iBISlSlSISlSlSlSlSlSlSISlSIHlSI'
fi3
& a
a
a
i a a
i
a
a a a a
a
wpnHeHnwMnHipnw
Hand-Book?
FOR
IBLE CLAS!
^wp Private Students
** TT* £3
Presbyterian ism
BY
Rev John Macbherson MA.
EBINBUHGM
nr\
tf-J
jlestj
-yA^"-
-^ ^^— r
.St^^HWt
HANDBOOKS
FOR
BIBLE CLASSES.
EDITED BY
REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D.,
AND
REV. ALEXANDER WHYTE, D.D.
PRESBYTER1ANISM. REV. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A.
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND CIBB, FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO,
DUBLIN, GEORGE HERBERT.
NEW YORK, .... SCRIBNER AND WELFORD.
PRESBYTERIANISM.
BY
REV. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A ,
FINDIIORN.
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
CON TE N TS.
INTRODUCTION. Sect. I. Various Forms of Church Polity, . ,, II. Distinctive Principles of Presbyterianism, ,, III. Divine Right of Presbytery, ,, IV. Literature of Presbyterianism,
p,\r,H
i
PART I.
OFFICE AND OFFICE-BEARERS IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
Introd. Idea of the Church,
Chap. I. General Principles concerning Office,
,, II. The Presbyter as Ruling Elder, .
,, III. The Presbyter as Teacher, .
,, IV. The Deacon, ....
20 37 65 9c
PART II.
CONSTITUTION AND GRADATION OF COURTS IN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
Introd. Idea of Church Courts,
Chap. I. Composition of Church Courts,
,. II. Gradation of Church Courts,
,, III. Functions of the several Church Courts,
103 105 119 132
INTRODUCTION.
1. The Various Forms of Cliurcli Polity. — All who agree in defin- ing the Church as a gathering, more or less organized, of professed believers in Christ, for the purposes of worship and edification, must find their church position under one or other of the three great divisions — Prelatical, Congregational, Presbyterian — under which all possible diversities of church polity must be compre- hended. Under the division Prelatical we include such churches as the Romish and Anglican, which in their church constitution recognize the principle of a gradation of rank and office in the ministerial order, maintain a diocesan episcopate, and emphasize strongly the distinction between the clergy and the laity. Under the division Congregational we include all churches which refuse to admit any gradation in the ministerial office, and at the same time oppose the idea of gradation in church courts, insisting on the independency of each congregation, giving to church members the decision in all church matters without subjecting the congre- gational judgment to the review of any higher judicature. Under the division Presbyterian we include all churches which, in opposition to the Prelatical churches, insist upon the parity of ministerial rank, and maintain inconsequence a parochial and not a diocesan episcopate, and in opposition to the Congregational churches recognize a gradation in church courts through Session, Presbytery, and Synod. The church polity of Presbyterianism thus seeks consciously to avoid, on the one hand, the error of Congre- gationalism, which fails in its constitution to express the unity of
2 PRESBYTERIANISM.
the churchy and to avoid, on the other hand, the error of Prelacy, which relegates to a clerical individual, or to a purely clerical council, the exercise of that power which properly belongs to the church.
There are certain Christian denominations, indeed, which cannot very easily be brought under any one of these three divisions, not because they introduce any new principle of church polity in their constitution, but only because in certain particulars they incline to one, and in certain particulars to another, of the three divisions already named. Thus the Methodists are closely allied in their original constitution to the Anglican mother church in the rigid suppression of the voice of the laity in the government of the church, which among the Wesleyans is mainly in the hands of the selected clergymen who form the Conference ; while the partial distinction introduced in clerical rank by the appointment of Presidents of Circuits is somewhat parallel to the temporary expedient of Superintendents in the Scottish Church of the Reformation. The history of Methodism shows an unstable equilibrium, vibrating between the original high clerical and the more recent anti-clerical extremes. Under the name Methodist we have in America the Episcopal Methodists, with their bishops reckoning their ordination, however, only from the presbyter John Wesley ; not recognized by Prelatical churches, yet clinging to the forms of Prelatical church government ; the Wesleyan Methodists, with their final court exclusively clerical ; the Methodist New Connection, admitting an equal number of clerical and lay members into their Conference, the election of the lay members, however, being not altogether free and popular ; and the Primitive Methodists, showing a decided anti-clerical spirit by sending to their Conference two laymen to one minister. In the Welsh Methodist Church, again, we find certain of the peculiarities of Methodism grafted on a constitution essentially Presbyterian ; the Circuits being Presbyteries, and the classes and class-leaders corresponding to the catechizings and catechists, for which there is quite room in the Presbyterian system. It might
INTRODUCTION. 3
readily be shown that in those church systems which, in regard to church polity, seem not naturally to fall under any of the three divisions, Prelatical, Congregational, or Presbyterian, it is only necessary to develop their peculiar institutions and bring the different parts of their system into a self-consistent harmony, in order to secure their classification under one or other of those heads.
It will be seen that the distinction to which we have been referring is one which turns purely upon questions of church polity. Some of these indeed may be closely associated with points of doctrine, and in many cases it will be found that prin- ciples of doctrine and polity easily act and react on one another Yet in the threefold distribution just referred to, we shall find churches under all the three, not only thoroughly agreed on certain fundamental doctrinal truths, but also accepting the same or similar Confessions. For example, Calvinists in doctrine may be found quite consistently placing themselves under a Prelatical, or a Congregational, or a Presbyterian form of church govern- ment. Arminians may be met with under any of the three divisions. There is no reason why those entertaining Baptist views should in their church polity be Congregationalists rather than Prelatists or Presbyterians, In reference purely to matters of church polity are the distinctions made to which we here refer. The difference between these three may in general terms be stated to lie in the representation which they give respectively of the parties in whom church power is vested. In Prelatical churches the clergy rule, the church courts, both inferior and superior, being purely clerical. In Congregational churches, the members of the local church rule, there being no church courts proper as distinguished from the general meeting of the congregation. In Presbyterian churches, the representatives of the people rule in church courts variously graduated, and having" their membership drawn from both the clerical and the lay elements, ruling elders sitting with ministers of the Word in the exercise of the govern- ment of the church.
4 PRESBYTERIANISM.
2. The Distinctive Characteristics of Presbyterianism. — It is very important that we should form a correct and clear notion of what Presbyterianism is, before going on to discuss the various details of the Presbyterian system. Many peculiarities are popularly regarded as entitled to the special designation Presbyterian, which are by no means necessary or essential parts of the system. The mention of such irrelevant matters in a description of Presby- terianism is evidently fitted to obscure our conception, and to carry us away into side issues. We have already seen the importance of distinguishing between questions of doctrine and questions of church polity. If these are not discriminated, con- fusion necessarily follows. Calvin was at once distinguished as a theologian and as a churchman. In his capacity as a theologian he formulated a system of doctrine which has been substantially accepted by churches of the most diverse constitution. In his capacity as a churchman he elaborated a system of church polity which has been adopted by churches under the most thoroughly opposed Confessions. Calvinism has been reflected in the creeds of Prelatical, Congregational, and Presbyterian churches ; the Genevan church constitution is essentially and in principle the basis of all the Books of Order and Discipline among the churches which accept the Presbyterian form of church government. Some of the best-known treatises on Presbyterianism are in this respect unfair, and a good deal of what they contain is irrelevant. For example, Dr. Miller, of Princeton,1 divides his work on Presby- terianism into several chapters, of which one treats of the doctrine, another of the government, and a third of the worship of the Presbyterian Church. It is clear that, strictly speaking, only the chapter on Church Government is entitled to a place in such a treatise, and its contents should constitute the main and charac- teristic part of the work. The chief aim surely of a book on Presbyterianism should be to display and discuss the form of
1 Manual of Presbytery, comprising Presbyterianism, the truly Primitive and Apostolic Constitution of the Church of Christ, etc., ed. by Dr. Lorimer, Edinburgh, i8j^-
INTRODUCTION. 5
church government indicated by that name. Dr. Miller gives, indeed, an admirable statement of the characteristic principles of Presbyterian church government, and admits that the name primarily applies to a form of church polity ; yet, on the supposi- tion that at first, and generally still, Presbyterian churches are all agreed on fundamental doctrines, accepting the same general type of doctrine, and approving the same forms of worship, he proceeds to discourse at large (pp. 48-78) on the advantages of Calvinism, and at even greater length (pp. m-161) on the inadmissibility of all forms and ceremonies in worship. But this destroys at once the unity and the self-consistency of his book. At one place he says : — l The Reformed Churches in France, Holland, Ger- many, Switzerland, Scotland, and Geneva, are all Presbyterian, notwithstanding some minor varieties in the names and regulations of their judicatories.' This certainly is true so long as he keeps to his definition of Presbyterianism as a form of church govern- ment in which ministerial parity, government by elders, and union of the churches through courts of review and control, are the distinguishing and characteristic principles. But it is not true, if he proceeds to give these further marks as characteristically Presbyterian, — Calvinistic doctrine and Puritan simplicity of wor- ship. In regard to the question of worship in the Presbyterian Church, we maintain that it cannot fairly be made a mark of Presbyterianism any more than the doctrinal test can be legiti- mately applied. In some of those churches named by Dr. Miller, there is much more of a ritual than in others, and yet the form of government is unaffected by this difference. In an admirable paper on ' Presbyterian Liturgies,' Dr. Hodge,1 who is thoroughly at one with Dr. Miller in his admiration, and as hearty in his defence of Presbytery, calls attention to the prevalence of an opinion, which he pronounces quite erroneous, that the use of a liturgy in public worship is a peculiarity of Prelatical churches. It is to be remembered that the churches of the Reformation
1 Hodge, The Chinch and its Polity ', chap, x., ■ Presbyterian Liturgies.' Edinburgh, 1879,
6 PRESBYTERIANISM.
prcpaicd and used liturgies ; and that this was so not only in the Lutheran, but also in those Calvinistic churches commonly called Reformed. When we think of the liturgies of Calvin, of Knox, of the French Protestants, and of the German Reformed churches, we shall surely be slow to regard their use as necessarily implying a return to Prelatical ceremonialism. Besides, the use of a liturgy as employed by the Reformers may be traced back into very early antiquity, before the rise of Prelatical institutions. But while it is thus quite necessary to separate between ques- tions of doctrine and ritual, and the question of church govern- ment, it is not to be supposed that affairs of church government can be kept apart altogether from references to certain outstanding principles of doctrine and worship. Any adequate discussion of Presbyterian church polity must start with an exposition of the doctrine of the church from the Presbyterian standpoint. We might entertain such a notion of the church, that from it we should be obliged to proceed to the maintaining of a hierarchical view of the ministerial office, and by consequence to the other details of a Prelatical church polity. It will indeed altogether depend upon our conception of the original idea, the ultimate aim, and essential nature of the church, whether our theory of church polity is to be Prelatical, Congregational, or Presbyterian. But it is further evident that our doctrine of the church will be largely determined by the general type of doctrine which we maintain, and that, therefore, one may fairly conclude many particulars regarding our doctrinal position from the conception of the church on which our theory of church polity is based. The doctrine of the church out of which it will be possible to construct a church constitution on Presbyterian principles, must at least be evangelical. It must go directly to Scripture as the ultimate authority for all its fundamental principles. The scriptural authority of these two important truths must be clearly recognized, — the universal priesthood of believers in opposition to all sacer- dotal theories, and the apostolic statement (i Cor. xii. 28) that God hath set some in the church in one office, and some in
INTRODUCTION. y
another. In the combination of these two principles, which we shall afterwards show to be abundantly supported by Scripture, Presbyterians maintain that they have a most sufficient ground for all that is characteristic of their system of church government. By exclusive attention to the doctrine of office in the church, a sacerdotal theory and Prelatical constitution have been reared, ignoring the rights of the Christian people, and inevitably foster- ing an unevangelical doctrinal development. By exclusive atten- tion to the rights and seeming interests of individual believers, in consequence of a reaction against a false and exaggerated cleri- calism, a Congregational theory has been built up, which ignores the Scripture doctrine of an office of government or rule set up within the church, and by this neglect has failed in its church constitution to reflect the truth of church unity. Notwithstanding the declaration of a Bampton lecturer, that Presbyterianism 1 unites the faults and misses the advantages of both Episcopacy and Congregationalism,' it is the contention of Presbyterians that their system avoids the onesidedncss of both those systems referred to, by finding a place in its constitution for the adequate and duly proportioned representation of those two principles which in Episcopacy and Congregationalism respectively are only exhibited separately.
Upon the basis of these two principles, the three following main propositions may be laid down as indicating the leading cha- racteristics of Presbyterianism. It is, however, to be remembered tli at it is not the holding of any one of these, but the acceptance of them all, and the harmonizing of them, that constitutes a system of church polity deserving of the name Presbyterian.
(i) The Parity of the Clergy. — The preaching of the gospel is everywhere in the New Testament recognized as the function of the highest church office. Where this function is discharged, there we have already an office which cannot be regarded as in any case subordinate. Functions of ruling and administration cannot secure to any church officer a pre-eminence over the simple preacher. On this broad ground, Presbyterianism insists upon
8 PRESBYTERIANISM.
the equality of rank of all office-bearers of the church ordained to the preaching of the gospel.
(2) The Government and Discipline of the Church conducted by the Membership of the Church through Elders ordained to 7'ulc. — The characteristically Presbyterian institution of the Ruling Eldership does not overlook the rights of the Christian people, while it gives recognition to the scriptural appointment of an office of ruling and government. The elders who hold this office are the representatives of the people, yet, as office-bearers dis- charging the functions of an office, they are not mere delegates of the people.
(3) The Unity of the Church, — The realization of this idea is only conditioned by circumstances of nation, language, space, and number. Apart from special occasions of division and separation, there would be the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, of England, of America, etc. In each case the church is regarded as one, and the idea of oneness is maintained by means of such relations as are represented in the fellowship of church courts, tending ultimately in their most comprehensive forms fairly to represent this unity. To the realization of this idea, the con- stitution of the Presbytery is necessary absolutely, as a court superior to the Congregational or Parochial Session. A plurality of Presbyteries must again be brought into unity by association and combination in the Synod, as a court superior to and having supervision over both Session and Presbytery.
3. The Divine Right of Presbytery. — The claim made by all who take a deep and thorough view of the nature of the church is, that its constitution must in its main features be discoverable in Scripture. This general principle as thus stated may be set forth alike by Episcopal and by Presbyterian writers, and is, indeed, what the more judicious advocates of either system mean when they maintain a jus divinum in favour of their own particular method of church government. Popular writers often misre- present this claim. We often find sneers uttered against
INTRODUCTION. 9
Presbyterianism as if for it alone a claim had been advanced of a divine right, and that thereby the intolerant exclusiveness of its defenders was shown. A very moderate acquaintance with facts of history is sufficient to show that the advancing of such a claim cannot be regarded as characteristic of Presbyterians, or indeed of any church party. Yet, though insisting upon the propriety of making such a claim, it must be admitted that both by Presby- terian and by Prelatical advocates, the notion of a divine right has often been crudely and unwisely expressed. In some cases it has been stated by churchmen with all the inconsiderateness and unguardedness which characterized the assertion, on the part of royal despots, of a divine right in justification of all manner of arbitrary and tyrannical courses. If the jus divinum be so conceived and defined as to raise that institution which lays claim to it above all question or investigation, demanding and securing unfaltering acceptance, and conclusively placing the whole ecclesiastical system above review and criticism, then, whether this claim be made by Prelate or by Presbyter, it must be stoutly resisted. No intelligent and liberal-minded churchman will now be found claiming for his church that it is an exact detailed, and literal transcript of the New Testament Church, — the church of the Apostolic Age. When he claims a. jus divinum for the special polity and discipline adopted in his church, he simply means to assert that in his view the fundamental principles of Apostolic church government have been retained, and are legitimately applied in the circumstances and under the conditions which are peculiar to our own age and country.
To say that Scripture decides neither for one form nor for another, — that in regard to forms of church government there is no jus divinum, — is a position which cannot commend itself to any one who consciously and intelligently defines the church as the kingdom of God. ' To say that He hath not settled the government of His own house by appointing His own officers, and appointing each of them to their own work, is to say He doth not act the part of a king and governor in the church,
io PRESBYTERIANISM.
which is His kingdom.5 2 The objections usually made to pleas for a divine right are completely guarded against in such careful statements as that just quoted. We do not affirm that all the details of modern church government are to be found expressly unfolded in Scripture. But we do maintain that the various offices in the church are enumerated in Scripture, and have there their functions defined. ' Scripture,' says Calvin in one of his letters, ' in various statements expresses the substance of ecclesi- astical discipline ; but the form in which it is to be exercised, since it has not been prescribed by God, ought to be determined by the ministers for edification.' We hold that the characteristic principles of Presbyterianism are found in Scripture, and that other forms of church polity are, as compared with Presby- terianism, defective, inasmuch as they ignore certain of those principles, and by consequence exaggerate in a onesided manner those principles to which they give exclusive attention. This claim for a full and satisfactory ground in Scripture for the characteristic principles of our church system is all that we mean to assert when we maintain, as against Prelacy and Congregationalism, the divine right of Presbytery.
4. The Literature of Presbyterianism. — The New Testament idea of the church and the organization of the Apostolic Church have been admirably expounded by Bishop Lightfoot in his singularly clear and comprehensive essay on the Christian Ministry appended to his Commentary on Philifipians. After a careful examination of the distinctive nature of the Christian ministry, in which he most successfully combats the sacerdotal theory, he proceeds to treat
1 An Apologetical Narration, etc., by Brown of Wamphray, p. 131. That there is no jus divinum in regard to forms of church government is maintained en the Presbyterian side, among others, by Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen in his Lectures on Eccles. History, and by Dr. Mitchell of Kemnay in his Presby- terian Letters; and on the Episcopalian side by Stillingfleet [Irenicum), Whately [Kingdom of Christ), Litton [Church of Christ), and generally by those who are commonly styied moderate Anglicans. Their preference for Presbytery or Episcopacy is determined by considerations of expediency.
INTRODUCTION. 1 1
in order of Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops, showing that originally the names Presbyter and Bishop were synonymous, and tracing the gradual rise of the Episcopate in the Post-Apostolic Church. This dissertation deserves the attention of every student. The study of Lightfoot's essay might be very profitably followed up by a careful reading of the Bampton Lecture for 1880. The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, by the Rev. Edwin Hatch, gives in an exceedingly fresh and informing manner an account of the origin of the several offices in the Christian church, showing the mutual relations of Bishop and Deacons, then the rise of the Presbyterate and its special functions ; tracing the influences which occasioned the elevation of the Bishop to a supreme rank, and indicating the tendencies which resulted in a complete sundering of the clergy and the laity.
In connection with these works may be mentioned the following treatises on the teaching of the New Testament regarding the constitution of the church : — 1. Ecclesiastical Polity of the Neio Testament, by Dr. Jacob, — an able work by a liberal Anglican, of which the first four chapters — treating of the Apostles and the Christian Church, the First Organization of the Church, the Christian Ministry with special reference to the claim of priesthood, and the Laity, with Appendix D. on Apostolic Succession — are extremely valuable as an effective refutation of distinctively Prelatical pretensions. 2. Ecclesiastical Polity of the Nezv Testament, by Dr. Samuel Davidson, — a volume of the Congregational Lectures, of which, omitting, for the present, reference to its argument for the Congregational theory of church polity, Lect. III. on Offices appointed in the earliest Christian Churches, Lect. IV. on Election of Office-bearers in the Apostolic Age, and Lect. V. on Ordination of Office-bearers in the Primitive Churches, afford a clear and satisfactory presentation of New Testament teaching on these points.
In regard generally to the constitution of the early church, much interesting information may be got in Pressense's Life and Practice of the Early Church, especially Book I. chaps, ii.-vii.,
I 2 PRESBYTERIANISM.
and in S chaff's History of the Apostolic Age. On the same subjects the following German works will be found specially important : — i. Beyschlag, Die Christliche Gemeindeverfassung im Zeit alter des Neueii Testaments, Harlem, 1874, in which we have an acute and thorough investigation of the idea of the church, strictly confined to an exposition of the New Testament doctrine. 2. Rothe, Die Anf tinge der Christliche Kirche, especially Book II. chap. i. pp. 141-310, on the Origin of the Christian Churches and of a Christian Church Constitution. A good summary of Rothe's theory is given by Lightfoot in the essay already referred to. 3. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche% especially Book II. chap, i., The Church Constitution before Montanism, in which the author treats of the idea of office in the church, the employment and significance of the titles Bishop and Presbyter, and, finally, the church office of Bishop in the Gentile churches. This work is particularly valuable as affording a careful historical treatment at first hand of church problems b> an eminent investigator ; and read with Rothe, it may serve to correct many of that writer's conclusions unwarranted by the historical evidence produced.
For a general statement of the Presbyterian argument consult Bannerman, The Chtcrch of Christ, vol. ii. pp. 201-331, where we have a satisfactory and comprehensive demonstration of the divine appointment of a form of church government, and an explanation and criticism of the Prelatical and Congregational systems of church polity as opposed respectively to the Presby- terian. Among smaller treatises on the general question may be mentioned, Dr. David King's Exposition and Defence of the Presbyterian Form of Church Government, which, upon the whole, very fairly states the main lines of argument in favour of the characteristic positions of Presbyterianism. In opposition simply to Prelatical pretensions, and of a more directly|polemical character, is Dr. Crawford's treatise, consisting of two short tracts, Presbyterianism Defe?ided, and Presbytery or Prelacy, Edin. 1836. The argument is conducted with vigour and skill, and
,
INTRODUCTION. 13
Presbyterian principles in contradistinction to hierarchical claims are admirably and forcibly expounded. In direct reply to Independent arguments, Brown's Vindication of the Presbyterian Form of Church Government should be read. It is in the form of a series of letters, and contains a good clear statement of the grounds upon which Presbyterians reject the Congregationalist view that church authority belongs to, and should be exercised directly by, the church members, and not by the church officers ; and the independent view which recognizes no control over the decisions of particular congregations. Letters xii.-xviii. contain a good defence of courts of review. From the Independent point of view, Dr. Samuel Davidson's Eccles. Polity of the New Testament will be found an admirable manual.
The constitution of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which is practically that of the Reformed Churches, ought to be studied at first hand in the First Book of Discipline (1560) and the Second Book of Discipline (1578). The constitutional principles of these books will be found stated in a convenient form in the first book of Pardovan's Collections. Of the exceedingly voluminous Scottish Presbyterian literature during the last half of the seventeenth century and early years of the eighteenth century, we need only mention a few which are specially valuable for the vindication of particular institutions of Presbyterianism. The ruling eldership is defended most successfully by elaborate historical arguments in George Gillespie's Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland (1641), chaps, i.-xiv. ; also by Principal Forrester of St. Andrews, against contemporary objectors, in his Review and Consideration of Two late Pamphlets (1706), pp. 173-178, and in his Confutation of Sage^s Principles of the Cyprianic Age, pp. 231-238. For modern expositions and defences of the ruling eldership, we may refer to the Eldership of the Church of Scotland, by Dr. Lorimer, Glasgow, 1841, and to an important section of Dr. King's Defence of the Presbyterian Form of Church Govern- ment, pp. 99-173. The Theory of the Ruling Eldership, by Principal Campbell of Aberdeen (1866), insists that the elder is
B
14 PRESBYTERIAN ISM.
a lay councillor, and not a Presbyter in the New Testament sense. The Parity of the Clergy is insisted upon at great length by Forrester against Bishop Sage ; and with special ability by Principal Rule, of Edinburgh, The Good Old Way Defended (1697), sees. 2-6. In this connection, too, reference may be made to the proofs of the sameness of Bishop and Presbyter as shown by Lightfoot, Ritschl, etc., in the works already named.
By far the most informing and comprehensive work, affording a view of the Presbyterian Church constitution in the light of the most recent decisions of church courts, is The Church and its Polity, by Dr. Charles Hodge (1879). This work has been compiled from articles contributed by Dr. Hodge to the Princeton Review, — mainly consisting oi resume's of Assembly discussions and criticisms of these discussions. There is an admirable chapter on Presbyterianism, pp. 11 8-1 33. In a series of five chapters, pp. 190-507, we have these characteristic elements in the Presbyterian theory of church government, — the idea of church membership, the duties and functions of the Kirk-session, the constitution of the Presbytery and qualifications of a Presbyter, the composition and authority and province of the Assembly, and, finally, the mode for exercise of church discipline, — treated severally in a thoroughly practical and satisfactory manner.
For the history of Presbyterianism the only complete and generally satisfactory book seems to be the German work of Lechler, Geschichte der Presbyterial und Synodalverfassung seit der Reformation {History of the Presbyterian and Synodal Con- stitution since the Reformation), Leiden, 1854 ; specially valuable is his statement of Calvin's views regarding the Constitutio?i of the Church, pp. 32-49, and the History of Presbyterianism in Great Britain in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 174-196.
PART L
OFFICE AND OFFICE-BEARERS IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
INTRODUCTORY.
Idea of the Church. — The general view of the church which is presupposed in Presbyterianism is not different from that enter- tained as their individual opinion by evangelical members of the church under other forms of government. Yet we hold that it is fitting to speak of the Presbyterian theory of the church as some- thing distinctive, inasmuch as there is only one conception of the church upon which the Presbyterian theory of church govern- ment can rest, and only in Presbyterianism do we seem to find this conception of the church consistently and thoroughly carried out. When we define the church as the fellowship of believers, — meaning thereby to embrace the entire company of those who exercise faith in Christ and through that faith are sanctified, all saints and faithful brethren in Christ Jesus, — we can only regard the aim of the church as an institution to be the development of the fellowship of believers with Him who is the object of their faith and the source and author of their holiness, and the develop- ment of their folio wship with one another in the growth of brotherly love. As thus conceived, the church of God and the kingdom of Christ are identical ; and of that kingdom it is said that it cometh not with observation, but is within those who are members of it. The church, therefore, as kingdom of God, is
1 6 PRESBYTERlANlStf.
essentially spiritual. It is at the same time not an ideal, but something intensely real. As Melanchthon says, — ' We do not dream of a Platonic state ; we do not speak of a church which is nowhere to be found, but we say and know verily that this is the true church upon earth, — the children of God here and there throughout the world,' or as Luther says, ' the sheep which hear their shepherd's voice.' * The church means nothing else than the membership of the church, and in each of its members Christ dwells by His Spirit, and over each He rules as Shepherd and King. Those, therefore, who seek to narrow the conception of the church in order to make it simply co-extensive with the adoption of a particular theory of church government and the observance of certain ceremonies, are guilty of an attempt to rend the body of Christ ; and those who endeavour to unchurch any who, in the exercise of faith, are holding the Head, are in great danger of unchurching themselves. It must, however, be remembered, in accordance with what has been already said, that the claim to a divine right for a particular form of church govern- ment is something very different from the claim to an exclusive title to be regarded as the true church. Only those who regard uniformity in confession, worship, and ceremonies, as constituting the essential marks of the church, can view those who scruple at the ceremonies, object to certain forms of worship, and prefer other systems of government, as thereby shut out from church membership. It is curious to observe how that church whose church theory draws its elements wholly from external considera- tions, and is for this very reason easy and loose in its terms of communion, becomes in practice the organ of the most thorough- going despotism, and shows itself cruelly tyrannical and ex- clusive in seeking to have destruction decreed against all who in those external matters refuse to conform. Thus it is that Rome has in her communion such a heterogeneous mass, and manifests such an evident indifference in regard to the moral and spiritual condition of her membership, while she has no glance of tender- 1 Kostlin, Das Wese?i dcr Kirchc, S. 15.
IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 1 7
ness and charity, or, at least, refuses to entertain any hope in reference to those, however elevated morally and spiritually they may be, who are yet without her ecclesiastical pale.
All that is essential to a Christian community in order that it be recognized as a true church according to the scriptural doc- trine of Protestantism, is that in it there be the preaching of a pure gospel and the dispensation of the sacraments. The church does not save, but ministers to salvation, by administering the means of grace. The essentials of the church are fully expressed, as we might expect, in the apostolic commission (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20), in which the administration of the means of grace — the word and sacraments — is regarded as the comprehensive state- ment of the duty of the church. It is only among those who accept this view of a gospel church, in contradistinction to those who maintain the view just referred to, that any diversity of opinion can prevail in regard to the constitution and government of the church. Those who hold that the church is constituted by the uniform practice of certain rites, must of necessity maintain the universal obligation of these rites, and of their regular and unvarying celebration as an indispensable condition of church existence. Those, on the other hand, who place supreme importance upon the fulfilment of Christ's last com- mand to His disciples on earth, and so view the church simply as an institution for conserving and spreading the fundamental truths of the gospel, turn to the Scriptures, with no foregone conclusion in their minds, to discover therefrom principles for the regulation and efficient management of that institution to which this all-important task has been entrusted. Forms of church government, and, generally, church institutions and regulations, are of value only in so far as they contribute to the attainment of the end for which the church itself exists. For every true Protestant, the motive to all investigations regarding church administration and discipline lies in the desire to solve the problem, how to secure the most efficient preaching of the gospel and the most edifying dispensation of the sacraments.
1 8 PRESBYTERIANISM.
This ground Presbyterianism takes in common with all intelli- gent and consistent Protestants, and other ground than this no Presbyterian can take. Starting from this common ground of evangelical Protestantism, the subserviency of church govern- ment and organization to the end for which the church exists, differences among the maintainers of this general position imme- diately arise in the endeavour to determine the subjects of church power and the proper method for the exercise of it. The Prelatical churches are untrue to Protestantism in so far as they incline to separate between the ministry and the membership of the church, in such a manner as to regard the clergy as the church in which the prerogative of church power is vested. Presby- terians and Independents, in the true spirit of Protestantism, recognize the universal priesthood of believers, and maintain that to the church as a whole, comprehending the entire membership, belongs the right to exercise those powers which have been conferred upon the church according to her constitution. Inde- pendents and Presbyterians, however, immediately separate in attempting to answer the question as to how the church can most effectively and beneficially express her mind. While the Independents, in favouring a pure democracy, would seek the voice of the church only in the utterance of a numerical majority in a church meeting, Presbyterians hold that they have scriptural authority for requiring every Christian community to have set over it representatives as rulers, through whom the public func- tions of the church may be expressed and performed. That this does not militate against the fundamental view of the church as the fellowship of believers should appear from this, that Presby- terian rulers do not rule in consequence of any inherited or externally conveyed right, but simply as the chosen represen- tatives of the members for the orderly discharge of duties on behalf of the community. In civil affairs we do not regard a people as departing from the principles of a rpure democracy because they elect magistrates in towns and districts, and repre- sentatives as members of a general council. In the choice of her
IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 1 9
magistrates and legislators we say that the people rule them- selves. Just so when Presbyterianism, starting with a theory of spiritual democracy in contrast to hierarchical theories, pro- ceeds to insist upon the orderly election of certain office-bearers, of whom traces are to be found in Scripture, it simply secures, by the application of a true representative system, the thorough carrying out of its democratic principles. A democracy in Church or State, wanting the representative principle, oscillates between anarchy and tyranny. Constitutionalism preserves democracy from overthrow in either of these extremes. In matters of church organization and government, Presbyterianism is the constitutionalism which at once recognizes popular rights, assigning the right of church power to the whole church, and conserves these rights for the adequate accomplishment of those ends far which they have been conferred.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING OFFICE.
1. Idea of Office in the Presbyterian Chnrch. — It is impoitant to distinguish between gift and office. In the Epistles of the New Testament we find many references to gifts of grace enjoyed by members of the church, and comparatively few references to what can be regarded unquestionably as regular and recognized offices in the church. The prevalence of gifts postponed the recognition of official orders. So long as all God's people were prophets, it would be needless to have a separate class set apart to prophesy ; and while gifts for edification and communication were the common possession of the church membership, the need of congregational teachers would not be felt. By and by, how- ever, those endowed with similar gifts would come to be thought of and classed together. In every community there would be individuals whose faculty and consequent right to govern would be at once recognized by all, — men respected and confided in for their prudence, high principle, and unswerving rectitude. These men would be, without any formal enactment, elevated to a practical umpireship. Gradually too, the members whose experience had been most varied and rich, whose faith had been most tried, whose constancy had been most nobly proved, would receive special favour and have most ready audience in the congregational assemblies. In this way we find the New Testa- ment notion of office growing out of the recognition of special
80
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING OFFICE. 21
gifts of grace to individuals in the several Christian communities. The Apostle Paul, after saying that all members have not the same office, goes on at once to enumerate, not different offices in the church, but diversities of gifts (Rom. xii. 4-8); and in another epistle (1 Cor. xii. 28-31), he speaks of certain officers — apostles, prophets, teachers — whom God had set, that is to say, ordained and formally established, in the church, and then immediately refers to functions which came to be discharged afterwards by recognized officers simply as varying gifts.
Yet the idea of office is by no means wanting in the New Testament. Not only are gifts enumerated, the possession of which by different individuals must ultimately give rise to the recognition of several distinct offices, but the actual existence of an office in the strictest sense is everywhere assumed. The Apostolate, constituted by Christ Himself, endowed with special powers, and ennobled by certain characteristics which could never be conveyed to any succeeding persons (the distinction of having been with Christ in His temptations, Luke xxii. 28, and of being eye-witnesses of His glory, Acts i. 21, 22), was nevertheless by the terms of the apostolic commission destined for the discharge of ministerial functions in the preaching of the word and dis- pensation of the sacraments. To this body also had been granted the power of the keys — the exercise of discipline (Matt. xvi. 19). The gospel record closes without the recognition of any other office than this. The earliest chapters of the Acts of the Apostles simply assume the existence of this one ministerial office. He who holds this office discharges officially certain functions, which may indeed unofficially be discharged by others. The functions which characterize so many distinct offices of doctrine, discipline, and distribution, are all originally discharged by the apostle. His commission and gifts are such as to render him capable of performing all these duties. But just as Moses chose elders to assist him by undertaking certain parts of his work, not because such duties lay not within his own province, but for the work's sake that it might be efficiently done ; even so the apostles
2 2 PRESBYTERIANISM.
exercised the right of securing the appointment of regular and recognized labourers in special departments of work, whenever circumstances made it evident that the requirements of the higher work of the ministry demanded release from the pressure of other important, yet subordinate functions of their comprehen- sive task. Thus, for example, in Acts vi. we learn how the church, in response to the apostle's appeal, appointed deacons to discharge duties which still belonged, but no longer exclu- sively, to the apostle as minister.
