Manual of Presbytery

Front matter

f

MAR I 2005

THEOLOGiCAL SEMINARY

Preface

contrast between them and the adherents of Episcopal and Congregational Churches. Where they have stood forward, it has almost always been, not as aggressors, but simply in self-defence; and hence the controversial air of their works, which, in its turn, has been injurious. Even the young men intended for the ministry of the Presbyterian Church have not (I allude here particularly to the Established Church of Scotland) been instructed at the universities in the principles of Presbytery. Though a distinct branch of study, it has been greatly neglected. Any improvement in this respect is of very recent origin. But though, in a catholic spirit, almost carried to excess, Presbyterians have done little as they ought to have done to spread their peculiarities, it mast not be imagined, that where they have entered the field, their success has been indifferent. Far from it. As often as their principles have been seriously assailed, whether by Episcopalians on the one hand, or Congregationalists on the other, they have given forth able and triumphant defences to the world. Not to refer to foreign Presbyterians of pre-eminent talent and learning — Beza in Switzerland, Blondel in France, Voetius in Holland, and many others — there never was a period In the history of the Church of Scotland, when Presbytery was assailed, in which, with God's blessing, there was not an ample and adequate defence. In early days, when Episcopacy, in an insidious form, was introduced by an unprincipled monarch, Calderwood,in his "Altare Damascenum," was found more than a match for all that could be alleged in its behalf. At a later day, in the middle of the seventeenth century, Gillespie, Rutherford, Baillie,

PREFACE. XI

Fergusson, and Wood, most ably defended Presbytery against both Episcopacy and the Sectaries, or Independents of these days. The Presbyterian ministers of London, at the same 'period, waged a successful war in the south, and with the Independents of New England. After the Revolution of 1688, when the Prelatists, who had persecuted for thirty years, were overthrown, and, stung with defeat, assailed the Church of Scotland in all its aspects with a virulence of calumny almost unknown in the history of the Christian Church, her cause was nobly maintained, with blended piety, talent, and learning, by Rule and Forrester, Jameson and Lauder. Shortly after, Anderson, in answer to a new assailant, an apostate Presbyterian, published his able " Defence." When Independency, which had long slumbered, reared its head anew in the writings of Glass, it was immediately and powerfully met by Ayton of Alyth, in a publication which, if I have not been misinformed, was considered by the late Dr. M'Crie as the most complete work on Church government. In this connection, the honoured name of Willison of Dundee, who wrote both against Prelacy and Independency, might be introduced. For sixty years no book of any consequence was published in behalf of Presbytery in Scotland — a pretty plain proof of its non-sectarian character. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, when Congregationalism anew appeared, associated with the secession of one or two ministers from the Church of Scotland, Dr. Brown, now of Langton, pubhshed a full and learned " Vindication." Since then there has been no publication in Scotland of any moment, till the other day, when four

XU PREFACE.

ministers of the Presbyterian Churcl;i of Ireland stepped forth with two able defences of Presbytery, against the assaults of modern Episcopacy. In their own land, with the exception of Boyse of Dublin in the last century, there has been as little written in behalf of Presbytery as in this country. Nor is the Presbyterian Church of America an exception to the rule, if such it may be called. Dr. M'Leod, Dr. Mason, Dr. Miller, belonging to different branches of the Presbyterian body, have almost alone maintained the cause of Presbytery in the New World in modern times. Of late, something has been done at home to diffuse its principles, by the publication of Dr. M'Leod's " Ecclesiastical Catechism," and another still smaller, which, I rejoice to find, has, in the course of a few years, passed through eight editions, and obtained a circulation of 40,000 copies.

