OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J 
 
 ny 9422 .C35 1866 
 
 pLpbell. peter CoUn, 1810- 
 
 jh" theory of ruling 
 
THE THEORY 
 
 RULING ELDERSHIP 
 
 EXAMINED 
 
THE THEORY 
 
 RULING ELDERSHIP 
 
 THE POSITION OF THE LAY RULER IN 
 THE REFORMED CHURCHES 
 
 EXAMINED 
 
 BY 
 
 PETER COLIN CAMPBELL, D.D. 
 
 PRINCIPAI, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN 
 
 WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS 
 
 EDINBURGH AND LONDON 
 
 MDCCCLXVI 
 
THE THEORY 
 
 OF 
 
 RULING ELDERSHIP. 
 
 That the association of the Laity with the Minis- 
 ters of the Word and Sacraments in ecclesiastical 
 councils and administration is both just and expe- 
 dient, appears to be now generally admitted, even 
 in those bodies in which the highest views have 
 been entertained of clerical authority and power. 
 There may be differences of opinion as to the 
 mode and extent of such association, but few, we 
 believe, will be found opposed to it entirely and 
 in principle. It may be viewed by one class of 
 minds mainly as a barrier to sacerdotal domina- 
 tion, by another as a security for the equity and 
 acceptableness of ecclesiastical regulations, by a 
 third as a link between the parochial clergy and 
 
2 THE THEORY OF 
 
 the people, or, finally, it may be regarded In its 
 true light, as serving all these purposes at once ; 
 but on one ground or other, all seem prepared 
 to approve it. 
 
 We cannot, therefore, but consider it a subject 
 of great regret that the valuable institution of lay 
 councillors or rulers, as existing in the Reformed 
 Churches, should have been exposed to attack 
 and brought into discredit — nay, more, should have 
 been, as we shall show, impeded in its working in 
 some of these Churches themselves — by its connec- 
 tion with a specious theory, which, although rest- 
 ing on no formal ecclesiastical sanction, and long 
 since abandoned as untenable by the most learned 
 friends of the institution, is still reproduced from 
 time to time in popular controversial works — the 
 theory, namely, which classifies the lay rulers of 
 Presbyterian Churches with the presbyters or 
 elders, technically and properly so called, of the 
 New Testament Church. 
 
 This theory has for its sole basis an inference 
 from I Tim. v. 17 : "Let the elders that rule well 
 be counted worthy of double honour, especially 
 they who labour in the word and doctrine ; " and 
 we think it is to be deeply regretted that the 
 illustrious Calvin, to whom the praise is in a great 
 measure due of having restored the laity to a 
 place in the administration of the Church, should 
 have given currency, by the weight of his authority, 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 3 
 
 to the theory in question, and have applied this 
 text to support it. 
 
 Nor is the regret lessened when we find that 
 this great divine had previously based the institu- 
 tion of lay rulers on an unexceptionable foundation. 
 In his ' Institutes ' (b. iv. iii. 8*), after indicating the 
 interchangeableness of the titles of bishop, presby- 
 ter, and pastor, he proceeds thus : " Here it is to be 
 observed that we have hitherto enumerated those 
 offices only which consist in the ministry of the 
 word ; nor does Paul make mention of any others 
 in the passage which we have quoted from the 
 fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians. 
 But in the Epistle to the Romans, and the First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, he enumerates other 
 offices, as powers, gifts of healing, interpretation, 
 government, care of the poor. As to those which 
 were temporary, I say nothing, for it is not worth 
 while to dwell upon them ; but there are two which 
 
 * The passage quoted appears for the first time in the edition of 
 1543, in which it stands c. viii. 42. The Commentary on the 
 Epistles to Timothy appeared in 1556. 
 
 In the edition of the Instihitio which forms vol. xxix. of the 
 Corpus Reformatoruin, published in 1 863, the Strasburg divines, 
 Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, have rendered an inestimable service to 
 those who desire to study with accuracy the history of theological 
 literature. This admirably edited volume exhibits successively 
 — I. The text of the editio princeps of 1536; II. That of the 
 edition of 1539, with a synoptical view of the alterations introduced 
 into the Strasburg editions of 1543 and 1545, and the Geneva 
 editions of 1550, 1553, and 1554; III. That of the final edition 
 of 1559. 
 
4 THE THEORY OF 
 
 are perpetual — government, and care of the poor. 
 The governors I understand to have been seniors 
 selected from the people^ to unite with the bishops 
 in the censure of manners and the exercise of dis- 
 cipline. For this is the only meaning that can be 
 given to the passage, ' He that ruleth with dili- 
 gence.'* From the beginning, therefore, each 
 Church had its senate, council, or consistory, 
 composed of pious, grave, and venerable men, 
 invested with that power of correcting faults of 
 which we shall afterwards speak. Now, experience 
 itself shows that this arrangement was not [to be] 
 confined to one age ; and therefore we are to regard 
 the office of government as necessary for all ages." 
 Here the institution of lay church rulers, similar 
 to those of the Reformed Churches, is maintained 
 on solid and reasonable grounds of Scripture and 
 expediency, while the term presbyter is restricted, 
 with those of pastor and bishop, to the ministers 
 of the word. It is impossible to refrain from 
 wishing that the illustrious author had been con- 
 tent to leave the office of lay assessors in church 
 government on the foundation on which he has 
 here placed it, and had not, in another part of his 
 work,-f* and in his exposition of i Tim., weakened, 
 while seeking to strengthen, that foundation, by 
 
 * Rom. xii. 8. 
 
 t B. iv, xi. I. In the edition of 1543, in which the passage re- 
 ferred to first appears, it stands c. viii. 169. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 5 
 
 classifying those assessors with presbyters. No 
 one who is acquainted with the history of the 
 branches and offshoots of the Reformed Churches, 
 can be ignorant how much the acceptance of a 
 valuable institution has been hindered by its con- 
 nection with this unfortunate theory. 
 
 Surely a sufficient and indisputable Scripture 
 warrant for the office in question, as bearing on 
 church discipline, is afforded by the passages re- 
 ferred to in the foregoing extract, Rom. xii. 8, and 
 especially i Cor. xii. 28, where we are told that 
 " God hath set some in the Church," among whom, 
 in addition to and after " teachers," are mentioned 
 ■/.xj^i^vricitc, "governments." With such authority, 
 in addition to that of common sense and expedi- 
 ency, it is scarcely necessary, however legitimate, 
 to refer even to the analogical argument founded 
 on the elders of the Old Testament Church. 
 
 Again, for the admission of the laity to the 
 dehberative and legislative assemblies of the 
 Church, a precedent is certainly to be found in 
 Acts XV. 23, where " brethren " are expressly 
 conjoined with the Apostles and the elders of 
 the Church of Jerusalem ; while the notices in 
 the same passsage of certain persons as " chief or 
 leading men among the brethren," avhozg Tiyov/itvot 
 sv roTg a.hO.<poTg, and of the six brethren who ac- 
 companied the Apostle Peter from Joppa to 
 Caesarea to witness the first reception of the 
 
6 THE THEORY OF 
 
 Gentiles into the Church, and who afterwards 
 attended him to Jerusalem * with perhaps some 
 other passages, exhibit the laity as taking a 
 public and official part in the most important 
 ecclesiastical affairs. 
 
 The position thus assigned to members of the 
 laity in discipline and councils in the apostolic 
 age, can be distinctly and incontrovertibly traced 
 in the subsequent history of the Church. But 
 the very passages appealed to as placing beyond 
 doubt the existence in ancient times of function- 
 aries corresponding in all practical respects to the 
 lay assessors of the Reformed Churches, not only 
 never, in any one instance, speak of them as pres- 
 byters, or elders proper, but almost invariably 
 represent them as a class totally distinct. They 
 prove the thing, but disprove the theory. To show 
 this, we shall go over these passages in order. f 
 
 The first is that found in Origen. " They 
 then introduce them, forming a class apart of 
 those who have recently begun and been admitted, - 
 and who have not yet received the symbol of 
 purification [baptism], and another of those who 
 have, as far as possible, given proof of their resolu- 
 tion to act only in the manner approved by Chris- 
 tians ; among whom [the latter] there are certain 
 persons appointed to inquire into the lives and 
 conversations of those who present themselves, in 
 
 * Acts X. 23 ; xi. 12. t See Appendix, A. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 7 
 
 order to prevent persons of infamous conduct from 
 entering their assembly." In this interesting and 
 valuable notice by one well acquainted with the 
 practice of the Church in the early part of the 
 third century, we have a clear proof of the exist- 
 ence of functionaries chosen from the general 
 body of each congregation for the same purposes 
 as our lay assessors, but nothing to lead us to 
 suppose that these functionaries were regarded as 
 presbyters.? 
 
 In the ^Gesta Purgationis Caeciliani et Felicis,'-!- 
 A.D. 313-15, we find mention oi presbyteri, diaconi, 
 et seniores — " presbyters, deacons, and seniors." 
 
 On the ides of December A.D. 320, Nundinarius, 
 a deacon of the Church of Cirta, brings certain 
 charges against his bishop, Sylvanus, before an 
 ecclesiastical assembly ; and, appealing to those 
 whom he addresses, as cognisant of the crimes 
 charged against Sylvanus, says : Qtiod omnes vos, 
 episcopi, presbyteriy diaconi, et seniores, scitis — 
 " Which all of you, bishops, presbyters, deacons, 
 and seniors, know." 
 
 In the letter of Purpurius, Bishop of Limata, 
 to Sylvanus, in reference to the charges brought 
 against him by Nundinarius, we have the following 
 sentence: Adhibete conclericos et seniores plebis, eccle- 
 siasticos viros, et hiquirant diligenter qnce stint istce 
 
 * Contra Celsum, iii. 51. See Appendix, B. 
 t Appended to the Works of Optatus. 
 
8 THE THEORY OF 
 
 dissensioneSy tit ea qiicE siuit secimdum fidei prcBcepta 
 jiant — "Call your fellow-clergymen [the fellow- 
 clergymen of Sylvanus and Nundlnarlus], and the 
 seniors of the people, ecclesiastical men, and let 
 them inquire diligently what these dissensions 
 are, that those things may be done which are in 
 accordance with the precepts of the faith." Among 
 several letters in regard to the same matter is one 
 addressed clej'o et sejtioribus, — " to the clergy and 
 seniors ; " and another, dericis ct se7iioribtis Cir- 
 tkensijnn, — " to the clergymen and seniors of the 
 Cirthensians." 
 
 If these quotations afford, as they certainly do, 
 evidence of the existence of a class of assessors in 
 church judicatures similar to those of the Reformed 
 Churches, they contain proof equally decisive that 
 these assessors were not presbyters, or elders in the 
 true sense — the sense of the New Testament. 
 
 Dr Miller of Princeton, in quoting these pas- 
 sages, naively adds, — " If these are not the elders 
 of whom we are in search, we may give up all the 
 rules of evidence." That they are the officials of 
 whom the worthy writer is in search there can be 
 no doubt, but certainly they are not what he, 
 throughout his work, assumes these officials to be 
 — elders in the sense of New Testament presby- 
 ters. They are not only presented to us as a class 
 totally distinct from the presbyters, but they are 
 separated from them by the intervention of the 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 9 
 
 deacons, who, not only in the New Testament but 
 in all ages and churches, have ranked lower than 
 presbyters. It may be added that, while Miller 
 assumes, in the most extraordinary manner, the 
 seniores plebis to be presbyters, he also assumes all 
 the presbyters mentioned as existing in the early 
 churches by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, 
 Hippolytus, and others, to have been mere ruling 
 elders in the modern sense, or members of session, 
 in the face of the abundant evidence that they 
 were ministers of the word and sacraments, and 
 in oversight of the absurd consequence which must 
 follow from his view, that even in the largest cities, 
 in which there was but one church and bishop, there 
 was no other minister of the word and sacraments 
 but the bishop alone. In this double begging of 
 the question — unheard of, we believe, till his time — 
 he has been followed by one or two popular writers.* 
 
 It appears probable that allusion is made to a 
 class of lay functionaries similar to ours in the 
 passage of Optatus (A.D. l()^), where it is said that 
 "the Church had many ornaments of gold and 
 silver, which she could neither bury in the earth 
 nor carry away with her, and which she committed 
 to elders \seiiioribus\ as to trustworthy persons. + 
 
 We now come to the well-known passage in 
 
 * ' Essay on the Nature and Duties of the Office of Ruling Elder 
 in the Presbyterian Church.' By Samuel Miller, D.D. 1831. 
 f ' ' Erant enim ecclesiae ex auro et argento quam plurima oma- 
 
10 . THE THEORY OF 
 
 Hilary or Pseudambrosius : — " Old age is honour- 
 able among all nations ; whence it is that the 
 synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had seniors, 
 without whose counsel nothing was done in the 
 Church ; which by what negligence it grew into 
 disuse I know not, unless, perhaps, through the 
 indolence or rather pride of the doctors, whilst 
 they alone wished to appear something." If from 
 this passage Presbyterian writers have endeavoured 
 successfully, as is admitted by many learned men 
 of other Churches, to prove the existence in ancient 
 times of a class of councillors resembling our lay 
 assessors, their opponents might, w^ith equal success, 
 have contended from it against the application to 
 these councillors of the term presbyter. Let it be 
 particularly observed that Hilary is here comment- 
 ing, not, as has been sometimes represented, on 
 I Tim. v. 17, but on i Tim. v. i, and that he is 
 speaking of old men, fitted by their age and ex- 
 perience for giving counsel, and not of presbyters 
 or elders proper. 
 
 In Augustine (Contra Cresconium, iii. 56), A.D. 
 395) we find mention of Peregrinus, presbyter, et 
 seniores ecclesice MttsticancB regionis — " Peregrinus, 
 
 menta quae nee defodere terrse nee secum portare poterat. Quasi 
 fidelibus, senioribus commendabat. " — Optatus Milevit., 'De Schis- 
 mate Donatist.,' lib. i. p. 41, ed. Paris, 1631. On this passage 
 Albaspinaeus has the following note : " Praeter ecclesiasticos et cleri- 
 cos, quidam ex plebe seniores et probatse vitse res ecclesiae cura- 
 bant, de quibus hie locus accipiendus est." — Ibid., 123. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. II 
 
 the presbyter, and the seniors of the Mustican 
 district." Here we have certainly something ex- 
 ceedingly like a parochial minister and session ; 
 but the same clear distinction is maintained be- 
 tween the true and only presbyter, the minister 
 of the word and sacraments, and the other class of 
 functionaries, whom the Latin term seniores is again 
 used to designate. In answer to the observation 
 that senior is the Latin equivalent of the Greek 
 term preshytei^y it is surely sufficient, in arguing 
 with any candid and unprejudiced person, to 
 advert to the fact, that — although some instances 
 may be produced in which senior is used as the 
 equivalent of presbyter — in this passage, and in 
 others above quoted, it is employed expressly for 
 the purpose of distinction. 
 
 Again, in Augustine (Epistle 137) we find, Dilec- 
 tissiinis fratribns, clero, senioribns, et tmiversce plebi 
 ecclesicE Hipponensis. Here are seniors who are 
 not of the clerics^ but who are distinguished from 
 the nnivei'sa plebs, the body of the people. 
 
 The works of the same Father ('De Verbo 
 Dom.' serm. 19) furnish us with another important 
 notice : Cnni ob errorem aliqueni a senioribus argit- 
 tmtur, et iinpiitatur alicid de illis ciir ebriiis f iter it, 
 cnr res alienas pervaserit, &c. — " When they are 
 reproved for any fault by the seniors, and any one 
 of them is charged with having been drunk, with 
 having meddled with the property of others," &c. 
 
12 THE THEORY OF 
 
 Here again we have functionaries corresponding 
 exactly to our modern lay rulers, but the same 
 avoidance of the technical designation presbyter 
 or elder. 
 
 Isidore of Seville (a.d. 600-636), in giving direc- 
 tions to pastors in regard to the instruction of their 
 flocks, says : Prms stent docendi seniores plebis, 
 7it per eos infra positi facilius doceantiLr — " The 
 seniors of the people are to be taught first, that 
 by them such as are placed under them may be 
 more easily instructed." * 
 
 Such are the passages usually quoted in proof 
 of the existence, in the ancient Churches, of a 
 lay assessorship. We consider them as placing 
 the fact of its existence beyond question, but as 
 equally proving that the assessors or seniors 
 were not regarded as in any sense presbyters 
 or elders in the New Testament acceptation of 
 the term. 
 
 The discovery by Dr Claudius Buchanan of an 
 order of principal or leading laymen — deputies 
 or representatives of the people — in the Syrian 
 churches of Malabar, in which there can be no 
 doubt of its existence from the earliest times, is a 
 remarkable corroboration both of the antiquity of 
 the office and of the view of its nature which we 
 maintain. These elders or representatives are 
 totally distinct in designation from the presbyters, 
 
 * Isidor. Hispal. Sententiarum, lib. iii. cap. 43. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 13 
 
 kasheeskas, and rank not with or even next to them, 
 but after the sJmmshanas or deacons,* 
 
 Finally, passing by for a little the case of the 
 Waldensian and Bohemian Churches, we may 
 refer even to branches of the Church which had 
 been completely merged in the Church of Rome, 
 and almost entirely assimilated in polity to the 
 rest of Western Christendom, for traces, existing 
 down to modern times, at once of the participation 
 of the laity by representation in ecclesiastical 
 government and discipline, and of the entire dis- 
 tinctness of the representatives from the presby- 
 ters of the Church alike in theory and in practice. 
 It is sufficient to allude to the questmen, sides- 
 men [synod's men] or testes synodales, and to the 
 churchwardens of the English Church, by the 
 former of whom the body of the people appeared 
 and bore a part in discipline in the higher or 
 diocesan, as they did by the latter in the parochial 
 sphere. 
 
 The assertion that Calvin was the founder of an 
 institution shown to have existed from the earliest 
 times, is, we think, sufficiently disproved by the 
 evidence we have produced. So far, indeed, is 
 that assertion from the truth, that Calvin himself 
 borrowed the institution from the Bohemian 
 Church, in which it had, previous to his time, 
 existed for two hundred years, and which appears 
 
 * ' Christian Researches in Asia,' pp. ii6, &c. 
 
14 THE THEORY OF 
 
 to have received it from the Waldensian Church. 
 What is true, however, in the matter, and what no 
 doubt has given rise to the vulgar error in regard 
 to it, is, that Calvin's adhesion to the new theory 
 which classified lay rulers with the true presbyter- 
 ate, and his application, in support of it, of i Tim. v. 
 17, were the great means of propagating that the- 
 ory and interpretation in the Reformed Churches, 
 in which his authority was deservedly very great. 
 Even of the theory itself he was no more the author 
 than of the institution. It had been broached be- 
 ,fore his time by Zwingle and CEcolampadius,* who 
 both died in 1531, twelve years before the edition 
 of the 'Institutes' in which Calvin first mentions 
 it, and had been held by others at a period too 
 early to allow of its being supposed that they had 
 learned it from him. But it undoubtedly owed to 
 his authority a wide acceptance and a permanence 
 which it would never have derived from theirs, and 
 may therefore be called his. 
 
 In estimating, however, the true value of that 
 adhesion of Calvin to the theory before us, of 
 which the Influence was unquestionably very great, 
 
 * There seems no reason to doubt the authenticity of the passage 
 quoted from Zwingle by Voetius in his ' Politicse Ecclesiastics. ' 
 Yet it must be admitted to be scarcely in accordance with the fol- 
 lowing sentence in the works of the Reformer : Scriptiira alios 
 presbytej-os aiit sacerdotes non novit qicam eos qici vej'him Dei an- 
 nunciant. — Zwinglii 0pp. i. 105. 
 
 The opinion of Qicolampadius is distinctly expressed in a sentence 
 of his oration pronounced before the senate of Basle in 1530. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 15 
 
 two things are worthy of consideration, and have 
 been too much overlooked. 
 