It must be evident that this apostolic office, which could have its functions disintegrated and bestowed on separate individuals, was essentially related to the possession of gifts of grace, just as those offices afterward established. An office which, while compre- hending the functions of teaching, ruling, and caring for the poor, could yet recognize a ruling office in the person of one who was not a teacher, and a ministry of tables on the part of one who neither taught nor governed, must surely presuppose gifts of teaching, ruling, and distributing as the basis and vindication of its institution, — otherwise the ruler appointed because of his gifts would soon as ruler overshadow the bearer of the original and more comprehensive office, and the deacon whose special gifts secured his appointment would practically absorb all official duties relating to the sick and the poor. Yet, on the contrary, it is expected that the apostle as minister, while he teaches, will be a pattern to the ruler and to the deacon. This could only be, if the apostolic office was directly based upon the possession of pre-eminent gifts. This, too, is further seen from the readiness with which apostles received, and ordained to apostolic work, those of their followers who seemed specially qualified. Barnabas is chosen because of his gift of consolation (Acts iv. 36, etc.) ; Timothy, because of his gift of Scripture knowledge (2 Tim. iii. 15); and Mark, tried by Paul, and then rejected, because the gift of enduring constancy did not show itself, is received again (2 Tim. iv. 11) evidently after his service with Barnabas showed him to be profitable. All these cases show that the Apostles felt
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING OFFICE. 23
that for apostolic work all that one needed was the possession of the suitable and special gift. In each case choice was made simply because in each the presence of the gift was perceived. There is no trace of any one being chosen without the gift, and having that gift afterward imparted by means of ordination or any other apostolic rite.
In the age immediately following that of the apostles, while still the contemporaries of the founders of the churches were living, no other idea of office was entertained than that of a distinction resting on the possession of eminent gifts. It was not yet supposed by any that clerical rank in itself created any essential distinction, but only the qualifications that entitled to inclusion in this rank. Orders were recognized and respected, but only as a means toward the edification of the church. Clement of Rome, toward the close of the first century, in his Epistle to the Corinthians (chap, xl.), speaks of the high priest, priests, Levites, and lay members of the Jewish Church as having respectively their places and duties assigned them, and then immediately adds this exhortation to the members of the Chris- tian Church addressed, — Therefore let every one of you, brethren, in your own proper order, render praise to God with a good conscience. This passage has been sometimes referred to as though Clement intended to recognize a threefold ministerial order distinct from the laity, and corresponding to the hierarchical distinctions of the Old Testament. This view of the Father's words is altogether erroneous. His purpose is evidently only hortatory. He accordingly proceeds to remark on the strict- ness and rigidness of the ceremonial observances enjoined upon the Jews — sacrifices and offerings of various kinds, to be offered at stated times and in one appointed place, any infringement of the prescribed form and order of service rendering the offender liable to death ; and from this he draws the conclusion, evidently suggested by the contrast of enlightened Jew and ignorant Gentile, that the more full the knowledge granted, the greater is the risk incurred. The only reference that this passage can be supposed
24 PRESBVTERIANISM.
to have to the institution of a ministerial order lies in the general parallel hinted at between the priestly ranks and the proper order among Christians. The parallel, however, is only of the most general kind. As in the Old Testament Church there was a ministerial order, office-bearers as distinguished from ordinary members, so also in the New Testament Church. In an earlier chapter of his Epistle, Clement referred to the gradation of ranks in civil societies, — men in authority and men under authority, — and maintained that, in order to secure the regular and orderly conduct of religious worship, similar distinctions must be made in the church. Throughout all his Epistle there is no trace of a hierarchical tendency, or any other view of office than that of the New Testament, which recognizes the possession of gifts on the ground of distinctions in office, and considers the realized need of the church in determining what those particular offices shall be, and also in what circumstances any certain group of functions may require the institution of a distinct office. This primitive doctrine of church office in all its simplicity maintained its place through several generations. Toward the close of the second century we find Tertullian almost exactly reproducing the views of those who lived and wrote a hundred years before. ' The authority of the church,' he says [De Exhort. Cast. c. 7), c deter- mines the difference between office-bearers and members {prdo et plebs\ and rank is sanctified by the session together of the office- bearers. So, wherever there is no session of ecclesiastical office- bearers, thou offerest, and baptizest, and art priest thyself alone. But where there are three, though they be laymen, there is a church. ' In this passage we have very clearly marked the distinction between those in orders and those not in orders ; yet there is no rite nor part of the worship which can only be performed by one in orders.
During the century that intervened between Clement and Ter- tullian, a strong current had set in in favour of ecclesiastical organization. It was natural that the race of teachers growing up around Clement, no longer supported by the personal counsels
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING OFFICE. 25
of the Apostles, nor having their decisions backed tip by the everywhere recognized authority of the founders of the churches, should perceive the necessity of an established order and fixed discipline, and should feel the necessity of unity of action to enforce the setting up in every place of a constituted organiza- tion for the maintenance of regular and uniform worship. The needs of the church demanded the appointment of office-bearers, and the exact definition of their authority. Besides this, it would be to view the members of the church of the second century not only as forming a good religious community, but something much more than human, were we to suppose that, among the more talented and powerful of them, ambition did not in several cases lead to an undue prominence being given to external organiza- tion, or that the love of high place did not induce many to exaggerate the importance of ecclesiastical distinction of ranks. Already the third generation had grown up in the Christian Church. The membership had been rapidly increased. Not a few had grown up within the bosom of the church without having passed through the profound convictions under which the earliest members had been led to avow their acceptance of the Christian religion. This change of circumstances carried with it of necessity a very considerable relaxation in the practical morality of the community. In this false laxity of practice, we find an explanation of the tendency which now developed itself to distinguish into separate classes office-bearers and people. Much was tolerated in the one which would be universally pronounced intolerable in the other. ' Professing Christians adopted the current morality ; they were content to be no worse than their neighbours. But the officers of all communi- ties tend to be conservative, and conservatism was expected of them : that which had been the ideal standard of qualifications for baptism, became the ideal standard of qualifications for ordi- nation, and there grew up a distinction between clerical morality and lay morality which has never passed away.; l This distinc- 1 Hatch, Organization of Early Christian Churches, p. 136.
2 0 PRESBYTERIANISM.
tion of lay and clerical arose out of a low moral tone prevalent in the church, and became a means of perpetuating it.
Undue attention to church organization and an exaggerated idea of the importance of ecclesiastical arrangements were accom- panied by a corresponding decay of spiritual fervour. In this early age two different classes of church leaders made themselves prominent ; — the spiritually-minded, not originally undervaluing church order, but valuing it simply as a means to secure a fair field, free from interferences with the carrying on of spiritual work ; and others, of a peculiarly legalistic turn of mind, in whom the sense of order had assumed undue proportions, who overvalued organization and treated it not as a means, but rather as the end for which the church existed. The tendency with the former, in presence of the latter, was, by way of reaction, to depreciate church organization and overlook the essentials of church constitution. This tendency reached its climax and found clear expression in Montanism.1 This spiritualistic movement ought to have been guided by the leaders of the church, and not driven, to its own loss and to the church's loss, into a separate existence. When the church of the second century treated Montanism as a heresy, it acted as the Church of England of last century did toward Methodism, and as some in all our churches of to-day, who will give no place to those who may be somewhat carried away in the enthusiasm of a revival. Tertullian, as might have been expected, avowed himself a Montanist ; but, by this change, he only became somewhat more of a rigorist in discipline, an enthusiast in certain religious speculations, yet all the while he remained true to the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic faith. The rejection, on the part of the church, of that spiritual move- ment which might have, within the church, conserved or restored much of the early freshness and warmth of Christian life and
1 To Ritschl belongs the credit of having clearly pointed out the significance of Montanism as a protest against an exaggerated ecclesiasticism, and of having indicated the influence which this protest had upon the development of the church order and constitution,
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING OFFICE. 27
worship, resulted in giving to the externalism against which the extruded enthusiasts had vainly protested a further promi- nence and a special church sanction. After the struggle against Montanism had fully developed itself, and Catholic and Mon- tanist were set in keen opposition to one another, it happened, as in such circumstances it was almost certain to happen, that Montanists became extremely Montanistic — more and more morbidly and onesidedly spiritual, and Catholics became ex- tremely rigid in their attachment to ecclesiastical forms and distinctions — more and more inclined to put external matters of detail in the place of the higher spiritual realities of worship. Thus Montanism, the protest against undue and disproportionate attention to ritual and church order, became indirectly the occasion of the further elaboration of ecclesiastical ordinances in the Catholic Church.
The professing members of the Christian Church, despising their birthright, and living lives manifestly inconsistent with priestly sanctity, desired an order of priests who should assume a responsibility and practise a morality unto which they had no wish themselves to aspire. The order, to the members of which were relegated the higher sanctions and obligations of the Christian life, soon came to be superstitiously regarded as an institution entrusted by God with supernatural grace for distri- bution among the people. Thus the clergy came to be regarded as special repositories of the divine favour, — their word, and wish, and deed, effecting supernatural results. When such a view of ministerial equipment and such an estimate of the ministerial office began to prevail, a great cleft had been made between the ranks of clergy and people. The name clergy was, at an early period, appropriated as a class designation to dis- tinguish those who had been ordained to church office. The Greek word from which it is derived {cleros) simply means something fixed or determined, which may according to the application be either position or portion, — a determined order or a determined share. Place and possession alike had been in
28 PRESBYTERIANISM.
primitive times fixed by means of the lot, to which the derivation of the word clearly points. In this original sense of the term it is used in Acts i. 17, 25, and there rendered 'part' in our English Version. And in perfect agreement with this use of the word is 1 Pet. v. 4, where Presbyters are exhorted to tend the flock, 1 not lording it over the portions/ — evidently the particular con- gregations over which they preside. Gradually the term, which originally applied to anything fixed whether in place or number, was strictly applied only to determinations of place. Its regular application henceforth was to rank and order. And so by early church writers this word is used precisely as the word rank is used by us ; we have not only ' the rank of bishops,' but also 1 the rank {cleros) of the martyrs,' etc. By and by the term that had been originally applied alike to a special class as office- bearers, and to a special division of the church presided over by certain office-bearers, came to be used only as a class name for the official order, yet never without some accompanying term defining the nature of the office. Still later, by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian (end of second and beginning of third century), it is used absolutely to dis- tinguish the ministerial order in contrast to the people {cleros and laos, ordo and filebs). Rothe traces the influence of the distinctions of official and unofficial in the civil life of the Roman municipalities, from which many of the ecclesiastical terms for office were borrowed. (See also Hatch, Organization of Chris- tian Church, p. 38. Ordo — the Latin equivalent of cleros — had been used, as appears from inscriptions, for a municipal senate and for the committee of an association.) The overruling sense of order among the Romans must have largely determined the development of such class distinctions in the church, and largely influenced the choice of particular names. It is proper to notice,1 that the original employment of the name clerical does not in itself at all imply any notion of a priestly character belonging to the class of persons so distinguished ; but the sharp 1 Compare Ritschl, Altkatholischc Kirche, S. 394.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING OFFICE. 29
distinction of classes, as lay and clerical, to which the general use of such terms gave currency, was yet more intensified as the notion of priestliness as belonging to the clergy became prevalent, and the distinction once established gave feasibility to that view. It is certainly convenient to retain such names as lay and clerical to distinguish office-bearers and members, if we only remember that the distinction implies nothing more.
2. Ordination— its Significance and Modes. — In primitive times ordination meant nothing more than introduction to a particular order or rank. The only words used in the early centuries to designate this rite were such as precisely correspond to our phrases, laying on of hands, constituting, ordaining. In later centuries, when, with the decay of spiritual force in the church, there arose a craving for elaboration in forms and punctilious ceremonial in details, other phrases were employed to charac- terize the act of initiation which implied the idea of consecration. The purer and simpler view of the earliest times was in perfect agreement with well-known customs in connection with entrance upon civil appointments. Among the Romans, for example, when one had been elected to any office in the state, this act cf popular choice was followed by a recognition on the part of the presiding officer, who had to satisfy himself as to the fitness of the individual elected for the office before the election was regarded as confirmed. In a precisely similar manner, after appointment to office in the church had been made by the members of the church exercising their right of election, those already holding office entered upon a consideration of the qualifi- cations and general suitability of the parties elected, and, in case of satisfaction, gave to the elected formal recognition of his entrance into that official rank which they themselves already enjoyed, and this reception into the fellowship of the office- bearers of the church constituted installation to office. This brotherly recognition of the parties presented by the electors, on the part of those holding office, was all that was intended by
c
30 PRESBYTERIANISM.
ordination or laying on of the hands of the presbytery in primi- tive times. It would seem indeed, at first sight, as if the pre- valence of the practice of laying on of hands was quite likely to lead to the supposition that there was some mysterious con- veyance of grace from those whose hands were laid on, to those upon whom their hands were laid. But it ought to be carefully noted that originally this act was not regarded as indispensable to the rite of ordination, and that the only part of the service which has been always looked upon as absolutely essential, — wanting which there would no valid ordination, — is the prayer which simply articulates what the laying on of hands symbolizes. Evidently those who could regard ordination as valid where the party ordained had only been set apart to his official work by the prayer of the presiding Presbyter, had no thought of any magical or mechanical transmission of grace from the persons, or by the personal act and will, of those conducting the ordination service. But even in regard to this symbolical action itself, a careful study of the ecclesiastical practices of early times will show that the laying on of hands was not by any means con- fined to the rite of ordination. In the ordinance of baptism as administered in the early church, and also in the formal pro- nouncing of absolution, which, in an age when the exercise of discipline bulked so largely in church work, was of great import- ance and of frequent occurrence, the laying on of hands, as a significant and symbolical act, was regularly practised. And it is to be observed here, that in those days baptism and ab- solution were both frequently administered by those who did not belong to the clerical order. As therefore originally employed in ordination, there was nothing in the mere imposition of hands fitted to suggest the idea of the actual and efficient conferring of grace, seeing that the practice in baptism and absolution was clearly declaratory and symbolical, and was besides, among the Jews and others, a common accompaniment of prayer for the wellbeing and prosperity of others. If we examine the New Testament passages in which allusion is made to the practice oi
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING OFFICE. 31
the laying on of hands, we find the phrase used first of all in Acts vi. 6 in reference to the appointment of the deacons ; and in this instance the use of the phrase must be regarded as quite general, inasmuch as it is employed to describe the institution of a new official order whose functions were put in contrast to those of the ministers of the word. The very same phrase is used again (Acts xiii. 3) of the setting apart of Saul and Barna- bas to special missionary work, men who were already in the ministry. Again, a precisely similar phrase is employed in Acts xiv. 23 and 2 Cor. viii. 19 (in our Authorised Version trans- lated in the one place c ordained,' in the other place 'chosen/ but in the Revised Version consistently rendered in both { appointed ;), and in these passages the laying on of hands seems simply to indicate appointment to an office which may be permanent or occasional. The only instances of a more exact or technical use of the phrase are to be found in the Pastoral Epistles. In reference to Timothy, there had been revelations through those who enjoyed the prophetic gift, probably at the time when he first came into contact with Paul, which indicated the presence in him of spiritual endowments which would qualify him for high and special evangelistic service. Here was Timothy's destina- tion to office by means of prophecy (1 Tim. i. 18, iv. 14), which constituted the ground upon which, in his case, the presbytery proceeded to the laying on of hands. In comparing 1 Tim. iv. 14 with 2 Tim. i. 6, where, according to the one statement, the Pres- bytery, and according to the other statement, the Apostle himself, is said to have laid hands on Timothy, Rothe comes to the con- clusion that the laying on of hands on two different occasions is intended. This is more natural than the attempts of most com- mentators at harmonizing the two statements on the supposition that they refer to one and the same ordination. The earlier reference may be to the formal installation of Timothy to the ministerial office ; the later, to the special personal act of Paul in deputing Timothy as his assistant or colleague in the work among the churches of Asia. In all those passages in which
32 PRESBYTERTANISM.
reference to ministerial ordination is made, the laying on of hands is the phrase used largely to include the whole of the ordination service, and means nothing more than the recognition of the gift qualifying for the office, or the expression of a belief that the necessary endowments of grace are present in the indi- vidual presented. When we have made allowance for the loss of prophetic gifts in the church, and the cessation of miraculous powers of discernment which were characteristic possessions of the Apostles, we shall find that the principles contained in those passages express the permanent doctrine of ordination as main- tained in the Presbyterian Church. As the person or persons ordaining, after due examination and inquiry, are no further responsible for any subsequent failure in official efficiency on the part of him ordained, so they do not assume in the act any supernatural penetration in discerning grace in the heart, or any supernatural power in originally conferring grace.
The notion that in ordination actual grace is conferred, and the narrow restriction of the right of ordination, go hand in hand. When we consider the practice of the church, after the simplicity of the first ages had passed away, we find that the right of laying on of hands, the power to ordain, is not regarded as characteristically distinguishing clergy and laity, but rather as distinguishing one class or order of the clergy from the others. The Bishop, says Jerome, does nothing which a Presbyter cannot do, except in the matter of ordination. And from the manner in which reference is made by writers of that period to this special prerogative of the Bishop, it is evidently regarded by them, rather as a tribute of respect to the presidents, than as an act implying the belief in any mystical power or grace peculiar to the Episcopal order. When the sacerdotal theory of the church gained the ascendancy, the Bishop's exclusive right of ordination wras grounded on the notion that he was, in some mysterious way, a special depositary of grace, which by laying on of hands he conferred on others. Ordination, as thus administered, meant, what it never means in the New Testament, the absolute separation of the clerical order from the
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING OFFICE. 33
people by the impression of an indelible character and the com- munication of spiritual authority.
In the earliest years of our Scottish Reformation, it was very natural that expression should be given to a violent recoil from such superstitious and pernicious doctrines. Accordingly, we find Knox, and with him those who drew up in 1 560 the First Book of Discipline, discouraging the continuance of the rite of laying on of hands. l Other ceremony,' they say, ' than the public appro- bation of the people and the declaration of the chief minister that the person there presented is appointed to serve the church, we cannot approve ; for albeit the apostles used imposition of hands, yet seeing the miracle is ceased, the using of the ceremony we judge not necessary.5 The corresponding paragraph in the Second Book of Discipline, drawn up by Andrew Melville and others in 1578, is much more guarded, as men were then in a better position for distinguishing between the exaggeration and abuse of forms, and the observance of a becoming and scriptural ritual. ' Ordination/ says this later work, ' is the separation and sanctifying of the person appointed to God and His kirk, after he be weil tryit and fund qualifier. The ceremonies of ordination are, fasting, earnest prayer, and imposition of hands of the elder- ship.' With this later statement, the Westminster divines, who prepared the Form of Church Government^ are in perfect agree- ment. This, too, is the view maintained in the Presbyterian churches of the present day.
3. Offices in the Presbyterian Church. — In determining the various orders of ecclesiastical office in the Presbyterian Church, imme- diate reference is made to the New Testament enumeration of church offices. It is held that in the New Testament we have not only the principle laid down that in the church of Christ there must always be a ministry (of men) bearing its authority from the Lord, but also the general outline of the constitution of that ministry, in which the various classes of office-bearers are expressly named. Of the church officers mentioned in the New
34 PRESBYTERIANISM.
Testament some are extraordinary, and others ordinary. Those called extraordinary are such as the exigencies and peculiar cir- cumstances of primitive times required, the outcome of the miraculous endowments of that age, — Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets. Each of these possessed his own distinguishing charism or supernatural gift ; and to each there was an official calling in correspondence with the gift previously bestowed upon him. So long as the distinguishing gifts were continued, the offices in which such gifts could be exercised were also continued ; but the withdrawal of these gifts from the church marked also the extinction of these offices in the church. The ordinary offices are those, the functions of which do not presuppose any special or peculiar circumstances of church life, but are indispensable in later as in earlier ages. It is one of the avowed and prominent principles of Presbyterianism that all those ordinary offices should be continued perpetually in the church, and that though change of circumstances may require certain modifications in the detailed enumeration of duties belonging to each, yet only these are to be recognized as in the strict sense church offices.
The question then to be answered is, What are those ordinary and permanent church offices as enumerated in the New Testa- ment ? If we refer to such passages as Rom. xii. 7, 8, 1 Cor. xii. 28, Eph. iv. 11 (this last seems only to speak of the ministry of the word, — pastors and teachers), we find no difficulty in re- cognizing a threefold distribution. The first and most prominent is the ministry of the word, which is a most comprehensive office, in which are discharged at least these three functions, ministering as pastor, teaching, and exhorting. The second office is one of which the function is ruling. The third office is one which has a twofold function of giving and showing mercy, exercising personal care, and distributing what the care of others has provided. Our church has given expression in her form of church government to the same interpretation of those passages. In the Second Book of Discipline this threefold division of church offices is reached from a consideration of the regular and
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING OFFICE. 35
permanent functions of the church of Christ. ' The whole policy of the kirk consisteth in three things, in doctrine, discipline, and distribution. With doctrine is annexed the administration of sacraments ; and according to the parts of this division, ariseth a sort of threefold officers in the kirk, to wit, of ministers or preachers, elders or governors, and deacons or distributors, and all these may be called by a general word, ministers of the kirk.' Some of the older Scottish writers on both sides in the contro- versy— such as Rule and Forrester on the Presbyterian side, and Sage on the Episcopal side— wrangle long and laboriously on the question whether church offices form a dichotomy or a trichotomy. Generally this dispute was forced upon the Presbyterians by unwise Prelatical controversialists ; these latter maintaining that Presbyterians who insisted upon the scriptural authority of the Ruling Elder departed from their distinctive position, and adopted essentially the threefold distribution of Episcopalians. The seeming difficulty for Presbyterians lay in this, that much stress had been laid upon the twofold distribution indicated in Phil. i. 1, where only Bishops and Deacons are specified as office-bearers in the church at Philippi. In the First Epistle to Timothy, too, mention is made of the qualifications and duties of Bishops and Deacons, as if these constituted the whole recognized ministry of the churches. In addition to this, we may remark that Clement of Rome, writing to the Corinthians, speaks of the apostles as having, in all places through which they passed, taken the first-fruits of their preaching, and ordained them as Bishops and Deacons. There is thus strong evidence of the prevalence of a twofold distribution of church offices in apostolic and post-apostolic times. Presbyterians accepting this fact are at no loss to account for their three church offices, for, as Rule says, ' Dicho- tomies are used where one of the divident members may be subdivided.' It is now admitted on all hands that, in the New Testament, Bishop and Presbyter are one. In the passages referred to, we have scriptural authority for Presbyters and Deacons, and this is all that Presbyterians can desire. Under
36 Presbyter i axism.
Presbyters must be included ministers, teachers and exhorters, and rulers ; and it is a mere wrangle over names whether we shall call both simply Presbyters, or call the one a Teaching, and the other a Ruling Presbyter. On the other hand, the Episcopal controversialists found it difficult to account for the twofold enumeration of Bishops and Deacons by Paul and Clement, so as to harmonize with their threefold classification of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Sage, for example, tries to account for Clement's statement in this way. * Clement/ says he, ' by Deacons, here understandeth all ministers of religion, whether Presbyters in the modern notion, or Deacons who, by the first institution, were obliged to attend upon tables. And so by Bishops and Deacons we may understand Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters, and Attendants upon tables.' Now this is quite absurd, for clearly Clement, as well as Paul, means to indicate two special classes of office-bearers ; these two evidently comprehending all the regular and recognized officers in the important churches of Philippi and Corinth.
In the chapters which follow, we propose to adopt the order of treatment suggested by the twofold distribution just referred to, subdividing the first member of the division. In treating of the Presbyter, we shall find it convenient to consider first the function of ruling and the office in which this function simply is discharged ; and secondly, the function of teaching and the office in which this function, gaining prominence over the ruling, is discharged.
CHAPTER II.
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER.
1. New Testament References to the Ruling Elder. — Whatever diversity of view may prevail as to the particular officer intended, there can be no doubt that repeated reference is made in the New Testament more or less directly to the existence of an office of rule or government in the church. Leaving out of account less definite passages, there are three very express statements in regard to church officers in which, it is very generally admitted, reference is made to office-bearers whose functions seem identical with those of the Ruling Elder. In Rom. xii. 7, 8, we have a fourfold enumeration of ordinary church office-bearers, — Teacher and Pastor, Deacon and Ruler. Here, however, these officers are indicated rather by the predominant and characteristic possession of certain gifts, than as accredited and ordained to separate offices in the church. If we had only this passage before us, we might regard those thus designated to be simply men highly endowed with particular and distinguishing gifts. In 1 Cor. xii. 28 we have, on the contrary, a distinct enumeration of certain offices, — the officers filling these being distinguished by appropriate names. We easily separate between the offices here named, which are extraordinary and temporary,— Apostles, Prophets, Miracles, Healings, Tongues, — and those which are ordinary and permanent, — Teachers, Helps, Governments. Taking then these two passages, the office spoken of in the former, as
87
3 s PRESBYTERIANISM.
that of him that rulcth ; and in the latter, as that of government, —is to all appearance identical with that office which we designate the Ruling Eldership. At the same time, it should be observed, that as yet we have no authority for calling him a Presbyter or an Elder. He is a Ruler ; that is all which we can say about this officer from those passages in Romans and Corinthians. The third proof passage makes the Ruler an Elder. In i Tim. v. 17 we have a passage, the meaning of which has been most vehe- mently discussed. We shall enter upon a careful exposition of it in a later section ; meanwhile, we only call attention to the recognition of ruling as a special function of the eldership.
2. The Elder in the Synagogue. — It must be very evident to every one who gives any consideration to the subject, that such notices as those which we have just cited would be altogether inadequate and unsatisfactory in accounting for an office which had its first origin in the Christian church. When first mention is made of the deaconship, a distinctly Christian institution, of which no trace is previously found, we are told the story of its origin ; whereas the earliest references to an office of rule are made in quite an incidental manner, which assumes thorough acquaintance with the nature and rights of the office. The notion is thus naturally suggested that the office of Ruling Elder was no novelty, either to the Apostles or to those whom they addressed. We are led, therefore, to seek further information by investigating some of those arrangements for worship with which Jewish Christians must have been familiar before they became members of the Christian church. In general, the Christian forms of worship were modelled on those of the Jewish synagogue, and so where any customs in worship or office in the Christian church are spoken of without explanation, we may reasonably look to the arrangements of the synagogue for enlightenment. In every synagogue, whether in Judea or abroad, there was an eldership, yspowrtotj and the president was called yepovat&pxns — that is, Arch- elder. Each individual member was an Elder, a Presbyter. Cir-
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 39
cumstances determined whether there should be many synagogues in a town, or only one. In Jerusalem, in the time of our Lord, there are said to have been as many as 480 — different religious sects, different nationalities, different social orders, having their separate meeting-houses. But in other places, such as Alexandria, where the Jewish population was very large, there was but one great synagogue ; while in Rome, with a comparatively small Jewish population, there were several. Yet it would seem that in every case there was but one eldership, one Session, in which the Elders of all the synagogues met. We can discover no rule as to the number or proportion of members in such elderships. In a normal case there would be several, seeing that there was always one bearing the name of president. On one occasion, in Alexandria, with its one synagogue, we learn that Flaccus, the governor, dragged as many as 38 of the Elders into the theatre and scourged them. The elaborate arrangements and the mani- .fold offices in the synagogues at Rome have become clearly understood from inscriptions discovered in Jewish cemeteries there.1 It would appear that the elderships (yspoveiat) were large, and that out of their membership a number of men were chosen who were styled Archons, — rulers, — and the Arch-elder (yspovaiupxYig) was the president of the Archons, as well as of the general eldership. The appointment to the archonship was usually for a time — some are named as twice archon ; but some as a special honour were appointed for life. Thus the functions of the larger eldership would be similar to those of our Deacons' Court ; those of the archons would correspond to the particular functions of our Session. A special officer had charge of the conducting of the worship— the chief of the synagogue (Archi- synagogus). The Elders had to do with the general affairs of the congregation.2 In other places, and also in Rome during the
1 Die Gemeiiideverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit, by Dr. E. Schiirer [The Church Constitution of the Jews in Rome during the time of the Caesars], Leipzig, 1879. Compare also, Presbyteria?iism Older than Christianity, by Dr. Marcus Dods.
2 Ilausrath, in his New Testament Times, gives a good summary account
4° PRESBYTERIANISM.
Apostolic Age, the arrangements of the Jewish synagogues were less complicated, and to the elderships generally belonged the duty of ruling in the congregation. Here, then, we find the office-bearer who, as an essential and necessary element in the constitution of every synagogue, would naturally be expected, without any express statement of the institution of his office, to reappear in the constitution of the Christian churches.
3. Ruling and Teaching Elders distinguished. — There was thus an office-bearer in the synagogue whose function it was to rule, and his presence was indispensable in the synagogal arrangements for the discipline and guidance of the religious community. It was natural, then, that in the earliest Christian congregations, which, indeed, in Palestine were for some time known as Christian synagogues, this characteristic office should be con- tinued ; and that when first allusions were made to such an office by the Apostles, the familiarity of the people with the institution should be assumed. It is necessary that we now recur to the question of the New Testament references to the office of Ruling Elder, in order to learn definitely what ground we have for dis- tinguishing between elders as teaching and ruling. The much- disputed passage, I Tim. v. 17, requires careful investigation. Some hold that the emphasis is to be laid on the word labouring. According to this view, all elders are supposed to teach, and reference is made to the elder's qualification — apt to teach (1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 9) ; while those worthy of special honour ,
of the officers of the synagogue, and the parallel between these and our own Presbyterian office-bearers appears very striking : ' Each of these synagogues had a special president, the chief of the synagogue (archisynagogus), who conducted all the affairs of the synagogue, and preserved order at the meet- ings. To assist him was a body of Presbyters, who made themselves of service, partly in the regular devotions of the congregation, and partly in the financial affairs of the .synagogue. The other officials were the reciter of the prayers, who at the same time acted as the secretary and messenger (apostle) of the synagogue in its external affairs, the attendant (synagogue minister), and the collectors of alms (deacons).' [See translation in Theol. TransL Fund Series, vol. i. p. 86.]
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 4 1
arc those who have distinguished themselves by laborious appli- cation to their duties. Rothe maintains that any one going to this passage with an unprejudiced mind would certainly come to this conclusion, and would fail to see a distinction hinted at between teachers and rulers as two classes of Presbyters. Ellicott, however, after noticing the attempt of some keen advocates of Episcopacy to ignore the distinction, admits that * it seems more natural to suppose the existence, in the large community at Ephesus, of a clerical college of governing elders, some of whom might have the xocpiay.ee (gift) of teaching more eminently than others.' Here, then, we have another rendering of the passage which is much more generally approved. The emphasis is not now laid upon the labouring, but upon the distinction implied between those who ruled only and those who also taught. We have here a distinction admitted between rulers and teachers, yet it is a distinction of gifts and qualifications rather than of office and appointment. The older Presbyterian controversialists would not have been satisfied with this. Our own great writers, like Gillespie and those who followed him, maintained that in the Apostolic Church there was a regularly-marked and express distinction between teaching and ruling elders just as in the Reformed churches. This is more than can be quite borne out by any known facts. Church historians are now almost all agreed in holding that no indubitable instance can be adduced to prove the existence of any formal distinction of this kind in the Apostolic or first Post-Apostolic Age. And the Presbyterian argument requires no more than the apostolic recognition of a distinction of gifts in those bearing one official name, such as will tend toward a distinction of rank and office.
It may now at least be regarded as admitted on all hands, that the essential character of the elder's office lay in the function of ruling. Whatever else might be expected of an elder, it was indispensable that he should rule. One who ruled well would be regarded as fulfilling creditably the duties of his office. In order to rule well, however, it would be necessary, or at least exceed*
4 2 PRESBYTERIAXISM.
ingly desirable, that the elder should be apt to teach, that he should be one as Paul requires (Tit. i. 9), ' holding fast the faith- ful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.' And as in the following verse the Apostle speaks of unruly members, it was to be the duty of the elders to enforce rule over such, that their mouths might be stopped and their subverting practices counteracted. For the ruler, therefore, even should he not engage in the regular public teaching of the church, simply as an admini- strator of discipline, soundness in the faith, and some readiness in stating the principles of saving truth, were necessary qualifica- tions. The mention then of such gifts, among the equipments of a good Bishop or Presbyter, does not at all imply that all elders did officially engage in teaching. Elders who simply ruled, would be regarded as fully discharging the official duties of the eldership.
In the very earliest Christian times, when believers were few, all the members of the church were called on to preach, and to exercise generally what came afterwards to be regarded as strictly clerical functions. The churches at first, being few in number, were frequently visited by apostles, or by their delegates, the evangelists. Their congregational membership being small, the purposes of edification were attained by the brethren communing together over the things brought before them in the preaching of their occasional instructors. The very remarkable spiritual gifts enjoyed by the early Christians would render such unrestricted liberty of prophesying not only safe, but highly profitable. By and by, however, these extraordinary gifts were withdrawn, and the number of churches being increased, missionary visits became less frequent ; and with the enlargement of their memberships, it would soon be found necessary, for the maintenance of order and the securing of profit and instruction, that there should be some understanding as to the parties who should engage in public teaching and exhortation. Now all along the rulers, as the only regular church officers, must have had a special prominence, and
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 43
inasmuch as they had been chosen on account of their doctrinal qualifications as well as for their capabilities in exercising and enforcing authority, the official teachers, when needed, would be sought for among them. In earlier times the distinction would naturally be informal, but the ever-growing need of the church for a distinctly qualified and recognized order of teachers would tend to render the distinction more nearly one of office. A ruler by office, a teacher by reason of pre-eminent gifts, — by and by the distinction was made between the mere ruler and the ruler who also laboured in word and doctrine, by the application to each of a special name. Thus we find Cyprian, in the North African Church, about the middle of the third century, distin- guishing Presbyters and Presbyter teachers as two separate classes of church office-bearers.