Still there is much need for a work to meet the wants of the Presbyterian Church, and of the age. Most of the larger works are scarce and inaccessible, perhaps repulsive, to the general reader; and of late years, with the awakened interest in behalf of religion, and of inquiry in connection with the constitution of Christian Churches, have become very expensive. Moreover, they are all mixed up with personal controversy, which prejudices many minds. Very small works, again, such as catechisms, though most useful in their own place, particularly after reading a larger work, have too much the air of a table of contents, and, from not detaining the mind sufficiently long upon the subject, do not give it such a firm hold of principles as is desirable to possess. Besides these disadvantages, none of the works,

PREFACE. ^1*^

whether larger or smaller, give a comprehensiye view of the leading points involved in Presbyterianism; they are chiefly occupied with the article of Church government. I have long wished for something in a brief, but not too brief a form, which should comprehend some view of the history and doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, as well as of its government and worship, and that in an attractive and readable style. In the little work of the able and accomplished Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Presbyterian College of Princeton, New Jersey, I think I have met with the desideratum. So far as it goes it is admirable, and only needs to be adapted, by means of additional information, to the state and prospects of the question in this country, to prove a most useful digest for every Presbyterian family. In the large additions which are given in notes, and a Second Part, and Appendix, as large as the original work, I humbly hope that some important and useful information has been supplied which may not only add to the value of Dr. Miller's publication, but, in some measure, direct the reader who wishes to pursue the subject farther for himself, to appropriate sources. A list of works is given in the Appendix.

The recommendations of the following treatise are peculiar. Besides its own merits, its accuracy, simplicity, brevity, comprehensiveness — embracing a sketch of the history, doctrine, government, and worship of the Presbyterian Church— and freedom from controversy, it is the work of one who occupies a leading place in one of the most important Presbyterian Churches of the world, who has devoted many years to the study of Church history,

PREFACE.

and who has written largely and well on the subject of Church government. The treatise, too, was written at the request of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, and has for years been adopted as one of the many useful little works to which that body gives currency by the sanction of its official approbation. In the United States it has had a circulation of many thousands, and continues in high estimation. In these circumstances, I have thought that a republication, with additional original matter, suited to this side of the Atlantic, would be a service to the cause of Presbyterianism, which has suffered from the want of such a work — a cause which I believe to be the cause of knowledge and truth, freedom, order, social happiness, virtue, religion, because founded on the Word of God.

Of course, in writing on such a subject, however shortly, it is impossible, let one's spirit be as catholic as it may, to avoid the appearance of assailing other denominations of Christians. One cannot state the case of Presbytery without seeming to reflect on its rival systems of government — Prelacy and Congregationalism — any more than the advocates of these forms can state theirs without seeming to disparage Presbytery and Presbyterians. Once for all, I beg to disclaim all rivalry and uncharitableness. The object of the following pages is to state and recommend the claims of Presbytery — not to run down other kinds of ecclesiastical government, and far less to provoke their adherents. Any reference to them is no more than what is essential, and is, I trust, conducted in a Christian and charitable spirit. I rejoice to think that there are multitudes of excellent

PREFACE. XT

men in all Evangelical Churches; but when it is remembered bow Presbytery has been, and continues to be, spoken of by mftny — that no system has in all ages been more calumniated and misrepresented (taken with other circumstances, no mean intimation of its divine origin) ; and, above all, that at the present moment an immense and growing party in the Church of England, throughout the three kingdoms, is denying that Presbyterians have a Church at all, and consequently can be saved, unless as the heathen are saved — it would not have been wonderful, nor perhaps very unwarrantable, that ministers whose ordination, office, and ordinances, have all been denounced as pretended, should feel and write strongly. This certainly would have been the case had Presbyterians treated Episcopalians or Congregationalists in the same way; but, as 1 have already said, every thing which savours of party spirit and uncharitableness is anxiously disclaimed. I am not conscious of such feelings; and as Presbyterians have all along been, as a whole, distinguished for their cathoUc spirit, I should be sorry that any work I republish, or any comments with which it is accompanied, should even seem to offend against the law of charity.

For the notes, except in the few cases where Dr. Miller's name is appended, I am solely responsible. To prevent misapprehension, however, I add the letter Z.

