An exposition and defence of the Presbyterian form of church government, in reply to Episcopal and independent writers

Front matter

tihtavy of 'the theological ^tminavy

PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY

John M. Krebs 1868

Preface To The Second Edition

The alterations made in this edition are not numerous or extensive. Some typographical errors have been corrected ; a few paragraphs have been modified for the sake of greater precision and perspicuity ; and, finally, several references and notes have been introduced in elucidation and support of my principal positions. Though these changes may seem individually small, they will be found collectively to be of some importance, and to render the woii, as I trust, more readable and convincing.

I have to acknowledge the courtesy of reviewers who differ from me in their views of Church Government. The spirit of their strictures gives perhaps more promise of union than even the frankness of their concessions.

11 PREFACE.

Excellent amendments have been suggested to me by friends whose judgment I highly respect. But some of the topics they propose for consideration, such as the Spirituality of the Church, and the Administration of Discipline, I have treated of elsewhere — in my volume on the Lord's Supper, and that on the Ruling Eldership of the Christian Church. And almost all the improvements recommended are of the nature of additions, which appear to me on that ground questionable, as, to a large class of readers, " a great book is a great evil.''

I conclude by expressing my heartfelt delight that Christian Churches have so much in common ; and I am fully persuaded that if we only worked out faithfully our agreements, most of our differences would speedily disappear. The Lord hasten it in his time ! *

* The above Preface, and the amendments to which it refers, ■were jotted a number of months ago, without being regarded by me as finished. I was prevented, however, by severe and protracted illness from revising them ; so that the printers had to do their best with somewhat illegible markings, and the correction of the proofs devolved on the Rev. Dr Gardner, of Edinburgh, who honoured me by performing this friendly service. It is superfluous for me to speak of the value of his writings ; but having occasion to mention his name, I cannot forbear from calling special attention to his " Christian Cyclo-

PREFACE. Ill

psedia," as being a work of unusual importance, and supplying an important desideratum in Christian literature.

Dr Wardla-w is no more! Much delightful co-operation I have had with him in philanthropic and religious movements. But he is gone from us. Bereaved kindred— his attached church— an admiring public — will see his face no more ! There are few such men in any religious connection. It is a distinction to a country and an age to possess a minister and a writer of such high and varied eminence. But the small and the great go hence ; and now we recognise the value of his presence in the blank, and gloom, and weakness attendant on his removal. His usefulness, however, is not closed : he being dead yet speaketh : he will do good by his writings for many ages to come ; so that whide he rests from his labours he will be followed by his works. His name is largely introduced in this volume ; and I cannot help feeling as if a melancholy were cast over the whole discussion by his lamented decease. I am pleased, however, that he had an opportunity of replying to the strictures here offered if he had been so disposed. And far more gratified am I to think that our interchange of controversial criticisms never suspended or in the smallest degree qualified the friendliness of our intercourse.

RoSENBATH; Jan. 1, 1854.

pmiTcsTon

THEOLOGIGSlL

PEEFACE TO FIEST EDITION.

A VOLUME which I published some years ago on the Kuling Eldership of the Christian Church was partly argumentative and partly practical. The argumentative part elicited some strictures from Drs Ward law and Davidson. In preparing a new edition I was led to reply to such objections; but I found the work assuming both a magnitude and a controversial character altogether unsuitable to a simple manual for elders. I therefore changed my plan, and made the Third Edition of my treatise on the Eldership more specially didactic, with only a brief statement of the proof for the office of Ruling Elder, of which I there delineate the duties, and intimated my intention to merge the reasoning formerly employed, in such a general defence of Presbyterian Church Government as is now offered to the public.

Under the circumstances just stated, I might

VI PREFACE.

have made a free use of that portion of my former volume which accorded with my present design, since it was not to reappear otherwise. But renewed examination of the subject led me into new trains of thought, proof, and illustration ; and the result is that few passages are common to the two treatises.

From the title of this volume the reader will be prepared to find that I take decided views, and vindicate one system of polity in preference to others. It does not follow that I advocate an existing Presbyterian ism unqualifiedly and indiscriminately— that I perceive everything among ourselves to be right, and all things in which our neighbours differ from us to be wrong. Such partisanship will never promote the discovery of truth, nor bring our debates by one step nearer to a conclusion.

