PREFACE.

THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CATECHISM is, to a considerable extent, a compilation. The author, without hesitation, has laid under contribution every author to whom he had access, of any distinction, who has written upon the peculiar principles of the REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. He is indebted chiefly to Drs. WM. SYMINGTON, McLEOD, J.R. WILLSON, Mr. Mc[K]ENNY, and others. Yet there is a large portion of it original matter, drawn from manuscripts long since written. The compilation has been the most difficult part of the performance. He has not declined to adopt the precise form of expression, or style of the respective writers. He does not consider the work a perfect performance. It may call forth some one more competent to the complete execution of such a work. It may serve, however, until a better work is produced, the purpose of a manual of instruction, and a collection of arguments and facts confirming and illustrating the “Distinctive Principles” of the church of which he is a minister. The author is aware of its defects, and will not be vexed by criticisms: but earnestly requests those who find fault to labor diligently for the production of a better, which he will hail with pleasure.

WM. L. ROBERTS.

[INTRODUCTION]

INTRODUCTION.

Question. How many are the peculiar and more prominent principles of the Reformed Presbyterian church?

Answer. TWELVE.

Q. What are these?

A. The doctrines of

1. Christ’s Mediatorial Dominion in general.

2. his Exclusive Headship over the Church.

3. The supremacy and ultimate authority of the word God in the church.

4. Civil government a moral ordinance of God.

5. Christ’s headship over the nations.

6. The subjection of the nations to God and to Christ.

7. The word of God the supreme rule in the state.

8. The duty of nations to acknowledge and support the true Christian religion.

9. The spiritual independence of the Church of Christ.

10. The right and duty of dissent from an immoral constitution of civil government.

11. The duty of social covenanting, and the permanent obligation of religious covenants.

12. The application of these doctrines in the form of a practical testimony, to the civil governments where Reformed Presbyterians reside.

Q. What is meant by “peculiar” principles?

A. Those which distinguish Reformed Presbyterians from other Christian denominations.

Q. What is meant by “prominent” principles?

A. Those which, though hold by some other denominations, are not made practically a part of their testimony.

[ON CHRIST'S MEDIATORIAL DOMINION IN GENERAL]

SECTION I.-On Christ’s Mediatorial Dominion in General.

Q. What is the import of the title mediator given to Jesus Christ?

A. It is all official title, which exhibits Christ as transacting between God and man for man’s salvation; and in the discharge of the functions of this office, he acts in the capacity of the Father’s servant. 1 Tim. ii. 5. There is but one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. Heb. xii. 24. To Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. Isa. xlii. 1. Behold my servant whom I uphold: applied to Christ, Matt. xii. 18. Isa. liii. 11. “My righteous servant.”

Q. What is the dominion of Christ?

A. The authority, or unlimited power, which he possesses over the creatures.

Q. What is his mediatorial dominion?

A. Not that which essentially belongs to him as God, but that with which he has been officially invested as the Messiah, by the authoritative act of the Father.

Q. What is the essential dominion of Christ?

A. It is that which pertains to him as the Son of God, a Person in the Godhead, and is the same with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost, original, inherent, and underived.

Q. His mediatorial dominion is, then, that which was delegated, conferred by gift, bestowed by the Father, in short, “the government” which was “laid upon his shoulders,”—that “power” which was “given him in heaven and in earth?”

A. Yes. Because, as the Son of God essentially viewed, he cannot be the recipient of a gift, “but is equal in power and glory with the Father.”

Q. Do his essential and mediatorial kingdom differ in matter or extent?

A. No. They are really the same, both in matter and extent; the difference consists in this: The kingdom over which he, as the Son of God, rules by inherent and original right, he is, as mediator, authorized to manage and direct, for a new end, namely, the salvation of men, and the best interests of the church.

Q. By whom was Christ appointed to this mediatorial dominion?

A. By the Father. Ps. ii. 6. “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” Luke xxii. 29. “My Father hath appointed unto me a kingdom.” See John v. 20, 27.

Q. When was he appointed?

A. From all eternity. Prov. viii. 23. “I was act up from everlasting.” See Ps. ii. 6, 7. Mai. v. 2.

Q. In what transaction?

A. In the covenant of grace. Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4. “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.”

Q. What is this covenant?

A. It comprises the whole scheme agreed upon by the divine persons for the salvation of fallen man.

Q. In what capacity did the Father make this appointment?

A. As the representative of Deity in the economy of redemption.

Q. Did not this appointment proceed from the Father necessarily and originally by an inherent right?

A. No. This would be at variance with the perfect equality subsisting among the divine persons.

Q. Were the divine persons designated to their respective economical characters and offices by a sovereign Act of the divine will, essentially considered?

A. Yes. For this presupposed act preserves inviolate the essential equality of the persons in the Godhead.

Q. Has not all power and authority been, by this sovereign act of the divine will, economically vested in the Father?

A. Yes.

Q. Does this appointment of the Son proceed formally from this economical authority with which the Father is thus invested?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it not necessary to suppose that the Son was designated to his mediatory office and dominion by the above mentioned sovereign act of the divine will?

A. Yes. For this view of the case preserves inviolate the voluntariness of the Son in the whole transaction, as well as his equality with the Father.

Q. What is the first source of proof of the reality of Christ’s mediatorial dominion?

A. Several interesting prefigurations of his royal authority.

Q. Was not Melchizedec one of these instructive types of Christ’s dominion?

A. Yes. He was a distinguished type of Christ. Ps cx. 4. “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec.”

Q. How is it evident that he was a type of Christ’s royal dominion?

A. In three ways. 1. The import of his name, Heb. vii. 2. “King of righteousness.” Beautifully prefiguring Christ as the Sun of righteousness—the sceptre of whose kingdom is a right sceptre. 2. His designation “King of Salem,” Heb. vii. 2. That is “King of Peace”—fitly representing Him who is designated the Prince of Peace. 3. His combining in his own person the royal and sacerdotal offices, he was a royal priest—a sacerdotal King, and suitable type of Him who, exercising his power upon the footing of his purchase, sits “a priest upon his throne.”

Q. Was Moses an eminent type of Christ in his mediatorial dominion?

A. Yes. As “King in Jeshuran.” Jeshuran, which signifies “upright,” refers to the people of Israel, who were required and understood to possess this character. The Jewish legislator later thus typified Him, who, being “King in Zion,” rules among the upright in heart, and governs them in integrity and truth.

Q. Was David another of these royal types?

A. Yes. Particularly in his signal overthrow of Goliath the vaunting champion of the Philistines, in his valour in war, and wisdom and humanity in peace, in the principles and character of his administration, in which he led his people, according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands, and in the covenant of royalty he made with him and his seed forever.

Q. Wherein does David’s typical character most remarkably appear?

A. 1 . In the fact that the Messiah himself is repeatedly spoken of by the prophets under the very name of David Jer xxx. 9. “They shall serve the Lord their God, and their King, whom I will raise up unto them.” Hos iii, 5 “Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David their King; and shall fear Lord and his goodness in the latter days.” See also Ezek. xxxiv. 24. 2. In the fact that Christ in his incarnation described as recovering the throne of David his father according to the flesh. Luke i. 32, 33.

Q. Was not Solomon the most illustrious type of Christ’s mediatorial dominion?

A. Yes. In the wisdom of his administration—the extent of territory over which he reigned—the wealth of his subjects and the peacefulness of his reign, He was a remarkable of the Messiah—so much so that in Song iii. 11, Christ is designated by his name, “Go forth ye daughters of Zion behold King Solomon with the crown wherewith his crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart.”

Q. What is the second source of proof of the reality of Christ’s mediatorial rule?

A. Prophecy is a fruitful source of evidence in favour of his royalty.

Q. Which is the first proof from this source?

A. The very first prediction, Gen. iii. 15. “It,” the seed of the woman, “shall bruise thy head,” is conceived in terms which allude to the ancient mode by which victorious kings expressed their conquests, namely, by placing their feet upon the necks of their vanquished foes.

Q. Which is the second proof from prophecy?

A. The language of the patriarch Jacob, Gen. xlix. 10. “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver front between his feet until Shiloh come,” clearly imports that, on Christ, at his coming, shall devolve that judicial and legislative authority which had been previously exercised by others.

Q. Which is the third evidence from this source?

A. The prophecy of Balaam, Num. xxiv. 17. “There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre (the emblem of regal power) shall rise out of Israel.”

Q. Which is the fourth proof from prophecy?

A. The declaration of David in the second psalm, “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.” Applied to Christ, Acts iv. 25, 26.

Q. Which is the fifth proof?

A. The forty-fifth psalm, which undoubtedly refers to the Messiah, and in which the royal character is sustained throughout: verses 1, 3, 6. “I speak of the things which I have made touching the King—gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. Thy throne, God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” Applied to Christ, Heb. i. 8.

Q. Which is the sixth proof, among many others which may be adduced from prophecy?

A. The forty-seventh psalm, which undoubtedly refers to the Lord Jesus in his ascension from the mount of Olives, “God is gone up with a shout,” and in which also the regal character is sustained throughout: verses 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, &c. “The Lord most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth—he shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet; sing praises unto our King, for God is the King of all the earth; God reigneth over the heathen; God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness.”

Q. Do not the titles given to Christ afford another source of proof in favour of his mediatorial dominion?

A. Yes. They afford ample and conclusive testimony.

Q. Which is the first title?

A. He is designated “Lord” Acts ii. 11, “God hath made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Q. Which is the second title?

A. Leader and Commander. Is. lv. 4, “I have given him for a witness to the people; a Leader and Commander to the people.”

Q. Which is the third title?

A. He is entitled Judge. Is. xxxiii. 22, “The LORD is our Judge.”

Q. Which is the fourth title?

A. He is denominated a Ruler. Mic. v. 2, “Out of thee, (Bethlehem Ephratah) shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel.”

Q. Which is his fifth title?

A. He is called the “Captain of the Hosts of the LORD.” Josh, v. 14.

Q. Which is his sixth title?

A. “Prince of the kings of the earth;” “King of kings.” Rev. i. 5, xvii. 14, xix. 16, “Jesus Christ, the Prince of the kings of the earth,—the Lamb is Lord of lords, and King of kings,—he hath on his vesture and thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords.”

