multiplication of
functionaries and observances foreign to the apostolic
age. But if so much may be warrantably introduced,
where is the demarcation in principle between these
inventions of the Church of England and those of the
Church of Rome 7 The utmost stress has been laid
by many advocates of Episcopacy on the writings of
the Christian fathers. But these fathers belong to ages
in which the antichristian apostasy was developing
itself. Not a few of them were of that very order of
bishops who were gradually annulling the rights of
private members and subordinate office-bearers of the
church, and more and more assuming all jurisdiction
and dignity into their own hands. The earlier fathers
being in effect witnesses against later abuses, were in
many instances interpolated to bring their sanction of
* “We see the officers of the church distinguished by their
respective stations; the bishop, as governor and inspector of a
particular portion of it, answering to the high priest under the
Law.”—Bishop Skinner's Primitive Truth and Order, chap.
ii., p. 128.
288 ON THE SUBORDINATION OF
priestly devices down to the times; and if we are to
regard the mangled remains of Ignatius as a standard
of theological doctrine, the embryo of almost every
papal error will be sheltered by his authority. All
the world knows what importance is widely attached
in the Church of England to the doctrine of apostolic
succession. Some of the clergy hold it more strongly,
others less strongly; by few of them is it wholly and
unequivocally repudiated. But that doctrine in all
its modifications involves an acknowledgment of the
Romish Church as a true church; and every one who
admits it into his creed is concerned to show that the
Papal Church is not an apostasy, and that a Popish
priest is a rightful instructor, while such men as
those whom Luther, Calvin, and Wesley ordained to
the ministry, have run without being sent.
Let an Episcopalian, then, fall back on the first
principles of his polity; let him delight himself with
analogies which multiply grades, and which give
them a common head; let him draw parallels be-
tween Mosaic hierarchies and Christian hierarchies,
and proceed to do substantially what the family of
Aaron only foreshadowed; let him largely estimate
the power of the church, and hold sacred many ap-
pointments sanctioned only by its ordination; let him
slide continually from scriptural argument into eccle-
siastical tradition, and quote freely from authors who
can just as well be quoted for purgatory, and prayers
for the dead, and clerical celibacy; let him imagine
what is no matter of revelation, and admits not of
historical proof, that the clergy of his church have
PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES. 289
their holy orders by lineal and unbroken succession
from the apostles, through the Romish Church, and
hence derive a special authority and consequence as.
ministers of the Word; let him familiarise himself
with this series of proofs, and grow more confident of
their validity, and drink deeper into their spirit;
and will he not be predisposed to think of Rome—
owned as a church, and the mother church—with
filial regard, and with indulgent if not respectful
sentiments 7 m
Far am I from saying or thinking that all zealous
friends of the Church of England are tinctured with
Puseyism. Many of its devoted members are in the
deepest affliction at the rise and growth of that plague
in their communion. But the question remains,
whether the defences put up for Episcopacy do not
naturally and legitimately conduct their ardent stu-
dent and admirer in the direction of the Tractarians,
and whether the evangelical section of the English
Church, in the very act of decrying Puseyism with
honest indignation, may not be undesignedly lending
it countenance and strength by adhering to a system
in which the heresy has its source as well as its seat.
If I may not affirm that such is the fact, I may invite
the candid and devout to consider whether these
things be so; and let every one of us be careful on
his own part to prove all things, and hold fast that
which is good.
PART WI.
ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE
COUNCILS.
IF churches are not to be associated under the charge
of a diocesan, the question arises whether they are to
have any other kind of common government. It is
the conviction of Presbyterians that they may and
should have a joint superintendence by representative
councils. On behalf of this constituent in our eccle-
siastical polity, I offer the following pleas.
CHAPTER I.
We have, in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,
an account of a Council held at Jerusalem.
OUR Independent brethren usually resolve the decree
of the apostles and elders into one of simple and
absolute inspiration. The questions then arise, Why
should an appeal have been made from one apostle
to other apostles; or, in other words, from inspiration
to inspiration ? and why should an appeal have been
made from an apostle to elders; in other words, from
ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT, ETC. 29]
an inspired man to men who were uninspired 7 Dr
Wardlaw thinks that he answers these questions, and
clears up the whole case, by telling us that there were
in the appeal two points to be ascertained: a point of
doctrine, and a point of fact. “The point of doctrine
was one of the very first magnitude, involving the
freedom of the Gentiles from the yoke of the Mosaic
law, and the justification of both Jews and Gentiles
by faith, without the deeds of the law; the latter
being the very first principle of the gospel. The point
of fact was, whether those men who had come down
from Jerusalem, pretending that they had a commis-
sion hence to preach the doctrine of the necessity of
subjection to the law for justification, really had such
a commission.” According to this principle of inter-
pretation, an appeal was made to the apostles as to
the doctrine, and to them and the elders as to the
fact. This solution of the difficulties is certainly
ingenious; but the longer I consider it, I am the less
convinced of its truth. The question of fact is all-
important in Dr Wardlaw's exegesis; and if it had
been equally important in the narrative, it should have
got some prominence there also. We are not so much
as told, however, in the opening statement of the case,
that the Judaising teachers pretended to have a com-
mission from Jerusalem. Even Jerusalem is not
named. “Certain men, who came down from Judea,
taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circum-
cised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
Here the only authority spoken of as appealed to is
* Congreg. Indep., p. 302.
292 ON THE COMMON GovKRNMENT OF
not that of any party in Jerusalem, but that of the
Jewish lawgiver, Moses. “When, therefore, Paul
and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation
with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas,
and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem,
unto the apostles and elders, about this question.”
What question ? The question whether these advo-
cates of circumcision had a commission from Jeru-
salem 7 No such question has been yet mentioned or
hinted at. The only question previously announced
was the question of doctrine, whether the uncircum-
cised could be saved.
On coming to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas “were
received of the church, and of the apostles and elders,
and they declared all things that God had done with
them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the
Pharisees which believed, saying that it was needful
to circumcise them, and to command them to keep
the law of Moses.” ” Here is no mention of the
“question of fact” whether the apostles and elders had
commissioned the Judaising teachers; nor could this
commission have been claimed where the apostles and
elders were present to deny it. The sole question
there discussed—and which seemed to spring up anew
there—must have been that of doctrine. But the
controversy there raised gave immediate occasion to
the subsequent council. For we are told in the
succeeding verse, “And the apostles and elders came
together for to consider of this matter.”
In all that is recorded to have been said at the
* Acts xv. 4, 5.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 293
council, there is still no mention of the fact; the
speeches are addressed to the doctrine, and the doctrine
only. The phraseology of the decree gives some
plausibility to Dr Wardlaw's interpretation: “Foras-
much as we have heard that certain which went out
from us have troubled you with words subverting
your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep
the law, to whom we gave no such commandment.””
The countenance here given to the interpretation in
question is more apparent than" real. When the
parties issuing the decree had spoken of Judaising
teachers as going out from them, it was most natural
to guard the churches against the idea that such
teachers had gone from them with any warrant for
what they taught. But even here it is not alleged that
the false teachers had pleaded metropolitan authority.
This truth—if it be a truth—is left to be inferred ;
and is it likely that what was a chief question in the
debate would not be mentioned in the related occasion
of the debate or in the report of the debate, but left to
be learned as a matter of inference from its conclusion?
Dr Wardlaw strongly protests against the idea that
the apostles would ever compromise their character as
inspired men by entering into common debate. But
they were confessedly appealed to, along with men
not inspired, and they allowed the decrees to go forth
as those of “the apostles and elders.” Dr Wardlaw,
however, reminds us that Paul sometimes associated
other names with his own at the commencement of
his epistles. But are these cases parallel? They
* Acts xv. 24.
294 ON THE COMMON GovKRNMENT OF
seem to me wide as the poles asunder. By the
usages of antiquity, the occurrence in epistles of
friendly names in alliance with those of the writers,
expressed nothing more than kind salutations. But
what usage, ancient or modern, places on a footing of
mere friendliness or courtesy the mention of parties
as appealed to in a grave question, and as issuing the
decree by which the question was settled !
“You will not,” says Dr Wardlaw, “question Paul's
inspiration. Is it then, to be imagined that the in-
spired instructions of one who had the mind of Christ,
and who was not a whit behind the very chiefest
apostles, were remitted for review, and for judicial
decision upon their authority, to an uninspired assem-
bly? To the churches of Galatia this apostle asserts
and jealously vindicates from every suspicion and
surmise his own direct and independent inspiration,”
&c. Yet Dr Wardlaw tells us that “Paul and Bar-
nabas were simply and exclusively appellants, or, in
the terminology of modern presbyterian church courts,
commissioners.”f “They were only the bearers of the
reference. They had no more to do with the final
settlement of the question than the parties in any suit
have a seat on the bênch, or a place among the jury.
. . . Paul and Barnabas were admitted to state facts
in evidençe, but no more.”f Paul, then, by this show-
ing, did allow his doctrine to be made matter of trial,
and even sunk the apostle in the commissioner, and
waived all higher pretensions, in order to state facts in
* Congreg. Indep., p. 268. + Ibid., p. 289.
i Ibid., p. 290.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILs. 295
evidence. I cannot think, however, that Paul, in this
procedure, was a commissioner simply. He was in
the council, he spoke after Peter, and before James,
as expressing his mind in the course of the debate ;
and in declaring what miracles and wonders God had
wrought among the Gentiles by him, he must have
treated the subject generally. Was he not of the
apostles, then, from whom the decrees went forth 7
The supposition of the contrary appears to me most
gratuitous and improbable. But these same decrees
were “ordained of elders,” as well as of apostles,”
and we may not so explain this circumstance as to
explain it away. -
Let any candid reader peruse the whole narrative,
and say whether he do not find the uninspired element
so largely introduced and frequently recurring as to
render it extremely difficult to resolve the mixed
discussion and decision into a simple announcement
of inspiration. But Dr Wardlaw with great power
presses this difficulty—that if the decree was not
inspired, it is not binding ; it was infallible only if it
was divine. In reply, let it be observed, that the
question was one regarding which the Holy Ghost
had already furnished grounds of judgment, and that
the apostles rested their case expressly on prior oracles
and miraculous attestations. When the apostles and
elders knew and stated the truth from prior evidences,
might not the Spirit of God regulate and sanction the
final expression of the truth so as to justify the lan-
guage, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us?”
* Acts xvi. 4.
296 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
Dr Davidson supposes that even institutions suggested
at first by natural propriety and common sense
might becomedivine by obtaining the divine sanction.
“The constitution of the first churches,” he Says,
“was adopted because it seemed the best fitted in the
eye of common sense to promote the great end of such
societies, and the Deity sanctioned the means so sug-
gested.” And if this is conceivable in regard to what
mere prudence suggested, is it not conceivable in
regard to what had been already suggested, and in
effect ratified, by the Spirit of God? If this principle
be admitted, then all is comparatively plain; we see
why the Divine and human elements are so blended.
But otherwise, after all Dr Wardlaw's masterly
treatment of this topic, I am disposed to say with Dr
Mason: “Without such a distinction as we have now
stated, their history (that of the apostles in the case
under consideration) is a tissue of inconsistencies, and
their conductin the Synod of Jerusalem must be given
up as a riddle which baffles solution.”f.