A fair consideration of the importance of the elder's functions should lead us clearly to understand that the Apostles would strive to secure for the eldership in every city men who would commend themselves to the brethren there for their practical gifts, as well as for those endowments usually called graces. The happy prevalence of rich and attractive endowments of grace would make deficiency in this particular specially noticeable in an office-bearer, and peculiarly damaging to his authority and general influence. Yet excellence in gifts, where many were pre-eminently gifted, would not of itself render one suitable for holding office in such a community. The possession of extra- ordinary gifts of grace characterized at least a large proportion of the membership ; it was therefore required of office-bearers, that, sharing these endowments, they should be specially dis- tinguished by practical wisdom, a well-regulated mind, and a pre-eminent capacity for maintaining order, and generally, for the efficient conducting of the affairs of the church. That very abundance of grace and the absence of restriction in the use of individual gifts for teaching and edification caused the need of an effective and official control all the sooner to appear. In the Corinthian Church, for example, wonderful and conspicuous gifts
44 PRESBYTERIANISM.
of grace were generally enjoyed. The members of that church spoke with tongues and prophesied. And the Apostle testifies to the great importance of both of these gifts. Yet there seems to have been a greater tendency to disorder in this community than in any of the other churches founded or visited by Paul. Hence the need of a special office of ruling would not be less felt, but would be more felt, where gifts and graces were seen most to abound. In such a church as that of Corinth, where there was found such an abundance of spiritual gifts, there would be no difficulty in getting highly-endowed men ; and from the ranks of those thus eminent, respected among their brethren for the general excellence of their gifts, and at the same time trusted by the Apostles for their well-balanced judgment, would the first elders be chosen. It is evident that what characterized them officially was not so much the brilliancy of their spiritual gifts, though in such a community that must have been a presupposition of their appointment, as the faculty of rule, suppressing extra- vagance in themselves, and preventing disorder among the spiritual, while fully sympathizing with their spirituality.
This office of ruling, which we have seen to be one that of necessity must have been instituted in the very earliest days of a Christian community, is designated in Scripture under several characteristic names. In Eph. iv. 1 1, for example, we find Pastors and Teachers closely associated together, and, immediately follow- ing, the three distinct classes of church officers, Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists. From these they are distinguished as being per- manent and settled in one place, and not occasional and itinerant. But as to the relation which they bear to one another, it would seem that Pastor and Teacher are names meant to designate offices in the church which are quite separable, but which may be united in one man. The resident local teacher may be, perhaps always is, a pastor, but the pastor need not be a teacher. It is the pastor's, the shepherd's, duty to guard and guide his flock ; and in doing this, he guides them into good pasture, where, too, they will not be distracted from feeding by the fear of their foes.
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 45
Thus Homer conceives the character and work of the shepherd ; and so, too, the Psalmist in the 23rd Psalm. No term could more accurately describe the duties of a ruling church officer, whose special function it is to see that every provision is made for the exercise of the gifts of the exhorter or teacher under the most favourable circumstances. Evidently the officer, who does this or aids in doing this, may himself engage in teaching the community thus regulated, or he may be one whose gift is limited to the function of ruling. In connection with the same idea of caring for a flock, we have in Acts xx. 28, 1 Pet. v. 2, the name overseer {k7rlox,o7rog) instead of the name pastor or shepherd, which might naturally have been expected, and the duties of the office are described as a taking the oversight. This, in reference to a flock, includes, as Alford remarks, leading, feeding, and heeding. This is the comprehensive office of pastor and teacher, including, as we have seen, functions separable and assignable to different individuals ; functions, therefore, tending to the establishment of distinct, though always closely-allied offices. In 1 Thess. v. 12 (the first Epistle written by Paul) and in Rom. xii. 8, we find a class of Christian workers described as being over the brethren in the Lord, and as ruling — the same word (KpoioTctftsyQi) being used in each place, and meaning generally those who are set over others, to be interpreted here in accordance with the principle laid down in 1 Pet. v. 3. The qualifying adjective used in 1 Tim. v. 17 to describe and distinguish Presbyters as ruling (npotorug) is also. from the same word. That this term applies to an office of ruling that might be distinguished from the exercise of a teaching gift, is shown by comparing I Thess. v. 12 with the preceding verse which enjoins the brethren — who are under those rulers — to exhort and edify themselves, which the Apostle acknowledges had been their regular practice. The term, too, seems borrowed from the exercise of rule in the domestic circle (1 Tim. iii. 4, 5-12 ; Tit. iii. 8-14). The peculiarly abstract, yet very direct and significant name, governments (zv3-pprt<Tsig), is given in 1 Cor. xii. 28 to the office of regulation
46 PRESBYTERIANISM.
and control. The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words, and their English equivalent ' govern' (Gabar, Kubernao, Guberno), are all from one stem. The pilot of the ship was called the governor —rendered master in Acts xxvii. u ; and shipmaster, Rev. xviii. 17. The fundamental idea here is strength, which is the essential element in an office of control. And once again, we have in Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24, the phrase ' those who have the rule over you' (yyovpevot) applied to the first preachers of the gospel among those who became members of the early Jewish churches, and also to those who succeeded them in these labours. And as the salutation, given in the last verse referred to, distinguishes in the church only two classes — leaders and saints, church officers and private members, — we must regard the term used as a com- prehensive name for all spiritual office-bearers in the church. The characteristic function which belongs to all is that of ruling, and this, as distinguished from teaching, can be performed by them as members of a council. In such a council the necessity of having a president would become early apparent. Without such a head they could not readily convene, nor in any satisfactory way deliberate. The appointment by the elders of one of their number to such a rank would be a mark of distinction, and an expression of confidence which would be regarded as a very grateful mode of conferring double honour. Whether or not the original phrase contains any reference to pecuniary remuneration, elevation to the presidency of the court, when properly done, would imply that the person so distinguished, besides his ruling qualifications, was pre-eminent for his gift of teaching. When this president came to have a distinctive name, he was the Bishop presiding over the Presbyters, corresponding to the Presbyterian minister, moderator of the kirk-session.
4. The New Testament Elder and the Modern Ruling Elder essentially the same. — There is no doubt an appearance of dis- crepancy between the functions of the ruling elder in Presbyterian churches of to-day and those of the elders spoken of by the
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 47
Apostles (Acts xx. 28 ; I Pet. v. 2) who fed the flock of God over which they had been appointed overseers. This appearance of difference in the institutions has arisen from the prevalence of a different and false conception of the functions of the office. In reality, as we shall show, the office in ancient and modern times is the same, and its function continues the same, modified only by changes in times and circumstances. It may be proper to state shortly the various theories which have been held on this subject. (1) The old Presbyterian theory maintained by Calvin, Gillespie, and others, rests largely upon that interpretation of 1 Tim. v. 17 which regards that passage as referring to a distinc- tion of offices formally recognized in Apostolic times. It is generally admitted that so great a conclusion cannot safely be built upon a single passage, seeing that no trace can be found elsewhere in the New Testament of rulers and teachers recognized as distinct orders of church officers. We find no restriction placed upon ruling elders. They were not appointed as rulers to the exclusion of the exercise of their teaching gifts, but to the exercise of them in their office if they possessed them. Many objections to the Presbyterian institution of ruling elders apply only to this particular theory. ■ The distinction of lay or ruling elders, and ministers proper or teaching elders, was laid down by Calvin, and has been adopted as the constitution of several Presbyterian churches. This interpretation of Paul's language is refuted by Rothe, p. 224 ; Ritschl, p. 352 ; and SchafT, Hist, of Apost. Ch., chap. ii. p. 312, besides older writers such as Vitringa and Mosheim.'1 This note of Bishop Lightfoot is simply aimed at the interpretation of the passage referred to ; and only to the theory of the eldership built on this, do the proofs of the writers quoted apply. This theory ought not to be identified with the Presbyterian argument. (2) Another theory of the eldership has been proposed, in which the very opposite extreme has been adopted. The nature of this exposition of the office and function of the elder may be understood from the tide of Principal Camp- 1 Lightfoot, Comme?itary on Philippians (1881), p. 195, note.
48 PRESBYTERIANISM.
bell's book devoted to its elaboration, The Theory of the Ruling Eldership, or the Position of the Lay Ruler in the Reformed Churches Examined. From what has been already said of the distinction lay and clerical, it will be understood that we do not favour the continuance of it. The use of such terms might be convenient in other circumstances ; but in consequence of their application in primitive and in modern times being so different, their employment is calculated to lead to confusion. The elder in the ancient church was in the primitive application of the term not a layman ; in the church of the present the elder is a layman in the modern application of the term. But these appli- cations differ. In the ancient church the contrast was rather between those who held office primarily as rulers, and secondarily as teachers, and those who did not hold office. Presbyters and Presbyter teachers were then alike distinguished from laymen. In the Reformed Churches the office of teaching is usually regarded as so expressly primary, that only the officer who is teacher as well as ruler is formally distinguished from the lay membership. Yet Reformed theologians refuse to call the ruling elder a layman. Gillespie speaks of the term lay elder as a nickname. The distinction lay and clerical he rejects, and reminds us that Bellarmine had supposed it characteristic of Romanists as distinguished from Protestants, and so it should be ; but if the distinction be retained, Gillespie suggests the retention of a class name for officers between clerical and lay. The Romanists have regulares who assist the clergy in ecclesiastical affairs, without being admitted to clerical orders. Similar is the position of ruling elders. All Principal Campbell's argumentation may be set aside by repudiating the distinction, and maintaining that the office-bearers of the church are all essentially representa- tives of the people, that all occupy the common ground of church members, and that the idea of office in the church simply indicates on the part of the church the belief that the individuals called to office, whether in the ministry or in the eldership, possess gifts and qualifications necessary for discharging the functions
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 49
of their several offices. (3) The theory of the eldership, which commends itself to us, is that which views the modern ruling elder as essentially the same as the New Testament elder, his place in the church constitution being somewhat modified owing to the development of institutions in accordance with the needs of the church. The appearance of difference between the two rests upon the separation, that has been effected since the Apostolic times, of the preaching from the ruling Presbyters. What was then a distinction only in gifts, is now a distinction in office. The Presbyter teacher now, in order to meet the requirements of the age, must undergo a special training for his official calling. The special discipline of his gifts qualifies him for his office. Circumstances demand this in order to qualify for public teaching ; still the untrained, yet otherwise qualified Presbyter, should be required officially to engage in private teaching for the edification of the members of the church. Thus the distinction is primarily one of gifts and the cultivation of gifts, as of old, only that now by church arrangement, built upon mature experience, the distinction of trained and untrained teachers is elevated into a distinction of office.
5. Duties of the Ruling Elder.— All the official duties of the elder are comprehended under the defining term ruling. The ruling elder discharges all his official functions fully, when he has exercised rule in the church. It is evident, however, that much depends upon the interpretation given to this term. Those who support the lay councillor theory (Principal Campbell and others), confine the application of the phrase rule or government to the management generally of the outward affairs of the church. All members of the church, it is urged, ought to visit the sick and afflicted, pray with the dying, and generally do good as they have opportunity ; but these exercises do not belong to the elders as elders, any more than to private members, who may have time at their disposal, and who may be endowed with the necessary gifts. The special and official duties of the eldership, it is main-
50 PRESBYTERIANISH.
tained, lie in an altogether different direction — in the oversight, discipline, and government of the church in its Kirk-sessions, Presbyteries, and Assemblies. According to this theory, all the duties of elders are performed jointly in the courts of the church, and whatever religious services they may perform severally, are to be regarded as the acts not of church office-bearers, but simply of pious church members. On the contrary, all our authoritative Presbyterian documents, as well as the decisions of prominent Presbyterian churchmen, emphasize the directly spiritual aspect of the elder's office. If we refer, for example, to the First Book of Discipline, sanctioned in 1560, we find the following admirable summary of the duties of elders (chap. x. 4) : — ' The elders being elected, must be admonished of their office, which is to assist the ministers in all public affairs of the kirk ; to wit, in determining and judging causes, in giving admonition to the licentious liver, in having respect to the manners and conversation of all men within their charge. For by the gravity of the seniors, the light and unbridled life of the licentious must be corrected and bridled.' Here it will be observed that though no particulars are gone into, it is quite understood that officially their duties are to be performed, and influence exerted, outside of the courts in which they sit. More in detail the same view of the duties of elders is expressed in the Second Book of Discipline, chap. vi. 4-9 ; in James Guthrie's Treatise on Elders and Deacons (written about 1640), chaps, v.-vii. ; and in the Practice of the Free Church of Scotland (2nd ed., pub. 1877), Appendix I. 4, p. 136. In all these important manuals there is full recognition given to certain duties of the eldership that are more private in their nature, and to be discharged, not by the court of elders, but by individual elders. That which a private member, having the time or the gifts, is expected to do, the elder is required officially to do, under the direct cognizance of the church whose representative he is. He must assist the pastor in exhorting and instructing those specially under his care, visiting for the purpose of administering comfort to the afflicted, admonition to the tempted or fallen, and generally,
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 51
counsel to those to whom it may be helpful. That elders ought to engage with pre-eminent diligence in such duties, follows evidently from the express qualifications required of them.
Besides these more private duties of the eldership, there are the duties of a more public kind, recognized by all Presbyterians, whatever their particular theory of the elder's office may be, as devolving upon the ruling elders, to be performed by them jointly in the Kirk-session, or as representatives in the higher courts of the church. In the exercise of their official functions, elders sit in all church courts, and deliberate on matters concerning the faith, order, and discipline of the church. Along with the minister in the session, they take the oversight of the spiritual affairs of the congregation, seeing to the appointment of a sufficient number of office-bearers for the carrying on of the work of the congrega- tion, joining in the examination of candidates for admission to sealing ordinances, especially assisting with their advice in regard to the life and conversation of such applicants, taking general cognizance of the morals of the people, interesting themselves in the state of religion within their bounds, considering the attend- ance on the public services of religious worship, and using means for the improvement thereof, taking superintendence of, and giving encouragement to, the religious training of the young, not only by their individual exertions, but in their capacity as a Session.
The great advantage of this Presbyterian institution of the ruling eldership appears very specially in the exercise of discipline in regard to all matters, whether more or less serious. Those who most consistently and successfully vindicate the rights of the ruling eldership, supplement their scriptural argument by a very powerful plea on the ground of Christian expediency. So, CEcolampadius (at Basel in 1531) and Calvin (at Geneva in 1540) are thoroughly agreed in recommending that a decisive share in the government of the church should be given to representatives of the people, in order to prevent arbitrariness, or the suspicion of it, on the part of the pastors. Judging from history and from the nature of things, it appears evident that if the administration of
52 PRESBYTERIAXISM.
discipline in the church be committed to one man, he may not be in a position to form a fair estimate of varying or conflicting statements, nor may it be possible for him to make it evident always, that he is acting with thorough impartiality. In this way the usefulness of the pastor, if solely responsible for the discipline of the congregation, might be seriously impaired, and at the same time the interests of a pure and healthy church government would suffer. There are thus duties to be performed in connection with the affairs of a single church, or of a group of churches, such as no minister, nor court composed only of ministers, can adequately perform. And these duties, too, are not such as can be discharged by all and sundry of the pious and earnest-minded members of the church. They are distinctly church functions, and only those authorized and accredited by the church can properly undertake and efficiently carry them out. And so, from the existence of such a class of duties, we may argue in favour of a class of church office-bearers, whose official work will consist in the performance of these. It has become so evident that duties of this kind cannot be discharged by ministers only, that in some churches not Presbyterian there has been repeatedly shown a tendency to create boards and councils for co-operation with the ministers in regard to such matters. It is one of the great advantages of Presbyterianism, that it provides a recognized and responsible class of church officers whose office is permanent, and not merely created in face of special emergencies. The duties which we recognize as peculiar to the ruling elder are not occasional in the history of a Christian community, but, on the contrary, are con- stantly pressing. Hence provision is made for their regular performance, through the existence of a permanent office of ruling elder in the church.
6. The Buling Elder in the History of the Christian Church.— From all that has been said, it must be evident that in the very earliest years of church life the ruling office was a necessity. Not all at once were rulers and teachers separated as two distinct
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 53
classes of office-bearers ; but this is easily accounted fur when we consider the primitive condition of the Christian community, the recentness of its formation, and the simplicity of its original idea. It is only an accident of time and circumstance, if we find that at first one name is given to him that is ruler only, and to him that is ruler and teacher as well. The Presbyter is as emphatically a ruler as he could have been had teachers already been officially appointed in the churches. As Stephen was not less a deacon because he was also an evangelist, so the primitive elder was not less a ruling elder because he was often also the local teacher.
In these early times it is quite certain that the duties officially discharged by the elders were performed in a council. The functions of the eldership were not such as could be discharged by one. The rule of the elder is authoritative in the church, as it expresses the mind of the council of elders, not that of a single elder. By modifications gradually introduced,1 the function of rule came to be regarded as the official prerogative and destination of a particular officer, who received a different name from that of Presbyter, which before meant nothing else than ruler ; and those Presbyters, who formerly had jointly ruled, came to exercise another set of functions, and instead of ruling were required officially to labour in word and doctrine.
In the beginning of the third century, according to the Clementine Homilies and other writings of the period, the Bishop and Presbyter both teach — the one confining himself to doctrine, the other to morals. Here still the Presbyter, as ruling elder, is restricted in his official teaching to that department — the morals of the people — of which he had originally the special oversight.
In the times of Justin Martyr, towards the middle of the second century, the Presbyter had no place at all in the conducting of public worship. It was only with the growth of the Episcopal system that the custom became general to relegate the work of
1 Hatch, Organization 0/ the Early Christian Churches (Bampton Lecture, 1880) , pp. 76-81.
54 PRESBYTERIANISM.
public teaching to the Presbyters. As smaller congregations grew up around the one parish church, the rule over these was reserved by the Bishop, while the local Presbyters, who should have been the rulers, were left to conduct in the several com- munities the general duties of the ministry in the dispensation of word and sacrament. In this way the title Bishop, which rightly belonged to all the members of the bench of Presbyters, was assumed by one man who exercised alone the Presbyterial function of government. This is the main issue between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, — Where does the right of rule reside ? — in a Bishop, or in a bench of Presbyters ? The office of ruling elder ceased in the church when the Episcopal theory became dominant.
From the fourth century to the era of the Reformation, from the very nature of the church polity which was universally accepted, there was no room for the ruling elder. Among writers on Presbyterianism it has, indeed, been very usual to maintain that this primitive institution of the ruling eldership had been retained in the constitution of the Waldensian Church, and that from this source it was introduced into the Swiss and Genevan Churches. This position, however, is now found to be quite unsupported by any historical evidence. The Reformers make no reference to the existence of this order among the Waldenses ; and in a letter written by a Waldensian to (Ecolampadius in 1550,1 the church constitution is spoken of in detail, and no mention is made of a ruling elder, but only of a Presbyterian ministry and Synod of Presbyters. The opinion now generally accepted is, that the Waldenses borrowed the institution of the eldership, and introduced it after the example of the Swiss Reformed Churches.
Luther insisted vigorously upon the rights of the Christian
people. He emphasized very strongly the universal priesthood
of believers, and constantly maintained that the difference
between the clergy and the laity did not imply any distinction of
1 See Lechler, Geschichfe der Preshyierial-Verfassutig, S. 4.
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 55
class and condition, but only a distinction between the regular and official discharge of duties, and the discharge of such as are more private and personal. Yet we do not find, with Luther, the establishment and formal recognition of the ruling eldership. It is in connection with the observance of the Lord's Supper and admission to the holy ordinance, that any reference is made by him to the need of such an institution. He acknowledges that matters were not ripe for the regular and satisfactory adminis- tration of discipline ; but in the ideal reformed church at which he aimed, provision for the effective exercise of discipline must be made. c The holy supper especially/ he says, ' must be guarded from unworthy, i.e. manifest sinners ; we dare not make ourselves partakers of the sins of others. But since whoever may be excommunicated must, first of all, be publicly convicted before the congregation, there is due also to the congregation, and that the congregation of the place, a voice in the matter ; for it concerns the souls belonging to the congregation, and there- fore the congregation should be furnished with judges.'1 In 1540, we find Luther joining with other Saxon Reformers in recommending that those churches which were engaged in the preparation of their constitution and form of polity, should provide for the restoration of church discipline by the appointment of elders in every congregation. Meanwhile, in 1526, a distinguished Lutheran theologian, John Brenz, had published a church order for the district of Halle, which, while of a very peculiar type, gave special prominence to the eldership. The peculiarity of the constitution lay in this, that it sought to make the eldership a consistory in which the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions were bound together. The elders were to be elected by the civil authorities. In primitive times, he said, civil government being in the hands of heathens or Jews, it was necessary to appoint from out of the church some honourable and venerable men who should diligently care for the church, exhort to careful living,
1 See Dorncr, History of Protestant Theology, translated by Rev. George Robson, vol. i. pp. 180, i8x.
56 PRESBYTERIANISM;
and, in case their exhortation were not listened to, and no repentance followed, should with the Bishop proceed to excom- munication. But now that the civil authorities are Christian, Brenz would have these authorities, on behalf of the Pastor or Presbyter, ordain some persons from among the citizens, who should hold a Synod and exhort transgressors. In various parts we find attempts made to affirm in some way the right and duty of the Christian Church to exercise discipline by means of regularly-appointed judges. Thus, Francis Lambert of Avignon (1487-1530), in his constitution prepared for the Hessian Churches, insists upon the principle of having elders appointed to visit the sick, and exercise discipline along with the pastors ; men to be chosen for the office who were most intelligent, distinguished, diligent, and pious among the members of the church ; and of their duties he gives a very admirable statement. This was the ideal ; but all that could be realized was the institution of a board, of which one-half the members were appointed by the civil autho- rities, and the other half by the church. In Zurich, again, Zwingli placed church government altogether in the hands of the state. Even in the Lutheran Church in certain Swiss states, and also in certain Genevan states, such weight was given to the civil authority, that the strange anomaly presented itself of an evan- gelical church only asking for a civil court instead of a congre- gational eldership by which to administer church discipline. (Ecolampadius, at Basel, strenuously maintained the right of the church to conduct her own judgments; at the same time declaring, that a purely clerical tribunal inevitably tended to become a tyranny, and therefore advancing a claim on behalf of ruling elders. Here the true conception is first clearly stated, but circumstances did not favour it being carried out. Martin Bucer secured the appointment of a court for the exercise of church discipline, consisting of eight members — four chosen by the state, two by the clergy, and two by the church. Last of all these Lutheran Church orders comes that of Capito (Frankfort, 1535), in which the elders appointed by Moses are made the model, and
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 57
the eldership is constituted of three members chosen by the state, and at least six chosen by the church. It is enjoined that these remain in office only three years, in order, it is shrewdly said, that several may learn church duties and interest themselves in church affairs. Here, through the predominance of members chosen by the congregation, is the Lutheran consistory first presented in a form at all worthy of being called an eldership.
When from those attempts made in the Lutheran and Swiss Churches to secure recognition of popular rights in the church, we pass to consider the endeavours of Calvin (1 509-1 564) to lay down the fundamental principles of church organization, we cannot fail to be at once struck with the difference of method which characterizes the Genevan Reformer's treatment of church questions. While the Lutherans start from the general scriptural principle of the universal priesthood of believers, and on this, base the claim of the Christian people to a voice in the courts of the church, Calvin proceeds directly to the New Testament for express authority, in the recognition and distinction of the several offices which are to be regarded as indispensable and necessary to the full organization of the church. All the passages in which reference is made to church office and constitution are examined (Institutes, Book iv. chap. i. sees. 1-10), and it is found that the ruling elder is one of the permanent church office-bearers. The office of the eldership is analogous to that of the municipal authorities ; but as its functions are spiritual, not civil, so it is entirely separate from, and independent of, any court of the state. In this theoretical presentation of the church rights, the thought will not for a moment be entertained which those Lutherans advanced who rested satisfied with action taken by the civil power. Between state and church there should be no antagonism, but just as little should there be confusion between them. ' The essential idea in Calvin's view of the church and its constitution is,' says Lechler, ' that he demands decidedly on behalf of church discipline a government distinct from the civil authority, speci- fically spiritual, yet not clerical, but administered by elders with
5 3 PRESBYTERIANISM.
pastors/ Calvin, according to his plan of church government elaborated in the Institutes, has no thought of allowing the state to have any hand in church discipline. The only alternatives, according to this theory, are between leaving the administration of discipline wholly to the clergy, or putting it in the hands of a council formed of the representatives of the people, with the pastors. The continuance, therefore, of the scriptural office of the ruling elder, as a distinct and regular officer in every congre- gation, is urged on the ground of expediency, to avoid any return to the clerical despotism of the Papacy. In 1541, when Calvin after his exile returned to Geneva, he found himself hampered by the presence of a civil authority which had called him in, and which meant to co-operate with him in carrying out his ecclesi- astical arrangements. Acting at once in connection with this constituted authority, Calvin did not obtain a congregational eldership, but had to be satisfied with a consistory or eldership, chosen for the church proportionately from the smaller and greater civic councils. This eldership Calvin himself in his Epistles calls by various names : — The Court of the Church, the Ecclesiastical Court, the Court of Presbyters, Consistorial Judges, Consistorial Elders (see Lechler, Geschkhie, S. 32-49). What he was able to accomplish, however, was not by any means what he had desired. Writing to Myconius, he says : — Now we have a court of Presbyters, and a form of discipline of such a kind as the weakness of the times allows. The special difficulty which beset the establishment of a church at Geneva on true Evangelical and Presbyterian principles lay in the friendliness of the state and the claim which this seemed to give, and which was enforced, for a direct and substantial state interference and control. There was at Geneva a Christian and Protestant state, just such as Brenz had desiderated, and the result was, as we have seen, in this one particular of the appointment of judges in ecclesiastical matters, that Calvin's ideal of church rights was set aside, and what should have been a church court was dominated by the civil authority.
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 59
When, however, from Geneva we turn to France, we find in the church established in Paris, and spreading out from that centre, a much more perfect church constitution. Beyond all question, the French Church was organized on the Genevan model. The circumstances, moreover, which prevented Calvin from attaining to his ideal, were not present in the case of the ' Church under the Cross. ' The State was not favourable, but Roman Catholic, and pronouncedly hostile ; and thus, amid all the sufferings which this state of matters occasioned, there was perfect freedom to develop the institutions of Presbyterianism according to the pure ideal of the Presbyterian theory. The constitution of the French Church was settled at the Synod which met at Paris in 1559. There are a few noticeable defects in this church constitution. Deacons, for example, are regarded as helpers to the elders, and share with them in the membership of the consistory, which determines all cases of church discipline, and exercises all ecclesiastical ruling functions ; and further, elders are simply engaged in discipline, and have no province assigned them in pastoral work. The grand and very important advances, how- ever, which the French Church constitution has made upon that of Geneva, deserves very special recognition. Here we first find in a church order the rights of the Christian people in the appointment of the members of her ecclesiastical courts clearly asserted and practically affirmed, and here, too, the elders have first a place secured for them side by side with the ministers in the General Synod.
The organization of the Scottish Reformed Church under John Knox was effected in 1560, the year immediately following the meeting of the Synod of Paris. The polity of the Church of Scotland is almost identical with that of the French Church, because it stands related in the very same way to Calvin and the Genevan Church order, and had, though with some characteristic differences, to contend against an unsympathetic, and in some respects directly hostile, civil authority. It is quite true that, at the time when Knox returned to Scotland in 1559, tne Papal
Co PRESBYTERIANISM.
jurisdiction had been repudiated ; yet, on the arrival of Mary from the French Court and the tuition of the Guises, there was immediately established in the land a strong Romish party, the monarch personally, and through her favourites and followers, owning herself the determined foe of the Reformed faith. The nobles, too, who had been most eager in the demolition of the old religious houses, greedily appropriated the revenues, and were in most cases lukewarm, if not positively hostile, to the establishment of religion in a purer form throughout the country. With the same model, impressed on the mind of Knox from his long residence in Geneva and intimate acquaintance with Calvin, and under the same conditions of courtly opposition and narrow- ness of temporal resources, we may not be surprised to find that the First Book of Discipline of 1560, which forms the earliest statement of the Scottish Church Polity, corresponds in almost all particulars with the Church Order of the French Synod of the previous year. In this formulary it is ordained that * men faithful and most honest of conversation that can be found in the Kirk ! are to be nominated, and from these the elders are to be elected ; and if any know men better qualified, then these too are to be nominated and put in election, ' that the Kirk may have the choice.5 Elders are to be chosen once a year, l lest of long continuance of such officers men presume upon the liberty of the Kirk/ and so that they may not be ' so occupied with the affairs of the Kirk, but that reasonably they may attend upon their domesticall business.5 Being elected, the elders are to assist the ministers in all public affairs of the Kirk, 'in determining and judging causes, in giving admonition to the licentious liver, in having respect to the manners and conversation of all men within their charge : for by the gravity of the seniors the light and un- bridled life of the licentious must be corrected and bridled.' ' Yea, the seniors ought also to take heed to the life, manners, diligence, and study of their ministers.5 The deacons, too, as in the French constitution, are regarded as helpers to the elders in the exercise of superintendence and discipline. In this earliest Book of Policy
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 6l
for the Scottish Church, we find the democratic tendency very strong, and decidedly in advance of any previous system of church organization. The right of the people to elect their office- bearers is here first sufficiently stated and provided for ; and jealousy for the preservation of these rights led to the yearly election of elders and deacons. Then, again, in advance of the French constitution, the spiritual and pastoral functions of the eldership are fully and clearly recognized. This book, though possessed of many remarkable excellences, was hastily drawn up, and owing to the unsettled state of the church, in which every- thing had to be begun, there was a good deal necessarily set down conditionally, — functions and offices referred to which could only be regarded as temporary institutions. Hence it was found necessary in 1578, six years after Knox's death, to prepare a Second Book of Discipline, improved and consolidated in accordance with the experience which the intervening years had afforded. In this book the deacons are entirely separated from the elders. The chapter on Elders and their office affirms the Apostolic origin of the institution : elders are called in the New Testament presidents or governors : the eldership is a spiritual function, as is the ministry ; once called, elders are not to leave their office : the chief are teachers, but all need not teach : severally and conjunctly, they are to watch publicly and privately over the flock committed to their charge : they are to assist the pastor in examining for admission to the Lord's table : and, specially, they are to hold assemblies with the pastors for the exercise of discipline. In this statement, we have all particulars regarding the elder and his office which need to be fixed by church authority expressed in a perfect form.
In regard to the institution of the Ruling Elder, there seems nothing special or distinctive in the constitution of the Presby- terian Church in England during the Reformation period. The First Book of Discipline, among the English Presbyterians, was prepared by Walter Travers, who was Hooker's colleague and opponent in the Temple ; and this book, published in 1574 at
62 PRKSBYTERIAN1SM.
Geneva, bore the significant title, The Holy Discipline of tht Church described from the Word of God. This work was origin- ally in Latin, but in 1584 an English translation appeared, with considerable alterations and improvements, by Thomas Cart- wright, the ablest and most influential of the early English Puritans. This formed the basis of the Westminster Assembly's Directory of Church Government, prepared in 1644. In regard to the office of the Ruling Elder, it was not acknowledged by many able members of the Assembly, but many equally dis- tinguished members, with all the Scotch representatives, argued powerfully in its defence. The final decision accepted was this : — It is agreeable to, and warranted by, the Word of God that some others besides the ministers of the Word, or church governors, should join with the ministers in the government of the church. To this fundamental principle all assented, with the exception of Lightfoot ; and it is noticeable that, with no further opposition than that of Dr. Temple, it was the scriptural authority for the institution (the texts Rom. xii. 7, 8 and 1 Cor. Mi. 28 were added), and not the admitted expediency of it, that was affirmed by the Assembly. Next, an attempt was made by the Erastians Coleman, Lightfoot, and Selden, to prove that the Jewish elders were civil officers, assisting Moses; while Gillespie sought to show that the Seventy were associated not only with Moses, but also with Aaron. The debate on this point was long, and led to no conclusion.1 It must now appear unwise, as it certainly is unnecessary, to seek any minute analogies between the Mosaic and the Christian eldership. For a plurality of ruling elders Gillespie argued, urging the example of the Jewish Church, where several elders were in the synagogue, the impossibility of one undertaking efficiently the work, and the necessity of maintenance for the elder, who would have laid on him an exhausting charge.2
1 Hetherington's History of Westmi?ister Assembly, ed. by Dr. Williamson, pp. 159--161 ; Gillespie's A ssertio?i of the Government of the Church of Scotland, chap. iii.
2 Gillespie's Notes of Proceedings of Westminster Assembly of Divines, May 3rd, 164 \.
THE PRESBYTER AS RULING ELDER. 6$
Among the Independents too, the expediency of recognizing an ofiicc of ruling in the church was generally admitted ; and Dr. John Owen argued ably in defence of the institution on scriptural grounds, especially emphasizing the usual Presbyterian interpretation of i Tim. v. 17. A manifesto of the Independents was published by Wm. Bradshaw (1571-1618), in which the office of ruling elder and its importance was fully recognized. 4 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 diocese, 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 spiritual regiment of the congregation, who are by office, jointly with the ministers of the land, to be as monitors and overseers of the manners and conversation of all the congregation and one of another, so that every one may be more wary of their ways, and that the pastors and doctors may better attend to prayer and doctrine, and by these means be better acquainted with the estate of the people, when other eyes besides their own shall wake and watch over them.' x No better account of the advantages of the ruling eldership could have been given by the most consistent Presbyterian.
In many cases where objection is made to the institution of ruling elders, other officers, such as deacons, have the elders' duties laid upon them. In the Church of Scotland previous to 1843, the state of matters was rather the converse of this. The office of deacon having generally fallen into abeyance, there was but one congregational church court in most parishes, by which all duties relating to discipline and distribution had to be dis- charged. The result, in a large measure, was the secularization of the Session. Duties connected with the oversight and aid of the parish poor, now relegated to Parochial Boards (deacons in the Free Church attending specially to the congregational poor), were performed by the Kirk-session, the eldership generally
1 Quoted by Dr. King, Presbyterian Church Government, pp. 155, 156.
64 PRESBYTERIANISM.
acting as trustees and managers for the heritors. Under the reign of Moderatism, the spiritual functions of the ruling elder were lost sight of, and attention to outward parochial affairs was regarded as exhaustive of the duties of the Session. Now, in all the sections of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the import- ance of the elders as labourers together with the pastor in the spiritual and evangelistic work of the congregation is heartily recognized. The institution of the eldership, as thus understood and developed, constitutes one of the grand elements in Presbv« terianism, which have rendered our church system so successful in consolidating what we have, and carrying on aggressive enterprises.
CHAPTER III.
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER.
