IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 '"'' IIIM |||||M .. 1112 IIIM J 40 2.2 go mm U IIIIII.6 % <^ /}. m. ^ '. <$>! o 7 //a Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de inicroreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n n D n s/ n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shr.dows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas et6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachet§e ; ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d^tachees r~7| Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de Timpression I I Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'srrata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fa^on i obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X SOX J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce i la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdqiie nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commengant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre filmds d des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 c p En OUTLINES OF LECTURES ON r 11 u m GflfiMiii m Delivered in Knox College BY REV. JOHN J. A. PROUDFOOT, D.D, 1895 Entered, according to the Act of the Parliiinient of Ciinsidu, in the yciir eighteen hundred :ind nintly-tivf. Ijy John .1. A. IMinrnKtidT, D.D., at tlic Dcpiirtniiiit of Agriculture. Printed foh the exclusive use of ^tudents. PRESS OF THE CANADA PKEbBYTERIAN, TORONTO CHURCH GOVKRXMKNT: METHOD. Status Qu.4-:stionis. importanxk of the study of church i'olitv— adh- guate information in scrii'ture in reference to afostolic polity — general principles to guide in the prosecution of this study— proof general and specific. THE CHURCH: Dl^FINlTIONS. C M U RC H G 0\' 1-: R N M E N T. AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION IN REFERENCE TO IT TO BE FOUND ONLY IN THE SCRIPTURES — THE APOS- TLES WERE THE FOUNDERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, ITS INFALLIBLE TEACHERS AND LEGIS- LATORS. CHURCH OFFICfcRS. -ORDINARY AND PERMANENT OFFICERS, ARRANGED CHRONOLOGICALLY : 1. Ruling Elders. 2. Deacons. 3. Ministers and Their Powers. Fii'st. (i) Government, Associated with Klders. (2) To Labour in the Word and Doctrine. (3) Right to Ordain Presbyters. Second. Source, Nature and Sphere of Church Power. II. EXTRAORDINARY AND TEMPORARY OFFICERS ! 1. Apostles. 2. Evangelists. 3. Prophets. NfCF IDE CHURCH GOVERNMENT. TO s- S- D ^S Prelatists generally appeal to the Early Church Fathers for proof that Prelacy existed at the close of the Apostolic age, and contend that such proof or information is needed to supplement the obscure, lu- adequate and disputed teachmgs of Scripture in reference to Church Polity, we shall carefully examine eaily Patristic literature to ascertain what light it throws on the subject, and what is the value of the so-called historical argument in favour of Prelacy, being careful, however, not to coordinate or combine the teaching of the Fathers witn that of the Apostles, or to suppose that Polity, partly Apostolic and partly Patristic, can lay claim to the "jus divinum." It is important to study the Status Qua^stionis, because Prelatists are not agreed among themselves, and because they could not be induced to assent to aiy adequate statement of the subject. The contest in the Church of England on this matter has been maintained with great earnestness since the Tractarian movement at Oxford, and the contemporaneous publication of the Fathers in a form accessible to all. Eminent Church of England divines who have studied the Ecclesiastical literature of the first two cen- CHURCH GOVrlRN'MENT : STATl'S OL'.I-STIOXI S. turies, declare that it is not favourahle to Episcopac)- as it has existed since the fourth century. It is a j,^reat matter to ascertain the points on which the parties to tlie controversy on Church Pohty are agreed, and also the points on which they differ. A brief outline of the views of representatives of the Church of England will he presented The views of Presbyterians and Congregationalists will emerge in the discussion of the general subject. R. Hooker, A.D. 1553-1600, the ablest P relalist writer on Church Polity in the sixteenth century, main- tained in his first five books that the organization of the Church was not to be deduced from Scripture, but was a thing to be judged and regulated by common sense and convenience. Even if the order of Bishops could be traced in the Early Church, coming out of an antecedent order of some other kind, that did not impugn its divineness, provided it was convenient for the well-being of the Church (Prof. Allen, p. 329). " Hooker's great work against the impugners of the order and discipline was written, not because Episco palianism is essential, but because its impugners maintained that Presbyterianism is essential and tliat Episcopalianism is sinful " (Matthew Arnold). Hooker ascribes contentions in reference to Church Polity to the fact that persons do not consider that such matters pertain to positive law ; and that positive laws are either permanent or changeable, according as the matter itself is concerning which they are made, whether God or man be the maker of them ; for ex- ample, the gospel is eternal (Rev. xiv : 6), whereas whole laws of rites and ceremonies are clean abrogated (Vol. I, 273, 273). The orders which were observed in the Apostles' times, are not to be urged CHURCH G()vi:r\mi:n T : status (.ju.kstionis. 5 as a rule universally, cither sufficient or necessary (Vol. I, p. 169). In Apostolic times that was liarmless, which beinili H CHURCH GOVERNMENT: STATUS QU/KSTIONIS. kind. The Apostolical organization must be authorita- tive, (c) Terms are used to designate the Church which indicate that it had an organic form at the beginning, e.g., Temple of which Christ is the builder, the founda- tion, and the chief corner stone : Matt, xvi : i8 ; Eph. ii : 22 ; I Cor. iii : 9, lo ; I Peter ii : 4, 5. II. Specific Proof is furnished by a statement of the officers appointed by the Apostles, everywhere, of their qualifications, powers and duties, with the corres- ponding duties of private Christians. This proof is most ample and convincing. Before considering it, we shall advert to DEFINITIONS OF THE CHURCH. I. The Catholic or Universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof, and is the spouse, the body, the fulness ot Him that ftlleth all in all. II. The Visible Church, which is also Catholic or Universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those through- out the world that profess the true religion, together with their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Conf. of Faith, ch. xxv. Romish Definition. — The congregation of all the faithful, professing the same faith, partaking in the sacraments, governed by lawful pastors, under one visible head, the Vicar of Christ. Church of England Definition. — The Visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in CHURCH GOVERNMENT : STATUS QU/KSTIONIS. 15 )n, fh- le iin which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacra- ments be a(hninistered according to Christ's ordinance in all things which of necessity are requisite to the same, Anglicans understand by the Church an external society professing the true faith, united in the com- munion of the same sacraments, and in subjection to Bishops canonically ordained.* In the Church of England definition, the means of grace are referred to. In the Romish and Anglican, government and means of grace are referred to. The difference between these two consists in this, that the Anglican omits the reference to the Pope, and substitutes Bishops for lawful pastors, being thus the more prelatic of the two. In the Church of England definition. Evangelicals understand no more than our Confession teaches, while Anglicans recognize no due ministration of sacraments except by bishops and priests. In this they are sustamed by the Ordinal : — *' It is evident to all men diligently reading the Holy ' Scriptures and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been three orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons." In the Ordinal of 1549 the lessons read in connection with the ordination of a priest and of a bishop are the same ; but in the Ordinal of 1642, Acts xx : 17-35 - ^ Tim. iii : 1-16; Matt, xxviii : 18-20; John xx : 19-23; are read only in connection with the ordination of a bishop or archbishop. Thus the form of Church government is virtually included in the Church of England defini- nition ; and thus the Anglicans are able to maintain their ground against the Evangelicals. * The Confession alone defines the Church in its highest aspect, as invisible Also, into its definition of the Church visible, the nature of Church government and the means of grace do not enter. K.mxi:;. i6 CHURCH GOVERNMENT : STATUS gU^STlONIS. I 'il ' i !!> il 1 I III. Church sometimes denotes many congrega- tions under one Presbytery. (Form of Church Gov- ernment.) IV. Church is used to denote professed behevers in Christ united in one congregation. The first definition clearly presents the essential and fundamental idea of the Church. Thus, Church is used as a collective term to denote all who are, or who shall be, saved. This is necessarily the highest sense, to which all other meanings must be subordinate. This is the only Church of which unit}^ holiness, indefectibility, and also universality and perpetuity, can be properly predicated. Some Protestants apply these attributes or notes to the visible Church. They say that as true Christians, regenerated persons, although not perfectly holy, are said to be part of the invisibl Church, so the visible Church may be called holy, although there are many in it who are not regenerated persons. But this is not a proper comparison, as the defect in the one case is in the present imperfect state of true religion, while in the other the defect is in the want of true religion altogether. Practically, however, in opposing Roman- ism it is better not to discuss the " notes " or marks of the Church, but to take your stand on some doctrine, as justification by faith alone, sacramental grace, or Church polity. The visible Church is referred to in Acts ii : 47 ; vii : 38 ; I Cor. xii : 28 ; John xv : 1-8. The Church invisible and visible, cannot be said to constitute two Churches, but one Church in two aspects. The term invisible was used because Roman- ists insisted that Church denotes only one visible organi- zation ; because it is only one small fraction of the Church that exists on earth at one time ; because we cannot always distinguish those who belong to it from CHURCH GOVERNMENT: STATUS QU.-ESTIONIS, 17 those who only profess to do so. The same distinction is made in the Old Testament. Every Christian natur- ally makes this distinction. The visible Church is also said to be Catliolic. Christian denominations are united outwardly in professing faith in Christ and obedience to Him ; and inwardly, because they all include members of the Church invisible, which is one body in which the Spirit dwells. Tliis unity should manifest itself to the world by mutual recoj^nition, co-operation, and confederation of Christian denomina- tions, as far as practicable. Visible unity should be kept in view and aimed at. CoNGREGATioNALisTS deny that " Church '' is ever used in this sense. They say that it denotes " the whole body of the faithful," " the entire spiritual Israel of God," or " a society of believers in any place.'' Hence they insist on regeneration and saving faith as indispensable qualifications for membership, instead of a credible i)rofession and corresponding life. But the impossibility of ascertaining who are regenerated, the fact thai mere professors do join all Churches, and that Christ recognizes this fact, should be taken into account. This test must exclude infants ; hence many of them are opposed to the baptism of infants ; wiiile others say that the Sacraments are mere forms. The third mean- ing is denied by Congregationalists, who insist that ecclesia is used to denote only one congregation, and in the Classics one assembly. But we must be guided by Scripture use Proof: Acts ix : 31. The Churcii in Jerusalem, under Apostles and Elders, sent Peter and John to Samaria, viii : 14 ; and Barnabas to Antioch, xi : 22 ; and decided an appeal from Antioch, xv. The Church in Jerusalem must have contained many congre- gations, i.-vi. The members spoke different languages, 2 mr^': '-Mj^ .-^,j_.rL*- i8 CHURCH government: officers. enjoyed the labours of the Apostles and Prophets for many years. The Church personified, xi : 22, must represent one body. The case of the Church at Ephesus is as f^ood an example. (See Rev. ii : i ; Acts XX : 28) In Acts xix : 8-10, it is said that Paul preached two years and three months ; and in xx : 31, that he preaclied three years. He must, therefore, have itinerated nine months, xix. : 26. There is no doubt that he formed many conj^re^ations in the Province of Asia. Had there been only one he would not have required to send for the Elders ; he could as easily and speedily have visited them as the}- could visit him. Peter calls the Churches in Asia Minor " the flock of God." The fourtli meaning is not disputed. V. Church sometimes denotes church officers, in their collective capacity. In the Old Testament the Elders represented the congregation, which is by the LXX rendered ecclesia or synagogue, as in Ex. iii : 13-16. In xii. the gerousian in v. 21, is equivalent to pasan synagogen in v. 3 ; see also Ex. xix : 7, 8. Hence Elders are called the Church because they represented it. In Matt, xviii : 17, the Lord plainly refers either to Elders in the Old Testament Church or to Elders in the New Testament. OFFICERS. To understand the kind of Church government appointed by the Apostles, we must ascertain who were the officers appointed by them. Authoritative informa- tion on this point can be obtained only from Scripture. Afterwards, we may consider the light shed on the subject by Church literature during the first two cen- turies, at least. CHURCH CiOVHKNMF.NT : KLDMRS. 19 Thk Officers IN THE Apostolic CmiRCH Consti- tute two Classes —i. The ordinary and permanent. 