Q. Does not Christ himself claim this dominion?

A. Yes. John xviii. 37. “Thou sayest, (Pilate,) I am a king. To this end was I born.”

Q. Does not the Father acknowledge his claim?

A. Yes. Ps. xxi. 3, Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11, “Thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head.” “Wherefore God also bath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Q. Do not angels proclaim his sovereignty?

A. Yes. Luke i. 31-33, Rev. v. 11, 12. Gabriel thus proclaims his glory: “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” “And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.”

Q. Did not the wise men of the east recognize his royalty, and perform an act of homage?

A. Yes. They proclaimed him “King of the Jews,” and unfolding their gifts, laid them at his feet,. Matt. ii. 2.

Q. Did not Nathaniel witness this good confession?

A. Yes. He confessed he was “the King of Israel.” John. i. 49.

Q. Does not Paul make the like confession?

A. Yes. He proclaims him “the King eternal.” 1 Tim. i. 17.

Q. Do not his enemies proclaim his great dominion?

A. Yes. The Jewish multitude rent the air with their shouts as he entered into Jerusalem, crying, “Hosanna! Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord!” The Roman soldiers unwittingly bore their part as they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And Pontius Pilate inscribed upon his cross the unalterable title, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews,” Jno. xix. 12,—a title which was, perhaps, the principal means of conveying to the malefactor that knowledge of the Saviour’s character which led to his Conversion.

Q. Are not royal appendages assigned him?

A. Yes. He has a kingdom, a throne, a radiant crown. He sways a sceptre, the symbol of royal authority, and hath a numerous and glorious retinue. Ps. xlv. 5, 6; cii. 2; ii 9; xxi.; viii. 5; cxxxii. 18; Rev. iii. 21; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Lu ii. 13, 14; Ps. lxviii. 17; Dan. viii. 10; Jude, 14.

Q. What is the extent of Christ’s mediatorial dominion?

A. It is universal.

Q. Is it not limited to the church?

A. No. The church is the special kingdom of Christ - the great central province of his empire, around which other provinces are made to revolve. Therefore, the dominion of Christ necessarily extends beyond its hallowed precincts Eph. i. 22, “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.”

Q. Why is it necessary that Christ’s mediatorial dominion should extend beyond the limits of the church, or be universal?

A. It is necessary, 1. That he might give a general commission to his ministers to go forth among the hostile nations and preach his gospel. Matt xxviii. 18, 19, “power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go therefore, and teach all nations.” 2. That he might gather from among them his elect. Jno. xvii. 2, “Glorify thy Son as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” 3. As a reward of his mediatorial sufferings. Rev. iii. 21, “To that, overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father on his throne.” See also Phil, ii. 8, 9. 4. To subdue all his own and his people’s enemies. “He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet,” 1 Cor. xv. 26.

Q. Is not the gospel call, as it is general to all that hear it, founded rather upon Christ’s kingly than his priestly office?

A. Yes; for Christ says, Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth: go ye, then and teach.” The commission to teach, or preach, proceeded evidently from his universal dominion.

Q. Does not this view of the matter obviate the objection made to the doctrine of a definite atonement, derived from the fact of the call being general?

A. Yes. Because the ambassadors are not authorized to declare, as the ground of Christ’s invitation to those addressed, to believe, that Christ died for them, but that he died for sinners, and, as Lord of all, Christ, by them, commands all men, who hear the voice of the gospel, to believe and repent.

Q. In how many ways can you prove the universality of Christ’s mediatorial dominion?

A. Two. 1. From those passages which assert its universality in general terms. 2. From those which describe the various departments or provinces of his dominion.

Q. Which are the passages of the first class?

A. They are, 1. Mat. xi. 27, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” 2. Mat. xxviii. 18, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” 3. Acts x. 30, “He is Lord of all.” 4. Eph. i. 22, “And hath put all things under his feet.” 5. Col. ii. 10, “He is the head of all principality and power.” 6. 1 Cor. xv. 27, “He hath put all things under his feet.” 7. Heb. ii. 8, “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.”

Q. Is it not Christ’s essential dominion of which these passages treat?

A. No. It is his mediatorial dominion.

Q. How does this appear?

A. The terms “delivered,” “given,” “put,” designate his mediatory office; because, as the Son essentially considered, he cannot have authority conferred upon him, for as such he is equal with the Father, and all power belongs to him originally and inherently; but as mediator, the Father’s servant, he is properly the subject of a gift.

Q. How do these passages prove the universality of his Mediatorial dominion?

A. 1. The word all occurring so frequently designates this universality. 2. There is but one exception made-the Father, “who put all things under him,” which confirms the doctrine, as all beside the Father, (even the Spirit, who is called the Spirit of the Son), are made subject to Christ for mediatorial purposes.

Q. Is not this subjection of the Spirit in the fullest sense voluntary?

A. Yes. As that of the Son to the Father, it is altogether economical; a part of that covenant arrangement from all everlasting between the Persons in the Godhead. He is still the “free Spirit.”

Q. Of how many provinces does Christ’s mediatorial dominion consist?

A. It consists of seven. 1. The inanimate creation. Ps. viii. 6, “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.” Mat. viii. 27, “But the men marvelled, saying, what manner of man is this, that even the winds and sea obey him?” 2. The irrational tribes. Ps. viii. 7, “All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field.” Heb. ii. 6-8. 3. All good angels. 1 Pet. iii. 22, “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels, and authorities, and powers being made subject unto him.” See also Is. vi. 1, 2; Heb. i. 4 ; Rev. v. 11, 12 ; Heb. i. 14. 4. The wicked angels. Luke x. 17, 18, “And the seventy returned with joy, Saying, Lord, even the devils are subject to us through thy name and he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” See Mat. viii. 28; Rev xii. 9, 10; Col. ii. 15. 5. All men. Jno. xvii. 2, “Power over all flesh” (flesh, the human race at large). Ps. ii. 8, “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen (THE NATIONS) for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” See ver. 10, 12; xviii. 43. 6. All associations, particularly civil and ecclesiastical. Ps. lxxii. 10, 11, “The kings of Tarshish and the isles shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts; yea, all kings shall fall down before him, and all nations shall serve him.” Dan. vii. 14, “And there was given him dominion, glory, and a kingdom that all people, nations, and languages should serve him.” Col. i. 18, “He is the head of the body, the church.” 7. The kingdom of providence. Rev. v. The sealed book of the divine purposes, respecting the church and the world, is put into the hands of the Lamb, and he rules in their accomplishment.

Q. For what end is Christ invested with this universal dominion?

A. That he should render the whole administration of providence subservient to the erection, progress, and final perfection of his special kingdom, the church.

Q. What is the true nature of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom?

A. It is a spiritual kingdom.

Q. What is the proper definition of its spirituality?

A. It is a kingdom not designed merely to promote man’s corporeal and temporal interests, but chiefly the best interests of his immortal nature?

Q. In what respects is it spiritual?

A. It is spiritual, 1. In its origin. It is not from men by any mode by which men convey authority—but his dominion originates solely from the spiritual grant of the Father from all everlasting in the covenant of grace. 2. In its ends—which are, in substance, To gather his church—to protect it on earth—to sanctify the hearts and lives of her members, and to render subservient all secular things (even civil rule), to the spiritual and eternal interests of men. Eph. i. 22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church. 3. In its administration. As to the ecclesiastical department. Its officers are pastors and teachers, elders and deacons (spiritual officers to administer all the temporalities of the church), persons endowed with ministerial authority, whose weapons are not carnal but spiritual (instruction, advice, censure and remonstrance)—and as it respects the civil department, those who bear rule according to his ordinance are the ministers of God, and are just, ruling in the fear of the Lord—whilst the rule in both cases is the same—The Law of the Lord.

Q. Is civil government a spiritual dominion?

A. Civil government is not strictly spiritual as it is in a good measure occupied about man’s temporal interests, but as it is subjected to Christ, among the all things put under his feet, it is designed to subserve, in his hands, the religious as well as temporal interests of the human race.

Q. Is the mediatorial dominion of Christ in such a sense spiritual that it can have no sort of connection with the world, or with things, that are secular?

A. By no means; because, 1. Even it portion of the most spiritual of its subjects, regenerate men, for a time, have their residence on the earth, and are occupied with secular things; and their bodies are earthly and nourished by carnal things. 2. Besides, there are things specified in the grant of dominion, which are strictly and literally worldly and secular, Ps. viii. 6-8. “Thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the sea.”

Q. Is not his kingdom deprived of a portion of its spirituality, and secularized by this connection?

A. Not in the least. Because whatever is connected with Christ’s kingdom, however carnal in its nature, is, in his infinite wisdom, and by his almighty power, somehow or other, rendered subservient to spiritual objects. Eph. i. 22. “And gave him to be head over all things to the church.”

Q. Does not Christ himself in John xviii. 36, (“My kingdom is not of this world,”) disclaim all connection between his kingdom and secular things?

A. By no means: Because, 1. His kingdom is in this world. Matt, xxviii. 18. “All power on earth, is given unto me.” His Church, his peculiarly spiritual kingdom, is in this world. 2. The world itself, is a part of his kingdom. Eph. i. 20, 21. “Hath set him at his own right hand, far above every name that is named—in this world.” 3. In its origin, (as stated above,) it is not of this world. This Christ himself affirms, in the disputed text. “But now is my kingdom, not from hence.” (Men do not confer authority upon him.) 4. It signifies that Christ is not to reign upon earth, seated upon a visible throne as earthly kings, defending his kingdom by armies—“else would my servants fight.” 5. His laws are not of this world. They are from heaven. “Its laws, its powers, are all divine.” 6. It is not of this world, as to its benign moral influence upon society. worldly kingdoms debase and enslave; this is designed to free, to elevate and sanctify the subject, and subordinates all things, to the eternal happiness of men. John viii. 32. 30. “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. If the Son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” 2 Cor. iii. 17. “Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 7. It is not of this world, as it is designed to overthrow all the kingdoms of this world, and put them under the dominion of his saints, that they may subserve the spiritual interests of men. -Dan. ii. 44. “And in the days of those (kingdoms) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms.” vii. 27. “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, shall be given ‘to the people of the saints of the Most High.” 8. The doctrine of the absolute spirituality of Christ’s kingdom, would deny Christians the right of holding any worldly property—engaging in any secular enterprise—or entering into any political connection whatever; because Christ says of them, using precisely the same phraseology, “ye are not of this world!” now such an interpretation is manifestly contradictory to scripture and common sense, in this case-it follows that it is equally so in the other.

