Chapter I: The Constitution Of The Church. Or Church Polity (3)

Protestants err in denying the reference in _Mat. 16:18_ to Peter;
Christ recognizes Peter’s _personality_ in the founding of his
kingdom. But Romanists equally err in ignoring Peter’s
_confession_ as constituting him the “_rock_.” Creeds and
confessions alone will never convert the world; they need to be
embodied in living personalities in order to save; this is the
grain of correct doctrine in Romanism. On the other hand, men
without a faith, which they are willing to confess at every cost,
will never convert the world; there must be a substance of
doctrine with regard to sin, and with regard to Christ as the
divine Savior from sin; this is the just contention of
Protestantism. Baptist doctrine combines the merits of both
systems. It has both personality and confession. It is not
hierarchical, but experiential. It insists, not upon abstractions,
but upon life. Truth without a body is as powerless as a body
without truth. A flag without an army is even worse than an army
without a flag. Phillips Brooks: “The truth of God working through
the personality of man has been the salvation of the world.”
Pascal: “Catholicism is a church without a religion; Protestantism
is a religion without a church.” Yes, we reply, if church means
hierarchy.

Secondly,—If Peter had such authority given him, there is no evidence that he had power to transmit it to others.

Fisher, Hist. Christian Church, 247—“William of Occam (1280‐1347)
composed a treatise on the power of the pope. He went beyond his
predecessors in arguing that the church, since it has its unity in
Christ, is not under the necessity of being subject to a single
primate. He placed the Emperor and the General Council above the
pope, as his judges. In matters of faith he would not allow
infallibility even to the General Councils. ‘Only Holy Scripture
and the beliefs of the universal church are of absolute
validity.’ ” W. Rauschenbusch, in The Examiner, July 28, 1892—“The
age of an ecclesiastical organization, instead of being an
argument in its favor, is presumptive evidence against it, because
all bodies organized for moral or religious ends manifest such a
frightful inclination to become corrupt.... Marks of the true
church are: present spiritual power, loyalty to Jesus, an
unworldly morality, seeking and saving the lost, self‐sacrifice
and self‐crucifixion.”

Romanism holds to a transmitted infallibility. The pope is
infallible: 1. when he speaks as pope; 2. when he speaks for the
whole church; 3. when he defines doctrine, or passes a final
judgment; 4. when the doctrine thus defined is within the sphere
of faith or morality; see Brandis, in N. A. Rev., Dec. 1892: 654.
Schurman, Belief in God, 114—“Like the Christian pope, Zeus is
conceived in the Homeric poems to be fallible as an individual,
but infallible as head of the sacred convocation. The other gods
are only his representatives and executives.” But, even if the
primacy of the Roman pontiff were acknowledged, there would still
be abundant proof that he is not infallible. The condemnation of
the letters of Pope Honorius, acknowledging monothelism and
ordering it to be preached, by Pope Martin I and the first Council
of Lateran in 649, shows that both could not be right. Yet both
were _ex cathedra_ utterances, one denying what the other
affirmed. Perrone concedes that only one error committed by a pope
in an _ex cathedra_ announcement would be fatal to the doctrine of
papal infallibility.

Martineau, Seat of Authority, 139, 140, gives instances of papal
inconsistencies and contradictions, and shows that Roman
Catholicism does not answer to either one of its four notes or
marks of a true church, _viz._: 1. unity; 2. sanctity; 3.
universality; 4. apostolicity. Dean Stanley had an interview with
Pope Pius IX, and came away saying that the infallible man had
made more blunders in a twenty minutes’ conversation than any
person he had ever met. Dr. Fairbairn facetiously defines
infallibility, as “inability to detect errors even where they are
most manifest.” He speaks of “the folly of the men who think they
hold God in their custody, and distribute him to whomsoever they
will.” The Pope of Rome can no more trace his official descent
from Peter than Alexander the Great could trace his personal
descent from Jupiter.

Thirdly,—There is no conclusive evidence that Peter ever was at Rome, much less that he was bishop of Rome.

Clement of Rome refers to Peter as a martyr, but he makes no claim
for Rome as the place of his martyrdom. The tradition that Peter
preached at Rome and founded a church there dates back only to
Dionysius of Corinth and Irenæus of Lyons, who did not write
earlier than the eighth decade of the second century, or more than
a hundred years after Peter’s death. Professor Lepsius of Jena
submitted the Roman tradition to a searching examination, and came
to the conclusion that Peter was never in Italy.

A. A. Hodge, in Princetoniana, 129—“Three unproved assumptions: 1.
that Peter was primate; 2. that Peter was bishop of Rome; 3. that
Peter was primate _and_ bishop of Rome. The last is not
unimportant; because Clement, for instance, might have succeeded
to the bishopric of Rome without the primacy; as Queen Victoria
came to the crown of England, but not to that of Hanover. Or, to
come nearer home, Ulysses S. Grant was president of the United
States and husband of Mrs. Grant. Mr. Hayes succeeded him, but not
in both capacities!”

On the question whether Peter founded the Roman Church, see Meyer,
Com. on Romans, transl., vol. 1:23—“Paul followed the principle of
not interfering with another apostle’s field of labor. Hence Peter
could not have been laboring at Rome, at the time when Paul wrote
his epistle to the Romans from Ephesus; _cf._ _Acts 19:21; Rom.
15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16._” Meyer thinks Peter was martyred at Rome,
but that he did not found the Roman church, the origin of which is
unknown. “The Epistle to the Romans,” he says, “since Peter cannot
have labored at Rome before it was written, is a fact destructive
of the historical basis of the Papacy” (p. 28). See also Elliott,
Horæ Apocalypticæ, 3:560.