2. The extraordinary and temporary. The former may be distinguished from the latter by two things. They were everywhere appointed ; and tlieir qualifications, powers, and spheres of labour are stated, or were well known, as in the case of the Old Testament lilders, who, retaining their name and functions, were transferred to the Christian Church, at its beginning, among the Jews. These tests are indispensable. Judged thus, and accord- ing to the chronological sequence of their ap|)oint- ment, the Ordinary and Permanent are Elders, Deacons and Ministers. I. ELDERS. 1ST. HisTORiCAi- AND INCIDENTAL Prouf.— They arc first mentioned in the New Testament in Acts xi : 30, and then only incidentally, showing that their office was an existing institution, and had not to be created. Therf> is no record of their appointment in Palestine. The office had its origin far back in the nation's history, and it was not affected by change of Dispensations. Church discipline vvas under the Old Dispensation sometimes exercised by spiritual officers, II. Chron, xix : 8-iJ. The office of Ruling-elder was not connected with the Sacrificial system and al:)olished with it. It was not connected with anything temporary. The Scriptures clearly teach that there were officers in the Church whose only duty was to govern. Statements in our Subordinate Standards in reference to this office : Con- fession of Faith, xxxi : 2, a Synod is composed of " Ministers, with other fit persons upon delegation from their churches.'" Form of Church Government, " As there were in the Jewish Church, Elders of the people !f-:^a!li9ii^u*»^»i;»iSjsy0Sje|/aQ,M..-^ 20 CHURCH GOVKRNMRNT : KI.I^KRS. ii! h joined with the Priests and Livitcs in the ^overiiincnt of the Church, so Clirist, who hatli instituted f,'overn- ment and governors ecclesiastical in the Cliurcli, hath furnished some in His Church, beside the ministers of the Word, witli gifts for government and witii commis- sion to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to join with the ministers in the government of the ('hurch, which officers Reformed Churclies commonly call Elders." Under Classical Assemblies, " A Presby- tery consisteth of ministers of the Word, and such other public officers as are agreeable to and warranted by the Word of God to be Church governors, to join with the ministers in the government of tlie Church," Synodical Assemblies "are composed of pastors and teachers and other Church governors." " Ministers and other Church governors of each congregation make arrangement for the Communion." " The office of the Elder {i.e. the pastor) is to pray for the sick." These, so far as I know, are all the references to Elders in our Subordinate Standards. They all represent them as Church governors or rulers, and nothing more. As the office existed in the Old Testament Cliurch, and was continued in the New Testament Cluirch, we must find all needed information in reference to it in the Old Testament, and also in incidental notices of it in the New Testament. The term Elder, as the name of an office-bearer, occurs very frequently in Scripture, from beginning to end, during several dispensations of religion. It first occurs in Gen. xxiv : 2, " Abraham said unto his ser- vant, the elder of his house, that ruled over all that he had." Revised Version, in L : 7, we read of " all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt." In the beginning of CHUucn (;o\ iiKNMi:N r : klukus. 21 in it -St It- he ill ill lof Exodus wc read very frequently of the elilcrs wlio ruled the Israelites before the cotninencenient of the Mosaic Dispensation, '{'he office is frequently referred to after the giving of the law ; and in the historical and pro- phetic books, including' those referring; to the Babylon ian Captivity, Jer. xxix : i ICzek. viii : ii ; xx : 1-3. We read also of elders in the Gospels, Kj)istles, and Revelation. These numerous references to elders are sufTicient to show that they were rulers in the (Church of (jod from the time of Abraham to the termination of the Apostolic age ; and helice as they neither origmated with the Levitical system, nor were suspenrled with it at Babylon, nor were terminated with it, they were evi- dently not a part of it, we are surely warranted to assume that their powers and duties were the same in all Dispensations, unless we are expressly informed that they were chanj^ed, or that additions were matle to them We must now ascertain what were their |)owers. This can be done only by referriiif^ to the passaj^^es which indicate their relation to the people, and also the duties which they discharged, their qualifica- tions being never stated. It is useless to quote passages in which the name is merely repeated without indicating the functions pertaining to it It is only by a careful, and, if need be, an exliaustive induction of examples that the nature of the office can be ascertained. Elder or Presbyter has in the Old Testament very extensive signihcation, as extensive as "officer" or " ruler," Num. xi : 16 ; II Kings x : i. In Num xxii : 4, 7, it refers to the princes of j\Ioab and of Midian ; and in Josh, ix : 11, it refers to those of the Gibeonites. We read of the " Elders of the priests," in Isaiah xxxvii : 2 ; II Kings xix : 2 ; and in Jer. xix : i, they are distinguished from the " Elders of the people." Elders i- 1 ;%tMPfiL:..-.i->f ■»' u ii. .. - ,. w 122 CIIUKCII GOVKKNMI'.N I : liLDEKS. of tribes arc spoken of in Deut. xxxi : 28 ; II Chron. v 2. (a) There is in the Olil Testament one distiiif^uish- irif,' characteristic of all Klders, the\- were ruk^rs, not teachers. There is no passa^^' in the Old Testament in which they are said to leach. Had they {w.v.u teachers, they would surcl\' have been employed in tii(; emergency referred to in II Chron, xvii : 7-9. All the passages already qnoted — and they might be multiplied indefinitely — show that in their various spheres, whether they wen; princes, tribal heads, or local magistrates, they were merely rulers. (/') Tlie Old Testament Klders were rejiresentatives of the people Ex. iii : 14 16, 18 ; iv : 29-31 ; xii : 3, 21 ; xix : 7, S ; Deut. v : 22, 23; xxxi: 28-30. In Lev. iv : 13-15, we learn t'nat the Elders representetl the people in a solemn religious service. There are numerous references to Jewish Elders as representatives and rulers of the people, in the New Testament, and in the time of our Lord and His Apostles. They arc called " Elders of the people." Matt, xxi : 23 ; xxvi: 3 ; and *' Elders of the Jews," Luke vii : 3 ; and they are continually joined with the Chief Priests in all the public acts with reference to the arrest, trial, condemnation and crucifixion of our Lord, Matt, xvi : 21; xxvi: 47,59; xxvii : i, 3, 12; xxviii : 12. Peterand John were arraigned before the Elders of Israel, Acts iv : 8, 23 ; Stephen was condemned by them, vi : 12 ; Paul was persecuted by them, xxiii : 14 ; and by them accused before the Roman Governor, xxiv : i ; XXV : 15. Now, as some of the Old Testament Elders were heads of tribes, and some were both local magistrates and spiritual rulers, like 77 Elders of the village of Succoth, we cannot distinguish them from one another CHURCH government: ki.pkrs. 23 I ; by tlie term " Elder, *' l)ut only by references to their functions ami spheres of duty. It is, therefore, reason- able to su} J Dse that the same discrimination must be required in reference to the term Elder when trans- ferred to the New Testament. It is contrary to uniform Scripture usage to say that IClder inust always have precisely the same meaning. In what hopeless con- fusion would one be involved were he to treat Diakonos in this manner. It would be as unreasonable as Con- gregationalists are in founding their whole Church Polity on one word, *• Ecclesia," which has been proved to have several meanings. While referring to Jewish Church rulers, I desire to quote the words of Prof. J. A. Alexander : " The idea of a separate organiza- tion and a distinct class of oflicers appears to have arisen after the destruction of Jerusalem, and could not, therefore, be a model of the Christian Church, which liad its pattern not in later Jewish institutions, but in the permanent essential part of the old theocracy, in- cluding its primeval patriarchal eldership, one primarily founded upon natural relations or the family government, and thence transferred not onl}' to the Jewish, but to the Christian Church organization. Of such rulers there was always a plurality in every neighbourhood, but not a bench or council of elective officers, uniform in number, as in the later synagogues, when the dispersion of the j)eople had destroyed the ancient constitution and the present synagogue arrange- ment had been substituted for it. But as this arrange- ment is without divine authority, nothing is gained, l)Ut something lost, by tracing the New Testament polity to this source, instead of tracing it further back to the Presbyterian forms of the theocracy itself." It is through representative Elders the people ~. tJ* — ^!^ ^~^-'>-l(S^ ' i 24 CHURCH GOVERNMENT : ELDERS. :!5i| :'.'«! under the gospel exercise the power of self-government so far as it is inherent in the Church. According to our Confession of Faith and accompanying documents, the first Elders in the Church of Christ were the same as the Elders of the Jews, who exercised government and discipline in the Old Testament Cliurcli. This is sustained by the following references : They received contributions, Acts xi : 30 ; were members of the Council at Jerusalem, xv. They were members of the Presbytery of Jerusalem, xxi : 18 ; their previous stand- ing in congregations formed of converted Jews was recognized, without re-election ; they were appointed in all Gentile congregations generally as soon as they Wiire formed, xiv. : 23. In none of these references are they represented as preaching tiie gospel or teach- ing. In fact, the name Presbyter or Elder was not associated with " labouring m tlie word and doctrine '" till near the close of the Apostolic age, and even then in only two passages in the New Testament. In one of those (J Tim. v: 17), teaching Elders are expressly distinguished from the ruling Elders, of whom alone we read in all the earlier portions of Scripture. The other passage is Titus i : 5-9. But this passage, in connec- tion with I. Tim. iii. : 1-7, plainly refers to the institu- tion of a new office. Hence it is authoritatively ordered to be appointed, and the qualifications for it and the duties that belong to it are distinctly and emphatically stated, as if they were not previously known. In fact, according to Titus i : 5, it was an oftice intended •* to set in order the things that are wanting,'' or to complete the organization of the Church. This is confirmed by II Tim. ii : 2, 24. These persons were entitled to the designation of Elders or 1 i. I CHURCH GOVERNMENT : ELDERS. 25 Presbyters so far as they were Church rulers. But their distinctive functions were those whicli in ancient times, especially in the Kingdom of Israel, had been performed by prophets and sons of prophets, and in our Lord's tinie by scribes, lawyers and doctors of the law, and more recently still by the ministry of gifts. Our Lord, when usuig a Jewish official name to desig- nate preachers of the gospel, does not call them Elders, which His hearers could not have understood to mean preachers, but He speaks of them (Matt, xiii : 52) as " wise scribes instructed unto the Kingdom of Heaven," and He says (xxiii : 34) that " He would send prophets and wise men and scribes." While there were ruling Elders from the very begi'ining of the Gospel Church, there were then evidently no stated ministers of the Word, nor while tlie ministry of gifts, including Apos- tles, prophets, evangelists, and very many occasionally inspired persons in every congregation prevailed, and was in the zenith of its glory. I Cor. i : 4-7 ; xii : 7-1 1. In these circumstances there was special need of a body of influential ruling Elders, such as had been amply provided to preserve the very existence of the Church as a religious society, and to prevent divisions and anarchy. It is clear that the ministry of gifts was incompatible with a stated ministry and could not be permanent (I Thess. v: 20), and that the former was gradually superseded by the latter, the two ov( .lapping one another for a considerable time at the transition period, under the authority and direction of the Apostles, while they completed the organization of the Church. It is worthy of notice that calling both teaching and ruling officers " Elders " does not occasion the slightest perplexity, as church rulers are called Elders, while 26 CHURCH GOVERNMENT : ELDERS. I: \h preachers are so designated in only two passages. Their proper name is •' ministers " — diakonoi — a name by which church rulers are never designated. Paul calls hmiself and his fellovz-lahourers "ministers" of the New Testament " (I Cor. iii : 5 ; II Cor. iii : 6). He calls them " ministers of God " 'vi : 1,4). False teachers are called " ministers of Satan," while Paul was " a minister of Christ " (xi : 13, 15, 23). Paul was made a minister that he should preach among the Gentiles (Eph. iii: 7, 8). " Tycliicus was a faithful minister in the Lord " (vi : 21), Epaphras was *' a faithful minister of Christ " (Col. i : 7) Paul himself was made " a minister of the gospel !' (23). Archippus had received " a ministry " (iv : 17). Timothy was " a good minister o> esus Christ " (I Tim. iv : 6). Thus the New Testament designation of church ofiicers is " ministers and elders." Now, as the Apostles appointed several Elders in ever}' congregation, and as the office of Elder had a his- torical basis extending farther back than the origin of Israel as a nation, and as it came into the New Testa- ment Church with Jewish converts who were ruling- elders, as a matter of course and without remark, much less direct information and proof in reference to the office are needed than would be required in the creation of a new office like that of deacon (Acts vi.; I Tim. iii : 8-13), or of ministers of the gospel- It is well to notice that teachers and rulers are fre- quently distinguished, either expressly or tacitly, as be- longing to different classes. Thus, in I Peter iv : 11, it is said : " If any man speak, let him speak as the ora- cles of God ; if any man minister, as of the ability which God giveth. ' Diakonei, as distinguished from Lalei, evidently denotes " quaevis ministeria in Ecclesia ab docendi officio distincta." In Eph. iv : ri, we have Poimenes and Didaskalous stated separately, CHURCH GOVERNMENT : ELDERS. 