 Of these the one is the extent to which the cir- 
 cumstances in which he was placed may have 
 unconsciously affected the opinions of even so 
 masculine and acute and truth-loving a mind as 
 that of the great Genevan Reformer. That he 
 at times viewed the institution of lay rulers in the 
 Church as resting on a broader, and therefore in 
 reality, although not in appearance, stronger foun- 
 dation, we have seen reason to believe. The 
 experience through which he passed may account 
 for a disposition at other times to strain and mul- 
 tiply the arguments in its favour. The great 
 practical difficulty with which the early Reformers 
 had to contend, was the establishment of moral 
 discipline, and of an external authority by which 
 it might be exercised, in the communities which 
 had shaken off the spiritual domination of their 
 former ecclesiastical rulers, and in which, while 
 those who had received the truth in their hearts 
 manifested its influence in a purity of life unknown 
 under their previous bondage, too many showed 
 a disposition to confound liberty with licence. Of 
 the trials arising from this source no one, as is well 
 known, had a greater share than Calvin. He had 
 been driven from Geneva in 1538, with his col- 
 leagues Farel and Viret, because he refused to 
 admit open profligates to the Lord's Supper ; and 
 
l6 THE THEORY OF 
 
 often, after his recall, had had to contend with out- 
 bursts of rebellion against the restraints of ecclesi- 
 astical authority. It was not unnatural that, 
 with such experience, Calvin should have been led 
 at times and ultimately to view with favour a 
 theory which appeared to place the authority of 
 the lay assessors, to whom he looked for aid, on 
 the highest possible ground. 
 
 It is, however, a most remarkable and signifi- 
 cant fact — and this Is the second consideration 
 referred to — that, while sanctioning this theory, 
 Calvin did not carry It out practically in the con- 
 stitution framed by him for the Genevan Church. 
 The assessorship under that constitution would 
 appear, indeed, as if It had been moulded ex- 
 pressly with a view to discountenance the theory. 
 So far from being a portion of the presbyterate, it 
 has singularly little of an ecclesiastical air at all, 
 and would probably be stigmatised, If proposed 
 in the present day, as in no small degree Erastian. 
 The Genevan Consistory, as framed by Calvin, was 
 composed of two members of the Upper Council 
 of the city, and ten of the Lower, or Council of 
 Two Hundred, to whom six pastors were joined. 
 The lay members were appointed annually, and 
 had no ordination ; and the whole body was pre- 
 sided over by one of the syndics or magistrates. 
 There is a widespread popular Impression, that in 
 the organisation of the Church of Geneva the ^eau 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 1 7 
 
 ideal of Scottish Presbyterianism was exemplified. 
 What would Scottish Presbyterians say to a Pres- 
 bytery consisting solely of clerical members — for 
 such was the Presbytery, or " Venerable Compag- 
 nie des Pasteurs," of Geneva — and to the adminis- 
 tration of church discipline for one of our cities 
 by a Session of which the members should be 
 chosen annually, two from the Town-Council, and 
 ten from the Brethren of Guild ? Yet such was 
 Calvin's Session. We have sought in vain for an 
 explanation of the inconsistency between his own 
 practice and the theory to which his name has 
 given currency. 
 
 It is important, with a view to avoid confusion, 
 to observe, that while Calvin avowedly derived 
 from the Bohemian Church the institution of lay 
 assessors, that Church, in turn, received from him 
 the theory and the interpretation of i Tim. v. 
 17, by the adoption of which he had in his 
 writings attempted to underprop it. Although 
 the institution had existed among them from the 
 time of Huss, a century before the birth of Cal- 
 vin, the first instance, it is believed, in which they 
 are found to speak of their lay rulers as presby- 
 ters, or to quote, in regard to them, the text in 
 question, is in the Plan of Government and Disci- 
 pHne drawn up by their General Synod in 161 6, 
 and printed in 1632. In like manner, it is be- 
 lieved that in the Waldensian Church, although it 
 B 
 
I 8 THE THEORY OF 
 
 has had such assessors from time immemorial, no 
 instance can be produced until after the time of 
 Calvin, in which they are classified with presby- 
 ters. In the earliest notice of its ecclesiasti- 
 cal constitution, two classes of office-bearers are 
 mentioned, regidors del poble and preii^es in li 
 lors officis. The former is the designation of 
 its lay church-rulers ; and by the term preires, 
 presbyters, are evidently meant the ministers 
 of the word and sacraments. Like the Bo- 
 hemian Church, the Waldensian appears to have 
 gradually adopted the theory countenanced by 
 Calvin. 
 
 While such was the case in the older com- 
 munities, in which the institution of lay church 
 councillors had previously existed, it is not to be 
 wondered at that, in the newly-reformed branches 
 of the Church, the name of Calvin, and, it may 
 be admitted, the plausibleness and seeming natu- 
 ralness of his interpretation of i Tim. v. 17, should 
 have procured a ready and extensive acceptance 
 of the theory. Nor is it surprising that the 
 growth, in the Reformed Churches, of the Indepen- 
 dent or Congregationalist party, and their demo- 
 cratical views of church government, should have 
 induced Presbyterians to value even more highly 
 than they might otherwise have done, an inter- 
 pretation which seemed to place the authority of 
 a select body of rulers on a definite scriptural 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. IQ 
 
 footing. It is, however, a great mistake to suppose 
 that the interpretation and theory were accepted 
 wherever the institution was adopted ; and it is 
 impossible not to condemn the disingenuousness 
 of representing, as some Presbyterian writers have 
 done, all those divines who admit that the text in 
 question shows some presbyters in the Apostolic 
 Churches to have been principally occupied in 
 teaching, and others in ruling, as coinciding in 
 the opinion that there were therefore two such 
 distinct classes of presbyters as the teaching and 
 the ruling elders of Calvin. For, first, among 
 these divines there are several Episcopalians, who 
 regard the clause " presbyters who rule well " as 
 descriptive not of such officials as Presbyterian 
 lay rulers, but of those presbyters or bishops, 
 'Tr^osGTuiTsg, who presided among their fellow-minis- 
 ters, and, with some resemblance to the a^;)^/<ruva- 
 yuyoi, superintended the whole of each church, 
 regulating the teaching without necessarily or 
 statedly teaching themselves ; and, secondly, 
 others who admit, on the evidence afforded by 
 the text, that some presbyters were statedly 
 occupied in teaching, while some were chiefly 
 employed in administration, regard the latter 
 class as nevertheless invested with the full powers 
 of the ministry, by an ordination in all respects 
 the same as that of their brethren. 
 
20 THE THEORY OF 
 
 The theory which classes the lay rulers or 
 councillors of the Church with the presbyters of 
 the Apostolic Churches, and which claims support 
 from I Tim. v. 17, appears untenable on the fol- 
 lowing grounds : — 
 
 I. There is no countenance whatever afforded 
 elsewhere in Scripture to the idea, that any such 
 strongly-marked difference as this theory implies 
 existed, or was designed to exist, among the pres- 
 byters of the Church. Surely it is reasonable to 
 suppose that some notice of such a difference 
 would have been given in the passages of Scrip- 
 ture which relate expressly to the institution and 
 duties of the presbyterate, and equally reasonable 
 to infer, from the want of any allusion to it, that 
 no such difference was contemplated or sanc- 
 tioned. Now, neither in the passages which 
 mention the ordination of presbyters " in every 
 church," and " in every city," nor in those in 
 which the qualifications and functions of presby- 
 ters are laid down, is the most distant intimation 
 given, we do not say of a difference so wide as 
 that in question, in the position and duties of 
 members of the presbyterate, but of any differ- 
 ence whatsoever. That, in the circumstances of 
 the early Church, in which the intellectual quali- 
 fications of those who were appointed to guide 
 the young communities had not been in a meas- 
 ure equalised by previous training according to 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 21 
 
 any uniform standard, the presbyters should have 
 in practice apportioned the various functions of 
 their common office, with reference to the indi- 
 vidual aptitudes found in them at their conver- 
 sion, is only what was natural. But Scripture 
 gives no hint of a deliberate and formal division 
 of presbyters into two classes, designed to be 
 permanently distinct in function or in dignity — 
 the one authorised to teach publicly and to dis- 
 pense the sacraments, the other invested with no 
 right or authority, in these respects, beyond the 
 other members of the flock. 
 
 2. The equality, inter se, of all presbyters, and 
 the interchangeableness of the term presbyter with 
 that of bishop, is now held by all. With Presby- 
 terians this essential equality has always been a 
 main point in argument with Prelatists ; and, so far 
 as the New Testament use of the terms is con- 
 cerned, it is now admitted by all Episcopalians. 
 It will therefore follow that the lay rulers of the 
 Church, if presbyters, must also be bishops. To 
 this plain and inevitable consequence the friends 
 of the theory under discussion appear for some 
 time to have been blind, or to have shut their 
 eyes. Calvin, while maintaining the equality of 
 all presbyters to each other and to bishops, invari- 
 ably confines the term bishop to pastors or m.inis- 
 ters of the word and sacraments ; and the Second 
 Book of Discipline, which first recognised in Scot- 
 
22 THE THEORY OF 
 
 land the theory of Calvin, follows him in this. 
 But the inconsistency of first asserting, in the 
 argument with Prelatists, the equality and con- 
 vertibility of presbyter and bishop, and then re- 
 stricting the title of bishop, as used in the New 
 Testament, to a single presbyter among many in 
 each parish or congregation, could not fail to be 
 seen. The objection was obvious that, by the very 
 parties who most strongly asserted the original 
 equality of bishops and presbyters — nay, who went 
 so far as to maintain that this original equality 
 rendered any gradation of ranks among presbyter- 
 bishops for ever, and in any circumstances, un- 
 lawful — a more important difference was really 
 made between the bishop and the ordinary pres- 
 byter than was made on the highest Episcopal 
 theory, — a difference not in grade merely, and in 
 the sphere of jurisdiction, but in the very nature 
 of the functions. For the presbyter is, on the Epis- 
 copal theory, as fully a minister of the New Testa- 
 ment, a dispenser of the v/ord and sacraments, 
 as the bishop, set apart, like him, from secular to 
 sacred functions, and deriving his maintenance 
 therefrom ; whereas, on the theory which, while 
 holding the lay ruler to be a presbyter, views the 
 minister alone as a bishop, the presbyter has no 
 part in the Gospel ministry at all. It is not easy 
 to see how this objection can be answered. It is a 
 strange thing that we should find ourselves under 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 23 
 
 the necessity of maintaining against Presbyterians 
 the equality of the New Testament bishop and 
 presbyter.* 
 
 It is plain that to all who hold, as must be done, 
 the identity of the presbyter and bishop of the 
 New Testament, and who further consider the 
 lay rulers of modern churches to be true presby- 
 ters, the conclusion is unavoidable, that they must 
 also be bishops. But consistency demands a still 
 further advance. These lay rulers, if bishops, 
 must also necessarily be pasto7's. The presbyters 
 of the church of Ephesus, whom we hold to have 
 been ministers, but who, on the theory under dis- 
 cussion, must have been in great part merely 
 rulers, are not only styled bishops, but are expressly 
 commanded to " feed " (-ro/^a/i^g/i/), that is, to do the 
 work of pastors, to nourish with the only proper 
 nourishment, that of the word and doctrine, the 
 flock committed to their care. 
 
 Such are the contradictory but inevitable con- 
 clusions to which we are brought by the theory 
 that the lay rulers of the Church are presbyters or 
 elders in the Scripture sense. While, in fact, purely 
 ruling functionaries, authorised to minister neither 
 the word nor the sacraments, they must never- 
 theless be regarded, by those who hold that theory, 
 as bishops and pastors ; that is, as the very desig- 
 nation of pastor implies, as bound to feed the 
 
 * See Appendix, C. 
 
24 THE THEORY OF 
 
 flock by the ministration of the word ; in short, as 
 at once ordained only to rule, and yet bound also 
 to teach. By candid and unprejudiced minds, 
 this will, we think, be regarded as a rednctio ad 
 ahsurdum. 
 
 It is curious to observe how, as discussions 
 on church government arise and proceed after 
 the time of Calvin, the holders of the theory 
 are Influenced by the sight of this awkward 
 consequence. Some, with the inconsistency of 
 which Calvin had set the example, but which in 
 him was excusable, as it does not appear to have 
 occurred to him, continue to restrict the terms 
 bishop and pastor to the ministers of the Word. 
 Others, when hard pressed in controversy, accept 
 the consequences of their theory, but with appar- 
 ent reluctance, and, as it were, to serve the turn ; 
 for on other occasions they apply the titles of 
 bishop and'pastor to ministers alone. This is the 
 case with such rigid theorists as Gillespie and 
 James Guthrie. But from a very early period 
 there appears to have existed among the more 
 learned of the Reformed theologians a feeling of 
 the insecurity and untenableness of Calvin's theory, 
 which led, as we shall see, the Westminster As- 
 sembly, while deeply convinced of the value of the 
 institution of lay rulers, and while maintaining it 
 strongly on scriptural grounds, to abandon that 
 theory. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 2$ 
 
 3. The arguments already adduced surely autho- 
 rise us in saying that something more is necessary 
 than an inference from a single text to establish 
 the theory before us. One thing, at least, may be 
 fairly demanded — that the single text relied upon 
 shall be found incapable of a fair and natural 
 explanation more in accordance with the evidence 
 which the rest of Scripture and the history of 
 the early Church afford regarding church offices, 
 before the interpretation, on which alone that 
 theory is based, is forced upon us. Where the 
 foundation is, as must in the present case be 
 admitted, narrow in the extreme, it ought to be 
 at least of unquestionable firmness. 
 
 Some of the interpretations which have been 
 offered in opposition to that under consideration 
 are, it must be at once allowed, worthy of little 
 notice. The proposal to translate, as if fidXiffra 
 followed instead of preceding 0/, " those who labour 
 chiefly or much in word and doctrine," is altogether 
 unwarrantable. The truth is, that the difficulty 
 which has prompted such proposals is an ima- 
 ginary one, and arises entirely from the overlook- 
 ing of the true and emphatic import of xomdu, as 
 implying not simply occupation in an employment, 
 but sustained exertion, work persevered in to 
 i2.\AgVi^— painstaking labour. That this is the true 
 import of xo-rr/aw is not only a natural inference 
 from its etymology, but is proved by constant use. 
 
26 THE THEORY OF 
 
 This will hardly be questioned now by any com- 
 petent and unbiassed critic. Even Beza, in com- 
 menting on the word as used in other passages, 
 maintains this opinion. In his Annotation on 
 Matt. xi. 28 he says, Certe phis est yto'jriav quam 
 voviTv, si propria7n utrmsque significationem spec- 
 temus ; and there, as well as elsewhere (Matt. vi. 28, 
 Luke V. 5), he objects to the translation of xoTtau 
 by laboro in the Vulgate and Erasmus, as too 
 feeble, replacing it, in the latter instance, hy fatigati 
 estis. Stephanus also gives this as the sense of the 
 word, translating the passage before us plurimum 
 laboris conferentes. Schleusner says, xoi:ia(a proprie 
 de opera inammni dicihir, estqtie laboro, molestos 
 labores tracto, quibus corpus defatigatiir ac vires 
 exhauriuntur. Wiesinger too (i Tim. iv. 10), 
 explains jcocr/aw as implying laborious work. With 
 such authorities, and many others that might be 
 quoted, we cannot hesitate to regard the following 
 as the true sense of the passage i. " Let the pres- 
 byters who preside well be counted worthy of 
 double recompense, especially those who are la- 
 borious in preaching and teaching." 
 
 It has been said that, if xor/aw had this 
 emphatic meaning, the Apostle would never have 
 found it necessary to increase the force of the 
 word, as by the use of 'zoXka in Rom. xvi. 12 (^V/^ 
 mWa szo-Triuffsv). But surely there may be grada- 
 tions in the severity, differences in the amount 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 2/ 
 
 and continuance, of even hard labour. Again, it is 
 said that the Apostle would, had he meant what 
 we believe him to have meant, have probably 
 used such a word as iLaj&tAivng. Our business is 
 to ascertain the meaning of the terms which the 
 Apostle has employed. We may, however, ob- 
 serve that the word suggested — which means, not 
 merely hard, but excessive and exceptional labour, 
 oppressing the body and mind with fatigue — would 
 have been most inappropriate, as signifying much 
 more than the Apostle had in view as the ordinary 
 work of even the most active presbyters. KoVoc, 
 the hard and fatiguing yet ordinary work of the 
 husbandman, the Apostle could prescribe and pro- 
 vide for in the case of stated labourers in the 
 spiritual vineyard ; but iL^x^og implies a degree and 
 kind of toil which, although occasion might call for 
 it in any Christian, could not be contemplated as 
 the normal calling of any functionary. 
 
 No one who considers the nature and condition 
 of the early Christian churches, will find any 
 difficulty in understanding the import of this pre- 
 cept. The object for which the presbyters of these 
 churches were ordained, was to exercise a joint 
 spiritual superintendence over the infant communi- 
 ties. For this purpose each devoted himself more 
 particularly to the special functions or department 
 of duty for which his gifts best fitted him. It 
 could not but happen that among them some" 
 
28 THE THEORY OF 
 
 would be more occupied in the work of instruction 
 and exhortation than others ; but that all, as raised 
 to one and the same position by one and the 
 same ordination, had the same right to preach 
 and teach, and perform all parts of the ministerial 
 work, no one can doubt who reflects on the un- 
 artificial constitution of the new societies, and on 
 the freedom with which not the presbyters only, 
 but others upon occasion, were permitted to exer- 
 cise in public the gifts vouchsafed to them for the 
 benefit of their brethren. That this was the con- 
 dition of the early churches, and the position of 
 the presbyters, is the opinion of all the most 
 learned who in recent times, and since the heats 
 of controversy cooled down, have calmly consid- 
 ered the subject. They find no vestige of a 
 classification of the presbyterate into those au- 
 thorised to preach, and those not so authorised. 
 
 This brings us to the decisive argument against 
 the inference drawn from this much-harassed text 
 — an argument which is to be found, not so much 
 in any particular explanation of its terms, as in 
 comparing it with the plain injunctions of Scripture 
 — nay, of the very epistle in which it occurs — in 
 reference to presbyters. We grant, what we be- 
 lieve to have been the fact, that at the time when 
 it was written, all who were qualified and ordained 
 to be placed in charge of the early churches, were 
 not alike endowed with gifts for public instruction 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 29 
 
 and exhortation. Let it be further admitted that, as 
 a matter of fact, some presbyters may have borne 
 part in the general administration of the churches, 
 who did not preach. Nevertheless it stands on 
 record, as the mind of the Spirit, that this was a 
 provisional state of things, which was not intended 
 to be continued ; that, if tolerated for a time, while 
 the want of aptitude for public exhortation in some 
 presbyters was miraculously supplemented by oc- 
 casional communications of special gifts of the 
 Spirit to various members of the congregations, pre- 
 paration must be made for a different condition of 
 the Church, in which these miraculous endowments 
 were to be withdrawn, in which the presbyters were 
 to be the stated and constant instructors of the 
 flock, and in which those officials, between whom 
 there was, from the first, no inherent formal dis- 
 tinction, must be all alike 5;5axr/xo/, "apt to teach." 
 To found a dogma, not to say a system, of church 
 polity, on a state of matters caused by the pecu- 
 liar circumstances and exigencies of the early 
 churches, would be in any case a very questionable 
 proceeding ; but it is in the present case done in 
 direct opposition to Scripture, which enjoins that 
 all presbyters whatsoever be MazTr/,01. 
 
 To meet this plain injunction with the assertion 
 that those elders who are appointed to rule, a7id 
 not to teach, who are seleced without the slightest 
 reference to a capacity for teaching, are neverthe- 
 
30 . THE THEORY OF 
 
 less dtdaxTrAoi, in the sense of being qualified to 
 exhort privately, is an evasion which it is painful 
 even to notice. There are not two definite classes 
 of didd(fjiaXoi or tiha%Tr/.oi, a public and a private, a 
 superior and an inferior, mentioned in Scripture. 
 It follows, then, that if the lay rulers in the Church 
 are presbyters, they are presbyters of a kind not 
 only unsanctioned, but directly disqualified by 
 the Word of God ! They are presbyters avowedly 
 neither fitted nor authorised to do what all pres- 
 byters are required to be prepared to do, and 
 which, therefore, must be regarded as a proper 
 part of their office. Nay, the object of the 
 Apostle, if we will candidly consider the matter, 
 in this very text itself, which is quoted to prove 
 that a permanent order of presbyters ruling but 
 not teaching is to be maintained in the Church, is 
 the very opposite. It is to bring .about, as soon as 
 possible, a different state of things from what then, 
 through necessity, existed, and by securing double 
 honour to such elders as laboured in word and 
 doctrine, to hasten the time when all should, in 
 point of fact, be teachers. 
 