Dr Davidson tells us that the apostles “proposed”
certain conclusions to the council. But how should
inspiration propose? and how should proposals be
made to parties on whose adoption of proposals
nothing depended, and who had no power of deli-
beration in the matter 7 •
The sum of the whole is, that the Spirit of God
allowed apostles and elders to defend truth already
revealed and attested, by arguments drawn from
Scripture and providence; and, for the benefit of the
* Eccles. Pol, p. 43. + On Episcopacy, p. 294.
#
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 297
churches, eventually sealed by His sanction the just
conclusions to which they came.
The question then presents itself, what bearing has
the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, as now explained,
on the question of church courts 7 I freely admit that
I do not find here all the elements of a court of review.
There must be a good deal supplied before a modern
church judicatory can be here completed. But, on
the other hand, the subject of dispute might have
been decided by simple oracles and miracles. And
I cannot perceive why co-operative and deliberative
elements were so largely introduced, and made to
bear authoritatively on many churches, if not to
indicate the joint and mutually helpful manner in
which differences of aftertimes should be settled,
when inspiration should be withdrawn—with only
such alterations as would necessarily result from
altered circumstances.
CHAPTER II.
In the Apostolic age there was a plurality of Churches in each
of a number of cities, and the several Churches of each
city had a common government.
This is a part of the argument to which I attach a
principal importance; and I invite my readers to
weigh well the proof that shall be offered them. “I
speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say.” It
can be shown, I think, that in such large cities as
298 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
Jerusalem and Ephesus, the Christians and their
teachers were so numerous that we cannot reasonably
suppose them to have met only in one place for wor-
ship—that in such cities the Christians certainly met
for worship in different places, and the Christians at-
tending different places of meeting in the same city
formed distinct churches—and yet that these sectional
churches belonged to aggregate churches, and had a
common government.
SECT. I.--In such large cities as Jerusalem and Ephesus the
Christians and their teachers were so numerous that we
Cannot reasonably suppose them to have met only in one
place for worship. -
DR DAVIDSON maintains that the word church occurs
in two senses in the New Testament. “In the first
place,” he says, “it is used to denote the whole body
of believers, the true people of Christ on earth and
[in] heaven.” It does not concern us at present to
discuss the accuracy of this definition of the catholic
church. “Secondly, the term church,” says Dr
Davidson, “signifies a number of believers habitually
assembling for the worship of God in one place.” "
“The disciples were accustomed to meet for worship
and other ordinances (in Jerusalem), not in sections
scattered here and there throughout the city, called
congregations, but together in the same place.”f
If there were several churches in Jerusalem, or in
Ephesus, or any great city, having such a common
relation and superintendence that they were called in
* Eccles. Pol., p. 59. + Ibid., p. 95.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 299
the aggregate one church, there would be here nothing
like Independency, but an approximation, at least, to
the numerous congregations and collective govern-
ment for which Presbyterians contend. Dr Davidson,
however, maintains that in each city there was only
one church, and that its members met habitually
for worship and for ecclesiastical business in one
place. He combats the natural objection to these
principles derived from the number of believers and
teachers in many great cities. How could the con-
verts in those populous towns where the gospel was
most successful be accommodated in a single building?
and if this had been practicable, how could the nume-
rous teachers in these cities have found room for the
exercise of their functions !
The mode in which Dr Davidson meets these diffi-
culties does not seem to me to be at all satisfactory.
He takes every numerical term in its most restricted
acceptation; and feeling that the difficulty still re-
mains, quotes Carson's words: “Is there a single
passage in all the history in which they are said
or supposed, either expressly or by implication, to
have been divided into distinct congregations? If
there were really a difficulty as to their number, a
difficulty can never destroy a fact, far less be the
foundation of an opposite system.” A difficulty
can never destroy a fact—certainly not; but a diffi-
culty may be such as to cast doubt on a supposed fact,
and create reasonable suspicion that the so-called
fact is only a fallacy.
* Eccles. Pol., p. 74.
300 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
Let the reader peruse dispassionately the notices
which the New Testament gives us of the numerical
strength of the church at Jerusalem:—
1. “The same day (Pentecost) were added unto
them about three thousand souls.” “ .
2. “And the Lord added to the church daily such
as should be saved.”f
3. “Many of them which heard the word believed;
and the number of the men was about five thou-
sand.”f
4. “Believers were the more added to the Lord,
multitudes both of men and women.” $
5. “And the word of God increased, and the number
of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly.” ||
6. “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands
(myriads) of Jews there are who believe.” “I
Dr Wardlaw's statements in regard to these num-
bers are ingenuous. He says, “The terms in which
the progressive increase of the church is recorded are
very strong.” While Dr Davidson holds that the five
thousand men included women, Dr Wardlaw says
that they are evidently exclusive of the other sex,
of whom the number is not stated; and while Dr
Davidson insists that the five thousand included
prior converts, Dr Wardlaw concedes that they
“were converted on one occasion.” “The question
is,” he subjoins, “how could such multitudes form
only a single congregation ? . The question is a
natural and a fair one. In meeting it I would not
* Acts ii. 41. + Acts ii. 47. f Acts iv. 4.
3 Acts v. 14. | Acts vi. 7. *|| Acts xxi. 20.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 301
be such a recreant to all candour as to deny all
difficulty.” +
Suppose we consent to all the cutting and curtail-
ing by which Dr Davidson and others reduce the
apparent increase of believers, and adopt such a re-
stricted interpretation as, in the judgment of Dr
Wardlaw, is “unnatural,” still does not the inspired
narrative leave the impression that the many thou-
sands and superadded multitudes of which it speaks
could not by any possibility assemble for ordinary,
stated, habitual worship in one place of meeting; and
that adequate employment for the teaching gifts of
apostles and other instructors having their central
position in Jerusalem, is by such a theory of exposi-
tion utterly unimaginable?
We can conceive that the temple might be a place
of general resort, frequented by companies of Chris-
tians at different hours, according to their conveni-
ence—an edifice ever open, to which believers were
coming and going, and where they appointed meet-
ings with each other; and which, under such aspects,
might be considered their common rendezvous. We
can conceive, farther, that they might have occasion-
ally there such meetings as we would call public,
meaning simply that the business concerned all, and
none were excluded. So we have petitions which go
forth from the citizens of Glasgow in public meeting
assembled. And perhaps some antiquarian will find,
eighteen hundred years hence, one of our newspapers
containing such language, and clearly prove from it
* Congreg. Indep., p. 50.
302 . ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
that the citizens of Glasgow could, in the nineteenth
century, be all accommodated in the City Hall.
Othér circumstances may be appealed to as demon-
strating that the citizens of Glasgow then amounted
to very many thousands. But our expositor won't
be moved by difficulties which cannot demolish facts,
and he proves decisively from his text that in the
year of our Lord 1853 the citizens of Glasgow could
be assembled in one public meeting. -
In the critical circumstances of the primitive
church, when the enmity which slew Jesus watched
malignantly his followers, we have some difficulty in
perceiving how the Christians would be permitted,
even in rare and extraordinary cases, to throng the
courts of the temple by a full muster of all their
“myriads.” But that the temple of the Jews should
have been statedly appropriated to Christian worship,
and that, from week to week, and month to month,
and year to year, the Christians should have assem-
bled in its courts, deterred neither by inclement
weather nor by more direful persecution, is a suppo-
sition presenting not merely a formidable difficulty,
but all the features of moral and physical impossi-
bility. Beyond this impossibility remains the other
of finding by such an hypothesis effective occupation
for numerous teachers.
The dwellers of Jerusalem, it must also be re-
membered, were of different countries, and spoke
different languages; and if this fact gave origin to
many distinct synagogues, did it not induce the
Christians to form themselves into distinct congre-
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE CouncILs. 303
gations, that all might be instructed in the tongues
which they best understood 7
But Dr Wardlaw adheres to the letter of the nar-
rative, and asks: “How stands the argument 2 We
have the fact on inspired record, that the multitudes
of the disciples met together; we have in opposition
to this the affirmation of our Presbyterian brethren,
that their so meeting was impossible. Our brethren
say they could not, the inspired historian says they
did. Here, then, is a balance of difficulties.”.” If
there be any dilemma here, Dr Wardlaw kindly ex-
tricates us from its horns by another section of his
reasoning. He will have general language about
meetings of the saints in Jerusalem to be absolutely
taken. But when he comes to speak of the disper-
sion of these saints, the like general language admits
and demands a restricted sense. He then insists on
the “unreasonableness of a strictly literal interpre-
tation of the word all.” “Every one knows,” he
says, “in how very general and indefinite a sense all
is frequently used. To take a single example. In
Matt. iii. 56, it is said respecting the ministry of
John the Baptist, ‘There went out to him Jerusalem,
and all Judea, and all the region round about Jor-
dan, and were baptised of him in Jordan, confessing
their sins.” No man in his senses will ever suppose
that there was not an inhabitant left remaining in
city or country. Every one understands the mean-
ing simply to be, that the people went out in very
great numbers. . . . . This is the more evident
* Congreg. Indep., p. 54.
304 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
from the comparative statement given as to Jesus.
. . . . That Jesus made and baptised more dis-
ciples than John. Why, then, is the all to be taken
in its strict literality in the instance under consider-
ation?” * According to this reasoning, there went
out to John not only Jerusalem, but all Judea, and
all the region round about Jordan, and yet in such
a sense that many were not included in the all; and
at the very same time when John was baptising in
Jordan there may have been, and to a moral certainty
there were, religious services in the temple, and in
numerous synagogues. So if it be admitted that all
the Christians met in one place, and that place the
temple, why may they not have assembled in a sense
that left many out of the all, and permitted of many
meetings for worship in different parts of the city
and its environs 2 The two cases seem to be identi-
cal in principle, and if so, where is the balance of
difficulties? or where is there any difficulty at all?
The principle of strict literality cannot be carried
out in any explanation of the passage. “They con-
tinued daily with one accord in the temple.” Liter-
ally interpreted, these words teach us that the
Christians, besides being all in the temple, were
always there. They continued in it. You say the
continuance must be understood with limitations; if
so, why not also the “one accord”—the numerical
attendance 7 But Drs Wardlaw and Davidson re-
mind us in italics that all that believed “were
together.” f Dr Lightfoot says of the expression
* Congreg. Indep., p. 80. f Acts ii. 44.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 305
together (3-ri rô &vrò) that it is of frequent and vari-
ous use in the Septuagint: “It sometimes betokeneth
the meeting of persons in the same company, as
Josh. xi. 5, Judg. vi. 33, and xix. 6, &c., so of
beasts, Deut. xxii. 10. Sometimes their concurring
in the same action, though not in the same company
or place, as Psal. ii. 2, and xxxiv. 3, and xlix. 2, and
lxxiv. 6, and lxxxiii. 3, &c. Sometimes their con-
curring in the same condition, as Psal. xlvi. 10, and
lxii. 9, Esa. lxvi. 17, Jer. vi. 12. And sometimes
their knitting together, though in several companies,
as Joab's and Abner's men, though they sat at a dis-
tance, and the pool of Gibeon between them, yet
are they said ovy&yróży ºr rô &vrò, 2 Sam. ii. 13.
And in this sense is the word to be understood in
the story. For it is past all imagination or conceiv-
ing, that all those thousands of believers that were
now in Jerusalem should keep all of one company
and knot, and not part asunder; for what house
would hold them 7 But they kept in several com-
panies or congregations, according as their languages,
nations, or other references did knit them together.
And this joining together, because it was apart from
those who believed not, and because it was in the
same profession and practice of the duties of reli-
gion; therefore it is said to be āºri rô &vrò, though it
were in several companies or congregations.””