27 but not so completely separated as Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists. Poimenes means rulers, as will be proved presently. Rulers is evidently the f^eneric or class term — equal to Presbyters — and the teachers or preachers of the gospel are a species of rulers. Calling them a species does not make them inferior to rulers, any more than calling man a species of animal makes him inferior to other animals. In fact, the differentia which is " rational," raises him far above all other ani- mals and makes liim akin to angels. Thus, if a minister is a teacliing or preaching ruler, he is raised above all other church rulers by the function of preaching. He has all that other rulers have and " labouring in the Word and doctrine ' in addition. The differentia here is what Paul considered his greatest privilege and hon- our, even as an Apostle. (See Eph. iii j 8 ; I Tim. i : 12 ; Gal. i : 15, 16 ; 1 Cor. i : 17.) As ministers of the gospel are a species of rulers, when Paul addresses the bishops or rulers at Philippi he no doubt included both mmis- ters and ruling-elders under the same class name — bishops, presbyters, and rulers being synonymous. When Peter addresses the Elders or Presbyters of Asia Minor, he calls himself a Presbyter ; thus, under the generic term, he addresses all the preachers and rulers of the Church, stating the manner in which they sliould act as rulers, while he says nothing about preaching. They had hitherto known him merely as a missionary and a witness of the sufferings ot Christ. The Apostle John also (Epistles ii, and iii.) calls himself a presbyter or ruler, as in his old age he had become incapacitated for missionary work, and could exercise only the ruling function connected with his Apostolic office. These distinctions may help to make clearer tlie proof now to be presented. 28 CHURCH GOVERNMENT : ELDERS. ■ i 2ND. Preceptive Proof, which is Largely Exe- GETic. — In Rom. xii : 6-8, teachers and rulerrs are spoken of as different officers. An illustration is bor- rowed from the human body to show that each officer has his specific function. Teachers and rulers are placed in different classes. The j^eneric terms are Propheteian and Diakonian. These have not the article, while all the others have it and are ihus dis- tinguished as species. Besides, the construction is changed between the two classes, which makes the dis- tinction more clear. In this classilication we have three permanent officers, the teacher, the ruler and the giver or distributor, who correspond to minister of the gospel, ruling-elder, and deacon, tiie teacher being placed in one category and the ruler and deacon in another. The others belonged to the temporary minis- try of gifts, as we know that there were prophets, and Bar- nabas (Acts iv : 36) is called a " son of exhortation," and he that showetli mercy may represent one who specially cared for the sick. These naturally fall under the same classification wnth the others, all kinds of teachers being placed in one class, and all who were not teachers being placed in the other. It is objected that the reference to officers terminates with " on exhor- tation," and that the three following are classed with private persons. The grounds on which the objection rests are the following: — (i) That the verb metadidomi cannot refer to the deacon, as it means giving what is one's own ; whereas, giving out of a common fund would require diadiomi. But this is not sustained by use. Metadidomi, in Luke iii : 11, and in Eph. iv : 28, means to give what is one's own ; but in Rom. i : 1 1 and in I Thess. ii : 8, it means giving what is not one's own. Diadiomi denotes giving one's own in John vi : 11 ; J-**.. CHURCH GOVERNMENT : ELDERS. 29 Luke xi : 22 ; xviii : 22 ; Rev. xvii : 13 ; in Acts iv : 33 it is tloubtful. These are all the cases in which the verbs occur in the New Testament. Thus tiie distinc- tion between the two verbs is not between giving one's own anil what belongs to another, but between giving and distributing. Besides, where private giving is re- ferred to, among social virtues, in v: 13, koinonountes is used. (2) Ihe other objection is that were proista- menos a church offier, or, as is unwarrantably assumed, a pastor or bishop, he would be placed too low in the list. But this is entirely obviated if he is a ruling-elder, to which he manifestly belongs. In I Tim. v : 17, pro- istos, a part of the same verb, is used to denote one who only rules. Others say that the word denotes merely a president ; but there is no such officer ; besides, he could not be said to preside with diligence. In I Thess. v: 12, the same word denotes an active ruler. The word properly denotes a ruler, hence the Greek Fathers long after used proistos, a participle of the same verb, and proistamenos, to denote a diocesan, v/hich Latin writers rendered " pra^positus or pra^fectus," If pro- istamenos is a ruling-elder, he is in his proper place, and all is clear. In I Cor. xii : 28, it is said that God hath set in the Church " teachers and governments." These are two offices permanently needed, although miraculous gifts were temporary. Tlieir functions are distinct, like the functions of the different members of the human body here used in illustration. They must, therefore, in some cases, be held by different individuals. Hence, it is only in the case of ruling-elders they can be separated, and they were the first permanent officers, and the great majority of officers in the Church. In I Tim. V : 17, there are two classes of officers: one that rules and also " labours in the word and doctrine,' and 30 CHURCH government: elders. another that only rules. Futile attempts are made to obscure or pervert this plain statement. Some say that malista should be connected with kopiontes, indicating those who specially "labour in the word and doctrine." But the arrangement of the words forbids this ; others that kopiontes means to labour hard. But this is not sustained by usage. Paul uses kopin in I Cor. iii: 8 ; and kopiontes in I Thess. v : i2 to denote ordinary^ official work, (See also Rev ii : 3 ; Matt, vi : 28 ; Acts XX : 35.) When excessive labour is meant, another word is added : Rom xvi : 6, 12 ; i Thess ii : 9; II Thess iii : 8 ; Matt, xi : 28. The Authorized Version and Revised Version render it correctly. Bishop Ellicott admits the correct translation, but seeks to enfeeble it by referring to Neander's rf^mark that " some might have the gift of teaching more eminently than others." This is not fair, as the Apostle speaks here not of gifts but of officers ; besides, this ignores the whole historical proof of the eldership in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. A number of church officers, rulers, were appointed in every congregation; but so many ministers of the Word could not be required, nor supported. Gal. vi : 6 ; II Cor. xi : 7 9 : I Cor. ix : 13, 14. Another thing that distinguishes ministers of the gospel from ruling-elders, is that the former are said to be called or sent by Christ to preach the gospel, while the latter are not. This is the belief of nearly all deno- minations of Christians. The Apostles and others were called by Christ : Luke vi : 13 ; Acts xxvi : 16 ; xiii : 2 ; Matt, ix : 37, 38 ; II Cor. v : 20 ; I Tim. iv : 14 ; i : 18. This call assures one of all needed grace and support, and a suitable sphere of labour, at home or abroad. It is efTectual. To enter on the ministry without it is presumption. It is a most dangerous thing, in CHURCH GOVERNMENT: HLDERS. 31 support of any theory, to minimize this call, to think lirrluly of it, or to neglect it. This call is sufficient to make the ministry of the Word an office different from and superior to the eldership. Besides, sinners may be converted and built up in faith and knowledge without government ; but this is impos- sible without the preaching of the gospel. Ruling- elders must, however, liave a popular call. According to our Standards, "Christ hath furnished some in the Church, beside the ministers of the Word, with gifts for government, and with commission to exercise the same when called thereunto." These are cumulative and siifflcienl proofs that Elders, in virtue of their office, were rulers, not teachers. OBJECTIONS TO THIS STATEMENT. I. That all the Elders at Ephesus are called Bishops (Acts XX. : 17-28) and are exhorted to feed, i.e., to teach the Church of God. But, as the terms '' Elders " and " Bishops " are in the New Testament synonymous and convertible, either name could pro- perly be given them. This objection amounts to nothing. Besides, •' poimainein," here rendered to feed, never means to teach, but to rule. (See Rev. ii: 27; xix: 15.) Jer. iii : 15, should be rendered: '* I will give you rulers after mine own heart, and they shall rule you with knowledge and discretion." xxiii : 4-6; Ezek. xxxiv: 23-24; Ps. Ixxviii : 70-72; II Sam." v: 2-3; Ps. Ixxx: 1-2; Jer. xxiii: 1-5; I Chron! XI : 2 ; xvii : 7 ; Ps. ii : 9 ; xlviii : 14. Moreover, the feeding in Acts xx is plainly shown to be exercising government and discipline ; nothing else is referred to. ■-'^fWh 32 CHURCH government: elders. !i ! Hence, this does not touch tlie point at issue, as it is admitted that all ministers and elders were rulers. In I Peter v : 2 feeding is explained. Under Pastors, in the Form of Church Government, a person is said *' to feed by preaching the Word." The texts quoted in support of this are irrelevant. Classical usage sustains the meaning now given Agamemnon in 11., B. II : 1243, is called "Shepherd of the People," and the same title is given to Dryas, B. 1 : 1263. II. Objection.— According to Titus i: 5-ii,and I Tim. iii : 1-7, all Elders must be apt to teach. But surely Paul does not contradict himself in v: 17. A man could not be worthy of double honour for doing only the least important half of his duty. It is said that a majority of these Elders necessarily waived their right to preach, that a regularly qualified ministry might be appointed, and that the Church did not re- quire them to preach. But, in this matter, right and duty are inseparably connected. If a man has an official right to preach, it must be because he is called by Christ to do so, and has the needful qualifications and is ordained by the Presbytery to preach, and in gen- eral, is called by a congregation. In such a case he cannot neglect his official duty and engage in a secular occupation, nor can the Church deprive him of his right. If the Church can, as a matter of convenience, deprive a man of his higher function of preaching — and this it does when an Elder is appointed on the under- standing that he is not to addict himself to the ministry of the Word — it can more easily deprive him of his inferior function of ruling and give it to a diocesan. This is all that Anglicans wish, and all that Romanists need. The Apostles did not change their Church polity, CHURCH C.OVKRXMENT : ELDERS. 33 but gradually instituted it. They continued the pre- viously existing ruling eldership, in due time instituted the office of Deacon, and, when their own ministry and that of spiritual gifts were gradually terminating, they instituted the ministry of the Word. It is said that Elders are officially entitled to preach because they are ordained. But their ordination is merely a formal and Scriptural attestation that they have " gifts for government," and that they are duly called by the congregation to exercise these gifts ; and an installation of them into office. Thus they are not ordained " to labour in the word and doctrine." CONSEOUENCES OE MOLDING THE ERROR THAT MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEI, AND RULING ELDERS, ORIGINALLY AND BY APOSTOLIC AI'POINTMENT, HAD THE SAMI-: OI'ITCE AND POWERS. (a) The office of Elder, instead of being exalted, would be abolished— the differentia between them and ministers being denied. (b) The Session would be converted into a Presby- tery, and could perpetuate itself, as the Elders might be pleased to use their latent powers, and induct one of themselves into the pastorate— ordination to the min- istry, in the case supposed, not being necessary. (c) Then Prelatists could properly say that Presby- terians are, after all, under clerical government, as all their spiritual officers are ministers or clergymen. (d) Many now decline the office of Elder, because, as they say, they are not qualified to hold prayer-meet- ings, to preach and exhort ; and thus the Church is deprived of many valuable rulers, and is compelled to select persons on account of qualities not indispensable in rulers, and who are otherwise objectionable. 3 34 ClU'KCIi GOVKRNMI'.NT : UI.DIIKS. (e) A majority of spiritual office-bearers are thus said to liave an official rij^dit to " labour in the word," who are not supposed to be qualified, and are called neither by the Church nor by ('hrist Himself to do so. (/) The notion contended for by some, that makmg an official distinction between ministers and ruling- eklers is the germ of Prelacy, as it introduced a grada- tion of officers, is absurd. This would l)e equally opposed to the Diaconate. The imaginary germ of Prelacy is harmless, as it did not grow, as is well known, in the yVpostolic age, when the polity of the Church was instituted and completed, and so far as Scriptural authority is concerned, was fixed for ever. The tendency of the error here opposed is much more dangerous than many Presbyterians seem to be aware of. It not only abolishes the office of Ruling- elder, rightly so called, but it is opposed to a stated and duly qualified ministry of the Word. If the great majority of spiritual officers are Ruling-elders, if the}' are confessedly not called by Christ to " labour in the word and doctrine," and if they are officially equal to ministers, the ministry must, in such a case, lack its distinguishing characteristic. (g) The call of Christ only can entitle a man to en- ter into the ministry. The duty of the Presbytery in the matter is mainly to ascertain whether he is truly called — ascertaining this from a knowledge of his char- acter, qualifications, religious experience, and profes- sion — and to authenticate said call by solemnl}', and in a Scriptural manner, ordaining him. If a man has not this call, the laying the hands of a hundred Presb^'teries on his head wnll not make him a minister of Christ. And yet, forsooth, we are asked to believe that Ruling-elders who lack this are officially equal to ministers of the ^gospel. CHUKCll l.ONLKNMKNl : KLDKRS. 