Fourthly,—There is no evidence that he really did so appoint the bishops of Rome as his successors.

Denney, Studies in Theology, 191—“The church was first the company
of those united to Christ and living in Christ; then it became a
society based on creed; finally a society based on clergy.” A. J.
Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 130—“The Holy Spirit is the real
‘Vicar of Christ.’ Would any one desire to find the clue to the
great apostasy whose dark eclipse now covers two thirds of nominal
Christendom, here it is: The rule and authority of the Holy Spirit
ignored in the church; the servants of the house assuming mastery
and encroaching more and more on the prerogatives of the Head,
till at last one man sets himself up as the administrator of the
church, and daringly usurps the name of the Vicar of Christ.” See
also R. V. Littledale, The Petrine Claims.

The secret of Baptist success and progress is in putting truth
before unity. _James 3:17_—“_the wisdom that is from above is
first pure, then peaceable._” The substitution of external for
internal unity, of which the apostolic succession, so called, is a
sign and symbol, is of a piece with the whole sacramental scheme
of salvation. Men cannot be brought into the kingdom of heaven,
nor can they be made good ministers of Jesus Christ, by priestly
manipulation. The Frankish wholesale conversion of races, the
Jesuitical putting of obedience instead of life, the
identification of the church with the nation, are all false
methods of diffusing Christianity. The claims of Rome need
irrefragible proof, if they are to be accepted. But they have no
warrant in Scripture or in history. Methodist Review: “As long as
the Bible is recognized to be authoritative, the church will face
Romeward as little as Leo X will visit America to attend a
Methodist campmeeting, or Justin D. Fulton be elected as his
successor in the Papal chair.” See Gore, Incarnation, 208, 209.

Fifthly,—If Peter did so appoint the bishops of Rome, the evidence of continuous succession since that time is lacking.

On the weakness of the argument for apostolic succession, see
remarks with regard to the national church theory, below. Dexter,
Congregationalism, 715—“To spiritualize and evangelize Romanism,
or High Churchism, will be to Congregationalize it.” If all the
Roman Catholics who have come to America had remained Roman
Catholics, there would be sixteen millions of them, whereas there
are actually only eight millions. If it be said that the remainder
have no religion, we reply that they have just as much religion as
they had before. American democracy has freed them from the
domination of the priest, but it has not deprived them of anything
but external connection with a corrupt church. It has given them
opportunity for the first time to come in contact with the church
of the New Testament, and to accept the offer of salvation through
simple faith in Jesus Christ.

“Romanism,” says Dorner, “identifies the church and the kingdom of
God. The professedly perfect hierarchy is itself the church, or
its essence.” Yet Moehler, the greatest modern advocate of the
Romanist system, himself acknowledges that there were popes before
the Reformation “whom hell has swallowed up”; see Dorner, Hist.
Prot. Theol., Introd., _ad finem_. If the Romanist asks: “Where
was your church before Luther?” the Protestant may reply: “Where
was your face this morning before it was washed?” Disciples of
Christ have sometimes kissed the feet of Antichrist, but it
recalls an ancient story. When an Athenian noble thus, in old
times, debased himself to the King of Persia, his fellow‐citizens
at Athens doomed him to death. See Coleman, Manual on Prelacy and
Ritualism, 265‐274; Park, in Bib. Sac., 2:451; Princeton Rev.,
Apr., 1876:265.

Sixthly,—There is abundant evidence that a hierarchical form of church government is corrupting to the church and dishonoring to Christ.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 131‐140—“Catholic writers
claim that the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, is the only
mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost. But the Spirit has been given to the
church as a whole, that is, to the body of regenerated believers,
and to every member of that body according to his measure. The sin
of sacerdotalism is, that it arrogates for a usurping few that
which belongs to every member of Christ’s mystical body. It is a
suggestive fact that the name κλῆρος, ‘_the charge allotted to
you_,’ which Peter gives to the church as ‘_the flock of God_’ (_1
Pet. 5:2_), when warning the elders against being lords over God’s
heritage, now appears in ecclesiastical usage as ’the clergy,’
with its orders of pontiff and prelates and lord bishops, whose
appointed function it is to exercise lordship over Christ’s
flock.... But committees and majorities may take the place of the
Spirit, just as perfectly as a pope or a bishop.... This is the
reason why the light has been extinguished in many a
candlestick.... The body remains, but the breath is withdrawn. The
Holy Spirit is the only Administrator.”

Canon Melville: “Make peace if you will with Popery, receive it
into your Senate, enshrine it in your chambers, plant it in your
hearts. But be ye certain, as certain as there is a heaven above
you and a God over you, that the Popery thus honored and embraced
is the Popery that was loathed and degraded by the holiest of your
fathers; and the same in haughtiness, the same in intolerance,
which lorded it over kings, assumed the prerogative of Deity,
crushed human liberty, and slew the saints of God.” On the
strength and weakness of Romanism, see Harnack, What is
Christianity? 246‐263.

(_b_) The national‐church theory, or the theory of provincial or national churches.—This holds that all members of the church in any province or nation are bound together in provincial or national organization, and that this organization has jurisdiction over the local churches. We reply:

First,—the theory has no support in the Scriptures. There is no evidence that the word ἐκκλησία in the New Testament ever means a national church organization. 1 Cor. 12:28, Phil. 3:6, and 1 Tim. 3:15, may be more naturally interpreted as referring to the generic church. In Acts 9:31, ἐκκλησία is a mere generalization for the local churches then and there existing, and implies no sort of organization among them.