We are sadly ignorant of ourselves, and frequently we know not what spirit we are of. That I have nowhere in these pages transgressed the laws of Christian charity and courtesy, I dare not assert. But I have certainly aimed to treat opponents respectfully, to meet their arguments fairly, and to offer no reply to the reader which I did not feel, on calm reflection, to be satisfactory to myself.

PREFACE. Vli

While I have defended Presbyterianism in the honest belief that it is defensible on good grounds, though admitting in various points of nearer approximation to the primitive model, I have rejoiced to find, that without underestimating a single argument, or compromising one iota of my convictions, I have been induced to moderate, in several important particulars, my estimate of denominational differences ; and I would reckon myself favoured beyond expression if this small work should convey to others the same persuasion, and thus advance Christian conciliation and co-operative beneficence.

It will be easy for an objector to complain of omissions, and to mention able defences of Episcopacy and Independency of which I have not taken any notice My answer is, that I could not undertake to answer all such writings, however deserving they may be of consideration ; and that no one will accuse me of a deficiency of courage in my selection of opponents, if, under any aspect, I may apply that name to my distinguished and venerable friend, Dr Wardlaw.

It will not be supposed that in bringing out another vindication of Presbyterianism with special adaptation to the present day, I undervalue prior publications in behalf of the same cause. I freely

VIU PREFACE.

acknowledge my obligations to them, and I have doubtless derived from them more benefit than I am now able to trace to its sources. Not to speak of older works, much valuable service has been rendered, of late years, to the Ecclesiastical Polity of w^hich I approve, by such men as Drs Miller, Smyth, and Barnes, in America, and by Drs Brown, Mitchell, Lorimer, and M'Kerrow, in this country. The strictures on Dr Wardlaw's defence of Independency, by the last-named writer, which appeared in successive numbers of the United Presbyterian Magazine, will amply reward careful perusal.

In preparing this volume, I have found brethren of different denominations so ready to afford me all facilities in the prosecution of my undertaking, that I cannot here specify their acts of helpful kindness. I must not, however, fail to acknowledge the valuable aid afforded me by my learned, judicious, and highly-esteemed friend. Professor Lindsay, who revised the whole work as it was passing through the press, and in different instances suggested amendments of material consequence.

As the general line of argument which I have here followed has engaged my thoughts through a course of years, I do not feel entitled to make

PREFACE. IX

any apology for it, or to ask for it any forbearance. But my plan has been worked out amid numerous and distracting engagements ; and therefore I fully anticipate that flaws will be detected in the details of execution. As to the main principles I have no misgivings ; and I invite a thorough scrutiny of them, in the conviction that they are scriptural, and that the more they are examined, they will the more appear worthy of Him who is not the author of confusion, but of order, as in all churches of the saints.

DAVID KING.

Glasgow, 10th March 1853.

Contents

PART T.

INTEODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.

Page

Chapter I

That the primitive churches had Deacons, universally admitted— Proofs of the existence of this order in the apostolic age — The special nature of their office disputed — Paul's Epistles do not indicate their peculiar functions — The seven spoken of in Acts chap. vi. are not called Deacons — That the seven, however, were Deacons, and that their charge shows the character of the Deacon's work, may be inferred from the manner of their appointment ; from the language used respecting them ; fi'om the qualifications required of Deacons ; and from historical testimony, 29

CONTENTS.

PART T.

INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.

Page

I, Our appeal must be to Scripture ; not for minute details, but for guiding principles — The office of reason not thereby disparaged — Reasoning without ^ revelation •would here afford no sure direction. Of importance that Christ should be the legislator of his Church in respect to its peace, to secure for it a constitution worthy of his wisdom, and for the sake of the invaluable benefits resulting from good government. II. The primitive churches unquestionably had a constitution. All that was extraordinary in it is inimitable, and must be held to have been temporary ; but all that admits of adoption retains its obligations — Illustrative examples. Local usages are not authoritative patterns — Examples. Institutions which were then common to churches of all climes must be binding on churches of all ages, 17

PART n.

ON DEACONS.

CHAPTER I.