May the great Head of the Church bless this humble effort to vindicate and diffuse important doctrines and ecclesiastical principles — which were held and exemplified in apostolic and primitive times — have been recognised more or less fully in all subsequent ages — which

XVI PREFACE.

the writer has no doubt will be triumphant in millennial days, and which, in a variety of ways, conduce to the divine glory.

J. G. L.

Glasgow, January, 1842.

PRESBYTERIANISM.

Chapter I. Introductory Remarks

The Church of God, in the days of the apostles, as is well known, was not divided into different denominations. Even then, indeed, there were parties in the Church. The restless and selfish spirit of depraved human nature soon began, in different places, to display its unhallowed influence, either in the form of Judaizing claims, philosophical speculations, or turbulent opposition to regular ecclesiastical authority. In the Church of Corinth, though planted and nurtured by " the chiefest of the apostles," there were factious and troublesome members, who contended among themselves, and said, one to another, " I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I or Christ." Still the Church was one. The names, " Presbyterian," " Episcopalian," '' Congregationalist," &c., &c., were unknown. All professing Christians, " though many, were considered as one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." The only popular distinction then recognised, as far as the professed followers of Christ were concerned, was between the Church and the heretics.

Not long after the apostolic age, when heresies had become numerous, when each of them claimed to belong to the Church, and when convenience demanded the adoption of some term which might distinguish between the true or orthodox Church, and the various sects of errorists — the title of catholic (or general, as the term catholic signifies) was applied to the former; while the latter were distinguished by various names, derived either from the nature of their distinguishing opinions, or from the original authors or promoters of those opinions. It is well known, indeed, that the blinded and superstitious followers of the Bishop of Rome claim the title of catholic, as exclusively applicable to themselves. In their own estimation, they are the Church, the onli^ true Church, the catholic or iiniversal Church; and all the olher classes of nominal Christians throughout the world are heretics, out of the way of salvation. This claim, liowever, in the estimation of all enhghtened Christians, is as presumptuous as it is vain. That department of nominal Christendom, instead of being the only true Church, is considered by many as too far gone in corruption to be comprehended under the Christian name at all; and instead of there being no salvation out of her communion, the danger of eternal perdition is rather to those who are found within her pale. It is not doubted, indeed, that there are many pious individuals within that pale; but it is believed that they are placed in circumstances deplorably unfavourable to their growth in grace; and that the multitudes around them in the same communion, are immersed in darkness, superstition, and dreadful error, which place them in the utmost jeopardy of eternal perdition. This is that " Antichrist," that " Man of Sin and Son of Perdition," who exalteth himself above all that is called God, and who is yet to be " destroyed with the breath of Jehovah's mouth, and with the brightness of his coming."*

* There is no doubt that persons in the outward comrrmnion of the Church of Rome are saved, God's people are expressly required " to come out of her," which implies that some of them are in her. But they are saved, not as believing the doctrine and practising the unscriptural requirements of the Church of Rome— that were destructive; but as holding Protestant truth, and exemplifying its power — it may be, unknown to themselves— and in these circumstances remaining within her external pale. It is more than questionable whether the Church of Rome should be regarded or called

No particular denomination of Christians is now entitled to be called, by way of eminence, the catholic or universal Church. There are Churches, indeed, which bear a nearer resemblance to the apostolical model than others, and which deserve to be favourably distinguished in the list of Christian communities ; but the visible catholic Church is made up of all those throughout the world who profess the true religion, together with their children. The Presbyterian, the Congregationalist, the Methodist, the Baptist, the Episcopalian, the Independent, who hold the fundamentals of our holy religion, in whatever part of the globe they may reside, are all members of the same visible community; and, if they be sincere believers, will all finally be made partakers of itseternal blessings. They cannot, indeed, all worship together in the same solemn assembly, even if they were disposed to do so. A physical impossibility forbids it; and, in many cases, prejudice and folly widely separate those who ought to be entirely united. Still, in spite of all the sects and names by which professing Christians are divided, there is a msihle Church catholic. There is a precious sense in which the whole visible Church on earth is one. All who " hold the Head," of course, belong to the body of Christ. Those who are united by a sound profession to the same divine Saviour; who embrace the same precious faith; who are sanctified by the same Spirit; who eat the same spiritual meat; who drink the same spiritual drink; who repose and rejoice