 It certainly appears, on reflection, an extra- 
 ordinary thing, first, that a text purely preceptive, 
 and the precept in which is openly neglected by 
 those who quote it, should be made so much of 
 for a totally different purpose, as the basis of an 
 ecclesiastical theory unrecognised elsewhere by 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 3 I 
 
 Scripture or antiquity; and, secondly, that its real 
 ultimate purpose, to promote labour in word and 
 doctrine on the part of all presbyters, should be 
 lost sight of. Miller, who starts with the assump- 
 tion that each of the apostolic churches was the 
 exact counterpart of a single modern Presbyterian 
 congregation, presided over by one minister of the 
 word and sacraments (to whom he inconsistently 
 restricts the term bishop) and a bench of ruling 
 assessors, actually accounts (p. 103) for the dis- 
 appearance of the ruling class of presbyters by 
 saying that they assumed, imwarraiitably, the 
 function of teachers— unwarrantably did what the 
 Word of God commands them to do ! With 
 good reason might Vitringa complain of the mis- 
 leading influence of an existing order of things 
 on .our minds in the reading of Scripture. In the 
 course of a full and able discussion of the text, 
 which he views in connection with the invariable 
 requisite, that presbyters should be dtdaTiriTtoi and 
 ■TToi/xivig, this very learned writer says, " St Paul, 
 therefore, does not in this place refuse to any 
 presbyters the right of teaching. He merely 
 supposes that some do not teach. He wishes, 
 however, that all should teach ; nay, he stimulates 
 and exhorts all to do so, when he declares those 
 who teach to be worthy of double honour." * 
 
 * 'De Synagog§, Vetera,' ii. 3, p. 493. " Non abnegat itaque 
 Paulus, in hoc loco, ullis presbyteris docendi jus ; solummodo 
 
32 THE THEORY OF 
 
 On these grounds alone, were there no other, we 
 reject i Tim. v. 17, as having any bearing on the 
 office in question, and along with it the theory of 
 which it is the sole foundation, that the lay rulers 
 of the Church are in the proper sense presbyters 
 or elders. 
 
 The conclusion at which we have arrived was 
 reached more than two centuries ago by many 
 learned theologians, eminent for their attachment 
 to the Presbyterian polity. Already in Britain, 
 before the time of the Westminster Assembly, the 
 authors of the memorable and able treatise pub- 
 lished under the name of Smectymnuus, refraining 
 from quoting " the three known texts of Scripture 
 produced by some for the establishing of govern- 
 ing elders in the Church," and " the comment of 
 Ambrose [Hilary] on I Tim. v. I," maintain their 
 position mainly by an appeal to the passages which 
 we have cited above from the Fathers, and sum up 
 the argument thus: "By all these testimonies it is 
 apparent, first, that in the ancient Church there were 
 some called seniors ; secondly, that these seniors 
 were not clergymen ; thirdly, that they had a stroke 
 in governing the Church, and managing the affairs 
 thereof ; fourthly, that seniors were distinguished 
 
 supponit quosdam non docere. Vellet tamen ut omnes docerent; 
 immo vero incitat et exhortatur omnes ut doceant, quoniam eos 
 qui decent maxima prsedicat dignos duplici honore." 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP, 33 
 
 from the rest of the peopled To any careful 
 student of church history, it is unnecessary to 
 indicate the import of the use in this passage of 
 the term senior instead of elder. 
 
 But the opinion on the subject of the very 
 erudite and zealous Presbyterian divines of Eng- 
 land at this period is most strikingly and author- 
 itatively shown by the proceedings and conclu- 
 sions in regard to it of the Westminster Assembly, 
 the significance of which has been too much over- 
 looked. From the record of that Assembly left us 
 by Lightfoot and Gillespie, we learn that the dis- 
 cussion on the point of lay elders, in the Grand 
 Committee, commenced on the I2th of November 
 1 643, and lasted, with some interruption, till the iith 
 of December, a period sufficient to show how care- 
 fully and anxiously it must have been conducted.* 
 The subject was introduced for consideration by 
 a proposition so framed as distinctly to bring 
 under discussion, not merely the lawfulness and 
 expediency of the institution, but the special 
 theory of Calvin : " That besides those presbyters 
 that rule well, and labour in the word and doc- 
 trine, there be other presbyters who especially apply 
 
 * Lightfoot, vol. xiii. p. 60-79 \ Gillespie's Notes, 4, 5. The 
 prevalent ignorance or forgetfulness of the true import of the pro- 
 ceedings of the Westminster Assembly in reference to this subject, 
 may be partly explained by the fact that Lightfoot's Journal of the 
 Assembly was published for the first time only in 1825, and Gil- 
 lespie's Notes only in 1846. See also Baillie's Letters. 
 
 C 
 
34 THE THEORY OF 
 
 themselves to ruling, though they labour not in 
 the word and doctrine." The discussion which 
 Follows is instructive, and the result remarkable. 
 While the Grand Committee declare unanimously 
 in favour of the institution of lay rulers in the 
 Church, they carefully exclude from their conclu- 
 sion not merely the term presbyter, in reference 
 to lay rulers, but even that of elder, as liable to 
 be confounded with "presbyter," and refuse to 
 quote I Tim. v. 17, in regard to the office. The 
 conclusions of the Committee are recorded thus 
 by Gillespie and Lightfoot: — 
 
 " I. That Christ hath instituted a government 
 and governors ecclesiastical in the Church. 
 
 " 2. That Christ hath furnished some in His 
 Church with gifts for government, and with com- 
 mission to execute the same when called thereunto. 
 
 " 3. That it is agreeable to and warranted by the 
 Word of God that some others besides the minis- 
 ters of the word be church governors, to join with 
 the ministers in the government of the Church. 
 Rom. xii. 7, 8 ; i Cor. xii. 28." 
 
 Some members had expressed a wish to rest 
 the institution simply " on a prudential ground " — 
 that is, on expediency — and some were opposed 
 to the citation even of the two above-mentioned 
 texts, although none except Dr Temple and Light- 
 foot voted for their being omitted. But the at- 
 tempt of Whittaker and Gillespie, renewed the 
 following day, to procure the citation of i Tim. v. 17 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 35 
 
 as applicable to the office of lay ruler, met with no 
 success; and -the conclusions ofthe Committee were 
 sent in to the Assembly in the form in which we 
 have given them above, with the following ad- 
 dition : "That in the Church of the Jews there 
 were elders of the people joined to the priests and 
 Levites in the government of the Church." * 
 
 The conclusions, or, as they were styled, " votes," 
 of the Committee were brought up for the con- 
 sideration and approval of the Assembly on the 
 14th November 1644, preparatory to their being 
 transmitted to the Houses of Parliament ; when, 
 as Lightfoot tells us, "there fell a debate about 
 naming church governors, whether to call them 
 ' ruling elders ' or no ; which held a very sad and 
 long discussion : at last it was determined by vote 
 thus, — such as in the Reformed Churches are 
 commonly called ' elders.' " Gillespie made a last 
 attempt to obtain the recognition of the theory, 
 and, with obvious purpose, moved that the Assembly 
 itself should call them " ruling elders ;" " but this," 
 Lightfoot tells us, "prevailed not."t The battle 
 of the presbyter theory had been fought and lost. 
 
 * It would have been well had the caution happily exercised 
 by the Westminster Divines in the citation of Scripture in reference 
 to church government been shown on other occasions. The crav- 
 ing for express Scripture warrant, in mattei-s where common sense 
 is a sufficient guide, was natural in the position of the Reformed 
 Churches, but it led sometimes to an unjustifiable and even ludi- 
 crous straining of the Word of God. 
 
 t There is a blank in Gillel|)ie's Notes, extendmg from the 25th 
 October to the 15th November 1644. 
 
36 THE THEORY OF 
 
 The following is the chapter on the subject in 
 the ' Form of Church Government ' as finally 
 authorised by the Assembly: — 
 
 " OtJier C/mrch Governors. — As there were in 
 the Jewish Church elders of the people joined 
 with the priests and Levites in the government of 
 the Church, so Christ, who hath instituted gov- 
 ernment and governors ecclesiastical in the 
 Church, hath furnished some in His Church, 
 besides the ministers of the word, with gifts for 
 government, and with commission to execute the 
 same when called thereunto, who are to join with 
 the ministers in the government of the Church, 
 which officers Reformed Churches commonly call 
 elders!' 
 
 Nothing can be more significant than this sound 
 and well-guarded language. Equally guarded 
 and significant is that of the Confession of Faith 
 in its allusion to lay rulers. It knows nothing of 
 them as presbyters or elders in the proper sense. 
 "As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of 
 ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and 
 advise with about matters of religion ; so if magis- 
 trates be open enemies to the Church, the minis- 
 ters of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their 
 office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation 
 from their c/mrches, may meet together in such 
 assemblies." 
 
 And, lastly, in the only^alluslon made to the 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 3/ 
 
 subject in its Directory for the Public Worship of 
 God, the Assembly, under the head of the Lord's 
 Supper, prescribes that the question of the fre- 
 quency of its celebration may be considered and 
 determined by the "ministers and other cJmrch 
 governors of each congregation." 
 
 No doubt, we therefore think, can remain of the 
 deliberate rejection by the Assembly of Divines 
 at Westminster of I Tim. v. 17, as referring to 
 the institution of lay rulers, and consequently of 
 the theory of which it is the only foundation. 
 That it was not intended even to leave the ques- 
 tion an open one, may be seen by referring to the 
 single instance in which the word " elder " is used 
 in the section relating to the officers of the Church : 
 " The office of the elder — that is, the pastor — is," &c. 
 Let candid Presbyterians calmly consider this. 
 The great Presbyterian Council of Britain, while 
 distinctly asserting, and strongly maintaining, the 
 right and the duty of the laity to take part in the 
 government and discipline of the Church, recog- 
 nises no "elder" as distinct from the preaching 
 and teaching elder — no elder or presbyter in the 
 proper sense, in the sense of the New Testament — 
 but the minister of the word and sacraments. 
 
 The decisions of the Westminster Assembly 
 on the Form of Presbyterial Church Government 
 were, as is well known, after careful examination, 
 solemnly approved and adopted by the General 
 
38 THE THEORY OF 
 
 Assembly of the Churcli of Scotland* and the 
 Commission of that body was authorised to "agree 
 to and conclude, in the name of the Assembly, 
 an uniformity between the Churches in both king- 
 doms in the above-mentioned particulars, as soon 
 as the same should be ratified by Parliament." 
 
 This being the case, it may seem surprising that 
 the theory we are discussing should still have held 
 its ground in Scotland, after having been thus not 
 only deliberately repudiated at Westminster, but 
 formally denuded by the General Assembly of 
 any authority it might have derived from the 
 'Second Book of Discipline;' and that it should 
 have been so frequently reproduced in later times 
 in popular works on church government. The 
 explanation, we believe, is to be found in what the 
 historian is so often called upon to observe — the 
 vitality of terms, and their power to keep alive in 
 the popular mind opinions with which they have 
 once been associated. In the General Assembly 
 and the other Courts of the Church of Scotland, the 
 designation " ruling elder," introduced apparently 
 by the * Second Book of Discipline,' had become 
 by 1645 the vox signata for the office, and had 
 been rendered, by constant use, familiar to the 
 people. f This designation, rejected at Westmin- 
 
 * Feb. 10, and Sept. 16, 1645 ; and, finally, Aug. 27, 1647. 
 t From the manner in which the 'Second Book of Discipline' is 
 sometimes spoken of, it might be supposed to be a standard of the 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 39 
 
 ster, was, either from the force of habit, or perhaps 
 because of the inconvenience of changing it, still 
 retained in Scotland. That it should have been 
 retained unconsciously is difficult to understand, 
 when we consider the prominent part taken by 
 Gillespie, one of the Scotch representatives at 
 Westminster, in the discussion of the subject ; and 
 yet that it should have been retained purposely 
 cannot be supposed without a direct imputation 
 on the good faith of the General Assembly. In 
 retaining it, however, the Church of Scotland, it 
 
 Church, or a document possessing legal authority. But although 
 the Act of 5th June 1592, which is, with the exception of the pat- 
 ronage clause, ratified by that of 7th June 1690, and which is there- 
 fore the law in regard to the government of the Church as now 
 established, is often referred to as having "established the govern- 
 ment of the Church, according to the ' Second Book of Discipline,' " 
 this statement is not quite correct. The Act 1592 does not em- 
 body, sanction, or even refer to, the ' Second Book of Discipline,' 
 but merely, after ratifying and approving the yearly meeting of the 
 General Assembly and the government of the Church generally, 
 rehearses certain articles which had been ' ' aggreit vpoun be his 
 Maiestie in conference had be his Hienes with certane of the 
 Ministrie, convenit to that effect." These articles define the 
 "matters to be intreatit" in provincial assemblies, presbyteries, 
 and sessions; and while, no doubt, they bestow legal sanction on a 
 form of government practically and substantially such as is set forth 
 m the * Second Book of Discipline,' they carefully avoid, as does 
 the Act 1690, all reference to, or sanction of, any particular theories 
 as to church order or function. The theory, therefore, of the 
 'Second Book of Discipline ' in regard to "ruling elders" has no 
 sanction from the documents by which the Church is established ; 
 all that is required by law, and all that she has a right to require 
 of her office-bearers, in regard to church polity, is practical ac- 
 quiescence in, and conforaiity to, her actual government. 
 
40 THE THEORY OF 
 
 must be admitted, did not act in full accordance 
 with its declared acquiescence in the Westminster 
 decisions, and with its own professed desire for 
 uniformity. The effect was that which in all 
 probability the Westminster Assembly had desired 
 to prevent. The use of the designation "ruling 
 elder" kept the popular mind unavoidably directed 
 to "the elders that rule well" of I Tim. v. 17, and 
 maintained a measure of life in the theory, quietly 
 buried at Westminster with the formal assent of 
 the Scottish Church, which regards the lay rulers 
 as a portion of the presbyterate. Add to this the 
 convenience to popular controversialists of a plaus- 
 ible and portable argument such as the text in 
 question, and the influence of the names by which 
 the use of it had been sanctioned, and it is not dif- 
 ficult to understand how the theory should from 
 time to time have raised its head again. A few of 
 the stiff do'gmatists in church government of the 
 Beza and Melville school, such as James Guthrie, 
 no doubt favoured this state of matters by repro- 
 ducing, and even carrying to its most extreme, not 
 to say absurd, consequences, a view which, if the 
 arguments for the original equality of presbyters, 
 as maintained in the Reformed Churches, have any 
 validity at all, leads, as we have seen, to the con- 
 founding of the officers called elders with bishops 
 and pastors. But the Church, apart from the mis- 
 leading use of the term " ruling elder," has kept 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 4I 
 
 Itself, on the whole, guiltless of affording It any 
 official recognition. 
 
 Let us now turn to the history of the presbyter 
 theory In other countries, and In the hands of the 
 great defenders of theReformed principles of church 
 polity on the continent of Europe. It Is no dis- 
 honour to Britain to say that she has produced no 
 Presbyterian writers In this department worthy of 
 being compared with Blondel and Vltrlnga. Now, 
 while It Is admitted that some systematic authors 
 of high repute continued, during the seventeenth 
 century, to repeat, evidently without any special 
 or original research, the division of presbyters Into 
 teachers and rulers, these two great divines, whose 
 vast erudition Included the most accurate, profound, 
 and comprehensive view of church history and 
 polity, — strongly Impressed with the untenableness 
 of that division, and feeling deeply the Injury done 
 to the doctrine of the original homogeneousness 
 and parity of presbyters by a theory which divides 
 presbyters Into two most dissimilar classes, — while 
 upholding the institution of lay assessors in church 
 government, repudiate the notion of their being 
 presbyters as totally destitute of foundation.* 
 
 * We do not quote here from Grotius, although the precursor, 
 and, to say the least, the equal in many and the superior in other 
 respects of the authors mentioned, as being in bad odour with 
 some Presbyterians for Erastianism and latitudinarianism ; but we 
 will insert in the Appendix a few extracts from the passages in 
 
42 THE THEORY OF 
 
 Blondel, the chosen champion of Presbytery, 
 equally admirable for his massive learning, his 
 sound judgment, and his candour as a controver- 
 sialist, in concluding the argument in his treatise 
 ' De Jure Plebis in Regimine Ecclesiastico,' the 
 object of which is to maintain, as he does most 
 ably from Scripture and antiquity, the right of the 
 laity to a part in the government of the Church, 
 complains strongly of the evil done to the cause 
 by the novelty of dragging the words of St Paul, 
 in I Tim. v. 17, into the discussion. He declares 
 the application of this text to the lay rulers of 
 the Reformed Churches to be a thing unjustified 
 by any example from early times, or by any ne- 
 cessity ; and, after arguing against it fully and 
 conclusively, says that the institution and functions 
 of these officers, of whom he highly approves, must 
 rest on other foundations — those, namely, which 
 the practice of the Apostles and of the first ages 
 of the Church has laid.* 
 
 which the results of his learned investigations are given. See 
 Appendix, D. 
 
 * " Sine antiquorum exemplo et necessitate ull^, Paulina verba, 
 I Tim. V. 17, ad seniores plebis, cum episcopis et diaconis ad 
 Ecclesiarum clavum sedentes, nonnullis trahere placuit." 
 
 "Aliis igitur firmamentis, iis nimirum quae nobis apostolorum 
 primaeque per trium saeculorum periodum antiquitatis praxis stra- 
 vit, seiiionnn plebis institutio, et functio suae (ut sic dicam) vitae, 
 a Protestantibus per Gallias, Scotiam, Belgium, restituta, statumin- 
 anda est," 
 
 The opinion of Scultetus, who discusses the question in his com- 
 mentary on I Tim. J is quoted by Vitringa, and Wolfius expresses 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 43 
 
 The opiriion of Vitringa, whom we have already 
 quoted, and who discusses the subject at great 
 length, may be learned from the following ex- 
 tracts. Having maintained what he styles the 
 essential homogeneousness and equality of the 
 presbyter-bishops of the New Testament churches 
 in opposition to the high prelatical theory, he pro- 
 ceeds thus : — 
 
 " I am clearly of opinion that, from the testi- 
 monies above cited, we must in good faith infer 
 not merely that in the earliest Church there were 
 no bishops superior in grade to presbyters, but 
 also that in that Church there were no presbyters 
 or elders known different in office from others of 
 the same order." 
 
 He then adverts to the institution of lay rulers 
 in the Reformed Churches, and to the theory of 
 two classes of presbyters ; and although approving 
 in the highest terms of the institution, regarding 
 which he rejoices that the articles and formularies 
 of his own Church speak with moderation, he goes 
 on to say : — 
 
 " I do not therefore condemn these lay elders. 
 I acknowledge and approve them as highly as 
 any one can do. Let me, however, without 
 offence against the brotherhood to which I be- 
 long, distinctly declare that I find no presbyters 
 
 himself as agreeing with Vitringa. — 'Cures Philologicae et Critic^,' 
 iv. ,475- 
 
44 THE THEORY OF 
 
 or elders of this kind in the earliest Apostolic 
 Church ; none even in the Church of the times 
 following ; none in the writings of the Apostles, or 
 in the monuments of subsequent ages, as far as 
 they have been examined by me or by others. 
 So long, indeed, have I been settled in that 
 opinion, and so very fully have I been confirmed 
 in it by the progress of time, that I do not think 
 myself wrong in freely expressing it. 
 