Q. Do not other religious denominations, besides the Reformed Presbyterian, recognize in their systems the doctrine of Christ’s Mediatorial dominion?

A. Yes. A few others hold it in theory—but their theoretic profession is neutralized by a practical denial.—They do not make it a matter of testimony.

[CHRIST’S EXCLUSIVE HEADSHIP OVER THE CHURCH]

SECTION II.-Christ’s exclusive Headship over the Church.

Q. What is the radical idea of the term Church?

A. It is derived from the Hebrew word קָהָל and the Greek word εκκλησια the roots of which signify to call; and denotes any assembly convened by invitation or appointment.

Q. How is it used in the scriptures?

A. It is variously employed in the scriptures, and imports 1. The whole body of the elect, Eph. v. 23, “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.” 2. A small worshipping society of private Christians; Col. iv. 15, “Salute Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.” 3. Regularly organized congregations; Rev. ii. 1, “Unto the angel of time church of Ephesus write.” 4. The whole visible catholic society, consisting of all who, in every age, in every place make a public and credible profession of the true religion together with their children; Acts vii. 38, “This is he that was in the church in the wilderness;” Acts ii. 47, “The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved;” Act viii. 3, “Saul made havoc of the church.”

Q. In what sense are the epithets visible and invisible applied to the church?

A. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be, gathered into one under Christ the head thereof. 2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal, under the gospel, (not confined to one nation, as before, under the law,) consists of all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together with their children. Eph. i. 22, 23; ch. v. 27; Acts ii. 38, 39, 41, 47; Matt. xix. 14.

Q. Are both of these views comprehended in the one church of which Christ is the Head, and over which he exercises mediatorial rule?

A. Yes; but it is the visible organic church of which we now principally treat.

Q. What are the marks by which the visible church catholic, as an organic body, may be known?

A. They are not those to which the Roman apostasy pretends, “antiquity,” “universality,” “continued succession,” “power of working miracles,” and the like, because these are not exclusive properties. 2. But the characteristics of the visible church catholic, are what belong to it, and to it alone. They are—soundness in doctrine—a lawful and regular ministry-and the due administration of gospel ordinances. Acts ii. 43; xiv. 23; Mat. xxviii. 19, 20; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xi. 2.

Q. Is the Lord Jesus Christ the exclusive Head of this visible catholic, ecclesiastical society?

A. Yes; he alone is Head of his body the church, and governs her with an absolute supremacy.

Q. In what is his title to exclusive dominion over the church founded?

A. His title is founded, 1. In the appointment of the Father, Ps. ii. 6, “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.” 2. In the gift of the church to him, John xvii. 6, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me.” 3. In his incorporating it by covenant. It is a covenant society; not founded in the covenant of grace, merely, but Christ hath made with it an express ecclesiastical covenant, as illustrated by the transaction with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1-14, “I will be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee”—which evidently has a respect to an ecclesiastical relation—hence Abraham is entitled the “Father of many nations,”—Gentiles as well as Jews. 4. It is founded on the purchase of the church with his own blood; Acts xx. 1 8, “Feed the church of God which he bath purchased with his own blood.” 5. This right is founded in the circumstance that he is the maker and builder of the church. Heb. iii. 3-6, “For this man was accounted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who bath builded the house is worthy of more honour than the house—and Moses, verily, was faithful in all his house as a servant—but Christ as a son over his own house.” Also, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 5; Eph. ii. 22.

Q. By what passages of Scripture can it be established that the Lord Jesus Christ is the exclusive Head of the church?

A. 1. By Psa. ii. 6, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” 2. Ps. cxlix. 2, “Let the children of Zion be joyful in their king.” 3. Is. ix. 6, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given—and the government shall be upon his shoulders-and he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it.” 4. Is. xxiv. 23, “The Lord of hosts shall reign on Mount Zion.” 5. Zech. ix. 9, “Rejoice, O daughter of Zion—behold thy King cometh unto thee.” 6. Zech. vi. 13, “Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, said shall sit and rule upon his throne.” 7. Luke i. 33, “He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever.” 8. Acts v. 31, “Him bath God exalted a prince—to give repentance to Israel.” 9. Rev. xv. 3, “Just and true are thy ways, thou KING OF SAINTS.” 10. Eph. iv. 18, “Who is the Head, even Christ.” 11. Eph. v. 23, 24, “Christ is Head of the Church”—“The church is subject unto Christ.” 12. Col. i. 18, “And he is the head of the body, the church.”

Q. Does not the Pope of Rome claim to be head of the visible church?

A. Yes; this is his blasphemous claim. 1. In the Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, he claims to be “Successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.” 2. The Council of Florence, A.D. 1438, decreed, “That the human Pontiff is head of the whole church, and to him, in St. Peter, was delegated, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule and govern the universal church.”

Q. Is there any foundation in Scripture for this supremacy of Peter and his alleged successors?

A. Not the least; on the contrary, every aspiration after supremacy was decidedly rebuked and forbidden by our Lord, and the strictest fraternal parity enforced. 1. Matt. xx. 25-27, “And Jesus called them unto him and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant.” 2. Mat. xxiii. 8, “But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father, (Pope) upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, even Christ. But ho that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” 3. Mark ix. 3, “And he sat down and called the twelve, and said unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all and servant of all.”

Q. Are there not numerous arguments confuting this blasphemous claim?

A. Yes; many. 1. Paul rebuked Peter, and reckoned himself his equal. Gal. ii. 11, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Also, verse 14. 2. If the dignity of the person left any authority with the city where he resided, then Antioch had equal claims with Rome; and Jerusalem, where Christ suffered, was to be preferred to all the world, for it was really the mother church. 3. Peter had a limited province—the circumcision, as Paul the uncircumcision; the latter being of the greatest extent. And hence, Peter was not considered the universal pastor. 4. This claim was denied by the primitive church writers. CYPRIAN and other bishops, wrote to the bishop of Rome, as to their “fellow-bishop,” “colleague,” and “brother;” they were opposed to appeals to Rome; and asserted that all bishops were equal in power, as the apostles had been. 5. When the Emperor Mauritius gave the title, “Universal Bishop,” to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, complained of the, ambition of that title, which he calls “equal to the pride of Lucifer!” 6. It was not till the year 606, that Boniface the Third received, from the brutal usurper Phocas, the title of “Universal Bishop.” 7. This power was not, for centuries after, acknowledged in Germany, Scotland, England, &c, and even several sees, as Ravenna, Milan and Aquileia, plead exemption from the papal authority. From all this it is manifest, that the Pope’s power is a usurpation; and the Pope is the “Man of Sin,”—“the Antichrist,”—“the son of perdition—who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, allowing himself that he is God.” 2 Thess. ii. 4.

Q. Do not civil rulers claim a supremacy over the church?

A. Yes; They have often usurped this prerogative of Jesus Christ, and exercised a despotic authority over his church.

Q. Is there any foundation in the scriptures for this claim?

A. Not the least. The scriptures exhibit civil rule as having for its object things external, relating immediately to the outer man, in subserviency to the religious interests of society, and as having no power over things ecclesiastical.

Q. Do not the Scriptures substantially prohibit civil rulers from exercising ecclesiastical power?

A. They do. 2 Chron. xxvi. 10-20, “It appertaineth not to thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to bunt incense; go out of the sanctuary.” Yea, the Lord punished his presumption and “smote him with leprosy, and they thrust him out of the temple.” This instance clearly proves that civil rulers have no ecclesiastical power. Their whole authority is civil, and all they do in relation to the Church is in their capacity of civil rulers. They have no authority (as will be seen in another section,) in or over the church.

Q. What are some of the claims of our Lord Jesus Christ in relation to the church, as its exclusive and sovereign head?

A. He claims the exclusive right to appoint to the church, 1. Her doctrine; Gal 1:11, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of men, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ;” also, verses 8, 9, and 2 John 10. 2. All her officers; Eph. iv. 2, “And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and some teachers—for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Phil. i. 1, “To all the saints that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” 3. All her institutions of worship; Matt. xv. 9, “But, in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” 4. All her laws; Is. xxxiii. 22, “The LORD is our lawgiver.” Isa. ii. 3, “And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion Shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

Q. What are the officers which Christ, as her head, has appointed in the Church?

A. They are, 1. Extraordinary; Eph. iv. 11, “apostles,” “prophets,” “evangelists.” 2. Ordinary; pastors and teachers, ruling elders and deacons. Eph. iv. 6, “Some pastors and teachers.” 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine.” 1 Tim. ii. 8, “Likewise, must the deacons be grave.”

Q. What are the respective functions of these officers?

A. The functions of the pastors are, to instruct and rule the church; Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations-teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Acts xx. 28, “Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers-to feed the church of God.” Heb. xiii. 17, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account.” 2. The function of the ruling elders, is simply to rule; 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.” 3. The functions of the deacons are, to receive and disburse the ecclesiastical funds, and exercise a care over all other temporalities of the church-giving a special attention to the poor; Acts vi. 1-6, “And in those days,” &c.

Q. Are the ministers of the church clothed with a despotic and discretional power?

A. No; their power is simply stewardly and ministerial.

Q. Is it not rebellion against Christ as the Head of his church, to reject any one of the officers of his appointment, or to deny any officer the exercise of any one of the functions of his office?

A. Undoubtedly; because Christ is jealous of his own authority in Zion, and will not give “His glory to another.”

Q. Where do you find the divine warrant for the office of Deacon in the New Testament church?

A. In the following Scriptures: 1. Acts vi. Where we are informed of the origin and the design of the office. 2. 1 Tim 3: 8-12. Where the inspired apostle describes their necessary qualifications,—“Likewise must the DEACONS be grave,” &c. 3. Phil. i. 1. Where the apostle exhibits their existence in the church equally with the bishops—(“with the bishops and deacons.”)

Q. What are the duties of this office?

A. To take charge of and disburse the temporalities of the church giving special attention to the poor.

Q. Where do you find the evidence in scripture that all the temporalities of the church are entrusted to the deacons?

A. In Acts vi.

Q. How does this passage prove that the temporalities of the church are confided to the deacons?

A. 1. The church had one common fund at that time, Acts ii. 44; iv. 34, 35. 2. This was laid at the apostles’ feet, Acts iv. 34-37. 3. This business was more than the apostles could manage consistently with their higher employments, Acts vi. 2. 4. The seven were set over the same business, Acts vi. 3, 4.