That the primitive churches had Deacons, universally admitted— Proofs of the existence of this order in the apostolic age — The special nature of their office disputed — Paul's Epistles do not indicate their peculiar functions — The seven spoken of in Acts chap. vi. are not called Deacons — That the seven, however, were Deacons, and that their charge shows the character of the Deacon's work, may be inferred from the manner of their appointment ; from the language used respecting them ; from the qualifications requii'cd of Deacons ; and from historical testimony, 29

Xll CONTENTS.

CHAPTER 11.

Page

The Deaconship of the seven derives confirmation from the consequences of controverting this position, . .47

Chapter III

The scriptural model of Deacons has not been closely adhered to by Episcopalians, Independents, or Presbyterians, 49

Chapter I

The primitive churches had Presbyters or Elders— Whether above these office-bearers there was an order of Prelates, to be afterwards considered — The power of Elders now viewed in relation to popular rights and Congregational principles — Acknowledgment due to Congregationalists— Dr Wardlaw's definition of Independent polity — Independents concede that Presbyters were rulers of the primitive churches ; yet assign such duties to the members of a church generally, as to annul the distinctive rule of Elders, and even bring the governors under subjection to the governed : then, to qualify the unworkableness of democracy, they impose such restraints on the people as in eifect to crush their freedom, and lodge in the pastorate a despotic authority, . . 57

Chapter II

Scripture does not teach us that pastors and their flocks should be conjoined in the government of the church — In behalf of this system of polity our Lord's law for the settlement of private offences, Matt, xviii. 15-17, and the functions assigned to ordinary members of the church, 1 Cor. v., vi., are vainly pleaded, . . 74

ON THE SUBOKDINATION OF PRESBYTERS TO PRELATES ; OR, DIOCESAN EPISCOPACY.

Chapter I

High ground taken by a portion of Episcopal writers — Importance attached by them to Apostolical Succession — Consequences of the doctrine— The Episcopal form of government might be the best, independently of the doctrine of Succession, 174

XIV CONTENTS.

CHAPTER II. Page

The leading constituents of the Prelatical system— It finds a semblance of support in the language of the New Testament, which makes mention of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons — But the Bishops and Presbyters of Scripture are the same class of functionaries under different designations, and are not two orders — Many Episcopalians, perceiving and acknowledging the identity of scriptural Bishops and Presbyters, have relinquished all defence of the divine right of Episcopacy, 188

Chapter III

Some Episcopalians hold that their system is sanctioned by Scripture, and maintain that the apostles filled the same oflSce as Prelates, and constituted the highest of three grades of clergy, 196

Chapter IV

The scriptural argument for Episcopacy wars with scriptural DICTION — The examples brought to countenance such changes as it supposes in the meaning of terms are not in point — History appealed to without success • — The writings of John do not show that language was then in a transition state, and verging towards Episcopal terminology, 197

Chapter V

Sect. I.— Episcopacy, in its scriptural argument, confounds ORDERS WIDELY SEPARATED IN THE NeW TeS-

TAJ[ENT, classing under one grade the twelve, Timothy and Titus, and the angels of the churches of Asia — The title Apostle sometimes used generally in the sense of Messenger — Examples— Apostles, in the official sense of the term, were made cognisant of the whole counsel of God in the gospel by immediate^ inspiration— They required to have seen the risen Saviour, that they might be witnesses of his resurrection—Examination of the objection, that Timothy and others, without this qualification, were called apostles — The apostles, besides working miracles, were empowered to confer miraculous gifts on others— From such considerations, it appears that the apostolic office was extraordinary and temporary, and that the

apostles have no successors, 204

Sect. II.— The ministry of Timothy and Titus considered — They were invested with high powers, but these

CONTENTS. XV

Page

powers were held and exercised in subordination to anostles — Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus, nor ' Titus of Crete— By the showing of Episcopalians, Timothy and Titus were not merely Bishops, but Archbishops ; and this preferment of these oflScebearers is fatal to the argument derived from their practice against Presbyterian ordination, . . . 223

