Presbyterianism : the truly primitive and apostolical constitution of the church of Christ

Front matter

from t^e feifirar^? of

THE

TRULY PRIMITIVE

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 Chnrch. The restless and selfish spirit of depraved human nature s;oon 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, pnd I of Cephas, and I of Christ." Still the Church was one. The names, " Presbyterian," " Episcopalian," " Congregationalist," Slc. &c., were unknown. All professing Christians, " though many, were considered as one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.' 7'he 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 op inionst or from the original authors or promoters of those opinions. [t 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 estimarion, they are the Church, the only true Church, the Catholic^ or universal Church ; and all the other classes of nominal Christians, throughout the world, are heretics, out of the way of salvation. This claim, however, in the estimation of all enlightened 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 win 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."

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, M^ho 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 smcere believers, will all finally be made partakers of its eternal 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 visible Church Catholic. There is a precious sense in which the whole visible Church on earth is one. All \vhvi *' 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 in the same promises ; and who are travelling to the same eternal rest — are surely one body :—~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, maybe 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 soine 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 view of every one who wishes to know the will of Christ, and who desires 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 writer of these pages, that the Presbyterian Church, as it now exists in these United States, entirely unconnected with the civil government, and 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

1* 9

Other Cluirch, now on eartli. An humble attempt to evmce the truth of this position, will occupy the following pages.

For the fultihnent of the purpose in view, I shall endeavour, very brieily, to consider the History of Presbyterianism ; its doctrine^ its order, ox form of government ; iis worship; and its comparative advantages. In each of these respects, unless 1 am deceived, it will be easy to show that it approaches nearer than any other Christian denomination, to the Apostolical modcji.

To prepare the way more fuhy 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 dem,ocracy — 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 authorised 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 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 authorised 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.

Presbyterianism, then, is a term which primarily refers to the form of Church government. That is a Presbyterian Church, m which the Presbytery is the radical and leading judicatory ; in which Teaching and Ruling Presbyters or Eiders, have committed to them the watch and care of the whole 10 flock ; ill 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 Fresbyierianism 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, notwithstanding 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 age agreed, in a variety of other matters, which we believe are ah 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 H.

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 ecclesiajstical popu

10 HISTORY OF

lation, but by representatives, elected by, and acting on behal! 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. Ever 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, Exodus 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. Exodus xviii. These rulers are elsewhere, in almost every part of the Old Testament, styled Elders. To them, as we are expressly 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 aftef 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 tlie ordinary worship and mstruction 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 whole tract of time embraced in the history of the Mosaic economy, we have complete evidence that the ecclesiastical 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, and every synagogue was accustomed, [n no instance, in either Church or State, is a case recollected in which the population was called together to settle a dispute, 12 or to 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 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 Jerusalem, where an opportunity was given for redressing what was done amiss. Nothing like the independency of particular synagogues was admitted or thouglit 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 synagogue," 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 or dained in every church;" of an important question being re ferred to a synod, made up of " Apostles and Elders ;" of " El ders who ruled well, but did not labour in the word and doc trine ;" 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 government and discipline of the Church, which we find de lineated in the New Testament, is obligatory on Christians now, is one concerning which there is no small diversity of opinion. That an entire conformity to that model, in every minute particular, is essential to the existence of the Church, will be maintained by few ; and certainly by no Presbyterians. None can doubt, however, that it is most expedient and safe to keep as near as may be to that plan of Church order, which inspired men approved and left in use, when they ceased from B 13

12 . HIBTORY OF

their labours. As to what that plan was, it would really seem almost impossible that intelligent and impartial readers of the New Testament should entertain different opinions. The moment we open the inspired history of the apostolic age, we find a style of speaking concerning the officers of the Church, and a statement of facts, which evince, beyond all controversy, that tlie model of the synagogue was that which was then adopted, and which was left in universal use wnen inspired men surrendered the Church to their successors. We find preaching the Gospel, " feeding the sheep and the lambs'' of Christ, and administering the Christian sacraments, the highest offices entrusted to the Ministers of Christ. We find a plurality of " Elders," by divine direction, ordained in every church. In no instance, in the whole New Testament, do we find an organized congregation under the watch and care of a single officer. Further, we find " Bishop" and " Elder," titles given, interchangeably, to the same persons ; plainly showing that the term " Bishop," in the apostolic age, was the title which designated the pastor or " overseer," of a sin gle flock or church. We find in the New Testament history no trace of prelacy. All priority or pre-eminence among tht ministers of Christ is expressly rebuked and forbidden. There is evidently but one commission given to the authorized ministers of the word and sacraments. When the Saviour left the world he commissioned no higher officer in his Church, speaks of no higher than he who Avas empowered to go forth and " teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The ordaining power is manifestly represented as possessed and exercised by ordinary pastors, and as performed by the " laying on of the hands of tlie Presbytery." There is not a solitary instance to be found in all the New Testament, of an ordination being performed by a single individual, whether an ordinary, or extraordinary minister. In all the cases which we find recorded, or hinted at, a plurality of ordainers officiated. When Paul and Barnabas were designated to a special mission, it was by a plurality of " Prophets and Teachers of the Church in Antioch," Acts xiii. When they went forth to preach and organise cliurches, we are informed that tliey together, " ordained Elders in every church." Timothy was ordained by the " laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." 1 Tim. iv. 14. And even when the Deacons were set apart to their ofllce, it is plain, from the narrative, Acts vi. 1 — 6 that a plurality laid hands upon them with prayer and fasting. It is plain too, that the whole visible Church, in the apostolic