1. Special Office of Preacher gradually recognized. — In consider- ing the question of church office in the earliest Christian com- munities, it is important to keep in memory the peculiarities and special conditions of the age. From the writings of the Apostles, and especially from the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, it is made very evident that the spiritual endowments of church members in the Apostolic Age were not only far in advance of the average attainments of church members in subsequent ages, but were altogether of a different order, and qualified the possessors of them for work laid to their hand by the necessities of the times. Immediately after the record given in Mark xvi. 15 of the Apostolic commission, we have the promise given, not to Apostles only, but to all that believe, of miraculous endow- ments of the very highest order. These were the creation days of the Christian Church, and the calling into being of any new thing necessarily implies the presence and application of uncommon agencies. Just as in the material creation we find the miraculous element present, so that in the several kingdoms of nature, that is produced by the utterance of the divine word, which in all subsequent ages is carried on by the orderly operation of natural laws ; so also, in the origination of the Christian Church as a spiritual creation, we find miraculous gifts granted to the several individual converts, settled in various centres, for the
66 PRESBYTERIANISM.
accomplishment in the beginning of that which subsequently must be carried on by a regularly-constituted human instrumen- tality. We have the express and oft-quoted testimony of Hilary the Deacon, that in the beginning all taught and all baptized, as opportunity offered. This witness, from a period when the current practice was very different from that of apostolic times, is of considerable importance. In the New Testament itself, how- ever, we have ample proof and illustration of the unrestricted liberty enjoyed by all members of the church in the exercise of their gifts. Throughout the fourteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians this is made apparent, especially in vv. 26-31. The gift of prophesying spoken of in this chapter is characterized by Paul (vv. 1-5) as the chief charism, or gift of grace most to be coveted. It is impossible to distinguish this prophesying from teaching or preaching ; for, says the Apostle in verse third, c He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.' And it is of this gift, so evidently that of one qualified to fill the office of preacher, that Paul says, addressing the members of the Corinthian Church, 1 Ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.' The right to prophesy depended upon the possession of the charism, or gift of prophecy, and as a requisite of the church in the first stage of its development this gift was generally distributed. So long as this was so, there could be no thought of the institution of a distinct and special office for the function of preaching.1 The establishment of any office in the
1 ' In the primitive age of Christianity, preaching properly so called is unknown. This is the age of inspiration. Utterance is free, spontaneous, fervid, and irrepressible in the assemblies of the Christians. There is the full exercise of the gift of prophecy — the miraculous manifestation of the Divine Spirit. When this impassioned utterance subsides, it is for a long time followed only by simple testimony borne to the great facts of redemption, the brief, heartfelt recital of the gospel story, which is not at this time embodied in any written documents of a canonical character. Preaching only com- menced when the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit had become rare, and when recourse was had to the newly-written sacred books.' — Pressense\ Life and Practice i?i the Early Chu?'ch, Bk. II. chap. v. § 3.
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 67
church, as we have clearly seen, is determined by the church's need. We have shown how everywhere the ruling office, from the very nature of the case, was immediately seen to be indis- pensable, and in the smallest of the young Christian communities was filled by the first-fruits of the Apostles' labours, because everywhere the need of regulation, organization, and discipline was recognized. Similarly, as soon as the supernatural gifts which characterized the Apostolic Age, and qualified the church membership of that period for carrying on the work of teaching and preaching, had passed away, the presence of qualified teachers was required, and these were naturally sought from among the most spiritual and talented of those who already held the office of ruler. Thus came about gradually that separation of Presbyters into two classes — those who teach and rule, and those who rule only.
It is further to be remembered that the preaching of primitive times — such as ordinary members engaged in, as distinguished from the breaking of new ground and the laying of foundations, as was done by the Apostles and their specially equipped delegates — was, in respect of its form at least, not such as called for the exercise of pre-eminent gifts of intellect or eloquence. What was specially desiderated was the glow of spiritual sym- pathy and enthusiasm, and the fervour of a strong personal conviction in the narrating of the simple facts of the gospel story. When, afterwards, this story was written down, and in the pos- session of the several churches, and when side by side with this the rich doctrinal matter of the Apostolical Epistles came to be studied generally in the church, and mastered by the members of the church, just in proportion to the intellectual advancement of the people would the need of a specially trained ministry become evident. This, then, is really the sound plea on behalf of a thoroughly educated ministry, that — inasmuch as it is the duty of the ministry to interpret to mixed audiences the truths contained in Scripture, which to many must be done authorita- tively, requiring a well-balanced judgment, and a mind trained
63 PRESBYTERIANISM.
and exercised in such pursuits, and inasmuch as the advanced standard of education demands, in order to secure the respect and maintain the confidence of the people, a more than average degree of culture — he, who would regularly and officially minister in the word, must have a special and professional training in the word. This demand for a class of men, more or less specially trained, implies the recognition of an office which such alone can fill. This office is that of the teaching or preaching Presbyter. In the Apostolic Age there were gifts of prophesying, teaching, exhorting ; so soon as the possession of such gifts ceased to be common to the members, the need was felt and expressed for having in the church a regular office, in which particularly endowed individuals might exercise their gifts. In this office, foreshadowed by the charisms of New Testament times, room is given not only for the utilization of such gifts, but also for the education and development of them in those in whom they may be latent. One of the marked contrasts of primitive and modern church institutions lies in the prominence now given to the preaching office.
2. Nature of the Office — Ministerial, not Sacerdotal. — In the earliest times the teaching or preaching office was conceived of in a way extremely simple. As its characteristic function was the unfolding of the truth before taught by Jesus and His Apostles, he who occupied this office was regarded simply as a minister who took the words of truth presented him, and, by means of these, ministered to the people. The Presbyter of New Testament times, whether in the exercise of the functions of ruling, or in the exercise of the functions of teaching, was strictly enjoined (i Pet. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 24) not to conduct himself as though he were a lord over God's heritage. Christ had Himself contrasted the con- ditions of earthly pre-eminence and of exaltation in His kingdom. Those who would gain distinction with Him must have in them a humility like His own. He who was among men as one that served required, on the part of His witnesses and representa-
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 69
tives, a similar attitude in relation to their fellow-men. In this spirit Paul characteristically describes himself as at once the servant of Jesus Christ the Lord, and the servant of the church for Jesus' sake (2 Cor. iv. 5). This attitude on the part of the ministry of the church was in strict accordance with the pure doctrines of grace which in those early days were maintained ; and so long as those pure doctrines prevailed, this simple view of the officers of the church, as servants of God for men, was everywhere accepted. Gradually, however, during the third and fourth centuries, the simplicity of New Testament teaching was departed from, and in proportion as the doctrines of grace were obscured, hierarchical views concerning the ecclesiastical office began to prevail. Sacramentarianism and Sacerdotalism de- veloped side by side. While in earlier and purer days men had taught that salvation was to be had only through the exercise of simple faith in Christ, it was now being taught, more or less distinctly, that there was some mysterious, magical power in the sacraments, and that the Eucharist was a sacrifice offered to God, and accepted by Him on behalf of the worshipper, who thus became an offerer. It was inevitable that the officer, who repre- sented the people and personally performed the service for them, should be regarded, since that which he performed was called a sacrifice, no longer simply as a minister, but as a priest. Accord- ingly we find Cyprian (toward the middle of the third century) describing the Bishop as a priest presiding at the eucfcaristic sacrifice ; and other writers of the same age simply carried out the same tendencies, and gave expression to ideas latent in this conception, when they spoke of the Bishop as a divine being, and a Mediator between God and man. The circumstances of the church in Cyprian's time contributed greatly to the develop- ment of sacerdotal views. Schism had broken out, and had to be suppressed with a firm hand. The very appearance of revolt tended to create in the minds of church leaders an exaggerated and onesided idea of the importance of ecclesiastical unity and the need of consolidation and centralization. Cyprian's great
^O PRESBYTERIANISM.
thought, in this contest with the Schismatics, and afterward, was the unity of the church. Henceforth the church, as an institution, was made to bulk much more largely than before in theological controversy : the officers of the church were clothed with an altogether unique authority : to oppose them was to oppose the church, and to rebel against God. In the exercise of their awful prerogatives, the Bishops of the Cyprianic theory not only de- livered final and irreversible judgments, but were endowed with power to forgive sins. In this last claim, the sacerdotal element becomes specially prominent. It was, however, only through a complete perversion of the Christian idea of worship that the notion of a priestly service could possibly find an entrance. In Jewish and in Pagan worship there were material sacrifices which necessarily required the services of a sacrificing priest ; but in Christian worship there were only recognized spiritual sacrifices (i Pet. ii. 5), which no select band of church officers, but all church members as a holy Priesthood of believers, were required to offer up unto God.
When the threefold classification of church officers had come to be generally adopted in the church, it was not unusual to seek in the Jewish hierarchy a parallel for these distinctions by way of illustration and justification, the Bishop being called the Chief Priest (summits sac er do s)\ the Presbyter, the Priest (sacerdos); and the Deacon, the Levite. The name priest (sacerdos), to which, as applied to the Christian minister, currency was first given by Tertullian (beginning of the third century), while its use was confirmed and widely established by Cyprian, his younger contemporary, was evidently borrowed from the hierarchical terminology of the Old Testament, but the tendency of thought which led to the use of the word was largely determined by the influence of surrounding heathenism. It must, indeed, be quite apparent that the constant observance of Pagan religious practices, and association with them, more or less, must have greatly tended to secure currency in Christian communities for such terms as implied, or were in their application fitted to
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 7 I
introduce and foster, sacerdotal views. Though the terminology is itself certainly Jewish, it is noticeable that sacerdotalism prevailed earlier, and was diffused in the West more generally than in the East. In the North African Church, Tertullian and Cyprian advocated an advanced sacerdotalism, while in Alexandria, the terms which literally suggested priestly functions were regularly interpreted in a spiritual manner. Lightfoot, too, points out that the earliest trace we have of the application of the name priest to a Christian minister is in the writings of the heathen Lucian.
In so far as the use of our own word priest is concerned, it should be remembered that etymologically it is only a shorter form of Presbyter. Its associations, however, are unfortunate. Whether we think of its use in the Old Testament, or of its use in classical writings, it has always been employed in connection with the offering of sacrifice. The priest must have an altar or something to offer. Hence, generally, where the name is retained for the Christian ministry, the communion table is converted into an altar, and the elements of the Supper into a eucharistic sacrifice. Hence, both Hooker (Eccles. Pol., Bk. v. ch. 78) and Bishop Lightfoot (Com. on Phil., Excursus on Chr. Min., p. 186), — as representing the learned evangelical Anglicans of earlier and later times, — recognize the advantage of returning to the use of the old wrord Presbyter.
In opposition to all sacerdotal conceptions of the ministerial office, it is enough to point out the absence from the New Testament Scriptures of all terms implying priestly power as belonging to church officers, while these are freely used in reference to the general body of believers ; the exhaustive enu- meration of priestly orders in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we have the order of Aaron which has passed away, and the order of Melchizedec in which there is only one priest, and he for ever, the Lord Jesus Christ ; that among the immediate followers of the Apostles there is no trace of such views dis- coverable ; and finally, that any such notion is utterly incon-
72 PRESBYTERIANISM.
sistent with the New Testament doctrine of Christ's person and work.
3. The Apostolic Cilice without Succession. — Those Episcopalians who claim to have Scripture authority for their special form of church government, maintain that the Prelatical Bishop is the successor of the New Testament Apostle, and that in conse- quence of this origin, Bishops have the exclusive right of ordi- nation. Bilson, in his Perpetual Government of the Church (ch. xiii. p. 334), summarily expresses the distinctive characteristics of the Episcopate as consisting in these two particulars : singu- larity in succeeding, and superiority in ordaining. The Bishops' exclusive right to ordain rests on the supposition of their having succeeded to the prerogatives and endowments of the Apostles. By Episcopalian controversialists it is generally assumed, some- times attempts are made to prove, that the Apostles ordained their own successors, and that an unbroken line of descent may be traced from the Apostles and their immediate successors, down to the Prelates of the present day. As a mere matter of historical research this can never be made out. It can be proved conclusively that simple Presbyters among the ancient Culdees in Scotland for several centuries ordained the Scottish clergy ; and not only so, but they ordained the Bishops of the Northern and Midland parts of England, who, therefore, with all those who received ordination from them, owe their orders to men who were not, and never claimed to be, successors of the Apostles as Prelatical Bishops. It can also be proved of some English Prelates that they never did receive ordination from a Bishop. It is matter of history that one Archbishop of Canterbury was instituted simply by the king without any ecclesiastical conse- cration. Of Archbishop Tillotson, who was the son of a Baptist, it cannot be shown that he was ever baptized. Consequently the ordinations made by all such must be regarded as invalid, and the pretended line of succession is thus cast into irretrievable confusion. A singularly long and varied list of irregularities in
THE TRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 73
regard to Ordinations in all periods of the church's history will be found in Brown's Exclusive Claims of Puseyile Episcopacy ', Letters xiv.-xviii. ; Dr. Lindsay Alexander's Anglo-Catholicism ; and Whately on the Kingdom of Christ. The last-named writer has admirably summed up the result of such historical inquiries. ' There is not a minister in Christendom,' he says, 1 who is able to trace up, with any approach to certainty, his own spiritual pedigree. If a Bishop has not been duly consecrated, his ordinations are null ; and so are the ministrations of those ordained by him, and so on, without end. The taint of infor- mality, if once it creep in, will spread the infection of nullity to an indefinite extent. And who can pronounce that, during the dark ages, no such taint was ever introduced? Irregularities could not have been wholly excluded without a perpetual miracle ; and that no such miraculous interference took place, we have even historical proof. We read of Bishops consecrated when mere children — of men officiating who barely knew their letters— of Prelates expelled and others put into their place by violence — of illiterate and profligate laymen, and habitual drunkards, admitted to holy orders — and, in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder and indecency.' It is, indeed, very remarkable that honest-minded students of history, who believe that only those who have received ordination in a line of regular descent from the Apostles can exercise a true and valid ministry, should be able to regard without doubt and misgiving the existing ministry of any church on earth.
The immediate followers of the Apostles did not make any claim, on their own behalf, of such succession. It was not by them, but for them, that this claim was first made. The earliest traces which we can find of any expression that suggests the appearance of the idea of Apostolic Succession are in the writings of Tertullian and Irenasus, toward the end of the second century ; but the connection in which these statements occur seems to require us to explain them of the succession of true Apostolic doctrine, and not of Apostolic rank. When we come down half
74 PRESBYTERIANISM.
a century later, we find Cyprian boldly assuming the identity of the Apostolic and Episcopal offices. In speaking of the Bishop in one of his Epistles, he explains the name by saying, c that is, Apostle.' Thus, at least a century and a half from the death of the last of the original Apostles have passed, and from the records of that period no clear testimony can be got to support the notion that Bishops were regarded as the successors of the Apostles. During this period, however, there were Bishops ; but these clearly were not of the order of Prelatical Bishops who claim for themselves Apostolic Succession. In the Apostolic Age, and throughout the century following, the Bishops of the Church were Bishops in the New Testament sense. They were simply Presbyters, or, at most, presiding Presbyters in each and every particular church. Many of the older writers in defence of Episcopacy regarded it as essential to their argument to assume that in the New Testament we have the three orders of the ministry expressly named, — Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons ; but with scarcely an exception it is now admitted that the names Bishop and Presbyter, as employed in the Apostolical Epistles, are intended always to designate one and the same officer. Bishop Lightfoot, for instance, has shown conclusively how impossible it is to deny this, and in order to prevent confusion between the ancient and modern use of the name Bishop, he even translates Phil. i. i, Presbyters and Deacons. The name Bishop {episcopos) originated in the Gentile churches, was a term commonly applied to administrative officers in municipal or civil associations ; the name Elder or Presbyter, on the other hand, had its origin in the Jewish-Christian communities, and was borrowed from the familiar arrangements of the synagogue. When both names became generally current, the name Bishop would indi- cate the duties of oversight which belonged to the office, while the name Presbyter or Elder would more readily indicate the dignity and reverence due to those who occupied it. This distinction, though certainly not always observed, may be illustrated by many passages : thus in Acts xx, 28, 1 Tim. iii. 1, etc., 1 Pet. v. 2, the
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 75
term Bishop or Overseer is used with direct reference to the nature of the work engaged upon ; while in Acts xv. 2, etc., and 1 Tim. v. 1, 19, the term Presbyter or Elder is used with immediate refer- ence to the dignity belonging to the office. It may therefore be accepted as granted on all hands that the New Testament Bishop is the same as the New Testament Presbyter. Such Bishops, who are nothing more than Presbyters, are not the successors of the Apostles of whom Episcopalians are in search. Those con- troversialists, therefore, who still endeavour to find scriptural ground on which to base the exclusive claims of Prelatical Bishops, being thus obliged to abandon the old argument from the employment of the name Bishop in the New Testament, employ their utmost skill and ingenuity, in order to find out in the records of Apostolic times, the mention of any individuals who are to be expressly distinguished from Presbyters, by the posses- sion of certain prerogatives which are distinctly and conclusively Apostolic. When this attempt is made to find instances in Scripture of ordinations, at the hands of the Apostles themselves, to the Apostolic office, we find two cases invariably adduced. It is maintained that the office of Timothy and Titus was that of the Apostleship directly conferred upon them by the Apostle Paul ; and it is also affirmed, that this is the official standing of those who are named the Angels respectively of the seven churches of Asia.
The office of Timothy and Titus seems to have engaged the attention of all Episcopal writers. Many other names, such as those of Diotrephes, Epaphroditus, Barnabas, etc., are often mentioned ; but whatever uncertainty may attach to the nature of the office held by them, it is generally maintained that, beyond all question, Timothy and Titus were Bishops in the Prelatical sense of the term, that they held apostolic rank, and that in con- sequence of this position they made ordinations of Presbyters in the churches. If we follow the historical notices regarding Timothy and Titus, we shall find them always closely associated with the Apostle Paul. This characteristic was laid hold of, and
7 6 PRESBYTERIANISM.
is made prominent in the writings of several leading church Fathers. By Tertullian they are called Apostolic men ; by Jerome, sons of the Apostles ; and by Augustine, suppares Apostolis, substitutes of the Apostles, almost equal to them (comp. Brown, Puseyite Episcopacy, Letter xii. p. 194). The whole tone, too, of Paul's addresses to Timothy and Titus, not only does not suggest the idea of equality of rank, but plainly implies subordination. He issues his instructions to them, determines their duties for them and urges them to the faithful performance of these. They are, in short, Apostolic delegates, who simply act authoritatively so long as they are engaged in executing what the Apostle had appointed them expressly to do. In one place (2 Tim. iv. 5), Paul exhorts Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist. This ranks as one of the orders of church office-bearers mentioned in Eph. iv. 11; and Timothy and Titus seem to be fairly reckoned in this class. Their functions in Ephesus and Crete cannot be shown to be permanent. Thus Titus was to remove from Crete, and join the Apostle at Nicopolis (Tit. iii. 12). Sharers of Apostolic rank they evidently were not, neither can they be regarded as prototypes of resident diocesan Bishops. Of any claim on their behalf to pre-eminence over the Presbyters, save in the fulfilment of their temporary mission, Scripture yields no trace. With reference to the office of those named the Angels of the churches of Asia, it is surely extremely hazardous to build an argument upon a name used in a passage of Scripture which presents a highly idealized picture of various stages of church life. Like the term Apostle, which may mean generally one sent on any errand, or one bearing a special commission, Angel simply means messenger, and may be applied to a personage compara- tively humble or the most exalted. As used in the book of Revelation, the term Angel seems to apply to the ministry of the church collectively ; so that if the seven churches represent different aspects and conditions of church life, the Angels repre- sent the ministry, in distinction from the general membership. But even supposing them to be individuals, we have no proof
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 77
that they were other than Presbyters, or that they pretended to and exercised Apostolic prerogatives.
And now we turn to the fundamental question under this section, Is the Apostolic office to be regarded as temporary or permanent ? This question can be answered, only when we understand what the special and distinguishing characteristics of the Apostles' office were. It is declared to have been indis- pensable to the vindication of one's apostleship to show that he had seen the Risen Saviour, and was thus constituted a witness of the Resurrection (Acts i. 22 ; 1 Cor. ix. 1), that he enjoyed a special inspiration securing to him an infallible knowledge of the divine will (Gal. i. u, 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 1-3 ; 2 Pet. i. 16), and that he was able, not only to work miracles, but also to confer miraculous gifts upon others (2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Acts viii. 18). When an addition was to be made to the number of the eleven by filling up the place left vacant by the fall of Judas, the indispensable condition for candidature was fellowship with Jesus during his earthly life. ' Now such an office, consisting of so many extra- ordinary privileges and miraculous powers, requisite for the foundation of the church and diffusing of Christianity, was not designed to continue by derivation ; for it contained in it divers things which evidently were not communicable, and which no man in after times, without gross imposture and hypocrisy, could challenge to himself. Neither did the Apostles profess to communicate it. They did, indeed, appoint standing pastors and teachers in each church. They did assume fellow-labourers in the work of preaching and governance. But they did not con- stitute Apostles like themselves. Their Apostolic office expired with their persons.'1 It should be remembered that the Apostles, while superior to all other church officers, exercised the functions of all inferior offices. The Apostle was also Presbyter and Deacon. In the discharge of these subordinate functions, Apostles were patterns to those whom they ordained, and in this sense Presby- ters and Deacons were successors of the Apostles, and were 1 Barrow's I Vorks, vol. i. p. 74. (Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy. ) F
78 PRESBYTERIANISM.
spoken of by the Apostles as their fellow-labourers. The pre- rogatives of the Apostles were such as only the emergency of the times required. The right of ordination is a permanent need of the church, and is no exclusive possession of the Apostles.
4. Parity in the Ministerial Office. — In the Epistles of the New Testament, we have frequent reference to the existence of a con- stituted authority in the church, to the relation subsisting between two classes distinguished respectively as rulers and ruled. The duties and responsibilities of the rulers are repeatedly laid down and enforced, and similarly, the obligations and proper attitude of those under authority are clearly expressed. It is noticeable that in every case where this relation of ruler and ruled within the church is referred to, the ruler is one holding a church office, and the ruled is the flock or the general membership of the church. There are overseers of the work, but no mention is made of over- seers of those who hold the pastoral office in the several churches. We have no hint of any higher jurisdiction than that rightfully belonging to all who, by virtue of their office, labour in word and doctrine.
It is further to be noted, that those who rule are not dis- tinguished from those who are ministers of the word, as though they formed of necessity a separate class, much less a superior grade. If we place together the 7th and the 17th verses of the thirteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we shall see that those who watch for the souls under their care, as officially accountable for the performance of this spiritual work, are described as the rulers to whom obedience is due from the members of the churches.
If, again, we consider the several orders of church officers named in the Apostolic Epistles, whether extraordinary or ordinary, we shall find no reason to suppose that there was among the members of these orders any official inequality. This might have been fairly expected to result from the application of a broad principle laid down by Christ Himself in certain memor-
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 79
able counsels addressed by Him to His own disciples. In the most express terms our Lord forbade any assumption of pre- eminence on the part of any of the Apostles (Matt. xx. 20-28). What was proper and might be necessary in civil governments, — gradations and distinctions of authority and rank, — was to find no place among them. c All majority of power, all greatness of jurisdiction of one over the rest, is by our Lord forbidden to his ministers,' — is the sensible remark on this passage by David Dickson, the old Scottish commentator. The Apostles, as extra- ordinary office-bearers, are certainly to have authority in the church ; and other ordinary office-bearers must afterwards, on the expression of the church's needs, have official authority and presidency granted them, — but among themselves there is only to be a relation of mutual service, no one is to have authority or pre-eminence over another. It is evidently assumed, in the Epistles of the Apostles, that this principle applies to all official orders within the church. Just as all the Apostles were enjoined to maintain their original parity, the same rule must apply to Presbyters and to Deacons, when these orders shall have been instituted.
During the Apostolic and immediately succeeding age, we find the pastoral or teaching and the ruling functions discharged by one officer. After the general admission that the names Bishop and Presbyter, as used in the New Testament, designate the same office-bearer, we shall be certainly entitled to place together the several functions ascribed to such officers, whether under the one name or the other. Now we find Presbyters exhorted (1 Pet. v. 2), by exercising oversight (Episcopal functions), to feed the flock ; and we find Presbyters also enjoined (Acts xx. 28) to have a care over themselves and over the flock, in the exercise of Episcopal functions, feeding the church of God. In such passages, it is clearly intended to show that the duty of oversight, that is to say, the Episcopal function, has reference directly to the spiritual tending of the members of the church. Then again, Heb. xiii. 7 brings together in one person the ruler and the
So PRESBYTERIANISM.
teacher. In this passage it is evident that, according to the Apostolic rule, the right to govern in the church belongs to those who are ministers of the word — that the ministry of the word, as the higher function, involves and carries with it the prerogative of ruling as the lower function. Whoever, therefore, occupies the official rank of teacher, is by reason of this office also thereby instituted a ruler. Thus from the use of the word Bishop or Overseer (cpiscopos), we reach the assertion of the truth of ministerial parity, inasmuch as every episcopos, being a pastor and teacher, is also ex officio a. ruler, — discharges by right of his office the full circle of ministerial functions, pastoral and rectoral. The same conclusion is reached from the use of the name Presbyter, which, as we have seen, in its original application referred more immediately to rule, so that whatever distinctions in the members of the Presbyterate might afterwards take place (i Tim. v. 17), whatever additional functions certain Presbyters might discharge, that of government was common to all. When we take a full view of what is told us concerning the functions of the Presbyter Bishop {episcopos, Presbyter), we find no indication of any higher office, whether for rule or for delivery of the truth, but every indication of parity among ministers of the word in the discharge of their twofold functions.
We therefore hold that there is Scripture ground for maintain- ing the complete official equality of all Presbyter Bishops. There is no function which one may legitimately discharge which any other, bearing that office, may not perform. Inasmuch, too, as the Apostles had no successors in their office, there is no trace found of any rank superior to that of Presbyter. Episcopalians persist in claiming for their Bishops the exclusive right of administering the affairs of the clergy, and also of ordination. Strip them of these prerogatives, and Prelatical bishops have no distinctive functions. In Acts xx. 28, Presbyters not only rule over the members, but exercise supervision over one another. Ordinations are reported in the New Testament as made by Presbyters, they evidently being conceived as endowed with the power to confer
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 8 1
on others their own rank. It is only after a long struggle, and by gradual advances, as the President of the Presbytery becomes transformed into a Bishop, and the functions of the Presbytery are absorbed by one member, that the right of ordination, originally belonging to the Presbyterian conclave, comes to be regarded as the exclusive privilege of an absolute Prelate.
5. Ordination to the Ministerial Office. — From all that has yet been said, it might seem as if no actual line of demarcation had been drawn between the office of Ruling Elder and that of Preacher, inasmuch as the name Presbyter and the ruling function which that name implies have been freely attributed to both. We come now to show how that distinction is brought out in ordination. It has been argued by some that ordination as a Presbyter being conferred upon the Ruling Elder, no further ordination is proper on admission to the pastoral office. The line of argument which those holding such views generally follow is this : — Ministers and elders have different offices, but are of the same order ; ordination admits to order, not to office ; and, therefore, all that can be conferred by ordination is already conferred in admission to the eldership. It is further maintained that while ordination admits to order, election by the people admits to office. In opposition to this, the true Presbyterian theory, as maintained by the Westminster divines and in the | Books of Constitution adopted in the Presbyterian Churches, insists that ordination admits to office, and confers order only because it confers office. By way of illustrating this position, Dr. Hodge {The Church and its Polity, p. 272) refers to the distinction of order and office in civil arrangements. The nobility in any land is an order ; under that order are included, or rather, that order is made up of, several classes, ranks, offices. No one can be ennobled by being in a general way reckoned in the order of nobles, but must be appointed to some particular class included in that order — baron, earl, marquis, duke. So cne is introduced to the clerical order only by receiving some
82 PRESBYTERIANISM.
clerical office. Dr. Bannerman {The Church of Christ \ vol. i. pp. 4, 32, 470) has been at pains to show that it is the gift and calling of God that confer the office, while ordination admits to office. Now this distinction rather affects the parties eligible for ordination than the ordinance itself. It would therefore seem simpler and more accurate to say that ordination confers the office, but the special grace and blessing, prayed for in ordi- nation, and necessary for the discharge of the functions of the office, come only to those who have this call of God. The Con- stitution of our Church and its Formularies presuppose this view of ordination, where it is declared that, after the ordination prayer, the moderator formally receives and admits the new minister in the name of the Presbytery, and by authority of the Divine Head of the church, to the pastoral charge of the congregation. The ordination is to office, and so, inasmuch as the eldership and the ministry, though having common Presbyterial functions, are yet distinct offices, there is properly a separate ordination to each.
6. The Ministerial Office in the History of the Church. — It is not to the very earliest years of Christianity that we can go back fof the first view of the preacher as a distinct and recognized office* bearer of the church. At first all preached and all baptized. It is when we pass to the later period of the Apostolic Age — perhaps to the last decade of the first century — that we find unmistakeable traces of the regular appointment, in the several churches, of stated and regular ministers of the word. The Apostles and Evangelists exercised their ministry wherever they went. The elders ordained in every church, besides themselves ministering, secured an edifying and orderly exercise of the gifts of unofficial but spiritually - endowed members. When, in the churches generally, those supernatural gifts were discontinued, the dis- tinction among the Presbyters, according to the predominance of preaching or ruling power, which had already shown itself in the Apostles' time (1 Tim. v. 17), became more marked; the preaching function gained prominence, until what had been
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. S3
simply a distinction of gift and function became a distinction of offices. Thus the two ordinary church functions exercised by the Apostles — the ministry of the word and the administration of discipline — came to be regarded, at the time when Apostles and Apostolic men were passing away, as the characteristic duties of the pastoral office. Clement of Rome, writing before the death of the Apostle John, speaks only of Presbyter Bishops as ministers charged with the spiritual interests of the church ; and Irenaeus, during the second half of the second century, speaks of Presbyters as having a succession of the Episcopate from the Apostles, especially emphasizing the fact of their having received the sure grace of truth. The prevalent conception of the Presbyter Bishop, immediately aftej: the Apostolic Age, is that which represents him as the custodier and deliverer of sacred and saving truth. Throughout the century and a half which intervened between the Apostolic Age and the appearance of Cyprian, the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was one of degree rather than of kind ; the pre-eminence of the Bishop was one of order and presidency ; and the Presbyter and Bishop exercised in common the twofold Presbyterial office, in the administration of discipline, and in the proclamation of the truth. Even during the third century, the Presbyter, though secondary in rank, and always referred to as subordinate, is yet named alongside of the Bishop and closely associated with him in spiritual work. The qualifications of the Presbyter are practically the same as the qualifications of the Bishop. And even when the exclusive right of ordination had been claimed for the Bishop, baptism and confirmation were still administered by Presbyters. Whatever hierarchical claims may have been and were advanced theoretically on behalf of the Bishop, practically he was a parish minister, and, apart from special crises and emergencies, his work was that of a parochial, not a diocesan, Bishop. Every little town had its Bishop. In many such cases, the Christian community must have formed but one congregation, and that one small. His ordinary functions, therefore, would be those cf
84 PRESBYTERIANISM.
the Presbyter. The Bishop had thus gradually assumed to himself duties previously discharged by a bench of Presbyters. The movement was monarchical. In the course of development, the administration of discipline which belonged to several Pres- byters was administered by one Presbyter who was called Bishop. This was the only meaning of Bishop known in the third century. The very memory of the New Testament Bishops, who were Presbyters acting jointly, had completely passed away, till in the fourth century it was recovered by Jerome and other painstaking students of the divine record. For a time the one Presbyter, who had arrogated to himself full Presbyterial rights, kept up the form of consulting with his bench of Presbyters. By and by this form, after it had become a mere form, was discontinued. So far as the church service was concerned, in many places there were only the Bishop and Deacons. The Presbyters associated nominally with the Bishop were there probably in seats of honour, but with no duties to perform. These had been assumed by the Bishop, who in their discharge was assisted by the Deacons. But Hist in this third century sprang up the notion of sacerdotal unctions as belonging to the clergy. From being a Presbyter empowered to exercise discipline, the Bishop came to be regarded as an Apostle, commissioned to forgive sins ; from being a labourer in word and doctrine, he came to be viewed as one inspired to communicate infallible truth. The idea of the Presbyter vanished in that of the Priest. With the multiplication of smaller Christian communities the number of Presbyters increased. Each rural and suburban charge was ministered to by Presbyters under the immediate supervision of the Bishop. But the Presbyter's functions had altogether changed. As the sacerdotal theory of ecclesiastical office advanced, the function of preaching became of less importance. The priest, in whom the old Presbyter is scarcely recognizable, occupied himself in ritual performances. His work lay not in the pulpit, but at the altar and in the con- fessional. During the Middle Ages, preaching was quite an occasional thing. Members of certain orders were commissioned
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 85
to engage upon the work from time to time, so as to lend a helping hand at some point where the church seemed to be losing hold, or to give a spasmodic impulse to the recognition of moral and spiritual truth. The preacher, as such, had no official or recognized standing in the church.
The early history of our Scottish Church is interesting in the record of ecclesiastical organization, inasmuch as, for a long period, its work was carried on by simple Presbyters. Its ordinations were made, its sacraments were dispensed, its evangelistic and missionary labours were wrought, by men who could lay no claim to any Apostolic succession conveyed by the hands of Bishops. Owing mainly to their isolated position, the British churchmen long retained the comparatively pure traditions and practices of the early church, uninfluenced by, and unacquainted with, the more recent developments, ritual and doctrinal, of the Church of Rome. Even when they came into contact with the Romish views, and conformed their general discipline to the approved pattern of the age, they had sufficient independence of thought and action to defend, in many important particulars, their own purer creed and simpler forms. In the twelfth century, however, when the Culdees had already sadly declined from the fervour and pious warmth of earlier days, King David entered energetically on the work of reforming the church. Many palpable abuses were corrected and irregularities checked, but the whole tendency of the movement was in the direction of a thoroughgoing hierarchical organization. With the purest and most pious intentions, the Scottish king devoted himself to the building of Abbeys and the endowment of Bishoprics. But when, in two centuries or so, the ardour of those first impulses had completely spent itself, abuses sprang up far more terrible than those of the displaced Culdees, because fostered in an ecclesiastical society more numerous, powerful, wealthy, and more thoroughly organized. Before the era of the Reformation, the Scottish Church was in a condition at least as deplorable as that of any of the continental churches. Now it is important for
S6 PRESBYTERIANISM,
our present purpose to note that the terrible degradation of the Scottish Church had gained the attention of the people ; popular ballads that passed from lip to lip, satirized the vicious habits, and ridiculed the extreme ignorance of ecclesiastical dignitaries. There had been no want of organization. Bishops and Abbots maintained almost royal state, and filled the highest civil offices. All that high rank, civil and ecclesiastical, could do, had been done in behalf of this church. The Reformation Age, then, found in Scotland a fully-equipped hierarchy, without any spiritual results to show. That grave abuses might arise in a community professing adherence to the simplicity of primitive times had, indeed, received proof in the history of the decline of the Culdees. Yet their decline had not been, and could not have been, so complete. The idleness, the luxury, the vice, which displaced the hierarchical church establishment of the fifteenth century in Scotland, were in the same degree impossible in the simpler orders of their predecessors. Reformation, therefore, began in Scotland with a reasonably strong aversion to all hierarchical pretensions.