 " It is certain and beyond doubt that, in the 
 writings of the Apostles, the term * presbyter ' or 
 ' elder ' is exactly equivalent to that of pastor or 
 bishop. It was the business of all presbyters or 
 elders to feed the flock [as pastors or shepherds], 
 and to watch over it [as bishops or overseers]. 
 The Apostle Paul makes no distinction between 
 a bishop and a presbyter, when speaking of their 
 qualifications and ordination in I Tim. iii. and Tit. I. 
 Elsewhere, as is well known, the constant duty of 
 presbyters is expressed by the term * feeding the 
 flock,' without any variation whatsoever of mean- 
 ing in that term ; for to feed is to teach, to admon- 
 ish, to administer the sacraments, and to govern 
 the flock with all the spiritual power bestowed by 
 Christ on His ministers. No two meanings of the 
 word — a more extended and a more restricted — 
 are known in the writings of the Apostles, where 
 it is used with reference to presbyters. Bishops, 
 I say, presbyters and pastors, are, in the style 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 45 
 
 of the Holy Scripture, to which we must pay 
 close attention in this discussion, one and the 
 same order of men, differing neither in degree 
 and kind, nor in function. This position will 
 stand, I think, as long as there shall be persons 
 who will read the Acts of the Apostles without 
 previous bias. And if it stands, then the lay 
 presbyters fall to the ground. Pray, shall we dare 
 to assert and maintain that the title of bishops, 
 the title of pastors, is applicable to these lay 
 presbyters .'* If we do not, there is certainly an 
 end of such * presbyters ; ' for no presbyters were 
 known or set up in the Church by the Apostles, 
 who were not at the same time pastors and 
 bishops. 
 
 " Let us observe — although the thing is too 
 well known to deserve the name of an observa- 
 tion — that Paul, when proceeding to enumerate, 
 in his First Epistle to Timothy, the offices to be 
 executed in each church of his time, mentions 
 only bishops and deacons. Calvin recognises 
 three orders of ministers of the Church ; Paul 
 only two. In which of the two orders will you 
 include lay presbyters ? In that of bishops ? I 
 hardly think that any man who understands the 
 meaning of the term bishop, as used by Paul, and 
 who knows that these lay presbyters of ours were 
 introduced into the Church for scarcely any other 
 purpose than to temper the power of the minis- 
 
4-6 THE THEORY OF 
 
 ters of the word, will seriously venture to call 
 them so. And yet, he who maintains this hypo- 
 thesis, must either add these lay elders to the 
 order of bishops, or determine that the Apostle 
 Paul, while enumerating church offices, as he here 
 sets himself carefully and designedly to do, has 
 passed them by unnoticed. How bold a saying 
 this would be, any one may easily perceive, with- 
 out a word from me." 
 
 He then proceeds to show at length the total 
 absence in Christian antiquity of any allusion to 
 elders or presbyters other than ministers of the 
 word ; and, having done so, he refers to the 
 official position of the seniores plebis in some 
 ancient churches, as at once a conclusive evidence 
 and a most worthy precedent in favour of the in- 
 stitution (institutum) of lay assessors of such a 
 kind as exist in modern Reformed Churches ; but 
 he remarks, in regard to them, not only that these 
 functionaries were never reckoned presbyters, but 
 that they were always mentioned after the deacons, 
 and that " care was taken that they should not be 
 called presbyters, lest any one should ignorantly 
 confound them with the elders or presbyters men- 
 tioned in Scripture, but seniores and ys'^o^rsc." * 
 
 Such being the opinions on this point of the 
 great and learned defenders of Presbyterianism 
 * 'De Synagog^ Vetere,' ii. 3, 482-510. See Appendix, E. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. _ 47 
 
 on the Continent In the seventeenth century, let 
 us now, before returning to our own country, 
 examine another class of writers— those, namely, 
 in foreign lands, who In our own times have made 
 the constitution and history of the early Church 
 the subject of special study, and of original and 
 critical investigation. We cite none, except such 
 as, either from ecclesiastical connection or avowed 
 conviction, view favourably the original Presby- 
 terianlsm of the Church, or whose character for 
 candour and freedom from prejudice on the sub- 
 ject is beyond question. 
 
 Foremost In these, as In many other respects, 
 we may place Neander. His view on this subject 
 is clear. While admitting the fact, that among 
 the presbyters Intrusted with the charge of each 
 Christian community at its first formation, all 
 were not alike qualified to teach, or equally em- 
 ployed In teaching, he refers to the qualifications 
 of all elders or bishops, as laid down In the 
 epistles to Timothy and Titus, as certainly im- 
 plying that they ought all to be teachers, and to 
 possess the gift of teaching.* 
 
 Gieseler -)- speaks^ of the division of presbyters 
 Into docmtes and regentes as a theory of Calvin ; 
 and refers to Vitrlnga, Neander, and Rothe for the 
 demonstration of Its unsoundness. 
 
 * 'General History of the Christian Religion and Church,' I. ii. 
 + 'Ecclesiastical History,' i. sec. 30. 
 
48 THE THEORY OF 
 
 Hase,* referring to the notices of the seiiiores 
 plehis in the African Churches, does not find 
 in them any proof of ruhng, as distinct from 
 teaching, presbyters or elders (these officials not 
 being presbyters or elders at all in the proper 
 sense), but relics evidencing the original right of 
 the laity to a voice in the administration of the 
 Church. 
 
 Schafif-f says, "The presbyters were, at the 
 same time, the regular teachers of the congrega- 
 tion, and can therefore not be put in the same 
 class with the lay elders of Presbyterian Churches. 
 On them devolved officially the exposition of the 
 Scriptures, the preaching of the Gospel, and the 
 administration of the sacraments." 
 
 Again, "These passages [Heb. xiii. 7 and 17; 
 I Tim. iii. 2] forbid our making two distinct 
 classes of presbyters, of which the one, corre- 
 sponding to the seniors or lay elders in the Cal- 
 vinistic Churches, had to do only with govern- 
 ment, and not at all with the administration of 
 doctrine and the sacraments." While admitting 
 
 * 'History of the Christian Church,' I. ii. 58. 
 
 f 'History of the Apostolic Church,' B. iii. 133. Competent 
 judges will, we think, agree in considering this work of S chaff's 
 deserving of the character given it in the 'Biblical Repository:' 
 " Eminently scholarlike and learned, full of matter — not crude 
 materials, but various and well-digested knowledge — the result of 
 systematic training and long-continued study," Bunsen, in his 
 * Hippolytus,' styles it "worthy of a scholar and a disciple of 
 Neander." 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 49 
 
 that the institution of lay rulers " rests on a very- 
 judicious ecclesiastical policy, and is, so far, alto- 
 gether justifiable," he says, " The only passage 
 appealed to in support of it [the distinction of the 
 order of presbyters or elders proper into teachers 
 and rulers] is I Tim. v. 1 7 — ' Let the elders that 
 rule well be counted worthy of double honour, 
 especially they who labour in the word and doc- 
 trine.' This ' especially,' we are told, implies 
 that there were presbyters also who officially had 
 nothing to do with teaching, and that the teaching 
 presbyters were of higher standing. But this con- 
 clusion is by no means so sure as may at first 
 sight appear. For, in the first place, it is ques- 
 tionable whether the emphasis does not rather 
 fall on TtoTtoJvTsg, referring to laborious dilige7ice in 
 teaching, as also on the xaXwj in the beginning of 
 the sentence, making the antithesis to be, not that 
 of teaching and ruling elders, but that of those 
 who rule well and teach zealously, and those who 
 both rule and teach indeed, but without any par- 
 ticular earnestness. In this view, the passage 
 would tell rather for the union of ruling and 
 teaching in the same office. But even according 
 to the other interpretation, it proves at best only 
 the fact that there were presbyters who did not 
 teach. It by no means shows that the existence 
 of such presbyters was regular, and approved by 
 the Apostle, which is here the main point. Nay, 
 D 
 
50 THE THEORY OF 
 
 unless we would involve Paul in self-contradiction, 
 we must suppose the very opposite. For in I 
 Tim. iii. 2, Tit. i. 9 (compare 2 Tim. ii. 24), he 
 makes aptness to teach an indispensable qualifi- 
 cation for the office of bishop [elder] without ex- 
 ception." 
 
 The same author, in another work,* has the fol- 
 lowing passage — " Bishops or presbyters : these 
 two terms denote in the New Testament the same 
 office, the first signifying its duties, the second its 
 dignity. The presbyters were the regular over- 
 seers, teachers, and pastors of the several congre- 
 gations, intrusted with the direction of public wor- 
 ship, the administration of discipline, the cure of 
 souls, and the management of church property. 
 We find them always in the plural as a college, at 
 Jerusalem, at Ephesus, at Philippi, and at the or- 
 dination of Timothy. As to the mutual relations 
 of the members of the presbytery, the division of 
 labour among them, the nature and term of their 
 presidency, the New Testament gives us no infor- 
 mation." " The distinction of teaching presbyters 
 or ministers proper, and ruling presbyters or lay 
 elders, rests on a single passage (i Tim. v. 17), 
 which unquestionably admits a different interpre- 
 tation ; especially since Paul, in the same epistle 
 (iii. 2), expressly mentions ability to teach among 
 the requisites for the episcopal or presbyterial 
 
 * ' History of the Christian Church, ' I. par. i. § 42. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 51 
 
 office." In a subsequent paragraph (§ 43) the 
 same author finds, in the mention made by the 
 Apostles and elders of " the brethren," and in other 
 passages, " a plain proof of the right of the Chris- 
 tian people to take part in some way in the gov- 
 ernment of the Church, as they do in her worship. 
 The spirit and practiceof the Apostles thus favoured 
 a certain kind of popular self-government, and the 
 harmonious fraternal co-operation of the different 
 elements of the Church." " The Council of Jeru- 
 salem, though not a binding precedent, is a signi- 
 ficant example, giving the Apostolic sanction to 
 the synodical form of church government, in which 
 all classes of the Christian community are repre- 
 sented in the management of public affairs." 
 
 De Pressense * " finds not a vestige in the Apos- 
 tolic Church of two classes of elders;" and, allud- 
 ing to Calvin's classification, says, " This idea has 
 no scriptural foundation. No such line of demar- 
 cation is anywhere drawn between two orders of 
 elders. The passage, i Tim. v. 17, proves nothing 
 in regard to this. It forms part of an epistle of 
 which the leading idea is anxiety in regard to false 
 doctrine, and in which capital importance is thus 
 given to teaching. There is no trace in it of an 
 ecclesiastical polity." 
 
 Miller, in the introduction to his singularly illo- 
 
 * ' Histoire des Trois Premiers Slides de I'Eglise Chretienne,' ii. 
 p. 233- 
 
52 THE THEORY OF 
 
 gical essay, addressing his brethren of the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States, acknowledges 
 that " some of them do not concur with him in 
 maintaining the divine authority of the office of 
 ruHng elder." He would have been equally right 
 had he added that not some only, but a very great 
 number, who admit that there is scriptural author- 
 ity for such a representation of the laity as the 
 office practically affi^rds, utterly repudiate his 
 mode of proving this, and his idea that the assess- 
 ors who represent the laity in church-sessions and 
 other courts, are, in the proper sense, presbyters or 
 elders. In fact, the publication of his treatise was 
 quickly followed by, if it did not call forth, that of 
 others in the same country, in which that theory 
 is rejected and disclaimed. We shall cite three 
 among the most eminent defenders of Presby- 
 terianism who have appeared in America since 
 that time. 
 
 Dr J. P. Wilson, in his * Primitive Government 
 of Christian Churches ' — a work in high esteem as 
 evincing great and original research — confidently 
 declares, after a careful examination of all the 
 Fathers of the first six centuries, that they never 
 in any case refer to an order of men similar to our 
 ruling elders under the term presbyters.^ 
 
 Barnes, the able defender of Presbyterianism 
 
 * 'Primitive Government of the Church,' Philadelphia, 1833, p. 
 372. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. §3 
 
 against Onderdonk, in his commentary on i Tim. 
 V. 17, says, "It cannot, I think, be certainly con- 
 cluded from this passage that the ruling elders 
 who did not teach or preach were regarded as a 
 separate class or order of permanent officers in the 
 Church;" and clearly indicates that he holds the 
 same view with Neander as to the office and func- 
 tions of the presbyters of the early Church. 
 
 Lastly, we may refer to Smyth of Charleston, 
 whose work on Presbytery, reprinted in this coun- 
 try, contains a wonderful mass of information and 
 argument in opposition to High-Church Prelacy. 
 His opinion on the subject before us is expressed 
 strongly and decidedly, as that of one who has 
 felt deeply the injury done to the cause he has ex- 
 pended great labour in defending, by the theory in 
 question. " This view of the passage (i Tim. v. 17) 
 we are constrained," he says, "to reject, for many 
 reasons. We do not think there is any evidence 
 whatever that our ruling elders are in any case 
 alluded to in Scripture under the term ' presby- 
 ters ' or ' elders.' These titles are, we think, in all 
 cases employed to denote teachers or ministers. 
 The same is true of the tistis loqtiendi of the 
 Fathers. With them also the term presbyter is 
 employed to denote the order of teacher, not the 
 order of ruling elder. This latter office they cer- 
 tainly refer to, but it is under the terms senior 
 and seniores plebisr 
 
54 THE THEORY OF 
 
 " The officers now called ' ruling elders ' are still 
 to be regarded as scriptural and proper. They 
 are spoken of in Scripture, although not under the 
 title of presbyters. Christ, as we have seen, dele- 
 gated all power to the body of the Church. But 
 as all cannot be officers, and as all cannot meet 
 to transact business, they must act by delegated 
 officers, that is, by ruling elders, who are, as ouf 
 standards teach, the representatives of the people. 
 We find, therefore, that such officers sat with 
 the Apostles and presbyters in the councils of 
 the Church as delegated commissioners, under 
 the title of 'the brethren.' Acts i. 15-26, vi. 1-6, 
 and XV." * 
 
 Returning to the subject in a note at the end of 
 his work, Smyth refers to numerous learned Pres- 
 byterian writers who agree with him, and concludes 
 his observations with the following just remark — 
 "The whole burden of proof, therefore, rests on 
 those who generalise the term presbyter so as to 
 include * ruling elders.' The presumption is en- 
 tirely against them. And solid proof they ought 
 assuredly to bring forward before confounding 
 Scripture statements and terms, so as to make 
 them mean nothing in particular, and to have no 
 special or official application, and thus involving us 
 in the absurdity that all ruling elders are bishops 
 and teachers, and are, as they must therefore neces- 
 
 * Smyth on Presbytery. Ed. Collins, Glasgow, p. 124. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 55 
 
 sarily be, entitled to preach, to administer the 
 sacraments, and to ordain." 
 
 Before closing this review of the history of the 
 question, it may be of importance to show that — to 
 whatever extent the theory under discussion may 
 have survived, in the popular mind, in Scotland, 
 the renunciation of it involved in the adoption 
 by the General Assembly of the Westminster con- 
 clusions in 1645, and may have been kept alive by 
 the incautious use of terms and by popular writers 
 — it has been treated, not merely as ecclesias- 
 tically unauthorised, but as untenable, by the most 
 eminent writers in the several departments of 
 ecclesiastical and theological literature. We shall 
 cite four of these: Jameson, Wodrow, Campbell 
 of Aberdeen, and Hill of St Andrews. 
 
 Let us listen first to Jameson of Glasgow, the 
 learned author of * Verus Patroclus,' ' Nazianzeni 
 Querela,' ^ Roma Racoviana,' ' Cyprianus Isoti- 
 mus,' &c., a man whose attachment to Presbyteri- 
 anism was as ardent as his erudition, in spite of 
 blindness, was unquestionable ; — 
 
 " Nor had the people interest and power only 
 in the calling of their bishop or pastor ; but also, 
 in the management of other affairs of the Church, 
 they could by themselves, or which is much more 
 convenient and commodious (as is now proved), 
 by their seniors, their delegates, and representa- 
 
5^ THE THEORY OF 
 
 tives, preserve their sacred liberties from the 
 clergy's encroachments." " And those seniors or 
 ruling elders they justly believed to be of divine 
 right." " F. S. spends his whole eighth chapter 
 against this worshipful order (as he scornfully 
 terms ruling elders), and yet the only noticeable 
 argument he advances against them is, in sum, 
 this : that the asserting of them is not consistent 
 with the Presbyterian doctrine of the dichotomiz- 
 ing the church officers.* * G. R. himself,' saith he, 
 * will not allow them to be sought for among the 
 deacons ; and no man has said — G. R. himself will 
 not say — that his ruling elders are of the same order 
 with pastors.' But this argument quite evanishes 
 if we repone that those elders are the representa- 
 tives of the Sacra Plebs or of the Church, as it is 
 opposed unto or distinguished from church officers 
 properly so called — bishops or pastors, and deacons ; 
 and therefore that they are not, in a strict sense, 
 church officers. For I am so well assured of this 
 truth, that only bishops or presbyters and deacons 
 are, in a proper and strict sense, church officers, 
 that if anything I ever said can be proved to con- 
 tradict this, I willingly revoke and retract it." He 
 then refers to Blondel's view as similar to his 
 own.-f- 
 
 * The doctrine that only two orders of church officers are of 
 divine right — viz., presbyter-bishops and deacons. 
 
 + Jameson, *Cyprianus Isotimus.' See also his 'Sum of the 
 Episcopal Controversy,' I. iv. 40; and Appendix, F. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 57 
 
 The opinion of Wodrow is given in a letter to a 
 friend who had appHed to him for information and 
 advice in the prospect of being appointed to the 
 office of. the eldership. In this valuable letter, 
 which Dr M'Crie the editor justly styles judicious, 
 the author enters into the subject at great length, 
 and, while expressing a very strong conviction of 
 the scriptural warrant for such an office, rejects 
 I Tim. V. 17 as not applying to it : — " First, I must 
 lay it down as the foundation of all, that ruling 
 elders are indeed instituted by Christ, the Apostle 
 of the New Testament Church, as officers of the 
 Church and house whereof He is the head. I need 
 not prove this. I freely own to you that the argu- 
 ments drawn from the Old Testament have not 
 that weight with me with respect to this or any 
 other New Testament office that I find they have 
 with some others ; and the place most insisted on, 
 I Tim. V. 17, is so vexed by criticisms on both 
 hands, that reading on it long since rather shoke 
 than settled me as to this office. The place that 
 mainly settled me was Acts xv. 23, upon which 
 you know my sentiments. And, besides, the first 
 and pure antiquity seems to be very plain for some 
 share in rule to the representatives of the people ; 
 and the nature and privileges of believers under 
 the New Testament go pretty far to convince me 
 of the reasonableness of this office. The main 
 difficulty," he adds, " to me anent this office is the 
 
J3 THE THEORY OF 
 
 argument from the dichotomy that Paul in his 
 epistles insists so much upon — bishops and dea- 
 cons." * In another letter, addressed to Jameson, 
 dated July 2, 17 13, he says, with reference to an 
 occasion on which he had admitted some elders in 
 his parish, " I preached upon Acts xv. 23, as the 
 most convincing place to me as to the foundation 
 of these officers." f 
 
 The number, we have reason to believe, is not 
 small of those who, like the worthy pastor of 
 Eastwood, have been " rather shoke than settled " 
 by having their minds brought fairly into contact 
 with the overloaded text from i Timothy. Can- 
 did and scholarly men, on turning to it naturally 
 as the basis of a discourse on the occasion of the 
 admission of elders in their congregations, have 
 found themselves in no small degree perplexed, 
 and have been compelled, like Wodrow, to retreat 
 to safer and more general ground, such as Acts xv. 
 23, the lay elders of the Jewish dispensation, and 
 the voice of history and expediency. 
 
