Presbyterianism

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.