In the Reformation Age, the special importance of preaching was heartily recognized. Luther, Calvin, Knox — all gave to the preacher a prominent place among the office-bearers of the church. Pastors and Teachers were understood to be names applied to the occupants of one office, but implying respectively the posses- sion of varying individual gifts, which fitted for the discharge of different functions, — the one, for exposition and interpretation of Scripture ; the other, for practical exhortation and dispensation of sacraments. Here we have no severance of functions, in such a way as to separate them into distinct offices. They were properly joined in one individual so far as calling was concerned ; but, for the profit and advantage of the church, the special attention of one holding the office might, by church authority and arrangement, be given to one function or the other. The ministerial office was, in the view of the Reformers, necessarily the highest ecclesiastical office, because there was no function of
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 87
worship or administration which the Presbyter was not competent officially to perform. The importance attached to the word of God, and the necessity for teaching it to the people, determined the Reformed view of the ministry in an anti-hierarchical sense. The prominence given to preaching caused other ecclesiastical functions, which had gained in Romanism an undue prominence, to sink into comparative insignificance. For carrying out the Reformation task, however, church government and scriptural instruction must go hand in hand. Hence the Reformers never fail to give prominence to teaching and ruling, and always repre- sent these functions as combined, without preference to either, in the one principal church officer. In all the Reformed Churches, wherever the lines originally indicated by their founders have been, in their general tendencies, preserved, Prelacy is laid aside with Popery, and, with the revived recognition of the spiritual priesthood of believers, the ministerial order is conceived of according to the model of New Testament simplicity.
When Knox and his fellow-labourers, in 1560, drew up the Scottish Confession and the First Book of Discipline, this cha- racteristic position in regard to the Christian ministry was made specially prominent : — Ail spiritual rights, such as preaching of the word, dispensing of sacraments, ordaining of preachers, and the exercise of discipline, are received only from Christ ; by Him they are conferred upon the office-bearers of the church, who, in the exercise of such rights, are subject only to the church judicatories. It is further laid down that in the pastoral office there is no gradation of ranks, and that none of the clergy exercise lordship over the people, but that they use only the ministry of the word and of the church of God. In connection with the strongly- expressed statements regarding the parity of ministers which are to be found in these authoritative documents, it is interesting and important to consider the precise significance of that order of superintendency, which had a place in the earliest ecclesiastical arrangements of the Reformed Church of Scotland. It has been very generally affirmed by Episcopalians (see particularly Bishop
SS PRESBVTERIANISM.
Sage's Fundamental Charier of Presbytery Examined)^ and is even repeated by some inconsiderate and ill-instructed Presby- terians, that the appointment of Superintendents shows that the principles of Episcopacy were not by any means distasteful to our Reformers. The true representation of the circumstances affords an explanation at once simple and reasonable. Just as in a special emergency in the original institution of Christianity there were extraordinary officers — Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists — whose offices ceased with the peculiar conditions that called them into being ; so in another season of displacement of the old and bringing in of the new, a like need demanded like expedients in the creation of emergency offices. All arrangements on the part of our Reformers, in their endeavour to establish an order of spiritual instructors and rulers for the people, had to take into account the sad lack of fit material, and the wideness of the province to be overtaken in pastoral labour. When the first Assembly met, there were found to be only twelve qualified ministers. How were these twelve men to perform their work of the ministry for Scotland ? It was at once seen that the sudden reception of ignorant men into the ministry, and their settlement throughout the country, would only retard the work of Reforma- tion. The ministers already ordained were distributed, — eight being appointed as regular and resident pastors in the chief towns, and the other four [with the addition of one layman] having large districts assigned them, and the name of Super- intendents. These latter were not officially distinguished from their brother Presbyters. They received no new ordination, and they were amenable to Presbyterial discipline like other ministers. Their duties (see First Book of Discipline^ chap. vi. sec. 2) consisted in planting new churches and appointing ministers in needful and suitable parts of their districts, doing generally the work of evangelists, preaching thrice every week at the least, and examining the life, diligence, and behaviour of the ministers. Now this last statement looks like a contradiction to the doctrine of ministerial parity. But this seeming anomaly
THE PRESBYTER AS TEACHER. 89
will be removed by considering who these ministers were. In order to supply the needs of the country, many who were unfit for the regular ministry, but who could distinctly read the Common Prayers and the Scriptures, were appointed to the temporary office of Reader. These men instructing others were also instructing themselves. By and by they might show advanced qualifications, and then they were admitted to a higher order of Exhorters. who not only read but gave short explanations of their readings, and made appeals founded thereon. They might be yet further advanced to the administration of the sacraments and other ministerial functions. In regard to the qualifications of such men, the Superintendent who travelled and wrought among them was required to judge. All the details of the Superintendent's duty show him to be an extraordinary officer. Let churches be planted generally throughout the parishes, let a sufficient number of qualified men be raised to the ranks of the ministry, and the temporary distinction between the Superintendent and his brother Presbyters wholly disappears. When we reach the Second Book of Discipline, which displaced the First in 1578, the office of the Superintendent has passed altogether out of view. The shadow of Episcopal terms which remained in the form of titles, retained for considerations of policy, and which sometimes injuriously affected the interests of Presbyterianism, was finally swept away in 1638, when every remnant of Prelatical distinctions and nomenclature was abolished.
In the Scottish Presbyterian Churches of the present day, all the main features of the Reformation representation of the minister as Pastor and Teacher are preserved. He holds an office than which there is none higher in the church. Under the authority of the church, he teaches, yet not as an oracle, but simply as a minister of the word, unfolding its truths for the edification of the people. He rules that the order and purity of the community may be secured, yet not in the exercise of any lordly dominion, but watching the spiritual interests of those of whom he must give an account.
CHAPTER IV.
THE DEACON.
1. Origin of the Office. — In the Acts of the Apostles we do not find the word Deacon used to distinguish the bearer of any particular office. The word deaconship or diaconate is often used, but it is usually translated ministry, and it is just this general sense that it bears. There is a diaconate or ministry of the word (Acts vi. 4), as well as a diaconate or ministry of tables (Acts vi. 2). Thus the word diaconate or deaconship, as used in the Acts, is a general term for ministry of any kind, and hence it requires the addition of some determining epithet to indicate any special church office. It is in the Epistle to the Philippians — one of the later Epistles of St. Paul — that we find the name Deacon first given to any one class of church office-bearers. In the opening lines of that Epistle, Deacons are mentioned along with Bishops, these two orders constituting, as it would seem, the complete official staff of the Christian community at Philippi. The next Scripture passage in which we find mention made of Deacons by name is in 1st Timothy ; and there the qualifications which fit one for the deaconship are stated at length. From these passages we get no information regarding the origin of the office.
If, then, we are to learn from Scripture anything about the first institution of the office of Deacon, the circumstances under which the earliest appointments to the deaconship were made, and the church needs which the new order of office-bearers was intended
THE DEACON. 9 I
to satisfy, we must go back upon those earlier passages in the history of the Apostolic Church, where, though the name ot Deacon does not occur in its official application, traces may be found of officers set apart to the discharge of functions, which were the special duties required of those who, before the close of that age, had the once general name of Deacon appropriated particularly to themselves as their official designation. We have in Acts vi. an account of the election of seven men to supply a want that had been made subject of complaint. It is usual to call the men there spoken of the first deacons. We should, however, remember that even though we may be convinced that they were the precursors of our deacons, and that their office is practically identical with the diaconate, yet this name is not given them in Scripture. To prevent misunderstanding, we shall give them their simple scriptural designation, and speak of them as c the seven.' A complaint had been made to the Apostles by that portion of the membership of the church at Jerusalem which was not purely Hebrew — the Greek or Hellenist section, — that the poor, and widows, and orphans, belonging to the purely Hebrew member- ship, were being attended to better, and were being more liberally aided, than the similar classes among themselves. The Apostles listened to their complaint, found apparently that there was some ground for it, and suggested means for remedying the evil. The work was not such as the Apostles, already fully occupied with the ministry of the word, felt it their duty to undertake. The members of the church, therefore, were called upon to elect of their own number seven men, who would have the confidence of all, for their uprightness and true Christian principle. The number was in this particular instance fixed at seven, probably because it was considered that the needs of the Jerusalem Church of that time could best be served by such a staff. Superstition stereo- typed the number of deacons in all churches at seven ; and in after ages, in churches of great dimensions, where the Presby- tcrate was very large, the diaconate was strictly limited to this original number. The names of all the seven are given, and it is
92 PRESBYTERIANISM.
certainly striking to observe that all the names are Greek. This of itself, however, is no proof that all bearing those names were Greeks ; for in the Apostolate we have Andrew and Philip, most undoubted Hebrews, bearing Greek names. Yet when we put side by side these two facts, — the complaint coming from the Greeks, and the appointment of men all bearing Greek names as office-bearers to endeavour the removal of that which occasioned the complaint, — the conviction becomes very strong that these men, for the most part at least, not only bore Greek names, but belonged to the Greek section of the church at Jerusalem. This being so, it may further be concluded with good probability that the seven became members of a board, as specially representing that portion of the church out of which they themselves sprang, and that their presence on the board secured for it the confidence of the Greeks.
This will enable us to answer the question, Who were the parties charged with partiality, or, at least, with the neglect of a section of those of whom they had the oversight ? It has commonly been assumed that the complaint was against the Apostles, and that they excused themselves, on the ground that their engrossing ministerial duties prevented them making the personal investigations necessary for a fair distribution of alms. This, however, is not said, nor does it seem to be implied in the narrative. We are rather led to suppose that a class of men had already charged themselves with the care of the poor and helpless before this complaint arose, and that it was the conduct of those dispensers of the alms of the church which occasioned this murmuring and discontent. Do we, then, find in Scripture any trace of the existence of such an order in the church at Jerusalem ? Certainly, in the Acts of the Apostles, there is no record of the institution formally of any new office prior to the election and ordination of the seven. This we do require, however, in order to show that, in all probability, before this appointment there were men specially charged with the super- vision of the poor. For a time, such men would be regarded
THE DEACON. 93
simply as assistants of the Apostles, responsible to them. In the simplicity of primitive ecclesiastical arrangements, the Apostolate was the only recognized office ; and though Apostles might com- mission those whom they regarded as faithful and competent, to discharge certain duties, the church looked to the Apostles, and not to their assistants, if any occasion of complaint arose. It seems very reasonable to regard the i young men * spoken of in Acts v. as forming an incipient guild, as constituting a not yet formally and officially recognized order of assistants to the Apostles, at hand to relieve the already overburdened, of any portion of the work which might be assigned them. The general designation here given them — young men — corresponds well with that of 'helps' — the name given afterwards to the office- bearers who discharged similar functions (1 Cor. xii. 28), and answers well by contrast to the name ' elders/ by which the office-bearers charged with more distinctively spiritual functions were designated.
If, then, we recognize in the ' young men' of Acts v. the precursors of the seven, if we agree that they did before, what afterwards the seven were specially elected to do, we can regard the record of this formal institution of a church office for the care of the poor, and for the discharge generally of duties that might be separated from the ministry of the word, as simply the adoption by the church itself of the previous Apostolic practice. The Apostles' assistants — the young men — were now recognized by the congregation, and to their number were added the seven men, who would carry with them into the church court the special confidence of an important section of the church. What, then, the Apostles meant when they said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables, was simply this : We desire that the responsibility for the discharge of those duties, which these men perform, may be regularly laid upon them by the church, and no longer upon us. The office of the deaconship, therefore, strictly speaking, took origin in the formal act which rendered those who had previously been doing
G
94 PRESBYTERIANISM.
Deacons' duties personally responsible henceforth for the dis- charge of these duties.
2. Duties of the Deacon. — That passage in the Acts which records the institution of the office, already determines the duties de- volving on those who fill that office. They are there described under the general designation a diaconate, ministry, or service, of tables. Undoubtedly the idea present is that of tables on which food was laid, and not tables for the counting and dividing of money. In the church of the early centuries alms were commonly brought by the Christian people to their assemblies in the shape of actual gifts in bread and wine, which were collected for immediate distribution among the poor. The duties of an office directly concerned in the collection of such provision for bodily wants, and its subsequent distribution, might well be described as a ministry of tables. If, however, aid was given in the form of money, it would clearly belong to the Deacons to expend this so as to meet the necessities of those under their care. At the same time, both in the distribution of food and in the application of money gifts, the Deacons seem from the first to have acted under the guidance and according to the counsel of the spiritual office- bearers of the church. According to Acts xi. 29, 30, the alms of the churches were carried by the Apostles to the Elders of the congregation at Jerusalem, under whom the Deacons would act as distributors.
In a broad and general way, the functions of those men referred to in Acts v. vi. were concerned with the outward affairs of the Christian community, — which in their days happened to be the diligent collection and faithful distribution of alms to the poor ; our Deacons have also to do with the outward affairs of the Christian community, — which, in the altered circumstances of society, consist chiefly in the collection and distribution of church funds for ministerial support, for missionary schemes, and for the maintenance of the church fabric. The Deacon in the Presbyterian Church has essentially the same class of
THE DEACON. 95
duties to perform as those had who were appointed in Apostolic times to serve tables. This cannot be said of the Deacon in the Roman Catholic and in the Anglican Churches. There, in the threefold ministerial order, the Deacon occupies the third place, and ranks with ministers of the word. In the early centuries, other duties were, first of all, superadded to those originally belonging to the office, and by and by were allowed to supersede them. In the third and fourth centuries, it was received as feasible, that the Old Testament church officers — High Priest, Priests, and Levites (quite arbitrarily fixed at three) — were represented in the New Testament church respectively by Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. When the hierarchical theory had been fully developed, the very subordinate character of the Levite's position was overlooked, and the Deacon, as a cleric, was allowed to minister at the altar, to baptize, and to preach. Now, the Presbyterian objection to this view of the Deacon's office and duties is, that a New Testament church office is thus altogether effaced, and a new office created, by the arbitrary limitation of spiritual duties, in the case of a ministerial office-bearer.
Sometimes objection is taken to the statement that the office of Deacon is not a spiritual office. Yet this statement is most accurately correct. ' Although the Deacons' Court are called to apply spiritual principles to the management of secular matters, they are not authorized to exercise any kind of spiritual rule.' ' It is evident that the application of spiritual principles to all the affairs and business of life is the duty of all members of a Christian church. It is no peculiar function of the deaconship, and consequently we cannot regard the deaconship as a spiritual office in any other sense than that in which we would apply the term to church membership. The early Deacons (if we may give that name to the seven) were men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. Being endued with the Holy Ghost is characteristic of all true Christians ; and the special qualifica- tions for office in these men seem to be the well-established 1 The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland, p. 26.
96 PRESBYTERIANISM.
reputation which they had for uprightness of character — most in- dispensable where suspicions of partial dealing had been aroused — and prudence in the management of every-day affairs. It is further noticeable, that when we are told of Stephen, how he became signally successful, not in the Deacon's office, but in that of the Evangelist, the virtues which are found conspicuous in him are not the business qualifications of an honest report and prudence, but the directly spiritual graces of faith, and that power which comes from a special unction of the Holy Spirit. The work of preaching and exhorting, in which Stephen laboured so successfully, was performed by him in his capacity as a gifted Christian man, and not officially as a Deacon. Another consideration which goes to prove that the Presbyterian view of the diaconate, and not that of the Episcopalians, is correct, may be found in the traces which we have in the New Testament of the existence of Deaconesses as forming a recognized order of office-bearers in the church. Just because in the Deacon's office the exercise of a preaching gift was not required, but only the discharge of duties such as, in most cases, might be quietly performed from house to house, women, who were forbidden to speak in public assemblies, might to so large an extent do the work of Deacons, that they were held to be not unworthy of the name and rank. Indeed, in certain depart- ments, such as the visitation of women sick, or in prison, or in poverty, the female Deacon might prove peculiarly suitable, if not altogether indispensable. The earliest mention of a female Deacon is found in the Epistle to the Romans, written about a.d. 58 (see chap. xvi. 1), where Phoebe is spoken of as a Deaconess — for the word rendered servant is just this word diakonos — at Cenchrea, near Corinth. It has been disputed whether in 1 Tim. iii. 11 the Apostle means to refer to the wives of Deacons, who were helpers of their husbands in their work, where a woman's help would be so needful, or simply to women — for this is the word used, women* which may mean wives if the context requires it, but not otherwise — who filled the office of Deacon. Many good commentators think that these women
THE DEACON. 97
were the Deacons' wives ; but others point out that there is nothing connecting the word 'women' here with the men spoken of before. The 'even so' seems to introduce a new class distinguished from the men Deacons before referred to, and the want of the article seems to leave the word women to be taken quite generally. Fairbairn thinks that there is an intentional indefiniteness here, so that Deacons' wives, and other women discharging Deacons' duties, should be included under the one designation. Whatever view we take of the passage, there can be no doubt that here it is quite recognized that women are capable of discharging the duties of Deacons ; while, in speaking of the Bishops, no mention is made of women, because they were expressly excluded from preaching and teaching. Clearly, then, if the Deacon had been a preacher, women would not have been mentioned in connection with the discharge of the official duties of the deaconship. Pressense' (Life and Practice in the Early Church, pp. 69, 73) has shown how Christianity opened up a sphere for women, and how, while all Christian women might unofficially discharge the duties of love, the early church emphasized its view of the beauty of such service by giving a recognized place to female Deacons, and even in some cases having them consecrated to their office by the laying on of hands.
In our Scottish Presbyterian Church, it has been distinctly recognized and authoritatively stated that the whole policy of the church consists in three things, viz. in doctrine, discipline, and distribution. The Deacons are the distributors. They are spiritual officers, as they hold office in a spiritual community, but their duties have reference simply to the distribution of ecclesiastical goods. No more exact and comprehensive state- ment of the duties of the Deacon on Presbyterian principles, suitable for all times, has ever been given than that of the Second Book of Discipline (a.d. 1578), — Their office and power is to receive and to distribute the haill ecclesiasticall gudes unto them to whom they ar appoyntit (chap. viii. 3). Whether
98 PRESBYTERIANISM.
the church goods be appropriated to ministerial support at home, the spread of religion abroad, the furtherance of any church or congregational scheme, the maintenance of the church buildings, or the help of the congregational poor, the Deacons have officially to do with the collection and distribution of them. No more than this can be given to the Deacon, without invading the province of some other office- bearer.
3. Rank and Rights of the Deacon. — While it is important, in the interests of the deaconship, to define exactly its province, and to distinguish it from the more expressly spiritual offices in the church, it is equally necessary to remember that it is really an ecclesiastical office. The Deacon is not a mere member of a congregational committee of management. He is not to be regarded as a mere trustee over church property. His office is one of the permanent ecclesiastical offices, according to the express statements of the New Testament, and he is therefore, in the most exact technical sense of the term, an office-bearer of the church. John Knox and his companions in the work of arranging the terms of the policy of the Reformed Church in Scotland, failed to appreciate the true rank of the Deacon. In the First Book of Discipline Deacons are represented simply as managers of the outward affairs of the congregation, — trustees who held their appointment only for a year. Now we could not seriously speak of the ordination of a man to an office to which he was appointed only for a limited period. Ordination can never be given with any limitation of time attached. We have, indeed, many instances 'in Scripture of the ordination of men who had pre- viously had possession of high spiritual gifts. Saul and Barnabas, both of them spiritual men, engaged in spiritual work, were ordained by the laying on of hands ere they entered on their special labours as missionaries to the Gentiles. The ordination was valid until the office to which it gave admission had been laid down. (Note the difference between this view and the
THE DEACON. 99
hierarchical doctrine of the indelibility of orders.) Now we maintain that the Deacon, as one of the regular office-bearers of the church, is ordained to his office by a solemn act of con- secration. The ordination service is equally indispensable with the election by the membership of the congregation. A man elected to the deaconship is not a Deacon until he has been ordained. Those seven men, whom we regard as the precursors of the Deacon, were ordained when they were solemnly set apart to their office by prayer and the laying on of the Apostles' hands. The Deacon, therefore, like all other ordained office- bearers, just because ordained, must hold his office for life. He cannot cease to be a Deacon when once ordained to the office, unless his resignation has been accepted by those who have power to receive it, or his deposition from office has resulted from his being convicted of some fault. Even if elected to a higher ecclesiastical office, his deaconship, conferred upon him by ordination, continues. He still remains a Deacon, and besides that, an Elder and a Minister, if he has been admitted to these offices by the Elder's and the Minister's ordination. As an ordained office-bearer of the church, the position which the Deacon occupies is as distinctly ecclesiastical as is that of Elder or Minister. While, therefore, restricting the duties of the Deacon to that class of duties which may fairly be designated by the phrase i serving tables,' it is important to remember the words of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Tralltans, before the close of the first century, — Deacons are not ministers of meats and drinks, but ministers of the church of God.
What will help still further to establish the true rank of the Deacon, is the right interpretation of a passage that is often used to show that the deaconship is only a lower grade of the mini- sterial office. In 1 Tim. iii. 13, the Apostle says, — They that have used the office of a Deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree. Some maintain that this means that those who discharge Deacons' duties will thereby prove their capacity for the office of Presbyter. This, of course, could only be if, in the
I CO PRESBYTERIANISM.
deaconship, they had already officially had practice in those duties which belong to the Presbyter, as ruler, preacher, or teacher. The good degree, however, is nothing more or less than a good standing, — the honourable consideration due to one who has faithfully performed the work of his particular office.1 Qualification for the deaconship, when displayed in the successful and regular discharge of official duties, is not regarded as entitling the possessor of such qualification to be transferred to another office, in which it might not be so in- dispensable. It would simply secure for him who used his gifts in the deaconship, an honourable position in the church.
4. The Deacon in the History of the Church. — In the Apostolic Age there clearly was an office corresponding to that which is called the Deaconship in the Presbyterian Church. Whatever evangelistic gifts certain individual Deacons might possess, they were bound as Christian men to exercise, as opportunity offered ; but as Deacons they were simply concerned with the outward affairs of the church, consisting at that time for the most part in duties of charity, and generally in extending help to the leedy. Those elected to this office, first of all in Jerusalem, vere known simply as the Seven : then, as if to show that the lumber of officers in the mother church was not an essential of he office, they are spoken of as Deacons, in the church at Philippi (Phil. i. i), and in the churches of Asia in which Timothy was specially interested (i Tim. iii. 8-12) : and further, they were referred to under names which call attention to the nature of their official work, — he that giveth and he that showeth mercy (Rom. xii. 8), and helps (1 Cor. xii. 28). Immediately after the close of the Apostolic Age attempts were made to determine, with ever- increasing exactness, the distinction between the clergy and the laity ; and so by and by it came to be thought that if Deacons were to be claimed as office-bearers in the church, they must
1 This view has Lven well expressed by Davidson, Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, p. 140.
THE DEACON. IOI
belong to the clerical order. In the endeavour to vindicate the right of Deacons to be so reckoned, spiritual duties were one by one added to their official functions. Field {Of the Church, vol. iii. p. 197) describes the change in these words: — 'When the treasure of the church increasing was committed to certain stewards, and the poor otherwise provided for, they (the Deacons) were more specially used for the assisting of the Bishop or Presbyters in things pertaining to God's service and worship.' Justin Martyr, the Clementine Homilies, and Ter- tuliian, all between the middle and the end of the second century, represent the Deacon as assisting the presiding minister in the administration of the Lord's Supper, aiding the Bishop in maintaining order during divine service, reporting to the Bishop regarding the conduct of church members,1 and in cases of necessity, as, for example, in visiting a dying person, dis- pensing the sacraments which, in ordinary circumstances, could only be done by a Presbyter or Bishop. When the hierarchical view of the Christian ministry began to prevail,— first clearly expressed by Cyprian early in the third century, — it was generally maintained that a parallel existed between the ranks of the Mosaic priesthood and the orders of the Christian clergy. The
1 In his very fresh and interesting work, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, Mr. Hatch has fallen into the error of supposing that the mere reporting of such irregularities in the lives of church members as had come under their notice, shows that the exercise of discipline was in early times regarded as a part of the official duties of the Deacon. After quoting, from the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, a passage describing the qualifications of Deacons in language strikingly similar to 1 Tim. iii. 8-12, Mr. Hatch says : ' These characteristics clearly imply disciplinary duties r the Deacons are to be blameless, in order that they may be themselves, like Bishops, free from the faults which they are to note in others ; they are to be " not slanderers, nor double-tongued," because they stood in the relation of accusers ' (p. 51, note). They are to report to the Bishops about those i:i danger of sinning, that they may be warned by the Bishop. This is nothing more than any true church member is expected to do in the Christian exercise of brotherly care and love. And even though lighter cases might, on the deputation of the Bishop, be decided by the Deacon, yet evidently the Bishop was alone responsible, and the Deacon was not regarded as officially charged with any disciplinary functions.
102 PRESBYTERIANISM.
Bishop represented the High Priest ; the Presbyter, the Priest ; and the Deacon, the Levite. The absurdity of the supposed parallel could now easily be shown. Levites' duties were not in relation to those of the Priests, what Deacons' were in relation to those of the Presbyter ; nor could a Levite rise to priestly rank, as a Deacon could to Presbyterial or Episcopal dignity. The reason, however, for insisting on the parallel lay in the wish to secure an appearance of scriptural ground for placing Deacons in a ministerial or clerical order. From this time forth in the Catholic Church the ancient office of Deacon became extinct, and the lowest clerical order assumed the name. This was affirmed by the Council of Trent, and the Pontifical defines the Deacon's duties thus : — It pertains to the Deacon to serve at the altar, to baptize, and to preach. The two great Reformers, Luther and Calvin, urged the revival of the office according to the Apostolic model. John Knox, in the First Book of 'Discipline (a.d. 1560), and Andrew Melville, in the Secojid Book of Dis- cipline (a.d. 1578), clearly defined the functions of the Deacons as church officers charged with the care of the outward affairs of the several congregations to which they belonged. After the Reformed Church of Scotland had been thoroughly consolidated, and especially since, owing to the support given by the State, or at least strictly determined by the State, financial matters did not call for any very particular attention, the deaconship in many congregations fell into abeyance. It was, however, all along recognized as a regular office in the church. Special recognition was given to the deaconship in the Free Church. Deacons are required to give attention to the secular affairs of the congrega- tion, see to the collection for General and Congregational Schemes, and attend to the poor and to the education of the children of the poor.
PART II.
CONSTITUTION AND GRADATION OF COURTS IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
INTRODUCTORY.
Idea of Church Courts. — By church courts Presbyterians mean associations the membership and jurisdiction of which are expressly laid down in the constitution of the church. The functions of those courts have been described as legislative, executive, and judicial. Under the legislative functions of an ecclesiastical court are included the framing of all enactments and laws for the control and despatch of the business of the church, for securing the effective administration of discipline, and generally, for the vindication and elucidation of constitu- tional principles. Under the executive functions are embraced all the ordinary proceedings of these courts in the organization and superintendence of the various departments of church work. And under the judicial functions are to be reckoned, not only the infliction and removal of ecclesiastical censures, but also the consideration, on the part of any of the higher courts, of matters referred to them from an inferior court. Within the limits of their several jurisdictions, all these functions may be discharged by any of the church courts, higher or lower, whether it be Kirk- session, Presbytery, Provincial Synod, or General Assembly.
Although the particular form and detailed enumeration of functions belonging to the several church courts are laid down
103
1 04 PRESBYTERIANISM.
in terms of the constitution of the church, it must be remembered that the authority of such courts does not primarily rest upon this constitution. It is the contention of Presbyterians that there is in God's word a warrant for the exercise of functions which for their accomplishment demand the establishment of congrega- tional elderships, classical Presbyteries, and more comprehensive Synods. The constitution does not determine the existence or create the right of such courts, but simply states, on the assump- tion that the validity of these judicatories has been established on a scriptural basis, what the principles are which those agreeing to accept that particular constitution understand to apply to the composition and jurisdiction of these courts.
CHAPTER I.
COMPOSITION OF CHURCH COURTS.
1. Membership and Jurisdiction of Church Courts. — The one indispensable qualification for membership in any court of the Presbyterian Church is the holding of the office of Presbyter. As we have already shown, Presbyters are of two orders, — Presbyters who rule only, and Presbyters who both rule and teach. There is no court of the Presbyterian Church which does not embrace in its membership both of these orders of Presbyters. The right to sit in these courts is a privilege of office. Those who are not office-bearers have no right to judge and direct in the administration of discipline, and in the general government of the church. Against this Presbyterian doctrine the Independents advance the claims of what they regard as popular rights. They maintain that church power, not only as to its original fountain, but also as to its regular exercise, per- tains to, or inheres in, the whole body of the Christian people, and that, therefore, matters of church order should be deter- mined not by office-bearers in church courts, but by the church membership in the general gathering of the congregation. In opposition to this view, we must call attention to the whole argument in behalf of the recognition of office in the church. The New Testament writers often speak of rulers in the church, and this of necessity implies the presence of those who do not rule, but are ruled. These writers, too, make mention of par-
105
106 PRESBYTERIANISM.
ticular gifts by the possession of which certain individuals in the church are qualified for ruling, — which gifts have to be developed and educated by training and practice. And further, in a church court, constituted as Presbyterian Church courts are, that can be done in an orderly manner and so as to secure the ends of justice and order, which could not be so done in a general con- gregational meeting.
It is commonly objected that Christ, in describing the proper mode of dealing with an offending brother, requires that the church should be told, whereas upon Presbyterian principles we should tell rather the eldership, Gillespie1 has answered this objection well, by showing that the representative body of the church is certainly intended. During Christ's life on earth, the church had not yet been constituted ; but when the constitution of the church was developed, this was done, as we have seen, as far as possible, according to the Jewish model. Now under the Mosaic dispensation, what was done by the Elders was said to have been done by the congregation (Josh. xx. 6). This form of language was natural and would be continued among Christian writers. In the discharge of those functions which belong to their office, the office-bearers of a church must be regarded as acting for and representing the church, and what they do in their church courts must be regarded as the act of the church. At the same time, it is very important to guard against any over- statement of the jurisdiction and rights of office-bearers. It must be remembered that the constitution of church courts has been determined for the express purpose of conserving the rights of church members, and securing the largest possible amount of spiritual advantage to the Christian people. Office-bearers are appointed not to override popular rights, but to give effective expression to the convictions and pious consciousness of the whole Christian community. Hence alongside of the authori- tatively expressed decision of the Presbyters, — members of the church courts, — there ought to be an explicit statement of the
1 Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, Part II. chap, i,
COMPOSITION OF CHURCH COURTS. 107
approval and consent of the people. Presbyterianism is greatly misrepresented when it is supposed that it carries on its pro- ceedings in church courts with a lofty disregard of the sentiments of the ordinary membership. Calvin, in his most instructive and sober commentary on the 15th chapter of Acts, remarks on the sixth verse, that while only Apostles and Elders are named, the disputation may have been carried on in the presence of the people ; and on the twenty- third verse, he speaks of the modesty of the common people in subscribing to the decree of the Apostles and other teachers, and notes also the equity of the apostles in setting down nothing concerning the common cause without admitting the people. This view of the right of the people to be consulted in all matters of general interest and importance was heartily recognized and acted upon by the great leaders of the Scottish Church in the period of the Second Reformation. Henderson and Gillespie have clearly and fervently expressed this opinion in their own writings, and the General Assemblies of their time (that, for instance, of 1641) have given to it the most unequivocal expression. This was a period of great spiritual revival, accompanied by a proportionate reawakening to a sense of the importance of the free exercise of spiritual rights. It was in the century which followed this time of warmth and enthusiasm, under the chilling reign of moderatism which buried out of sight, alike the saving truths of Christianity, and the rights of those whom Christ had made free, that this essential feature of Presbyterianism was laid aside, and the will of the people systematically ignored. It is surely more than a curious coinci- dence that the period of Scottish Church history, during which church courts most tamely submitted to the dictation and encroachments of the civil courts, was the period during which those church courts manifested a lofty disregard of that people whom they professed to represent. The disregard of rightful obligations is sure to be avenged by a humiliating subjection under obligations that are not rightful.
It is now generally admitted among all the sections of the
IoS PRESBYTERIANISM.
Presbyterian Church, that what affects the church as a whole, what is of importance to the Christian community at large, may not be done without the knowledge and understood consent of the people. Opposing controversialists commonly overlook such a statement as this, or if they notice at all the enunciation of this principle by a modern writer, they treat it as a recent develop- ment and an important concession to Independency. We have seen that it is, on the contrary, one of the original principles of Presbyterianism. It is not a concession to Independency, but a consistent element in the Presbyterian constitution. Against the Independent theory there is recognized exclusive jurisdiction in matters of church government as belonging to the church courts ; but against all hierarchical tendencies, it is acknowledged that the decision of those church courts must commend themselves to the approval of the enlightened conscience of the Christian people, and that office-bearers of the church ought to reflect the mind of those in the church that are spiritual. It is undoubtedly right to say that Presbyterians refuse i to ordinary members the same distinct and definite place and influence in the ordinary regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in general, as they have ascribed to them in the appointment of their own office-bearers ; in other words, they have never held their consent or concurrence in the decisions pronounced by the office-bearers in the ordinary regulation of ecclesiastical affairs to be necessary or indis- pensable, so that the withholding or refusal of their consent nullified or invalidated the judgment, or formed a bar in the way of it taking practical effect.' x To do otherwise than this would be to give to the ordinary membership a power of veto over the proceedings of the office-bearers. In such a case, the common people, the unofficial body, would be an upper house clothed with an unlimited power of reversing all the sentences of the regularly constituted courts. In appointing office-bearers, the ordinary members clearly express confidence in those brethren for the faithful performance of the duties belonging to the office 1 Principal Cunningham, Historical Theclo*y, vol. i. p. 56.