\ge, whether in Jerusalem or in Antioch, in Philippi or in Ephesus, was regarded as one body, all governed by the same laws, subject to the same authority, and regulated by the same judicial decisions. Thus, when a question arose which in terested and affected the whole Christian community, it was decided by a synod of the "Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem," and the " decrees" of that synod were sent down to " all the churches," to be registered and obeyed. Here was evidently an assembly of Ministers and Elders, acting as the representatives of the whole Church, and pronouncing judicial decisions, which were intended to bind the whole body. If this be not Presbyterianism, then there is nothing of the kind in Scotland or in the United States.

When we pass from the New Testament to the earliest records of uninspired antiquity, the same form of church order is every where apparent. The plan of ecclesiastical government disclosed by the Epistles of Ignatius, as actually existing in his day, is manifestly Presbyterian. He represents every particular church of which he speaks, as furnished with a Bishop or Pastor, a bench of Elders and Deacons ; he continually employs language which implies that these officers were present in every worshipping assembly ; and he most evidently gives us to understand, that these Elders, with the Pastor or Bishop at their head, conducted the government and discipline of each church. Clemens Romanus, contemporary with Ignatius, speaks in language of similar import. He represents Bishops and Presbyters, — the Episcopate and the Presbyterate, as the same ; and expressly states that the Presbyters were " set over the church" by the choice of the Church ; and that to rise up in rebellion against them, was considered as highly criminal. The testimony of Irenaeus, who lived in the second century, is no less decisive in. favour of our system. He continually applies the title of Bishop and Presbyter to the same men ; speaks of " the succession of the Episcopate," through the Presbyters and through the Bishops, as the very same ; nay, represents the apostolical succession, the Episcopal succession, and the Presbyterial succession, as all identical. In short, he could scarcely have kept a more scrupulous and exact balance, than he does between the dignities, powers, and duties connected with each title, and ascribed interchangeably to all. I might go on to quote Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and other early fathers, as speaking a language of equivalent import. But there is no need of going into further detail. The truth is, for the first two hundred years after Christ, it is certain

14 HISTOPY OF

that neither Prelacy nor Independency was known in the Church of Christ. There is not a single record within that period, which either asserts or implies it ; but every thing of a contrary aspect. Every flock of professing Christians had its Pastor or Bishop, with its bench of Elders, by whom the government and discipline were conducted ; and its body of Deacons, by whom the funds collected for the relief of the poor, were received and disbursed.

In the third century after Christ the aspect of things began to change. Some seasons, in this century, of exemption from persecution and of comparative outward prosperity, were marlied by very sensible departure from the simplicity and purity of the preceding times. Heresies and schisms began to distract the congregations of God's professing people. The Ministry and Eldership of the Church declined both in zeal and faithfulness. The clergy became ambitious and voluptuous, and, as a natural consequence, full of intrigue and contention. The pictures given of their cupidity, mutual encroachments, and degrading strife, by Cyprian, by Origen, and by Eusebius, as in full operation in the third century, are truly of the most revolting character. Some have said, indeed, that the Church, in the Cyprianic age presented, on the whole, one of the most satisfactory models of ecclesiastical perfection. Those who can entertain this opinion must judge of what is desirable in a Church, by a very different criterion from that which the Bible furnishes. Let them impartially read the statements given by the writers just mentioned, and they will speedily alter their opinion. Among such a clergy, an undue aspiring after preferment, titles and places might be expected, as a matter of course. Indeed, in such circumstances, it would have required a constant succession of miracles to prevent prelacy from arising. Nor was this all. As the Church declined from her primitive simplicity and purity, some of her more serious ministers thought themselves warranted in resorting to other forms of attraction for drawing the populace into the Church. For attracting the Jews they began to adopt some of the titles, ceremonies, and vestments of the temple service. They began to call the Christian ministry the " priesthood;" and, as a natural consequence, to speak of " priests" and " high priests," and "altars," and " sacrifices," &;c. &;c. ; for all which, in reference to the Christian economy, there is not the smallest warrant in the New Testament. Other ecclesiastical leaders, for the purpose of conciliating and attracting the Pagans, introduced a fariety of rites from the ceremonial of the heathen, intended 16