55 Iftlic great majority of cluirch ofticcrs appointccl by tlie Aj)ostlcs were merely rulers, and if tliere was a plurality of them in every congregation, this is irrefrag- able proof — not U) mention Acts xx. and I Peter v. — that government is to be exercised b}' oOicers, antl not by the people in their collective capacit} , nor by those who are called a supt rior order — i. «., diocesans — who are never mentioned in Scripture. Hence it is easy to see how deej)ly interested Congregationalists and liph- copalians are in seeking to disprove the divine appoint- ment of the ruling-eldership, and how earnestly Presby- terians should contend for and maintain it. In discussing the theory of the eldership, seveml questions often put should be considered : 1. Are Ruling-elders entitled to take part in ordain- ing church officers ? In the Westminster Assembly's Form of Church Government, it is said, three times, that " Every minister is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fastmg, by the preaching pres- byters to whom it doth belong." And it is also said that he " is to be examined and approved by the preach- ing presbyters by whom he is to be ordained." It is also said " that the power of ordering the whole work of ordination is m the whole Presbytery " — i. d., whether he is to be ordained, and where and when the ordination is to take place, and who arc to conduct the services. There is Scripture warrant for ordination b)' preaching ofhcers. The Apostles (Acts vi : 6) ordained the deacons ; certain prophets and teachers (xiii : 1-3) ordained Paul and Barnabas ; Paul and Barnabas (xiv : 23) ordained presbyters in many congregations ; Timothy and Titus, no doubt assisted by the other preachers that were in the same sphere, ordained very many presbyters. These are all the passages in which we are told who were the 36 CHURCH government: Hl.DKRS. persons that ordained. They were all preaching; officers. In one case, that of Tnnothy (I Tim. iv : 14), we are told that ordination was by the Presbytery. This is not sufficient — as we are not told who were the per- sons ordaining or even constitntin;^' said Presbytery to set aside all ihe other cases, which were very numerous, especially as we may well suppose that Paul and his associated missionaries constituted the Presbytery on this occasion. This passaj^a*, liowever, is valuable proof that the ordination was by several individuals, and that they were presbyters It is reasonable to suppose that ordination should be, as it always has been, performed by the hij^hest officers in the Church. How unsuitable would it be were mere rulers to ordain mi|iisters of the <;ospei, and thus introduce them into an office to which the ordain- ers do not belong. 2. Are Ruling-elders competent to preside in Church courts? The answer to the preceding question di-;poses of this. The stated or pr(^ teni. Moderator of the Presbytery must preside at ordinations. Hence if a Ruling elder is not competent to ordain, he cannot be a Moderator of Presbytery. It is a mistake to sup- pose that ministers sit in Presbytery merely as rulers, with whom they are associated. They sit also as min- isters, having, an/, if need be, exercising the powers which belong t j the ministry. That a Ruling-elder should represent the Presbytery in licensing, ordaining, censuring, suspending or deposing ministers of the gos- pel would be absurd and unscriptural. Without an explicit divine injunction to this effect, no minister of the gospel would submit to it, and no congregation having the smallest respect for the ministry would tol- erate it. •^ CHURCH government: elders. 37 3. Should Ruliiig-L'kltrs be appointed for life ? DifTerence of opinion on this point lias lonj; existed in the Church. In the first Hook of Discipline, A.D. 1560 (x : 3), it is said : " The election of IClders and Deacons ouj.^ht to be made every year once, which we juilge to be most convenient on the first day of Aujj^ust ; lest of lonf; continuance of such officers, men presume on the liberties of tlie (Church : it hurtelh not thai one be received more years than one, so thai he be appointetl yearly by common and free election." In the seco'ul Book of Discipline, A.D. 1690 (vi : 2), it is said: *' Eldars anis lawfully callit to the office, and having gitis of Ciod meil to exercise the same, may not leive it a^^ain." The subject has been frecpiently brouj^ht before the judicatories of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. The General Assendily has refused to sanction the election of Polders for a term of years, as contrary to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, and as inexpedient. But, not to sjieak of just occasion of deposition from office, il is agreed that when an Elder has become incapable of performing his dutie.., or unacceptable in his official character to a majority of the congregation, he may cease to be an acting elder. Many think that as Elders are representatives of the people, the people should have an opportunity within a limited period to elect them, as they elect mem- bers of Parliament ; but the analogy must not be pressed, as Parliament enacts laws that bind their con- stituents ; whereas Elders have no legislative authority whatever, all they can do being merely to enforce the laws laid down by the Head of the Church, not even making terma of communion or instituting rites which He has not appointed. The General Assembly of the United States and our General Assembly are too con- II 3S CHURCH GOVERNMENT : ELDHRS. servative to discuss this matter in tliesi ; so that peti- tions or overtures with a view to chan,i^e will not be entertained. Should complaints in reference to the deportment and government of Elders become increas- ingly numerous and clamant, and should the methods of relief now provided prove inadequate or imprac- ticable, there is no rloubt that a limited term of service will become necessary. But this may be obviated, or at least deferred, by greater care in the election of Elders, and by greater circumspection and Christian courtesy on their part. 4. A question very frequently asked by Elders- elect is. How shall we ascertain what qualifications we should possess and what duties we should discharge ? The history of the office, and its very name, show that an Elder should be a man of high Christian character, and of such influence in the Church and in the com- munity as is generally to be found only in connection with age and experience, although these arc occasion- ally to be found in young persons. If he is to be a cen- sor of morals, his deportment must be exemplary. Again, he should have a good knowledge of the Word of God, and he should be sound and steadfast in llie faith. He is not as an Elder bound to teach at all. But if he is qualified to do so and is inclined to it, his ser- vices may be of very great value to young persons under Jiis oversight. He should be acquainted with all the families committed to his care, and evince earnest solicitude for their spiritual welfare. So far as govern- ment or discipline is concerned, he should learn from the study of Scripture the source of spiritual authority in Christ, and the nature of ecclesiastical power set forth in His Word. The office of Rulmg-elder is most honourable and CIU'RCH (•.()VHRXMi:N"r : DI'.ACONS. 19 responsible. It is tlic oldest of all Churcii oftices. Ruling-elders are the <^'reat majority of spiritual officers. Upon the faithful and efficient discharge of their duties largely depend the permanent good effects of Church ordinances, the purity of Christian communion, the peace and prosperity of the Church, and its missionar) zeal and efforts for the conversion of the world to Ood. and for the glory and satisfaction of the Redeemer. 11. DHACONS. Deacons were permanent church officers, as their (Qualifications are distinctly stated, and as they were appointed at Jerusalem (Acts vi ), at h>phesus (I Tim. lii : H-13), at Philippi (i : i), and probably at Corinth (I Cor. xii : 2(S). They weie the Church's almoners, Diakonos does not occur in Acts vi., " in the daily Diak onia" and also " Diakonein '' tables. The Uc me, in its strict technical sense, occurs only in 1 Tim. iii. and in Philip i : I. Some deny that deacons are referred tc; in Acts vi. ; but a comparison of it with I Tim, iii will show that both passages refer to the same class of officers. There is no proof that they managed the Church's hni.\:ioes. Although tables may denote bank- ing, ye'. " Diakonein '" tables can only mean to' serve taffies or distribute ahns. Some Prelatists maintain that deacons were spiritual officers, and were appointed to pre.uli and bapti/e ; and ''^' ' vSte})hen and Philip both preacheel as deacons, and that the latter wrought miracles and baptized, and that the qualifications in I Tim. iii. are too high for almoners. But Stephen^ defence (Acts vii.) could voi be called preaching, and Philip (Acts xxi : S) was an evangelist. Pesides, the qualifications in Acts m. are \ery high. Those in I Tim. iii are suited to (he treasurer of a benevolent fund. 40 CHURCH GOVERN Mi: NT : DKACONS. Moreover, as it was aiirin^ the ministry of gifts, and as these men were full of the llolv Ghost and wisdom, they could preach as evangelists. P>islu)p h^Uicott gives up the case, but he thinks that preaching deacons are called (I Cor. xii : 28) vXntilepseis, Ihit this is mere sur- mise, without a shadow of proof. If Acts vi. and I Tim. iii. do not refer to the same ofliccrs, then we have in Acts the history of the appointment of oflicers for whom there is no name, and we have in Timothy thequalihca- tions and duties of officers, of whose appointment there is no record, and who did not exist under the Old Dis- pensation. Deaconesses, some suppose, were also appointed, Rom. xvi : 1 ; I Tim. iii : 11. Ihit tlie last text is cor- rectlv rendered in the Authorized Version. Besides, the solitar}' text, Rom. xvi., is not sufficient proof on account of the various meanings of Diakonos. Besides denoting a deacon, it refers to a domestic servant. Matt. XX : 26. It refers to a minister of good or evil, (lal. ii : 17: II Cor. xi : 15 ; to a secular ruler, Rom. xiii : 4. Many have contended that deaconesses are referred to in I Tim. v : 9, 10. But this is not likely. Those here referred to were upwards of sixty years old, mothers or grandmothers. They are spoken of not as persons who are to labour for the Church, but who are to be sup- ported by the Church. We know tluit deacons were first appointed to take care of poor widows ; and it would be strange to require these aged widows to act as deaconesses. In the Form of Church Government, in the Confession of Faith, deacons are said to be distinct oflficers in the Church, whose (^fiice is perpetual. To whose office it belongs not to preach the Word, or ad- minister the sacraments, but to take special care in dis- tributing to the necessities of the poor. Such an office CHURCH GOVERNMENT : DEACONS. 41 reveals t!ie benevolence of the gospel and of the Cluirch of Christ. The office of Deacon was instituted by the Apostles and should be restored. But in order to this, the deacons official duty should be confined to the poor, or to those who need material aid. Christ has shown that His Church should be a benefactress by incorporating this idea with its very constitution, and that the Church is to care for the bodies of men as well as for their souls. There is still need for such an office, as the Church is not doing her full duty in this last respect. This is manifest rot only in much existing destitution, but also in the fact that secret and many other l)enevolent societies, are needed to do the work that belongs to the Church, but which she fails to do. Society is be- coming increasingly artificial, and thus a larger number than ever depend on situations, which are not easily obtained. Many need advice in reference to worldly matters, and assistance in obtaining means of support, for themselves and their families. On this assumption the Salvation Army is now working among the desti- tute in England. It will be sure to have much success to the reproach and detriment of the Cluirch. A large number of influential deacons having the high qualifica- tions required by the Apostles, could not only in their respective spheres, but by general combination of effort, prevent the pernicious infiuence of combines, and help the people, through suitable legislation and other m :ans, to defeat the efforts of those who seek to make colossal fortunes by impoverishing, or burdening with unneces- sary taxation, the masses. The Church would become, as of old, a great attraction and refuge to tiiose struggling with poverty and discouragement. The breaches in society would be healed ; socialism would be rebuked 42 CHURCH governmknt: ministers. and checked. A work so great and benevolent would command universal respect, and effectually silence the reproaches of scepticism. The restoration of the des- pised and neglected diaconate may be found to be a simple and adequate remedy for a vast accumulation of evils in both Church and State. III. MINISTERS AND THEIR POWERS. Presbyters were associated with Ruling-elders in all acts of government and discipline. In these cases they al , -ys acted conjointly or as a tribunal, but never as indiv^* ,.: . They seem to have been appointed to- wards the ci ' of the period of the " ministry of gifts." Their appointment was provided for by the Lord (Matt. i\ : 37, 38 ; xxviii : 19, 20 ; Eph. iv : 1 1-13). The Church iii.