a Church at all. The Reformers, who had grown up in her communion, certainly admitted the claim; but there is not only no authority for this from Scripture, but so far as its light goes, there seems to be an intimation that she is no Church. Rome is represented as occupying the outer court of the temple, left out of the measurement. She is spoken of not as Zion, but Babylon— not the Lamb's wife, but the mother of harlots. She is not to be reformed, but destroyed. If, as is well asked by Fuller, she be a true Church of Christ, what is that Church which fled from her persecution into the wilderness ? Her proper name is Antichrist — the Roman apostasy; and yet some professing a purer faith glory in drawing their supposed title and pedigree from her ! What can be more ludicrous than for parties to be drawing an " apostohc succession " from those who form no part of the Church of Christ at all ? What advantage can be expected from such a genealogy ? — L.

in the same promises; and who are travelling to the same eternal rest — are surely one hody — one in a sense more richly significant and valuable than can be ascribed to millions who sustain and boast a mere nominal relation.*

But while we thus maintain the doctrine of the unity of the visible Church catholic; and while we rejoice in the assured belief that sectarian names, as they were unknown in the apostolic age, so they will be unknown among the members of the Redeemer's glorified body; still, in this militant state, there is a separation, not merely nominal, but real and deplorable; a separation which interferes most deeply with the communion of saints, and which lamentably mars those precious opportunities of proximity and intercourse which too often, alas! become incentives to contention and strife, rather than to Christian love.

Amidst this diversity of sects and names, it becomes, to every intelligent and conscientious Christian, a most interesting question. Which of the various denominations, which bear the name of Christian Churches, may be considered as approaching nearest to the New Testament model? We freely acknowledge, indeed, as Churches of Christ, all who hold the fundamentals of our holy religion, and consider it as our duty to love and honour them as such; carefully avoiding all treatment of them that tends to the increase of strife and division, and that is contrary to " godly edifying." Still it cannot be doubted by any rational man, that some one of these denominations is nearer to the apostolic model, as a Church of Christ, than any of the rest. Which of the whole number this is, is a most serious question in the

* Among Evangelical Christians, the points of agreement are far more numerous and important than those of 'diversity. There is much more real harmony between Protestant Churches, manifold as may be their outward forms and aspects, than there is in the Church of Rome, where there is a great air of unity, or rather of external uniformity. This holds out the prospect one day of a much larger amount of visible union among Evangelical Christians than at present exists. In the meantime, the Church of Rome gains by the mere picture and pretence of unity, as in other cases she gains by deceiving men with the outward, as a substitute for the inward.— i/.

view of every one who wishes to know the will of Chr^s^ and who is desirous to be found walking in that way .which was trod by inspired apostles, and in which they left the Church harmoniously walking, when they ceased from their labours.

It is the sincere belief of the AATiter of these pag^e*;, that the Preshyterian Churchy taking the Word of God as its " only infallible rule of faith and practice," is more truly primitive and apostolical in its whole constitution, of doctrine^ worship^ and order ^ than any other Church now on earth. An humble attempt to evince the truth of this position wall occupy the following page.