_1 Cor. 12:28_—“_And God hath set some in the church, first
apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then
gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues_”;
_Phil. 3:6_—“_as touching zeal, persecuting the church_”; _1 Tim.
3:15_—“_that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves
in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth_”; _Acts 9:31_—“_So the church
throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being
edified._” For advocacy of the Presbyterian system, see
Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:514‐556; McPherson,
Presbyterianism. _Per contra_, see Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T.,
9—“There is no example of a national church in the New Testament.”

Secondly,—It is contradicted by the intercourse which the New Testament churches held with each other as independent bodies,—for example at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts. 15:1‐35).

_Acts 15:2, 6, 13, 19, 22_—“_the brethren appointed that Paul and
Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem
unto the apostles and elders about this question.... And the
apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this
matter.... James answered ... my judgment is, that we trouble not
them that from among the Gentiles turn to God ... it seemed good
to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose
men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and
Barnabas._”

McGiffert, Apostolic Church, 645—“The steps of developing
organization were: 1. Recognition of the teaching of the apostles
as exclusive standard and norm of Christian truth; 2. Confinement
to a specific office, the Catholic office of bishop, of the power
to determine what is the teaching of the apostles; 3. Designation
of a specific institution, the Catholic church, as the sole
channel of divine grace. The Twelve, in the church of Jerusalem,
had only a purely spiritual authority. They could advise, but they
did not command. Hence they were not qualified to transmit
authority to others. They had no absolute authority themselves.”

Thirdly,—It has no practical advantages over the Congregational polity, but rather tends to formality, division, and the extinction of the principles of self‐government and direct responsibility to Christ.

E. G. Robinson: “The Anglican schism is the most sectarian of all
the sects.” Principal Rainey thus describes the position of the
Episcopal Church: “They will not recognize the church standing of
those who recognize them; and they only recognize the church
standing of those, Greeks and Latins, who do not recognize them.
Is not that an odd sort of Catholicity?” “Every priestling hides a
popeling.” The elephant going through the jungle saw a brood of
young partridges that had just lost their mother. Touched with
sympathy he said: “I will be a mother to you,” and so he sat down
upon them, as he had seen their mother do. Hence we speak of the
“incumbent” of such and such a parish.

There were no councils that claimed authority till the second
century, and the independence of the churches was not given up
until the third or fourth century. In Bp. Lightfoot’s essay on the
Christian Ministry, in the appendix to his Com. on Philippians,
progress to episcopacy is thus described: “In the time of
Ignatius, the bishop, then _primus inter pares_, was regarded only
as a centre of unity; in the time of Irenæus, as a depositary of
primitive truth; in the time of Cyprian, as absolute vicegerent of
Christ in things spiritual.” Nothing is plainer than the steady
degeneration of church polity in the hands of the Fathers.
Archibald Alexander: “A better name than Church Fathers for these
men would be church babies. Their theology was infantile.” Luther:
“Never mind the Scribes,—what saith the Scripture?”

Fourthly,—It is inconsistent with itself, in binding a professedly spiritual church by formal and geographical lines.

Instance the evils of Presbyterianism in practice. Dr. Park says
that “the split between the Old and the New School was due to an
attempt on the part of the majority to impose their will on the
minority.... The Unitarian defection in New England would have
ruined Presbyterian churches, but it did not ruin Congregational
churches. A Presbyterian church may be deprived of the minister it
has chosen, by the votes of neighboring churches, or by the few
leading men who control them, or by one single vote in a close
contest.” We may illustrate by the advantage of the adjustable
card‐catalogue over the old method of keeping track of books in a
library.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 137, note—“By the
candlesticks in the Revelation being seven, instead of one as in
the tabernacle, we are taught that whereas, in the Jewish
dispensation, God’s visible church was one, in the Gentile
dispensation there are many visible churches, and that Christ
himself recognizes them alike” (quoted from Garratt, Com. on Rev.,
32). Bishop Moule, Veni Creator, 131, after speaking of the unity
of the Spirit, goes on to say: “Blessed will it be for the church
and for the world when these principles shall so vastly prevail as
to find expression from within in a harmonious counterpart of
order; a far different thing from what is, I cannot but think, an
illusory prospect—the attainment of such internal unity by a
previous exaction of exterior governmental uniformity.”

Fifthly,—It logically leads to the theory of Romanism. If two churches need a superior authority to control them and settle their differences, then two countries and two hemispheres need a common ecclesiastical government,—and a world‐church, under one visible head, is Romanism.

Hatch, in his Bampton Lectures on Organization of Early Christian
Churches, without discussing the evidence from the New Testament,
proceeds to treat of the post‐apostolic development of
organization, as if the existence of a germinal Episcopacy very
soon _after_ the apostles proved such a system to be legitimate or
obligatory. In reply, we would ask whether we are under moral
obligation to conform to whatever succeeds in developing itself.
If so, then the priests of Baal, as well as the priests of Rome,
had just claims to human belief and obedience. Prof. Black: “We
have no objection to antiquity, if they will only go back far
enough. We wish to listen, not only to the fathers of the church,
but also to the grandfathers.”