COMPOSITION OF CHURCH COURTS. ICQ
with which they entrust them. The withholding of such confi- dence is a wrong to those who have accepted office on the under- standing that they were in possession of this confidence. So soon as this is withdrawn, the moral influence necessary for, maintaining official authority and securing official efficiency, is lost. For it ought to be remembered that none of the charac- , teristic functions of a spiritual office can be adequately performed, unless the persons of the office-bearers are respected, and their official decisions in consequence are borne out by the approval of the people. Hence we find our older Presbyterian writers, who are often spoken of as men fanatically attached to an abstract theory of church order, and too regardless, even reckless, of matters of individual right and freedom, — we find such men as George Gillespie, for example, taking what to many might seem an undue concern for the recognition of the voice of the people in all matters concerning the wellbeing of the church. He points out the importance in a case of discipline of having the hearty approval and consent of the people in the pronunciation of a censure or sentence by the church court. So far as the examination and judgment are concerned, the matter is wholly within the jurisdiction of the appointed judicatory. Church members are deeply concerned and interested in the proceed- ings, but only members of the church court have a right to judge. Yet the decision must be such as to commend itself to the membership generally, otherwise the end contemplated in the act will not be attained. Only when those who had been the fellow-members of the individuals censured and deprived, show their acquiescence in the decision of the church court, will that fear and shame be wrought in the excommunicated person, which may work in him repentance, and warrant his restoration. Unless the general membership regard him as the office-bearers regard him, the end of discipline is not gained. Hence every effort must be made to preserve an agreement between the senti- ments of office-bearers and people. Gillespie concludes that in such cases, ' though the Pastors and Elders have the power of
1 10 PRLSBYTERIANISM.
jurisdiction, it is net to exercise the same.' This may be some- what too strong : but certainly a strong current among the people in opposition to any proposed official procedure ought to call forth on the part of office-bearers a careful reconsideration of the case. The rulers must rule ; the rights and jurisdiction of church courts must be maintained ; yet always in the exercise of official duties office-bearers should be careful to manifest toward their people the spirit of him who wished not to show his dominion but to make himself helpful.
2. Functions common to all Members of Church Courts. — The qualifications required of all members of church courts are such as are indispensable to the holding of the office of Presbyter. The duties which all members alike are regarded as competent to discharge are those which Presbytership in its very idea involves. What then we here wish to know is what those duties are which all Presbyters, just because they are Presbyters, and apart from any distinctions that may exist among them, are not Dnly permitted, but required, to discharge. Now we have seen what the original idea of the Presbyter's office implies. Admission to the order of Presbyter introduces into the governing body. According to the Books of Discipline, both orders o{ Presbyters — that is to say, the Ruling Presbyter jointly with the Teaching Presbyter — are to watch the flock committed to their charge, to examine those coming to the Lord's table, to admonish all men of their duty according to the gospel, and in their assemblies to seek the promotion of good order and the execution of dis- cipline. The final end of all assemblies, it is further declared, is first, to keep the religion and doctrine in purity, without error and corruption ; and next, to keep comeliness and good order in the kirk. In treating of the regular duties of church courts, Mr. William Guthrie, in his Treatise on Elders and Deacons (chap, vi.), observes that these may be matters of faith, matters of order, matters of discipline, or matters which concern the sending forth of church officers ; and that consequently members
COMPOSITION OF CHURCH COURTS. Ill
of church courts have a fourfold power, which he calls respec- tively, in the scholastic phraseology of his day, — Dogmatic, Diatactic, Critic, and Exusiastic. * In all these powers,5 he says, ' Ruling Elders have a share, and do put forth the same in exercise according to the measure that belongs to the assembly whereof they are members.' In reference to all legislative and judicial proceedings, that is to say, in all matters that may be deliberated and voted upon in a church court, the official standing and powers of all members are the same. In the discussions and judgments of all church courts, the perfect parity of the members is strictly and universally recognized.
The only question likely to arise under this head relates to the right of Ruling Elders to take part in discussions on doctrinal points. It might be supposed that there was a certain impro- priety in men who had no special or technical theological training sitting in judgment upon a case in which the positions under investigation had been reached by critical processes, and subtle and sustained speculation. Yet our church recognizes no distinction between ministers and elders, as members of any church court, in their judicial capacity. Ruling Elders and Ministers alike are allowed to discuss and vote upon all doctrinal questions which may be propounded in the court. And this position is undoubtedly right. It may be that in some special cases only Ministers who have had a theological training, and, it may be, only a small proportion of these, are able to enter into the merits of the separate propositions advanced. There may be elements in the statements laid before the court, historical, critical, metaphysical, mystical, which comparatively few may be able to follow in detail. Are those who are incapable of doing so to be therefore declared incompetent to sit as judges ? This does not follow by any means. The processes may have little or nothing to do with the question which engages the attention of the court. What is alone of importance for members of a church court to determine is whether the leading principles enunciated, and specially the conclusions reached, are agreeable
1 1 2 PRESEYTERIANISM.
to, or inconsistent with, the accepted standards of the church. And upon such a question as this it is of the highest practical importance that it should be made clearly known how the general membership of the church, represented by men who reflect its intelligence and spirituality, regard the bearing of any par- ticular tendency of thought and teaching upon the religious life of the people, and the general wellbeing of the church. In the Presbyterian eldership there are certainly many thoroughly qualified to discuss in detail the merits of most theological questions arising in church courts ; but the right of those Elders, representing the people, who have least claim to a technical knowledge of theology, is to be vindicated on the ground of the Christian people's right to decide upon what is, and what is not, inconsistent with that form of doctrine which they have accepted. To refuse or limit the Elders' right to judge in doctrinal cases, would be to remove this whole department of church govern- ment out of the range of popular review. To reserve such questions for experts, would be to overlook the members' strong personal interest in the church's creed. If a church Confession be so intricate that only theological experts can understand it, there is surely much reason for having it simplified. If it contains elements purely critical or metaphysical, references and allusions curiously erudite and technical, these should be removed. But so long as any formula is accepted as the standard of doctrine for the church, it must be regarded, while it so remains, as understood by the membership, and their representatives are charged to take measures against its sub- version, and to oppose whatever threatens its integrity. The principle of Presbyterian parity demands that in judging of doctrinal cases no distinction be made between the two classes of Presbyters as constituent members of church courts. This certainly is one of the functions common to Ruling Elders and Ministers, because the determining of doctrine, as well as the administration of discipline, belongs to the province of church government with which those who rule have officially to do.
COMPOSITION OF CHURCH COURTS. II3
3. Functions Peculiar to the Clerical Members of Church Courts. — Though Ruling Elders and Preaching Elders have in church courts equal rank and authority, each enjoying the same voting power, and the same privilege of debate, there are certain functions which, not Ruling Elders, but only Preaching Elders, are competent to discharge. After the court has deliberated, and by vote or general assent has reached a judgment, there may be required a formal and solemn deliverance of the resolution which has been thus agreed upon. Those legislative and judicial functions which are common to all members have been per- formed, and now there remain certain executive acts which can be performed only by those holding the ministerial office. And so Guthrie, in the place from which we have before quoted, says : — The execution of some decrees of the church assemblies, such as the imposition of hands, the pronouncing the sentence of excommunication, the receiving of penitents, the intimation of the deposition of Ministers, and such like, do belong to Ministers ?lone.
It is sometimes objected that the principle of Presbyterian Parity, so much insisted upon by us, is strangly overlooked in the practical arrangements of our Presbyterian Churches, inasmuch as only the members of one class of Presbyters are regarded as eligible for the presidency in our church courts. i If there be Elders,' says Dr. Davidson, 'whose sole office is to rule, why are they never allowed to preside at meetings of the church, or to be Moderators of Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods ? One should suppose that their experience in ruling, to which they are exclusively devoted, would give them a better title to preside at such assemblies than the Preaching Elders. But as far as we may judge from practice, Ministers of the gospel proceed on the supposition that they themselves are always superior in presiding and governing, although they have other weighty duties to perform, to men who have nothing to do with any other depart- ment of spiritual labour.' ■ Now, in answer to this sweeping 1 Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, pp. 147, 148.
1 14 PRESBYTERIANISM.
charge, the obvious rejoinder at once suggests itself, that to say regarding Ruling Elders that they never are allowed to preside is not absolutely correct. The famous George Buchanan was chosen Moderator of the General Assembly of 1567, though he was no more than a Ruling Elder, and had never entered the ministerial office. This case is, indeed, singular ; yet there is in it certainly nothing inconsistent with Presbyterian principles. Such an appointment could never have been made if Presby- terians entertained any notion of exclusive clerical powers, such as are claimed by hierarchical bishops. According to the principles of Presbyterianism already laid down, the Minister is, indeed, of a superior order, as holding a superior office to that of the Ruling Elder ; but, in the province common to both, the members of the one order have no jurisdiction over those of the other. In the matter of ruling there is parity among all Presbyters, and no objection absolute on principle can be brought against the presidency in Presbyterian Church courts of one who simply occupies the ruling office. In reference to the Kirk-session, the For?n of Church Government simply says, It is most expedient that, in these meetings, one whose office is to labour in the word and doctrine do moderate in their proceedings. But in accordance with the principles of our church constitution, such a non-ministerial president or mode- rator would be under the necessity of vacating the chair, in favour of a ministerial member, so soon as certain circumstances arose demanding, on the part of the president, the exercise of powers which belong only to the ministerial order. And hence, as a matter of practice and convenient arrangement, it has been adopted as a positive rule, and so inserted in the constitutional treatises of the Presbyterian Churches, that only those members should preside, who, by virtue of their office, are competent to discharge all the duties and execute all the findings of the particular courts in which they sit. It would be inconvenient to have in the chair at a meeting of Kirk-session, for example, one who could not formally deliver the decision of the eldership
COMPOSITION OF CHURCH COURTS. 1 1 5
in a case of discipline. Now this a mere Ruling Elder cannot do. It belongs to the ministerial, not to the ruling, office. In the Presbytery, again, all the members — Ruling Elders and Ministers — may engage in the examination of candidates for the ministry, and they may jointly consider whether the gifts and character of those presenting themselves are such as warrant their admission into the ministerial order ; but the conveying of this decision must be left to one of the clerical members of the court. Or again, in the case of a licentiate being presented before a Presbytery, as the choice of a congregation within its bounds, Ruling Elders, as well as Ministers, may judge of the validity and regularity of the proceedings connected with the call ; but the ordination, as admission to the ministerial order, can be given only by members of that order. It is therefore a perfectly reasonable arrangement to confine the occupancy of the presidential chair to that class of members which is officially capable of performing all the duties that can possibly be included under the jurisdiction of the court. There is no slight offered to the ruling eldership in reserving the formal presidency for those who, besides being Ruling Elders, are also constitution- ally qualified for discharging executive functions which never have been, and never can be, exercised in a Presbyterian Church, except by members of the ministerial order.
Besides this distinction in regard to power between Ruling Elders and Ministers, there is another difference which serves further to account for and justify that practice of the church to which reference is here made. Ministers are the standing members of all church courts.1 Without the presence of one or more Ministers, no number of Ruling Elders could constitute a Session, a Presbytery, or any other regular church assembly. Ruling Elders have equal rights with Ministers to be present and to discharge the duties of membership ; but even should no Ruling Elder appear, it might be possible to constitute and to perform all the functions of any church court, inferior or superior. 1 Compare The Church a?id its Polity, by Dr. Hodge, pp. 301-305.
1 16 PRESBYTERIANISM.
Thus, for example, before a Kirk-session can proceed to any business, there must be present, as a quorum, two members along with the moderator. Now it occasionally happens that there are three Ministers over a congregation. When any one of these is acting as moderator, the other two sit as members of Session. Should it so happen that, in answer to any intimation of meeting, only these three, without any Ruling Elder, should appear, a quorum would be made. Such an occurrence could only take place under most exceptional circumstances, and it might be unadvisable to proceed. Still it is evident that in such a case a meeting of Kirk-session, composed only of Ministers, could be held. Any number of Ruling Elders, members of a Session, could not constitute a meeting of Session. In reference to the Presbytery, the matter is yet more simple. The absence of representative elders, however much it might be regretted, would not hinder the clerical members present from constituting, and proceeding with any business that might properly come before the court. This distinction between Ministers, as the permanent and essential members of a Presbytery, and Ruling Elders, as members by virtue of the commission of representation which they bear from their respective congregations, is an integral part of our constitution. This positive difference is probably grounded on the distinction, before referred to, between the official capabilities of Ruling Elders and Ministers. As a constitutional distinction which secures, as indispensable, the presence of one or more Ministers in every Presbyterian Church court, it forms a reason for confining the selection of moderator to the ministerial order.
The remark of Dr. Davidson, that Ruling Elders, being only rulers, should be better qualified for presiding than office-bearers who exercise other functions besides that of ruling, looks at first sight plausible, but is really quite superficial. In the choice of a president, no society is accustomed to regard a minimum of official occupation as a qualification for such a dignity. The Lord Chancellor is not only a Peer, but also a member of the
COMPOSITION OF CHURCH COURTS. 1 1 7
bench legally qualified to judge in the court of final appeal at law. The lords of the Court of Appeal are Peers, and so members of the House of Lords, and besides this they are qualified from their legal standing to decide upon points of law ; and from those possessing, not the single, but the double, qualification, the president is taken. The mistake underlying the criticism quoted above, seems to be a false notion of what the position of president implies. If it was only required of the chairman that he should preserve order, and secure the rights of debate to all members, then one with the very minimum of qualification for membership would be eligible and fit for the appointment. But, as we have seen, the president in Presby- terian Church courts must be the mouthpiece of the court, and so he must have the executive power, and be thus personally qualified to do what the most highly qualified member can do. Just as in the House of Lords we distinguish ordinary Peers and Peers who are also legal authorities, and have the president chosen from the latter ; so also in the Presbytery, we have Ruling Elders and Elders who are also Ministers, and from these last the moderator is chosen.
It is also wrong to say that according to Presbyterian principles the Minister is regarded as superior in presiding and governing. The phrase is loose and inaccurate, and misrepresents the Presbyterian position. For certain good reasons, as we have shown, the Minister is regarded by Presbyterians as alone thoroughly qualified for the presidency of church courts. As a matter of convenience and order, the constitution of our church has limited the selection of president to the ministerial order. The functions of the two classes of Presbyters are different ; otherwise, there would not be two classes, but only one. The Minister discharges the functions of Ruling Elder, and certain other characteristic functions besides. And because the president may be officially called to discharge ministerial functions, as well as those of the eldership, he is chosen from the ranks of the ministry. But we do not claim for Ministers any
1 1 3 PRFSBYTERIANTSM.
superiority in governing. Whether any particular act of govern- ment have reference to doctrine, or discipline, or distribution, the judicial power of Ministers and Elders, as members of church courts, is simply equal. As Ruling Elders are not relieved of the duties of a worldly calling, it is evident that there was originally no idea of placing upon them the burden of all-engrossing duties. But unless the whole circle of ministerial work may be fairly regarded as devolving upon the Elder, it cannot be supposed that in the business of church courts he will be adequate for the discharge of every manner of duty just as the Minister. If the Elder claims to ordain and generally to discharge executive functions, then he should preach and administer the sacraments, and in that case the office of the eldership is abolished, and only the ministry remains.
CHAPTER II.
GRADATION OF CHURCH COURTS.
1. Principle of Gradation of Church Courts. — It is a recognized characteristic of Presbyterianism that there is a regular series of church judicatories, beginning with a purely congregational court and ending with one which is representative of all the congrega- tions throughout the country associated by the acceptance of a common form of government. The courts essential to a regularly developed Presbyterian constitution are the Kirk-session, the Presbytery, and the Synod. In certain Presbyterian Churches, between the Presbytery and the Supreme Court, Provincial Synods are introduced, comprising under each several Presbyteries, and all, again, embraced under the General Assembly. In this arrangement we have all the scriptural principles of church polity fully acknowledged and developed. The rights of the Christian people associated together in a single congregation are expressly recognized in the constitution of the Kirk-session, which has cognizance of all the affairs and interests of that one particular community ; while in the local Presbytery, and in Provincial Synods (where such courts exist), each congregation has a double representation. And while individual and particular rights are thus emphasized, the grand principle of the unity of the church is not lost sight of. This doctrine is prominently exhibited in the regularly graduated combination of the separate congrega- tions by means of a series of courts, each representative of
119
1 20 PRESBYTERIANISM.
groups of church members and churches, increasingly compre- hensive, until when the last is reached it is representative of the whole.
There is here a careful avoidance, on the one hand, of the extreme which exaggerates the idea of church unity so as to sacrifice to it the interests and the rights of individual members and particular congregations ; and, on the other hand, the extreme which exaggerates the idea of congregational rights and the independency of local churches, so as to lose sight of the common bond by which not only members of the one local church, but also members of other similar churches, are united together in church, as distinguished from congregational, fellow- ship.
In reference to church government, the principle involved in the Presbyterian arrangement of church courts is the right of supervision and review on the part of more comprehensive assemblies of the proceedings of inferior and local courts. The proceedings of the Session are subject to the review of the Presby- tery, and from the inferior court an appeal may be taken to the superior. Against this Presbyterian theory of courts of review, the Independents have always protested. Some of those objectors are opposed to all manner of interference with the proceedings of any local church, for which they claim sole power to determine and regulate all its affairs. The more thoroughgoing Indepen- dents, like Dr. Davidson, demur to consultative assemblies as well as to authoritative courts. It is admitted that occasional Synods may be useful for advice in emergencies. ' Yet it is not wise to resort to them often. They ought not to be lightly summoned, or hastily appealed to. Nothing but unusual diffi- culty or injustice should bring them into being.'1 Others, again, more frankly and heartily admit the advantage of frequent meet- ings of church Councils, yet strictly confining the powers of such Synods to the simple offering of counsel and advice. Thus most of the American Congregationalists, following the practice of the 1 Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, p. 269.
GRADATION OF CHURCH COURTS. 12 1
Puritan and Pilgrim Independents, have variously constituted Synods, Councils, and Associations resembling closely the church courts of Presbyterianism, save in the right of authoritative con- trol. If the particular church whose proceedings had been under review is not satisfied with the decision, then the Council has no binding power to enforce its judgment. Inasmuch, however, as the Association can cut off from its fellowship any refractory congregation, the principle of Presbyterianism is practically admitted. What is thus, without express avowal of the principle, done among many Independents, is clearly avowed as a charac- teristic doctrine of Presbyterianism. The Presbytery has juris- diction over the Session, and the Synod has jurisdiction over the Presbytery. The control is authoritative and not simply advisory.
Under this explicit recognition, in the appointment of courts of review, of the principle that it is the right and duty of the members of the church to interest themselves in the affairs of all the churches, Presbyterians simply apply to their ecclesias- tical life the maxim of the Apostle, Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. That a church, that is, a congregation, no more than an individual, can reach the Christian aim by selfish attention to private and par- ticular interests, has been admirably shown by Owen, who, though an Independent, adopted many of the characteristic principles of Presbyterianism. ' The church that confines its duty unto the acts of its own assemblies, cuts itself off from the external com- munion of the church catholic ; nor will it be safe for any man
to commit the conduct of his soul to such a church The
end of all particular churches is the edification of the church catholic unto the glory of God in Christ And that particu- lar church which extends not its duty beyond its own assemblies and members, is fallen off from the principal end of its institution. And every principle, opinion, or persuasion, that inclines any church to confine its care and duty unto its own edification only, yea, or of those only which agree with it in some peculiar practice,
122 PRESBYTERIANISM.
making it neglective of all due means of the edification of the church catholic, is schismatical.' l
In the form of church government prepared by the Westminster divines, and adopted by the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, the principle of the gradation of the church courts is summarily laid down :— It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that there be a subordination of congregational, classical, provincial, and national assemblies, for the government of the church. In the Westminster Assembly there were long-continued and keen debates on the right of church Synods ; but these generally turned on questions of interpretation, reference on all sides being made to church meetings alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles, and opinion diverging only in regard to the authority claimed by these assemblies over the churches. We should not expect to find exact models of procedure in assemblies called when the church was still constitutionally unformed, yet from their example many useful hints may be gathered.
2. Scripture Examples of Church Courts. — In seeking support from Scripture for the principle laid down of the subordination of local church assemblies to more general Synods, reference is usually made to the case of the Council at Jerusalem. It is maintained that we have, in the narrative of Acts xv., a striking example of a court of review, — a church assembly which deliberated on matters referred to it from a particular local church, and issued decrees which those making the reference were enjoined to keep. The question, which had occasioned diffi- culty in the church at Antioch, concerned the continued obliga- tion of Jewish legal ceremonies ; and, local parties being unable to reach a unanimous decision on the matter, delegates were appointed to state the case before a meeting of the church at Jerusalem, and obtain an authoritative decision. There are two points in connection with this Council which demand careful
1 Owen, On the Nature and Government of the Gospel Church, — Works, vol. xvi.
GRADATION OF CHURCH COURTS. 1 23
investigation, in order that we may sec how far, and in what particulars, it can be legitimately used as illustrative of the Presbyterian principle of subordination in church courts : 1st, The character and composition of the Council ; and 2nd, The kind of obligation attaching to its decrees. A proper under- standing of these two points is indispensable for the purposes of our present discussion.
(1.) The composition of the Council is indicated by the use of the terms Apostles and Elders as the designations of its members. Independents are accustomed to lay much stress upon the peculiar and special circumstances of the church at Jerusalem at that period. The Apostles were residing there, and, as inspired men, they stood to the church of that day in place of the written revelation of the divine will afterwards given. A church meeting at Jerusalem, in which the Apostles were convened, would be in those days something very different from a meeting of any number of churches elsewhere and without the Apostles' presence. In according a peculiar eminence and weight of authority to the Apostles, Presbyterians and Independents will be found heartily agreed. Admitting the unique claims of the Apostles, no fair- minded and enlightened Presbyterian will claim to find, in a Council with so exceptional a membership, an example and pattern in detail of an ordinary Presbytery or Synod in the modern sense of the term. It is only maintained that here we have a church court, — whatever its peculiar conditions and character may have been, — in which the question referred to it from another church court at Antioch, was taken up and discussed. Some have supposed that the pattern of a subordination of one court under another might be got rid of by maintaining that the church at Antioch voluntarily submitted this particular question to the church at Jerusalem, and that the decision was that simply of umpires whose judgment was accepted in terms of this particular arrange- ment. This view is quite untenable. The acceptance of it would render inexplicable the application of the Council's decrees to other churches (Acts xvi. 4), which had not joined in making
1 24 PRESBYTERIANISM.
the original reference. If, on the other hand, we consider the account given of the composition of this court, we find the Apostles made specially prominent. That they were endowed with the supernatural gift of inspiration is admitted by all parties in the present discussion. Whether these inspired men exercised their peculiar endowment as members of this Council, is the point in dispute. Milton, in seeking to relieve himself of conclu- sions drawn from the proceedings of this Council, denies that there is any precedent afforded here, and calls its decision an oracular declaration of inspired Apostles. To a candid and impartial reader it must surely appear that the record is carefully framed so as to avoid such an impression. Paul, who was not a whit behind the chief of the Apostles, might have given his decision at once in Antioch if only an oracular apostolic declaration was wanted. And even at Jerusalem, it evidently will not do to say that the Apostles, as inspired men, made pro- posals to the assembled Elders — for inspiration does not propose but authoritatively declares : this would be to subject inspired utterances to discussion, and so to deprive them of their charac- teristic authority. Nor will it do to say, that the apostolic declarations were simply accepted by the Elders, for this would be to make these nominal, and not real, members of the Council. Had the Apostles been acting under the influence of their peculiar inspiration, they would not have gathered the Elders to deliberate, but would have themselves authoritatively issued a decree. To submit the matter to discussion in such a case would be to pre- tend to reach by deliberation what had already been determined by authority. There is certainly no evidence of the use, on the part of the Apostles, of their peculiar prerogative of immediate inspiration, but care is taken, in representing the various stages of the proceedings and the varying current of opinion, to show that the conclusion was reached after mature deliberation and fair discussion. Besides this, we have express notice taken of the active and conspicuous part which one who was a simple Presbyter— an Elder, and not an Apostle — played on this occasion.
GRADATION OF CHURCH COURTS. 1 25
After Peter had demonstrated the privileges and liberty which belonged to the new dispensation, and so inclined the minds of the assembled Elders that they gave an attentive hearing to the delegates from Antioch, James, the Lord's brother, and not one of the Twelve, formulated the judgment of the court on the matter that had engaged the attention of Apostles and Elders. When James, the Elder, could thus discharge the official duties of president of the Council, it is evident that the Apostles sat there as Elders among their brethren. Some have supposed that not only Apostles and Elders, that is to say, church office-bearers, were members of this Council, but that it comprised the entire membership of the church of Jerusalem. In support of this view some Independent controversialists point to the mention that is made of the brethren alongside of the Apostles and Elders. Now we should observe that in Acts xv. 4, it is said that the delegates Paul and Barnabas, reaching Jerusalem, were received by the church as well as by the Apostles and Elders, and that they stated the occasion of their coming to all of these ; yet at verse 6 the consideration of the matter is expressly confined to the Apostles and Elders. The * men and brethren ' of Peter and James (vv. 7, 13) may mean only the Apostles and Elders, but the multi- tude (ver. 12) who listened, in all probability included non-official church members who might listen and gain personal conviction without assuming judicial power. And finally, when it is said (ver. 22), that it pleased the Apostles and Elders, with the whole church, the phraseology employed suggests a distinction between Apostles and Elders as officially issuing a declaration, and the church membership as heartily acquiescing.
(2.) As to the kind of obligation attaching to the decision of this Council, the language used in issuing it, seems to show that it was authoritative and not merely advisory. The decrees are laid upon the churches, and delivered by the Apostles to church members as precepts which have been ordained for them to keep. The ground of this authority is undoubtedly to be sought in the altogether peculiar powers, and in the universal range of juris-
126 PRESBYTERIAXISM.
diction belonging to the Apostles. The decrees were laid, not simply upon the church at Antioch, but also upon all the Gentile churches visited by Paul and his companions, because the Apostles who sat in the Council had jurisdiction over all the churches. As universal pastors, the Apostles were representa- tives of the whole church, and therefore the decrees of Councils of which they were members, would have binding obligation over all. Dr. Davidson, while denying that we have in the Council anything like a precedent for church courts in the Presbyterian sense, admits that there is certainly not here an example of a mere consultative or advisory association, such as Modern Independents would favour. Whatever view may be taken of the place and nature of this meeting of Apostles and Elders, there ought to be no dirference of opinion as to the authoritative character of the decrees which were issued. It is true that the particular injunctions had immediate reference to the peculiar moral and social conditions of the age. We must distinguish between the binding obligation of a decree as issued, and the permanent obligation of all the details of that decree. For those to whom it was originally addressed, all the injunc- tions contained in it were obligatory. For those who live under altered circumstances, the principle continues in force, and the application of it to the changed conditions of their lives.
An interesting commentary on the record of the proceedings of the Council of Jerusalem will be found in Acts xxi. 17-25. This latter passage refers to a period at least eight years subsequent to the meeting of the Council. Paul has again come to Jerusalem, and this time with the knowledge, prophetically communicated to him, that there bonds and imprisonment await him. So soon as he enters the city, the brethren receive him. Not losing any time, a formal meeting is arranged for the following day. James and all the other Elders — Presbyters — are present. Here was evidently a meeting of the Presbytery or Eldership — James being a member, and evidently acting as president. The Mis- sionary Apostle gives his encouraging report, and awakens
GRADATION OF CHURCH COURTS. 1 27
feelings of devout thankfulness in the hearts of the brethren. But a similar trouble has presented itself in Jerusalem to that which before had shown itself in Antioch. The local church court of Jerusalem must do its duty in taking measures for the peace and wellbeing of its own membership. James calls to remembrance the decrees concerning the Gentiles (ver. 25). These constitute a standing law, and he will not propose anything incon- sistent with them. But a false construction has been put upon Paul's use of these decrees. It is the duty of the Presbytery to interpret its own law, and to endeavour thus to remove occasions of prejudice and misunderstanding. This explaining of a law so as to determine its application in a particular case, is a dis- tinct and characteristic function of Presbytery.
3. Advantages of Gradation in Church Courts. — The character- istic Presbyterian principle of the gradation of church courts can thus be vindicated on rational and on scriptural grounds. It can further be shown that this principle is also of high practical value. There are at least these two great advantages bound up with this Presbyterian principle of the subordination of church courts, — the individual member is freed from the danger of unjust decisions which might result from local pre- judices, and he is also forcibly reminded that, as a member of any congregation of the church, he is a member of that whole church. These are advantages which belong to Presbyterianism constitutionally as distinguished from Congregationalism.
(1.) To have an opportunity of appeal from a local court to one representing a wider area, is clearly in the interests of justice to the individual. Any case arising in a small community is in great danger of being prejudged. Office-bearers regularly resident in the district may almost unconsciously have become partisans, or their circumstances may be such as to give this impression to parties in the case. Thus the moral effect of their decision is greatly weakened. The end contemplated is not gained when the party dealt with is allowed to feel that he has
128 PRESBYTERIANISM.
been made the victim of local prejudices, and that his case has not been tried upon its real merits. In the interests of church discipline, as well as for the preservation of individual rights, it is desirable that an opportunity should be given of appealing to a court not amenable even to the suspicion of personal bias or adverse prepossession. It may be, too, that the particulars of a case may be such, that a satisfactory and convincing judgment can be reached only when the membership of the court engaged in the judgment is fairly representative of the culture and intelligence of the church. Without in the least trenching on the doctrine of Presbyterian Parity, it is evident that there are individual Presbyters throughout the church, whose opinions in regard to particular questions that arise in church courts carry very special weight. There are individual Presbyters — Ministers and Elders — scattered over the several Presbyteries and Synods of our churches, and often appearing in General Assemblies, who have established for themselves a reputation in one or more departments of sacred and ecclesiastical learning, — in church procedure, in doctrinal, critical, or historical questions. They have only single votes like other Presbyters ; yet evidently it is desirable, when any specially important question arises, that an opportunity should be given to those immediately interested to have the deliberate judgment of the greatest number possible of those who have, in those departments, gained a reputation for high acquirements. In the regular ascent of our church courts, then, we have the moral weight of the decision increased, on the one hand, by the removal of all suspicion of the narrowing influence of local prejudices, and, on the other hand, by the inclusion of such men as can speak among their brethren with authority on the matters under review.
(2.) Scarcely less important than this emancipation from local prejudice, as a result of gradation in church courts, is the impulse thereby given to the fuller appreciation of the idea of the unity of the church. Believers are members one of another. This principle is realized in the smallest Christian fellowship meeting,
GRADATION OF CHURCH COURTS. 1 29
where two or three are gathered together in the one name. It has express recognition given to it in the regularly organized congregation. It is, however, acknowledged by every Christian that the principle applies beyond this limit ; and it is admitted to be only right, that in the very constitution of the church the widest possible expression should be given to this truth. If the actual condition of the church were in accordance with the accepted ideal, the bond of church fellowship would simply be that old apostolic symbol, — one Lord, one faith, one baptism. But in order to realize this comprehensive idea of the church in its unity, it would be necessary that all the churches should have absolutely the same terms of communion, — that the grounds of reception into, and ejection from, one congregation should have the same force in every other. This, however, since the confederation of churches began, has never been completely realized. Wherever any individual, or group of individuals, becomes strongly convinced of the truth and importance of some principle not accepted by or not insisted upon by others, an obligation may arise to maintain a separate position. Romanists insist upon the sovereign authority of the Pope ; Prelatists renounce Papal claims, but maintain the apostolic succession of their own Bishops, or, at least, their exclusive right to rule ; Presbyterians maintain Presbyterian Parity, and the government of the church by representative assemblies ; Congregationalists renounce Presbytery, as well as Popery and Prelacy, and maintain the ultimate ecclesiastical authority of the particular local congregation. Romanists, Pre- latists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, — severally maintain as fundamental certain opinions, which mutually exclude one an- other.1 Entertaining such diverse views of church government, these churches must remain apart. Christian unity is wider far than any denomination : but the church unity, to which a system of church polity can give expression, refers to the particular body bound together under the same standards. In the earliest times 1 Compare Hodge, The Church and its Polity, pp. 92-97.
130 PRESBYTERIANISM.
necessarily the idea of the union of churches meant the entire company of the believers. Gradually the exigencies of the situation called for the imposition of more definite terms of communion. The idea of the church fixes the conditions of membership. It has been clearly shown by Mr. Hatch, that in the early church there were three successive periods in each of which there appeared, in a regularly advancing form, this doctrine of the unity of the church.1 In the earliest period, the condition of church fellowship was simply a changed life, — church union here resulting from a common relation to the same ideal and the same hope. In the second period, there was required in addition, the profession of a definite creed, — church unity here was one of common beliefs. In the third period, acceptance of the Catholic Church order, as well as of the Catholic faith and manner of life, was required, — church unity here following upon agreement in regard to organization and from membership in the same external confederation. This last, as comprehending the other two, is that which now alone prevails. It has to be guarded against the chilling influence of mere externalism ; but when thus guarded, it seems alone adequate to the varied and complex conditions of modern church life. It is noticeable, that distinctions in church govern- ment, more than differences in doctrine, have resulted in separate church organizations. What we say of denominational church unity concerns only such distinctions as church constitutions and particular confessions introduce. We say that the Presbyterian Church is one in a sense quite different from that in which we affirm that all true believers — all that hold the Head — are members of the one church of the living God. Practically the bounds of a particular church are determined by subjection to the one supreme court. ' The Presbyterians of Scotland, subject to the same General Assembly, constitute one church ; those subject to another Assembly constitute another.'2 The idea of
1 Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches t pp, 182-184.
2 Hodge, The Church and its Polity, p. 95.
GRADATION OF CHURCH COURTS. 131
church unity entertained in Prelatical Churches leads to an exaggerated centralization, either in an individual, the Pope, or in a bench of Prelatical Bishops. In Congregationalism, the idea is lost sight of altogether through the exaggerated prominence given to particular and individual rights. The representative principle in Presbyterianism maintains the doctrine of the unity of the church without the surrender of those rights which belong inalienably to the Christian people. The individuals originally concerned in any case, when they claim the judgment of superior courts of the church, are made to realize the place which they occupy in the interest and sympathies of the members of that church to which they belong ; and, at the same time, the members of those courts, as representatives of their church, are reminded of their responsibilities and duties in relation to the most distant and obscure of those, whose burdens they must share, as members of the one body and fellow-members of the same church.
CHAPTER III.
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS.
1. The Kirk -session, or Congregational Presbytery. — For the model of the Kirk-session of our Presbyterian Churches, we can go back to New Testament times. Owing to the peculiar circumstances of the early church and the condition of con- temporary society, the Presbytery of the Apostolic Age, and of the immediately following centuries, corresponded, as to the functions which it discharged, to the meeting of Kirk-sessicn rather than to the meeting of Presbytery in the modern sense. The function of primitive Presbyters consisted primarily in the exercise of discipline. As a court, the Presbytery of the early Christian ages corresponded to the Jewish synedrion ; held its meetings on week-days, and reviewed, and gave judgment upon, the conduct of those who were members of the church. Just because these were its functions, the primitive Presbytery or meeting of the eldership was long the only regular and uni- versally recognized church court. The exercise of discipline was, among the early Christians, made far more prominent, and the sessions of the court, in which discipline was administered, were far more frequent, than with us. Face to face with pagan corruptions, the Christian brethren were more concerned about the maintaining of a pure life, than the profession of a detailed and elaborate creed. Whether the membership of the court was large or small, whether it embraced the office-bearers of
132
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. 1 33
several smaller congregations in the one city, or consisted simply in the office-bearers of a single congregation, in either case, it was characteristically a court for the administration of discipline.