^eded and desired a stated ministry, I Thess. v : 20. The Apostles appointed Ruling-elders at once, where they did not previously exist, i.e., in Gentile Churches, Acts xiv : 23 ; but after Crete had enjoyed the labours of Paul, Titus, Zenas and ApoUos, Titus was instructed to " set in order the things that were wanting and ordain elders in every city," Titus i : 5. The regular ministry was still wanting ; when it was supplied, the Church's organization and equipment was completed. In this respect, as in all others, the Apostle wished to leave the Church complete. Paul states the qualifica- tions which ministers must possess, so that the Church in all future time might appoint them. (Titus i : 6-11 ; I Tim. iii : 1-7 ; II Tim. ii : 2, 24). I. Government. — The entire government of the Church was entrusted to them, along with the Ruling- elders. (I Tim. V : 17 ; Titus i : 5 ; 1 Tim. iii : 4, 5.) Paul, in his last charge to the Elders of Ephesus, com- mitted the Church entirely to their care. They were to CHURCH GOVF.RN'MF.NT : MINISTERS. 43 take lieed to themselves and to all the flock. (I Peter V : 5 ; Acts xx : 28.) This clearly includes discipline. Tliey were to exert ti^.eir authority to prevent heresy, and consequent schism, v. 30. It is objected that he does not ascribe to tliem the specific power of ordina- tion. This, however, is not his subject here. All that he insists on is the exercise of government and discip- line, for the reasons expressly stated in the text. The main thing 's, fhnt the e^ntire governnir'nt of the Churrh. involving the highest exercise of authority, would henceforth devolve on these Elders, as they would sec his face no more. It is not to be supposed that he could hold the Presbyters or Elders responsible for soundness in faith and also unity, if they had no power to discipline the teachers of error and schismatics, the grievous wolves. Hence, it has been generally assumed that they liad power to deal effectually with such characters. iJut we do not need to assume anything of the kind, as it is expressly and emphatically stated by the verb poimaino, as already explained. Take heed .... to feed i.e., to rule the Church of God. Not only so, but these Presbyters wer(> to have the oversight of themselves as well as of false teachers or false apostles coming among them. (Rev. ii : 2.) Thus, they had the entire government of the Church of Ephesus and of its Presbyters, and of strangers profess- ing to have even Apostolic authority. The same thing is stated emphatically, I Peter v : r-5. These two passages prove conclusively that all Church power, tlie very highest, was entrusted to these men. Paul gave them such power as would enable them to dispense with his oversight. There is no hint that anyone would be placed over them to succeed him ; indeed, the was n othing for a superior officer to do. Paul, referring to 44 CHURCH govkrnmi-:n't : ministers. !j these Elders (I Tim. v : 17), speaks of them as ruhng, Proestotes. In I Tim. iii : 4, the Bishop is described as Kalos Proistamcnos. Other names of Presbyters indicate government, e.g., Hegoumenoi. (Heb. xiii : 7, 17, 24). It denotes civil governors. (I Peter ii : 14 ; Matt. X : 18 ; Dan. iii : 2 ; Luke xx : 20 ; Acts xxiii : 24, 26). The corresponding duties of Christians are also stated, Heb. xiii : 17, Peithestbe ; I Tim. iii : 4. Thus, Church government devolves on Presbyters, not on Prelates, nor on the people themselves. Presbyters were associated in Church government ; they always acted conjointly, as a tribunal, never indi- viduaTv. According to Acts xv., Apostles and Elders a:terl ,.s a superior court of appeal, proving the lawful- ness of such courts. There were also present, represent- atives "f t:it; Presbytery of Antioch, and probably from Syria and Cilicia, Acts xv : 23 ; xvi : 4. The case was laid before the Apostles and Elders. They decided it by showing that the mind of the Lord had been already indicated by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles and by Old Testament prophecy. The decision was in the name ot the Apostles and Elders, v. 23. As an inspired Apostle could have settled the matter with- out appeal ; as Paul went up by revelation. Gal. ii : 2 ; as Elders sat in court ; and as the appeal was to the word and the providence of God miraculously attested? the case was plainly designed to be a precedent for all time. The objection of Congregationalists, that this was merely one congregation asking advice of another, is refuted by v. 28 ; and that the consent of the Church was needed to give authority to the decision is -contra- dicted by V. 6, and xvi : 4 ; and also by the revised text of v. 23, "the Apostles and Elders, brethren." There tions was (' auiho grega indue of dis hereti can c man a mutu and i coun coun calle in a with unw (Pui are of o a p< CHURCH government: ministers. 45 was no meeting of a conj^'re<.jation at all. Accor(linarnal)as went up to confer privately with " them that were of reputation." It would have been foolish to refer such a case to the multitude at Jerusalem as they were strongly prejudiced in reference to the point at issue (xxi : 20). The whole Church (v. 22), can only mean the appellants and com- missioners, who were probably numerous. Thus, the statement in v. 22 is important, as it proves that all the parties in the case were satisfied, showing the utility of such courts in securing harmony and peace, while main- taining sound doctrine. The peculiarity in the case is, that the decision was made binding on many congrega- tions tliat were not represented in the council. This was evidently due to the presence of the Apostles whose auLiioriiy extended over the whole Church. Ihit Con- gregationalists themselves hold councils in ordaiinng, inducting, disciplining, or dismissing a pastor ; in cases of disagreement in a congregation, or when it becomes heretical. There is authority in their councils as they can cast off a congregation and its pastor Councils manage the schemes of their Church " Councils, both mutual and ex parte, are in cases of necessity suitable and important helps ui Church government A mutual council is one in which the parties on whose behalf the council IS called, are agreed. An ex parte council is called by one of the parties, the other refusing to unite in a mutual council. Their decisions are generally left with the Churches. But in deposing from the ministry unworthy incumbents, councils act aulhoritatively." (Punchard,pp. 103, 104, 164, 261,263.) These councils are not stated in their meetings, nor are they composed of office-bearers within certain territorial limits. Thus, a person calling an ex parte council can invite his own 46 CHURCH CUVERNMEM . >ilN lb 1 liKb. friends wherever he can find them. The ministers in these councils are merely congregational delegates. " Tlie Connecticut councils are exceptional." (Punch- ard, p. 107). While Presbyterians hold that Church courts are superior to congregations, yet they maintain the equalit}- of congregations with one another, and deny that any congregation has jurisdiction over another. A Presby- tery has jurisdiction over pastors and congregations because it includes them virtually and representatively. Dr. Owen says : " Every one who is not connected with such courts is cut off from the external communion of the Church in a most important relation ; nor would it be safe for any man to counnit his soul to such a Church." II. To Labour in the Word and Doctrine. — Presbyters were appointed, officially, to preach the gospel, to teach the Church. This is denied by Prof. Hatch, and also by Plymouth Brethren, Quakers and others. Prof. Hatch (p. 114), " In regard to preaching, it is clear from the Acts and also from Paul's epistles, that the liberty of prophesying prevailed during the Apostolic age." (Acts viii : 4 ; xi : 19-21 ; xiii : i ; I Cor. xiv). The first three texts will be considered pres- ently. The fourth avowedly refers to spiritual gifts, not at all to the preaching of the gospel, statedly. The possession of the gift of prophesying was the sole title, in this case, to be heard. It is admitted that there was a time when the ministry of gifts prevailed : but this was temporary, and it did not prevent the institution of a permanent ministry of the word by the Apostles. Proof that preaching is a function of the Presbyter's office is ample, e.g., I Tim. iii : 2 ; v : 17 ; II Tim. ii : 2, 24 ; Tit. 1:9; Heb. xiii : 7 ; Rom. xii : 7. That CHTRCH GOVIiRNMKNT : MINISTHHS. 47 their office was intended to be permanent, is equally clear, Matt, xiii : 52 ; xxviii : 19,20 ; l^ili. iv : ii-ij. Thus their qualifications are indicated, and the means of their support are provided, 1 Cor. ix : 14 ; Ciid. vi : 6, 7. Question. — Is labourinp^ in the word and doctrine, in every organized congregation, entrusted to them ex- clusively ? The fact that they were appointed in every congregation, teaches that it is so. If a person is called by Christ and by a congregation to labour in the word and doctrine ; and if he is ordained and in- ducted by the Presbytery, what right or occasio'n has any private member or stranger to usurp his place and functions ? or, what right has he to surrender his func- tions ? If such usurpation of government would not be tolerated, much less should that of preaching be Christians should in their conversation edify one another, but this does not mean labouring in the word. In I Peter iii : 15, they are required to give an account of their hope. In Titus ii : 3-5, aged women are ex- horted to be teachers of good things. But Paul says (I Cor. xiv : 34, 35), " It is a shame for women to speak in the Church." It is idle to object that in I Cor. xi : 5, he permitted them to prophesy, but forbade them to do so with their head uncovered. But the Apostle merely indicated the unseemliness of the manner, re- serving his direct and explicit prohibition of the thin till he made the statement in cli. xiv. Besides, prophe sying was a prophetic gift, so that it ceased with the mmistryof gifts. But ch. xiv. forbids the exercise of a prophetic gift by women in public, and even asking questions; while in I Tim. ii : 8-12 he peremptorily for- bids women to pray or ask questions in public, and this for reasons that can never lose their force. There 4« CHURCH GOVKRNMENT: MINISTIIKS. were occasionally inspired women, but there are no cases recorded in the Bible of women preaching under either dispensation. CUMULATIVE PROOF THAT THIi MINISTRY WAS PIVINELY APPOINTED. I. Ministers as a definite class are desij^mated as presbyters, teachers, labourers in the word and doctrine, ambassadors of Christ, ministers of the New Testament, servants of the Lord, II Cor. v : 20 ; iii : 6 ; II Tim. ii : 21, 24 ; referred to as scribes. Matt, xiii : 52 ; xxiii : 34. 2. TlTey are set by God in the Churcli, I Cor. xii : 2S ; made ministers of the New Testament, II Cor. iii : 6; they are given by Christ to the Church, Eph. iv : 11 ; by Him sent into the vineyard. Matt, ix : 38. The}' were called and sent forth by the Holy Ghost, Acts xiii : 2, 4. 3. They were appointed by the Apostles, or by others commissioned by the Apostles, I Tim. iii : 1-7 ; II Tim. ii : 2 ; Titus i : 5. 4. Their qualihcations are fully stated to guide in their apj)ointment, and to enable Christians to try them, I John iv : i. 5. Provision was made for their support, so that tliey might devote their time to study and preaching. 6. Cliristians are com- manded to honour and obey them, Heb. xiii : 7, 17 ; I Thess. V : 12, 13. 7. The idea is conveyed that no officers were placed over them, or required, Acts xx : 25, 28; Titus i : 5; Peter v : 1-4. OBJECTIONS. Neander supposed that all Christians had an inherent right to preach because -said to be a royal priesthood, I Peter ii : g. But this does not refer to preaching, but offering praise for their salvation. It is strange that a man that denies that preachers of the cnrKcn c.ovi^rn'MKnt : Mixisrisus. 49 ^^ospel are priests at all, contends that all Christians have a ri^dit to preach becausj they are called priests. But even callin;:; Israel of old (lix. xix : h, fpioted by Peter) " a holy nation, a kin,L,^loni of i)riests," did not convey the idea that all had a rif^dit to perform priestly functions. Korah, referrin«; to E\. xix: 6, ludd the same views as Neander, sayinj; to Moses antl Aaron » " Ye take too much upon you, seeing' all the con^'re^^a- tion are holy, and the Lord is amon<^^ them," Numbers xvi : 3. Moses said (v. 5), " the Lord will show who arc his and who are holy,"' and in v. 10, " seek ye the priest- hood also ? " The result reveals the mistake of suppos- ing that calling them a nation of priests, meant that every individual could perform j^riestly functions. So that were it said— which it is not— ye are a kingdom of preachers, even this would not prove that all had a right to preach. The Word of God teaches that there must be a divine call. Words denoting priesthood and sacri- fice are used in a highly figurative sense in reference to all Christians and their offerings— offering themselves, Rom. xii : i ; offering praise, Heb. xiii : 15, 16; spiritual sacritices, I Peter ii : 5 ; sending contributions to Paul, Philip, iv: icS. See also Rom. xv : 16; Philip, ii : 17 ; Paul's offering himself, II I'uii iv. 6; but in all these there is no allusion to preaching the gospel. It is ad- mitted by Neander that the preaching of all Christians could, not be permanent, and that the great majority had to waive their right so i. r.t a suitable ministry might be appointed. But why was an impracticable system instituted? or by whose authority was the necessary change made ? There was a temporary ministry of gifts ; and it was superseded by a stated and permanent ministry appointed by the Apostles. Note what the Reformers meant by the priesthood of all 4 50 cnrucn GoviiKNMKNT : minisii.ks. l)L'lit;vors : — " Tlic rij^'lu of every man and woman, wliether lay or cleric, to {j[o to (lod directly with con- fession, seeking j)ardon ; with it,'norance, seeking en- lightenment ; with solitary loneliness, seeking fellowship; with frailty and weekness, seeking strength for daily holy living." Dr. Davidson (Eccl. Pol., p. 267) sny ' It is the inherent right of every man to preach the gospel, and when invited to do so by a company of believers, he may at once enter on his right and become their pas- tor." He maintains (p. 251) that "when a person ceases to be the pastor of a Church, he ceases to be a minister ot the gospel till he is elected by another." He says that a missionary to the heathen can't be a minis- ter, an(l that ordination does not belong to him. Thus only one thing is needed to make a man a minister or pastor, i. 6'., election by the people. Presbyterians hold that three things are required — the call of "ist, elec- tion by the people, and ordination by Chu. . officers. In cases of ordination to the ministry only, popular election was dispensed with, Acts xiii : 1-3 ; I Tim. iv : 14; Rom. X : 15. The onl}' passage relied on to prove the essential and inherent right of all Christians to preach, is Acts viii : 1-4. But this is not sufficient to set aside the direct and cumulative proof already pre- sented. This was done in an emergency, when even the partial organization of the Church was broken up. A stated ministry was not yet appointed while the min istry of gifts was employed. Besides, those of whose ministry we have an account were prophets, a teacher, and an evangelist. (See Acts viii : 5 ; xi : 19-21, com- pared with xiii: i.) The dispersed preachers seem to have been church officers, as the phrase "all were scattered abroad except the Apostles," is absolutely uni- versal ; and as it could not be true of the whole Church, CHURCfl GOVKRNMKNT : MINISTF.R»» SI it must refer to preacliers, t.