Phillips Brooks speaks of “the fantastic absurdity of apostolic
succession.” And with reason, for in the Episcopal system, bishops
qualified to ordain must be: (1) baptized persons; (2) not
scandalously immoral; (3) not having obtained office by bribery;
(4) must not have been deposed. In view of these qualifications,
Archbishop Whately pronounces the doctrine of apostolic succession
untenable, and declares that “there is no Christian minister
existing now, who can trace up with complete certainty his own
ordination, through perfectly regular steps, to the time of the
apostles.” See Macaulay’s Review of Gladstone on Church and State,
in his Essays, 4:166‐178. There are breaks in the line, and a
chain is only as strong as its weakest part. See Presb. Rev.,
1886:89‐126. Mr. Flanders called Phillips Brooks “an Episcopalian
with leanings toward Christianity.” Bishop Brooks replied that he
could not be angry with “such a dear old moth‐eaten angel.” On
apostolic succession, see C. Anderson Scott, Evangelical Doctrine,
37‐48, 267‐288.

Apostolic succession has been called the pipe‐line conception of
divine grace. To change the figure, it may be compared to the
monopoly of communication with Europe by the submarine cable. But
we are not confined to the pipe‐line or to the cable. There are
wells of salvation in our private grounds, and wireless telegraphy
practicable to every human soul, apart from any control of
corporations.

We see leanings toward the world‐church idea in Pananglican and
Panpresbyterian Councils. Human nature ever tends to substitute
the unity of external organization for the spiritual unity which
belongs to all believers in Christ. There is no necessity for
common government, whether Presbyterian or Episcopal; since
Christ’s truth and Spirit are competent to govern all as easily as
one. It is a remarkable fact, that the Baptist denomination,
without external bonds, has maintained a greater unity in
doctrine, and a closer general conformity to New Testament
standards, than the churches which adopt the principle of
episcopacy, or of provincial organization. With Abp. Whately, we
find the true symbol of Christian unity in “_the tree of life,
bearing twelve manner of __ fruits_” (_Rev. 22:2_). _Cf._ _John
10:16_—γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἶς ποιμήν—“_they shall become one
flock, one shepherd_” = not one fold, not external unity, but one
flock in many folds. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 130;
Dexter, Congregationalism, 236; Coleman, Manual on Prelacy and
Ritualism, 128‐264; Albert Barnes, Apostolic Church.

As testimonies to the adequacy of Baptist polity to maintain sound
doctrine, we quote from the Congregationalist, Dr. J. L. Withrow:
“There is not a denomination of evangelical Christians that is
throughout as sound theologically as the Baptist denomination.
There is not an evangelical denomination in America to‐day that is
as true to the simple plain gospel of God, as it is recorded in
the word, as the Baptist denomination.” And the Presbyterian, Dr.
W. G. T. Shedd, in a private letter dated Oct. 1, 1886, writes as
follows: “Among the denominations, we all look to the Baptists for
steady and firm adherence to sound doctrine. You have never had
any internal doctrinal conflicts, and from year to year you
present an undivided front in defense of the Calvinistic faith.
Having no judicatures and regarding the local church as the unit,
it is remarkable that you maintain such a unity and solidarity of
belief. If you could impart your secret to our Congregational
brethren, I think that some of them at least would thank you.”

A. H. Strong, Sermon in London before the Baptist World Congress,
July, 1905—“Coöperation with Christ involves the spiritual unity
not only of all Baptists with one another, but of all Baptists
with the whole company of true believers of every name. We cannot,
indeed, be true to our convictions without organizing into one
body those who agree with us in our interpretation of the
Scriptures. Our denominational divisions are at present
necessities of nature. But we regret these divisions, and, as we
grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, we strive, at
least in spirit, to rise above them. In America our farms are
separated from one another by fences, and in the springtime, when
the wheat and barley are just emerging from the earth, these
fences are very distinguishable and unpleasing features of the
landscape. But later in the season, when the corn has grown and
the time of harvest is near, the grain is so tall that the fences
are entirely hidden, and for miles together you seem to see only a
single field. It is surely our duty to confess everywhere and
always that we are first Christians and only secondly Baptists.
The tie which binds us to Christ is more important in our eyes
than that which binds us to those of the same faith and order. We
live in hope that the Spirit of Christ in us, and in all other
Christian bodies, may induce such growth of mind and heart that
the sense of unity may not only overtop and hide the fences of
division, but may ultimately do away with these fences
altogether.”

2. Officers of the Church.

A. The number of offices in the church is two:—first, the office of bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and, secondly, the office of deacon.

(_a_) That the appellations “bishop,” “presbyter,” and “pastor” designate the same office and order of persons, may be shown from Acts 20:28—ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν (cf. 17—πρεσβυτέρους); Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 8; Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2—πρεσβυτέρους ... παρακαλῶ ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος ... ποιμάνατε ποίμνιον ... ἐπισκοποῦντες. Conybeare and Howson: “The terms ‘bishop’ and ‘elder’ are used in the New Testament as equivalent,—the former denoting (as its meaning of overseer implies) the duties, the latter the rank, of the office.” See passages quoted in Gieseler, Church History, 1:90, note 1—as, for example, Jerome: “Apud veteres iidem episcopi et presbyteri, quia illud nomen dignitatis est, hoc ætatis. Idem est ergo presbyter qui episcopus.”

_Acts 20:28_—“_Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in
which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops_ [marg.
‘_overseers_’], _to feed_ [lit. ‘_to shepherd_,’ ‘_be pastors
of_’] _the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own
blood_”; _cf._ _17_—“_the elders of the church_” are those whom
Paul addresses as bishops or overseers, and whom he exhorts to be
good pastors. _Phil. 1:1_—“_bishops and deacons_”; _1 Tim. 3:1,
8_—“_If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
work.... Deacons in like manner must be grave_”; _Tit. 1:5,
7_—“_appoint elders in every city.... For the bishop must be
blameless_”; _1 Pet. 5:1, 2_—“_The elders therefore among you I
exhort, who am a fellow‐elder.... Tend_ [lit. ‘_shepherd_,’ ‘_be
pastors of_’] _the flock of God which is among you, exercising the
oversight_ [acting as bishops], _not of constraint, but __
willingly, according to the will of God._” In this last passage,
Westcott and Hort, with Tischendorf’s 8th edition, follow א and B
in omitting ἐπισκοποῦντες. Tregelles and our Revised Version
follow A and אc in retaining it. Rightly, we think; since it is
easy to see how, in a growing ecclesiasticism, it should have been
omitted, from the feeling that too much was here ascribed to a
mere presbyter.

Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, 95‐99—“It is a fact now generally
recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that in the
language of the N. T. the same officer in the church is called
indifferently ‘_bishop_’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘_elder_’ or
‘_presbyter_’ (πρεσβύτερος).... To these special officers the
priestly functions and privileges of the Christian people are
never regarded as transferred or delegated. They are called
stewards or messengers of God, servants or ministers of the
church, and the like, but the sacerdotal is never once conferred
upon them. The only priests under the gospel, designated as such
in the N. T., are the saints, the members of the Christian
brotherhood.” On _Titus 1:5, 7_—“_appoint elders.... For the
bishop must be blameless_”—Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 150, remarks:
“Here the word ‘_for_’ is quite out of place unless bishops and
elders are identical. All these officers, bishops as well as
deacons, are confined to the local church in their jurisdiction.
The charge of a bishop is not a diocese, but a church. The
functions are mostly administrative, the teaching office being
subordinate, and a distinction is made between teaching elders and
others, implying that the teaching function is not common to them
all.”

Dexter, Congregationalism, 114, shows that bishop, elder, pastor
are names for the same office: (1) from the significance of the
words; (2) from the fact that the same qualifications are demanded
from all; (3) from the fact that the same duties are assigned to
all; (4) from the fact that the texts held to prove higher rank of
the bishop do not support that claim. Plumptre, in Pop. Com.,
Pauline Epistles, 555, 556—“There cannot be a shadow of doubt that
the two titles of Bishop and Presbyter were in the Apostolic Age
interchangeable.”

(_b_) The only plausible objection to the identity of the presbyter and the bishop is that first suggested by Calvin, on the ground of 1 Tim. 5:17. But this text only shows that the one office of presbyter or bishop involved two kinds of labor, and that certain presbyters or bishops were more successful in one kind than in the other. That gifts of teaching and ruling belonged to the same individual, is clear from Acts 20:28‐31; Eph. 4:11; Heb. 13:7; 1 Tim. 3:2—ἐπίσκοπον διδακτικόν.

_1 Tim. 5:17_—“_Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of
double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in
teaching_”; Wilson, Primitive Government of Christian Churches,
concedes that this last text “expresses a diversity in the
exercise of the Presbyterial office, but not in the office
itself”; and although he was a Presbyterian, he very consistently
refused to have any ruling elders in his church.

_Acts 20:28, 31_—“_bishops, to feed the church of the Lord ...
wherefore watch ye_”; _Eph. 4:11_—“_and some, pastors and
teachers_”—here Meyer remarks that the single article binds the
two words together, and prevents us from supposing that separate
offices are intended. Jerome: “Nemo ... pastoris sibi nomen
assumere debet, nisi possit docere quos pascit.” _Heb.
13:7_—“_Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake
unto you the word of God_”; _1 Tim. 3:2_—“_The bishop must be ...
apt to teach._” The great temptation to ambition in the Christian
ministry is provided against by having no gradation of ranks. The
pastor is a priest, only as every Christian is. See Jacob, Eccl.
Polity of N. T., 56; Olshausen, on 1 Tim. 5:17; Hackett on _Acts
14:23_; Presb. Rev., 1886:89‐126.

Dexter, Congregationalism, 52—“Calvin was a natural aristocrat,
not a man of the people like Luther. Taken out of his own family
to be educated in a family of the nobility, he received an early
bent toward exclusiveness. He believed in authority and loved to
exercise it. He could easily have been a despot. He assumed all
citizens to be Christians until proof to the contrary. He resolved
church discipline into police control. He confessed that the
eldership was an expedient to which he was driven by
circumstances, though after creating it he naturally enough
endeavored to procure Scriptural proof in its favor.” On the
question, The Christian Ministry, is it a Priesthood? see C.
Anderson Scott, Evangelical Doctrine, 205‐224.

(_c_) In certain of the N. T. churches there appears to have been a plurality of elders (Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5). There is, however, no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality which frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the churches for which these elders cared. The N. T. example, while it permits the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not require a plural eldership in every case; nor does it render this eldership, where it exists, of coördinate authority with the church. There are indications, moreover, that, at least in certain churches, the pastor was one, while the deacons were more than one, in number.

_Acts 20:17_—“_And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to
him the elders of the church_”; _Phil. 1:1_—“_Paul and Timothy,
servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that
are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons_”; _Tit. 1:5_—“_For
this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order
the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as
I gave thee charge._” See, however, _Acts 12:17_—“_Tell these
things unto James, and to the brethren_”; _15:13_—“_And after they
had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken
unto me_”; _21:18_—“_And the day following Paul went in with us
unto James; and all the elders were present_”; _Gal. 1:19_—“_But
other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother_”;
_2:12_—“_certain came from James._” These passages seem to
indicate that James was the pastor or president of the church at
Jerusalem, an intimation which tradition corroborates.