Q. Did the apostles except any part of this common fund?

A. No. It was ALL delivered over to the deacons.

Q. Did this officer exist universally in the church in apostolic times?

A. Yes.

Q. What evidence have you from history?

A. Mosheim says, “That all the other Christian Churches followed the example of that of Jerusalem in whatever related to the choice and office of deacon.”

Q. Does any other historian confirm this?

A. Yes. Several; Brown of Haddington, Dr. Miller of Princeton, and others.

Q. What is the testimony of Brown?

A. He states in substance—That deacons were universal in the apostolic church.

Q. What says Dr. Miller?

A. Dr. Miller states,—“For the first two hundred years every flock of professing Christians had its pastor or bishop, with its bench of elders, and its body of deacons.”—TRACT on Presbyterianism.

Q. What says Buck, in his Theological dictionary, on the existence and duties of this office in the primitive church?

A. Buck says, “The office of deacon originally was to serve tables-the Lord’s table, the minister’s, and the poor’s table. They took care of the secular affairs of the church, received and disbursed moneys—kept the church’s accounts—and provided every thing necessary for its temporal good.”

Q. Did the Reformation Church of Scotland recognise this office as it existed in the primitive church, in the full extent of its duties as illustrated above?

A. Yes. In her Second Book of Discipline she says: “The office and power of the deacon is to receive and distribute THE WHOLE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL GOODS unto them to whom they are appointed, that the patrimony of the kirk and poor be not converted unto private men’s use, nor wrongfully distributed.”

Q. Is there any evidence that this Second Book of Discipline was “binding law in said Church alter the adoption of the Westminster Standards?”

A. Yes; abundant. As a specimen, take the act, of the year 1649, abolishing patronage; in which patronage is said to be “contrary to the Second Book of Discipline,” in which, upon sound and good ground, it is reckoned among abuses that are desired to be reformed. The Form of church government was adopted Feb. 10, 1645—four years before the passage of the act which quotes it as authority. Cruikshank, vol. 1, p. 78.

Q. Does the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States recognise the office in like manner?

A. Yes. She declares that the “deacon’s power is about the temporalities of the church.”

Q. Do our brethren in Scotland thus recognise the office?

A. Yes. In their Testimony they say: “Deacons are ordained upon the choice of the congregation, and are associated with the teaching and ruling elders, in distributing to the necessities of the poor, and managing other temporalities, of the church.”

Q. Is this office perpetual in the church?

A. Yes: 1 Tim. iii. 8, 12, and Phil. i. 1. Its perpetuity is the same with that or the bishop or pastor.

Q. What say the Standards of the Reformed Presbyterian Church respecting the perpetuity of this office?

A. The Westminster Form of Church Government says of the “deacon” “WHOSE OFFICE IS PERPETUAL.”

Q. Has Christ instituted in his church, ordinances of divine worship and Christian fellowship?

A. Yes; Christ has sanctioned’ either by express institution, or by his administrative example, 1. Public prayer. 2. praise. 3. Reading of the scriptures. 4. preaching the word; Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In the presence of his disciples he lifted his eyes to heaven, in solemn supplication to the Father. He sung with them a hymn before going out to the Mount of Olives. When he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, he “stood up for to read.” “Go ye into all nations and preach the gospel to every creature,” was among his last directions to the apostles and their successors. He commanded them also to “Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In reference to the ordinance of the supper, he said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” And, as for that portion of time which is consecrated to the peculiar observance of all these institutions, it is written, “The Son of man is the Lord of the Sabbath.” There is not an institution of divine worship by Which the devotional feelings of the church are expressed, or the edification of the body promoted, which bears not the stamp of the Saviour’s authority; find in observing them all, the true saint has the satisfaction to know, that he is “serving the Lord Christ.”

Q. Is it not daring presumption and an act of rebellion, to worship by any observance of our own invention?

A. Yes; for Christ, 1. Rebukes it. “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” 2. He gives us two alarming examples of his jealousy in this respect. The cases of Nadab and Abihu, who, for offering “strange fire,” were consumed by “a vehement flame,” from the presence of the Lord—and the worshippers of the golden calf who were miserably slain.

Q. Does not the efficacy of ordinances depend upon the dominion of Christ in his church?

A. Yes; Christ, upon his ascension to the right hand of the throne of God, “received gifts for men, even for the rebellious—that the Lord might dwell among them” among which gifts are the Holy Spirit, whom he sends forth as the Spirit of truth, to lead men into the knowledge of the truth; and it is by the word of Christ rendered “quick and powerful,” by the energy of the Spirit that men are convinced of sin, enlightened in the knowledge of Christ, and their wills renewed—and are thus enabled to embrace the Saviour, as he is offered in the gospel.

Q. Has Christ instituted a form of government in his church?

A. Yes; he has not left his church in a state of anarchy or confusion or to be modelled according to the fancies of men, as may best serve their political views and designs. Every piece of the Old Testament tabernacle was to be placed according to the pattern shown in the holy mount; much more the New Testament church, which is called “the true tabernacle of David.” Compare Acts xv. 16, with Amos ix. 11.

Q. What texts demonstrate an established government in the New Testament church?

A. Many; its examples, 1 Thess. v. 12, “We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.” 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.” And, Hebrews xiii. 17, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.”

Q. How many forms are there of church government, for which their advocates claim a scriptural warrant?

A. Four: the papal, or spiritual monarchy; the episcopal, or spiritual prelacy; independency, or spiritual democracy; and presbyterianism, or spiritual republicanism.

Q. What is the distinctive characteristic of each?

A. The first maintains the necessity of one supreme, universal, infallible head of the whole Christian body, and throughout the world, who is the authorized vicar of Christ. The second contends for all order of clerical prelates, above the rank of ordinary ministers of the gospel, who are alone, in their view, empowered to ordain, and without whose presiding agency there call be no regular church. The third holds that all ecclesiastical power resides in the mass of the church members and that all acts of ecclesiastical authority are to be performed immediately by them. The fourth maintains that Christ has made all ministers who are authorized to dispense the word and sacraments, equal in official rank and power; that in every church the immediate exercise of ecclesiastical power is deposited, not with the whole mass of the people, but with a body of their representatives styled elders; and that the whole visible church catholic, as far as their denomination is concerned, is not only one in name, but so united by a series of assemblies of these representatives, acting in the name and by the authority of the whole, as to bind the whole body together as one church, walking by the same principles of faith and order, and voluntarily, yet authoritatively, governed by the same system of rules and regulations.

Q. What is the first proof of the absolute parity of the ministers of the word?

A. Mark x. 42-44, “But Jesus called them to him, and said to them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever shall be great among you, shall be your minister, and whosoever will be the chiefest shall be the servant of all.” (See also Mat. xx. 25, 27; xxiii. 8-12; Luke xxii. 25, 20.)

Q. What is the second argument?

A. 1 Pet. v. 3, “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage (literally clergy,) but being ensamples to the flock.”

Q. What is the third proof?

A. The highest ordinary officers mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11, are “pastors and teachers,” as given and set by Christ in the church, “for the work of the ministry.”

Q. What is the fourth proof?

A. Presbyter and bishop are convertible terms; that is, they apply to the same individual, exercising one and the same office. Presbyter or elder is expressive of the authority, and episkopos, or bishop, of the duty of the pastor. Acts xx. 17-28, “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (presbyters—Greek,) of the church, And charged them, saying, Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,” (or “bishops”) Also, 1 Pet. v. 2, “The elders which are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, feed the church of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof,”—episkopountes—episcopising, or watching, or performing the duty of a bishop. In both these passages, elder is the official title, and bishop the term expressive of the duties of the elder.

Q. What is the fifth argument?

A. The officers of the church are ordained by a plurality of elders, in which act they all stand on an equal platform. Acts xiv. 23, “And when they had ordained them elders in every church.” 1 Tim. iv. 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.” Paul and Barnabas acted as presbyters in ordination, and as members of a presbytery, and Timothy was ordained by the same—a plurality of elders acting in these solemn transactions as equals, and not by a lord over God’s clergy.

Q. What is the sixth argument?

A. The apostles, in ordaining elders, acted simply as presbyters. Timothy was ordained by a presbytery, of which presbytery Paul was a member, 2 Tim. i. 6.

Q. What is the seventh proof?

A. All the elders have equal authority as rulers. 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.” According to this, all elders have equal authority as rulers—the only distinction which can justly obtain among them, is not in the sense of rule, as superior or inferior—of greater diligence and fidelity in the performance of presbyterial duty.

Q. What proof is there of the existence of a class of officers, designated by the title, Ruling Elders, distinct from the pastor or teaching elder?

A. There is abundant proof; First, The New Testament church was modelled after the pattern, substantially of the Jewish synagogue. The order of the synagogue was substantially as follows. There was a preacher or angel of each synagogue; this angel was not the bishop of a diocess or province, but of a particular congregation, assembled in one synagogue or place of worship; there was associated with him a number of rulers, entitled, Luke xiii. 14, the rulers of the synagogue; and a third class—collectors and distributors of the funds.

Q. Did our Saviour sanction this order in his ministrations on earth?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the apostles and evangelists preach in the Jewish synagogues, and organise congregations upon this simple and efficient model?

A. Yes. Acts xiv. 23, “And when they had ordained them elders in every church,” or congregation. As there was it plurality of elders ordained in each congregation, it is just inference that, associated with the angel, bishop, or pastor of the New Testament congregation, after the model of the synagogue, is a bench of elders, whose function it is to conduct its government. Second, 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.” Evidently, “Elders that rule well,” are justly denominated “ruling elders.”

Q. Is there a manifest distinction among these elders?

A. Yes; There are some whose sole business it is to rule; another class who, besides ruling, “labour in word and doctrine.” Because, if this distinction be not observed, the passage would run—substituting equivalent expressions, thus strangely: “Let the elders that do their duty well be counted worthy of double honour, especially the elders that do their duty!” This passage, therefore, requires distinction into ruling elders and teaching elders; that is, a class who rule only—another class which, besides ruling, teach, in which only they have a pre-eminence.