«., to u definite class or num- ber, t^opular election, although not all that is needed, is not to be depreciated. There is, however, no direct proof that ministers were called by the people, but there is a stronj^ pre^sumption m its favour, because the ministry was given to the Church, and because God does not now indicate His mind by prophesy, I Tim. iv : 14. But there is reason to believe that po[)ular election to Church offices was universal, lilders were so elected, Acts xiv : 23 compared with 11 Cor. viii : ig ; so w^ere deacons, Acts vi : 5, 6 ; so were delegates, II ("-or. viii : 19, 23 ; and, in fine, commissioners. Acts xv : 22. Ply- mouth Brethren, settmg aside both popular election and ordination, insist on the call of Christ alone as that which entitles any man to *' labour in the word and doctrine." They sa . that all believers are equal in posi- tion, differing only as to the gifts of ruling and preach- ing, so that even they do not maintain that all Chris- tians have an inherent right to preach the gospel. liut Christ gave not inerel)- gifts, but men. Besides, who is to examine and authenticate gifts, especially as there are none now who have the gift of discerning spirits ; and as the age of miraculous gifts which authenticate themselves, has passed away. Moreover, congregations are entitled to have a stated ministryof their own choice, and they are bound to support it. They contend that missionaries alone are to be supported by the Church. ButseeGal. vi: 6, 7; I ('or. ix: 13, 14. Their polity is thus opposed to the Apostolic organization of the Church, to ordination by Church otiicers and to popular election. III. POWERS OF MINISTERS : THEIR RIGHT TO ORDAIN. I. Indirect Proof. — Ordination is the solemn act of the standing members of Presbytery, by which the belief is indicated that the person has been called by II 52 CHURCH GOVERNMENT : MINISTERS. Christ, and that he possesses the quaHfications for office which the Word of God requires ; by which he is introduced into the office of the ministry, and com- mended to the confidence of the Church, with fervent prayer that the subject of it may have all needed grace imparted to him. Ordination does not make a man a minister, for this Christ does by His Spirit, by His call, Col.iv : 17 ; Acts xiii : 2 ; I Tim. i : 18 ; iv : 14 ; Eph. iv : 8- 1 1 ; II Cor. v : 20 ; Matt, ix : 38. Ordination does not con- fer qualifications, for the possession of these is the con- dition on which it is performed, I Tim. iii : 2 ; Titus i : 7 ; Acts vi : 3 ; II Ti m. 11 2. The imposition of hands does not impart grace ; Christ by His call does this, and, no doubt, in many cases also in answer to the fervent prayer. Thus ordination does not give power or grace needed by a minister ; but it gives ecclesiastical authority to perform all the functions of the ministry. The Apostles never professed to give grace to aid in the Christian life, or to render sacra- ments or orders valid, I Cor. iii : 6 ; Acts xviii : 27 ; xiii : 48 ; xi : 18 ; although they conferred miraculous gifts by imposition of hands, Acts viii : 17, 18 ; xix : 6, 7. Ordination is never spoken of as a mysterious thing. Indeed, there is no specific term used to indicate it, but six woids that indicate appointment are so translated, Mark iii : 14 ; Acts i : 22 ; xiv : 23 ; xvii : 31 ; I Timothy ii : 7 ; Titus 1:5. Of all these, only Acts xiv : 23, and ' Titus i : 5 refer to the ordination of Presbyters. Ordination is never mentioned as a test of a valid ministry, but holding sound doctrine is, II Timothy ii : 2 ; I John iv ; 1-3 : II John v : 7, 11 ; Gal. i : 8, 9. Importance of 0>-{iinaiion. Paul invariably ordained church officers, and instructed Timothy and Titus to CHURCH GOVERNMFiNT : MINISTERS. 53 do so. Even in the special cases of Paul, Barnabas, and Timothy, the Holy Ghost commanded it. If ordination does not make a man a minister, or confer qualifications ; if it does not impart mysterious occult qualities, and if it does not furnish a test of a valid ministry, surely Presbyters qualified to preach and govern, and also to discipline, suspend, and depose Presbyters, are competent to ordain, i.e., to jud^^e of qualifications and to authenticate them, and to impart ecclesiastical authority. If they are not, an express statement to this effect would have been needed, and also the appointment of a superior order of officers who shouldhave nothing else todo.bothof which are wanting. A blessing may be expected in connection with ordina- tion. Besides, it atlords the Church security that only suitable persons will be introduced into the ministry, and that the Church will be responsible for their con- duct and their doctrine. 2. Direct Proof — I Tim. iv : 14 states a clear case of ordination by Presbyters. It is nowhere stated that Paul was present, or that II Tim. i : 6 refers to ordina- tion at all. Objections : (n) It is said that Paul ordained and that the others merely assented. This is pure assumption. If Paul was present it was merely in the character of a Presbyter, in which he could not perform an Apostolic function. (6) That Meta indi- cates that Presbyters were associated with Paul. But Meta denotes the instrument, as in Acts xiii : 17 ; xiv : 27;xv:4. Supposing that Meta here means "with," what things does it connect ? Not the imposition of hands by the Presbytery with the ordaining act of Paul, who is not here mentioned at a!l, but the imposition of hands by the Presbytery with the prophecy referred to, it was by revelation and imposition of hands, (c) That 54 CHURCH governme-nt: ministers. " Presbyterian " denotes not the ordainers, but the office of Presbyter. But the only other passages in which it occurs denote a body of Presbyters, Luke xxii : 66 ; Acts xxii : 5 Besides, this would be a plain state- ment that Timothy was merely a Presbyter, which our opponents deny. All the Presbyters ordained by Timothy and Titus were presbyterially ordained. That the latter were not Apostles or Prelates will be shown in due time. The service referred to in Acts xiii : 1-4, although, perhaps, not strictly an or aticn, yet so nearly resembles it that it is admitted tJ.at the prophets and teachers who could do the one were surely compet- ent to do the otiier. It is said that ordination is the act of the standing members of Presbytery, z.^., ministers. The Form of Church Government in Confession of Faith says, " 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," Acts xiv : 23 ; xiii : 3 ; I Tim, v : 22. It was some time ago much discussed by the American Presbyterian Church, whether ministers only are competent to ordain, i.£., virtually, whether ordination is a part of Church government, or a matter of order. If the former, it was said that Elders should take part in it. The American Presbyterian Church decided that they should not. It is partly an official act of ministers receiving one into their number, and it is always so expressed in the usual words of welcome. THE SOURCE, NATURE AND SPHERE OF CHURCH POWER. I. Source oi Power. — In private and voluntary societies, power is derived from the consent and appointment of the members of such societies. But as the Church is a divine institution, and as its ministers CHURCH government: ministers. 55 >» are called by Christ, and are His servants, their power is derived from Him. At His death He did not surren- der the government of the Church, but entered upon it. He has no vicar on earth. Officers in their collective capacity have His sanction to their decisions when in harmony with His Word. (Actsxv: 28; Matt, xviii : 18,) Thus Christ is the fountain of authority, life and blessing to the Cluirch, and not officers having treasures of grace to be withheld or dispensed independently of Him. 2. The Nature of Church Power. — It is spiri- tual, Matt. XX : 20-28; xxii : 16-21 ; John xviii: 36,37. It is ministerial, not legislative. It must be regulated by the Word of God. There are examples, regulations and also principles, with what may be fairly deduced from them, for the guidance of church officers. But they have no right to enact laws which shall bind the consciences of the people. They can explain, declare and apply the laws of Christ, subject to a final appeal to the Word of God. These are the conditions of the Church's liberty. (Sec Confession of Faith, xxxi '3:1: 6 ; XX : 2 ; xxi : i.) These passages should be carefully studied and mastered by students. 3. Sphere in which Church Power is Exer- cised. — (i) There is Potestas Dogmatica, authority in matter oi doctrine. This does not entitle the Church to give authority to the Word of God, to add to it by traditions, and by the promised aid of Christ's presence ; nor to interpret Scripture so as to bind the consciences of Christians. But Presbyters should explain and defend the Word of God, Heb. xiii : 7-9 ; Eph. iv : 8-15 ; Titus i : 9-11. As errorists often found their doctrines on Scripture, it is necessary that confessions be drawn up, and approved by the Church, II Tim. i: 13. Acts 11 56 CHURCH GOVRRNMIA'r : MINISTHRS. XV. is plainly an cxplanator)' article in reference to jus- tification by faith ; so are also the statements in John i : 14; and 1 John iv : 2,3 in reference 10 the person of Christ; and also II Tim. ii : 17, 18, and I Tim. i : 19, 20, in opposition to those who held that the resurrection is merely figurative. Church Confessions are subordinate to the Word of God. Hence a blind assent to them is not to be demanded, Gal. i : 8 ; Confession of Faith i : 4, 10; xxxi : 3. We cannot call our Confession perfect; to do so would make it equal to the Word of God. Doctrines mif^ht be stated more accurately ; additions might be made to meet new cases, or new errors ; testi- monies against obsolete errors might be left out. Although the Word of God is immutable, yet error is constantly changing, and should be testified against. Our Confession of Faith was not intended to be a test of membership, but a test of ministerial communion. (See the Def. of the Visible Church, and Q. 95, Shorter Catechism.) (2) There is Potestas Diataktike, which refers to canons and constitutions relating to the administration of ordinances and government. So far as enforcing the laws of Christ is concerned, there is no dispute. But subordinate matters, in reference to which there is no express command, must be regulated according to the spirit of the Word of God and Christian prudence. Con- fession of Faith i : 6 ; xxxi : 3, e.g., the decree in refer- ence to eating blood, washing the disciples' feet, and other things which were evidently temporary. A dis- tinction must be made between not following Apostolic practice in such things, and enacting rules for which there is no Apostolic authority. Among such things we are not to place Church government, as in reference to it we liave ample Scripture authority ; nor Romish CHURCH GOVERNMENT : APOSTLES. 57 penances, fasts, pi l,<:,^ri mages, the observance of Christ- mas, Good Frichi}- and tlie rite of confirmation, for none of which is there any Scripture authority what- ever. We do not approve of the XX Article of the Churcli of England : " Whatever is not expressly for- bidden in Scripture, the Church may enact on her own authority." The Confession of Faith teaches that whatever is not expressl}' sanctioned by, or fairly deducible from, the Word of God is not to be enjoined. (Confession of Faith x\ : 2 ; Shorter Catechism 58; Larger Catechism 109.) (3) There is Potestas Diakritike— disciplinary authority, Confession of Faith xxx. This is spiritual, including oversight, admonition, suspension from Church privileges or from office, and excommunication. (I Cor. V : 6, 7 ; II Thess. iii : 6, 14, 15 ; II Cor. x : 8 ; II John v: 10, 11.) As Christ has drawn a line between the things of Cctsar and the things of God, Romanists are wrong in placing the government of the Church over that of the State ; and Erastians are equally wrong in placing the government of tliC State over that of the Church. They are distinct, occupying different spheres, but co-ordinate. The XXXVII Article of the Church of England is Erastian. II. EXTRAORDINARY CHURCH OFFICERS. All that 1 am concerned to prove is that their offices and peculiar powers and duties were extraordinary and temporary. Proof that the Apostolic oflice was extraor- dinary and temporary: (i) The name Apostle, in its technical sense, is not given to any who were not of the original number, to which no addition is possible. (Luke vi : 13 ; I Cor. xv : 8, g ; Jude 17 : Rev. xviii : 20 ; xxi : 14.) Matthias and Paul were the only exceptions. But 5^ CHURCH GOVERNMENT : APOSTLES. Matthias' appointment was made to fill up a blank in the original number of witnesses of our Lord's resurrec- tion, and to fulfil prophecy. Paul declares that his ap- pointment was exceptional, and the very last. The fact that their names are inscribed in the Holy Jerusalem, and that the Church is built upon them, Eph. ii : 20, shows that they are permanently related to the whole Church as its foundation, or founders, and hence they could have no successors, a succession of founda- tions being absurd. Some passages are said to disprove this designed restriction of Apostolos (Rom. xvi : 7), " men of note among the Apostles," or " eminent Apos- tles.'' The former is to be preferred, as these were evi- dently obscure persons, and one of them was perhaps a woman. In I Thess., Silvanus and Timothy are united with Paul in the salutation, hence he says (ii : 6), *' we might have been burdensome as the Apostles of Christ." It is implied that he calls them all Apostles of Christ. But the salutation does not make them all joint authors of the epistle. If ice denotes these three men, ch. ii : 2 will contradict the Acts, as it makes Timothy a fellow -sufTerer with Paul. Besides, Paul in ii : 18 uses 7e'e in reference to himself; and rt j- or ^tA;*? will make good sense if the reference is to the twelve Apostles. In Phil, ii : 25, Paul calls Epaphroditus " your Apostle ; " but this is explained in iv : 18. In II Cor. viii : 23, we read of the Apostles of the Churches, but not of Christ One was elected to carry donations. They do not seem to have been church officers. In Acts xiv : 4, 14, Paul and Barnabas are called Apostles. But Barnabas is never elsewhere, alone, called an, Apostle, nor even here an Apostle of Jesus Christ. They were missionaries of the Church at Antioch, Acts xiii : 1-4 ; xiv : 26, 27. In Rev. ii : 2 ; II Cor. xi : 13, we read of " false Apostles." But CHURCH government: apostles. 