When Drs Wardlaw and Davidson lay so much
stress on the statement that all who believed were
together, they do not sufficiently consider what
* On Acts ii. 44.
U
306 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
follows—“ and had all things common.” Surely the
community of goods, to whatever extent carried, was
not exemplified in the temple. Surely they did not
distribute loaves and dresses in Solomon's porch.
And if it would be ridiculous to apply one part of the
sentence to the temple, what propriety is there in so
applying the other clause of the same sentence The
being together, and having all things common, are parts
of one whole, and must be explained consistently.
Dr Davidson admits the passage in question to be
parallel with another which informs us after what
fashion the Christians were together, and points to a
better than any stone-and-lime identification : “The
multitude of them that believed were of one heart and
one soul, neither said any of them that aught of the
things which they possessed was his own, but they
had all things common.” They were together in
“heart and soul,” in mutual confidence and com-
mingling sympathies. .
These remarks have had respect to Jerusalem.
In other great cities Dr Davidson cannot find a
temple in which the Christians might worship collec-
tively. Principal Campbell, a favourite authority
with Congregationalists, says, “There were yet no
magnificent edifices built for the reception of Chris-
tian assemblies, such as were afterwards reared at
a great expense, and called churches. Their best
accommodation for more than a century was the
private houses of the wealthiest disciples, which were
but illadapted to receive very numerous conventions.”
* Lect. vii. on Eccles. Hist., p. 215.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE CouncILs. 307
And yet against all seeming possibility, they must be
held to have worshipped habitually and regularly in
One apartment.
CHAPTER II.
SECT. II.-In such large cities the Christians certainly met for
worship in different places, and the Christians attending
different places of meeting in the same city formed distinct
churches.
IT has appeared that in different large cities no one
building could have sufficed for the numerous Chris-
tians and their teachers. But if Christians met for
worship otherwise than in one place, and had in truth
distinct worshipping societies in the same city, should
not these facts have been indicated 2 The anticipation
I acknowledge to be reasonable, and I think that it
is verified. “They continued daily with one accord
in the temple, and breaking bread from house to
house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness
of heart.” In commenting on these words, Dr
Davidson observes, “When it is said that they
brake bread from house to house, it is intimated,
that besides meeting in the temple, they met in
private houses in little companies, similar to family
circles, where they partook together of the daily
meal, and celebrated the supper of the Lord.”
We have here an acknowledgment that the Christians
conducted religious exercises, not in the temple
308 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
only, but in other abodes. If certain persons met
regularly in a house of which the situation was
more convenient for them than any other, and if they
selected the most suitable time as well as place for
their solemn services, and took care, as regarded
speakers and hearers, that all things were done
decently and in order, would it have been improper
to call parties thus associated a church 2 There is an
apparent answer to this query in the undeniable fact,
that we actually read of CHURCHES IN HOUSEs. Of
these churches, Dr Davidson says, “Had godly house-
holds been all that was intended by the phrase before
us, they would not probably have been saluted as
churches in houses. These considerations, with others
that might be mentioned, incline us to believe that the
phrase denotes a company of believers meeting, in a
church capacity, in the houses of Aquila, Nymphas,
and Philemon. . . . . The person at whose habi-
tation a part of them assembled may have been an
eminent teacher of righteousness; or his dwelling
may have presented peculiar advantages in the midst
of persecution ; or his premises may have contained
an apartment large enough to accommodate a
considerable number. Thus Neander thinks that the
nature of Aquila's employment required extensive
premises, and that, therefore, he could set apart a
room for the use of disciples wherever he fixed his
abode. When we also take into account his religious
qualifications, it is natural to suppose that he
frequently led the devotions of these small assemblies.
. . Philemon, who is also said to have had a
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 309
church in his house, was a wealthy member of the
church at Colosse, distinguished for his hospitality
towards Christian brethren, especially evangelists.
Some think that he was a deacon, others a bishop;
but it is now impossible to discover what office he
filled, or in what rank he moved. He is styled by
Paul a fellow-worker ; so that we are inclined to draw
the conclusion that he was a Christian teacher, one
qualified and accustomed to impart instruction. . . .
It may be inferred that the circumstances connected
with Nymphas and his house were similar, although
the New Testament furnishes no information respect-
ing him except the incidental mention of a church in
his house near Laodicea. In short, every view that
can be taken of the matter shows that the expression
‘church in the house, denotes not merely the pious
members of a single house, but a number of believers
meeting in a private dwelling, or in the premises
connected with it, for conducting religious exercises
in the name of the holy Redeemer.”” In these
passages it is distinctly admitted that the believers
who assembled in the houses mentioned met in a
church capacity. Dr Davidson also thinks that the
nature of churches in houses may have some light
thrown on it by the words of Justin: “‘I am staying
at the house of one Martinus, and I know of no other
place of meeting beside this; and if any one wished
to come to me, I communicated to him the words
of truth.” The persons who thus repaired to
Justin's house for instruction constituted, according
* Eccles. Pol., pp. 99, 100.
310 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
to Neander, “the church in Justin's house.’” If
we apply these remarks to the case of Jerusalem,
surely the meetings for worship in the dwellings of
that city could not have been more simple than
those to which, in the estimation of Dr Davidson,
the word church was actually applied. And if so,
then we have many churches in one church, many
sectional churches in one aggregate church of
Jerusalem, and distinctive societies managing matters
more immediately concerning themselves in their own
way, while matters of more general concern were
regulated by a common ecclesiastical administration.
But is the term “church” ever applied to the
believers in a city, and contemporaneously to a sec-
tion of these believers? The question is of minor
consequence. When it is allowed that there were
churches in houses, and larger worshipping societies
in the same cities, all that remains to be settled is a
matter of nomenclature. Still, we read of churches
in Laodicea, and churches in Corinth. There was
a church of Laodicea comprising the believers of
the city, and there was a church in the house of
Nymphas at Laodicea, in which a few believers
could assemble. “Salute the brethren which are in
Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his
house, and when this epistle is read among you, cause
that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans.”
Is there not here a church of the Laodiceans, and a
church at Laodicea in the house of Nymphas?—a
larger church comprising a smaller, though both were
* Eccles. Pol., p. 101.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 311
local? Dr Davidson, in defending his principles,
admits that the example of Nymphas at Laodicea is
apparently an exception to them, but not really so,
he adds, unless it can be proved that he lived in the
city rather than its vicinity. Surely it does not lie
with us to show that the passage teaches what he
confesses it teaches “apparently:” the burden of
proof must lie with Dr Davidson, when he holds that
it teaches what it has no appearance of teaching. As
Dr Davidson elsewhere observes, “it is natural to
understand all passages in their obvious meaning,
. unless the contrary be suggested by the
context.”*
Still further, it is said to the Christians at Corinth,
“Let your women keep silence in the churches.”f
Does not this language indicate that there was a
church at Corinth subdivided into churches? Dr
Davidson owns that “in this argument there is some
plausibility.”f Yet “the term,” he says, “is suffi-
ciently interpreted by the previous context. The
apostle gives a rule which he intends should be
followed ‘in all the churches of the saints.’ He
uses the plural number, because he has in view all
the churches as well as that of Corinth.” But if his
intention had been general, would he not have used
throughout a general phraseology? Would he not
have said, “Let women keep silence in the churches?”
Why your women, if he did not mean their women
in particular? Let Dr Davidson produce another
* Eccles. Pol., p. 77; see also p. 230.
+ 1 Cor. xiv. 34. # Eccles. Pol., pp. 114, 115.
312 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
example of such special diction without special sig-
nification.
Dr Wardlaw argues that the churches spoken of
may mean churches out of Corinth, because “the two
epistles to the Corinthians, though addressed no
doubt primarily to the church in Corinth, happen
both of them to have much more general inscriptions,
—that of the second being to ‘the Church of God
which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in
all Achaia ;’ and that of the first to ‘the church of
God which is at Corinth, with all that in every place
call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both
theirs and ours.” To this criticism I reply, first,
that if the language used in these epistles be under-
stood as addressed to a plurality of churches dis-
tributed over eatensive regions, there may be more of
ecclesiastical confederacy in this portion of Scripture
than we had hoped to discover. I answer, secondly,
that the apostle in the context speaks of the use and
abuse of gifts evidently belonging to the Corinthian
Christians distinctively. And I answer, thirdly, that
Dr Wardlaw has expressly shut out his own criticism.
He says, “The church is addressed. The pronoun
‘YE’ throughout the whole chapter has an unvarying
reference.”* This observation in regard to the fifth
chapter is equally suitable in regard to the fourteenth.
Speaking of the gifts in Corinth, the apostle says,
verse 31, “Ye may all prophesy one by one.” The
subject of prophesying is carried through three suc-
ceeding verses, and the very next exhortation is, “Let
* Congreg. Indep... p. 236.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 313
your women keep silence in the churches.” The ye
fixes the your, and shows that Christians in Corinth
are alone intended.
To return, however, to the acknowledged fact, that
there were churches in houses not including all the be-
lievers in a city: Surely where there was a church in
a house there was a church besides. Surely where a
few composed a church, the many Christians in the
same town were not unchurched. Dr Davidson
observes, that “Aquila had a church in his house,
while there was a very large assembly in another part
of the city.” But if the smaller congregation was
a church, is it to be supposed that the larger congre-
gation was not a church 7 Fifty or a hundred were a
church; but many hundreds or several thousands met
loosely without order or relation. Such a conclusion
is utterly inadmissible. In the apostolic age, then,
there were more than one church in one city. We
cannot tell how many there were, but a plurality of
churches in single cities is clearly established. In-
deed, Dr Davidson expressly says of two companies,
worshipping separately at Ephesus, that they were
Two SECTIONs, or rather, he adds, Two CHURCHES.f
Still he thinks, that “when Aquila resided at Ephesus,
and had a church in his house after Paul's second
visit, the organization of Christians in the city was
not complete or final”f-that “it is hardly candid to
argue from the perfect to the imperfect organization
of a certain church”$—and that “it is quite improba-
* Eccles. Pol., p. 110. f Ibid., p. 105.
# Ibid., p. 104. Ž Ibid., p. 104.
314 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
ble these sections which existed for a time in Ephe-
sus had their own bishops (or elders) permanently
appointed over them.”* But elsewhere he says, “We
hold that there was a plurality of elders (or bishops)
in each separate assembly of Christians, correctly
designated a church.” If, then, the church in Aquila's
house wanted elders, the New Testament has called
it a church incorrectly; and if the word church is
used both correctly and incorrectly in the New Tes-
tament, how can Dr Davidson speak of the sense of
the word as clearly determined, and how can he found
on its consistent and well-ascertained acceptation the
Congregational system 7
There was a church in Aquila's house, and there
was another large Christian assembly in Ephesus,
which formed a church too; for the members of it
met statedly; and “the term church,” says Dr David-
son, “signifies a number of believers habitually as-
sembling for the worship of God in one place.”
Here, then, were two churches, at least, at Ephesus;
and such Dr Davidson eaſpressly admits them to have
been. He reminds us, however, that the plural term
churches, is not actually applied to the Ephesian be-
lievers in the scriptural record; and why is it not so
applied ? “Because it was not the divine will,” he
says, “that the Christians should continue apart, being
two or more axxxnguozi (churches) permanently.”f It
seems, then, that there were two or more churches,
temporarily—let the admission be noted—but they
were not so called, lest the fact should have been
* Eccles. Pol., p. 110. f Ibid., p. 118.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILs. 315
accounted a precedent The thing happened, but
God was careful it should not be called what it was,
lest the right naming of it should occasion its con-
tinuance or repetition I leave the reader to esti-
mate the value of this argument; and for the present
I stand on the admitted fact, that there were two or
more churches at Ephesus.