Q. Are not those who labour in word and doctrine contrasted with those who only rule?

A. This is the force of the word μαλιστα. It is used in several passages evidently with this view. Gal. ii. 10, “Let us do good unto all men, especially (malista) unto them who are of the household of faith.” 1 Tim. iv. 10, “Who is the Saviour of all men, especially (malista) of those who believe.” All elders that rule well are worthy of regard—but there is a reason why some elders should be regarded which does not belong to all; their duty, besides ruling, is labouring in the word and doctrine; therefore, the they are to be particularly honoured for this peculiarity, by which they are distinguished from the others who rule only. It would indeed be strange if it was the duty of each and all elders, besides ruling, to labour in word and doctrine, that Paul should account men worthy of double honour, who neglected the chief part of their duty! For the text plainly shows that some rule well, but do not labour in word and doctrine; others, in addition to ruling well, are commended for labouring in the word and doctrine. It is evident, therefore, that there are two distinct classes of elders properly designated by the appellations of RULING ELDERS AND TEACHING ELDERS. The former rule only. The latter, besides ruling, teach the words of eternal life.

Q. What other proof have you for the office of Ruling Elder.

A. Rom. xii. 7, 8, “Let us wait on our ministering—he that teacheth, on teaching—he that ruleth, let him do it with diligence.” Paul compares the church, in this chapter, to the human body—and as in that body all the members have not the same office, so all the members of the church have not the same office. There are gifts differing according to the grace given to each. In the passage quoted, evidently the ruler is distinguished from the teacher—ruling from teaching. The elders that rule are distinct from those who have, besides, the office in the body of teaching, and have grace distinguishing them for this work.

Q. What further proof?

A. 1 Cor. xii. 28, “Teachers—governments.” In addition to the standing ministry in the church, whose chief office is to teach, there is a class of officers endowed with authority to govern (as the word means) as assistants to the teachers in the government of the church.

Q. What additional proof?

A. James v. 14, “Is any man sick among you let him call for the elders of the church,” or congregation. These elders are evidently over the same congregation. If they are remote from each other, the afflicted individual could not have access to them in his exigency; and taken in connexion with Acts xiv. 23,—the ordination of a plurality of elders in each congregation—it is evidence in favour of the distinct order of officers entitled RULING ELDERS.

Q. Is there a series of judicatories, rising one above another, by which the church is bound together as one homogeneous community?

A. Yes; First, the congregational session. Second, Presbytery. Third, The synod, general assembly, &c.

Q. What proof in scripture is there for the congregational presbytery or session?

A. There is sufficient proof. First, The New Testament churches, or congregations, were modelled after the Jewish, synagogue, which was governed by an estate of elders. Acts xviii. 8-17; Mark iv. 35, 30, 38. Second, Christ refers with approbation to the order of government among the Jews, (which we will show again,) Matt, xviii. 15-21: “Tell it to the church.” Now the Jews had a lesser court of sanhedrin, called “The assembly of three,” in every place of the number of one hundred and twenty inhabitants. There must be something similar in the New Testament church. The congregational court to which we tell the offences of the offending brother. Third, Heb. xiii. 17, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves,” relates first in order to the congregational rulers, as is plain from the reason assigned for submission, for they “watch for your souls.” The immediate rulers who had to care of the particular flock; confirmed by ver. 7. Fourth, 1 Thess. v. 12, “Know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.” A plain proof of a number of congregational rulers who immediately governed the people, clothed with the power of authoritative admonition, and to whom they were to be in meek subjection.

Q. How can you prove the divine right of presbytery?

A. The arguments are numerous. We select one—the church of Antioch. First, there were several single congregations in this one church. 1. The multitude of believers:—Acts xi. 21, “A great number believed.” By the preaching of Barnabas “Much people were added to the Lord;” (verse 24.) Barnabas and Saul, for a year together, ought much people, and disciples there so mightily multiplied, that there they were first designated “Christians;” verses 25, 26. 2. From the multitude of preachers at Antioch: Acts xi. 20, “Divers preached” there—three or four at least. There Barnabas was sent, verses 22-24. he went for Saul to help him, so great was the harvest; verses 25, 26. There came a number from Jerusalem; verses 27, 28. Five more are to be added, who are named Acts xiii. 1-3. “Yea, Paul and Barnabas continued in Antioch teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also;” xv. 35. Now sum up all. What a multitude of believers, and what a college of preachers, were here at Antioch! How is it possible that all these preachers should be occupied in one congregation (and they were not idlers,) dispensing the ordinances of Christ to them only? Or how could so many members meet in one single congregation at once, ordinarily, to partake of all ordinances. Now these numerous believers and preachers are called, Acts xiii. 1 “The church that was at Antioch;” evidently in regard of one joint administration of church government among them, by one common presbytery?

Q. What other proof?

A. In Antioch we have clearly two examples of presbyterial meetings. 1. Acts xiii. 1-3, “Now there was in the church in Antioch church that was at Antioch, certain prophets, (who prophesied by preaching or expounding the word,) and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius, of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” This was evidently a presbyterial act. Paul and Barnabas were separated to missionary labour, by “the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” with all due formality. 2. Acts xv. “And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Can anything be plainer than that, the question of circumcision was brought before the assembly of the elders of Antioch, and reasoned at length, but they came to no decision upon the merits of the question, but, as it concerned the whole church, wisely “determined” to refer it to the highest ecclesiastical tribunal for its decision—to which synodal assembly they appointed their delegates? They decided, decreed or ordained, as the Greek for “determined” means—to send Paul, &c. Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, &c., offer equally forcible and conclusive arguments to the same point.

Q. Is there any proof for the divine right of synodal assemblies?

A. Yes; The proof is conclusive. First, The unity of the church is a valid argument. The fourth chapter of Ephesians discusses this unity, and any one who will candidly examine it, will be convinced that the ministry is given for the purpose of governing it as a unity, until the end of time. There is but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” and there is but “one body.” To this one body the pastors and teacher—as the ordinary ministry—are given—given, moreover, to preserve this unity, “till we all come in the unity of faith—unto the perfect man.” Being with this view given to the church, how can they preserve this unity, but by assembling in a judicatory, where they can act for the whole—take the oversight; feed, govern, and direct the whole church of God? A synod is, therefore, demanded by the unity of the church: and this unity is preserved where Christ is really recognised as the Head, and his laws are honestly administered by a synodical assembly. If synods have failed to preserve this unity, it will be found that they have deliberated upon the principles of a carnal expediency, and were not governed by the word and truth of Christ.

Q. What is the second proof for synodal assemblies?

A. Christ refers with approbation to the forms of procedure in the Jewish courts, in which the synagogues were subordinate to the Sanhedrin. There were three judicial assemblies among the Jews. The first consisted of one hundred and twenty; the second of twenty-three, and the third of three judges. The former was called the great sanhedrin; the second the sanhedrin of twenty-three, and the latter the assembly of three. The great sanhedrin sat in Jerusalem; the lesser in every place containing more than one hundred and twenty inhabitants, and the assembly of three, in every place of the number of one hundred and twenty inhabitants. This is the system of which our Redeemer approved as we have his judgement, in the eighteenth of Matthew; and he intimates very clearly from the 18th to the 20th verse, that the principle embodied in these judicial tribunals would be extended throughout the New Testament dispensation. This system was rigidly observed until after the destruction of the second temple. The assembly of three, and the sanhedrin of twenty three, were subordinate to the great sanhedrin, which had both appellate and original jurisdiction. From the recommendation of our Saviour, we may safely conclude, that a supreme assembly after the example of the great sanhedrin, will meet his approbation. He commends the court of two or three. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” And when he says, “Tell it unto the church,” he shows explicitly his approbation of the judicial system by which the body of his people, under the former dispensation, were governed; for he gave the law which is recorded in Deut. xvii. 8-12, and which seems to lay down the principle of appeal according to this simple and essentially righteous judicial system.

Q. What is the third proof?

A. At Jerusalem a synod composed of the rulers of the several churches met, debuted, and determined a point of controversy in the church. We have a record of the fact—and the transactions of this synodal assembly in the fifteenth of Acts. We have here, 1. An authoritative decree; 2. Enacted by a representative body; 3. Exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction over churches and presbyteries.

Q. What is the proof of the first position?

A. As to the first Acts xvi. 4, is conclusive. “As they went, through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep which were ordained by the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” Τα δογματα τα κεκριμενα. Dogma does not mean advice, but a decree that must be obeyed. The decrees of the Roman emperor are designated by the same word; Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 1, “There went out a decree (δογμα,) from Caesar Augustus.” “These all do contrary to the decrees (δογματων,) of Caesar.” The decrees of the Caesars were not simple advice—but, authoritative, and to be obeyed at the peril of the subject: so the acts of this synod were authoritative decrees—binding the conscience of the members of the church.

Q. What is the proof of the second position?

A. As to the second, the synod was a representative body. The apostles were not alone in this grand assembly—nor did they as members act in their apostolic character—but as elders (1 Pet. v. 1,) in their presbyterial capacity; verse 6 “The apostles and elders came together for to consider this matter.” The whole church; verse 22, The brethren verse 23. Those who are styled the whole church in the 22d, are called “the brethren,” in the 23 verse. The latter signifies, as a technical term, men of equal rank to others specified, (Acts xxii. 5, and xv. 40, xx. 32.) The equals of the elders of Jerusalem at Damascus. The elders of Ephesus, officially—and the members of the synod—equals in authority—delegates from the churches that were not of Judea. The “whole church” is the church representative. The private members of the church at Jerusalem could not be styled the whole church—and upon the principles of independency, could not bind by their acts the church in Corinth &c.; And upon the principles of Presbyterianism the members of the church in one city could not bind by their acts the members of another city. The whole church universal was not present in Jerusalem in its collective members. It was the church representative in her delegates—the brethren from the distant cities and provinces of the church. Antioch sends, as we have seen, her delegates—and other presbyteries are there in the person of their delegates—so that the decree is the act the of the ολη τη εκκλησια,—the whole church representatively.