 We now come to the illustrious and learned 
 antagonist of Hume, who stands unrivalled in 
 Scotland as a Biblical critic. In his sixth lecture 
 on Ecclesiastical History, Dr Campbell gives the 
 following full and unambiguous statement of his 
 views : — 
 
 * Wodrow's Correspondence, i. p. 179. Nov. 29, 17 10. 
 t Ibid., p. 475. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 59 
 
 " It has, in modern times, been made a question 
 whether the presbyters, even exclusive of their 
 president, could all come under one denomination ; 
 or whether some of these were properly pastors 
 and teachers, and others only assistants in matters 
 of government and discipline. Some keen advo- 
 cates for presbytery, as the word is now under- 
 stood, on the model of John Calvin, have imagined 
 they discovered this distinction in these words of 
 Paul to Timothy, — ' Let the elders that rule well 
 be counted worthy of double honour, especially 
 they who labour in the word and doctrine.' Here, 
 say they, is a twofold partition of the officers com- 
 prised under the same name into those who rule 
 and those who labour in the word and doctrine — 
 that is, into ruling elders and teaching elders. To 
 this it is replied, on the other side, that the especi- 
 ally is not intended to indicate a different office, 
 but to distinguish from others those who assiduous- 
 ly apply themselves to the most important, as well 
 as the most difficult, part of their office, public 
 teaching ; that the distinction intended is therefore 
 not official but personal ; that it does not relate to 
 a difference in the powers conferred, but solely to 
 a difference in their application. It is not to the 
 persons who have the charge, but to those who 
 labour in it, 0/ xott/witss. And to this exposition, as 
 by far the most statural, I entirely agree. What 
 was affirmed before, in relation to the coincidence 
 
60 THE THEORY OF 
 
 of the office of bishop and presbyter, from the uni- 
 form and promiscuous appHcatlon of the sam.e 
 names and titles, may doubtless be urged in the 
 present case with still greater strength. The dis- 
 tinction is too considerable between a pastor and 
 a lay elder, as it is called, to be invariably con- 
 founded under a common name. When the char- 
 acter of such as are proper for the office of elder 
 is pointed out by Paul to Timothy, apt to teach, 
 or fit for teaching, 5/Saxr/%og, is mentioned as an 
 essential quality ; and though the words be diffe- 
 rent in the charge to Titus, the same thing Is im- 
 plied, /Va dvvarog fi za/ cra^axaXs/v sv rfj hiha^Kctkici tj\ 
 vyiaivovg'fi, zai rovg avriXsyovrac zKiyyjiv^ that he may be 
 able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to con- 
 vince the gainsayers. This is spoken indiscrimi- 
 nately of all who were proper to be nominated 
 bishops or elders, which we cannot suppose would 
 have been done, if some of them were to have no 
 concern in teaching. We find no such quality 
 among those mentioned as necessary in deacons. 
 And a dubious, not to say forced, exposition of a 
 single passage of Scripture Is rather too small a 
 circumstance whereon to found a distinction of so 
 great consequence. If, therefore, it were only from 
 this passage that an argument could be brought 
 for the admission of those denominated laymen to 
 a share in the management of church affairs, I, for 
 my part, should most readily acknowledge that 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 6 1 
 
 our warrant for the practice would be extremely 
 questionable." 
 
 Finally, we may cite Principal Hill of St An- 
 drews, an author remarkable for comprehensive- 
 ness of view and sound judgment. Dr Hill plainly 
 intimates that even the three texts commonly ad- 
 duced for the purpose may seem, when taken by 
 themselves, to afford a slender or doubtful foun- 
 dation for the opinion that, in the days of the 
 Apostles, there were ruling presbyters distinct from 
 preaching presbyters; and then, with characteris- 
 tic judiciousness, proceeds to show the authority 
 afforded for the admission of representatives of the 
 laity into church courts by an enlarged view of 
 the history of the Church, and the great practical 
 value of the institution.* When it is considered 
 that the theory under discussion can claim the 
 countenance of one only of the three texts above 
 referred to, we must infer that Hill viewed that 
 theory with little favour. 
 
 These quotations might probably be enlarged, 
 but, for the purpose we have in view, it is surely 
 unnecessary. The authors we have referred to 
 are representative men in their several walks of 
 ecclesiastical literature — men to whom, in their 
 special departments, no Scottish Presbyterian 
 writers during the last 200 years can be equalled, 
 if compared. Jameson's is the only name known 
 
 * * Theological Institutes,' ii. 2. 
 
62 " THE THEORY OF 
 
 among us during that period, except Campbell's, 
 for original study of the constitution and history 
 of the Church at its sources. In acquaintance 
 with the special history of Presbyterianism, and in 
 zeal for its distinctive theories, we have no equal 
 to Wodrow, whose name has, in fact, from this 
 very circumstance, been adopted as the designa- 
 tion of a society formed for the republication of 
 the old Presbyterian literature of Scotland. Of 
 Campbell and Hill it is unnecessary to speak. 
 Let it be observed also that the quotations we 
 have made from these authors are not hasty and 
 casual expressions, but the deliberate conclusions 
 of very able and conscientious men, whose minds 
 were fully directed to the subject. We may there- 
 fore conclude that the theory which classes lay 
 assessors in church courts with elders or presby- 
 ters in the strict and proper sense, and which 
 claims support from i Tim. v. 17, can plead almost 
 as little the countenance of competent individual 
 opinion as it can any public authority since 1645. 
 
 It may be asked, Qiiorsum hcecf Is it the object 
 — may it not at all events be the tendency — of this 
 discussion, to weaken the position and influence of 
 the lay element in the Church } We reply, first, 
 that the ascertainment and maintenance of the 
 truth in all things, especially in matters relating 
 to religion and the Church, is our plain duty, irre- 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 63 
 
 spective of consequences ; and secondly, that even 
 at the risk of the consequence apprehended, the 
 cause of the Reformed poHty in its great principles 
 imperatively demands that it be disembarrassed of 
 a theory which is repudiated by its most learned 
 friends as unjustified by Scripture and antiquity, 
 which lays it open to the charge of straining the 
 Word of God, and which, by involving it in con- 
 fusion, self-contradiction, and absurdity, shakes its 
 very foundations. 
 
 But, in reality, so far from either contemplating 
 or apprehending any result prejudicial to the lay 
 element, our very object is to promote its efficiency 
 where it exists, and its extension where it does 
 not ; and these ends, we are persuaded, may be 
 most efficiently secured by placing it in its true 
 light and on its proper basis. Both, it is to be 
 feared, have been greatly impeded by the theory 
 in question. We have no doubt that the presbyter 
 theory of the lay assessorship, apart from the in- 
 jury done by it in other respects to the cause of 
 the Reformed polity, has hampered and paralysed 
 the very institution which it might be supposed 
 to strengthen. Those men who by character and 
 intelligence are best fitted to serve the Church in 
 that office, are those also most conscientiously desir- 
 ous to have clear and definite views of their position 
 and duties. Such persons, referring to Scripture for 
 instruction, are inevitably directed, by the popular 
 
64 THE THEORY OF 
 
 theory of their office, to the passages in which a 
 definite account of the quaHfications of presbyters 
 is given. They are perplexed by seeing no instruc- 
 tions in those passages for such a special class as 
 that to which they are represented as belonging, 
 and they are repelled by finding that aptness for 
 teaching, and for maintaining the truth in contro- 
 versy, occupies a prominent place in the qualifica- 
 tions required in ^//presbyters, and that (in perfect 
 consistency, it must be allowed, with the theory) 
 they are in some places expected to exhort and to 
 pray publicly — not as Christian men suitably en- 
 dowed may upon occasion laudably and profitably 
 do — but in an official manner, and as under official 
 obligation and engagement to do so. There are 
 many who would feel that they occupied an intel- 
 ligible and honourable position if, as laymen, the 
 recognised chiefs and representatives of their breth- 
 ren, they were permitted to lay upon the altar such 
 gifts as they possess — who would gladly bring both 
 to the local administration, and to the more general 
 councils of the Church, the precious contributions 
 of sound judgment, wholesome influence, practical 
 knowledge of men and things, and earnest, honest, 
 gratuitous zeal ; but who, when they are desired 
 to assume the guise and obligations of presbyters 
 or bishops of a mutilated and inferior order, for 
 whose guidance Scripture gives no instructions, 
 and which popular opinion subjects in an indefinite 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 65 
 
 degree to the responsibilities and duties of the 
 presbyterate, are confused and hesitate. The con- 
 sequence is, that the community loses the import- 
 ant services they are able and willing to render, 
 by imposing on them a character and functions 
 which they do not feel warranted to assume. 
 
 Fortunately, in most cases, the purely lay 
 aspect which the institution actually presents, 
 overbears in practice the evils of the theory. 
 Were the theory honestly followed out, and the 
 precept in i Tim. v. 17 obeyed, the ruling elders 
 ought to be stipendiaries of the Church, as uni- 
 formly if not so liberally maintained by it, as the 
 ministers of word and sacraments. The admin- 
 istration of the Church would then be entirely 
 in the hands of a professional class, and the ines- 
 timable benefits resulting from the presence in 
 her councils of those having no interests or bias 
 apart from the body of the Church members, 
 would be lost* The great and peculiar value of 
 the lay assessors arises from ignoring entirely 
 
 * Even Gillespie, the champion at Westminster of the theory 
 combated in these pages, appears to see, when contemplating the 
 matter from a different point of view, the justice and importance 
 of a representation of the laity, as such, in the courts and councils 
 of the Church, and maintains the necessity for the functionaries 
 called ruling elders, on that very ground. " Our divines," he says, 
 " prove against Papists that some of those whom they call laics 
 ought to have place in the assemblies of the Church, by this argu- 
 ment, among the rest, because otherwise the whole Church could 
 not be thereby represented." — * Assertion of the Government of the 
 Church of Scotland,' i. 10. 
 
66 THE THEORY OF 
 
 the precept contained in the verse on which the 
 theory respecting them is based. While styled 
 presbyters, they are inconsistently but most hap- 
 pily viewed, by themselves, and for the most 
 part by others, as what they really are — laymen 
 to all intents and purposes, identified with their 
 brethren in the ordinary walks of life. In this, 
 we say, lies their great value, and we cannot look 
 with favour upon a theory which, if consistently 
 carried out, would rob us of so inestimable a boon.* 
 
 But if the theory we have been discussing im- 
 pairs the efficiency of the office of lay councillor 
 in these religious communities in which that office 
 exists, its rejection is also desirable with a view to 
 the general, cordial, and regular admission of the 
 laity, throughout all the other branches of the 
 Church, to that position and voice in ecclesiastical 
 administration which their just rights and the 
 good of the body of Christ alike demand. Surely 
 the visible Church is not to remain always in its 
 present divided condition ; but that any united 
 or uniform — we may go further, and say any 
 efficient — Church organisation should ever be 
 formed, in which that position and voice should 
 be withheld, is plainly impossible. In fact, in no 
 branch of the Church is the laity, even now, abso- 
 lutely and in theory unrepresented. In the Church 
 
 * See Appendix, G. 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 6/ 
 
 of England there are, as we have seen, " footsteps" 
 of lay rulers in the churchwardens, in the dormant 
 office of sidesmen, and in the lay judges of the 
 ecclesiastical courts. In the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church of the United States, the admirable con- 
 stitution of which combines the advantages of Pres- 
 bytery and Episcopacy, the lay element is repre- 
 sented and employed in a most wise and efficient 
 manner in the councils, at least, of the Church.* 
 The Congregational Independents, who, whatever 
 may be the faults of their polity, have by their doc- 
 trine and their lives done much for the cause of truth 
 and righteousness, would, it is believed, in many 
 instances, although adhering in principle to their 
 fundamental tenet in church government, be found 
 not unwilling, like their forefathers at Westmin- 
 ster, to devolve, to some extent, the power which 
 they hold to be in the whole congregation, on a 
 selected body or session, provided this were pro- 
 posed to be done " on a prudential ground," and 
 not in connection with the figment of ruling pres- 
 byters. In the present condition of Independency, 
 the real power and usefulness of the lay element are 
 impaired by its excess. Nowhere is that element 
 so fully, so rationally, or so beneficially repre- 
 sented and employed in promoting the purity and 
 life of the community, as in Presbyterian Churches; 
 and yet this special excellence of their organisa- 
 
 * See Caswall's 'America and American Church.' 
 
68 THE THEORY OF 
 
 tion, instead of commending itself to the imitation 
 of other Churches, has been rendered distasteful 
 by its connection with an unfortunate name and 
 theory. Abandoned as that theory is by the 
 learned, and destitute of authority, it is to be 
 hoped that Presbyterians will cease from clogging, 
 as they do, by maintaining it, an institution which 
 is, and might be even more than it is, their 
 strength and glory. 
 
 It would be a mistake to infer, from what has 
 been said regarding the theory of the ofhce under 
 discussion, that any material change of a practical 
 kind is desired or desirable in that office as exist- 
 ing in Presbyterian Churches. No such result was 
 thought of by the learned divines who have endea- 
 voured to rectify the erroneous ideas entertained 
 as to the basis on which it rests. The view which, j 
 with them, we believe to be the only tenable one, 
 leaves the mode of choosing the lay councillors of 
 the Church, the securities to be required for their 
 soundness in the faith, the formalities of their 
 appointment, and the conditions of their continu- 
 ance in office, to be arranged on considerations of 
 Christian expediency. ) Such considerations may 
 sanction or require a diversity of arrangement in 
 regard to these matters in different communities. 
 But when all the objects of the institution are 
 taken into view, no system of arrangements ap- 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 69 
 
 pears, as a whole, better adapted to promote 
 these objects, than that which exists in the Church 
 of Scotland ; and although the term ordination, 
 vulgarly employed to designate the formal instal- 
 lation of members of the parochial council, is, in 
 the technical sense, inconsistent with the true 
 view of their position as seniores plebis — the re- 
 presentatives of the tmordained members of the 
 Church, as distinct from its professional function- 
 aries — and is therefore apt to mislead ; yet nothing 
 can be more proper, in every point of view, than 
 the customary solemnity of admitting them to 
 their important duties with public prayer. 
 
 It may be thought that, if the true position of 
 the officials under consideration be what we have 
 maintained it to be, they ought, as a consequence, 
 to be appointed to office by the whole body of the 
 laity, and not, as is usual in the Church of Scot- 
 land and some other Presbyterian Churches, by 
 co-optation — that is, by selection on the part of 
 the existing Session. But this by no means fol- 
 lows. As laymen, they are representatives, in the 
 administration of the Church, of the interests and 
 feelings of their peers, whether chosen directly by 
 the whole body of the laity, or by those who have 
 themselves been set up as " chief men among the 
 brethren," and who, as a general rule, will be 
 found better judges of character and qualification 
 for the office, more deeply interested in the good 
 
70 THE THEORY OF 
 
 and peaceful management of the parish or congre- 
 gation, and certainly far less subject to undue 
 influences, than most of the ordinary members. 
 It is a coarse conception of freedom, though com- 
 mon in the present day, which regards it as dimin- 
 ished in value or endangered, unless the hand and 
 voice of the whole community are officially active 
 at every turn. If there be one lesson more dis- 
 tinctly taught than others by Scottish Church 
 history, it is how much tyranny may at times be 
 veiled under democratic forms and watchwords. 
 There are cases in Avhich, under a system of popu- 
 lar election, the consciences of the humbler mem- 
 bers of a congregation must be subjected to cruel 
 violence. A landlord, a large employer of labour, 
 or a local demagogue, whom no wise or right- 
 minded Session would think of adding to its num- 
 ber, might.be forced into it by those who, though 
 knowing the man's unfitness for the office, could 
 not refuse him their votes. 
 
 We should gain little by escaping the discredit 
 and embarrassment of a false theory, if we were to 
 give ourselves up, without judgment or considera- 
 tion of circumstances, to the most extreme infer- 
 ences that may be drawn from a sound one. The 
 great rule, the supreme law of church polity, is, 
 that all things be done with a view to edification, 
 decently and in order; and although there may 
 be communities in which this may be best accom- 
 
RULING ELDERSHIP. 7 1 
 
 plished by a direct popular choice, or where that 
 mode of choice may be unavoidable, or where it 
 may be attended with little danger to the peace 
 and unity of congregations, we believe that selec- 
 tion by the existing Session, which (while giving 
 greater weight to other considerations than the 
 body of the people can do) would seldom fail to 
 discern and respect sound popular opinion, will, 
 as a general rule, be found to promote most effectu- 
 ally the dignity and usefulness of the office. 
 
 Some writers on the subject have recorded their 
 own pastoral experience as in favour of popular 
 election. It is very probable that, in congrega- 
 tions trained and guided by good and able men, 
 such as these writers were, the results of such a 
 mode of election were on the whole favourable. 
 But they are on that very ground deceptive, and 
 the value of such testimony, when adduced with 
 the view of recommending popular election as a 
 general rule, is diminished by the very excellencies 
 of those who give it. It is unwise to frame the 
 machinery of government, whether in the Church 
 or in the State, in a confident expectation of its 
 being always wisely and skilfully handled. Laws 
 — and church laws like others — must be such as 
 shall be workable by average men in ordinary 
 circumstances, if they are to work for good. 
 
 It does not appear to be generally known or 
 remembered that the appointment of members of 
 
72 THEORY OF RULING ELDERSHIP. 
 
 session by co-optation instead of by popular elec- 
 tion, if not the original and universal practice in 
 the Church of Scotland from the earliest times, 
 was formally sanctioned at a period when popular 
 rights were certainly not kept out of sight by the 
 Church, and which is often pointed to as that in 
 which its Presbyterian polity was in the most 
 vigorous and healthy exercise. The Act of the 
 General Assembly of 1642 ordains "That the old 
 session elect the new one, both in burgh and land ; 
 and if any place shall vaik, in the session chosen, 
 by death or otherwise, that the present session 
 have the election of the person to fill the vacant 
 room." 
 
 Lastly, there is nothing in what has been said to 
 condemn the laudable and useful custom in accord- 
 ance with which a minister of the word and sac- 
 raments, not holding at the time a pastoral charge, 
 is admitted as a member of the parochial council 
 in the congregation in which he worships. His 
 position is for the time similar to that of the lay 
 members of the Church, and if his brethren of the 
 laity consider that his counsels or aid may be of 
 service either directly or as a delegate to the 
 higher courts of the Church, there is no reason 
 why they should not accept, or why he should 
 not afford them. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A, p. 6. 
 
 The use of the words lay^ laity ^ layman, has been ob- 
 jected to. The objection might deserve consideration, 
 if the use of these terms implied any sanction of such 
 a distinction between the people and the clergy as 
 was once held to exist. But where a distinction does 
 exist, as certainly there does between those who are 
 educated, consecrated, and maintained with a view to 
 spiritual functions, and those for whose benefit they 
 are educated, consecrated, and maintained, it is mere 
 squeamishness to object to the use of terms for 
 marking that distinction, merely because erroneous 
 ideas have been sometimes connected with the distinc- 
 tion in question. The terms are applied in reference 
 to ecclesiastical relations in the same sense, and in no 
 other, as that in which they may be, and, in fact, 
 frequently are, employed in reference to other rela- 
 tions. Thus we may, and sometimes do, speak of 
 lawyers and lay7?ten, meaning those who are, and those 
 who are not, lawyers, &c. At all events, some equally 
 convenient terms should be proposed by those who 
 
74 APPENDIX. 
 
 object to the terms consecrated by use. Certainly, 
 little is gained by such cumbrous and inconsistent cir- 
 cumlocutions as, " those whom some call laics ; " " the 
 members of the Church, as distinguished from the 
 ministers of the word and sacraments," &c. 
 
 Again, where the absurdity of the objection in ques- 
 tion is admitted, another objection is made to the ap- 
 plication of the term lay or laymen to the functionaries 
 called elders in the Reformed Churches. It is main- 
 tained that, as invested with ecclesiastical office, they 
 ought not to be classed with the laity. " But they cer- 
 tainly are," as Hill observes, " laymen in this respect, 
 that they have no right to teach or to dispense the 
 sacraments." A justice of the peace and a juryman, 
 although exercising important functions in the ad- 
 ministration of the law, occupy a different position in 
 reference to it from that of barristers and solicitors. 
 They are, as regards the law, laymen. In fact, the 
 great value of the functionaries in question consists in 
 their layma7iship — their identification with the people, 
 as distinct from the professional functionaries of the 
 Church, in all respects, and in all the relations of life. 
 
 B, p. 7. 
 
 T^ TYjvixuds avTOiig s/ffdyovciv, Jd/cc /xsv <7roi7}ffavrsg rdyfioc 
 rojv aoTi doyjiiLhoiv^ '/,al siffccyo/xivm^ xai ouds'^M to crv^aQoXov 
 TOO d'TOKSxadd^^at dvsiXi^poTOJV' Irs^ov ds rb ruiv Kara ro 
 
APPENDIX. 75 
 
 dvvctrhv TaDotffryjffdvruv savrco)/ rriv 'Trooai^idiv^ ov'x, aXXo ri 
 Qo-jXiff&at, 7} ra 'S.oisriu^oTg do/iovvra ' '^raf oTg siffi rmg ts- 
 rciyiJjhdt iT^og ro (piXo'TrsvffrzTv rovg Qiovg xa/ Tag ayuyccg ruv 
 vooamrojVj ha rovg f/jh ra h'xthh'/iTa 'z^drrovrag d'JO/tMXvccfjdiv 
 rianv sTri rov xoivov avTuv ffvXXoyov. 
 
 C, p. 23. 
 