_1 Tim. 3:2_—“_The bishop therefore must be without reproach_”;
_Tit. 1:7_—“_For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward_”;
_cf._ _1 Tim. 3:8, 10, 12_—“_Deacons in like manner must be
grave.... And let these also first be proved; then let them serve
as deacons, if they be blameless.... Let deacons be husbands of
one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well_”—in all
these passages the bishop is spoken of in the singular number, the
deacons in the plural. So, too, in _Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18 and 3:1,
7, 14_, “_the angel of the church_” is best interpreted as meaning
the pastor of the church; and, if this be correct, it is clear
that each church had, not many pastors, but one.

It would, moreover, seem antecedently improbable that every church
of Christ, however small, should be required to have a plural
eldership, particularly since churches exist that have only a
single male member. A plural eldership is natural and
advantageous, only where the church is very numerous and the
pastor needs assistants in his work: and only in such cases can we
say that New Testament example favors it. For advocacy of the
theory of plural eldership, see Fish, Ecclesiology, 229‐249; Ladd,
Principles of Church Polity, 22‐29. On the whole subject of
offices in the church, see Dexter, Congregationalism, 77‐98; Dagg,
Church Order, 241‐266; Lightfoot on the Christian Ministry,
appended to his Commentary on Philippians, and published in his
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age.

B. The duties belonging to these offices.

(_a_) The pastor, bishop, or elder is:

First,—a spiritual teacher, in public and private;

_Acts 20:20, 21, 35_—“_how I shrank not from declaring unto you
anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from
house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance
toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.... In all
things I gave you an example, that so laboring ye ought to help
the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he
himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive_”; _1
Thess. 5:12_—“_But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that
labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you_”;
_Heb. 13:7, 17_—“_Remember them that had the rule over you, men
that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of
their life, imitate their faith.... Obey them that have the rule
over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your
souls, as they that shall give account._”

Here we should remember that the pastor’s private work of
religious conversation and prayer is equally important with his
public ministrations; in this respect he is to be an example to
his flock, and they are to learn from him the art of winning the
unconverted and of caring for those who are already saved. A
Jewish Rabbi once said: “God could not be every where,—therefore
he made mothers.” We may substitute, for the word ’mothers,’ the
word ’pastors.’ Bishop Ken is said to have made a vow every
morning, as he rose, that he would not be married that day. His
own lines best express his mind: “A virgin priest the altar best
attends; our Lord that state commands not, but commends.”

Secondly,—administrator of the ordinances;

_Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I commanded_”; _1 Cor. 1:16, 17_—“_And __ I baptized
also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I
baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to
preach the gospel._” Here it is evident that, although the pastor
administers the ordinances, this is not his main work, nor is the
church absolutely dependent upon him in the matter. He is not set,
like an O. T. priest, to minister at the altar, but to preach the
gospel. In an emergency any other member appointed by the church
may administer them with equal propriety, the church always
determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, and
constituting him their organ in administering them. Any other view
is based on sacramental notions, and on ideas of apostolic
succession. All Christians are “_priests unto ... God_” (_Rev.
1:6_). “This universal priesthood is a priesthood, not of
expiation, but of worship, and is bound to no ritual, or order of
times and places” (P. S. Moxom).

Thirdly,—superintendent of the discipline, as well as presiding officer at the meetings, of the church.

Superintendent of discipline: _1 Tim. 5:17_—“_Let the elders that
rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who
labor in the word and in teaching_”; _3:5_—“_if a man knoweth not
how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of
God?_” Presiding officer at meetings of the church: _1 Cor.
12:28_—“_governments_”—here κυβερνήσεις, or “_governments_,”
indicating the duties of the pastor, are the counterpart of
ἀντιλήψεις, or “_helps_,” which designate the duties of the
deacons; _1 Pet. 5:2, 3_—“_Tend the flock of God which is among
you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly,
according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a
ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you,
but making yourselves ensamples to the flock._”

In the old Congregational churches of New England, an authority
was accorded to the pastor which exceeded the New Testament
standard. “Dr. Bellamy could break in upon a festival which he
deemed improper, and order the members of his parish to their
homes.” The congregation rose as the minister entered the church,
and stood uncovered as he passed out of the porch. We must not
hope or desire to restore the New England _régime_. The pastor is
to take responsibility, to put himself forward when there is need,
but he is to _rule_ only by moral suasion, and that only by
guiding, teaching, and carrying into effect the rules imposed by
Christ and the decisions of the church in accordance with those
rules.

Dexter, Congregationalism, 115, 155, 157—“The Governor of New York
suggests to the Legislature such and such enactments, and then
executes such laws as they please to pass. He is chief ruler of
the State, while the Legislature adopts or rejects what he
proposes.” So the pastor’s functions are not legislative, but
executive. Christ is the only lawgiver. In fulfilling this office,
the manner and spirit of the pastor’s work are of as great
importance as are correctness of judgment and faithfulness to
Christ’s law. “The young man who cannot distinguish the wolves
from the dogs should not think of becoming a shepherd.” Gregory
Nazianzen: “Either teach none, or let your life teach too.” See
Harvey, The Pastor; Wayland, Apostolic Ministry; Jacob, Eccl.
Polity of N. T., 99; Samson, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 261‐288.

(_b_) The deacon is helper to the pastor and the church, in both spiritual and temporal things.

First,—relieving the pastor of external labors, informing him of the condition and wants of the church, and forming a bond of union between pastor and people.