Sect. III.— The Angels of the seven churches of Asia declared to be compeers of the Apostles— Some plausibility in the allegation that they were superior to Presbyters — The Revelation is not a book of easy interpretation — The argument would prove too much for its friends — It is not supported by the use of the word Angel in other parts of thelApocalypse — Even in the controverted passage, our Lord sometimes addresses an Angel in the plural number — If it were proved that the angels were Bishops, ihej could only have been Bishops of parishes, and not of dioceses, . 230

Chapter VI

Sect. I. — Episcopacy invalidates that adthoritt of Pkesbyters which Scripture is careful to establish, more especially as regards government and ordination — The evidence on which Presbyters are denied these functions is almost wholly negative — This mode of proof is not conclusive, and it recoils on Episcopalians, 240

Sect. II.— There is evidence that Elders were entrusted with government— The power is expressly ascribed to them— The ascription of it is not accompanied with reservations in behalf of Prelates— The administration of discipline in certain recorded cases was not prelatic — There is sufl&cient ground to conclude that Elders, besides ruling the flock, exercised inspection over each other, 242

Sect. III. — On Ordination as a service claimed by Prelates—The nature of the rite does not show that it is unsuitable for Presbyters — The refusal of this power to Presbyters is inconsistent with the argument for three orders founded by Episcopalians on the Constitution of the Old Testament Church— No arguments against Presbyterate Ordination can be derived from Ordination by Apostles and Evangelists— Presbyters are not interdicted by Scripture from Ordaining— The state of the Pastorate in Apostolic times indicates that Apostles were not the only ordainers — An instance of

XVI CONTENTS.

Page

ordination by Presbyters is recorded in the New Testament— The right of Elders to ordain is confirmed by history— Result of the argument, . . . .253 Sect. IV.— Concluding Remarks, 285

Chapter I

We have, in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, an account of a Council held at Jerusalem, 290

Chapter II

In the Apostolic age there was a plurality of Churches in each of a number of cities, and the several Churches of each city had a common government, . . . 297

Sect. I. — In such large cities as Jerusalem and Ephesus the Christians and their teachers were so numerous that we cannot reasonably suppose them to have met only in one place for worship, 298

Sect. II. — In such large cities the Christians certainly met for worship in difi"erent places, and the Christians attending different places of meeting in the same city formed distinct Churches, 307

Sect. III. — Sectional churches belonged to aggregate churches, and had a common government, . . . 315

Chapter III

Duties have been assigned to the Churches which they cannot perform in a state of isolation and independency, 318

Sect. I.— Churches are required to secure a qualified ministry, 318

Sect. II. — Churches are required to guard their purity, . 322 Sect. III. — Churches are charged with the duty of extending the gospel, 329

Appendix

Objections urged against the position that " the seven " were Deacons, 353

Part I. Introductoey Obseevations

I. Our appeal must be to Scripture ; not for minute details, but for guiding principles — The 'office of reason not thereby disparaged — Reasoning without revelation would here afford no sure direction. Of importance that Christ should be the legislator of his church in respect to its peace, to secure for it a constitution worthj"^ of his wisdom, and for the sake of the invaluable benefits resulting from good government. II. The primitive churches unquestionably had a constitution. All that was extraordinary in it is inimitable, and must be held to have been temporary ; but all that admits of adoption retains its obligations — Illustrative examples. Local usages are not authoritative patterns— Examples. Institutions which were then common to churches of all climes must be binding on churches of all ages.

I. Any form of church government is satisfactorily defended only in so far as its essential constituents are proved to be in accordance with Scripture. It is true that we are not furnished, under the dispensation of the Spirit, with any such formal pattern of ecclesiastical polity as was shown to Moses in the mount. The hints and examples which the New Testament affords for our guidance in this department often indicate

B rather than delineate duty, and leave room for the exercise of Christian expediency in executing our instructions. But without alleging that a Divine hand has here discriminated for us the legitimate and the forbidden grounds by completed fences, having every post and stake precisely adjusted, we may yet look for those landmarks which shall betoken the general divisions of the country, which shall assist without superseding minuter measurements and partitionings, and which have only to be known and respected to secure the invaluable blessings of a kind and righteous administration.