 The idea of the constitution of the early Churches 
 with which this view is connected, besides giving 
 countenance to an erroneous theory of the office of the 
 lay ruler, is fraught with other evils to the cause of the 
 Reformed ecclesiastical polity, of which its support- 
 ers appear to be unconscious. After being repudiated 
 by the standard writers on church government of the 
 Reformed Churches, it has been caught up again by 
 popular writers, who take but a partial and imperfect 
 view of the field of controversy, under the impression 
 of its being a good weapon of defence against the 
 claims of High-Church Episcopacy. 
 
 Unable to deny the all but universal prevalence of 
 Episcopacy very soon after the death of the Apostles, 
 these writers — instead of endeavouring, like the great 
 scholars who preceded them, to show that this Epis- 
 copacy was not prelatical, but presidential, connected 
 and compatible with a substantially Presbyterian govern- 
 ment, and, even if sanctioned, yet not prescribed by 
 .the Apostles — :seek to turn to their own account the 
 
'jd APPENDIX. 
 
 fact which they cannot deny, by having recourse to the 
 theory that the Episcopacy of the first two or three 
 centuries was only a parochial Episcopacy, always 
 limited to the oversight of a single congregation — an 
 Episcopacy of which the bishop and the presbyters are 
 exactly represented by a modem parish minister and 
 session. Nay, they go so far as to tell us, when they 
 have appointed deacons to take care of the poor, that 
 they have "the three orders," bishop, presbyter, and 
 deacon ! 
 
 This theory, which is set forth and contemplated with 
 extraordinary satisfaction, not only by Miller, who views 
 with great self-complacency his own picture of a primitive 
 " Church," presided over by a bishop and " a bench of 
 ruling elders," but by others, has no basis in Scripture or 
 in history — being at variance with the ideas presented 
 to us by both, under the terms Church, Bishop, and 
 Presbyter — and if it had, so far from strengthening, as 
 these writers are desirous of doing, would undermine 
 the defences of the Reformed polity, and prove favour- 
 able only to a sort of congregational independency. 
 
 If what is claimed for each minister of a particular 
 parish or congregation under this theory were merely 
 that all " presbyters," at the first formation of churches, 
 and in the language of the New Testament, were 
 " bishops," and that he, being a presbyter, is, in the 
 New Testament sense, a bishop, having jointly with his 
 co-presbyters the corporate oversight of the city or 
 district in which his parish or congregation lies, and a 
 special delegated oversight of his own portion of that. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 77. 
 
 city or district, this is precisely the view taken by all 
 sound writers, and is in fact denied by no one. But 
 this is not what is meant. On the contrary, those 
 who hold this theory refuse; to those whom they call 
 presbyters, with the exception of one in each congrega- 
 tion, the title of bishop. Their view is, that the modern 
 parish minister and his session represent the bishop 
 and presbyters of an age succeeding that of the Apostles, 
 when the bishop had become distinct from the pres- 
 byters — that he is, in short, such a bishop as those 
 of the second or third century, whose episcopate, 
 although admitted by all to have been humble and 
 territorially limited, as compared with that of later 
 times, w^as certainly a different thing from the share 
 of the joint episcopate held by each individual pres- 
 byter-bishop in the cities of Ephesus or Philippi at the 
 first formation of the Churches there. 
 
 Now, if this supposed identity of the modem parish 
 minister with the bishop of the second century be 
 founded on the fact that the bishop presided over only 
 a single church, that is indeed true; but then that 
 church was not, in principle or idea, even if sometimes 
 in fact, a single congregation. It comprehended in- 
 variably the whole body of professing Christians in a 
 city, whether consisting of a few hundreds or of many 
 thousands, without reference to the circumstance of 
 their worshipping in one or in several buildings. On 
 the theory under discussion, there are as many bishops 
 and churches in a city as there are parish ministers and 
 parishes. In ancient times, we never read of more 
 
J^ APPENDIX. 
 
 churches or more bishops than one in a city, as we 
 must have done if the ancient " church " and the 
 modem " congregation " were synonymous. Those 
 who hold this view appear to forget that the defenders 
 of the Reformed or Presbyterian view of church govern- 
 ment are between two fires, and that there is danger 
 lest, in rashly taking up a position to avoid the assaults 
 of High-Church Episcopacy, they lay themselves open 
 to those of Independency. 
 
 Again, if the alleged identity be founded on the fact, 
 that the territorial bounds of the early bishop's jurisdic- 
 tion were often designated by the term Taoo/x/a, from 
 which our word/^rM is derived, this also is admitted; 
 and it is further admitted that these bounds were much 
 smaller than most medieval and modern dioceses. But 
 the term craoo/x/a, which means merely the neighbour- 
 hood or district around the bishop's residence with its 
 inhabitants, is quite indefinite as to the extent of 
 territory or number of people which it designates, and 
 must not be interpreted by notions derived from the 
 idea of a modern parish. No bishop's 'xa^or/.ia ever 
 embraced less than the whole of the city in which he 
 lived, with all its suburbs, environs, and Christian 
 inhabitants ; and as there were never two " churches " 
 or bishops, so there were never two 'rapor/.Uxi in the 
 same city. It is only at a much later period that we 
 begin to hear of the division of the bishop's cra^o/x/a or 
 diocese into hYu/i or modem parishes, each receiving 
 as its stated and formally instituted pastor one of the 
 presbyters who had previously exercised a joint super- 
 
APPENDIX. 79 
 
 vision over the whole city with his brethren of the 
 presbyterial college, under the presidency or chief 
 pastorate of the bishop. 
 
 We have never heard of its being questioned by 
 any standard Reformed divine, that the presbyter- 
 bishops of the Churches of the Apostolic age — such, for 
 instance, as those whom the Apostle Paul addresses at 
 Ephesus in Acts xx. — ^were ministers of the word, joint- 
 ly governing and instructing the whole Church in their 
 respective cities. After a century or so, we find these 
 Churches each superintended by a body of officials 
 styled presbyters, subordinated to a head, to whom the 
 title bishop, previously common to all the members of 
 the body, is now confined — although he is still sometimes, 
 as Polycarp was by Irenaeus, styled a presbyter. What 
 were this bishop and presbyters ? With one voice all 
 Episcopalians and all Presbyterians, of whatever school 
 or shade of opinion, have been accustomed to answer, 
 A body of ministers of the word and ordinances, as be- 
 fore j although High-Church Episcopalians or Prelatists 
 would differ from moderate Episcopalians and Presby- 
 terians as to the source and extent of the special power 
 and dignity of the bishop. But, according to the new 
 theory we are considering, this body, which was, in the 
 infancy of the Church and in the time of the Apostle, a 
 college of ministers, or, in ordinary language, a presby- 
 tery, has dwindled down into a single minister and a 
 session. This is certainly at variance with what we 
 have been accustomed to read and believe of the rapid 
 increase and development of the Church. 
 
80 APPENDIX. 
 
 Where, we would ask, on this theory, is to be found 
 the authority or precedent for Presbyterian church 
 government beyond the sphere of the single congrega- 
 tion ? The Reformed divines have hitherto been accus- 
 tomed to find it in the fact that the first " Churches," 
 embracing all the Christians of each city, were placed 
 by the Apostles under the corporate charge of a body 
 of presbyter-bishops, amongst whom, only after the lapse 
 of some centuries, the cities and their environs were 
 portioned out in distinct parishes. But, under the view 
 we are discussing, we have no presbytery in the ordi- 
 nary sense at all, except what Miller, begging the ques- 
 tion, as he so often does, styles " the parochial pres- 
 bytery," that is, the session. We have mere congrega- 
 tions, each presided over by a single minister, and 
 having no organic or ofiiicial connection with any other. 
 
 But the most striking point in this theory so 
 strangely mooted by Presbyterians, and the one which 
 most concerns our present work, is that which has 
 been adverted to in the text — its bearing on the fun- 
 damental tenet of the Reformed or Presbyterian polity, 
 the original and essential parity of all presbyters, and 
 their equal title to the designation of bishops, in the 
 New Testament sense of the term. No Presbyterians 
 complain more loudly than the holders of this new 
 theory, of the appropriation of the original title and 
 powers of presbyters, and the assumption of lordly 
 superiority over them, by prelates. But under their 
 o^vn theory a like distinction of grade is effected, if not 
 by the elevation of one presbyter adove his brethren, yet 
 
APPENDIX. 8 1 
 
 by the depression of the presbyters tinder one of their 
 number — the preaching presbyter, or, as they style him, 
 bishop — until they cease to have any share in the ministry 
 of the Gospel at all. The most lordly hierarch never 
 thought of denying that every presbyter had in himself, 
 and by virtue of his ordination, authority to minister the 
 word and sacraments. This has been reserved for the 
 Presbyterians whose views we are considering. They 
 give the bishop a smaller diocese, it is true, but a more 
 decided superiority over those whom they call presbyters. 
 This is Prelacy with a witness, and one cannot but won- 
 der at those who imagine that by this view of matters 
 they are defending the Reformed or Presbyterian polity. 
 The theory which we are now discussing appears to 
 have originated in an overstraining — under the influence 
 of ideas derived from modem and familiar arrangements 
 — and a misapplication of the views of such writers as 
 Lord Chancellor King and his follower in this respect, 
 Dr George Campbell of Aberdeen. These writers, with 
 the design of moderating the claim of High-Church Pre- 
 lacy in modern times to be regarded as the sole true re- 
 presentative of the primitive Church polity, contrast the 
 small dioceses of the early bishops with the enormous ones 
 of later ages, and give great, indeed undue, prominence 
 to the fact that the primitive bishop, with his presbyters 
 and flock, had often but one place of public assemblage. 
 But, it need scarcely be observed, neither of these learned 
 and able men give the slightest sanction to the notion 
 that the body of presbyters who are found under each 
 bishop were anything else than ministers of the word 
 
 F 
 
82 APPENDIX. 
 
 and sacraments. So far from this, King expressly states 
 them to have been clergymen; and Campbell, as we have 
 shown elsewhere, entirely repudiates the existence, in 
 the early Churches, of ruling, as distinct from teaching 
 presbyters. 
 
 It is difficult but indispensable in the study of such 
 questions, even where there is nothing deserving the 
 name of undue bias or prejudice, to divest the mind of 
 ideas and associations derived from a familiar state of 
 things ; and in nothing, as Vitringa complains, is it at 
 once more difficult and more indispensable to do so than 
 when we attempt to draw rules and principles of ecclesi- 
 astical polity from what is recorded of the early Churches. 
 The tendency is almost irresistible, because unconscious, 
 to regard facts and terms similar to those to which we 
 have been accustomed, as involving the same principles 
 and meaning. Let us endeavour to avoid this while tak- 
 ing a brief glance at the formation and constitution of 
 these primitive communities. 
 
 The scenes of the labours of the Apostles appear 
 from Scripture to have been the principal cities of the 
 countries which they visited. In each of these we find 
 them gathering the converts to Christianity into one 
 society or brotherhood, and to each of these societies 
 one name, that of " a Church," is invariably assigned. 
 To this " Church" all the Christians of the locality, 
 whether few or many, belonged, and appear to have, in 
 fact, as Christians, been bound to belong ; nor can any 
 instance be produced of the institution by the Apostles, 
 or of the existence for some centuries, of more than one 
 
APPENDIX. 8'3 
 
 " Church " in a city. This is what might have been ex- 
 pected. The spirit of Christianity, as well as the necessity 
 of the times, requiring union on the part of the followers 
 of Christ, the Apostles, filled with wisdom by the Holy 
 Spirit, took advantage of the civil and social bonds 
 which connected, in a community of interest and feeling, 
 those who were inhabitants of the same place and 
 neighbourhood. Accordingly, whatever might be the 
 number of believers in a city, whether a hundred or 
 several thousands, they were always joined together in 
 one association. Thus, while we find mention made of 
 the " Churches " of a province, as " the Churches of 
 Asia," " the Churches of Galatia," " of Macedonia," 
 " of Judea," we read of the " Church," never " Churches," 
 " at Jerusalem," " at Antioch " " of Ephesus," " in 
 Smyrna," " of the Thessalonians," " of the Laodiceans." 
 It is of the very highest importance in questions of 
 church government that this fact be kept in remem- 
 brance, and that this strictly technical meaning of the 
 term " Church " be carefully distinguished in the mind 
 from the general sense of the word as applied to all the 
 people of God, or the Church Universal, as well as from 
 its use when applied, by synecdoche, to any portion, 
 however small, of the visible Church, and from its ap- 
 plication to a single congregation and the edifice in 
 which it assembles. A very slight examination will 
 convince any one that in the technical ecclesiastical 
 sense in which the word so often occurs in the New 
 Testament, it implies the organised Christianity of a 
 city; and this organised Christianity, or community of 
 
84 APPENDIX. 
 
 Christians of a city, we accordingly hold — because we 
 invariably find it — to have been the fundamental or radi- 
 cal Christian Society. All organisations, more and less 
 extensive, superior and subordinate, were alike matters 
 of after arrangement. 
 
 In this view all sound Episcopalians and Presbyterians 
 are perfectly agreed. To both equally stands opposed 
 the modern Independent or Congregational principle 
 that " a Church," in the Apostolic sense, comprehends 
 only those professing Christians who voluntarily associ- 
 ate themselves together, and worship in the same place 
 or edifice. A theory which makes Christian organisa- 
 tion to depend on a matter so mechanical, fluctuating, 
 and accidental as the capacity of a building, and which, 
 ceasing to unite beyond the will of the individuals, and 
 the walls within which they worship, disunites by rule 
 those whom civil relations and a common Christianity 
 have united, certainly appears at variance with the prin- 
 ciples and practice of the Apostles. In order to estab- 
 lish it, it would be necessary to show with the utmost 
 clearness that each " Church " mentioned in the New 
 Testament was a single congregation, meeting in the 
 same place. But while the circumstances of the early 
 Christians, which rendered it difiicult or impossible for 
 them to assemble statedly in crowds, are viewed in con- 
 nection with the great numbers of converts in some 
 '^ Churches," it will not be readily admitted that such 
 could have been the case; and the astonishment ex- 
 cited by the attempts of good and able men to prove it, 
 can be equalled only by that which is caused by their 
 
APPENDIX. 85 
 
 believing it themselves. And yet still more might be 
 fairly asked for. It might be demanded that those who 
 hold this theory should produce one instance, at least, 
 of more than one organised " Church " in the same city. 
 It is readily admitted that in some cases all the Chris- 
 tians of a city might assemble together for worship; that 
 in most cases this must have been not only possible, but 
 the fact, for some time; and that in many cities, although 
 too numerous to do so, they may, through poverty, or 
 through unwillingness unnecessarily to attract notice, 
 have had but one public place of assemblage for the 
 more solemn offices of religion. But the fundamental 
 fallacy of Congregationalism is, that because this may 
 have been the case in some places it must have been 
 the case in all; that it originated in design, not in 
 circumstances ; that separate places of assemblage im- 
 plied independent organisation and government; that 
 the necessities of the Church while struggling for exist- 
 ence in its infant state are to form an invariable rule for 
 all ages. Surely a theory which thus limits combination, 
 the very principle and aim of Christianity, which magni- 
 fies self-will and separation, and which would present to 
 us the Church of a city, not in the condition of a united 
 family, but as a set of unconnected clubs, might at 
 least be presumed not to receive any countenance from 
 Scripture. 
 
 The question is not introduced here with a view to 
 its being fully discussed, but with a view to the observa- 
 tion that Presbyterian writers have, in more than one 
 instance, unthinkingly favoured the Congregational 
 
86 APPENDIX. 
 
 theory, which represents the rudimental Christian so- 
 ciety or ecclesiastical association as being in principle, 
 because sometimes perhaps in fact, a single congrega- 
 tion. This they have been led to do, as we have seen, 
 when pressed by the exigencies of controversy with 
 Episcopalians, in a manner which has greatly per- 
 plexed and discredited the arguments in favour of the 
 principles of Presbytery, and which, were it as warrant- 
 able as it is clearly devoid of warrant, would, instead of 
 strengthening the cause sought to be maintained, sap its 
 very foundation. 
 
 The Christians of each city, thus formed into one 
 Church, were uniformly, so far as we read, placed by the 
 Apostles under the tuition and government of a body of 
 officials styled, in accordance with Jewish usage, presby- 
 ters or elders, and in accordance with Gentile usage, as 
 well as from their function of oversight, bishops or over- 
 seers ; and it is evident, from the terms employed, that 
 in each case this body and all its members bore a gen- 
 eral relation to all the Christians of the church or city. 
 Paul and Barnabas (Acts xiv. 23) ordained elders in 
 every Church, xar' kxXj^ff/ai/; Titus is commissioned in 
 Crete to ordain elders in every city, xara ttoX/i/. The 
 associated presbyter - bishops were thus the spiritual 
 guides and rulers at once of the "city" and of its 
 " Church." 
 
 When we have mentioned these two facts, the organ- 
 isation of the Christian converts of each city into one 
 society for the purposes of worship, instruction, and 
 discipline, and the establishment over each such society 
 
APPENDIX. 87 
 
 of a college of presbyter-bishops, along with the addi- 
 tional fact that the laity or "brethren" had a voice 
 (although the manner in which they exercised it is not 
 defined or recorded) in the government of the society, 
 we beHeve we have stated the only formal points of 
 Church polity for which such decisive authority as is 
 implied in the uniform practice of the Apostles can be 
 alleged. We find certain societies uniformly founded, 
 and a plurality of spiritual rulers placed over each. 
 Beyond this, no rule, no record even of what was done, 
 is afforded us. That each society must from the first 
 have had some by-laws or usages by which the pro- 
 ceedings, functions, and relations of its officials and 
 members were regulated — must, in short, have had a 
 constitution — is certain ; but whether this constitution 
 was in every or in any instance left in whole, as it must 
 have been in part, to the choice of the society itself, or 
 was settled by the Apostles and their coadjutors, and 
 whether, supposing the latter to have been the case, the 
 constitution was the same in all churches indiscrimi- 
 nately, are matters respecting which we have no infor- 
 mation. Thus, as regards the official relations of the 
 presbyter -bishops among themselves, the amount of 
 power given in each Church to the presiding member 
 of the collegiate body, and the duration of his presi- 
 dency, and as regards the extent to which the authority 
 of the presbyter-bishops was limited by a more or less 
 direct expression of the popular voice, there are neither 
 any rules laid down, nor anything to enable us positively 
 to determine what was the practice in any one Church, 
 
88 APPENDIX. 
 
 still less whether the practice was uniform, and least of 
 all whether it was intended to be so. 
 
 Thus, too, when, as must very soon, if not from the first, 
 have been the case, the number of converts in a city so far 
 exceeded the capacity of a single edifice as to require 
 separate places of worship, it is impossible for us to 
 determine what was or what ought to have been the 
 relation, the apportionment of governmental power, 
 between the original collective " Church " and its off- 
 shoots. It is not, indeed, until after the lapse of several 
 generations, that we find the original society, the 
 " Church of the city," portioned out into definite tituli 
 or parishes, each with a member of the primitive clerical 
 college or presbytery specially and exclusively attached 
 to it as its sole, proper, and permanent pastor. Yet 
 from the first there must have been, as we have seen, 
 in many cities and their suburbs, separate assemblages, 
 the germs of future parishes, clustered around the 
 mother congregation, forming in theory a part of it, and 
 ministered to probably by the various members of the 
 presbytery in turn. But as to what was done, or what 
 ought to have been done, in the process of this develop- 
 ment, we have nothing to enable us to speak, or on 
 which to found authoritative rules for our guidance in 
 modem times. 
 
 Nothing can be more foolish or vain than the at- 
 tempt to find, as some appear to expect, in the organi- 
 sation of the early Church, in these circumstances, a 
 precise counterpart or exemplification of either a modem 
 presbytery or a modem parochial session ; and surely, 
 
APPENDIX. 89 
 
 on the other hand, It is most prejudicial to all useful 
 historical inquiry to carry back to the interpretation of 
 the early records of the Church, ideas borrowed from 
 modern arrangements. One disputant finds in the 
 organisation of a primitive "Church" a community under 
 a presbytery, another a congregation under a pastor and 
 session. Now neither of these views is correct. The 
 original Church association was neither, or, to speak 
 more accurately, it was both. In so far as it compre- 
 hended all the Christians of the city, whatever their 
 number, and was governed and ministered to in every 
 case by a plurality of ministers of the word and sacra- 
 ments, it embodied the idea of the presbytery, which is 
 accordingly with justice regarded by all sound writers 
 of the Reformed Church, as it was by the Westminster 
 Assembly,* as the original, radical unit of organisation 
 and government. But on the other hand, in so far as 
 it was at the same time the lowest existing organisation, 
 comprehending sometimes only a single congregation, 
 and being, when containing more than one in fact, still 
 only one in theory, as well as the immediate sphere of 
 personal discipline over the members, and not, like the 
 modem presbytery, a court of reference or appeal, it 
 possessed the characteristics of the modem parish or 
 congregation under its session. 
 