CHAPTER II.
SECT. III.-Sectional Churches belonged to aggregate Churches,
and had a common Government.
WE have seen that in certain large cities the Chris-
tians had different places of meeting, and formed
distinct churches. I wish to know, then, whether
these churches had or had not a joint ecclesias-
tical administration ? Dr Davidson is decided in
his conviction that they were under one government.*
He allows that the separate companies worshipped
as they could, which implies that their convenience
might not in all things be identical, and that they
needed to make a number of arrangements dis-
tinctively. Still, “it is quite improbable,” he thinks,
“ that these sections (or rather churches) which
existed for a time at Ephesus, had their own
bishops permanently appointed over them. . . . .
Each one had not a particular congregation assigned
him, over which he alone was pastor. All were
* Eccles. Pol., p. 121.
316 ON THE COMMON goverNMENT of
the pastors of the Ephesian converts.” “ That all
the Christians in a town should have a company of
teachers in common, is, in Dr Davidson's opinion,
the golden consummation, in comparison with which
a habitual meeting of believers in one place is of
little consequence: “The habitual meeting together
is not of importance, as long as the college of elders
are considered equally the teachers and rulers of all,
their services being distributed among the whole
body.”f Here, then, we might have, by Dr Davidson's
showing, a scriptural church, comprising a number of
separate congregations, the members of which do not
meet habitually in one place; and yet a habitual
meeting in one place entered into the definition of a
scriptural church at the beginning of the argument.
But may the separate congregations have separate
governments 7 No; Dr Davidson wholly condemns
their separation, if they are to be dissociated and
“self-regulated churches.” They must have a common
regulation. It is the divine will, contends Dr David-
son, that this be the permanent system. And who,
then, are to regulate the congregations? The pastors
alone º The college of elders ? No; the pastors
with the people. But how are pastors and people to
meet in such a city as London, or even Glasgow 2
The single denomination with which I am connected
has in Glasgow about twenty thousand members.
What edifice could hold them all? It must not be
answered that the argument respects primitive times,
when Christians were few ; for Dr Davidson speaks
* Eccles, Pol., pp. 110, 111. f Ibid., p. 120.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILs. 317
of God's will as to the permanent government of his
house. What, then, will the result be at meetings of
the general church? Such persons will come together
as can do so, and others must stay away. By Dr
Davidson's own supposition, the Christians were con-
strained by circumstances to separate for worship.
But if circumstances would not allow them to meet
for worship, how could it allow them to meet for
government, even if one house could contain them 2
Instead of all Christians in a large town meeting, a
few of them will assemble; and by these few the
many will have their affairs managed, and their causes
decided. But what sort of representation would this
be—depending for its composition and character on
fortuitous circumstances, or local and interested
excitement? Dr Davidson contends that the churches
were not subordinate to one another; and that “ex-
ternal control never crosses the path of a Congrega-
tional church.”” But if the affairs of a sectional
church are controlled by a chance-gathered or vic-
tory-seeking few, most of whom belong to other
“sectional churches,” is not this mutual subordina-
tion ? and is not this external control of the very
worst kind? Since representation, even on Dr David-
son's principles, must be had, unless he can bring
together twenty, forty, or a hundred thousand per-
sons into one apartment to transact ecclesiastical
business, we think it better that the churches should
understand who are to meet in name of the general
church, and should have a voice in their appoint-
* Eccles. Pol., p. 136.
318 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
ment; should delegate “wise men able to judge
between brethren; ” and thus obtain, not a random
or packed gathering, but a joint representative
government, of the truest, freest, and most impartial
description.
CHAPTER III.
Duties have been assigned to the churches which they cannot
perform in a state of isolation and independency.
I HERE take for granted that when certain means are
indispensable to a certain end, the appointment of the
end is equivalent to the appointment of the means.
If work has been devolved on churches which is im-
practicable for them singly, then an association of
churches to all the extent needed for that work has
all the imperativeness of divine requirement.
As examples, I notice the duties of securing a quali-
fied ministry, of guarding the purity of the churches,
and of extending the gospel.
SECT. I.-Churches are required to secure a qualified ministry.
IT is true that Scripture often addresses its appeals
to pastors themselves, and to those who aspire after
the pastoral office. But the responsibility of securing
competent teachers has not been devolved exclusively
on those who have to deliver instruction. Christians
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 319
and Christian societies are enjoined to take heed
what they hear. They are forbidden to believe every
spirit, and commanded to try the spirits whether they
be of God. We find a church commended for having
proved them who said they were apostles and were
not, and for having found them to be liars. In the
first age of the gospel, churches had extraordinary aids
in testing the competency of pretended instructors.
Apostles had the signs of apostles, without which any
alleged apostleship was to be accounted spurious.
Among the gifts then conferred was the power of
discerning spirits; and while we have limited infor-
mation as to the manner in which this endowment
was exercised, no one will assert that it was never
employed in ascertaining the competency or incom-
petency of spiritual functionaries.
On such grounds it will be universally conceded, I
think, that churches are bound to do what in them
lies to secure qualified teachers; and that where ex-
traordinary aids, once enjoyed in fulfilling the obli-
gation, have been withdrawn, there is the more need
to take advantage of all available facilities. That
isolated churches could judge well enough regarding
some constituents of ministerial proficiency, I am far
from denying. But who can read any faithful de-
scription of the qualifications indispensable to a scribe
well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, and say
that unlettered associations of Christians may deter-
mine respecting all of them whether they be or be
not possessed ? If a minister make comments on the
English translation of the Hebrew or Greek Scrip-
320 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
tures, can a congregation of peasants form an enlight-
ened opinion whether these comments be just or unjust,
erudite or ridiculous 2
It is true that Congregationalists have their col-
leges, but no one church can have its college; and
where Christians of many churches found, regulate,
and support the same seminary, the principle of asso-
ciation I am contending for is so far exemplified.
There is here a practical avowal that young men must
be trained for the ministry, and that as each church
cannot maintain its own theological seminary, there
must be one such institution owned and patronised
by many Christian societies. The teaching of the
students, with the ultimate retention or expulsion of
them, must be managed by some individual, or class
of individuals, for the churches; and to all this extent
the churches are represented in the performance of
varied services most important to their interests. The
Congregational Union of England and Wales tell us,
in their declaration of the faith, church order, and
discipline of the Congregational or Independent Dis-
senters, that “Christian churches unitedly ought to
consider the maintenanee of the ministry in an ade-
quate degree of learning as one of its especial cares.”
Here, then, churches must act unitedly, and the work
is “its,” not theirs—one, and not many—in relation
to this object. This work, in not being avowedly
and regularly accomplished by a joint government of
churches, is to that extent defective and faulty. Dif-
ferent academical institutions, in the absence of such
control, are liable to teach very conflicting doctrines.
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 321
When abuses are admitted into these schools of learn-
ing, the churches have a difficulty in ascertaining the
nature and amount of the evil, and a still greater dif-
ficulty in applying a remedy. But the grand objec-
tion to institutions so placed is, that attendance on
them is not imperative, and may be avoided by all
candidates for the ministry who dislike diligent study.
Independent churches can choose ministers of any
or no attainments. And so long as any man may
preach, and any church may call the preacher, the
standard of ministerial competency in a religious deno-
mination can never be equally or vigorously upheld.
Some ministers will be well taught, others will be
teaching before they have begun to learn. In the
same neighbourhood the able and accomplished pastor
will have ignorant and upstart brethren, with whose
mental habits he can have little sympathy, and on
whose decent appearance in any joint enterprise he is
afraid to stake his personal honour, and the good name
of his religious connection. I know how many ex-
ceptions to these statements could easily be produced.
But I appeal to good information and Christian can-
dour, whether they do not hold extensively true, and
whether their degree of truth do not commend a joint
government of churches for the due regulation of
theological instruction.
322 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
CHAPTER III.
SECT. II.—Churches are required to guard their purity.
INDEPENDENTs not only concede this position, but
contend for it resolutely. They think that their sys-
tem affords peculiar advantages for the maintenance of
discipline. But a little reflection will show that the
efficiency of Congregationalism in upholding a spiri-
tual order has most serious exceptions. Suppose that
a minister is the suspected party, and that he repels
all surmises against his innocence, the ruled must
then sit in judgment upon the ruler This is surely
an inversion of natural propriety and obvious seem-
liness. But, apart from any question of decorum,
what security can there be in such a case for the
administration of justice? A minister must have dis-
charged his duties with little acceptance indeed, if
he has not acquired considerable influence over his
people; and how shall this same people divest them-
selves at once of all their deferential leanings and
habitudes, so as to judge impartially and indepen-
dently of his conduct? The rules commonly laid
down by Independent writers for the management of
ecclesiastical business by churches, are sadly unsuited
to such a case. We are told by Dr Davidson that
ministers “preside in all meetings of the church.” Is
a minister to preside when he is himself under trial 7
It is the doctrine of Dr Davidson that in “meetings of
the church no member shall speak without permis-
sion of the elders, nor continue to do so when they
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE Councils. 323
impose silence.” If an elder (pastor) is impeached
before his flock, and an attempt is made to convict
him of crime, may he permit speech or impose
silence, as the testimony of the witnesses is for or
against him 7 Our Congregationalist brethren allow
that every church should have a plurality of elders.
Suppose that a church has two such office-bearers,
who mutually inculpate each other, is the church a
fitting tribunal to judge between them? Is it not
inevitable that two such influential persons will each
have his party; or is not the tendency to this result
so strong as at least to destroy all likelihood of un-
biassed deliberation? Congregationalists seem to be
sensible of this difficulty in their system, for they
usually treat of discipline only in relation to private
members of the church, and not at all in relation to
ministers—as if a pastor, like the Pope, were infal-
lible; or, like the Sovereign of England, could do
no wrong.
These remarks apply even to the government of a
church in its own affairs, and in the maintenance of
its own purity. But churches are under the necessity
of exercising more than self-inspection, and of con-
sidering their alliances—of seeing to the character of
other churches with whom they hold fellowship.
Suppose that some church is ill-reported of. Every
individual Christian cannot seek and obtain personal
satisfaction in regard to these rumours. Even the
churches cannot do so singly and separately, or the
suspected brotherhood would have nothing else to do
than to answer interrogatories. The case must be
324 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
examined into by a limited number, and others must
act on their report. That report may be very unfa-
vourable, and may infer such doctrinal error, or moral
delinquency, as to induce a severance of all commu-
nion. Presbytery employs much the same means,
and never extends its jurisdiction beyond reaching
the same end. For we hold with the Congregational
Union, that “no church, nor union of churches, has
any right or power to interfere with the faith or
discipline of any other church, further than to sepa-
rate from such as in faith or practice depart from the
gospel of Christ.” This is the ultimatum with
Presbyterians as well as Independents. There are
differences, no doubt, between the cases; but whether
it be owing to the force of truth or prejudice, they
seem to us to be greatly in favour of Presbytery.