Q. How do you prove the third position?

A. As to the third, these decrees were sent down to the whole church, to be kept—as decisions binding the conscience of all its members, officially or personally considered. Acts xvi. 4, “They went through all the cities and delivered them the decrees for to keep.” The decrees respected, and bound all the churches. Paul was now in Derbe or Lystra, in Lycaonia, having passed through Syria and Cilicia, and from Lycaonia he travelled through Phrygia and Galatia into Macedonia. Through whatever cities he passed where there was a church, he delivered them the decrees of the synod of Jerusalem “to keep.” The word φυλασσω, rendered “to keep,” signifies not only to keep in safety with care as a deposit, but to observe, so as not to violate, as a command; Matt. xix. 20; Mark x. 20, “All these things have I kept, (the same Greek word) from my youth up.” These decrees of the synod were to be observed as the commandments of Christ. Second, We have seen the question was referred from the presbytery of Antioch, which, as will be seen, acquiesced in the decision of the synod. Third, All the churches submitted to the decree; Acts xv. 30, 31, “So when they (commissioners of synod) were dismissed, they came to Antioch, and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle, which, when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.” And in the 46th verse, Paul and Silas are said to have “gone through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches.” How confirming them but by giving them the decree; of the synod deciding the question by which they had been unsettled in their judgements? This is clearly made out by the 4th and 5th verses of the sixteenth chapter: “And so as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem—and so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.” The whole church submitted cheerfully to the decision of the supreme judicatory: even the gainsayers seem to have been silenced by the authoritative decision of so august a body, acting in the name of the church’s exalted Head; and peace, establishment, and prosperity, were the happy results of this judicial decision, and the submission of the church to those who had the rule over them in the Lord, whose “authority was for edification and not for destruction.”

Q. What principle is the basis of the presbyterian system of church government?

A. The principle of representation—and from the church the nations have derived the elements of republican institutions wherever they exist.

Q. Will not this principle bind the church in the millennium—and oven the nations respectively—throughout the earth—in one homogeneous community?

A. The principle will admit of any degree of extension. An assembly may be constituted to embrace the globe; and a just interpretation of the scripture seems to justify this opinion. Jer. iii. 17, At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord to Jerusalem; neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their own heart."

Q. Has Christ as the Head of his church authorized the exercise of discipline upon the household of faith?

A. Yes. The Lord Jesus Christ bath instituted DISCIPLINE in order to remove scandals, and prevent their unhappy effects, and no church can, without the faithful and spiritual application of it, hope for his countenance and blessing. First, Mat. xviii. 17, “If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him he unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” Second, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” Third, “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition reject.” Fourth, Christ reproves the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira for laxity in discipline; Rev. ii. 14, 20, “But I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that, hold the doctrine of Balaam.” “Nevertheless I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman, Jezebel, to teach and seduce my servants,” &c. Fifth, he commends the church of Ephesus for fidelity in this respect; “This thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.”

Q. What are some of the characteristics of the discipline which Christ authorizes as the Head of the church?

A. First, It should be faithful—the guilty should not escape. 1 Cor. v. 5, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when they are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Second, It should he administered in all orderly manner; 1 Cor. xiv. 40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Third, In all meekness; Gal. vi. 1, “Restore such a one in the spirit of meekness.” Fourth, in a solemn manner; 1 Pet. iv. 11, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” Fifth, It should be exercised impartially; 1 Tim. v. 21, “Doing nothing by partiality.”

Q. What are the offences which should subject the members of the church to discipline?

A. They are, First, Errors in doctrine; Rom: xvi. “Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.” Second, Immorality in practice; 2 Chron. xxiii. 19, “He set the porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in.” Eph, v. 11, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (See also Rev. ii. 20.) Third, Despising the authority, order, or ordinances of the church; 1 Cor. xi. 2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.” 2 Th. iii. 6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us.” Fourth, Neglecting the public, domestic, or secret duties of religion; Heb. x. 25, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.” Jer. x. 25, “Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thy name.” Matt. vi. “But thou when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret.”

Q. What are the censures of the church?

A. They are for edification and not destruction, And are, First, Rebuke; Tit 1:3, “Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” Second, Suspension from the privileges of the church; 2 Thess. iii. 14, 16, “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, And have no company with him, that he may be ashamed; yet count him not as an enemy, but Admonish him as a brother.” Third, Excommunication or excision from the church; 1 Cor. v. 13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Gal. v. 12, “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.”

Q. What advantage may be derived from the impartial and prudent exercise of church discipline?

A. The impartial and prudent exercise of church discipline is useful for vindicating the honour of Jesus Christ, maintaining the dignity of his ordinances, preserving the purity of the church, averting the judgments of God, And for the benefit of the offender himself, that by the administration of this ordinance of Christ, through grace, he may be humbled and recovered; 2 Cor. x. 8, “Our Authority which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction.”

Q. Would not the full recognition of the Headship of Christ over his church, and humble and implicit obedience to his authority in all things, greatly promote the unity, peace, establishment, and prosperity of the church?

A. Yes; Divisions, contentions, and schisms, usually arise in the church from a forgetfulness or rejection of the mediatorial authority of our Lord Jesus Christ in his Church. Men, even ministers of religion, are apt to act upon the principle—“Our tongues are our own, who is Lord over us?” In contrast with such—“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Q. Do not all Presbyterian denominations, at least, recognise the doctrine of Christ’s exclusive Headship over the church?

A. Yes; In theory—but many reject it practically, as they introduce inventions of their own into the worship of God—or adulterate republican presbyterianism by admitting into their administration many of the elements of democratic independency. The Reformed Presbyterians, more rigidly than all others, maintain Christ’s exclusive Headship over the church, tolerating no invasion of his prerogatives in this respect by rulers on the one hand, or by the people on the other.

[ON THE SUPREME AND ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF THE WORD OF GOD IN THE CHURCH]

SECTION III.-On the Supreme and Ultimate Authority of the Word of GOD in the Church.

Q. Are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament the only rule of faith and manners?

A. Yes; Is. viii. 20. “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Q. Are the Scriptures of the Old Testament equally with those of the New—a rule of faith and manners?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the first proof?

A. Christ exhorted the Jews to search the Old Testament Scriptures, declaring that they testified of him. John v. 39. “Search the Scriptures—they are they which testify of me.”

Q. What is the second?

A. Christ commends the Old Testament, and exhorts his disciples to attend reverently to Moses and the prophets. Luke xvi. 29. “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” Also, ver. 31.

Q. What is the third proof?

A. The Apostle Peter directs the attention of Christians to them as a rule, to he observed attentively until the day star of glory shall arise. 2 Pet. i. 19. “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto we do well to take heed, as unto it light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.”

Q. What is the fourth proof?

A. The New Testament Church is erected upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The doctrines taught by the apostles and prophets. Eph. ii. 20. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”

Q. What is the fifth proof?

A. What was recorded in the Old Testament was so recorded for the edification and comfort of the church in all subsequent ages. Rom xv. “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning (instruction), that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope.”

Q. What is the sixth proof?

A. The Old Testament writings were the means of enlightening Timothy in the way of salvation; and still contain the instructions requisite to furnish the man of God for “every good work.” 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. “From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof; for correction, for instruction in righteousness—that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Q. What is the seventh proof?

A. The doctrines of the Old are substantially the same with those of the New Testament. Rom. xvi. 25, 20. “Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” See also Rom. i. 2, 3. Acts xxvi. 22, 23. The law is the same. Mat. xxii. 37-40.

Q. What is the eighth proof?

A. Without the Old Testament we could not fully understand the New: nor demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah. Luke xxiv. 27, 44. “And beginning at Moses and the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning, himself. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.” Also Acts x. 43; xvii. 11; xxvi. 22. Rom. iii. 21.

Q. Are the Scriptures to such an extent the rule of faith, that there is nothing left to the wisdom and discretion of the rulers and teachers of the church?

A. In matters essential to salvation, and what relates to the institutes of worship, government, and order, the Scriptures are an absolute rule; but in carrying out the principles and putting into operation the ordinances of religion, there are some things left to the wisdom and prudence of the officers of the church—but here there is no latitude allowed beyond what is the evident meaning and design of the Scriptures themselves in these matters. 1 Cor. xiv. 40. “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

Q. Is everything pertaining to faith and manners revealed in the Scriptures directly and distinctly in so many words? or are many things to be learned from them inferentially or by legitimate consequence?

A. The Scriptures are a full and complete revelation, and great principles are directly and plainly taught; yet many things of importance both of faith and manners are learned by legitimate consequence, from other truths distinctly revealed, and from approved scriptural examples, and such truths are equally a part of the Word of God with those principles, which are taught by explicit revelation.

Q. Can you give an example of the inferential mode of reasoning, or by implication, from the Scripture?

A. Yes. The highest example-that of Christ himself; who proved the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead by a legitimate consequence, from a fact revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures. Matt. xxii. 31, 32. “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God the dead, but of the living.”

Q. Are not the Scriptures a complete and adequate rule of faith and manners? or is there a deficiency to be supplied from a treasury of unwritten traditions, intrusted to the alleged successors of the apostles?

A. The Scriptures are a complete and adequate rule of faith and manners, and the alleged deposition of traditions is an invention of “The Man of Sin,” in support of his “lying wonders,” and “doctrines of devils.”

Q. How is this manifest?

A. It is manifest, 1. In the fact that the Scriptures are profitable for all theoretic and practical purposes, both in teaching matters of faith and moulding the manners. 2 Tim. iii. 10, 17.

Q. Where is found the second evidence?

A. In the fact that God has expressly forbidden any addition to, or diminution of his revealed will. Deut. iv. 2. “Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it.” Gal. i. 8. “But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Rev. xxii, 18. “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.”

Q. What is the third proof?

A. In that the Word of God is perfect, containing all that is requisite for the conversion of the souls of men. Ps, xix. 7, 8. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.”

Q. What is the fourth evidence?

A. In that they were given that men by them might be put in possession of eternal life, hence they can be deficient in nothing essential to this end. John xx. 31. “But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Also, 1 John v. 13; Rom. xvi.

Q. What is the fifth proof?

A. The Scriptures are given as a rule of faith, hence they must be complete and adequate; for a rule, to answer its end, will not admit of diminution or addition. Rom. xvi. 24. The doctrines of the Scriptures are said to be “made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.”

Q. What is the sixth evidence?

A. Traditions are distinctly rejected. Mat. xv. 6, 9. “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.” Also, Is. xxix. 13 14; Is. viii. 20.

Q. What is the seventh argument?

A. No satisfactory reason can be given why God should commit one part of satisfactory word to writing, and the other part equally essential to the salvation of the church, to be transmitted vivâ voce—because the traditions of men are uncertain at best, and liable to be greatly corrupted in the lapse of time.

Q. What is the eighth argument?

A. There is no rule given by which can be determined the genuineness of traditions, and all that can be pleaded is that such is the testimony and the authority of the church, which is itself a matter of controversy.

Q. What is the ninth argument against tradition?

A. The origin of traditions is dubious, and their authority uncertain, their meaning perplexed and ambiguous, and the impossibility of discovering a reason for them; the only safe course is, to adhere rigidly to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and manners.