_Acts 6:1‐6_—“_Now in these days, when the number of the disciples
was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews
against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the
daily ministration. And the twelve called the multitude of the
disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should
forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore,
brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the
Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But
we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the
word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose
Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip,
and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus
a proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before the apostles: and
when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them_”; _cf._
_8‐20_—where Stephen shows power in disputation; _Rom. 12:7_—“_or
ministry_ διακονίαν, _let us give ourselves to our ministry_”; _1
Cor. 12:28_—“_helps_”—here ἀντιλήψεις, “_helps_,” indicating the
duties of deacons, are the counterpart of κυβερνήσεις,
“_governments_,” which designate the duties of the pastor; _Phil.
1:1_—“_bishops and deacons._”

Dr. E. G. Robinson did not regard the election of the seven, in
_Acts 6:1‐4_, as marking the origin of the diaconate, though he
thought the diaconate grew out of this election. The Autobiography
of C. H. Spurgeon, 3:22, gives an account of the election of
“elders” at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. These “elders”
were to attend to the spiritual affairs of the church, as the
deacons were to attend to the temporal affairs. These “elders”
were chosen year by year, while the office of deacon was
permanent.

Secondly,—helping the church, by relieving the poor and sick and ministering in an informal way to the church’s spiritual needs, and by performing certain external duties connected with the service of the sanctuary.

Since deacons are to be helpers, it is not necessary in all cases
that they should be old or rich; in fact, it is better that among
the number of deacons the various differences in station, age,
wealth, and opinion in the church should be represented. The
qualifications for the diaconate mentioned in _Acts 6:1‐4_ and _1
Tim. 3:8‐13_, are, in substance: wisdom, sympathy, and
spirituality. There are advantages in electing deacons, not for
life, but for a term of years. While there is no New Testament
prescription in this matter, and each church may exercise its
option, service for a term of years, with re‐election where the
office has been well discharged, would at least seem favored by _1
Tim. 3:10_—“_Let these also first be proved; then let them serve
as deacons, if they be blameless_”; _13_—“_For they that have
served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and
great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus._”

Expositor’s Greek Testament, on _Acts 5:6_, remarks that those who
carried out and buried Ananias are called οἱ νεώτεροι—“_the young
men_”—and in the case of Sapphira they were οἱ νεανίσκοι—meaning
the same thing. “Upon the natural distinction between πρεσβύτεροι
and νεώτεροι—elders and young men—it may well have been that
official duties in the church were afterward based.” Dr. Leonard
Bacon thought that the apostles included the whole membership in
the “_we_,” when they said: “_It is not fit that we should forsake
the word of God, and serve tables_.” The deacons, on this
interpretation, were chosen to help the whole church in temporal
matters.

In _Rom. 16:1, 2_, we have apparent mention of a deaconess—“_I
commend unto you Phœbe our sister, who is a servant_ [marg.:
‘_deaconess_’] _of the church that is at Cenchreæ ... for she
herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self_.”
See also _1 Tim. 3:11_—“_Women in like manner must be grave, not
slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things_”—here Ellicott and
Alford claim that the word “_women_” refers, not to deacons’
wives, as our Auth. Vers. had it, but to deaconesses. Dexter,
Congregationalism, 69, 132, maintains that the office of
deaconess, though it once existed, has passed away, as belonging
to a time when men could not, without suspicion, minister to
women.

This view that there are temporary offices in the church does not,
however, commend itself to us. It is more correct to say that
there is yet doubt whether there _was_ such an office as
deaconess, even in the early church. Each church has a right in
this matter to interpret Scripture for itself, and to act
accordingly. An article in the Bap. Quar., 1869:40, denies the
existence of any diaconal rank or office, for male or female.
Fish, in his Ecclesiology, holds that Stephen was a deacon, but an
elder also, and preached as elder, not as deacon,—_Acts 6:1‐4_
being called the institution, not of the diaconate, but of the
Christian ministry. The use of the phrase διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, and
the distinction between the diaconate and the pastorate
subsequently made in the Epistles, seem to refute this
interpretation. On the fitness of women for the ministry of
religion, see F. P. Cobbe, Peak of Darien, 199‐262; F. E. Willard,
Women in the Pulpit; B. T. Roberts, Ordaining Women. On the
general subject, see Howell, The Deaconship; Williams, The
Deaconship; Robinson, N. T. Lexicon, ἀντιλήψις. On the Claims of
the Christian Ministry, and on Education for the Ministry, see A.
H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 269‐318, and Christ in
Creation, 314‐331.

C. Ordination of officers.

(a) What is ordination?

Ordination is the setting apart of a person divinely called to a work of special ministration in the church. It does not involve the communication of power,—it is simply a recognition of powers previously conferred by God, and a consequent formal authorization, on the part of the church, to exercise the gifts already bestowed. This recognition and authorization should not only be expressed by the vote in which the candidate is approved by the church or the council which represents it, but should also be accompanied by a special service of admonition, prayer, and the laying‐ on of hands (Acts 6:5, 6; 13:2, 3; 14:23; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22).

Licensure simply commends a man to the churches as fitted to preach. Ordination recognizes him as set apart to the work of preaching and administering ordinances, in some particular church or in some designated field of labor, as representative of the church.

Of his call to the ministry, the candidate himself is to be first persuaded (1 Cor. 9:16; 1 Tim. 1:12); but, secondly, the church must be persuaded also, before he can have authority to minister among them (1 Tim. 3:2‐7; 4:14; Titus 1:6‐9).