Under the Presbyterian system, the arbiters have
been formed into a deliberative assembly, quite
independently of any particular case, and cannot be
suspected of coming into office in order to oblige a
friend or serve a purpose. Where the members of a
Congregational church cannot settle a dispute among
themselves, and wish to refer their differences to
others, not of their society, the channel of reference
is not fixed and marked; and hence, of late years,
We have seen appeals made in the same case to one
set of arbiters after another, with exceedingly differ-
ent and incongruous results; and sometimes the
churches of one denomination have applied to minis-
ters or members of other denominations, in order
to secure an impartial mediation. They may be
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 325
excellent people among whom these things happen;
in many instances they are undoubtedly “the salt of
the earth,” and “the lights of the world.” I remark
on the facts in no spirit of fault-finding, but simply
to suggest that these untoward casualties are un-
avoidable where churches have a reciprocal obligation,
and yet refuse to fulfil it systematically. Perhaps
there might be improvements among our Congrega-
tional friends short of a change of polity, and we
would have cause to rejoice over these ameliorations.
If Independency is to remain substantially what it
is, would it not derive benefit from moulding into a
system its present actings, appointing, for example,
the pastors and deacons of a certain district the
stated referees in that district, and then no suspicion
could arise of packing a jury, in order to govern a
verdict 7 -
I know that some Independent churches have
adopted such arrangements. The church at Torquay,
presided over by Mr Hurry, a young Independent
pastor of great excellence and promise, adopted the
following resolution:-‘‘That in the confidence that.
many unhappy disputes which have occasioned dis-
tress in other churches might have been altogether
prevented, or their evil consequences greatly miti-
gated, if there had existed some method of seeking
advice from wise and dispassionate Christian by-
standers, yet without compromising the integrity
and independence of the churches as under the
alone authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, this church
agrees that if any question should arise likely to
326 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
involve strong difference of opinion, whether between
the pastor and the members, or between the members
themselves, no vote shall be taken thereon until the
case has been fairly and impartially laid before the
pastors and delegates of the Totness Division of the
South Devon Congregational Union, and their opinion
and advice thereon obtained. It being distinctly
understood that the ultimate consideration of, and
decision upon, the question or questions shall be
reserved to this church, without pledging itself to
give more than due and respectful consideration to
the opinion and advice so obtained. It is hereby
further agreed, that such opinion and advice shall
be sought whenever, and only when at least one-
fourth part of the whole of the adult members of the
church shall consider it desirable, on their giving an
undertaking to defray the expense thereby incurred,
unless in the opinion of the parties applied to for
advice such expense ought to be defrayed out of the
church fund.”
Here the selection of arbiters or referees is not
left indeterminate. Questions likely to involve dif-
ferences of opinion are to be laid before the pastors
and delegates of the Totness Division of the South
Devon Congregational Union. Why might not others,
why not all Congregational churches follow a like
course? Dr Davidson thinks that the step is too
much in the direction of Presbytery. I cannot per-
ceive, if references are to be made to Christian coun-
sellors of other churches, why the communication
should not be conducted in the least suspicious and
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 327
most orderly manner. But if the simple fact of
selecting advisers, irrespectively of any question at
issue, would render the selection too Presbyterate,
then it may be reasonable to doubt whether the joint
and reciprocal duties of churches can be executed in
a regular and efficient manner without assuming
more or less a Presbyterian economy. . The Inde-
pendents of olden times were not so tremulous
about the safety of their principles, as to forbid the
associated and systematic action of churches in the
maintenance of their common purity. “No church,”
says Dr Owen, “is infallible in their judgment abso-
lutely in any case; and in many, their determina-
tions may be so doubtful as not to affect the con-
science of him who is censured. But such a person
is not only a member of that particular church, but
by virtue thereof, of the catholic church also. It is
necessary, therefore, that he should be heard and
judged as unto his interest therein, if he do desire it.
And this can no way be done but by such synods as
we shall immediately describe.” * In the same
treatise he says, “If it be reported or known by
credible testimony, that any church hath admitted
into the exercise of divine worship anything super-
stitious or vain, or, if the members of it walk like
those described by the apostle, Philip. iii. 18, 19,
unto the dishonour of the gospel and of the ways of
Christ, the church itself not endeavouring its own
reformation and repentance, other churches, walking
in communion therewith, by virtue of their common
* Treatise on the Gospel Church, p. 414.
328 ON THIE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
interest in the glory of Christ, and honour of the
gospel, after more private ways for its reduction, as
opportunity and duty may suggest unto their elders,
ought to assemble in a synod for advice, either as to
the use of farther means for the recovery of such a
church, or to withhold communion from it in case of
obstinacy in its evil ways.” The Independents of
the Westminster Assembly characterise synods as
“an holy ordinance of God,” and declare “that all
the churches in a province being offended at a par-
ticular congregation, may call that single congrega-
tion to account; yea, all the churches in a nation may
call one or more congregations to an account—that
they may examine and admonish, and, in case of
obstinacy, declare them to be subverters of the faith
—that synods are of use to give advice to the ma-
gistrate in matters of religion—that they have au-
thority to determine concerning controversies of faith
—that their determinations are to be received with
great honour and conscientious respect and obliga-
tion as from Christ—that, if an offending congregation
refuse to submit to their determinations, they may
withdraw from them, and deny church communion
and fellowship with them.” ”
* The Presbyterians urged these admissions of Independent
brethren as made by them “in their disputes and otherwise,”
and as “sufficient to warrant not only the lawfulness of the
use of synods, but also of the standing use of them.” See
“Reasons presented by the Dissenting Brethren,” &c. Lon-
don, 1648, p. 138. When this book was reissued in 1652, it
got another title, “The Grand Debate concerning Presbytery
and Independency by the Assembly of Divines, &c. By order
of Parliament, 1652.”
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 329
The Sub-Committee of Agreements, composed of
Presbyterians and Independents, and expressly ap-
pointed to take into consideration their differences of
opinion, and to endeavour a union if possible, were
unanimous in recommending this article: “For the
associating of churches, let there be in every county
of this kingdom a certain number of select godly and
able ministers of the Word within that county, to
hear and determine the causes and differences in
every congregation within the same; and let there
be a certain number of select church governors
(ruling elders) assistant unto them.”
CHAPTER III.
SECT. III.-Churches are charged with the duty of extending
the Gospel.
CoNGREGATIONALISTs are eager to show that the
independence of churches does not infer their dis-
severance, and that while each is self-governed and
complete within itself, they may be in various ways
associated, so as to exemplify Christian union under
its fairest aspects. In support of this proposition,
they refer us commonly to joint missionary enter-
prise. But I have always regarded this instance as
a testimony to opposite views. The institution of
* Papers for Accommodation, 1644, by a Sub-Committee Of
Divines of the Assembly and Dissenting Brethren. London,
1648.
330 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
general missionary societies somewhat veils the in-
aptitude of the Independent polity for great beneficent
undertakings, and allows the adoption of Presby-
terian principles, while the nomenclature of Pres-
byterians is steadfastly repudiated. But the true
state of the facts is at once apparent when we sup-
pose churches in their ecclesiastical capacity to put
forth their energies for the conversion of the heathen.
Is each church to deliberate and vote on the selection
of the field; on the choice of the agent; on the
settlement of disputes between missionaries and co-
lonists, or among missionaries themselves 7 It be-
comes immediately evident, when the case is so
presented, that each church cannot act under the
given circumstances in its collective capacity; that
if churches, as churches, are to accomplish any such
work, they must have recourse to the appointment
of representatives. Dr Wardlaw sees and avows
this consequence. He says, “In regard to such
union and co-operation as this, there is no occasion
why the most rigid and uncompromising Indepen-
dent should startle even at the word delegation itself.
. . . . The evil to which Congregationalism is op-
posed is not delegation, but authoritative delegation.
If the delegation relates to objects that are altogether
unconnected with the government of the churches
—involving no interference with their respective ad-
mission of members, exercise of discipline, or in
general the conduct of their own affairs, whether
spiritual or temporal—if it regards only the prose-
cution of such common ends as the local or more
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 331
extensive, the home or the foreign propagation of the
gospel, . . . . we are not sensible of the slightest
infringement, by such delegated combination, of any
one principle of the strictest Independency.””
There is here a clear and explicit approval of dele-
gated combination for the extension of the gospel;
but the saving clauses by which Independent con-
sistency is to be preserved I do not understand.
What could a board of missionary directors do if they
had not “authoritative delegation ?” Evangelising
operations would proceed slowly if they rested in the
state of suggestion or proposal. And how is “ dis-
cipline” to be avoided if a missionary acts improperly,
and has to be called to account for his disorderly
conduct? The directors will then demand explana-
tions and confessions, and inflict censures; and if the
offence be grave or be repeated, they will debate
and decide the question, whether the offending agent
should be stripped of his stewardship and dismissed
from their service. Is this not discipline? What
course more authoritative or disciplinarian could any
presbytery or synod pursue in exercising Superinten-
dence over any of its members?
I wish that the advocates of Independency would
descend from general terms, and stoop to specifica-
tion and details, by which they could show us that
Presbyterian missions and Independent missions differ
essentially in their mode of administration. Let them
show us that the Synod of the United Presbyterian
Church wields a more arbitrary power in conducting
* Congreg. Indep., p. 369.
332 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
its missions than the Committee of any Congrega-
tionalist society contemplating the same objects, and
then we may begin to suspect that Presbyterian
government is conventional and imperious; but till
then, we must be allowed to consider Presbytery the
simplest form of energetic action, and always least
objectionable where it is most frankly and unequivo-
cally espoused.
I acknowledge that in the guidance of home mis-
sions the Congregationalist body has been jealous of
centralization, and that the Congregational Union of
Tºngland and Wales has sedulously avoided the very
appearance of an exercise of power. And what is
the result” I am only giving utterance to the senti-
ments of some eminent Independents when I answer,
inefficiency. At the meetings of the Union held at
Northampton in October, 1851, the Rev. Mr Bennett,
as reported in the British Banner, October 22, said:
“To my mind, the Congregational Union has been a
do-nothing body. I was much struck with an ob-
servation which fell from the lips of Dr Campbell,
when he said that you must have done with mere
resolutions. . . . . How do we stand as a body ?
Is the number of Independent churches much greater
than it was 150 years ago? I have turned my atten-
tion to this subject of late, and I find that the county
in which we are now, which has 304 parishes, con-
tained, one hundred years ago, twenty-four Indepen-
dent churches. Well, what is the number now Ż
Only twenty-eight, four churches in a hundred
years. How comes that to pass? In Somerset and
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE councils. 333
Devon—counties with which I am pretty well ac-
quainted—l vouch for it, our position is not more
favourable. There must be something wrong some-
where, or else it would not be so. By this time,
Congregationalism ought to have diffused its leaven
throughout the whole country. The reason of this
stagnation I believe to be a want of united effort.
We have got a certain phantom among us,-a kind
of ‘familiar;’ an idle dread of centralization. You
cannot propose an efficient plan or scheme of any
kind; you cannot refer to anything that goes beyond
mere talking, and put your foot on the region of doing,
but you hear exclamations on all sides of ‘You are
acting contrary to your principles.’ Why should it
be so 7 Let me advise you to have a bona fide repre-
sentation in this Union,--a delegate that somebody
delegates, one that comes with credentials from
those by whom he is sent; and let those who send
such delegates say, whatever the majority of the
Union agrees should be done, we pledge ourselves to
do. I may not be in order, but I am saying what I
think and believe. I have made these remarks
because I feel that the subject is important. Let us
get out of our present dead condition. Let us have
some doing as well as talking. I believe it is right
to spread our principles, whatever may be said about
centralization. We may say, in the language sup-
posed to have been uttered by a fallen angel, whose
spirit, however, we need not imitate,<-
*To be weak is miserable,
Doing or suffering.’