59 these may have pretended to be messengers of Churches, or to be some of the true Apostles where they were not personally known, or to have received an independent commission. The existence of such Apostles may prove that there had been, or were, true Apostles, but not that there was a succession of Apostles, the very point at issue. Paul attaches much importance to the title " Apostle." He is careful never to call Timothy or Titus " Apostles." In II Cor. i : i ; Col. i : i, he calls Timothy a brother and himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ. It should be noticed that as the three words used to desig- nate church officers were Greek words in i^ood use, they must have two meanings in Scripture, the common and the technical. Thus diaconos denotes a domestic ser- vant, a church officer generally, and a deacon. Pres- buteros sometimes means older, Luke xv : 25 ; John viii : 9 ; an old man, I Tim. v : i ; sometimes a presby- ter. Apostolos denotes one sent, John xiii : 16, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ. If there were Apostle-Bishops, who were successors of the Apostles, they are never men- tioned in the New Testament. (2) Proof that the Apos- tolic office was extraordinary and temporary, is fur- nished by the special qualifications and work of the Apostles. They were appointed immediately by the Lord, Luke vi : 13 ; John xx: 21-23; Matt, xxviii : 19. 20. Paul was no exception, Gal. i : i. Besides, they had seen the Lord, and were qualified and ap- pomted to attest His resurrection. (Acts i : 21, 22 ; iv : 33 ; x 140, 41 ; I Cor. ix : i ; xv : 8.) Eye-witnesses can have no successors. Moreover, they wrought mir- acles and conferred miraculous gifts. (Acts viii : 1 7, 18 ; xix : 6 ; II Cor. xii : 12.) Further, they were instructed in the gospel by Christ himself, or by divine inspiration, Gal. i ; II, 12. In fine, they were commissioned to teach ii 60 CHURCH government: apostles. all nations, thus they liad no local charge. (Acts i : 8 ; Matt, xxviii : 19 ; Mark xvi : 15 ; Rom. xv : 20 ; II Cor. xi : 28.) The Apostle James seems to have remained mainly at Jerusalem, But he is never spoken of as act- ing as a prelate. Whatever position he held in the council (Acts xv.), the decree did not go forth in his name. He also acted with the Elders, Acts xxi:i8; the other references to him are. Acts xii . 17 ; Gal. ii : 9. Some contend that he was not an Apostle. If so, on the Patristic theor}', he was placed above the Apostles. But he was evidently an Apostle, Gal. i : 19 ; I Cor. ^^' • 7- (3) Proof that the Apostolic office was extraor- dinary and temporary, is that no instructions were given to appoint successors to the Apostles ; there is no statement of their qualifications ; there is no example of their appointment, while all these are found in refer- ence to Presbyters and Deacons. As the Church spread over the world, the Apostles must have had occasion to appoint Apostles, if such officers were required at all, as a permanent order. It is admitted that the distinctive qualifications of Apostles were not continued, and also, that some Apostolic powers are held by Presbyters. It must be evident that the powers of Presbyters that we have ascertained and proved, combined with the special powers of Apostles, include all the powers that the Apostles possessed. If there are any intermediate powers between these, they are not stated in the Word of God. (4) Proof that the Apostolic office was extraordinary and temporary, is that there is no inherent necessit}' for the continuance of it. Prelatic Objections. — (a) That when the Lord said, " As my Father sent me so send I you " (John xx : 21-23), He transmitted to the Apostles the power and authority that He had received from the Father, because CHURCH GOVERNMENT : APOSTLES. 6l He breatlied on theni and said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; " He imparted or transferred to them His own power, enabhng them to communicate the Holy Ghost to their successors, and that, too, perpetually, (b) That Christ was an Apostle sent by the Father (Heb lii. i), and that the Apostles were His successors, and that Diocesan Bisliops are their successors, John xx : 21-23 ; Matt, xxviii : ig, 20. (c) It is maintained that Apostolic vSuccession is taught in H Tim. ii : 2, while there is ana- logical proof in the succession of Jewish priests. Reply : — ist. The doctrme of sacramental grace, or grace uf orders, tactually transmitted, is unscriptural. Ordination does not impart grace and qualifications, but authenticates them. I do not deny, however, that ordi- nation may be a precious means of grace to the parties concerned in it. Besides, although the Apostles by the imposition of hands imparted miraculous gifts. Acts viii : 17, 18 ; xix : 6, yet they never professed to impart grace for office, or for the Christian life. Moreover, the word in John XX : 21 (the word "as") could not mean that Christ gave the same power to the Apostles that the Father gave to Him, without making the Apostles equal with Himself. The reference of the equality is to that of the Son with the Fat ler, not to that of the Apostles with Christ. This meaning is plainly stated in John xvii : 18. The fact that Christ breathed on them and said, •* Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whosesoever sins ye remit," etc.. does not show that the Apostles could do the same thing. The fact that they received the Holy Ghost, does not define their powers, but merely indi- cates that they were thus qualified for their work. The nature of their qualifications is to be ascertained from such specific statements as are on the preceding page and these include inspiration and miraculous powers 62 CHURCH government: apostles. that no Diocesan lays claim to. In Matt, xxviii : 19, 20, the Lord addressed the Apostles as preachers, and as representatives of preachers to the end of time, and promised to be with them in preachinf:^ and not in ordaining others to preach, a thing not mentioned, or even expressly referred to, although implied in continu- ing the ministry, which is plainly to be done by these preachers. In the Ordinal of the Church of England, the Bishop addresses the Priest thus : " Receive the Holy Ghost for the ofhce and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed to thee. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and wliose sins thou dost retain, thev are retained." In Heb. iii : i, Christ is spoken of as the Apostle and High Priest of our pro- fessidn, i.e., of professed Christians in all ages ; and surely not merely a founder of an order of Priests to whom there is no reference in the passage. To make II Tim. ii : 2 relevant, the following tilings must be begged: That ordination, although not mentioned, is the main thing referred to ; that derivative succession is an abso- lute necessity ; and that fidelity, soundness in the faith, and aptness to teach, which only are mentioned, are of no account whatever. The analogy of Old Testament priests cannot be binding without express command. Their employment was entirely different from that of gospel ministers, and they were connected with the sacrificial system which has been abolished, and their succession was hereditary. If even the latter point is given up, the analogy is surrendered, as the salient point here is the succession. After the Roman Conquest, the succession was hope- lessly broken. But although Caiaphas could not be a legitimate successor of the earlier High Priests, yet the Lord recognized his authority. But why select the 1 CHURCH govkrnmknt: afosti.ks. o-^ priesthood as the basis of analogy ? It was no iiiort; a type of Christ's mediatorial character than tlie offices of king and prophet. Ministers of the gospel are, in no official sense, priests. It would be more appropriate, although not correct, to call them prophets, as prophets preached in tlie time of the Apostles. 2nd. It is impossible to prove either Prelatic or Presbyterian succession, supposing such a thing to be necessary. An explanation of terms will show this. When Prelatists speak of the necessity of a suc- cession of officers, they mean absolute necessity, while Presbyterians mean only relative necessity, i.e.^ scrip- tural, and conservative of good order, which can be dispensed with only in extraordinary circumstances. Besides, when Prelatists speak of succession, they mean derivative succession ; whereas Presbyterians mean ordinary sequence in office, recognized in the usual way. Moreover, Prelatists profess to prove for themselves only a general succession through connection with a Prelatic Church, while they demand of Presbyterians proof of a particular succession from Apostles or Apos- tolic Presbyters. But even a general succession, such as they profess to have, cannot be proved. Who can trace the succession through the dark ages ? Even the beginning of succession in Rome, as will be shown in due time, cannot be proved. Who can prove that ordination is the only condition of a valid succession, and that immorality and heresy cannot invalidate it ? How alarming would it be were the validity of the ministry and sacraments dependent on a succession that cannot be proved. Archbishop Whately exposes " the fallacy of confounding together the unbroken succession of a Christian ministry, generally, and the same suc- cession in an unbroken line of this or that individual 64 CHUKCH GOVliKNMKNT : AI'OSTI.HS. minister. One may say to liis pastor, you teacli me tliat my salvation depends on the possession by you of a certain ciualilication ; and when I ask for proof that you {)ossess it, you prove to me that it is possessed, •generally, by a certain class of persons of wliicli you are one, ami probably by a larj^^e majority of them." He shows that in transmiltin«; sacramental ^'race, every thinj; depends on that particular minister and the evi- dence of his personally havinj,' the succession. An^di- cans, therefore, must present proof of the particular succession which they demand of Presbyterians, vvhich, of course, cannot be produced. 3rd. Supposinj^^ that succession could be proved it would be of no value. The end for which the ministry was instituted is the maintenance of Gospel truth and its adjuncts. But succession does not secure this. Besides, the succession does not furnish a single dis- tinctive mark by which true ministers may be distin- guished irom others. Christians are required to try the spirits by a doctrinal standard. (I John iv : i ; I Thess. v : 21 ; Gal. i : 8, 9.) Moreover, Christ presides in His Churcli, and our connection witii Him is direct, and not through a long succession of men who are dead. Christ calls men into the ministry, qualities them, is with them, gives testimony to their preaching, and renders sacra- ments effectual by the working of His Spirit in the hearts of them that by faith receive them. Thus the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is unscripfnra' incapable of proof, and of no practical utility .i-. — We admit that the Apostles were the first mi ^ers of Chri.. ; and that all other gospel ministers are their successors in all those functions of their office which were intended to be perpetual. In this sense we believe in the Apostolic Succession. CIirRCII (loVRRNMKNT : AI'OSTI.I'.S. 65 lint An;;licans incorporate witli it two assumptions, for which tlicre is no warrant in Scripture, and no proof in recorded facts eitlicr in tlie New Testament or in tlie earhest Christian writings. First, they assume that the twelve Apostles were tlu; divinely appointed " Depositaries " of all the official j^'race in the Church ; and secondly, that from them, as from a sacretl fountain, the grace of office, without which no ministerial act is valid, can be transmitted only through diocesan liishops descending in regular succession from the Apostles, and possessing the exclusive right and power of ordination. This is what is meant by " the Historic Episcopate," which the Episcopal Church co ordinales with the Holy Scriptures and with the administration of sacraments, in their overture for the reunion of Christendom.* Jkil, upon this principle, what l)ecomes of the Prelatic contention that Timothy ai.d Titus, and others, were Apostolic-Bishops, successors of the Apostles, and appointed by an Apostle ? Besides, what becomes of all the alleged Scripture proof of Episcopacy ? Moreover, as the Apostles appointed Presbyters to preach the gospel, dispense sacraments, and exercise government, what prevented their appointing successors to themselves in their peculiar functions ? And as the Church extended among all nations, while the number of the Apostles gradually diminished, how could the appointment of Bishops be dispensed with as long as any Apostles remained ? Why did not the Apostles, at least, predict the rise of such an order, and state the qualifications and duties which should belong to it ? * Mr. Gladstone says : '• To expect a full account of the estab lishment of an order whose function it was to replace the Apostles, is precluded by the nature of the case, as Scripture only records what took place during the lifetime of the Apostles." 