Q. Is it true that the Roman apostasy makes tradition a chief part of the rule of faith?

A. It is undoubtedly true. 1. Thus speak the writers of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 17: “All the doctrines of Christianity are derived from the word of God, which includes Scripture and tradition!” 2. thus speaks the Roman Catholic authorised version: Note on 2 Tim. iii. 16, “If we would have this whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is with the Old Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it.” 3. And the creed of Pope Pius makes Holy Mother church the only judge of the true sense of the scripture. “I also admit the sacred scriptures, according to the sense which the holy mother church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever take or interpret otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

Q. Does not the Roman church in this matter of traditions follow the example of the apostate Jews, (before and at the time of our Saviour,) who made void the law by their traditions?

A. Yes. The Jews divided the law into two parts, written and oral. The later, they taught, was received by Moses on Mount Sinai, and delivered by him to the care of Joshua, who deposited it with the 70 elders, by whom it was communicated to the prophets, and these intrusted it to the greater synagogue, and from them it was transmitted to future generations, until it was collected and treasured up in the Talmud. In like manner the Roman Pontiffs have invented a twofold revelation, the one written and the other unwritten, the substance of the latter being, as they allege, those things which Christ and his apostles taught and transacted, but of which they have transmitted no written record, but which are now exhibited in a tangible hum in the peculiar doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church.

Q. Is not the rise of this system of tradition easily accounted for?

A. Yes. Those who had seen and heard the apostles naturally treasured up in their memories many of their observations and opinions, and brought them forward in support of their sentiments. Great attention would be paid to a man who could affirm, “I heard the apostle Paul, or Peter, say so and so.” In process of time, the true words of the apostles, by passing through so many hands, would be corrupted and gradually lost; for it is utterly impossible to preserve to any lengthened period what is dependent upon oral tradition. Nevertheless, the plea was found too advantageous to be suffered to die away. When new opinions were broached, and new rites invented, an alleged apostolical tradition supplied the place of scriptural authority; the decree of some council secured its reception, and all objection would soon be silenced by the dread of incurring the vengeance of “Holy Church.” But there is one who has said, “Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”

Q. Is not this whole matter of tradition among Jews and Papists, an artifice of Satan to seduce men from the simplicity that is in Christ?

A. Yes: The “Traditions of the Elders” was an artifice of Satan to seduce the Jews from the practice of the written law, to extinguish this law given to Israel. In like manner the tradition of the Romans is an invention of the adversary to lead men astray from the truth as it is in Jesus, and to extinguish its light in the church; and when men “love darkness rather than light,” they are given up, judicially, to follow in the devious path of their own “invention:” Rom, i. 28, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” 2 Th. ii. 10-12, “Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved; for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Q. Is not Timothy exhorted 1 Tim. vi. 20, to keep with care certain principles and observances intrusted to him; and the Thessalonians—to hold fast the traditions which they had been taught? 2 Th. ii. 15.

A. Yes. Yet in the case of the deposit made with Timothy, the form of sound words, or the gifts and graces specified its 2 Tim, i. 13, 14, and in the case of the Thessalonians the traditions referred to designate simply a two-fold mode then employed by the apostle, of delivering the will of God viz; vivâ voce and by writing, both exhibiting the same “form of sound words.”

Q. Are not the Scriptures, (or God speaking in the scriptures,) the supreme judge in all matters of controversy, and in the interpretation of Scripture? or is this the prerogative of the church or Roman Pontiff?

A. The former is the truth. The holy scriptures, (or God speaking in them,) is the supreme and infallible judge in religious controversies.

Q. What is the first proof?

A. God directs us to this tribunal only. Is. viii. 20, “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Also Luke xvi. 29.

Q. What is the second proof?

A. The example of Christ and the apostles, who in all their controversies respecting matters of faith, refer to the scriptures as supreme authority, from whose decision there is no appeal. Matt. iv. Christ repelled the temptations of the devil by “It is written.” Also xxii. 32, He proves the resurrection by an appeal to the scriptures. Jno. v. 39, He directs to them as bearing testimony to his missionship. Also Luke xxiv. 44. And the apostle Paul. Acts xxvi. 22, “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophet Moses did say should come.” Acts xvii. 11, The Bereans are commended for resorting to the scriptures as the supreme and infallible judge. The Pharisees and Sadducees condemned for their ignorance of them as the infallible judge. Matt, xxii., xv. 3, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? Ye do err not knowing the scriptures.”

Q. What is the third proof?

A. All other judges (church and Pontiffs) are liable to err, but the scriptures are infallible. 1 Jno. iv. 1, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” Is. viii. 20; Acts xvii. 11.

Q. What is the fourth proof?

A. As God is the author of the scriptures, he alone can be their infallible interpreter. Men are prone to err. James iv: 12, “There is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy; who art thou that judgest another?” See Matt, xxiii. 8-10.

Q. What is the fifth proof?

A. Neither the divine author of the Scripture, nor any of the apostles, have anywhere designated this infallible judge; distinct from and independent of the Scriptures themselves.

Q. What is the sixth argument?

A. The Roman Pontiffs have not exercised their alleged infallibility in composing the controversies which rend the unity of the Papal Church-between the Thomists and Scotists—the Dominicans and Jesuits—and the Jesuits and Jansenists, &c, so to quell which would quickly redound to the honour of the Papal See.

Q. What is the seventh proof?

A. The church cannot be constituted the infallible Judge; this would give her the power of deciding in her own favour, as the controversy respects her own power and infallibility.

Q. What is the eighth argument?

A. The same argument applies to the Pope, councils and the fathers. It would be to make them judges in their own case. Besides, they are prone to err, and have erred, and flagrantly contradicted each other, council against council, Pope against Pope, father against father. Besides, not a few of the Popes have been heretics and profane and abandoned men, the pontiffs themselves being witnesses.

Q. Does not Christ constitute the church the Supreme Judge in controversies? Mat, xviii. 17. “Tell it to the church.”

A. By no means: because the injunction does not relate to matters of faith but to private offences, matters of scandal according to the Jewish discipline, who were accustomed to excommunicate the contumacious.

Q. Do not all Protestants hold the doctrine of the supreme and ultimate supremacy of the Word of God in religious controversy?

A. It is a Protestant doctrine, and, whilst it is held in theory, it is often violated in practice by the adoption of many principles and practices, for which there cannot be given—a thus saith the Lord—and which are met by the challenge—who hath required this at thy hand?

[CIVIL GOVERNMENT THE MORAL ORDINANCE OF GOD]

SECTION IV.-Civil Government the Moral Ordinance of God.

Q. What is civil government?

A. It is a divine institution for the government of mankind in their outward secular relations, in subservience to their spiritual and eternal welfare. Rom. xiii. 3, 4. “For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou not be afraid of the power—do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same—for he is the minister of God to thee for good.”

Q. Is not civil government a matter merely of human expediency, originating in the necessities and convenience of the human race?

A. No. It grows out of the relation that naturally and necessarily exists between God and intellectual moral creatures, and the relations existing between those creatures towards one another.

Q. How is this manifest?

A. In the fact that the essence of all civil power resided in Adam, upon whom God, at his creation, conferred the authority necessary for the exercise of civil government over subordinate moral agents, and over all earthly property. Ps. viii. 5-8. “For thou hast made him (man) a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet; all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field ; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the sea.”

Q. Is civil magistracy founded in grace?

A. Civil magistracy is not founded in grace, but proceeds from God, not as the God of grace, but as the God of nature. It springs from him as the supreme moral governor of the universe, having its foundation, as we have stated in stance, in natural principles, which belong to the constitution of man, and not in the mediatorial system; At the same time (as we have proved in general, and as will be shown in the next section in relation to civil government in particular) God has placed the management of the whole affairs of the moral universe in the hands of his Son as Mediator.

Q. Is God, indeed, the supreme moral governor of the human race?

A. Yes. Although man has by apostasy thrown off his allegiance to the Creator, yet God is the Lord of man, and claims his subjection. Ps. xlvii. 7. “For God is the king of all the earth.” Dan. iv. 34. “I blessed the Most High and I praised and honoured Him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation.” Ps. xxix. “The LORD sitteth king forever.” Jer. x. 10. “The LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king.” Is. xliii. 15 “I am the LORD, your holy one, the Creator of Israel your king.”

Q. Is civil magistracy, as a legitimate authority, the ordinance of God?

A. Yes. Rom. xiii. 1, 2. “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.”

Q. Does not this passage teach, that any government which has a being in Providence, however immoral its constitution and administration, is the ordinance of God?

A. By no means, but describes a government possessed of moral attributes, consistent with the nature of an ordinance of God.

Q. How do you make this evident?

A. It is evident, 1. From the radical meaning of the term power, εξουσια, derived from εξεστι and signifying rightful, lawful authority, that which is licensed of God as agreeable to his own moral nature, from whom all our rights are derived. 2. From the legitimate meaning of the phrase higher powers. By comparing the text with Phil. ii. 3, we find the word higher translated better, and thus learn the power to which obedience is demanded, is a moral, or more excellent power, excelling in moral character. 3. The moral character of the power, as the ordinance of God, appears from the characteristics of the ruler. He is entitled the “Minister of God,” a representative of the Most High in his rule, a “terror to evil doers,” a “praise to them that do well.” It is as possessed of these attributes only that he can claim to be the ordinance of God. The reverse exhibits the ordinance of the devil. 4. God cannot, without denying himself ordain (in the sense of the text, as an institution that meets his approbation,) an immoral power. 5. The submission required is for conscience sake; conscience can never be bound by any immoral obligation. “It is under the law to Christ.”

Q. Do not many professed Christians interpret the passage as demanding allegiance, for conscience sake, to “powers that then were?”

A. Yes. A number do; because it is agreeable to their worldly interests, and is correspondent with their false theory of civil government. But, says an eminent Seceder, “In this text we have obviously a general statement laid down of what magistrates ought to be.”

Q. Is there not abundant evidence in the page itself, that the apostle speaks generally of the character and duties of magistracy, and not with particular reference to the tyrannical and wicked rulers, who, at that time, swayed the sceptre of Rome?

A. Yes. The apostle says, “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Did Nero answer this character? The apostle says, “Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same.” Had the Christians this? They were the best subjects in the Roman Empire. But had they “praise” for being so? Why, the merest tyro in ecclesiastical history knows that in spite of all the loveliness of their conduct, and their distinguished benevolence towards their very enemies, on the simple ground of their being Christians, they were deprived of their civil rights, and persecuted even to imprisonment and death. Was this on the part of the magistrates to be “the minister of God” to them “for good?”