334 ON THE COMMON GoverNMENT OF
Some most excellent things may come into the world
without parents, perhaps; but depend upon it the
Congregational body will never be strong without
unity of action.” Afterwards, Mr Bennett sent an
able letter to the Banner, more deliberately and
amply expounding his views. In that letter the
following passages occur: “I should rejoice and
triumph in a bona fide Congregational Union,-in a
Union that should include every one of our churches,
concentrating and directing all their energies,—in a
Union that should be like a great heart in the midst
of us, sending forth streams of healthful and invigor-
ating influence through our whole body to the ex-
tremities of the land. The Congregational Union,
as it exists at present, is not such a body; and in
order that it may become so, or even approximate
thereunto, two things are, Ithink, absolutely essential.
First: the Union must consist of a genuine and bona
fide delegation. The men who come to it to take a
part in its deliberations and votes, must come not
because it is pleasant to themselves, and a source of
personal gratification to themselves, but they must
come because they are SENT. . . . . I repeat,
therefore, that a genuine delegation is essential to an
effective Congregational Union. A second thing
which appears to me is essential is, that the men
who are thus sent should bring from the churches by
whom they are sent a distinct and positive pledge,
that with reference to certain specified public objects
these churches will hold themselves bound to support,
to the utmost of their power, by a strenuous practical
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILs. 335
co-operation, such courses of action as the Congre-
gational Union, by its deliberations and resolutions,
may advise or appoint. . . . .
“What the specified objects should be, for the sup-
port of which the churches in connection with the
Cougregational Union should be required to pledge
themselves, it is not at all difficult to determine; they
are already embraced in the field of action which the
Union has prescribed for itself. I will mention but
two, which, if they were worked and supported, not
as they are, but as they ought to be, would be the
glory of our denomination, would render the Union
worthy of all honour, and all support, and give it a
name and a place among the noblest institutions of
the land. .
“The first is the Colonial Missionary Society,
the object of which is, in every respect, grand and
imposing. . . . . But in my judgment, the true
vocation of the Congregational Union is essentially
a home vocation. Its grand field of operation is our
fatherland. It should be one vast Home Missionary
“Now, sir, suppose the Union had for this great
object an income of twenty-five or thirty thousand
pounds a-year. So applied, what great and cheering
results may reasonably be expected And why should
it not have such an income? What prevents it 7
Simply the want of a bona fide Congregational Union.
That, and nothing else! Were all our churches really
united—were each church to say by its delegate,
“We feel the importance of this great object, and we
336 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
pledge ourselves to the utmost of our power to sup-
port your plans; if you appoint that on a certain day
a collection shall be made, we pledge ourselves to
make it, whatever the proceeds may be;’ why, then,
the resources of the home missionary work would
increase fourfold, and much more; and I ask, what
danger to the future liberty of the churches could
such pledges as these involve : The notion of such
danger is, in my opinion, not only untenable, but
absolutely foolish and ridiculous. I do not say that
there are not other things for which the Congrega-
tional Union would be a suitable and important
medium. I believe there are. As a great and
dignified organ for the expression of the opinions of
the body, in important and social political crises, I
think its instrumentality may be made very powerful;
and again, when circumstances and public events may
seem to demand it, I think fraternal counsel issuing
from the Union in the form of circulars, to be read in
the churches connected with it, may make it a source
of most healthful influences to those churches. But
if the churches in the Connection were pledged to the
above objects only, it would give a new aspect to the
Union, and a vastly accelerated amount of usefulness
to the whole body. º
“And what prevents a consummation so desirable?
Isolation: that is the name of the evil genius of our
system 1 That is the torpedo which benumbs our
energies, and paralyses the very sinews of combined
effort | We have seen many forms of ecclesiastical
despotism—Popish depotism, Episcopal-Protestant
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 337
despotism, Wesleyan-Conference despotism—and we
have pondered these things until we have brought
ourselves almost to believe, that a hundred of our
brethren cannot unite for any purpose of concentrated
action, without concocting some plot against our
spiritual liberties | We have stereotyped a law of
jealousy, and tried to regard it as holy! We have
crowned and almost worshipped a phantom, which is
powerful only to paralyse ! whose cold shadow freezes
the very heart of action a coward spirit, that,
wherever it turns its face,
“Back recoils, it knows not why,
E’en at the sound itself has made l'
Our numbers, our wealth, our intelligence, and piety,
are shorn of much of that influence which they ought
to exercise in this land, because we believe in the
virtue of dislocation |
“If this evil is, indeed, ineradicable among us—if
it is an incurable fatality—if the centrifugal force must
be the master force of our system—why, then, let us
give up the habit of talking about what we cannot do.
Let us not pretend to form combinations for which
we have an inherent incapacity, and let us also give
up the fond hope that our denominational principles
will in future ever make any great progress in this
land . Even then we shall have a work to do, and
not an unimportant one. Congregational Noncon-
formity will still be in years to come what it has
been in years past—an embodied protest against the
encroachments of human authority on that sacred
territory where the Lord Christ alone is King; and
Y
338 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
this is no mean vocation; but I think we may do
this and much more, and I fear, if we content our-
selves with this, our Master and Lord will one day
say to us, ‘This ought ye to have done, and not to
have left the other undone.’”
The importance of these citations is my apology for
their length. Mr Bennett recommends that churches
should act energetically when promoting in common
their common objects, and to such action he regards
systematic delegation as absolutely indispensable.
The appointments and the powers he demands for the
delegates or representatives are, I think, both neces-
sary and sufficient. Some may object to Mr Bennett
as an authority, seeing he had withdrawn from the
Congregational Union, and thus evinced a difference
of opinion from the generality of its members. I by
no means wish to exhibit him as an exponent of the
principles of the Union. That he was very far,
however, from being singular in his views, and that
some avowing opposite convictions were still partly
on his side, abundantly appeared from speeches and
correspondence connected with the same interesting
occasion. The Rev. George Nicholson, in an excel-
lent communication to the Banner, of date October 31,
said: “Those who were present on the occasion
referred to, will remember that I neither denied the
facts stated by my friend, Mr Bennett, nor ridiculed
the importance attached to them. On the contrary,
I expressed my satisfaction that they had been so
courageously brought forward, and so attentively
listened to, and hoped that they would receive the
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 339
careful and earnest consideration which they appeared
to me to deserve. . . . . I am heartily glad that
you have so fully reported my friend's able speech,
and I doubt not it will, in one way at least, do good
service to the churches, by opening their eyes to facts
which are as instructive as they are humiliating.”
The Rev. W. F. Buck says, in a letter to the Banner,
dated October 25, 1851, “Some plead for a system of
isolated Independency, very different from the Con-
gregationalism of Dr Owen, and having no warrant,
as I consider, from the sacred Scriptures, our great
statute-book. Little in the way of aggression can be
justly calculated on without both union and organi-
zation.
“I by no means coincide with the representation
made at the late meeting of the Union, by the Rev.
Mr Bennett, that up to the present time nothing has
been effected. Considering the comparatively few
years it has been in existence, and the impediments
it has had to contend with, I think it has not only
done much, but also much that is valuable. The
recommendation of that gentleman, in reference to
its government, I believe to be worthy of the most
mature deliberation, unless a great division of opinion
is likely to arise from its introduction.”
But the most important circumstance connected
with Mr Bennett's speech and letter is found in the
commendation given them by the editor of the
Banner, one of the most vigorous and indefatigable
writers of the present day. He prefaces Mr Bennett's
letter with the following remarks: “The lovers of
340 ON THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF
concord, the real and enlightened friends of Inde-
pendency, will read with the deepest interest the
communications we publish to-day on that subject.
They will take the luminous, the masterly, and
every way admirable letter of Mr Bennett as his
premeditated speech—his deliberate opinion. That
letter gives us more satisfaction than we can well
express. We could wish for it a thoughtful perusal
by every minister, by every deacon, and by every
enlightened member of the Independent body,
in these realms. There is not in it one word we
could desire to see altered, or which, by altering,
could be improved. Had we begirded ourselves for
the preparation of a similar manifesto, we do not
think we could more correctly, clearly, or forcibly
have embodied our own views, opinions, and aspira-
tions. Our readers may, therefore, if they choose,
accept them either as Mr Bennett's or our own. So
far as he has gone, he completely meets our deliberate,
long-entertained, and thoroughly-digested notions on
the subject of organization. It is true, indeed, that
we would add a few points, and carry some matters
further ; but to the extent of its deliverance, we
entirely concur with him.” If some say that such
observations are compatible with Congregationalism,
and that to approve of them is to become a Congre-
gationalist, I have only to reply—Be it so. Let
churches have joint action worthy of the name, and
I care little what it be called. When the sentiments
I have quoted, which are none other than those of
Independents generally in former times, shall be
CHURCHES BY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS. 341
adopted and avowed by the greater part of Inde-
pendents of our own day, I shall not be so desirous
to show where we differ, as to show that our
differences are immaterial, and that the season has
come for united conferences, with a view to associated
exertion, in order that errors which we all condemn
may be arrested, that truths we all esteem may
be advanced, and that the cherished distinctions
and trophies of warring sects may wax old, and
vanish away amid the brightening glory of the one
church of the living God.
Since the preceding remarks were written, I have
had my attention called by a much-esteemed friend”
to a very interesting publication, “The Congrega-
tional Year-Book for 1853.” It is most gratifying
to read the accounts there given of the London
Congregational Church Building Society, and of
Chapel Extension in Lancashire. Most fervently do
I wish these, and all like operations, God speed.
|From the report of the proceedings of the Con-
gregational Union for 1852, I rejoice to perceive
that the constitution of the Union has undergone
amendments, which are likely to be productive of
excellent results. Such organization is in progress
as seems fitted, by the divine blessing, to induce
vigorous action and immense usefulness.
* W. P. Paton, Esq. of Glasgow.
C O N C L U S I O N.
IN bringing this Treatise to a conclusion, I desire to
impress the friends of Presbytery with the convic-
tion, that they will best secure approval for their
Presbyterian polity by recommending it in practice.
Let the excellence of the tree appear in the grace-
fulness of its proportions, the freshness of its vege-
tation, and above all, in the abundance and salubrity
of its fruit. Already Presbytery has undergone, in
several features, great improvements in Scotland.
That it should be immediately perfected by the Re-
formers, when they had just emerged from a corrupt
and persecuting church, was more than could be ex-
pected. In leaving Rome, they brought with them
some of its intolerance, which they embodied in their
new system of ecclesiastical polity. Mr Lawson has
little difficulty in proving that “the Presbyterians
of Scotland” were chargeable with “tyrannical pro-
ceedings,” especially in “trying and punishing cases
of scandal, at the end of the sixteenth century.”
I have now before me scroll minutes of the Inverness
Presbytery, * recording the proceedings of that
* These scroll minutes have been kindly sent me by my
esteemed friend, the Rev. John Grant of Roseneath. He says
of them: “It would seem that they remained in the family
of the Clerk. The book came into the hands of an auctioneer
in Inverness about a year before the Disruption, and he gave
it to me, having made out of the old writing so much as to
know that it had something to do with Presbytery.”