PRESBVTERIANISM. 1 5

10 make the Christian ritual more splendid, dazzhng, and alluring to those who had been the votaries of dmnb idols, and whose chief objection to the religion of Christ was, that its worship was too simple and unadorned. The consequence was, that, toward the close of the third century, Prelacy was gradually and insidiously introduced. All orders of ecclesiastical men partook of the spirit of ambitious encroachment. The Deacons, whom the Apostles had appointed to be guardians of the poor, and of the temporalities of the Church, became too proud to discharge the appropriate duties of their office, employed " sub-deacons" to perform their official work, and, after a while, claimed, and had conceded to them, the power of preaching and baptizing. The Presbyters or Elders partook of the same spirit, and although the gi'eater part of them had been chosen and set .apart for ruling only, yet as the discipline of the Church became relaxed and unpopular, and finally in a great measure abandoned, they all aspired to be public teachers, and turned away from their original work, to what they deemed a more honourable employment. The Bishops, who had been originally overseers or pastors of single flocks, claimed authority over the congregations in their neighbourhood, which had branched out from their original charges ; so that, by little and little, they became prelates ; — a new office covertly brought in under an old name. Nor did the principle of ambitious encroachment stop here. Metropolitans and Patriarchs began to "lord it" over Bishops. And to crown the gradations of rank, the Bishop of Rome, seduced by the imperial splendour which surrounded him, and countenanced by imperial power and munificence, came to be acknowledged as the supreme head, under Christ, of the whole Church upon earth, and the infallible interpreter of the Saviour's will.

This statement is confirmed by early Christian writers of the highest character, and who were nearly contemporary with the criminal innovation of which they speak. Thus Ambrose, who wrote about the year 376 after Christ, in his commentary on Ephesians iv. 2, has the following passage: *' After churches were planted in all places, and officers ordained, matters were settled otherwise than they were in the beginning. And hence it is that the Apostles' writings do not, in all things, agree with the present constitution of the Church ; because they were written under the first rise of the Church ; for he calls Timothy, who was created a Presbyter by him, a Bishop, for so, at first, the Presbyters were called." This passage is so plain, that it requires no comment. Still more b8 2 17

Id HISTORY OF

unequivocal and decisive is the language of Jerome. " Among he ancients," says he, " Presbyters and Bishops were the same. But by little and little, that all the seeds of dissensiop miglit be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one As, therefore, the Presbyters know, that by the custom oi the Church, they are subject to him who is their president, so let Bishops know, that they are above Presbyters more by the custom of the Church, than by the true dispensation of Jesus Christ!" And in order to estabhsh his position, that, m the apostolic age. Bishop and Presbyter were the same, he quotes precisely those passages of Scripture which Presbyterians have been accustomed, for three hundred years, to adduce in attestation of the same fact. The testimony of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, is to the same amount. In writing to his contemporary Jerome, who was a Presbyter, he expresses himself in the following language : " I entreat you to correct me faithfully when you see I need it ; for, although, according to tlie names of honour which the custom of the Church has now brought into use, the office of Bishop is greater than that of Presbyter, nevertheless, in many respects, Augustine is inferior to Jerome." Oper. Tom. \\. Epist. 19. ad Hieron. It is worthy of notice, that Bishop Jewel, in his " Defence of his Apology for the Church of England," produces this passage from Augustine, for the express purpose of showing the original identity of Bishop and Presbyter, and translates it thus : *' The office of Bishop is above the office of priest, not by authority of Scripture, but after the names of honour wliich tlie custom of the Church hath now obtained." Defence, 122, 123. And, finally, to the same effect is the testimony of Chrysostom, who wrote toward the close of the fourth century. In his eleventh Homily on the Epistles to Timothy, he speaks thus : " Having spoken of Bishops, and described them, Paul passes on to the Deacons. But why is this ? Because, between Bishop and Presbyter there is not much difference ; for these also, in like manner, have committed to them both the instruction and the government of the Church ; and what things he has said concerning Bishops, the same, also, he intended for Presbyters ; for they have gained the ascendency only in respect to ordination ; and of this they seem to have defraud ed the Presbyters." This passage of the eloquent fiither needs no comment. If there be meaning in words, Chrysostom distinctly conveys the idea, not only that ordination was the only point in respect to which Bishops, in his day, had gained precedence over Presbyters, but that they had gained even this by fraudulent means. This is the undoubted