 There is no record of a formal distinction or separa- 
 tion between the superior, collective, or urban organisa- 
 tion on the one hand, and the subordinate, parochial, 
 or congregational, on the other, having taken place in 
 • See ' Form of Church Government.' 
 
90 APPENDIX. 
 
 any Church during the time of the Apostles. When, 
 therefore, as was the inevitable result of the increase of 
 the Churches, it did take place, the only rule by which 
 the apportionment of powers and functions between 
 the superior and the subordinate bodies could possibly 
 be determined, must have been expediency, or the appli- 
 cation of good sense and Christian principle to the cir- 
 cumstances of each case. 
 
 D, pp. 41, 42. 
 
 " Secundum sit, veterem omnem Ecclesiam presbyter- 
 orum vocabulo non alios quam pastores intellexisse, in 
 verbo ac sacramentis occupatos. Non ago de voce 
 semmt aut senioruin, qua certum est interdum aetatem, 
 nonnunquam et magistratum, significari; sed de voce 
 Graeca, quae in Latino sermone dignitatem ac munus 
 pastorale semper significat ; idemque de Graecis auctori- 
 bus dictum volumus, ubicunque 'xosoSvt'^o'j vox aliud 
 quam aetatem aut magistratum notat. De loco Paulino 
 nondum agimus, qui ad Juris Divini quaestionem magis 
 pertinet. De Veteris quoque Testamenti se7iioribus 
 erit infra agendi locus. Ex tanto patrum numero, tot 
 librorum voluminibus, tamdiu tractata hac controversia, 
 ne unus quidem locus adferri potuit, in quo presbyter- 
 alis dignitas aliis quam pastoribus tribueretur; cum 
 tamen, si duplex fuisset presbyterorum genus, non saepe, 
 sed centies, imo millies,-eorum fieri, mentio debuisset; 
 
APPENDIX. 91 
 
 praesertim in canonibus, qui totum Ecclesiae regimen 
 nobis depingunt, saltern modus eligendi istos non- 
 pastores presbyteros alicubi appareret. Etsi autem 
 neganti non incumbit probatio, facile tamen est infinitos 
 Patrum locos producere, qui presbyteris omnibus tribu- 
 unt jus pascendi gregem, baptizandi, et corpus Domini 
 exhibendi, atque eatenus omnes presbyteros Episcopis 
 adsequant, et apostolorum vocant successores ; qui 
 poenam ostendunt fuisse presbyterorum presbyterio dimo- 
 veri, aut ad tempus ad solam laicorum communionem 
 admitti ; qui sportulas singulis ostendunt datas, discip- 
 linam praescriptam multo quam ceteris severiorem. Ex- 
 tant et leges de presbyterorum immunitate a foro atque 
 oneribus, multaque alia quae presbyteros vetant uUos extra 
 pastores agnosci." — Grotius, De Ii7iperio Summartmi Po- 
 testatiim circa Sacra, xi. 14. 
 
 " Venio ad presbyterorum vocem,quam multi assessori- 
 bus pastorum tributam volunt in Novo Testamento, de 
 quo mihi non liquet. ... In omni Novo Foedere 
 una duntaxat Pauli sententia est quae ad constituendos 
 presbyteros non -pastores speciose affertur. O/ y.aXojg 
 'TTPOiGTung '7rPS6(3-jrsooi di-TrXyig rt/XT^g a^tovffdMffocv, .aaX/cra 
 0/ '/.O'TiojvTsg Iv }J)yu) Kai hthaaTtakia. Ex hac vocula (j^dyj^Tcc 
 infertur aliquos eo tempore fuisse presbyteros tantum 
 T^osffTUTag, et non xo'TriojvTag sv Xoyoj 7cai htha67tctkia. Sed 
 primum, id si verum esset, saltern aliunde appareret 
 novum hoc presbyterorum genus, alibi nunquam memor- 
 atum, quo auctore, qua occasione coepisset, sicut diacon- 
 orum origo narrata est ; et non ita obiter atque in trans- 
 cursu, uno in loco, ubi de munerum ecclesiasticorum 
 
92 APPENDIX. 
 
 generibus sermo institutus non est, insinuaretur pars 
 necessaria ecclesiastici regiminis. Deinde Patres prox- 
 imi apostolomm temporibus monuissent nos hujus rei ; 
 saltern Graeci, quibus sua lingua ignota esse non poterat, 
 hanc nobis reliquissent interpretationem, quam ex sola 
 verborum serie sequi sunt qui autumant. Nunc, cum 
 ante hoc saeculum interpretum nemo verba Pauli ita 
 acceperit, merito videndum est, an non aliam interpre- 
 tationem ferant, quae nihil a caeteris Scripturse locis 
 diversum asserat. 
 
 " Videamus ergo, quid sit propositum Paulo. Honorem 
 dupUcein vult presbyteris exhiberi. Quis sit honor de 
 quo agitur, ex superioribus potest intelligi ; %>jf a? r/>a ; 
 ubi ro Ti[Mav, hojiorare, nihil est aliud quam honeste siistent- 
 are. Vult enim eas viduas honorari, quae vere sunt 
 viduae, hoc est, ut ex oppositione apparet, eas quae 
 fideles cognates aut affines non habent, quorum ope 
 possint sustentari. Nam si habeant, has vetat Eccle- 
 sise esse oneri. Absoluto de viduis sustentandis ser- 
 mone, docet etiam presbyteris suppeditandum, unde 
 honeste vivant. Hoc voce t//a^$ indicari ratio subnexa 
 ostendit : Scriptum est ejiim, bovi ti'ituranti os non 
 ohligahis. Hoc ipsum Scripturae testimonium alibi quo- 
 que in eundem sensum produxerat. Qids suis stipendiis 
 militat ? Qiiis vineam plantat^ et de proventu non edit 2 
 Quis gregem pascit et gregis lade no?t vescitiir ? An secun- 
 dum hominem hoc tantum dico ? A?iJton et lex ide?ft docet 1 
 In lege enim Scriptum est no7i ohligabis os bovi tritiwanti. 
 Et postea : Si spiritualia serimus, a?t magnum est si car- 
 nalia metimur ? Recte ergo ad ilium, de quo agimus, 
 
APPENDIX. 93 
 
 Chrysostomus, Hieronymus, Ambrosius, etiam Calvinus 
 et Bullingerus notant de suppeditando victu et rerum 
 necessariamm subsidio Apostolum hie agere. Assessores 
 eos, de quibus nobis sermo est, stipendiis ecclesiasticis 
 sustentari neque hodie videmus,neque visum est unquam. 
 Neque vero credibile est Apostolum, qui ubique parcit 
 Ecclesiis, quippe satis pauperibus, gravatas illas voluisse 
 onere non necessario. Quare, si usquam, hoc imprimis 
 loco illorum assessorum intempestiva fuisset mentio, ubi 
 de stipendiis oratio instituta est. 
 
 " Verbomm Pauli multas interpretationes non incom- 
 modas alii attulerunt Simplicissima haec est. Omni- 
 bus quidem presbyteris stipendia deberi, ut qui praesint 
 Ecclesise, hoc est, gregem Dominicum pascant ; sed 
 illis praecipue, qui omni cura rei familiaris neglecta, 
 uni studio Evangelii propagandi incumbunt, nullique 
 labori parcunt. Non ergo duo ponuntur presbyterorum 
 genera, sed monstratur non parem esse omnium laborem. 
 Agnoscunt omnes, etiam Beza, verbo xo-r/a!/ non quem- 
 vis laborem, sed eum, qui cum insigni molestia con- 
 junctus sit, designari. Itaque Paulus se ait Evangelio 
 operam dedisse,non vulgarem,sed h Koiroig; quibus expli- 
 candis addit [j^oyjov^ XZ/xov, ^/^//y, ccy^wrvlac, et omnia incom- 
 modorum genera. Christus in Epistola ad Ephesinum 
 Episcopum cum dixisset, 7iovi opera tiia^ addit, ut majus 
 aliquid, et rh xoVoi^. Paulus etiam verbum xo-T/a^s/i/ saepe 
 sibi tribuit, deinde etiam Sanctis quibusdam mulieribus, 
 quae hue illue, relietis rebus suis, Evangelii causa discur- 
 sabant. His ergo presbyteris, qui nihil aliud curant prae- 
 ter Evangelium, ejusque rei causa omnibus ineommodis 
 
94 ■ APPENDIX. 
 
 se exponunt, plus aliquanto quam ceteris deberi ratio 
 dictat. Sic et Paulus rh 'TrooiffraaSai et rh 'KO'Trmv de iisdem 
 extulit ad Thessalonicenses ; Iputu/mv ds hfxag, ahi\<poi, 
 ilbhai Tovg xo-nojvrag \v v[x,Tv^ xai rr^o'iGraiJ^ivovg v/mouv sv Kl/^/w, 
 x.at vov^sTovvrag hi^ag, xal riyiTsQai avrovg V'tts^ sK'Tn^Kyffou sv 
 dyd'Try} did to s^yov avruv. Omnis ergo error novorum 
 interpretum in eo est, quod putent illud sv Xoyu) xal 
 hibacKaXia pronuntiandum g/^^ar/xwc, cum emphasis sit 
 in voce '/.oTnuvrag ; ilia autem sv "koyuj yai didaffxaXicc 
 addita duntaxat explicandae voci xo'T/ai/." — Il?id., xi. i6. 
 The learned author then proceeds to establish the 
 lawfulness, on grounds of Scripture and antiquity, and 
 the expediency, of the institution of lay assessors in the 
 government of the Church. 
 
 E, p. 46. 
 
 " Nempe sic autumo, quod e:!^ testimoniis supra no- 
 tatis, non tantum bona fide concludatur, in Ecclesia 
 prima nullos fuisse episcopos, presbyteris gradu superi- 
 ores, sed et nullos in eadem Ecclesia notos fuisse pres- 
 byteros, ab aliis sui ordinis viros distinctos munere. 
 Animadvertimus utique, Ecclesias nostrge patriae guber- 
 nari a presbyteris duplicis generis, docentibus, sic dictis, 
 et regentibus. Per docentes intelligimus ministros evan- 
 gelii, quibus cura praeconii verbi divini et sacramentorum 
 administrandorum cum maxime committitur, per regen- 
 tes spectatse dignitatis viros, de eorpore Ecclesise elec- 
 
APPENDIX. '95 
 
 tos, qui ministris Evangelii adjunguntur, ut de consiliis 
 sacris in commodum Ecclesise capiendis iiscum in omni- 
 bus negotiis participant. Hi tamen presbyteri regentes 
 notabiliter, satis variisque partibus, a docentibus sunt 
 distincti. Neque enim ipsis est potestas docendi aut 
 administrandi sacramenta. Nee sustentantur ab Eccle- 
 sia. Nee praesunt Ecelesiae in perpetuum, sed, ubi per 
 tempus aliquod certe definitum huic muneri vacarunt, 
 aliis locum faciunt successoribus. Hsec, inquam, 
 presbyterorum regentium apud nos est conditio, a 
 docentibus sic satis distinctorum ordine et munere. 
 Hujusmodi vero presbyteros ego quidem nullos fuisse 
 existimem in Ecclesia vetere apostolica." — Vitringa, De 
 Synagogd Vetere, ii. 2, 482. 
 
 '' Certum est et indubitatum, presbyteri vocem in 
 Scriptis Apostolorum unum idemque valere, ac earn 
 pastorum et episcoporum. Omnium presbyterorum 
 fuit 'roi[Lamty et s'?7iffK0'!rsTv. Paulo apostolo perinde est 
 sive episcopi sive presbyteri describat requisita; sive 
 presbyteros sive episcopos in Ecclesia ordinatos dicat 
 (i Tim. iii. i ; Tit. i. 5 ; Acts xx. 28 ; i Pet. v. i). 
 Alias etiam, ut notum est, presbyterorum constans 
 officium simplici nomine pascendi exprimitur, absque 
 ulla variatione, vel alia atque alia hujus vocabuli inter- 
 pretatione; pascere enim est docere, monere, sacramenta 
 administrare, et omni potestate spirituali, a Christo minis- 
 tris suis concessa, gregem gubernare. Nulla distinctio 
 significationis hujus vocis, latioris videlicet et strictioris, 
 nota est in scriptis apostolicis, ubi ilia applicatur pres- 
 
96 APPENDIX. 
 
 byteris. Episcopi, Inquam, presbyteri, et pastores, 
 juxta stylum S. Scrip turse, cui nos in hac disceptatione 
 oportet esse intentos, sunt nomina designantia unum 
 eundemque ordinem hominum, nee ordine et genere, 
 nee officio, distinctorum. Haec positio stabit, opinor, 
 quamdiu erunt, qui absque t^oX^-v^s/ legent Acta Apos- 
 tolorum, eomndemque epistolas. Quae si stat, turn 
 cadunt presbyteri laici. An enim serio asseverare et 
 defendere audemus, his presbyteris laicis convenire 
 nomen episcoporum, convenire nomen pastorumi Si 
 non audemus, utique actum est de illis, quoniam alii 
 presbyteri ab apostolis in Ecclesia non sunt agniti 
 et constituti praster eos, qui simul pastores sunt et 
 episcopi. 
 
 Observemus (etsi adeo cognitum est ut observationis 
 nomen non mereatur) Paulum in epistola ad Timotheum 
 recensiturum officia administranda in quaque Ecclesia 
 sui temporis, episcopos tantum et diaconos memorare. 
 Calvinus agnoscit tres ordines ministrorum Ecclesise ; 
 Paulus duos tantum. Hie presbyteros laicos cui ordini 
 accensebis 1 Episcoporum 1 Sed vix autumem quem- 
 piam, qui intelligit vim vocis £cr/(rxoroj apud Paulum, et 
 qui nostros presbyteros laicos noverit, homines sane vix 
 ullo alio consilio in Ecclesiam introductos et vix uUo 
 alio fungentes munere, (si modo et huic pares essent, 
 ut saepe non sunt), quam uti moderentur potestatem 
 ministrorum verbi divini, eos serio ausurum vocare 
 episcopos. Et tamen qui banc hypothesin tenet, eum 
 vel hos laicos presbyteros adsciscere oportet ordini 
 episcoporum, vel statuere, Paulum apostolum eos in 
 
APPENDIX. 97 
 
 recensendls officiis Ecclesiae, quod hie curate et ex con- 
 silio instituit, praeteriisse. Id vero, quam sit durum 
 dictu, quisque etiam, me tacente, facile intelligit." — 
 Ibid., 484. 
 
 "Verum non aliunde evidentius mihi opinio de pres- 
 byteris laicis confutari posse videtur, quam ex historia 
 regiminis Ecclesiae Christianse, quae excepit tempora 
 apostolorum. Ecclesiae, post tempora apostolorum, 
 (quantum de iis ex antiquis monumentis judicare licet), 
 quos habuerunt presbyteros ? Quo modo, qua forma, 
 rectae sunt ? Scilicet nihil certius, nihil in omni historia 
 vetere exploratius, quam Presbyteros, ab Episcopo, sic 
 dicto, distinctos, constituisse partem spectatissimam 
 cleri ; instar episcopi, sive, si placet, instar Ministrorum 
 Verbi Divini nostri temporis consideratos fuisse, ceu totos 
 consecrates curandae Ecclesiae ; in clerum, hoc est, in 
 ordinem personarum sacrarum non fuisse assumptos, 
 nisi hoc consilio ut in eo perseverarent per totam vitam, 
 aliis omnibus curis et officiis et dignitatibus mundanis 
 renunciantes ; habuisse facultatem docendi in Ecclesia, 
 aliisque locis publicis privatisque, (singulare enim id et 
 privum habitum si haec facultas presbytero negata sit) ; 
 habuisse item facultatem administrandi sacramenta; 
 baptizatos in frontibus, absente episcopo, chrismate in- 
 ungendi; coenae dominicae praesidendi, ejusque distribu- 
 endi symbola ; benedictiones et preces, ut usus in ejus- 
 modi casu ferebat, recitandi ; inde consideratos esse ut 
 sacerdotes, ejusdem scilicet ordinis viros cum episcopo, 
 qui et ipse sacerdos erat ; vixisse ex sacris haud minus 
 G 
 
9^ APPENDIX. 
 
 ac episcopum. Imo vero, quid facit, excepta ordlna- 
 tione episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat 1 ait Hieron- 
 ymus." — /3id., 486. 
 
 " An dicendum, quod, cum apostoli presbyteros laicos 
 instituerint, quibus curam regendse Ecclesiae qualem- 
 cunque demandaverunt, et quibus tamen non concess- 
 erunt evangelium praedicare et sacramenta administrare, 
 quod, inquam, cum apostoli ejusmodi presbyteros laicos 
 suo tempore instituerint, universa Ecclesia mox ab hoc 
 apostolorum institute et a praxi Ecclesiae primi temporis 
 recesserit, et eorum loco alios quosdam presbyteros ordi- 
 narit, ab iis apostolorum diversissimos, et tales fere 
 quales nos modo depinximus 1 Certe id creditu multo 
 adhuc difficilius. Quid enim movisset non unam, sed 
 omnes Ecclesias ab hoc institute Ecclesiarum apostolic- 
 arum, in quo nihil cra^a^ogov aut arocrov erat, tam cito 
 recedere ? Nee valet exceptio, rem simili modo se 
 habuisse cum episcopis, sic signate dictis, quippe qui ex 
 nostra sententia in apostolicis Ecclesiis nulli fuerunt, et 
 tamen brevi post in omnibus fere Ecclesiis agniti sunt, 
 a presbyteris distincti. Etenim notandum, i. Non 
 unum sed varios in apostolicis scriptis extare disertos 
 textus, ex quibus liqueat, apostolorum sevum non 
 agnovisse episcopos, a presbyteris distinctos ; quando 
 tamen in sequenti Ecclesia, post medium fere saeculum 
 elapsum, ofFendimus episcopos a presbyteris distinctos, 
 nulla nobis alia superest ratio hanc illius consuetudi- 
 nem conciliandi cum textibus, qui nobis exhibent con- 
 stitutionem Ecclesiae apostolicae, quam ut dicamus, epis- 
 
APPENDIX. 99 
 
 copos post decessum apostolomm, sive humano consilio, 
 sive etiam, cum praesides essent senatus presbyteronim, 
 continuato usu et exercitio hujus dignitatis, in Ecclesia, 
 sensim quidem et sine sensu, at aiunt, esse natos. Si 
 Ti JffoTi^g presbyteronim Ecclesiae Christianae primsevae 
 tarn dare et diserte adstrui non posset ex primis et in- 
 dubitatis monumentis historise Ecclesiasticse, actibus 
 nimirum et Epistolis apostolicis, omnino desisteremus 
 ab ilia hypothesi; sed cum ilia contrarium suadeant, 
 videndum nobis fuit, ut mediam quandam sententiam 
 conciperemus, per quam tam ipsa ilia primaevse monu- 
 menta Ecclesiae, quam usus Ecclesiae sequentis inter se 
 concilientur. Sed cum presbyteri illi laici non magis 
 in apostolicis scriptis quam in Ecclesiis sequentium 
 temporum reperiantur, clarum est, hanc exceptionem per 
 se cadere. 2. Probe observandum, duo haec, quae inter 
 se comparantur, valde tamen a se invicem discrepare. 
 Nimirum, id ex hypothesibus nos-tris non difficulter 
 percipitur, quibus modis episcopi, sic dicti, etiamsi in 
 Ecclesiis apostolicis nulli apparuerint, brevis etiam in- 
 tervallo temporis, in Ecclesiis nasci potuerint; verum 
 id non percipitur facile, quibus modis factum sit, vX pres- 
 byteri laici, si illos ab apostolis institutos esse suppon- 
 amus, tam immanem subierint mutationem in Ecclesia, 
 ut post breve tempus lapsum alii prorsus evaserint 
 homines, quam non ita fuerant pridem. Quod enim 
 ad prills illud ratio et experientia postulant ut creda- 
 mus, senatus illos presbyterorum Ecclesiae primaevae 
 suos habuisse prcesides, licet ejusdem muneris et nom- 
 inis viros. Qui enim senatus cogi, quasstiones et dubia 
 
JOO APPENDIX. 
 
 in deliberationem mitti, vota rogari, collectidnes fomiari, 
 sententise exequutioni dari queant absque p'ceside? 
 Porro, simplicitas, pietas, et prudentia illius sevi simul 
 suadent credere, presbyteros ejusmodi potissimum 
 suum elegisse praesidem synedrii, qui vel setate, vel 
 doctrina et dotibus, vel dignitate civili (qua nimirum 
 ante professionem Christianam splenduerat) inter ceteros 
 excellebat. Hujus autem prcesidis cum continuatum 
 munus fuerit per totam vitam suam, quis miretur, illius 
 auctoritatem dignitatemque supra ceteros brevi magna 
 cepisse incrementa, donee tandem ordiiie ceteris presby- 
 teris superior haberi coeperit? Monstrent jam nobis, 
 qui adversam tuentur sententiam, presbyteros laicos 
 adeo facile potuisse iMiTaiJj()^!pou6&at m p?'esbyteros ciericos. 
 ac nos monstravimus, episcopos a presbyteris distinctos 
 oriri potuisse in ecclesia, et admittemus exceptionem 
 superius ad ipsis productam. 
 