For the fulfilment of the purpose in view, I shall endeavour, very briefly, to consider the history of Presbyterianism ; its doctrine^ its order or form of government^ its icorship^ and its comparative advantages. In each of these respects, unless I am deceived, it will be easy to show that it approaches nearer than any other Christian denomination to the apostolical model.*

To prepare the way more fully for the ensuing discussion, it may be proper to state, that there are four distinct forms of Church order, each of which claims a scriptural warrant: — the Papal, or spiritual monarchy; the Episcopal, or spiritual prelacy ; Independency, or spiritual democracy ; and Presbyterianism, or spiritual republicanism. The first maintaining the necessity of one supreme, universal, infallible head of the whole Christian body throughout the world, as the authorized vicar of Christ. The second, contending for an order of clerical prelates, above the rank of ordinary ministers of the Gospel, who are alone, in their view, empowered to ordain, and without whose presiding agency there can be no regular Church. The third, holding that all

* There are some persons who are continually styling their Churches " apostolic," " primitive," &c., as if they were to become so by mere asseveration. It should be remembered, that every intelligent Christian believes the Church to which he belongs to be apostohc and primitive, and that he is as well entitled to claim these titles as others. Shrewd men will generally remark, that the Clnirches which claim these words most in speech, have the least title to them in reality. — L.

C ecclesiastical power resides in the mass of the Church members, and that all acts of ecclesiastical authority are to be performed immediately by them. While, in the fourth and last place, Presbyterians believe that Christ has made all ministers, who are authorized to dispense the word and sacraments, perfectly equal in official rank and power; that in every Church the immediate exercise of ecclesiastical power is deposited, not with the whole mass of the people, but with a body of their representatives, styled elders; and that the whole visible Church catholic, so far as their denomination is concerned, is not only one in name, but so united by a series of assemblies of these representatives, acting in the name and by the authority of the whole, as to bind the whole body together as one Church, walking by the same principles of faith and order, and voluntarily, yet authoritatively, governed by the same system of rule and regulation.

Preshyterianism^ then, is a term which primarily refers to the form of Church government. That is a Presbyterian Church in which the presbytery is the radical and leading judicatory; in which teaching and ruling presbyters^ or elders^ have committed to them the watch and care of the whole flock; in which all ministers of the word and sacraments are equal; in which ruling elders, as the representatives of the people, form a part of all ecclesiastical assemblies, and partake, in all authoritative acts, equally with the teaching elders; and in which, by a series of judicatories, rising one above another, each individual Church is under the watch and care of its appropriate judicatory, and the whole body, by a system of review and control, is bound together as one homogeneous community. Wherever this system is found in operation in the Church of God, there is Presbyterianism. Though there may be much diversity in the names of the several judicatories; and though, in the minuter details of arrangement, some variety may exist, still it is essentially the same. Thus the Reformed Churches in France, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, and Geneva, are all Presbyterian, notvvithstanding some minor varieties in the names and regulations of their judicatories. Wherever ministerial parity, the government of the Church by elders, instead of the mass of the communicants, and the authoritative union of Churches under courts of review and control, are found, there we have that ecclesiastical system which it is the object of the following pages to explain and recommend.

But although the term Presbyterian has a primary reference to the form of Church government, yet Presbyterian Churches were originally agreed, and have been commonly in all ages agreed, in a variety of other matters, which, we believe, are all warranted by the Holy Scriptures. It is to the whole system, then, of doctrine, government, and mode of worship, which now distinguishes the Presbyterian Church in the United States, that the attention of the readers of these pages is requested ; and which, it shall be my aim to show, is set forth in the "Word of God, " the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

Chapter II. History Of Presbyterianism

The essential principles of Presbyterian Church order were of very early origin. Those principles are the authoritative binding of the whole Church together as one body ; and conducting this government, not by the entire ecclesiastical population, but by representatives, elected by, and acting on behalf of, the whole. That this mode of administering the affairs of the visible Church was adopted long before the coming of Christ, is certain, and can be doubted by none who intelligently and impartially read the Old Testament Scriptures. Even before the institution of the ceremonial economy, while the covenanted people of God were yet in bondage in Egypt, we find that they had their elders ; that is, their men of gravity, experience, and wisdom, who were obeyed as heads of tribes, and rulers among the people. (Exod. iii. 16.) The powers committed to them, and exercised by them, are not particularly specified ; but we may take for granted, with confidence, that their office was to inspect and govern the people, and to adjust all disputes both of a civil and ecclesiastical nature. Before the publication of the law from Mount Sinai, and anterior to the establishment of the ceremonial economy, Moses chose wise and able men out of the tribes of Israel, made them rulers over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties, and over tens. (Exod. xviii.) These rulers are elsewhere, in almost every part of the Old Testament, styled elders. To them, as we are expressly