Q. Is not the phrase ordained of God susceptible of a twofold interpretation?

A. Yes. Things are ordained either by the order of his council or providential will, or they are ordained by the order of His word, or preceptive will.

Q. Which of these is our rule?

A. The former is God’s rule, the latter is ours. Deut. xxix. 29. “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God; but those things which are revealed unto us and to our children forever,” that we may do all the words of this law.

Q. According to which of these is civil government “ordained of God?”

A. According to the latter, civil government is “the ordinance of God to men for good.” “Ordained signifies that the powers are of God ordained; that is, are circumscribed by certain rules of right and honesty, within which rules, unless they contain themselves, they degenerate from the ordinance of God:” [David] Pareus. “The powers here (Rom. xiii.) are said to be ordained of God, and verse 2, to be the ordinance of God. The apostle speaks in the general, without application to the Roman or any other, but on the contrary, it is stood upon that he intends his precept of a lawfully called magistrate:” [Charles] Herle.

Q. Can you give any scriptural examples or illustrations of this interpretation?

A. Yes. 1. According to God’s providential will Israel rejected Samuel, whilst according to God’s preceptive will, they should have continued Samuel’s government and not sought a king. Hosea viii. 4, “They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes and I knew it not.” Did not approve of the deed. 2. By the former Athaliah usurped the government, by the latter she should have resigned the government, and yielded obedience to the posterity of Ahaziah. 3. Adonijah the usurper, though he had the pretence of hereditary right, and also possession by providence, was, according to God’s preceptive will, forced to yield the government to Solomon. I Kings ii. 13, “Thou knowest,” says Adonijah, “that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign; howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother’s; for it was his from the Lord.”

Q. Have tyrants and usurpers no other right to rule than the fact of their elevation in God’s sovereign providence, who sends them as he does the tempest and plague, to chastise the guilty nations?

A. They have no other claim, as the scriptures abundantly testify. Zech. xi. 6, “I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour’s hand, and into the hand of ‘his king; and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.” Is. xlii., “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers, did not the LORD, he against whom we have sinned.” Also Is. x. 5, 6; Job xii. 6, Hence called by the holy spirit by the names of the most unclean ravenous beasts. 1. Lions: Prov. xxviii. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 17; Zeph. iii. 3. 2. Bears: Prov. xxviii. 15; Dan. vii. 5-1 7. 3. Bulls: Ps. xxii.; Amos iv. 1. 4. Dragons: Is. Ii, 9. 5. Serpents: Is. xxvii. 1. Yea, leopards, wolves, foxes, dogs, fishers and hunters, &c, &c. See Concordance.

Q. Is civil government, then, a moral institution as it is the ordinance of God?

A. Yes: It is designed of God to be a representation of his own moral authority and rule.

Q. How do you make this appear?

A. In addition to what is stated above, it is evident, in the first place, that civil government is instituted for the preservation of moral order among the human race. Rom. xiii. 3. According to this text, rulers are ordained to promote “good works,” by the exhibition of the rewards which follow them, and the pains which ensue upon the practice of the contrary.

Q. What is the second evidence?

A. The great object of this ordinance of God is to promote the glory of God, inasmuch as the magistrate in the administration of this ordinance is the minister of God, and as his minister must give a representation his rule of God’s moral nature; and of course have in charge the honour of God, and should suffer no encroachment upon the glory of His throne. Every species of immorality is dishonouring to God, and cannot be countenanced by his minister. 2 Samuel xxiii. “The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me, he that ruleth over men, MUST BE JUST, RULING IN THE FEAR OF THE LORD.”

Q. How is it further evident?

A. In that magistracy as instituted of God to promote the happiness of mankind, for the ruler is not only the minister of God, BUT THE MINISTER OF GOD TO MEN FOR GOOD. God has ordained him to be the instrument in diffusing enjoyment among his subjects, by securing their obedience to the immoral law, decreed by eternal wisdom. “Whose ways are pleasantness, and all her paths peace.”

Q. What is the fourth evidence that civil government is a moral ordinance?

A. Inasmuch as it is ordained to preserve the rights of God among the human family. The rights of God are expressed in the first table of the Decalogue, as will appear more fully in another section of this work. “Render unto God the things that are God’s.”

Q. Wherein does it further appear?

A. Its morality appears, moreover, in this, that in order to render it effectual in securing glory to God, and happiness to man, the magistrate is armed with rewards and punishments, to be dispensed with justice according to the law of God, of which he is the minister. 1. Rewards: Rom. xiii. 3, “Do that which is good, and thou shalt have PRAISE of the same.” The magistrate is the encourager of practical morality and piety. 2. Punishments: v. 4, “But if thou do that which is evil be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. His power as a revenger appealing to the principle of fear, tends to prevent crime; and he doth not bear the sword in vain—he must actually take revenge on him that doeth evil. The object of this revenge is not merely the reformation of the criminal, nor the influence of terror to prevent crime. He is a revenger ordained as the minister of God to show the righteous indignation of Jehovah in punishing the guilty. In the capital punishment of the murderer, its object evidently cannot be his reformation; and whatever modern visionaries may dream, every Bible believer must admit that the judge of all the earth did once arm the civil power with the sword to take away life. He was, at least, then an avenger; but Paul says he is so still. The word avenger admits of no other interpretation. Could we say of a father who chastises his child that he is a revenger? Might we say of our redeemer, when he chastises those whom he loveth, that he is a revenger? The magistrate then is authorized to take vengeance, to execute wrath upon criminals; and thus in a righteous, but awful manner, illustrates the moral nature of civil government as it is the ordinance of God.

Q. Does not the principle upon which capital punishment is justified prove the morality of the ordinance of civil government?

A. Yes. Capital punishment is inflicted to sustain the divine justice, which he exercises by the hand of the magistrate who acts as his minister; nothing is done here by the temerity of men, but everything by the authority of God who commands it; for we can find no valid objection to the infliction of public vengeance, unless the justice of God be restrained from the punishment of crimes, and who can lay restraints upon the Judge of all the earth, who will do right? Paul says of the magistrate, “That he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Q. Does not the dignity of the title with which God honours magistrates show the morality of the ordinance?

A. Yes. They are called “Gods.” Ps. lxxxii. 1-6. This is not an appellation of trivial importance, for it implies that they have their command from God, that they are invested with his authority, and are altogether his representatives, and act as his vicegerents; and that their commission has been given to them by God, to serve him in that office, and, as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to the judges whom they appointed, to “judge not for men but for the Lord.” If magistrates, then, are the vicegerents of God, it “behoves them to watch with all care, earnestness, and diligence, that in their administration they may exhibit to men an image, as it were, of the providence, care, goodness, benevolence, and justice of God,” and in this manner beautifully illustrate the moral excellence of this ordinance of the Deity.

Q. Does not its moral nature further appear from the design of civil government as God’s ordinance?

A. Yes. This design is thus forcibly stated by Calvin; “It is designed as long as we live in this world to cherish and support the external worship of God, to preserve the pure doctrine of religion, to defend the constitution of the Church, to regulate our lives in a manner requisite for the society of man, to form our manners to civil justice, to promote our concord with each other, and to establish general peace and tranquillity.”

Q. Is not its moral nature finally evident, inasmuch as it is ordained to preserve and foster the rights and liberties of mankind?

A. “To this object,” says Calvin, “the magistrates ought to apply their greatest diligence, that they suffer not the liberty, of which they are constituted guardians, to be in any respect diminished, much less to be violated. If they are inactive and unconcerned about this, they are perfidious to their office and traitors to their country.”

Q. To what kind of submission is this ordinance of God entitled?

A. It is entitled to conscientious submission. Rom. xiii. 5, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake:” from a love to God’s ordinance, and respect for his authority, exercised by his vicegerent according to his law.

Q. It is not true, then, that every power that is set up by the majority of the people, and exists by the providence of God, is to be acknowledged and obeyed for conscience?

A. It is not true. For the will of the people is not the law in regard to the nature of magistracy, but the will of God; and as the will of the majority often sets up immoral constitution of government, in violation of the moral character of magistracy, as it is the ordinance of God, hence a distinction must ever be kept up, in respect of obligation, between magistrates set up by the preceptive will of God, and such as exist by his providential will only; and the slavish dogma, “That all providential magistrates are also preceptive,” is forever to be excluded. Hosea viii. 4, “They have set up kings, but not by me. They have made princes, and I know it not.”

Q. Which among the various forms of government approaches nearest the Scripture model, as to its outward constitution?

A. The Republican form—such as was possessed by the Israelites before they wickedly and rebelliously “set up a king.”

Q. Will this be the form in the millennium?

A. There are many arguments in favour of this opinion. 1. The gracious promise, Is. i. 20, “I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterwards thou shalt be the city of righteousness, the faithful city.” 2. From its adaptation to fulfil another prophecy—Jer. iii. 17, “At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD, and all nations shall be gathered to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem.” This can easily be verified by representation. 3. The Scriptural principle, that the people have a voice in the election of their rulers: and though a monarchy may be elective, yet such a form will not so fully as a republic preserve the liberty of the Subject. 4. The title king, in Scripture, does not signify a king in the vulgar sense, but any one possessed of the supreme power, and is applicable to the President of a Republic.

Q. Is not civil government, in one point of view, the ordinance of man?

A. Yes. It is in one view the ordinance of man, a human creation. 1 Pet, ii. 13, “Forms of magistracy, or the laws for the regulation of the commonwealth, are the ordinance of man.” It is lawful for men to model their constitutions of government in such a manner as may appear must suitable to them, provided such constitutions, in their principles and distribution of power, be in nothing contrary to the divine law. Deut. xvii. 14-17, 20, “When thou art come unto the land, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me. Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose. Thou shalt not set a stranger over thee. But he shall not multiply horses to himself: neither shall he multiply wives: neither silver and gold. That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment.”

Q. Is this view of civil government, as being the moral ordinance of God, a peculiar doctrine of the Reformed Presbyterian Church?

A. It is. The prevailing sentiment is, that civil government is merely a matter of human expediency, to be regulated entirely by the will of the majority, and consequently, that every system which the majority sets up is to be sustained as a lawful power, even though in its principles and distribution of power it tramples under foot the rights of God, and robs the subject of civil liberty.

[ON CHRIST’S HEADSHIP OVER THE NATIONS]