 Non indigueramus tot verbis in hac responsione, si 
 Hieronymi accepissemus assertum, episcopos singulari 
 consilio, vitandi schismatis causa, in Ecclesiam — Alex- 
 andrinam quidem jam a temporibus Marci Evangelistae 
 — fuisse introductos. Sed placuit nobis in hac disputa- 
 tione esse liberalibus, ut morosis quoque lectoribus 
 satisfaceremus. Liceat nunc ex dictis banc instituere 
 tfiXXgg/i/. Si nuUae Ecclesise, quae apostolicas a/xscrwg 
 exceperunt, ejusmodi agnoverint presbyteros de plebe, 
 quales in nostris Ecclesiis honorantur, perquam proba- 
 bile est, Ecclesias apostolicas tales de plebe presby- 
 teros non agnovisse; imo, si Presbyteri, quos vetus 
 Ecclesia hoc nomine venerata est, a presbyteris laicis 
 
APPENDIX. 1 01 
 
 nostronim temporiim tarn munere quam dignitate et 
 aliis notis multis fueruit distinctissimi, et multo simili- 
 ores ministris Verbi Divini hujus temporis, quam pres- 
 byteris de plebe, censemus modeste, presbyteros ejus- 
 modi laicos Ecclesise primaevae abjudicandos esse." — 
 Ibid., 487. 
 
 "Pro contrarid opinione nihil tritius et vulgatius pro- 
 ferri solet, quam Pauli verba in Epistola ad Timotheum 
 priore; cap. v. 17. Hie putant duplicis generis presby- 
 teros satis distincte innui; quosdam, quibus commissa 
 quidem Ecclesiae cura, sed tamen Verbi Divini prasdi- 
 candi munus commissum non erat \ quosdam vero alios, 
 quibus hoc docendi officium prseter illud regendi specia- 
 tim demandatum sit, et qui propterea duplici honore 
 digni censentur. Neque caret haec ratiocinatio omni 
 specie, si lector, praejudiciis consuetudinis hodierni 
 temporis occupatus, locum fugienti tantum oculo tran- 
 seat. Sed neque nos negamus Paulum quosdam pres- 
 byteros hie laudare ut docentes, alios vero ut non 
 docentesj vel etiam, usum veteris Ecclesiae sic tulisse 
 ut quidam. magis ac alii docuerint ; negamus tamen, ut 
 qui maxime, tale ab eo innui presbyterorum docentium 
 et non docentium discrimen, quale nostras habent Eccle- 
 siae. Sunt, ait Scultetus, qui vel unum hunc locum 
 sat roboris habere putant ad firmandum presbyterium 
 laicorum. Perstrinxit enim oculos et judicium illorum 
 distinctio presbyterorum, non obscure per D. Paulum 
 hie indicata. Qui si hunc ipsum locum paulo diligen- 
 tius fuerint ruminati, eundemque cum aliis Scripturae 
 
102 APPENDIX. 
 
 dictis contulerint, deprehendent Illico, presbyterorum 
 laicorum ex hoc dicto defenslonem contrariam esse 
 significationi vocabuli TTPosffruTsg, contrariam esse slgni- 
 ficationi nominis 'Tr^sff^vTiPog, adversari perpetuae doc- 
 trinae Paull, adversari menti omnium patrum, a quibus 
 quidem hoc Pauli effatum fuit expositum. Rem eo, 
 quo proposuerat, ordine mascule exequitur doctissimus 
 Scultetus, planissimam quidem viam nobis faciens, sed 
 simul copiosioris dissertationis materiam praeripiens." — 
 Idiil, 490. 
 
 Vitringa then proceeds, with the commentary of 
 Scultetus before him, to discuss the text. The work 
 of Scultetus itself is most easily accessible in vol. vii. of 
 the ' Critici Sacri.' 
 
 " Ego vero," says Vitringa, further down, " facile 
 largior, Paulum quosdam pastorum Ecclesiae hie con- 
 siderare ut docentes, alios ut non docentes. Nego 
 tamen Paulo ita scribenti tale obversatum esse dis- 
 crimen presbyterorum docentium et non docentium 
 quale nostrae agnoscunt et observant Ecclesiae. Di- 
 cam igitur quis sit genuinus sensus verborum Pauli. 
 
 " Apostoli cuique Ecclesiae suos ordinarunt vel ordinari 
 jusserunt rectores, quos vocare licet pastores, episcopos, 
 et presbyteros ; omnibus eandem tribuerunt potestatem 
 docendi, evangelizandi, sacramenta administrandi, et 
 diligenter curandi ne respublica populi Christian! quid 
 caperet detriments Hoc opus Scriptura S. vocat cro/^a/- 
 vstv, pascere. Porro, etsi Apostoli vel Ecclesia etiam in 
 
APPENDIX. 103 
 
 eligendls ejusmodi pastoribus ad id in ceteris vel maxime 
 attenderint, an essent biha-Kruoi, ad docendum idonei, 
 ceu Paulus in hac ipsa suadet epistola, verisimile tamen 
 est, in illis Christianae Ecclesiae rudimentis omnes pari 
 instructos non fuisse aptitudine ad sermones habendos 
 in coetu fratrum, et de mysteriis Regni Coelorum dextre 
 disserendum. Quin omnino crediderim, non raro fac- 
 tum, ut in eundem presbyterorum ordinem, ex alionim 
 inopia, cooptati sint homines, severitate monim, experi- 
 entia, et pietate vitae valde venerabiles, ac proinde 
 coetui regendo summo quidem jure praefecti, sed ad 
 docendum minus idonei, sive quod in eodem coetu alios 
 habuerint, se exercitatiores, et ad docendum dicendum- 
 que copiosius instructos, cum ipsi interea temporis aliam 
 aliquam partem muneris presbyteri diligenter curarent. 
 Non abnegat itaque Paulus in hoc loco ullis presby- 
 teris docendi jus ; solummodo supponit, quosdam non 
 docere. Vellet tamen ut omnes docerent ; immo vero 
 incitat et exhortatur omnes ut doceant, quoniam eos, 
 qui docent, maxime prsedicat dignos duplici honore. 
 Hie simplex, hie clams et minime ambiguus sensus est 
 verborum Pauli. Qui itaque ex his verbis Pauli con- 
 cludit, accidisse, ut presbyteri aliqui in Ecclesiis qui- 
 busdam non docuerint, nihil quidem inde arguit, quod 
 nostra hypothesi adversatur; at qui pedem ulterius 
 promovet, et inde colligere laborat, extitisse in veteri 
 Ecclesia presbyteros quibus nullum fuit jus docendi, 
 oleum et operam perdit, quia id in verbis Pauli neuti- 
 quam jacet, et doctrinae Pauli de requisitis presbyterorum 
 adversissimum est. Haec, quae sic diximus ad exposi- 
 
104 APPENDIX. 
 
 tionem loci Paulini, turn lucem accipiunt ex monumentis 
 antiquae Ecclesiae, turn etiam a doctis viris passim con- 
 finiiantur." — Ibid.^ 493. 
 
 That the opinion expressed in these extracts had 
 been deUberately formed and long held by the learned 
 author, is shown by the following passage from his 
 ' Archisynagogus/ published ten years previously : — 
 
 "Falluntur, si ego plurimum non fallor, qui hoc ex 
 loco (i Tim. V. 17) presbyteros eruunt docentes et non 
 docentes, ea quae hodie in Ecclesiis nostris apparent sibi 
 persuadentes in veteri quoque locum habuisse ; et facit 
 ita existimantium turba, ut quondam et ego in eam 
 opinionem concesserim, et ut dicam, sicuti res est, 
 graviter cum ceteris erraverim. Tantum abest ut in 
 prima ilia Ecclesia id fuisset discrimen, ut ne quidem in 
 sequenti fuerit, quando W/ffxoVou et presbyterorum coepit 
 esse discrimen." — Archisynag., xiv. 317. 
 
 F, p. 56. 
 
 "I freely pass," says Jameson (' Cyprianus Isotimus,' 
 VI. § xviii.), " from some words of TertulHan and Origen, 
 which I elsewhere (' Nazianzeni Querela,' part ii. sect. 
 4) overly mentioned, as containing them," i.e., as con- 
 
APPENDIX. 105 
 
 taining proof of the existence of a class of ruling presby- 
 ters 3 " as also from what I said of the Ignatian presby- 
 ters, their being ruling or non-preaching elders." . . . 
 " Notwithstanding these my recessions, I am persuaded 
 that there were lay seniors that shared in the manage- 
 ment of ecclesiastical affairs, represented the people, 
 and preserved their liberties; and so much, I trust, I 
 have already evinced. 'Tis, moreover, clear from hence 
 — that the writers of the fourth and fifth ages either 
 expressly affirm it, or clearly suppose it." 
 
 While enumerating the notices in these writers of the 
 existence of such seniors, he thus adverts and replies to 
 an inquiry of his antagonist, J. S. " We have (saith J. 
 S.) Optatus more than once reckoning up all the orders 
 of the Church, but always so as that you shall not find 
 a ruling elder among them. Thus (lib. i.) he distributes 
 all Christians into five ranks: — i. The Laicks; 2. The 
 Ministri, or under - officers — sub-deacons, acolyths, 
 doorkeepers, &c. ; 3. The Deacons ; 4. The Presby- 
 ters; 5. The Bishops. Now (adds J. S.) let G. R. try 
 his skill, and tells us to which of these five ranks he can 
 reduce his ruling elders." 
 
 " I freely answer," Jameson repHes, " to that of the 
 laicks. But to this answer he (J. S.) opposes Optatus's 
 words, that the laicks were underprop'd by no ecclesi- 
 astical dignity— that is, that they didn't properly belong 
 to the clergy. But this is so far from hurting me, that 
 it is part of the very hypothesis I assert. But then (J. 
 S. further says) they are inferior to deacons. But I am 
 of the mind that inferiority or, superiority has scarce any 
 
I06 APPENDIX. 
 
 place in the affair. We need not compare the deacons 
 with the seniors, but only with bishops, presbyters, 
 and other ranks of the scale to which they belong. But 
 I'll suppose that superiority and inferiority may be here 
 admitted ; yet can any think that these seniors were not, 
 in respect of the interest they had in church affairs, be- 
 fore the church doorkeepers and gravediggers ?" 
 
 G, p. 66. 
 
 In an article (signed W. L.) in ' The Church of Scot- 
 land Home and Foreign Missionary Record' for June 
 1864, on the difficulty experienced in some districts of 
 the country in obtaining a sufficient number of members 
 of session, we find the following corroboration of the 
 views we have expressed : — 
 
 " It is sometimes imagined that an elder is, by our 
 laws, expected and bound to share with the minister 
 all his ministerial labours, except those of conducting 
 divine service in church during canonical hours, and 
 administering the sacraments. It is imagined especially 
 that every one who accepts the eldership is, by the 
 laws of the Church, laid under a solemn obligation to 
 administer religious instruction and consolation in pri- 
 vate to the parishioners, as a part of the ordinary duties 
 of his office. I believe this to be a view of the position 
 of elders which is not only incorrect, but in many ways 
 
APPENDIX. 107 
 
 mischievous. In particular, there is no doubt that its 
 prevalence is one of the causes of the great difficulty 
 which is found In most parishes in obtaining the con- 
 sent of suitable persons to fill the office of the eldership 
 — a difficulty so great as to be often insurmountable : 
 the consequence being that, at this day, as I understand, 
 a very large number of country parishes are not only 
 inadequately provided with elders, but are even without 
 any kirk-session. Of course there can be no doubt that 
 it is the duty, not of elders only, but of every private 
 Christian, if he has the time and the gifts, to visit the 
 sick and the afflicted, to pray with the dying or the 
 mourners, and to 'do good as he has opportunity' — 
 spiritual good no less than temporal good — ' to all men, 
 especially to them that are of the household of faith.' 
 This is the duty of all Christians who have the gifts and 
 who have the opportunity, elders not certainly excepted 
 — nay, from their position, elders perhaps more than 
 other men. Let it not be supposed that ministers, at 
 least, are jealous of the assistance of their elders, or of 
 any of their people, or of any Christian men or women, 
 with competent knowledge and prudence, who may be 
 disposed to co-operate with them in the private duties 
 of the ministerial office, or are otherwise than rejoiced to 
 have such helpers in the Gospel. What almost every 
 minister would reply to such an insinuation, Is that 
 which Moses said, when told by Joshua that Eldad and 
 Medad prophesied in the camp, ' Enviest thou for my 
 sake? Would God that all the Lord's people were 
 prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon 
 
I08 APPENDIX. 
 
 them !" But this, I "need hardly say, is not the question. 
 And if I am asked, whether an elder, as an elder, is 
 bound by his ordination to share in all the private 
 ministerial duties of the pastor of the flock, and whether, 
 by the laws of the Church, no man should be an elder 
 who is not prepared to devote himself to the visitation 
 of the flock ministerially ; the answer I must return is, 
 that while not relieved from duties he owes to others 
 as a Christian, and expected to be an example to the 
 Church in all Christian duties, the peculiar and distinc- 
 tive office of an elder is that of ruling in the Church, or 
 assisting in the oversight, discipline, and government of 
 the Church in its kirk-sessions, presbyteries, and Gene- 
 ral Assemblies. These are, I believe, important duties, 
 which it is impossible for ministers to discharge rightly 
 alone, and duties in the performance of which it is of 
 the greatest consequence that they should be aided by 
 prudent and judicious members of the Church. And 
 these appear to be the duties which, by the constitution 
 of the Church, are distinctively laid upon the ruling 
 elders." 
 
 It is impossible not to admit the good sense of these 
 observations; but while the judicious author has per- 
 ceived a great source of unwillingness to accept the 
 office of the lay eldership, in the ideas entertained in 
 some quarters of the proper functions of the office, he 
 will, it is believed, see, on further consideration, that 
 the views he so justly condemns are in reality the natu- 
 ral consequence of the theory that the lay councillors of 
 the Church are presbyters or true elders — that is, that 
 
APPENDIX. 109 
 
 they belong to an order of which, according to the 
 Apostle, every member, without exception, ought to be 
 " apt to teach." It is not by emphasising, as he pro- 
 poses to do, the epithet riding, but by getting rid of the 
 fallacy lurking in the designation elder, and in the term 
 oj'dination, that the evil is to be met. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, EDINBURGH. 
 
MESSRS BLACKWOOD & SONS 
 
 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD, CONSIDERED IN ITS 
 GENERAL AND SPECIAL ASPECTS ; with a Review of Re- 
 cent Speculations on the Subject. By Thomas J. Crawford, 
 D.D,, Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh. 
 
 THE DECALOGUE AND THE LORD'S DAY IN THE 
 LIGHT OF THE GENERAL RELATION OF THE OLD 
 AND NEW TESTAMENTS ; with a Chapter upon Confessions 
 of Faith. By the Rev. William Milligan, D.D., Professor of 
 Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the University of Aberdeen. 
 
 THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY; OR, THE FUNC- 
 TION OF DEBATE IN THEOLOGY. An Address delivered 
 to the Members of the Theological Society of the University of 
 Edinburgh ; with an Appendix on the Study of the Confession of 
 Faith. By John Tulloch, D.D., Principal and Professor of 
 Theology, St Mary's College, St Andrews. Fourth Edition, 9d. 
 
 THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER IN RELATION TO THE 
 DIVINE JUDGMENTS : a Sermon. By James Veitch, D.D., 
 one of the Ministers of St Cuthbert's. 6d. 
 
 FAMILY PRAYERS ; as Authorised by the General Assem- 
 bly of the Church of Scotland ; with other Prayers by the Com- 
 mittee of the General Assembly on Aids to Devotion. To which 
 is added a Pastoral Letter from the General Assembly on Family 
 Worship. Price 4s. 6d. 
 
 SERMONS. By the Rev. John Cairo, D.D., Professor of 
 Divinity in the University of Glasgow. 12th Thousand. Fools- 
 cap octavo, 5s. 
 
2 MESSRS BLACKWOOD AND SONS' PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 LECTURES AND SERMONS. By the late Rev. John 
 Park, D.D., Minister of the First Charge, St Andrews. Crown 
 octavo, 9s. 
 
 " Specimens of Scotch preaching at its very hest."— ^. K. H. B. in * Eraser's 
 Magazine. 
 
 *' A most scholar-hke, riclily-snggestive, and impressive volume. It con- 
 tains no novelties of doctrine ; nothing but the sound, orthodox, old-fashioned 
 divinity of our Scottish pulpit. The sinfulness of our fallen nature, the aton- 
 ing work of the Sou of God, the necessity of faith, the authority of the writ- 
 ten Word, the actuating i)ower of the Holy Spirit, the love of God to man, 
 and regenerated man's love to God, the genial loving spirit of the Christian 
 religion — these are its main topics, and always presented in language singu- 
 larly pure and classical." — Fifeshire Journal. 
 
 CHRIST'S KINGDOM UPON EARTH. A Series of Dis- 
 courses. By the Rev. Robert Flint, Professor of Moral Philo- 
 sophy in the University of St Andrews. Crown octavo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 THE COURSE OF TIME : A Poem. By Robert Pollok, 
 
 A.M. 5th Edition. 25s. 
 
 " Of deep and hallowed impress, full of noble thoughts and graphic percep- 
 tions ; the production of a mind alive to the great relations of being, and the 
 sublime simplicity of our religion."— Pro/esso?- Wilson. 
 
 LIFE OF THE REV. JAMES ROBERTSON, D.D. 
 F.R.S.E., Professor of Divinity and Ecclesiastical History in the 
 University of Edinburgh. By the Rev. A. H. Charteris, M.A. 
 With a Portrait. Octavo, 10s. 6d. 
 
 LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH 
 
 OF SCOTLAND, from the Reformation to the Revolution 
 Settlement. By the Late Very Rev. John Lee, D.D. LL.D., 
 Principal of the University of Edinburgh. With Notes and Ap- 
 pendices from the Author's Papers. Edited by the Rev. William 
 Lee. Two volumes, octavo, 21s. 
 
 WORKS OF THE REV. THOMAS M^CRIE, D.D. In 
 
 four volumes, price 24s. 
 
 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION— LUTHER, CAL- 
 VIN, LATIMER, and KNOX. By the Rev. John Tulloch, 
 D.D., Principal and Primarius Professor of Theology, St Mary's 
 College, St Andrews. Second Edition. 6s. 6d. 
 
 ENGLISH PURITANISM AND ITS LEADERS— CROM- 
 WELL, MILTON, BAXTER, and BUNYAN. By the Rev. 
 John Tulloch, D.D., &c. Author of 'Leaders of the Refor- 
 mation.' 7s. 6d. 
 
 45 George Street, Edinburgh ; and 37 Paternoster Row, London. 
 

 on Theological Seminary-Spe 
 
 1 1012 01030 0053