The primitive Presbytery thus affords a singularly accurate model of the Kirk-session of the present day. We may now endeavour briefly to indicate some of the characteristics of this court, as to membership, jurisdiction, and functions.
(1) Me?nbershifi of the Kirk-session. — The standing of Pres- byter or Elder in connection with that congregation, of which the particular Kirk-session is the regular representative court, is the only condition of membership. The minister of the congregation and all the elders elected and acting in the congre- gation are members of that Kirk-session. The number varies according to the size and requirements of the congregations. The elders should be sufficiently numerous to allow such sub- division of the duties of the office as will permit the discharge of these without undue interference with the lawful worldly calling of individual members. Those elders who are not pastors are officially distinguished by the designation Ruling Elders. This indicates the general function of the court. In the exercise of this function of rule, there is perfect equality among all the members of the Session. ' In all assemblies of the church, Ruling Elders, being thereto rightly called, have power to sit, write, debate, vote, and conclude in all matters that are handled therein.' ■ The only appearance of inequality arises from the confining of the moderatorship to the clerical members of the court. The principle upon which this constitutional rule is based has been already discussed. It need only be said here that executive acts belong only to the minister, and these are pre- cisely the peculiar duties of a Moderator of Session. He formally declares the judgment of the eldership. As president he gains no undue power ; nor is he in a position to veto any legitimate business, for should he decline to convene the Session, or refuse 1 Treatise of Ruli?ig Elders and Deaco?is, by James Guthrie, chap. vi.
134 PRESBYTERIANISM.
to allow discussion on any matter, any member feeling aggrieved may complain to the Presbytery.
(2) Jurisdiction of the Kirk-session. — The range of authority belonging to an eldership is determined by the bounds of that congregation by which its members have been elected, and to which, as individual communicants, they belong. In primitive times, it would seem that often, if not always, the congregations in one city, whether few or many, had but one eldership, — as, for example, at Jerusalem and Ephesus. The legitimacy of this arrangement was recognized in the Scottish Church of the Reformation. In the Second Book of Discipline, it is declared that though elderships are in particular kirks, yet they exercise the power, authority, and jurisdiction of the kirk. In those times many churches, especially in country districts, could not obtain a complete eldership, and so three or four churches were wont to unite in forming a Session, care being taken to have each con- gregation represented.1 In any case, the power of any particular eldership was confined to the Christian community from which they had been chosen. The regular and sufficient planting of ministers in parishes, led ultimately to the ranking of Sessions as strictly parochial institutions. The Kirk-session, in respect of jurisdiction, came to be precisely a parochial Presbytery. The whole government of the particular congregation is within the jurisdiction of the Session ; only nothing inconsistent with the accepted constitution of the church can be done in Session, without incurring censure, and reversal or cancelling of its judgment, from a higher court.
(3) Functions of the Kirk-session. — The general supervision of the congregation, so as to advance in every possible way its spiritual interests, is the official duty of the elders as a body meeting in the Session. The exercise of this spiritual oversight requires that the Session should keep itself informed regarding the membership of the church, by having prepared an accurate communion roll. The duty of revising this roll belongs to the
1 See Second Book of Discipline, chap. vii. sect. 10.
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. 135
Session, which determines all changes upon it, in the way of removals and additions. No individual member can be deprived of membership except by a sessional act. The eldership con- siders whether any member is worthy of censure, and also what the form of that censure is to be : the moderator is then empowered to declare formally the finding of the court, and execute its sentence. It is not in the power of the minister, or of any individual elder, to suspend a member ; but, on his personal responsibility, he may advise. Admission to ordinances is also determined by the eldership, — all the members having the right, as well as the minister, to examine, and satisfy himself of the fitness of any applicant, — enrolment and reception into church fellowship being distinctly a function of the Kirk - session. Although the minister is not under the jurisdiction of his Session, it is yet the Session's duty to see to it that the ordinances of word and sacrament are regularly and fitly dispensed ; and if need be, it may call on the Presbytery to consider the matter. In reference to distribution of church goods, the eldership must see it done justly.
2. The Deacons' Court. — The Deacons' Court is not to be regarded as a church court in the same sense as Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods are so called in the Presbyterian Church. For while Presbyters or Elders are members of this court, Presbytership is not the qualification of membership. The Deacons' Court embraces in its membership all the office- bearers of the congregation, — ministers, elders, and deacons. The presence of the minister, however, is not necessary in order to form a quorum. If present, he presides ; if not, any member of the court may be appointed chairman. The functions of the Deacons' Court are properly restricted to the temporal affairs of the church and congregation. In the earliest period of the history of the Reformed Church of Scotland there was no special court of deacons, and in consequence there was con- siderable confusion regarding the functions which deacons
136 PRESBYTERIANISM.
were supposed to discharge. In the Minutes of the Scottish Assembly of 1562 we find an entry that seems indifferently to require the presence of an elder or a deacon at a Synod meeting : 1 The kirk ordains that the superintendents appoint their Synodal Conventions . . . and that they give sufficient advertisements to the particular kirks, that the minister with an elder or deacon may repair toward the place appointed by the superintendents, at the day that shall be fixed by them, to consult upon the common affairs of their diocese.' Again, in the Minutes of the Assembly of 1563, we find deacons similarly joined with ministers and elders. It was ordained that if any person find himself hurt by any sentence given by any ministers, elders, or deacons of the kirk, it shall be lesum (lawful) to the person so hurt to appeal, etc. From these references it is evident that other duties than those connected with the outward affairs of the church were discharged by deacons in the Scottish Church under the First Book of Discipline. It was in the Second Book of Discipline that the duties of deacons were theoretically restricted to distri- bution. This was recognized in an Act of Assembly 17 19, — that deacons, as such, shall have no decisive voice, either in the calling of ministers, or in the exercise of church discipline. In those Presbyterian Churches of the present day where the deaconship is maintained in efficiency, the functions of the Deacons' Court are clearly defined so as to exclude all reference to discipline. In the Practice of the Free Church of Scotland this is specially emphasized. The court is not authorized to exercise any kind of spiritual rule, and has no power of discipline even over its own members. As a congregational court, however, the Deacons' Court has a distinct jurisdiction upon which the Session cannot intrude. Equally with the Session it is under immediate jurisdiction of the Presbytery — this, however, being ordinarily restricted to the review and annual investigation of the record and accounts of the court.
3. The Presbytery.— As a church court the Presbytery may b©
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. 1 37
regarded as the unit in the Presbyterian system. Here the representative principle which distinguishes Presbyterianism from all other forms of church government, is first practically applied. The constitution of the Kirk-session, indeed, involves the representation of the membership of the church by means of elected office-bearers ; but, unless the representative idea were developed in the regular succession of superior courts, members of the congregational Session would be little more than the dele- gates of those electing them, and the status of representatives would not be maintained. In the Presbytery the principle of representation is applied, not simply to the congregational membership, but also to the congregational eldership. Every congregational Session is represented in the local Presbytery according to an arrangement determined by the constitution. The bounds of a Presbytery are fixed simply by considerations of convenience. A district is marked out of such dimensions as will allow Presbyters residing within it to convene as often as required at one stated place. Thus, a city or a large town, like Glasgow or Greenock, will be regarded as the Presbytery seat, and will give its name to the Presbytery, and surrounding parishes, which have most ready access to such a centre, will be embraced within the bounds of that Presbytery. Hence the limits of a Presbytery are quite variable. Circumstances may be such as to demand or render advisable the division of one Presbytery into two or more. Thus, in the Church of Scotland previous to 1707, there was only one Presbytery in Orkney, but in that year the Assembly divided the Orkney Presbytery into two — the Presbytery of Kirkwall and the Presbytery of the North Isles ; while still later, in 1725, a further subdivision was made and three Presbyteries formed, called respectively the Presbyteries of Kirkwall, of Cairston, and of the North Isles. Again, in 1830, the Shetland Presbytery was divided into two. And now in the Free Church of Scotland there is but one Presbytery of Orkney, and one Presbytery of Shetland, as in the earlier period. Besides such changes affecting the number of
138 PRESBYTERIANISM.
Presbyteries, applications may be made for having a particular charge separated from one Presbytery and annexed to another. And inasmuch as physical conditions and local circumstances generally determine the boundaries of Presbyteries, the area and membership of these courts vary greatly even in the same church. In the Free Church of Scotland, for example, we have the Presbytery of I slay embracing five regular charges, and that of Glasgow embracing ninety.
The membership of the Presbytery consists of all the ministers of full and regular charges within the district, together with a representative ruling elder for each congregational Session. The evident principle which determines this arrangement is the securing equal representation of the two different orders of Presbyters. In ordinary circumstances there is but one minister over each congregation, and when matters are in this normal condition throughout a Presbytery, its membership is equally divided between teaching and ruling elders. Then the moderator being, for reasons which we have already stated, chosen from the clerical members, a voting majority may be given to the ruling elders. Thus in a Presbytery of six charges, there will be six ruling elders, and five clerical members, with the moderator, who has no deliberative vote. This decided advantage on the side of non-clerical members ought to be noted. Where, however, any minister, on account of age and infirmity, has had granted him a colleague and successor, so long as both are associated in ministerial work in the congregation, both have seats in the Presbytery. This increases the proportion of the clerical mem- bership, and when regard is had to the whole church may be held as counterbalancing the excess of non-clerical membership just referred to. From a comparison of the reports for several years, it appears that in the Free Church of Scotland, for example, the average number of colleagueships is just about equal to the number of Presbyteries. Hence even the admission of all the colleagues to the membership of their Presbyteries need not be regarded as disturbing the equilibrium of lay and clerical repre-
FUISXTIOXS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. 139
scntation. In addition to this, when a theological seminary belonging to the church is situated within the bounds of a Presbytery, the professors, as ordained ministers, are mem- bers of that Presbytery. Whatever temporary inequality the presence of colleague ministers and professors of theology may occasion is righted, so far as the particular Presbytery is concerned, by means of the principle of equal representation of ministers and elders carried out in the composition of the supreme court according to the practice of most Presbyterian Churches.
The mode of conducting meetings of Presbytery has varied from time to time. In the earlier periods of the Scottish Reformed Church, and during the reign of English Puritanism, the meetings of Presbytery were largely utilized for purposes of practical religion, for doctrinal discussion, and study of the Scriptures. Several Acts of Assembly of the Scottish Church, as, for example, those of 1598 and 1638, ordain weekly meetings of Presbytery, all absentees incurring censure, and enjoin par- ticularly that some ( common head of religion' (Act of 1598), or 1 some controverted head of doctrine ' (Act of 1638), be handled in e'very Presbytery publicly, and disputed among the brethren, at the first meeting of the month. It was recommended seriously to all the Presbyteries within the church (Act of Assembly 1694), to set up the use of the exercise and addition, that is, an exposi- tion of Scripture with an extended application. This had been the practice of the Scottish Church in the earliest years of the Reformation. ' There was a meeting,' says Dr. M'Crie, speaking of the forms of church government under Knox, ' called the weekly exercise, or prophesying, held in every considerable town, consisting of the ministers, exhorters, and learned men in the vicinity, for expounding the Scriptures. This was afterwards converted into the Presbytery, or classical assembly.' Even after the Presbyteries had been constituted in regular manner, this exercise, as the references just made to Acts of Assembly show, continued to occupy a prominent place in their proceed-
1 40 PRESBYTERIANISM.
ings. Among the English Puritans these exercises were zealously observed until forcibly stopped by Elizabeth. At present the general practice is to open meetings of Presbytery with a full devotional service of praise, reading of the Scriptures, and prayer. In many Presbyteries it is the custom to devote the first hour of meeting to such devotional exercises.
The functions of the Presbytery are most conveniently grouped under a threefold division.1 (1) There are certain functions which have their original source in the action of the Presbytery. These principally refer to the granting of licence and ordination. It will be seen that this covers a very large field of operations. The duties involved in the granting of licences to preach embrace the superintendence of students and their periodical examination during their preparatory course of training, inquiry as to the regularity and completeness of that course, and finally, the trial of their general fitness for the office of the ministry. In regard to ordination, again, the functions of the Presbytery are yet more extensive. The Presbytery is specially charged with the oversight of vacant congregations ; appoints one of its clerical members Moderator of Session during the vacancy, and, in a manner varying in details according to the special circum- stances of different denominations, makes arrangements so as to further the orderly settlement of a regular pastor. Then so soon as a probationer, one who has received Presbyterial licence, is presented as under call to the vacant charge, the Presbytery, having satisfied itself as to the regularity of the call, proceeds to take him on trial for ordination. These trials involve the produc- tion of evidence as to his previous licensure, and the undergoing of any further examination which the Presbytery may regard as necessary to prove his fitness for that special work to which he is called. Further, all the formal acts in announcing to the con- gregation interested the steps that are being taken, are Presby- terial functions. In the discharge of these duties all members of Presbytery share, except that the serving of edicts, as being 1 The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland % chap. ii. Part II.
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. 141
done at the regular diets of public worship, can only be executed by a minister. The act of ordination, however, as solemn admission to the ministerial order, belongs exclusively to the clerical members of the Presbytery. And further, inasmuch as the Presbytery gives licence and ordination, it is the function of this court to consider when it may be necessary to deprive any individual or suspend him from the exercise of the privileges which it had originally granted. (2) An important department of Presbyterial work is that involved in the superintendence and review of courts under its jurisdiction. * All Presbyteries/ says an Act of Assembly 1700, ' are required to be careful in revising the registers of the judicatures under their immediate inspection.' Upon any occasion the Presbytery may demand the production of the records of Kirk-sessions within the bounds. It is custo- mary to call for these records once a year, immediately before the meeting of the Provincial Synod preceding the meeting of the General Assembly. This rule of an annual inspection of Session records in the Scottish Church dates from the period of the second Reformation. An Act of Assembly 1639 enjoins that the Session books of every parish be presented once a year to the Presbyteries, that they may be tried by them. The Presbytery judges whether the inferior court has kept within its province in the particular business which it has undertaken, and whether its decisions and course of procedure have been according to the laws of the church. In connection with the procedure or interests of congregational Sessions, the Presbytery has to deal with references and appeals. Complaints against the action of the [Moderator of a Session can only be made to the Presbytery. Such complaints may come from the Session, from individual elders, or from simple members of the congregation, and must be made in the form of a petition. A particular Kirk-session, having exhauste3Tfs~pmvers in any case, may refer that case siinpliciter to the Presbytery. And in certain circumstances Kirk-sessions are enjoined by the law of the church to take no action, but to refer the matter at once to the superior judicatory. In the
142 . PRESBYTERIANISM.
exercise of this function of review, one of the grand recom- mendations of the Presbyterian system comes into light. The Presbytery affords opportunity to all under its jurisdiction who feel aggrieved by any local action or neglect, to secure satisfac- tion through a patient examination of their case before a com- petent judicial body. (3) The Presbytery has, further, certain functions to discharge in consequence of its relations to the Synod and Assembly as superior courts. Just as the Kirk- sessions are required annually to submit their records to the Presbytery under which they are, the Presbyteries are required to submit their records to the inspection and judgment of the Synod to which they belong. The powers of the Synod in regard to the Presbytery books are precisely the same as those of the Presbytery over the Session books. Errors in procedure, whether in reference to method, or in reference to the subjects dealt with, on the part of the Presbyteries, may be corrected, and the parties reprimanded by the Synod, which exercises toward Pres- byteries all the functions of a court of review. Consequently due care must be taken by each Presbytery that an accurate copy of its proceedings be regularly kept. Further also, appeals and references may be made from the Presbytery to the Synod just as by Kirk-sessions to the Presbytery. In the case of one Presbytery feeling aggrieved by the action of another Presbytery, relief can only be had by complaint lodged before the Synod which has jurisdiction over the Presbytery charged with the offence. The Presbytery also may make a direct proposal to the General Assembly in regard to legislation, indicating the importance of some modification of any law, or urging the desirability of passing some new enactment. This is done by transmitting the proposal as an overture to the General Assembly. On the other hand, the Presbytery may be required to express an opinion on some proposal originating in the Assembly, which has been transmitted in the form of an overture to the Presbytery. According to the Barrier Act passed in 1697, no proposal of the General Assembly can be passed into a binding law of the
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. 1 43
church until the consent of a majority of Presbyteries has been secured in response to the overtures sent down.
The relation which the Presbytery bears to the more compre- hensive courts, Synod and Assembly, is the occasion of many of the express enactments of the constitution, which form practical restrictions upon the exercise of Presbyterial powers. Thus a single Presbytery independent of all other Presbyteries might make any sort of conditions in granting licence ; might require or dispense with a university curriculum ; might require a two, or a three, or a four years' theological course. But the constitu- tion of each denomination lays down certain conditions to be observed uniformly by all the Presbyteries. Such licence forms a main qualification for ordination. The licentiate admitted by ordination to a seat in any Presbytery becomes thereby a member of Synod, with consequent jurisdiction over the other Presbyteries forming that Synod. Licensing and ordaining, therefore, are matters that affect not a single Presbytery but other Presbyteries ; and hence by terms of association a restric- tion is put upon the inherent powers of each Presbytery. The constitution is not a grant of powers to the church courts, but a restriction of powers.
All Presbyterial functions which can be discharged by the joint action of members of a Presbytery are performed by all the mem- bers of that court, whether ministers or ruling elders, except such acts as are competent only to those who hold the ministerial office. We have already shown that the moderator of Presbytery is properly chosen from among the clerical members, inasmuch as they only have the executive power. The one main exception to the full equality in the Presbytery of ruling elders and ministers lies in the matter of ordination. It is most certainly the true theory of Presbyterianism, that only ministerial members of Presbytery take part in the act of ordaining to the office of the ministry. Ordination, says the Directory, is the act of a Presby- tery. The power of ordering the whole work of ordination is in the whole Presbytery. This is enacted to prevent single congrega-
144 PRESBYTERIANISM.
tions taking upon them such duties. All members of Presbytery engage in ordering and managing the ordination, but the act itself belongs only to those members who have themselves had the like ordination, and are in possession of that office to which the ordination admits. ' Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching Presbyters to whom it doth belong.' ' Preaching Pres- byters orderly associated, either in cities or neighbouring villages, are those to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations within their bounds respectively.' When elsewhere in the Directory members of Presbytery are spoken of in connection with ordination, it is evident that only ministers are intended. The idea that ruling elders should take part in the ordination of ministers is quite inconsistent with Presbyterian principles and practice. ' If ordination,' says Dr. Hodge, ' were merely induction into the order of Presbyters, from which some members, by a subsequent process, were selected to preach, and others to rule, then the service might from its nature belong to all Presbyters ; but as beyond dispute ordination is an induction into a particular office, it cannot, according to our constitution, belong to any who do not hold that office.'1 If the right to preach the word belongs to ministers, so also does the right to ordain to the office of preacher belong only to them. The power to ordain really belongs to every minister who has been ordained, only, on the principle referred to in the preceding paragraph, ministers as members of Presbytery under a constitution have agreed not to exercise that power, except in an orderly way by Presbyterial co-action.
4. The Provincial Synod. — In all essential respects, the Synods of the Scottish Churches, Established and Free, maybe described as larger Presbyteries. A Provincial Synod embraces a greater or less number of Presbyteries, and its membership is simply made up of all the members of those Presbyteries, both ministers 1 The Church and its Polity, p. 291.
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. I45
and elders, together with a minister and elder as corresponding members, from one or more neighbouring Synods, commissioned to represent such court or courts. In both the Scottish Churches just named there are sixteen Provincial Synods. These, like the Presbyteries, vary greatly in their dimensions. In the Free Church, the Synods of Glasgow and Aberdeen have each eight Presbyteries included ; while some have only three ; and Orkney and Shetland Presbyteries, owing to their insular positions, are both invested with Synodical powers. The Synod of Glasgow and Ayr embraces 244 ministerial charges : the Synod of Gallo- way only 26. In the earliest period of the Scottish Reformation Provincial Synods were held twice a year under the presidency of the superintendent of the district. The order of Provincial Synods in Scotland presently followed was originally fixed by an Act of Assembly in 1638, when the number was settled at sixteen, though the distribution of Presbyteries was then somewhat differ- ent from the present. The intention and main use of this institu- tion is to form a connecting link between Presbyteries in a large church and the supreme court. In consequence of this intermedi- ary position, the functions of the Synod are comparatively narrow in range. It is mainly a court of review, and so is principally occupied with the examination of the books of Presbyteries within its jurisdiction, with the consideration of complaints, appeals, or references from the Presbyteries, and the summarizing of reports on Sabbath schools, on the state of religion and morals, etc., from materials afforded by the inferior courts. In the exercise of the same right as that possessed by Presbyteries, the Synod can approach the supreme court on any subject by means of an overture. Such a proposal must be formally sub- mitted to the Synod, and when supported by a majority in the Synod is transmitted to the Assembly. The Synod is directly responsible to, and under the immediate jurisdiction of, the General Assembly. The record of the Synod's proceedings must be produced before the Assembly, and is dealt with just as the Pres- bytery's record is dealt with by the Synod. In the exercise of
146 PRESBYTERIANISM.
discipline, besides entering upon all cases of complaint, appeal, and reference from Presbyteries, the Synod may call the attention of a Presbytery to any matter which it should deal with, and enjoin the Presbytery to institute proceedings.
5. The General Assembly. — The General Assembly is the highest court in the Presbyterian Church, and is representative of the whole church whose name it bears. Whatever powers, therefore, are inherent in the church must also be inherent in the Assembly as the supreme court. Its proceedings, however, are regulated by the accepted constitution of the church, by which the rights of all inferior courts are preserved. It is concerned directly with the affairs of the entire denomination, and hence it determines the number, bounds, and designations of all Presbyteries and Synods under its jurisdiction. Then, just as the Presbytery reviews the proceedings of Kirk-sessions within its bounds, and Synods review the decisions and transactions of Presbyteries within their provinces, so also the General Assembly reviews the proceedings and examines the records of Provincial Synods. All complaints, appeals, and references from Synods come before the Assembly. The functions of the supreme court of the church are well stated in the Second Book of Discipline (chap. vii. § 22) : 1 This Assembly is instituted that all things omitted, or done amiss, in the provincial assemblies, maybe redressed and handled; and things generally serving for the weal of the whole body of the kirk within the realm may be foreseen, intreated, and set forth to God's glory.'
The General Assembly is representative of the whole church. All the Presbyters of the church are not members of Assembly, but all are represented there. In the Kirk-session all the elders of the congregation are members ; in the Presbyteries all the Kirk-sessions are represented by a minister and elder ; in the Provincial Synods the Presbyteries are not represented but embraced ; and in the Assembly. Presbyteries are not embraced, but are all represented. The constitutions of Presbyteries and
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. 147
Synods arc exactly the same, but in the constitution of the General Assembly the representative principle reaches another stage of development. Presbyteries and Synods represent the Kirk-sessions ; the General Assembly represents the Presbyteries. In the Kirk-session there is only one minister and several elders, and the representation is one minister and one elder ; and in the Presbytery, where both orders of Presbyters are present in equal numbers, the same principle of equal proportion in representa- tives for the Assembly ought to be maintained. This equality of representation to both ministers and elders is not observed in all Presbyterian Churches. The Established Church of Scotland, for example, following the long accepted practice of the Scottish Church, admits a much smaller number of elders than of ministers to her supreme court. An Act of Assembly 1694 seems to deter- mine the principle which in its main features has been followed ever since. All Presbyteries consisting of twelve parishes or under shall send two ministers and one elder; those above twelve and not over eighteen shall send three ministers and one elder ; those above eighteen and not over twenty-four shall send four ministers and two elders ; those above twenty-four shall send five ministers and two elders ; and (added by an Act of 171 2) those over thirty shall send six ministers and three elders. So far as Presbyterial representation is concerned, this allows considerably under one-half to elders as compared with ministers. In addition, sixty-seven elders are elected by Town Councils to represent the Royal Burghs of Scotland, and each Scottish University may send a representative. Dr. Hill gives the following abstract of an actual Roll of one Assembly as a specimen of the general scale of representation : Two hundred ministers representing Presbyteries, eighty-nine elders representing Presbyteries, sixty- seven elders representing Royal Burghs, and five ministers or elders representing Universities. According to a report of statistics presented to the Presbyterian Council at Philadelphia in 1880, the General Assembly of the Established Church of Scotland then consisted of 247 ministers and 178 elders, chosen precisely
1 48 PRESBYTERI ANISM,
according to the plan above indicated. Writing at the beginning of the eighteenth century, Steuart of Pardovan says, — ' Our practice would be more easily accounted for, if delegations were only from Presbyteries, and the delegates equally both of ministers and elders.' In the Free Church of Scotland the true Presbyterian theory of representation is consistently carried out. One-third of the membership of every Presbytery constitutes the membership of the General Assembly ; and this applies to ministers and elders alike. In a Presbytery of six charges, for example, two ministers and two elders are sent as representatives. If there be seven charges or seven ministerial members in a Presbytery, then every third year three ministers and three elders will be sent. The election of members belongs only to Presbyteries ; and this undoubtedly is the only method that accords with the ideal of Presbyterian Church government. The Roll of the Free Church Assembly for 1882 contained the names of 372 ministers and 372 elders. The presence of colleague ministers in Presbyteries does not disturb this equality of ministers and elders in the Assembly. If a Presbytery of six ministerial charges had three colleague- ships, giving nine clerical members and only six elders ; still the representation would be three ministers and three elders. Should it be impossible to secure all or any of the representative elders from the eldership of the local Presbytery, these may be chosen from other Presbyteries of the church. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland is not representative, so far as the clerical membership is concerned, but embraces all the ordained ministers of the church. It is only distinguished from the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church, and the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of England, by having Provincial Synods under it. In the Presbyterian Churches of America the principle of equal representation of ministers and elders in their supreme courts seems to be generally observed.
The thoroughly representative character of the General Assembly renders it less permanent as to its membership than any of the other church courts. The clerical membership of a Presbytery
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. 149
may continue for years unaltered, but in the Assembly the clerical as well as the lay element varies from year to year. As the supreme court, its decisions cannot be appealed against, and yet evidently all its decisions cannot have the impress of absolute finality, nor can one Assembly be expected to endorse all the views of previous Assemblies. It seems correct, however, to maintain that all judicial decisions of the Assembly are irre- versible. Thus, if one Assembly, taking into consideration some appeal, empowers a Presbytery, if satisfied as to the advisability of the procedure, to come to a certain resolution ; if that Presby- tery passes that resolution, and a minority complains of this to the Assembly, the former decision of Assembly empowering the Presbytery to come to such a finding will finally bar the way against entertaining any such appeal. If one Assembly suspends any minister in the exercise of discipline, another Assembly cannot rescind this decision, but may judge whether the ends of discipline have been attained by the length of suspension already endured. Yet one Assembly is not bound by the precedents of former Assemblies. The Assembly of 1883 cannot review the decisions of the Assembly of 1882, but in a case similar to one of the previous year, it may reach a conclusion diametrically opposite. As to the binding force of the Assembly's decisions, so long as they do not contravene any principle of the constitution and are not inconsistent with God's word, — that is, so long as they keep within the limits of the power belonging to the church, — they are to be regarded as bearing authority over all the church ; but these, in so far as they are resolutions and rules, and not judicial findings, may be superseded by the enactments of another Assembly. If any measure is proposed which may in any way affect the constitution, whether by addition, or by subtraction, or by modification of any other kind, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Assembly to pass it into law. The Barrier Act, as already referred to, comes into operation, and the proposal can be given effect to only after a favourable return from the Presbyteries has been received.
150 PRESBYTERIANISM.
Thus the truly liberal characteristics of Presbyterianism appear in the jealous care with which the rights of the people are guarded at every turn. The constitution has been so framed that no arbitrary decisions can be enforced, no party proposal hastily carried, before the mind of the church has been prepared for its hearty and intelligent acceptance. From court to court measures progress and ripen, — the opinion of the church is at once sought and enlightened, — and all the advantages of a popular and con- stitutional government are secured. The intelligent Protestant, ardent in his love of civil and religious liberty, need not be ashamed to own and acknowledge the Presbyterian form of church government by Kirk- sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies.
In the Presbyterian Churches of Great Britain, North America, and the British Colonies, the general principles illustrated in this treatise are carried out in all essential respects. When we turn, however, to the Continent of Europe, we find a considerable number of smaller religious societies, exhibiting more or less perfectly the characteristics of Presbyterian Churches. Leaving out of account the Lutheran communities, which, notwithstand- ing certain approximations to a Presbyterian constitution, have yet certain elements in their polity altogether inconsistent with the genius of Presbyterianism, we may fairly claim the Reformed Continental Churches as examples of imperfectly developed Pres- byterian Churches. Some of these, so far as the letter of their constitution is concerned, approach very near that model of ecclesiastical polity which we have endeavoured to sketch. The Reformed Churches of Bohemia, Moravia, and Hungary, are only prevented by the restrictions of the Austrian State from carrying out the principles of Presbyterianism in all their fulness. Even as it is, these churches have their Kirk-sessions, Presby-
FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCH COURTS. 151
teries, and Synods, and the want of decisive authority in their enactments is occasioned simply by the refusal of the State to grant autonomy to the Reformed Church in any substantial form. The Reformed Church in Germany suffers similarly from the jealous interference of the State, which insists upon appoint- ing the members of the consistories. In France, the Reformed Church in connection with the State is in the same way hampered by State control ; whereas the numerous small evangelical societies separate from, the State, now brought together in the Union of the Evangelical Churches of France, have adopted a Synodal- Presbyterian constitution. In these different societies under the Union the practice is not yet uniform ; some, however, have regularly constituted Sessions, and recognize the offices of elders and deacons, and expressly state that the government of the church is vested in the Presbyteries and General Assembly. Very imperfect in constitution is the young native Protestant Church of Italy — called the Free Italian Church. It has neither Presbytery nor Synod, but has an Assembly composed of deputies from the various churches, and has the regular office-bearers of a Presbyterian Church, — minister, elders, and deacons.- There are thus the materials present for the regular constitution of Presby- terian Church courts as soon as the growth of the church may render their establishment necessary.
INDEX.
Angel of the churches, Meaning of
the term, 76. Apostolic office temporary, 77. Apostolic succession, No Scripture
ground for, 72. Assembly, General, 146. Assembly, A representative court, 146. Authoritative decisions in church
courts, 125.
Barrier Act, 142, 149.
Bishops not successors of the Apostles,
72. Bishops and Presbyters in the New
Testament the same, 74. Bishops and Presbyters in the Early
Church, 83.
Calvin's constitution of elderships,
57- Calvin's theory of the ruling eldership,
47.
Calvinism not peculiar to Presby- terianism, 3.
Characteristics of Presbyterianism, 4.
Church, Presbyterian idea of, 15.
Church Courts, Idea of, 103 ; functions common to all members of, no ; presidency of, 113 ; Scripture ex- amples of, 122 ; authoritative de- cisions of, 125.
Clergy and Laity distinguished, 24.
Clerical orders, Undue stress laid upon, 27.
Congregationalism as a form of churcn government, 1, 3.
Consistorial system in France, 59.
Consistory an imperfect Kirk-session, 55-
Continental Reformed Churches, 150. Council of Jerusalem, 122. Courts of review, 120, 127. Culdees had only Presbyter Bishops,
85. Cyprian's sacerdotal view of the ministry, 69.
Deacons, Duties of, 94 ; qualifica- tions of, 95 ; ordination of, 98 ; in the history of the church, 100.
Deacons' duties in the Early Church, 100.
Deacons in relation to matters of discipline, 101, note.
Deacons' Court, Constitution of, 135.
Deaconship, Origin of the, 90.
Dichotomy of church offices, 35.
Distribution the function of Deacons,
97- Divine Right. In what sense claimed
for Presbytery, 8. Doctrinal types. How related to
forms of Church Polity, 6.
Elder. See Ruling Elder. Elderships, Advantages of, 51 ; as
constituted by Calvin, 57 ; in the
Reformed Church of Scotland, 59. Erastian view of eldership, 62. Executive functions of church courts,
103. Extraordinary offices in the church,
33-
Finality of General Assembly'
decisions, 149. Forms of Church Polity, Various, 1. France, Reformed Church of, 151.
INDEX.
*53
Free Italian Church, 151. Functions of church courts, 103.
GERMANY, Reformed Church of, 151.
Gifts and church office, 20.
Gifts, Prevalence of, in Early Church,
43-
Government, the function of Presby- ters, 41.
Grace not conferred by ordination,
32- Gradation, Principle of, in church
courts, 119. Gradation, Advantages of, 127, 150.
IMPERFECT Presbyterian Church con- stitutions, 150. Independents, Church Polity of, 3. Italian Free Church, 151.
Jerusalem, Council of, 122. Judicial functions of church courts,
103. Jurisdiction of church courts, 105. Jus Divinum, 8.
Kirk-session, Meeting of, 132; mem- bership of, 133 ; jurisdiction of, 134 ; functions of, 134.
Laity and Clergy distinguished, 24. Laying on of hands, 29 ; how regarded
by Knox, 33 ; by the Westminster
divines, 33. Layman? Is the Ruling Elder a, 47. Legislative functions of church courts,
103. Literature of Presbyterianism, 10. Luther on the rights of the Christian
people, 54.
Members of the church, Rights of the, 107.
Methodists, Church government of the, 2.
Ministerial character of the Presbyter's office, 68.
Ministerial office in the history of the church, 82.
Montanism as an anti-hierarchical re- action, 26.
Names given to Ruling Office in the New Testament, 45.
Office, Idea of, in the Presbyterian Church, 20.
Offices in the Presbyterian Church, 33. Order, Ideas of, in Early Church, 23. Orders, Undue stress laid upon, 27. Ordination, Significance of, 29 ; words
used to express, 31 ; of Deacons,
98 ; to the ministerial office, 81 ; an
act of Presbytery, 143. Overtures to General Assembly, 142,
145 ; to Presbyteries, 142.
Parity of clergy, 7, 78 ; importance of, in Scottish Reformed Church,
Preacher, Office of, recognized, 65.
Preacher's office, Reformers' view of, 86.
Prelatical Bishops not successors of Apostles, 72 ; Timothy and Titus not, 75. ^
Presbyter in Early Church, 53.
Presbyters, Teaching and Ruling, dis- tinguished, 40.
Presbyterianism a form of church government, 4.
Presbytery, Court of the, 136 ; mem- bership of the, 137 ; functions oi the, 140.
Presidency of church courts, 113.