HISTORY OP PRESBYTERIANISM. 25

informed, all the ordinary cases of government and discipline were committed. The same mode of dispensing justice and order among the people seems to have been employed after the institution of the Aaronic priesthood ; during the time of the judges and of the kings; during the Babylonish captivity; and after the return of the captives from Babylon. At whatever time the synagogue system was adopted, it is evident that the plan of conducting government by means of a body of elders was universal through all the land of Judea, up to the time of the Saviour's advent. The synagogues were the parish churches of the Jews. There the ordinary worship and instruction of the Sabbath were conducted; and the excommunication of an individual from the body of the professing people of God was expressed by " putting him out of the synagogue." In these synagogues, the essential principles of Presbyterianism were universally established. The similarity, as to every important point, was exact. In short, during the wholei tract of time embraced in the history of the Mosaicj economy, we have complete evidence that the ecclesias-l tical government, as well as the civil, was conducted, under God, the supreme ruler, by boards of elders, acting as the authorized representatives of the people. \ To this mode of government, as is notorious, every city 1 and every synagogue was accustomed. In no instance, / in either Church or State, is a case recollected in which i the population was called together to settle a dispute, or j dispense justice between persons at variance. The representative system was universally in use. The work of administering justice was always done by a body of rulers or officers, commonly styled, amidst all the changes of dispensation, " elders of the people."*

Nor was this all. As each particular synagogue was

* The truth is, the representative system of government, whether on Church or in State, is founded on reason and necessity, as well as on Scripture. There is no other way of governing a large body of intelligent men. All cannot govern. Hence, with the progress^ of representative principles of government — from the progress of civilization— provision is made for the spread of Presbyterianism in the Christian Church. This holds out good prospects for the future.— Z.

governed by a bench of elders, of which the bishop or ♦' angel of the Church" was the presiding officer ; so also, as the whole Jewish body was one — one catholic Church — there were always appeals admitted, in cases of alleged incorrectness of judgment, to the " great synagogue" at Jei-usalem, where an opportunity was given for redressing what was done amiss. Nothing like the independency of particular synagogues was admitted or thought of. A system which bound the whole community together as one visible professing body was uniformly in operation.

The first converts to Christianity being all native Jews, who had been always accustomed to the exercise of government by benches of " elders," in the manner just specified; and this representative plan being so equitable, so wise, and so convenient in itself, no wonder that the same plan was adopted by the apostles in organizing the primitive Church. Accordingly, as in the account which the inspired writers give of the Jewish constitution, we read continually of the " rulers of the syna-^ gogue," and of the " elders of the people," as a body\ distinguished from the priests ; so, when they proceed ' to give us an account of the organization and proceedings of the New Testament Church, we find the same language used in cases almost innumerable. We read of " elders being ordained in every Church;" of an important question being referred to a synod, made up of " apostles and elders ;" of " elders who ruled well, but did not labour in the word and doctrine ;" of the " elders of the Church being called together" to consider ecclesiastical questions; of the " elders of the Church being called for to visit and pray over the sick," &c.*

The question, whether the exact mode of conducting

* The Hebrews, on becoming Christian, would naturally follow the same forms of Church government to which they had been accustomed when Jews. Hence, if a change was intended by Christ, it was essential that they should be apprized of it ; nay, the former polity would need to have been repealed, and they cautioned against recurring to it. Now, is there any repeal of, or caution against adopting, the old Jewish form of government ? No : The inference is plain. In principle it was continued. — L.