CONCLUSION. 343
court through a number of years, beginning with
1632, and showing, amid the changes of church
government, little relaxation of penal discipline in
the first half of the seventeenth century. We have
there, on the 22d August 1633, Mr Lachlan Grant,
a member of Presbytery, “accusit for his lang ab-
sence, nowe thre dayes togidder. He anserit for the
first daye he was seik of ane cauld, and culd nocht
be hard speik; . . . . for the secund, that he was
with the bischop, meaning yat yai war threatting to
demeiss him of the gleb of Dalarassie; . . . . and
for the third daye, (when) ye exerceis was don or he
Cam in, answerit that he had evill weather.” These
apologies seem to be tolerably good. Yet, when Mr
Grant “was removit,” the Presbytery “decernit
him to pay £xx mo".” In another minute, I see
Donald Makanes ordained to make repentance in his
own kirk three successive Sabbaths, at the foot of
the stool of repentance, and to pay a penalty of £20,
for cutting his neighbour's kail, and breaking his
dyke. Examples of the same sort of “dealing”
abound in these records. We have a contrast to
them presented in the declaration of the church
with which I am connected, that “ the word
‘court,’” as used in its Rules, &c., “simply denotes
ministers and elders regularly met for the discharge
of their deliberative duties, in session, presbytery,
or synod; and that it conveys no idea of authority
beyond that of spiritual administration.”
There is still, however, room for amendment; and
without dreading the advantage that may be taken
344. CONCLUSION.
of a confessional strain of remark, I shall specify, in
a few particulars, where improvement in the working
out of Presbyterian government seems to me to be
demanded:—
1. There should be less jealousy than is some-
times manifested of unofficial Christian beneficence.
I hold, and I have endeavoured to prove, the divine
appointment of the eldership. But since we find
that wise men, not formally invested with office,
were, by apostolic direction, set to judge on questions
deeply affecting the honour of the church, we
should be slow to reject the aid of such wisdom,
even in ecclesiastical proceedings, where it is still
available for like service. An official agency is valu-
able, not only for what it can do itself, but as bring-
ing into action all the graces and resºurces of the
church; and a punctilious dread of compromising
our official status in permitting others to work with
us, and hailing their co-operation, is not sanctioned,
as I think by the facts, the precepts, or the spirit of
the New Testament.
2. We should do more than is now done to elevate
the qualifications and efficiency of the Ruling as dis-
tinguished from the Teaching Eldership. That
Scripture makes such a distinction among presbyters
has, I trust, been sufficiently proved. But the dis-
tinction has been too often widened into a chasm.
Variety within a species has been enlarged into a
specific difference. On this practical error both
Episcopalians and Independents have reared their
most formidable engines of assault against our Ses-
CONCLUSION. 345
sional system. They have asked why the apostles
so generally speak of presbyters as one institution,
if the teaching and ruling presbyters were then as
wide apart as are ministers and elders in our own
day. They have inquired what we gain by contend-
ing for Presbyterian ordination, and then excluding
the great majority of presbyters from the privilege
of ordaining. *
Our present usage admits of some reply to such
strictures. If the writers of the New Testament
often speak of presbyters collectively, and as one
body, we also speak of the members of presbyteries
or synods without distinguishing the ruling and
teaching elders of whom the court is composed.
It is true, also, that the having or wanting a col-
* On this subject, Dr Onderdonk says, “We have consulted
Buck's Dictionary, and find that in the Church of Scotland,
the pastoral are distinguished from the ruling elders in two
particulars: they only lay on hands in ordaining pastors; and
the presiding officer of the presbytery is chosen from among
them. We have made inquiries also concerning the practice in
Presbyterian ordinations in this country, and learn that the
ruling elders do not impose hands with the pastors—though
the opinion is not unsupported that they ought to do so. . . . . .
The General Assembly declares that ordination is to be “with
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, according to the
apostolic example;’ it declares the ‘presbytery,’ the only one
it defines, to include ruling elders; these, therefore, to conform
to ‘the apostolic example,’ ought to lay on hands, but they do
not ; therefore, by its own showing, the ordinations in the
communion of the General Assembly, are not “according to
the apostolic example.’”—(Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, pp.
76, 77.) In 1851, March 11, the Presbytery of which I am a
minister entered on the remit from the Synod in relation to
the participation of Ruling Elders in the imposition of hands
346 o CONCLUSION.
legiate education makes more difference now than
could have originally subsisted. But still the one term,
“bishop,” so often applied to elders, whether they
ruled or taught, and without any mark of discrimina-
tion, shows that they were more upon the same sort
of footing in the primitive church than in the present
working of Presbytery. At their meetings for pub-
lic worship, all the elders occupied one bench or
platform, facing the people, to indicate the sameness
of their order; and he who was to preach took his
place with them, and delivered his message from
amid his brethren.”
I do not say this practice should be resumed,
though I would not object to its restoration; but I
do say there should be more of the parity of which
it gave evidence. If not in their seats, at least in
their services, the elders should be in view of the
people, and valued as the pastors with whom they
Co-operate. We need not expect to reach an end so
at the ordination of ministers: “After long and friendly dis-
cussion, it was moved and agreed that the best mode of com-
posing differences on this subject, would be that of appointing
the moderator, in every case of ministerial ordination, to im-
pose hands in the name of the Presbytery.” The London
ministers, in their Divine Right of Church Government, re- .
garded this mode of ordination with favour. “Paul with the
presbytery,” they say, “ordained Timothy with imposition
of hands; it may be of Paul's hands in name of the whole
presbytery.” In the margin they support this view by Cal-
vin's authority: “As Calvin judgeth in Comment. ad 2 Tim.
i. 6.”—(Jus Divinum, &c., Appendix, p. 268. London, 1647.)
* Some Episcopalians, who substantially admit this fact, at-
tempt to uphold the superiority of bishops, by alleging that
the preaching elder was the bishop, emphatically so called, and
CONCLUSION. 347
important without the use of reasonable means, and
surely more pains might be taken to qualify elders
for ruling well. Laudable zeal has been shown to
institute ministers' libraries. Is there no need for
elders’ libraries? And might there not be more
frequent meetings with them and addresses to them,
and improving engagements assigned them, having a
direct tendency to stimulate their reading of books,
and render it profitable? Some time ago there was
a noble movement among elders to improve their
own order. Let them not languish in this enterprise.
Let them magnify their office. Let them show that
they have a high conception themselves of the trust
confided to them, and others, will hold it in like
estimation: but if they let down the office, what
wonder if others trample it under foot. And how are
they to magnify it? By demeaning themselves con-
sequentially—by walking with the air and strut of
office? Assuredly not. They must qualify themselves
for ruling, and then rule with diligence. The church,
through all its sections of young and old, rich and
poor, near and remote, must feel the pervading effi-
that he had also a different sort of seat from the elders on
either side of him. In the primitive church, says “our
learned Thorndike,” to use the language of Bishop Stilling-
fleet, “the presbyters were wont to sit by themselves in a half
circle at the east end of the church, with their faces turned to
the faces of the people, the deacons standing behind them, as
waiting on them, but the bishop on a throne (!) by himself, in
the midst of the presbyters’ seats.”—(Right of the Church, &c.,
chap. iii. p. 93.) They must be very intent on Securing a throne
for the bishop, who find one in the simple arrangements of the
primitive Christians.
348 CONCLUSION.
cacy of their vigilant inspection. Then it will be seen
that they have plenty to do who have only to rule;
and wonder will cease to be entertained that labourers
so estimable and invaluable have been classed by the
apostles with ministers of the Word, as participating
in the same superintendence of the church, and
similarly entitled to be esteemed very highly in love
for their work's sake.
3. The representative principle might be more
equally acted out by us. In some instances the
application of it is rigorous; in others loose and
partial. Ministers holding the most important secre-
taryships, and elders the most important treasurer-
ships are not “members of court,” unless they happen
to be so by official connection with some particular
congregation. If they speak, it is by sufferance, and
only in relation to their own particular business; and
they may not vote at all. This is strict rule for
honourable functionaries who represent the church at
large in some of its most important interests. Along
with this strictness there is a commensurate laxity.
Civil society is not more unequally represented in
parliament, than is Christian society in our pres-
byteries. If one church contain twelve hundred
members, and if twelve churches have each a hun-
dred members, the first twelve hundred people have
two representatives, and the second twelve hundred
have twenty-four representatives—the same numeri-
cal constituency is, in the latter case, twelve times
more adequately represented. Such facts deserve at
least consideration.
CONCLUSION. 349
4. Full advantage has not yet been taken of the
vast power which assembled elders might wield for
practical purposes. Presbyteries and synods have
been called courts of review. The name points the
injured to valuable means of redress; but it fosters
a fallacy if it encourage any to think that the sole or
... chief use of presbyterate gatherings is to settle dis-
putes. There has been already a vast improvement in
this province. Appeal cases have been diminishing
in number: there was not one of them at the last
meeting of the United Presbyterian Synod, and their
place was occupied by the prosecution of fitting
measures for the maintenance and extension of reli-
gion at home and abroad. But though we have got
upon the right road, we are far from our destination.
The good that a synod might do is inestimable.
The most devoted philanthropist is feeble in his
isolation. When he joins a church, he has an admir-
able opportunity of engaging fellow-worshippers to
be fellow-workers, and to advance in concert with
him the common salvation. But what shall we think
of the power of communicative zeal, judiciously
developed in a synod or assembly, which acts on
many hundreds of churches and over the whole extent
of a nation? If the nature of this influence were
more duly appreciated, it would be more energetically
put forth ; many churches and pastors, now pining in
neglect, would be visited and revived; the choicest
religious literature would be showered upon our
people; education for all the young in the charge of
the church would be adequately provided and inde-
350 CONCLUSION.
fatigably worked. “Our waste and desolate places,
and the land of our destruction”—the regions which
appeared to be solitudes, they were so few and
destroyed—would become too narrow by reason of
the inhabitants, and a cry would be heard in many
quarters from our crowded churches, “The place is
too strait for me: give place to me that I may
dwell.” To none so much as to a concourse of
ecclesiastical office-bearers is this commission given,
“Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them
stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations:
spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy
stakes: for thou shalt break forth on the right
hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit
the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be
inhabited.””
5. The friends of Presbyterian government should
turn to better account the facilities which it affords
for promoting the union of churches. Even where
churches form separate denominations, they might
have united action, of varied character and high
importance, through their representative assemblies.
But churches denominationally separated should seek
more than co-operation; they should aim at incorpo-
ration. Happily partition walls have been falling in
Scotland. The United Presbyterian Church is com-
posed of three denominations; and though they
have been but a short time amalgamated, they seem
to have already forgotten their differences, and to be
exhibiting, through all the range of their fellowship,
* Is, liv. 2, 3.
CONCLUSION. 351
the good and pleasant spectacle of brethren dwelling
together in unity. The Free Church, by its attrac-
tive force, has been also drawing smaller bodies into
its communion. Would that the same career were
pursued in England! A union of the English evan-
gelical Presbyterians would bring to them new life,
new strength, a new footing in public estimation, and
would rear a barrier, infinitely more effective than
public meetings or indignant protestations, against
the formidable encroachments of the power of Rome.
I am happy to introduce here a resolution passed by
the Presbytery of which I am a member: “1852,
March 9. In regard to the overture ‘for the forma-
tion of a Synod in England, to consist of the minis-
ters and representative elders south of the Tweed,’
sent down by Synod for the consideration of Presby-
teries, it was agreed to report that the Presbytery
do not deem it advisable that a separate Synod should
in the meantime be formed; but believing that
important ends may be served by our Presbyteries in
England meeting together and consulting on measures
that affect the interests of Presbyterianism south of
the Tweed, are of opinion that all facilities for this
purpose should be afforded by the Synod, and that
the Synod should favourably regard any movement
towards closer union between the various bodies of
evangelical Presbyterians in England.” When the
evangelical Presbyterians of England shall have
* This extract, and another preceding it, were kindly fur-
nished, on application, by my friend, the Rev. George Jeffrey,
our efficient Presbytery Clerk.
