THE

PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE.

JULY, 1855.

Miscellaneous Articles.

AN OUTLINE OF AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF PRESBYTERIAN POLITY.

No. III.

THE second criterion by which it is proposed to judge of the validity of Presbyterian polity, is that of all High Churchmen, Romish and Protestant.

THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT CORRESPONDS TO THE ORGANIZATION ASSUMED BY PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY.

According to this theory, a model of Church polity, which we are bound to copy, was exemplified by the early Christians, and is to be found minutely delineated in the Scriptures. It is required to be shown that that model was Presbyterian rather than Papal, Episcopal, or Congregational.

Submitting ourselves to the criterion, without examining its debatable points, we have first a negative, and then a positive argument.

THE NEGATIVE ARGUMENT.

I. The primitive polity was not Papal.

1. There is no positive statute in the New Testament enjoining Papacy. A vicarship of Christ, if it had been introduced, would have been an arbitrary institution; had no foundation in natural relations; could plead no Old Testament analogies which were not formally and actually repudiated; was of too grave pretensions to be merely hinted at; and required, therefore, to be as posi

tively enacted by Divine command as the institutions of baptism and the Lord's Supper, or as the whole Mosaic polity. But no such special legislation in its favour do we find in the New Testa

ment.

2. Still less is there any evidence that Christ actually instituted such alleged Vicarship over his followers, or, for this purpose, appointed an official primacy among his apostles. Protestant interpretation of Romish proof-texts.

3. Still less is there any evidence that such alleged Vicarship was ever actually conceded by the Apostles and early Christians to Peter, or ever claimed and exercised by him.

4. Still less can it be proved that the Bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter in his alleged capacity of Vicar or Primate, or indeed in any other capacity.

5. On the contrary, the origin of the Roman See can be shown. to have been subsequent to Apostolic times; and its rise and progress plainly referred to local events and moral causes, which did not exist in those times.

The proof of these several propositions is familiar to all Protestants. Taken together, they establish the negative position, that whatever other officers may have been appointed and recognized among the primitive Christians, there was none that corresponded to the modern Pope of Rome.

II. The primitive polity was not Episcopal.

1. There is no positive statute in the New Testament enjoining the modern Episcopate, as there should have been (as shown above in reference to the Papacy) on the supposition of its primitive origin.

2. Still less is there any evidence that the modern Episcopate is identical with the Apostleship. There are two proofs of this.

(1.) The Apostleship was designed to be a temporary and provisional office. "First, because the continuance of the office is nowhere explicitly asserted; secondly, because the name Apostle, in its strict and proper sense, is not applied in the New Testament to any who were not of the original thirteen; thirdly, because the qualifications for the Apostleship, as a permanent office in the Church, are nowhere stated."*

(2.) The modern Episcopate cannot revive that extinct primitive office. First, because the Apostolic work of revealing Christian doctrine and organizing Christian society is finished; secondly, because the Apostolic gifts of inspiration, miracle-working, etc., have ceased; and thirdly, because the Apostolic qualifications of a personal intimacy with Christ, and actual witnessing of his resurrection, are no longer practicable. The false Apostles of our day would pretend to do what has already been done once for all,

"Primitive Church Offices," Essay III.

and what, if still unperformed, they are neither fit nor called to undertake.

3. Still less can it be proved that the Apostles conjoined to their own provisional office the modern Episcopate.

(1.) The ordaining and governing powers claimed for the Diocesan Bishop, they exercised universally, and without any provin

cial restrictions.

(2.) The same powers, together with the higher powers of administering the Word and sacraments, will hereafter be proved to have been exercised by Presbyters in common with the Apostles.

If the incumbents of the Apostleship held any other office, that office was not a bishopric such as is now held by their pretended

successors.

4. Still less is there any proof that the Apostles ever created the modern Episcopate, or conferred its powers upon any who were intermediate to themselves and Presbyters. The alleged cases of such ordination do not stand examination.

(1.) The utmost that can be proved in regard to Timothy and Titus is, that they were Presbyters, or Evangelists, acting under an extraordinary commission. First, because "a large part of the admonitions and instructions given to them are such as might have been given to mere presbyters;"* and secondly, because "the powers of ordination and discipline are ascribed to them without determining in what capacity they were to exercise them."†

(2.) The instances alleged from the official angels and false Apostles, spoken of in the Apocalypse, establish nothing for either side of the question.‡

Either of the above positions, if maintained, would be fatal to the Episcopal hypothesis. Taken together they amount to demonstration. Whatever other office, besides the extraordinary office of Apostle, there may have been among the primitive Christians, there was none that corresponded to the modern Diocesan Bishop.

5. There is not only this entire want of sufficient proof, that the modern Episcopaté originated in Apostolic times; but its rise, like that of the Roman Pontificate, can be historically traced to local events and moral causes, operating in subsequent times.

III. The primitive polity was not Congregational.

1. There is no positive statute in the New Testament enjoining Congregationalism, as there should have been in reference to a form of Church order which violated all the analogies of the Synagogue and the Sanhedrim; was entirely novel and unprecedented; and so directly opposed to the social tendencies of all Christian society.

2. Nor is there any evidence that the primitive congregations were, in fact, isolated and independent communities; but rather Ibid. Essay V.

"Primitive Church Offices," Essay IV. Ibid. Essay IV.

full proof to the contrary, afforded by their common subjection to the Apostles, and by the history of the Council at Jerusalem.

3. On the contrary, so far from being of Apostolic origin, Congregationalism can be traced to political events and influences, of exclusively modern growth.

The above negative argument, if matured, would lead to the conclusion, that whatever may have been the organization of primitive Christian society, it was not such as corresponded to the Papal, Episcopal, or Congregational bodies of our day. This opens the way for

THE POSITIVE ARGUMENT.

The primitive polity was Presbyterian.

1. Presbytery is as positively enjoined in the New Testament as the case admits or requires. Its introduction involved no violent process of innovation such as would have been involved in the introduction of either of the other systems. It was no novelty to the Hebrew community, out of which the first Christian converts were recruited. It had existed throughout their entire previous history. It was recognized and sanctioned by Christ. The Apostles found it made ready to their hand, as the model on which they would naturally be led to organize Christian society. All that is recorded of their acts, as the founders of the Church, is entirely consistent with the theory of a silent and peaceful transition of the existing Jewish Presbyterate into the Christian Presbyterate, but inconsistent with any other theory. That very reserve of Scripture, which is fatal to our opponents, becomes in our hypothesis a corroborative circumstance. If it is objected, then, that Presbytery is not positively enjoined and minutely prescribed in the New Testament, our first reply might be, that while other forms of Church polity required, indeed, to be thus specified, such specification would have been superfluous in reference to a system which was already in existence; which had existed during the entire Old Testament history; which was itself founded upon the natural relations of families; which was intrinsically as suitable to Christian society as to Jewish society, which could, and did exist through all political changes; and which (unlike the whole ritual department of Judaism) was, in fact, left untouched by the work of the Messiah. Or if, on the other hand, it be still maintained that there is in the New Testament a formal enunciation of the principles of Church order, and in the Apostolic acts a positive, arbitrary institution of Church polity, then we may proceed to show that all that is so revealed directly corresponds to modern Presbytery.

2. That Presbyterial polity already in existence was actually continued and perpetuated by the founders of primitive Christian society. It was their uniform custom to ordain a parochial pres