These observations disparage in no degree the healthful exercise of judgment: let a sound mind do all it can accomplish. Reason and revelation have one Author; and where in any case they furnish direction on the same subject, they are mutually illustrative and confirmatory of one another. But, though we may take advantage of the light of nature so often as it shines with appreciable distinctness, yet if we had no other guidance in our examination of ecclesiastical polities, I see not that we could reach any clear and well-established conclusions regarding their merits. In all reasoning we must have some data. It is impossible to argue from expediency itself without laying down common principles. But the principles of expediency — what are they, and where to be found? Whether sought in the human constitution, or the social compact, or the pages of history, they are so hard to be ascertained and settled, and our estimate of them is so exceedingly affected by our position, education, and interests, that we could hardly determine, by merely prudential considerations, what we were to take for granted ; and for want of premises, we should be precluded from drawing deductions.

No doubt important treatises have been written on the comparative advantages of different forms of civil government. But even the best of these works evince a frequent perplexity in the absence of authoritative and indisputable postulates. And were the relations and duties of temporal citizenship ever so lucidly expounded, and unerringly demonstrated, there is so much of peculiarity in the nature and obligations of ecclesiastical confederation, that just notions of political fitness might only mislead us, if we applied them without modification and without exception to the government of Christ's house. Therefore we must have some other and better ground than expediency to stand upon in deciding between rival schemes of church order, and our determining query must be — What saith the Scripture?

This preliminary question, as to how far proof may be here expected and sought from the Word of God, is important, essentially affecting the validity of all our subsequent reasoning, and, at the risk of being tedious, I solicit for it deliberate consideration. That Christ should assign hischurch no form of government, is, I submit, a position highly improbable in itself. The church must have some constitution ; and on many grounds it appears of great and manifest importance that he should be its Legislator.

(1.) He is the Prince of Peace, and he promised peace to his people. But how could the societies of his worshippers be peacefully organised if the mode of organization were optional, and left to be determined by their own fallible and conflicting judgments? Under such conditions discord would be inevitable. It is true that strifes about church government have actually arisen, and that no extent of privilege secures an imperfect discipleship against their occurrence. But the conflicts which result from the neglect of a standard are always more or less restrained, even while they last, by that standard; and they admit of eventual and satisfactory settlement. Whereas differences accruing from want of a standard have no moderating element, and furnish no means either of prevention or of cure. Therefore they must yield unavoidable and interminable troubles.

(2.) It was'" of high importance that Christ should legislate for his church in order to secure for it a constitution worthy of his wisdom. We have seen that the peace of the church requires that its King and Head should furnish its constitution. This consideration holds good, irrespectively of the merits of different forms of government. Although they were equally eligible in themselves, it would still be of immense consequence for the peace of the church to have a preference of one above another appointed and enjoined. But different systems of ecclesiastical administration have no such parity of excellence. Few things, not identical in kind, have the same value in themselves, or fitness for a specific end. That diverse forms of rule should form an exception, and should so approximate in worth as to make the choice between them a matter of indifference, is inconceivable ; for nowhere is a happy medium more liable to be missed than in the modelling of superintendence ; and nowhere does human nature show a stronger proneness to incline to one or other of opposite extremes. In so far as good government is secured, it is inexpressibly valuable in itself. It treats the governed as citizens* and not as serfs ; it allows the greatest freedom consistent with order ; it establishes presidency without oppression, and liberty without licentiousness.

(3.) That Christ should legislate for his church will appear highly important if we look to practical results. Under this aspect, government is of moment, if anything be of moment in the Christian church, inasmuch as all interests are affected by its influence. According as rule is good or bad, truth will be maintained or betrayed, and the administration of scriptural discipline will be enforced or relaxed. Principal Campbell, though he is very moderate, not to say latitudinarian in his views, as to the divine appointment of any form of church government, yet acknowledges that " a certain external model of government must have been originally adopted for the more effectual preservation of the evangelical institution in its native purity, and for the careful transmission of it to after ages; and that a presumptuous encroachment on what is evidently so instituted is justly reprehensible." Elsewhere he says : " Certain it is that one model of church government may be much better calculated for promoting belief and obedience than another. Nay, it is not impossible that such changes may be introduced as are much more fitted for obstructing the influence of true religion than for advancing it ; nay, for inspiring a contrary temper, and nourishing the most dangerous vices."* The influence of government is thus most extensive, not to say all-comprehensive, for good or evil ; and if we could trace all the impression it has made on doctrinal belief and ecclesiastical supervision and practical piety, there would be no longer any pretext for classing the subject here to be discussed with the idle questions which minister strife rather than godly edifying.