352 CONCLUSION.
become united, the next question may be, how far
the principles of Owen furnish a basis for the union
of Presbyterians and Independents 7
I will not extend farther these suggestions. What-
ever causes may, in the providence of God, conduce
to the result, we have the most decisive warrant for
expecting prosperity to the one church of Christ:
“For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort
all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness
like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord;
joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving,
and the voice of melody.” Happily our differences
do not preclude us from unitedly imploring, even
now, a fulfilment of these great and precious promises:
“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem : they shall prosper
that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and
prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and
companions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be within
thee. Because of the house of the Lord our God I
will seek thy good.” f
* IS. li. 3. f Ps. cxxii. 6–9.
APPENDIX.
*-*-*
OBJECTIONS URGED AGAINST THE POSITION THAT
“THE SEVEN” WERE DEACONS.*
I. IT has been argued that the seven mentioned in
the sixth chapter of the Acts could not have been
congregational deacons, since they were appointed
for the aggregate church of Jerusalem, which must
have comprised, as appears from the number of Chris-
tians, many subdivisional churches. Whether there
was in any sense a plurality of churches in Jeru-
salem, is a question which has been elsewhere con-
sidered. Supposing this fact to be established, I do
not perceive that it forms a conclusive argument for
the view on behalf of which it is here adduced. (1.)
If almoners are needed for an association of churches,
they may be needed for distinct Christian societies,
and no reason can be assigned in principle for engag-
ing their services in one of these relations and not in
the other. (2.) It is not certain that each of the
seven had to no extent a sectional trust. The par-
ties I am reasoning with understand that the apostles
in preaching distributed themselves among various
assemblies, and addressed each his own hearers. But
that there was any such apportioning of apostolic
labour, is not declared in the sacred narrative. And
if, in the absence of direct averment, we may infer
* See p. 33.
Z
354 APPENDIX.
that the apostles preached to different audiences, why
may we not, in the absence of direct averment, simi-
larly infer that the deacons, besides doing work of a
general nature, distributed their services among the
several quarters of the city and societies of worshippers
as the case demanded? “Seven such individuals,” says
Neander, “were chosen; the number being acci-
dentally fixed upon as a common one, or being
adapted to seven sections of the church.” ” If the
seven had sectional duties, or, in other words, duties
distinctively congregational, the argument from the
aggregate nature of their trust falls to the ground.
II. It has been asked if the office of deacon (as its
functions are understood by us) be so essential, how
the church of Jerusalem managed to do without it
for several years? We hold, let it be remembered,
that the superior office includes the inferior; and
while Jerusalem was favoured with the presence and
labours of many superior officers, the appointment of
inferior officers was less necessary.
III. Because benevolent contributions made to the
poor saints in Jerusalem at one time by the church
at Antioch, and at another time by the churches of
Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia were put in charge
of “the apostles and elders,” the inference has been
drawn that “the seven must have discontinued their
distinctive employment,” and that “their functions
must have reverted to the parties who originally held
them.” But it is surely easier to suppose that the
apostles and elders, in the exercise of a general super-
intendence, were the first acknowledged in such mat-
ters, and afterwards devolved them on appropriate
subordinate agencies, than to imagine that the apos-
tles resumed the serving of tables when the cause of
Christ was rapidly extending, and the care of all the
churches was still coming on them daily.
* History of the Planting, &c. p. 39.
APPENDIX. 355
IV. Much stress has been laid on the omission of
the term deacons where (Acts xxi. 8) “the seven”
are mentioned. If the case had admitted of it, would
not the writer have said “the seven deacons?” It is
not certain that he would. In some instances the
apostles are simply called “the twelve,” and after the
death of Judas “the eleven,” where their apostleship
is neither forgotten nor denied. Circumstances may
render a number even more emphatic than an appella-
tion ; and there was much to give emphasis to the
election of the first seven almoners. Amid many of
the same class, and possibly many sevens similarly
employed, they may still be distinguishable as “the
seven” emphatically so designated. It is no reply
that the twelve are often called apostles, and the
seven never once called deacons. The first function-
aries who served tables after the apostles are not often
spoken of in any form, to give us varied diction regard-
ing them; and all we are now called to show is, that
they might be deacons, and yet be called the seven, as
the others were certainly apostles, and yet called the
twelve and the eleven.
W. It has been argued that there were probably
deacons in the church at Jerusalem before the seven
were appointed. The persons who carried out the
dead bodies of Ananias and Sapphira are called
(Acts v. 6) young men; and instances are adduced
of servants, as such, being so distinguished, irre-
spectively of their age. Examples are also brought
to prove that these servants are sometimes, though
not in the New Testament, called deacons. May not
these be the deacons spoken of in the epistles of
Paul ? In that case it is argued they had nothing
specially to do with the management of funds, or
seven others would not have been appointed expressly
to fulfil this duty. -
This chain of induction is weak in several links. If
356 APPENDIX.
we suppose the young men mentioned in the sixth
chapter of the Acts to have been servants, there is
no likelihood that they were the same order of func-
tionaries as the deacons mentioned by Paul. Had
the deaconship been in existence and operation for
several years in Jerusalem, the presumption is that
those invested with the office would have had its dis-
tinct appropriate title given them, and been called
deacons, and not “young men.” Why should the
same class be called deacons in the Epistles and young
men in the Acts 7 Again, between such work as
that of carrying out dead bodies and the high quali-
fications which Paul demanded in deacons, there is
no such correspondence as to suggest identity of
trust. These considerations create a probability that
even if the young men were servants, they were not
the Pauline deacons. But it is not certain that the
phrase “young men” points in Luke's narrative to any
kind of office. They are twice introduced in the
course of the same chapter, and where the English
version uses the same terms regarding them, they are
denoted by different terms in the original. Now they
are called yearsgol (neoteroi), and now weavioxol (meanis-
koi). This does not look as if they had an official
trust with an appropriated designation in established
use. The supposition of office is not needed. The
social usages of the Jews will sufficiently explain why
age was spared such service as young men are declared
by Luke to have performed. And though the con-
struction in the original has been pleaded as favouring
an official sense of the words, eminent scholars have
controverted this plea and pronounced it to be nuga-
tory. Dr Neander says, “It is far from clear that,
in the last quoted passage of the Acts, the narrative
alludes to persons holding a distinct office in the
church: it may very naturally be understood of the
younger members, who were fitted for such manual
APPENDIX. 357
employment, without any other eligibility than the
fact of their age and bodily strength. And, there-
fore, we are not to suppose that a contrast is intended
between the servants and ruling elders of the church,
but simply between the younger and older members.”
My friend Professor Lindsay says, “With respect to
the passage in Acts v. 6, it cannot be made clear, I
think, that the phrase 61 yaoirsgot means any class of
officers. It is true the form of expression is the very
same as would be employed if a special class of offi-
cers were referred to, and therefore, if in any preced-
ing chapter mention had been made of certain young
men being employed to serve, then it could not be
doubted that the reference here was to them. But
there being no such previous mention, the question
comes to be, how is the article to be accounted for 7
If nothing would account for it but the supposition
of young men having been previously appointed to
do service, then that supposition would be rendered
highly probable. But the article may be otherwise
accounted for. It may be employed to distinguish
the younger men from the older men present at the
time. The passage, therefore, furnishes no proof that
$1 yeoragol means a certain class of officers.”
VI. It has been objected, that if we place the funds
of the church in the charge of deacons, we give them
a dangerous power, and in fact place all other parties
in the church at their mercy. But this objection
would apply equally to managers, who have now the
principal charge of ecclesiastical revenues in some
Presbyterian churches. Why are these managers not
found to be formidable to Sessions ! The answer is,
that elders are eligible to be managers, and that the
number of elders admitted into the management suf-
ficiently precludes, in almost all cases, the undue de-
pression of their order. The same result would still
* History of the Planting, &c., vol. i., p. 36.
358 APPENDIX.
more certainly follow if all elders, in virtue of their
eldership, were held to possess the lower office in the
higher, and therefore to be entitled to participate in
the business of the deacons' council with those who
are simply appointed to the deaconship.
These and like objections may be somewhat per-
plexing: but I consider them to have little weight
against the evidence that has been adduced for the
deaconship of the seven.
THE END.
APR 15 1915
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
I.
Foolscap 8vo, cloth, price 4s. 6d.,
FourTH EDITION, Revised and Enlarged, with Coloured
Frontispiece, and Woodcut Illustrations,
THE PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY EXPLAINED
AND VIEWED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO
REVEALED AND NATURAL RELIGION. With
NOTES and an APPENDIX, by Professor ScoulBR,
T)ublin.
“This volume is every way worthy of its author, one of the
most accomplished and influential divines of the church to
which he belongs, and shows that he, at least, has not suffered
himself to fall behind his age. Were we asked where, in the
compass of a few hours' reading, a man might best acquaint
himself with the actual state of the question between the geolo-
gists and the theologians, we would at once refer him to the work
of Dr King. The clearness and fairness of all its statements are
scarce less admirable than the ability shown in establishing
their perfect compatibility with the most important deductions
of ethical science, and in conclusively demonstrating how pos-
sible it is to be at once a good geologist and a Sound divine.”—
Hugh Miller.
II.
THIRD (and CHEAPER) EDITION, Foolscap 8vo, cloth,
price Is. 6d.,
THE RULING ELDERSHIP OF THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH. With Remarks on the Liability of
Ecclesiastical Office-bearers to Actions for Damages,
by JAMES PEDDIE, Esq., W.S.
*...* This work has been prepared with the view of forming a
complete and cheap Manual upon the subject.
“It should be in the hands of every elder; and we Scarcely
know any thing that would be more conducive to the welfare
2 WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR-Continued.
of the church than that every elder should be imbued with its
spirit.”—-The Christian Journal.
“This is a succinct but singularly clear and well-digested
treatise, which we strongly recommend to the perusal of elders
in office, and of those who look forward to the appointment.”
—Free Church Magazine.
III.
THIRD EDITION, REVISED, Foolscap 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d.,
THE LORD'S SUPPER.
“The best modern work on the subject with which I am ac-
quainted isthat of Dr King. It is very able, clear, and convincing.
Its topics are discussed with great simplicity, but not less power.
It is learned, yet to a cultivated mind not difficult, He has
not omitted any important bearings of the Subject; but he has
introduced them often in new connections. His work is very
free from formality, yet it is most logical and luminous.”—Rev.
Dr Morgan, Belfast (Treatise on the Lord's Supper).
“This is a very valuable work for general readers. It is
clear, comprehensive, and catholic. . . . . . The matter sound
and judicious, the language elegant and forcible, and the temper
earnest and devout.”—Eclectic Review.
IV.
Foolscap 8vo, cloth, price 3s., by post 3s. 6d.,
THE STATE AND PROSPECTS OF JAMAICA, with
Appended Tremarks on its Advantages for the Cure
of Pulmonary Diseases, and Suggestions to Invalids
and others going to that Colony.
“A little but deeply interesting volume, from which we have
learned more regarding the present prospects, moral and eco-
nomic, of those British colonies on which emancipation has
chiefly told, than from every other work we have read on the
subject.”— Edinburgh. Witness.
EDINBURGH JOHNSTONE & HUNTER.