5 66 CHUKcn govkrnmf.nt: evangelists. especially as they gave such ample information in refer- ence to inferior orders. The answer is simple. Apos- tolic-Bishops were not appointed because they are not needed, and because there are no special ^^owers for them to exercise, without either perpetuating powers which belonged to the Apostles, personally, or depriving ministers of the gospel of powers which belonged to them, thus changing the polity which the Apostles instituted. EVANGELISTS. The name occurs only three times, Eph. iv : 1 1 ; Acts xxi : 8 ; II Tim. iv : 5. Prelatic writers, failing to prove that Timothy and Titus were supreme Apostles, maintain that being Evangelists, they were Apostle- Bishops, the one at Ephesus, the other at Crete. Others contend that the office is a permanent one, and that to it belongs a class of men who exercise an itinerant ministry among settled congregations — ignor- ing, assisting, or superseding the regular pastors. The true way to ascer^-dn the technical meaning of the term, is to examine all the passages that refer to labours of Evangelists, and the sphere over which their labours extended. Philip was originally a Deacon (Acts vi.) ; but at the dispersion (Acts viii.), he seems to have gone down as an Evangelist to Samaria, where he preached and wrought miracles (viii : 5, 12, 13), he thus preceded the Apostles as an inferior officer, 14-19. He next went by divine appointment towards Gaza, V. 2y, where he preached to and baptized the Ethiopian ; thence he continued preaching till he arrived at Ca'sarea, v. 40, where Paul visited him, xxi : M. As Timothy's ministry was that of an Evangelist (II Tim. iv : 5) : as Tilus was similarly CHURCH government: evangemsts. 67 employed, and as we have a pretty full account of their labours, we may by considerinjjj their employment have a correct idea of the work or ministry ol an Evangelist, (ist.) Evangelists seem to have possessed spiritual gifts, (Acts viii : 6,7,13 ; II Tim. i : 6) ; this, of course, places these among extraordinary officers. (2nd.) They were personal attendants on Apostles, and travelled as exten- sively as the Apostles. This is, also, another Apostolic characteristic. Timothy joined Paul at Lytra (Acts xvi : 1-4); was at Ephesus and was sent to Macedonia (xix : 22 ; I Cor. iv : 17 ; xvi : 10) ; wasseni to Ephesus to repress the growth of error during Paul's absence (I Tim. i : 3) ; was with Paul at Macedonia II Cor. i : 1 ; accom- panied Paul in his last journey to Jerusalem, Acts xx ; was with him at Rome, Col. i : i ; Philip, i : i ; was sent as a delegate to Philippi, Philip, ii : 19-23 ; was sent for to Rome by Paul, II Tun. iv, 9, 21 ; there he seems to have been arrested, and when set at liberty purposed to travel Eastward, Heb. xiii : 23. Titus was with Paul at Jerusalem, Gal. ii : 1 ; at Corinth, II Cor. vii : 6, 14; was at Crete, Titus 1:5; at Nicopolis, Titus iii: 12 ; at Dalmatia, II Tim. iv : 10. These Evangelists were employed in completing the organization of churches formed by Paul in correcting irregularities, and thus assisting the Apostle; in his specific work I Cor. xvi : 10 ; I Tini. i '■ } : Titus i : 5. Tiiey were messengers of the Apostle by whom epistles were sent, and com- munication was kept up, I Cor. xvi : 19 ; II Cor. vii : 6, 8 ; Eph. vi:2i, 22. Tims tlie wiiole period of the labour of these Kvangelists till the end of Paul's life isaccounted for, showing that they had no local charge, tliat they were itinerant like the Apostles and were engaged as assistants of the Apostle. ]:5y leaving them to organize churches, Paul was able to do much more Apostolic 68 CHURCH government: evangelists. work than he could otherwise have done. In ordaining Presbyters II Tim 11:2; I Tim. iii : 1-7, 15 ; and- exer- cising government and discipline, I Tim. v : ig; they, no doubt, acted constitutionally, as Paul liimself did, respecting popular suffrage, and acting in conjunction with other officers, as at Ephesus and Crete, and where there were no officers, acting individually by Apostolic authority. (3rd ) Timothy was officially inferior to Paul In Acts xix : 22 this is manifest. lie is not mentioned as being with Paul and vSilas at Philippi, Acts xvi : 19-40. In xvii : 4, lo, Tmiothy is not mentioned, although he was with them vv. 14, 15 ; xviii : 5. Paul addressing Timothy or speaking of him— II Cor. i : i ; Col. i: I — never calls him an Apostle even when he calls himself one. There is not much importance to be attached to the term " brother,' but to the fact that in iiese places he is not called an Apostle, especially as Paul attaches so much importance to this title. It may be said (Phil, v : i) that Timothy is called a brother when, v.: point of fact, he was also a prisoner. But prisoner is not a title of office like Apostle ; besides, he was at liberty at the time referred to, Heb. xiii : 23. Even in his last Epistle (iv : 5), he tells them to do the work of an Evangelist. Had he been an Apostle, how could the title have been withheld here ? He also directs Timothy's movements, and gives such instructions as imjilied official superiority and authority. The intelli- gent and careful reader cannot fail to perceive this. Prelatists object that Timothy was instructed to per- form functions to which Presbyters or Evangelists are not equal, e.ff., to exercise discipline over Presbyters, I Tim. V : ig. But this is merely begging the whole question. Besides, it is not said that he was to exercise judgment in this case. But, as we have seen in Acts CHURCH GOVERNMENT : I'ROPHETS. 69 XX : 28 ; I Peter v : 2, Presbyters were competent to exercise the highest discipHne over Presbyters. He did not need to do this alone, as there were other Presby- ters at Ephesus. Prelatists object that Timothy could not ordain Presbyters merely as a Presbyter, I Tim. V : 22. But we do not know that this passage refers to ordination at all, or especially to the ordination of min- isters of the gospel. Timothy was ordained by a Pres- b^'tery himself, I Tim. iv : 14. He might have the Ephesian Presbyters associated with him. If a man must be ordained by an officer higher tlian himself, who is to ordain the highest officers ? As to discipline, all a freeman can ask is to be tried by his peers. To enjoy this, of course, a minister should not become a member of a congregation. Thus the office of an Evangelist was temporary, because it was closely related to that of Apostle, which had the whole world for its sphere, and had also miraculous gifts attached to it ; because its qualifications and duties are not stated, but merely the work accomplished l)y it ; and because no instructions are given to perpetuate it. It is very evident that Evangelists, especially Timothy and Titus, were officially inferior to Apostles ; and that, as admitted, there were no officers between Apostles and Presbyters ; their ordiiia;^ functions were those of Presbyters. PROPHETS. The Prophets were inspired preachers of the gospel, Eph. ii : 29; iv : 11. The}' sometimes foretold events. Acts xi : 27-30; xx : 23; xxi : 10, 11. They were inspired expositors of gospel doctrine. Thus they generally followed the Apostles, watering what the Apostles had sown. This was needed before tl:e New Testament was written and published. Thus none of 70 CHURCH government: patristic. their teacliings are found in the sacred canon, as they merely taught wliat is contained in the New Testament. Their labours were not specially ftjr the conversion of sinners, but for the edification of the Church, I Cor. xiv : 3,4,22. Still their holy fervour, the subjective style of their address, and their abilit}- to apply the truth to the conscience, tended not only to edify and comfort believers, but to convince and convict sinners, I Cor. xiv : 22, 24, 25. Their splendid gifts shed lustre on the Apostolic Church, and conduced to its edifica- tion and extension, while they lasted. PATRISTIC. Ecclesiastical Polity, during the first two or three centuries, is here referred to, not to add authority to the Word of God, nor to explain what it teaches, nor to decide difficulties of exegesis which are mainly due to perverse ingenuity, but to show that the polity instituted by the Apostles continued long after their decease, and was gradually and sporadically changed. This is needed to counteract Prelatic strategy. Pre- latists, failing to find support for their polity in the J3ible, long maintained that it contains only the germ of Prelacy, which sprung up and ripened afier the Apostles' death, citing immediately or in a sliort time. But recently failing to find mucli needed support in th(! Apostolic Fathers and other writers down to the middle of the third century, some Prclatists now try to prove that no uniform polity is to be found even in this period, all being chaotic and not reduced to a system till the Nicene, which is called a formative, period. While others, like Prof. Hatch, contend that Church government is a divine institution only in the sense in which civil government is, Kom. xiii:i, thus leaving CHURCH Gi)VI:KNMKNT : I'ATRISTIC. 71 Clmrch polity to he regulated by tlic lif^lil of nature, in conformity to civil institutions and national taste. In Church literature onl}' contemporary testiirony can be admitted, as the matter is one of fact, not of opinion. The testimony of anonymous and even of corrupted writings may be admitted, if there be evidence that they existed in their present form in the age to which they are known to belong. Several serious mistakes deserve to be pointed out. I. It is maintained that as Prelacy e-xisted in the Primi- tive Church, it must have arisen by Apostolic appoint- ment, or b}' some recognized inherent necessity. But on this principle you can inid Apostolic or reasonable support for all tiie errors of Romanism. Besides, m point of tact, it did not exist in its medi;rval, or even modern, form tor hundred> of vears after the death of the Apostles. 2. That while I'2piscopos is equivalent to Presbuteros in the New Testament, Acts xx : 17, 2S ; Titus 1:5,7, \et imm('diat(;ly after the Apostles' time it denoted a Diocesan. Related to tliis is the gratuit- ous assumption that the chairman of a bodv of Pres- byters must l)e a Diocesan, either real or apparent. 3. That wh«n l^ishop, Wesbytcr, and Deacon are stated together, a form that does not occur in the New Testa- ment, Jjishop must denote a Diocesan. This can be corrected by showing that a Bishop in the modern sense is not a congregational otific( r, but tin/ (A'erseer, of a large number of congregations and their pastors. To determine this point the question is. What arc tiie person's qualihcations, functions and sphere of labour ' The answer will show whether he is a Diocesan or a Presbyter. 4. That congregations were independently organized, at first. Whereas, in ci ies like Corinth and Kome, beiore there were Church buildings, a number ot 72 CHURCH GOVERNMFN-T : I'ATUISTIC. Presbyters laboured conjointly ; vvliilo il was only in small towns and rural districts that single coni^regations were independently organized. In tiie one case you find a Tresbytery, in the other a Session, exercising government, but in neither a Uiocesan. Keeping these mistakes in mind and assuming, as we are entitled to do, that tlie polity instituted by the Apostles did con- tinue some time after theu" death, we shall view the records of Primitive Church polity in the light shed on them by the Scriptures, and not vice versa, as Prelatists hurch ; the i'resby- lers preserve the better form, the deacons the subordi- 82 CHURCH GOVLRNMhN r : PATRISTIC. nate." A great deal is made of a. tradition in Eusebius (Book III, chap xxiii.), and said to have been preserved by Clement, although it is not in his works. It states casually that the Apostle John, after escaping from Pat- mos. " went, when called, to tlie neighbouring regions of the Cientiles; in some to appoint Bishops, and in some to institute entire new Cluirches, in others to appoint to the ministry some one of those pointed out by the Holy Ghost." No OIK nee^l he surprised that John renewed his Apostolic work. Wliile he lived, mkI long after, Bishop was used in the New Testament sense. Besides, the person addressed as a Bishop is called in the next sentence a Presbyter. This is a ver\' slender founda- tion for the opinion that John, after the death of all the other .\postles, changed the polity which they had instituted, and established prelacy in Asia. NoTK. — T.^A' correctness of the testimony of the early Fathers now presented is confirmed by feromc and Hilary, in the end of the fourth century, when a modified Episcopacy existed, to the effect that a change had been made in the polity of the Apostles. Jerome, on Titus i.. declares and proves " that Presbyters and Bishops were the same in the .\postolic age, and that it was not till parties were formed in the Church, and to put an end to schism, that one chosen from among the Presbyters should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of the Church should be committed to him, and that the seeds of schism should be taken away. That by little and little the plants of dissension might be plucked up, the whole concern was devolved on one individual. As Presbyters therefore know that they are subjected, by the custom of the Church, to him who is set over them, so let the Bishops know that they are greater than Presbyters more by custom than by any real appointment of Christ.' Hilary, on I Cor. xii : 28, 29, says : '' Because all tilings are from one God, the cuiRcn ^iovl•:l<^■^!l•:^ r : pairistic. ^3 Father. He decreed that one Bisliop should 1)6 over each Church — siii^ulos episcopos singulis ecclcsiis dccrevii ; the l>ishops tlu;refore were j)a5tors. On Eph. iv : II : "After C'hurches were formed in all places and officers were constituted, matters were arraui^'ed otherwise than at the l)egi^ninJ^^ The Church began to [k go\eriied by another order and foresight. The Apostles do not agree with the ordination which is now in the Ciiurcli, because their writings were written at the comuK i^^cment. On 1 Tim. iii . lie says that the ordination of a I'resbyter is not mentioned after that of a liishop, as that of i'resbyter and liishop is one. '