II. But in all this line of remark we are reasoning, it may be said, from mere probability — stating what we might expect, and not what we actually find. To come to facts, then, ascertained and undoubted facts, we know that the primitive church had a constitution. Who can deny that its affairs were regulated in a definite and orderly manner? " For God," says the apostle of the Grentiles, " is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." f If, then, a certain order was instituted in the primitive church, by which confusion was excluded, why should not this " church order" be retained? Although the apostles had said nothing about retaining it, yet as they set it up, and acted on it themselves, should we not recognise, in

* On Ecclesiastical History. Lect. iv. and Lect. viii. 1 1 Cor. xiv. 33.

their example, an imperative precept ? " Those things," says one of their number, " which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do : and the Grod of peace shall be with you."* It may be objected, that a retention of the primitive system is impracticable — that it was adapted for its own day, and no other ; and now, when it is gone, admits not of being recalled. But let this ground be considered before it is occupied. What does it suppose .'^ That Christ appointed a government for his church which could not be perpetuated ; that he nurtured habits and attachments in favour of a certain system, to be ruptured almost as soon as matured! It supposes that the church had a constitution by which to guide itself under the apostles, and was then 3ast on a sea of change, just when apostolic pilotage was withdrawn! It is surely more credible that the ipostles set in operation a plan which the churches would do well, after their decease, to have always in remembrance.

Still it may be objected that much of the apostolic administration was manifestly extraordinary, and therefore cannot be upheld in ordinary times. The reply is obvious, that what was manifestly extraordinary can give us no perplexity, as on that very account it is manifestly not binding. The apostolic office, as I shall afterwards endeavour to show, was itself of this character. The same doctrine will be established as to the evangelists, who performed like work as the apostles, under their direction ; and no * Phil. iv. 9.

demonstration is needed that miracles, and gifts of healing, and diversities of tongues, belonged exclusively to the age of supernatural endowments.

If, then, all the offices in the primitive church had borne the impress of this uncommon and transient character, there would have been no ground for pleading their permanency. But if some were different in their nature ; if some had duties attached to them which may still be performed, and qualifications required for them which may still be possessed ; if these were instituted universally in the primitive churches ; and if the discharge of their functions would secure, at all times, the maintenance and extension of the Redeemer's kingdom, then are we not equally bound to hold such offices inviolate, as if they alone had subsisted from the beginning ? If ever they could have been readily dispensed with, it was surely in the apostolic age, when inspiration and miracles might have accomplished their objects ; and why should they, even at that time, have been assigned to the churches, if not to mark the more emphatically their indispensable and ever-enduring character?

Thus far the case has been stated hypothetically, that the nature of the argument might be better apprehended. But I now state positively that there were such divinely-appointed offices, and that we have no right whatever to abolish or alter them. Whenever a number of persons were converted under the preaching of the apostles or their fellow-labourers, these converts were formed into a society, and obtained for their stated and proper officers, bishops and deacons. Only some churches were favoured Avith the ministrations of apostles and evangelists, and these churches enjoyed that distinction only for limited periods, and at remote intervals ; but every church, no matter when planted, or by whom watered, or to what country belonging, had bishops and deacons for its fixed and abiding office-bearers. The epistle to the Philippians is addressed to " all saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:" no mention is made of other office-bearers. In the first epistle to Timothy, Paul gives directions about the necessary qualifications of the same office-bearers, and he speaks of no others. The Eev. Herbert Thorndike, a learned divine of the Church of England, who flourished in the reign of Charles I., says of the apostle Paul, that " neither in the relation of his planting and ordering the churches, nor in the style of his epistles, nor in his instructions concerning ministers of these churches, is there any remembrance or respect to be found but of presbyters [identified in Scripture with bishojDs] and deacons." * Here, then, is a great and palpable fact : the primitive churches had stated functionaries, readily distinguishable from extraordinary office-bearers wielding