The word “ordain” has come to have a technical signification not
found in the New Testament. There it means simply to choose,
appoint, set apart. In _1 Tim. 2:7_—“_whereunto I was appointed_
[ἐτέθην] _a preacher and an apostle ... a teacher of the Gentiles
in faith and truth_”—it apparently denotes ordination of God. In
the following passages we read of an ordination by the church:
_Acts 6:5, 6_—“_And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and
they chose Stephen ... and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and
Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus ... whom they set before the
apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon
them_”—the ordination of deacons; _13:2, 3_—“_And as they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate
me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on
them, they sent them away_”; _14:23_—“_And when they had appointed
for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they
commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed_”; _1 Tim.
4:14_—“_Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee
by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery_”;
_5:22_—“_Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other
men’s sins._”

Cambridge Platform, 1648, chapter 9—“Ordination is nothing else
but the solemn putting of a man into his place and office in the
church whereunto he had right before by election, being like the
installing of a Magistrate in the Commonwealth.” Ordination
confers no authority—it only recognizes authority already
conferred by God. Since it is only recognition, it can be repeated
as often as a man changes his denominational relations. Leonard
Bacon: “The action of a Council has no more authority than the
reason on which it is based. The church calling the Council is a
competent court of appeal from any decision of the Council.”

Since ordination is simply choosing, appointing, setting apart, it
seems plain that in the case of deacons, who sustain official
relations only to the church that constitutes them, ordination
requires no consultation with other churches. But in the
ordination of a pastor, there are three natural stages: (1) the
call of the church; (2) the decision of a council (the council
being virtually only the church advised by its brethren); (3) the
publication of this decision by a public service of prayer and the
laying‐on of hands. The prior call to be pastor may be said, in
the case of a man yet unordained, to be given by the church
conditionally, and in anticipation of a ratification of its action
by the subsequent judgment of the council. In a well‐instructed
church, the calling of a council is a regular method of appeal
from the church unadvised to the church advised by its brethren;
and the vote of the council approving the candidate is only the
essential completing of an ordination, of which the vote of the
church calling the candidate to the pastorate was the preliminary
stage.

This setting apart by the church, with the advice and assistance
of the council, is all that is necessarily implied in the New
Testament words which are translated “ordain”; and such
ordination, by simple vote of church and council, could not be
counted invalid. But it would be irregular. New Testament
precedent makes certain accompaniments not only appropriate, but
obligatory. A formal publication of the decree of the council, by
laying‐on of hands, in connection with prayer, is the last of the
duties of this advisory body, which serves as the organ and
assistant of the church. The laying‐on of hands is appointed to be
the regular accompaniment of ordination, as baptism is appointed
to be the regular accompaniment of regeneration; while yet the
laying‐on of hands is no more the substance of ordination, than
baptism is the substance of regeneration.

The imposition of hands is the natural symbol of the
communication, not of grace, but of authority. It does not make a
man a minister of the gospel, any more than coronation makes
Victoria a queen. What it does signify and publish, is formal
recognition and authorization. Viewed in this light, there not
only can be no objection to the imposition of hands upon the
ground that it favors sacramentalism, but insistence upon it is
the bounden duty of every council of ordination.

Mr. Spurgeon was never ordained. He began and ended his remarkable
ministry as a lay preacher. He revolted from the sacramentalism of
the Church of England, which seemed to hold that in the imposition
of hands in ordination divine grace trickled down through a
bishop’s finger ends, and he felt moved to protest against it. In
our judgment it would have been better to follow New Testament
precedent, and at the same time to instruct the churches as to the
real meaning of the laying‐on of hands. The Lord’s Supper had in a
similar manner been interpreted as a physical communication of
grace, but Mr. Spurgeon still continued to observe the Lord’s
Supper. His gifts enabled him to carry his people with him, when a
man of smaller powers might by peculiar views have ruined his
ministry. He was thankful that he was pastor of a large church,
because he felt that he had not enough talent to be pastor of a
small one. He said that when he wished to make a peculiar
impression on his people he put himself into his cannon and fired
himself at them. He refused the degree of Doctor of Divinity, and
said that “D. D.” often meant “Doubly Destitute.” Dr. P. S. Henson
suggests that the letters mean only “Fiddle Dee Dee.” For
Spurgeon’s views on ordination, see his Autobiography, 1:355 _sq._

John Wesley’s three tests of a call to preach: “Inquire of
applicants,” he says, “1. Do they know God as a pardoning God?
Have they the love of God abiding in them? Do they desire and see
nothing but God? And are they holy, in all manner of conversation?
2. Have they gifts, as well as grace, for the work? Have they a
clear sound understanding? Have they a right judgment in the
things of God? Have they a just conception of salvation by faith?
And has God given them any degree of utterance? Do they speak
justly, readily, clearly? 3. Have they fruit? Are any truly
convinced of sin, and converted to God, by their preaching?” The
second of these qualifications seems to have been in the mind of
the little girl who said that the bishop, in laying hands on the
candidate, was feeling of his head to see whether he had brains
enough to preach. There is some need of the preaching of a “trial
sermon” by the candidate, as proof to the Council that he has the
gifts requisite for a successful ministry. In this respect the
Presbyteries of Scotland are in advance of us.

(b) Who are to ordain?

Ordination is the act of the church, not the act of a privileged class in the church, as the eldership has sometimes wrongly been regarded, nor yet the act of other churches, assembled by their representatives in council. No ecclesiastical authority higher than that of the local church is recognized in the New Testament. This authority, however, has its limits; and since the church has no authority outside of its own body, the candidate for ordination should be a member of the ordaining church.

Since each church is bound to recognize the presence of the Spirit in other rightly constituted churches, and its own decisions, in like manner, are to be recognized by others, it is desirable in ordination, as in all important steps affecting other churches, that advice be taken before the candidate is inducted into office, and that other churches be called to sit with it in council, and if thought best, assist in setting the candidate apart for the ministry.