Pressense' on development of Preacher's office, 66, note.
Puritans, Eldership among the, 61.
Reformed Church of Bohemia, etc., 150.
Reformed Church of Germany, 151 ; of France, 151.
Reformers' views of the Preacher's office, 86.
Representation, Principle of, in General Assembly, 146.
Review, Courts of, 120, 127 ; Inde- pendents' objections to, 120 ; Scrip- ture examples of, 122.
Ruling Elder in Presbyterian Church, 8 ; Scripture proof for, 37 ; already in Synagogue, 38 ; distinguished from Teachers, 40 ; duties of the, 49.
Ruling Eldership, Theories of the, 47 ; in the history of the church, 52.
Sacerdotal, Preacher's office not, 68.
Sacerdotalism, No trace of, in New Testament, 71.
Scripture proof for Presbyterian office- bearers, 34 ; ruling eldership, 37.
Session. See Kirk-session.
154
INDEX.
Succession, Apostolic, indefensible,
72 ; earliest trace in Tertullian and
Irenocus, 73. Superintendents in Scottish Reformed
Church not Prelates, 88. Synagogue arrangements adopted in
Apostolic Church, 38. Synods, Provincial, 144.
Trichotomy of church offices, 35.
Union of Evangelical Churches of France, 151,
Unity of church maintained by Presbyterianism, 8 ; rendered pro- minent by gradation of courts, 128.
Westminster Assembly on the ruling eldership, 62 ; on ordina- tion to office, 33.
Women discharging Deacons' duties 96.
' Young men ' of Acts v., Relation of to first Deacons, 93,
f^antiboafcs for Bible Classes anti ^rtttate l&tutrents.
EDITED BY
REY. MARCUS DODS, D.D.,
AND
REV. ALEXANDER WHYTE, D.D.
*-+«^>t »
IN PREPARATION.
PALESTINE. With Maps. By Rev. Arch. Henderson, M.A., Crieff. [Nearly Ready.
THE SABBATH. By Rev. Professor S almond, D.D., Aberdeen.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. By Rev. George Reith, M.A., Glasgow. {Shortly.
THE BOOK OF ACTS. By Rev. Professor Lindsay, D.D., Glasgow. Part II., Chaps, xiii. to xxviii. [Shortly,
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. By Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D., Glasgow.
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. By Rev. James Mellis, M.A., Southport.
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. By Rev. Simeon R. Macphail, M.A., Liverpool.
CHURCH AND STATE. By A. Taylor Innes, Esq., Advocate, Edin- burgh.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By Rev. Professor Lindsay, D.D., Glasgow.
THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT. By Rev. Professor Candlish, D.D.
APOLOGETICS. By Rev. James Iverach, M.A., Aberdeen.
THE BOOK OF EXODUS. By James Macgregor, D.D., late of New College, Edinburgh.
THE DOCTRINE OF SIN. By Rev. Professor Candlish, D.D.
[For Volumes already issued see next page.
HANDBOOKS FOR BIBLE CLASSES.
NOW READY.
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. By James MacGregor, D.D., late of New College, Edinburgh. Price is, 6d.
THE POST-EXILIAN PROPHETS. With Introductions and Notes. By Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D., Glasgow. Price 2s.
A LIFE OF CHRIST. By Rev-. James Stalker, M.A. Price is. 6d.
THE SACRAMENTS. By Rev. Professor Candlish, D.D. Price is. 6d.
THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. By Rev. Professor Murphy, LL.D., Belfast. Price is. 6d.
THE CONFESSION OF FAITH. By Rev. John Macpherson, M.A.* Findhorn. Price 2s.
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. By Rev. Principal Douglas, D.D. Price is. 3d.
THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. By Rev. Principal Douglas, D.D. Price is. 6d.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. By Rev. Professor Davidson, D.D., Edinburgh. Price 2s. 6d.
SCOTTISH CHURCH HISTORY. By Rev. N. L. Walker. Price is. 6d.
THE CHURCH. By Rev. Prof. Binnie, D.D., Aberdeen. Price is. 6d.
THE REFORMATION. By Rev. Professor Lindsay, D.D. Price 2s.
THE BOOK OF GENESIS. By Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D. Price 2s.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. By Rev. Principal Brown, D.D., Aberdeen. Price 2s.
PRESBYTERIANISM. By Rev. John Macpherson, M.A. Price is. 6d.
LESSONS ON THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By Rev. Wm, Scrymgeour, Glasgow. Price 2s. 6d.
THE SHORTER CATECHISM. By Rev. Alexander Whyte, D.D.,
Edinburgh. Price 2s. 6d.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. By Rev. Professor Lindsay, D.D., Glasgow. Price 2s. 6d.
A SHORT HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. By George Smith, LL.D., F.R.G.S. Price 2s. 6d.
A LIFE OF ST. PAUL. By Rev. James Stalker, M.A. Price is. 6d.
THE BOOK OF ACTS. By Rev. Professor Lindsay, D.D. Part I., Chaps, i. to xii. Price \s. 6d,
NEW SERIES
OF THE
FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION : One Guinea (payable in advance) for Four Volumes, Demy 8vo.
The First Issue for 1884 comprises — WEISS ON THE LIFE OF CHRIST. VoL III. (completion). SARTORIUS ON THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE LOVE. One Vol.
1 880 GODET'S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Vol. I. HAGENBACH'S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. Vols. I. and II. DORNER'S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vol. I.
1881 -GODET'S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Vol. II. DORNER'S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vol. II. HAGENBACH'S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. Vol. III. (completion). MARTENSEN'S CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (Individual Ethics.)
1 882. DORNER'S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vols. III. and IV. WEISS'S BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Vol. I. MARTENSEN'S CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (Social Ethics.)
1883. WEISS ON THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Vols. I. and II.
WEISS ON BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT. Vol.
II. (completion). GOEBEL ON THE PARABLES. One Vol.
The Foreign Theological Library was commenced in" 1846, and from that time to this Four Volumes yearly (or 1G0 in^all) have appeared with the utmost regularity.
The Publishers decided to begin a New Series with 1880, and so give an opportunity to many to subscribe who are possibly deterred by the extent of the former Series.
The Publishers are sanguine enough to believe that a Series containing the works of writers so eminent, upon the most important subjects, cannot fail to secure support.
The Binding of the Series is modernized, so as to distinguihs it from the former Series.
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY,
N.B. — Any two Years in this Series can be had at the Subscription Price of Two Guineas. A single Year's Books (except in the case of the current Year) cannot be supplied separately. Non-Subscribers, price 10s. 6d. each volume, with exceptions marked.
1864 — Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. Two Volumes.
Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vols. I. and II.
1865 — Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vol. III.
Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. Two Volumes.
Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Volume.
1866 — Keil and Delitzsch on Samuel. One Volume. Keil and Delitzsch on Job. Two Volumes. Martensens System 'of Christian Doctrine. One Volume.
1867 — Delitzsch on Isaiah. Two Volumes.
Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology. (12s.) One Volume. Auberlen on Divine Revelation. One Volume.
1868 — KeiVs Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Volumes. Delitzsclis Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. I. Harless' System of Christian Ethics. One Volume.
1869— Hengstenberg on Ezekiel. One Volume.
Stier on the Words of the Apostles. One Volume. KeiVs Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. I. Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. I.
1870 — KeiVs Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. II.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II. Schmid's New Testament Theology. One Volume. Delitzsch 's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. II.
1871 — Delitzsch }s Commentary on the Psalms. Three Volumes.
Hengstenberg 's History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Testament, Vol. I.
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Continued.
1872 — KeiVs Commentary on the Boohs of Kings. One Volume. KeiVs Commentary on the Booh of Daniel. One Volume. KeiVs Commentary on the Boohs of Chronicles. One Volume. Hengstenberg's History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Testament. Vol. II.
1873 — KeiVs Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. Winer s Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Vol. KeiVs Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. I. Martensen on Christian Ethics.
1874 — Christlieb's Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Volume.
KeiVs Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. II.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. I.
0 elder's Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. I. 1875 — GodeVs Commentary on St. Luhe's Gospel. Two Volumes.
Oehlers Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Voi. II.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. II.
1876 — KeiVs Commentary on Ezehiel. Two Volumes.
Luthardt's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. I. GodeVs Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. I.
1877 — Delitzsch's Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. Godetfs Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vols. II. and III. Luthardt's Commentary on St. Johns Gospel. Vol. II.
1878 — Gebhardt's Doctrine of the Apocalypse.
Luthardt's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. III. Philijrpi's Commentary on the Romans. Vol. I. HagenbacKs History of the Reformation. Vol. I.
1879 — Philippi's Commentary on the Romans. Vol. II. HagenbacKs History of the Reformation. Vol. II. Steinmeyer's History of the Passion and Resurrection of Our
Lord. One Volume. Haupt's Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol.
MESSRS. CLARK allow a SELECTION of Twenty Volumes (or more at the same ratio) from the Volumes issued previous to New Series (see following pages),
At the Subscription Price of Five Guineas.
T. and T. Claries Publications.
CLAKK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Continued.
The following are the works from which a selection may be made (non- subscription prices within brackets) : —
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Commentary on the Psalms. By E. W. Hexgsten-
bero, D.D., Professor of Theology in Berlin. In Three Vols. 8vo. (33s.) Dr. Gieseler. — Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. By J. C. L.
Gieseler, D.D. Five Vols. 8vo. (£2, 12s. Gd.) Dr. Olshausen. — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts, adapted
especially for Preachers and Students. By Hermann OLSHAUSEN,
D.D. In Four Vols. 8vo. (£2, 2s.)
Biblical Commentary on the Romans, In One Vol. Svo. (10s. 6d.)
Biblical Commentary on St. PauVs First and Second Epistles to the
Corinthians. In One Vol. Svo. (9s.)
Biblical Commentary on St. PauVs Epistles to the Philippians,
to Titus, and the First to Timothy. In continuation of the Work of Olshausen. By Lie. August Wiesinger. In One Vol. Svo. (10s. Gd.) Dr. Neander. — General History of the Christian Religion and Church. By Augustus Nkandkr, D.D. Translated from the Second and Im- proved Edition. Nine Vols. Svo. (£3, 7s. 6d.)
This is the only Edition in a Library Size.
Prof. H. A. Ch. Hdvernick. — General Introduction to the Old Testament.
By Professor Havernick. One Vol. 8vo. (^K)s. Gd.) Dr. Midler. — T lie Christian Doctrine of Sin. By Dr. Julius Muller.
Two Vols. 8vo. (21s.) New Edition. Dr. Hengstenberg. — Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary
on the Messianic Predictions. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D.
Four Vols. (£2, 2s.) Dr. M. Baumgarten. — The Acts of the Apostles; or, the History of the
Church in the Apostolic Age. By M. Baumgarten, Ph.D., and
Professor in the University of Rostock. Three Vols. (£l, 7s.) Dr. Stier. — The Words of the Lord Jesus. By Rudolph Stier, D.D.,
In Eight Vols. 8vo. (£4, 4s.) Dr. Carl Ullmann. — Reformers before the Reformation, principally in
Germany and the Netherlands. Two Vols. Svo. (£1, Is.) Professor Kurtz. — History of the Old Covenant ; or, Old Testament Dis- pensation. By Professor Kurtz. In Three Vols. (£1, lis. 6d.) Dr. Stier. — The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on the
Epistle of St. James. By Rudolph Stier, D.D. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Professor Tholuck. — Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. By Professor
Tholuck of Halle. In One Vol. (9s.) Professor Tholuck. — Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. By
Professor Tholuck. In One Vol. (10s. Gd.) Dr. Hengstenberg. — On the Book of Ecclesiastes. To which are appended :
Treatises on the Song of Solomon ; the Book of Job; the Prophet
Isaiah; the Sacrifices of Holy Scripture; and on the Jews and the
Christian Church. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D. in One Vol. 8vo.
(9s.)
Dr. Ebrard. — Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. By Dr. John H. A. Ebrard, Professor of Theology. In One Vol. (10s. Gd.)
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Continued.
Dr. Lange. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospels of St. Mat their and Mark Three Vols. (£1, lis. 6d.)
Dr. Domer. — History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. By Dr. I. A. DoRNER. Five Vols. (£2, 12s. 6d.)
Lange and Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzce. — Theological and Homiletkal Com- mentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.)
Dr. Ebrard. — The Gospel History : A Compendium of Critical Investiga- tions in support of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels. One Vol. (10s. (3d.)
Lange, Lechler, and Gerok. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Dr. Lange. Two Vols. (21s.)
Dr. Hengsienberg. — Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.')
Professor Keil. — Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. — Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. — A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.)
Dr. C. A. Auberlen. — The Divine Revelation. One Vol. (10s. 6d. )
Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil. — Commen tary on the Boohs of Sa muel. One Vol. (1 0s. 6cL ) Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Book of Job. Two Vols. (21s.) Bishop Martensen. — Christian Dogmatics. A Compendium of the Doc- trines of Christianity. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Dr. J. P. Lange. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the
Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Keil. — Commentary on the. Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols.
(21s.) Dr. Harless. — A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d. ) Dr. Hengstenberg. — Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Dr. Slier. — The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Professor Keil. — Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21a.) Professor Bleek. — Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Schmid. — New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Dr. Hengstenberg. — History of the Kingdom of God under the Old
Covenant. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Keil.— Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Vol. (10s. Gd.)
Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Commentary on Jeremiah. Two Volumes. (21s.)
Winer {Dr. G. B. ). — Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Volume. (10s. Gd.)
T. mul T. ClarlS s Publications.
CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Continued.
Bishop Martensen. — Christian Ethics. One Volume. (10s. 6d.) Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two
Volumes. (21s.) Professor Oehler. — Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two
Volumes. (21s.)
Professor Christlieb. — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Volume.
(10s. 6d.) Professor Godet. — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Luthardt. — Commentary on St. Johns Gospel. Three Vols.
(31s. 6d.) Professor Godet. — Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three Volumes.
(31s. 6d.) Professor Keil. — Commentary on Ezelciel. Two Vols. (21s.) Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes.
One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Gebhardt (H.) — Doctrine of the Apocalypse. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.) — History of the Passion and Resurrection of our
Lord. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Haupt (E.) — Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol.
(10s. 6d.) Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.) — History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.) Philippi (Dr. F. A.) — Commentary on Romans. Two Vols. (21s.)
And in connection with the Series —
Murphy's Commentary on the Booh of Psalms. To count as Two
Volumes. (12s.) Alexander's Commentary on Isaiah. Two Vols. (17s.) Ritter's (Carl) Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Vols. (32s.) ShedaVs History of Christian Doctrine. Two Vols. (21s.) Macdonald's Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Vols. (21s.) GerlacKs Commentary on the Pentateuch. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Dr. Hengstenberg. — Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One
Vol. (12s.)
The series, in 159 Volumes (including 1883), price £41, 14s. 9d.,- forms an Apparatus without which it may be truly said no Theological Library can be com- plete ; and the Publishers take the liberty of suggesting that no more appropriate gift could be presented to a Clergyman than the Series, in whole or in part.
\* No Duplicates can be included in the Selection of Twenty Volumes ; and it will save trouble and correspondence if it be distinctly understood that no less number than Twenty can be supplied, unless at non-subscription price.
Subscribers' Names received by all Retail Booksellers.
London: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO.
T. and T. Claries Publications.
In Twenty handsome 8vo Volumes, Subscription price <£5, 5s.,
MEYER'S
COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
* Meyer has been long and well known to scholars as one of the very ablest of the German expositors of the New Testament. We are not sure whether we ought not to say that he is unrivalled as an interpreter of the grammatical and historical meaning of the sacred writers. The Publishers have now rendered another seasonable and important service to English students in producing this translation.'— Guardian.
(Yearly Issue of Four Volumes, 21s.)
Each Volume will be sold separately at 10s. 6d. to Non-Subscribers.
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL TO JUDE.
By Dr. H. A. W. MEYER, Oberconsistorialrath, Hannover.
First Year.— Komans, Two Volumes; Galatians, One Volume; St. John's Gospel, Vol. I. Second Year.— St. John's Gospel, Vol. II. ; Philippians and Colossians, One Volume ; Acts of the Apostles, Vol. I. ; Corinthians, Vol. I. Third Year.— Acts of the Apostles, Vol. II.; St. Matthew's Gospel, Two Volumes; Corinthians, Vol. II. Fourth Year. — Mark and Luke, Two Volumes; Ephesians and Philemon, One Volume; Thessa- lonians, One Volume (Dr. Liinemanri). Fifth Year. — Timothy and Titus, One Volume (Dr. Huther) ; Peter and Jude, One Volume (Dr. Huther) ; Hebrews, One Volume (Dr. Liinemanri)] James and John, One Volume (Dr. Huther).
The series, as written by Meyer himself, is completed by the publication of Ephesians with Philemon in one volume. But to this the Publishers have thought it right to add Thessalonia.ns and Hebrews, by Dr. Liinemann, and the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles, hy Dr. Huther.
' I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned commentary of Dr. Meyer has been most carefully consulted through- out; and I must again, as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholarship of the learned editor.' — Bishop Ellicott in Pre/ace to his ' Commentary on Ephesians.7
' The ablest grammatical exegete of the age.' — Philip Schaff, D.D.
4 In accuracy of scholarship and freedom from prejudice, he is equalled by few.' — Literary Churchman.
'We have only to repeat that it remains, of its own kind, the very best commentary of the New Testament which we possess.' — Church Bells.
1 No exegetical work is on the whole more valuable, or stands in higher public esteem. As a critic he is candid and cautious ; exact to minuteness in philology; a master of the grammatical and historical method of interpreta- tion.'— Princeton Review.
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
CHEAP RE-ISSUE OF
STIER'S WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS.
To meet a very general desire that this now well-known Work should be brought more within the reach of all classes, both Clergy and Laity, Messrs. Clark are now issuing, for a limited period, the Eight Volumes, handsomely bound in Four, at the Subscription Price of
TWO GUINEAS. 1 The whole work is a treasury of thoughtful exposition. Its measure of practical and spiritual application, with exegetical criticism, commends it to the use of those whose duty it is to preach as well as to understand the Gospel of Christ.' — Guardian.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
THE WORDS OF THE RISEN SAVIOUR, AND COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLES EXPOUNDED.
8vo, 10s. 6d. New and Cheap Edition, in Four Vols., demy 8vo, Subscription Price 28s.,
THE LIFE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:
A Complete Critical Examination of the Origin, Contents, and
Connection of the Gospels. Translated from the German of J.
P. LARGE, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Bonn.
Edited, with additional Notes, by Marcus Dods, D.D.
' We have great pleasure in recommending this work to our readers. We
are convinced of its value and enormous range.' — Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette.
BENGEL'S GNOMON-CHEAP EDITION.
GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By John Albert Bengel Now first translated into English. With Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Edited by the Rev. Andrew R. Fausset, M.A. Five Volume Edition bound in Three Volumes at the Subscription Price of TWENTY-FOUR SHILLINGS. The Five Volume Edition may still be had at the Subscription Price o/£l, 11*. 6d.
'Bengel stands out still facile princeps among all who have laboured, or who as yet labour, in that important field. He is unrivalled in felicitous brevity, combined with what seldom accompanies that excellence, namely, perspicuity. Terse, weighty, and suggestive, he often, as a modern writer observes, "condenses more matter into a line than ran he extracted from pages of other writers/' ' — Spurgeons Commenting and Commentaries.
T. ami T. Claries Publications. 9
In Twenty-four handsome 8vo Volumes, Subscription prior £6, Gs.,
ANTE-NIGENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY.
A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OFTHE FATHERS OE THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NIC.KA.
EDITED BT THE
Rev. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., and JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D.
Contents: — Apostolic Fathers, oue vol.; Justiu Martyr, Athenagoras, one vol.; Tatian, Theophilus, The Clementine Recognitions, one vol.; Clement of Alexandria, two vols. ; Ireuaeus and Hippolytns, three vols.; Tertullian against Marcion; Cyprian, two vols.; Origen, two vols. ; Tertullian, three vols. ; Methodius, etc., one vol. ; Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, one vol. ; Clementine Homilies, Apostolical Constitutions, one vol. ; Arnobius, oue vol. ; Dionysius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Syrian Fragments, one vol. ; Lactantius, two vols. ; Early Liturgies and Remaining Fragments, one vol.
Any Volume may be had separately, price 10s. G<7., — with the exception of 0 RIG EN. Vol. IL, Vis.; and the Eauey Liturgies, *ds.
In Fifteen Volumes, demy 8vo, Subscription price £3, IDs.,
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.
EDITED BY MARCUS DODS, D.D.
Contents: — The ' City of God,' two vols. ; Writings in connection with the Donatist Controversy, one vol. ; The Anti-Pelagian Writings, three vols. ; ' Letters,' two vols. ; Treatises against Faust us the Manichajan, one vol.; Th« Harmony of the Evangelists, and the Sermon on the Mount, one vol. ; On the Trinity, oue vol. ; Commentary on John, two vols. ; On Christian Doctrine, Enchiridion, On Catechizing, and On Faith and the Creed, one vol. ; ' Confessions,' with Copious Notes by Rev. J. G. PlLKINGTON.
Any Work may he had separately, price 10.s. 6d. per Volume.
SELECTION FROM
ANTE-NIGENE LIBRARY AND ST. AUGUSTINE'S
WORKS.
THE Ante-Nicene Library being now completed in 24 Volumes, and the St. Augustine Series being also complete (with the exception of the 4 Life ') in 15 Volumes, Messrs. Clark will, as in the case of the Foreign Theological Library, give a Selection of 20 Volumes from both of those scries at the Subscription price of Five GUINEAS (or a larger number at same proportion).
10 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
LANGE'S COMMENTARIES.
{Subscript Ion price, nett) 15s. each.
THEOLOGICAL AND HOMILETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. Specially designed and adapted for the use of Ministers and Students. By Prof. John Peter Lange, D.D., in connection with a number of eminent European Divines. Translated, enlarged, and revised under the general editorship of Rev. Dr. Philip Schaff, assisted by leading Divines of the various Evangelical Denominations.
OLD TESTAMENT — 14 VOLUMES.
1. Genesis. With a General Introduction to the Old Testament. By Prof. J. P. Lange,
D.D. Translated from the German, with Additions, by Prof. Taylkr Lewis, LL.D., and A. Gosman, D.D.
2. Exodus. Bv J. P. Lange, D.D. Leviticus. By J. P. Lange, D.D. With GENERAL
INTRODUCTION by Rev. Dr. Osgood.
3. Numbers and Deuteronomy.— Numbers By Prof . J. P. Lange, D.D. Deuteronomy.
By W. J. SCHROEDER.
4. Joshua. By Rev. F. R. Fat. Judges and Ruth. By Prof. Paulus Cassell, D.D.
5. Samuel, I. and II. Bv Professor Ekdmann, D.D.
6. Kings. By Karl Chr. W. F. Bahk. D.D.
7. Chronicles, I. and II. By Otto ZCckler. Ezra. By Fr. w. Schultz. Nehemiah.
Br Rev. Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D. Esther. By Fr. W< Schultz.
8. Job. With an Introduction and Annotations by Prof. Tayler Lewis, LL.D. A
Commentary by Dr. Otto Zockler, together with an Introductory Essay on Hebrew Poetry by Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D.
9. The Psalms. By Carl Brrnhardt Moll, D.D. With a new Metrical Version of the
Psalms, and Philological Notes, by T. J. Conant. D.D.
10. Proverbs. By Prof. Otto Zockler, D.D. Ecclesiastes. By Prof. 0. Zockler, D.D. With Additions, and a new Metrical Version, by Prof. Tayler Lewis, D.D. The Song of Solomon. By Prof. 0. Zockler, D.D.
11. Isaiah. By C. W. E. Naegelsbach.
12. Jeremiah. By C. W. E. Naegelsbach, D.D. Lamentations. By C. W. E Naegelsbach, D.D.
13. Ezekiel. By F. W. Schroder, D.D. Daniel. By Professor Zockler, D.D.
14. The Minor' Prophets. Hosea, Joel, and Amos. By Otto Schmoller, Ph.D. Obadiah and Micah. By Rev. Paul Kleinert. Jonah. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. By Rev. P'aul Kleinert. Haggai. By Rev. James E. M'Ccrdy. Zechariah. By T. W. Chambers, D.D. Malachi. By Joseph Packard, D.D.
The Apocrypha. (Just publislied.) By E. C. Bissell, D.D. One Volume.
NEW TESTAMENT — 10 VOLUMES.
1. Matthew. With a General Introduction to the New Testament. By J. P. Langk,
D.D. Translated, with Additions, by Philip Schaff, D.D.
2. Mark. By J. P. Lange, D.D. Luke*. By J. J. Van Oosterzee.
3. John. By J. P. Lange, D.D.
4. Acts. Bv G. V. Lf.chler, D.D., and Rev. Charles Gekok.
5. Romans." By J. P. Lange, D.D., and Rev. F. R. Fay.
6. Corinthians. Bv Christian F. Kling.
7. Galatians. By Otto Schmoller, Ph.D. Ephesians and Colossians. By Karl
Braune. D.D* Philippians. By Karl Braune. D.D.
8. Thessalonians. By Dis. Auberlen and Riggenbach. Timothy. By J. J. Van
Oosterzee, D.D. Titus. By J. J. Van Oosterzee, D.D. Philemon. By J. J. Van Oosterzee, D.D. Hebrews. By Karl B. Moll, D.D.
9. James. By J. P. Lange. D.D., and J. J. Van Oosterzee, D.D. Peter and Jude. By
G. F. C. Fronmuller. Ph.D. John. By Karl Br acne. D.D.
10. The Revelation of John. By Dr. J. P. Lange. Together with double Alphabetical
Index to all the Ten Volumes on the New Testament, by John H. Woods.
T. and T. Clark's Publications. 11
In One largo 8vo Volume, Ninth English Edition, price 15s.,
A TREATISE ON THE GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
REGARDED AS THE BASIS OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS.
Translated from the German of Dr. B. G. WINER.
With large additions and full Indices. Third Edition, Edited by
Rev. W. F. Moulton, D.D., one of the New Testament
Translation Revisers.
'We need not say it is the Grammar of the New Testament. It is not only superior to all others, but 50 superior as to be by common consent the one work of reference on the subject. No other could be mentioned with it.' — Literary Churchman.
In demy 8vo, price 8s. 6d.,
SYNTAX OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By HEINRICH EWALD.
TRANSLATED FROM THE EIGHTH GERMAN EDITION
By JAMES KENNEDY, B.D.
1 The work stands unique as regards a patient investigation of facts, written with a profound analysis of the laws of thought, of which language is the reflection. Another striking feature of the work is the regularly progressive order which pervades the whole. The author proceeds by a natural grada- tion from the simplest elements to the most complex forms.' — British Quarterly Review.
4 It is well known that Ewald was the first to exhibit the Hebrew Syntax in a philosophical form, and his Grammar is the most important of his numerous works.' — Athenaeum.
In demy 8vo, Sixth Edition, price 7s. 6d.,
AN INTRODUCTORY HEBREW GRAMMAR;
WITH PROGRESSIVE EXERCISES IN READING AND WRITING.
By A. B. DAVIDSON, M.A., LL.D.,
Professor of Hebrew, etc., in the New College, Edinburgh.
XI T. and T. Claris PvMieations.
WORKS BY THE LATE PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D.D.,
PKIXCIPAL AN!» PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IX THE FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW.
In crown 8vo. price 6s.,
PASTORAL THEOLOGY : A Treatise on the Office and
Duties of the Christian Pastor. With a Biographical Sketch of the Author.
In crown 8vo, price 7s. <!<!..
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Greek Text and
Translation. With Introduction. Expository Notes, and Dis- sertations.
• We cordially recommend this work to ministers and theological students.' — Me th odist A fagaz in e.
' We have read no book of his with a keener appreciation and enjoyment than that just published on the Pastoral Epistles.' — Xonconfurmist.
In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s.. Sixth Edition,
THE TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE, viewed in con-
nection with the whole Series of the Divine Dispensations.
In demy 8vo, price 10s. Gd.. Fourth Edition.
EZEKIEL, AND THE BOOK OF HIS PROPHECY:
An Exposition. With a new Translation.
In demy Bvo, price 10s. 6cL, Second Edition,
PROPHECY, viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its
Special Functions, and Proper Interpretation.
In demy 8vo. price 10s. 6d.,
HERMENEUTICAL MANUAL; or, Introduction to
the Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament.
In demy 8vo. price U»s. 6d..
THE REVELATION OF LAW IN SCRIPTURE, con-
sidered with respect both to its own Nature and to its Relative Place in Successive Dispensations. (The Third Series of the • Cunningham Lectures.")
T. and I. Clark's Publications. 13
In Three Vols. 8vo, price X'l, 11*. <»d.,
A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.
Translated from the Fifth and Last German Edition of Dn. K. R. HAGENBACH
(With Addition* from other Sources*). 'It possesses an almost unique value as a history of Christian dogma. We have no English work that can be compared with it.-- British Quarterly Ri ri( w.
k It is superfluous to commend a work which has been of such great service." — English Churchman.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. In Two Volumes, demy 8vo., price 21s.,
HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND CHIEFLY.
Translated from the Fourth Revised Edition of the German.
'We highly appreciate for the most part the skill and the proportion, the- vivid portraiture and fine discrimination, and the careful philosophic develop- ment of ideas by which this most loadable and instructive work is characterised.7 — Evangelical Magazine.
4 Dr. Hagenbach undoubtedly has in an eminent degree many of the higher qualifications of a historian. He is accurate, candid, and impartial; and his insight into the higher springs of the Information is only equalled by his thorough knowledge of the outward progress of that movement.' — Scotsman.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. In demy 8vo, price 9s.,
GERMAN RATIONALISM
IN ITS RISE, PROGRESS, AND DECLINE. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHURCH HISTORY OF THE 18th AND 19th CENTURIES.
1 This is a volume we have long wished to see in our language. Hagenbach is a veteran in this field, and this volume is the ablest, and is likely to be the most useful of his works.' — British Quarterly Review.
In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price "21s.,
COMMENTARY ON ST. PAULS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
By FRIEDRICH ADOLPH PHIL1PPJ.
Translated from the Third Improved and Enlarged Edition.
'A serviceable addition to the Foreign Theological Library.' — Academy.
'A commentary not only ample for its critical stores, but also valuable for its sober exegesis.' John Bull.
'If the writer is inferior to Meyer in critical acumen, he is at least equal to him in theological learning and religious insight; and his commentary has independent worth — it is no mere repetition of other men's labours.' — Church Bells.
14 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
In demy 8vo, Third Edition, price 10s. 6d.t
THE TRAINING OF THE TWELVE;
OR,
EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES IN THE GOSPELS EXHIBITING
THE TWELVE DISCIPLES OF JESUS UNDER
DISCIPLINE FOR THE APOSTLESHIP.
BY
A. B. BRUCE, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. FREE CHURCH COLLEGE. GLASGOW.
4 Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive subject — a book full of loving, wholesome, profound thoughts about the fundamentals of Christian faith and practice.' — British and Foreign Evangeli- cal Review.
1 It is some five or six years since this work first made its appearance, and now that a second edition has been called for, the author has taken the oppor- tunity to make some alterations which are likely to render it still more accept- able. Substantially, however, the book remains the same, and the hearty commendation with which we noted its first issue applies to it at least as much now.' — Rock.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In demy 8vo, Second Edition, price 10s. 6d.,
THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST,
IN ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AND OFFICIAL ASPECTS.
SIXTH SERIES OF CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.
; These lectures are able and deep-reaching to a degree not often found in the religious literature of the day ; withal, they are fresh and suggestive. . . . The learning and the deep and sweet spirituality of this discussion will com- mend it to many faithful students of the truth as it is in Jesus. — Congrega- tionalism
1 We have not for a long time met with a work so fresh and suggestive as this of Professor Bruce. . . . We do not know where to look at our English Universities for a treatise so calm, logical, and scholarly.' — English Independent.
T. and T. Clark's Publications. 15
WORKS BY DR. I. A. DORNER.
In Three Volumes, 8vo, price 10s. 6d. each,
A SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
4 A monument of thoughtfulness and labour.' — Literary Churchman.
' Dorner's " System of Christian Doctrine " is likely to prove, when com- pleted, his most masterly and profound work. . . . Great thanks are due to Mr. Cave for the pains and the skill he has so conscientiously expended on this magnificent work.' — Baptist Magazine.
In Five Volumes, 8vo, price £2, 12s. 6d.,
HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
1 So great a mass of learning and thought so ably set forth has never before been presented to English readers, at least on this subject' — Journal of Sacred Literature.
In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s.,
HISTORY OF PROTESTANT THEOLOGY,
PARTICULARLY IN GERMANY,
VIEWED ACCORDING TO ITS FUNDAMENTAL MOVEMENT,
AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS,
MORAL, AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE.
With a Preface to the Translation by the Author.
1 This masterly work of Dr. Dorner, so successfully rendered into English by the present translators, will more than sustain the reputation he has already achieved by his exhaustive and, as it seems to us, conclusive History of the Development of Doctrine respeciinj the Person of Christ.' — Spectator.
16 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.
3 ficfo Euition tfjorottcjfjlo ftcbisctj anti Enlarged.
Now Ready,
Section First— APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 1-100. In Two Vols. ex. demy 8vo, price "21s.
Section Second — ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 100-311. In Two
Vols. ex. demy 8vo, price 21s.
Section Third— NICENE AND POST-NICENE CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 311-600.
In Two A ols. ex. demy 8vo, price 21s.
k For a genuine healthy Christian criticism, which boldly faces difficulties, and examines them with equal candour and learning, we commend this work to all who are interested in investigating the early growth of the Christian Church.' — Church Quarterly Review.
1 These volumes cannot fail to prove welcome to all students." — Freeman.
'No student, and indeed no critic, can with fairness overlook a work like the present, written with such evident candour, and, at the same time, with so thorough a knowledge of the sources of early Christian history.' — Scotsman.
In Three Volumes, demy 8vo. price 12s. each,
A HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.
FltOU THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF
C. J. HEFELE, D.D., Bishop of Rottexburg.
VOL. I. {Second Edition) TO A.D. 325. By Rev. PREBENDARY CLARK.
VOL. II. A.D. 326 TO 429. By H. X. OXENHAM, M.A.
VOL. III. A.D. 429 TO THE CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON.
'This careful translation of Hefele's Councils.' — Dr. PuSET.
• A thorough and fair compendium, put in a most accessible and intelligent orm.' — Guardian.
* A work of profound erudition, and written in a most candid spirit. The book will be a standard work on the subject.' — Spectator.
1 The most learned historian of the Councils.' — Pere Gratjy. 4 We cordial lv commend Hefele's Councils to the Ensrlieh student' — John Bull.