Download - 2001 Issue 4 - The Presbyterian Government of the Apostolic Church - Counsel of Chalcedon
-
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 4 - The Presbyterian Government of the Apostolic Church - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/8
The Presbyterian Government
of the
Apostolic
Ephesus,
representing several
congregations-And from
Miletns
he sent to
Ephesus and
called to him the elders of the
church, i.e.,
the
church of
Ephesus comprised of
several
congregations. The very word
presbytery is used in I Timo
thy 4: 14 for a Christian
presbytery,
and
in
Luke
22:66
and Acts 22:5 with
reference
to
Church
r 1 : ' A - c c - o - r d - : - : i ~ n - g to A : c t s
:: '15=--an-d': : ' 16': ' 1
Joe Morecraft III
The apostolic
church
was
governed by
presbyteries, i.e., elders (presbyters)
in
their
official
and associated capacity. In the New
Testament
history of
the apostolic
church we
see
three kinds of presbyteries: congregational
presbyteries. Qr
sess mUl:
Qf
l c ~ l
churches;
gional presbyteries, which are referred to today
simply
as
presbyteries; and synodical
presbyteries,
or
general assemblies. (Synod
comes from the Greek word,
sun ode
meaning
convening
or coming together. )
These three
types
of presbyteries
in
the
Christian
church
were
modeled after
the Jewish
system
of church gov
ernment
with
its three
ecclesiastical courts: the
Sanhedrin,
corresponding to
the
synodical
presbytery,
the Presbytery, corresponding to the
regional presbytery,
and the Synagogue,
with
its
fulers, corresponding to the session in the local
congregation.
1
First, in the
New Testament
we
see
elders
given the
authority
by Christ (through calling,
election and ordination),
to govern the
congrega
tion (local
church)
of
which
they
are members.
This is a session, or congregational presbytery
And when they had appointed elders
for
them
in every
chnrch,
having
prayed and
fasted,
they
commended them to the
Lord in
whom they had
believed, Acts 14:23. Each local church had a
plurality of elders, and when the elders
were
officially in
session,
together
they
ruled
and
managed
the local church.
Second, in the
apostolic
church
we
see broader
presbyteries
representing
several churches
region
ally which
we know
today simply as presbyteries,
to distinguish them from sessions . The New
Testament speaks
of a plurality of elders associ
ated and assembled together as a presbytery,
governing
the
congregations
which they repre
sented.
In Acts
11
:30 we
read
of
relief
being
sent from the
church
of Antioch to the needy
church of Jerusalem-and this they
did, sending
it
in charge
of
Barnabas and Saul to the elders,
i.e. the elders of the church of Jerusalem, which
was comprised of several congregations, as we
shall
see.
In
Acts 21: 18 we read that now tile
following day Paul
went in with
ns to
James,
and all
the elders were present, i.e., all the
elders of Jerusalem
assembled-the
presbytery of
Jerusalem. In Acts 20:17-18, we read of a plural
ity of elders gathered
as the presbytery
of
a Jewish presbytery.
Now, how do
we
know
that
the church of
Jerusalem, the church of Ephesus,
the church
of
Corinth
and
the
church of Antioch were each
comprised
of
several congregations
or
local
churches? By necessary inference
from
what
the
New Testament says
about each
of
these churche-s.
In Acts 8:1, we
read
of
the chnrch which was at
Jerusalem
ano yet it is certain that several
smaller
churches
comprised that
one church. This
fact
testifies
to an
observable unity
of
organiza
tion and government. How do
we
know all this?
Thousands
of
believers lived in Jerusalem and
were members of the church there. There were far
more believers in the church at Jerusalem than
could
meet together in one congregation, Matthew
3:5-6, John 4:1-2, John
12:19,
I Corinthians
15:6,7, Acts
2:41,
47,
Acts 4:4,5:14,6:7,12:24,
21 :20. Many thousands
of
believers were in the
church
of Jerusalem, and they
must have been
members of local
churches meeting in private
homes and synagogues,
and yet they
are one
metropolitan church, governed
by
elders
from
each of these congregations.
In Acts 13:1, we
see
this
partial
sentence:
Now
there
were
at
Antioch,
in
the church
that
was there, prophets and
teachers
... This church
also was comprised of more
than
one
congrega
tion.
We
know
this because
of
the multitudes
of
believers that were members of
that
church,
Acts
11 :21-26. Here
again the number
of
believers in
Antioch
in
Syria was too large to
meet in one
location. They had to
meet in
several local
congregations, each governed by elders,
which
congregations together are called one church,
which itself is governed by elders
from
the
local
churches.
The
same is true
of the church of
God
which
is
at Corinth
in
Greece,
II Corinthians 1: 1.
Also,
because
of
the vast numbers
of
believers there,
this church had to be comprised of several
smaller, local churches, Acts 18 :7-11. And
Revelation 2:1 speaks of the church in Ephesus,
which
also
had
too
many members to
be
com
prised of only
one
congregation, Acts
18:8,
10.
The
point is that the local congregations, e.g., in
Corinth, were
called churches, I Corinthians
14:34, and at the
same
time all of
these churches
together are called
the
chnrch of
God which
is at
Corinth.
We can only infer that the church of
Corinth,
for
example, was a
plurality
of single
June/July,
2001 -
THE
COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon
-
25
-
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 4 - The Presbyterian Government of the Apostolic Church - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/8
congregations, (each
governed by a session),
in
one Presbyterial
Church,
governed
by a
re
gional
presbytery comprised
of
elders from each
church.
So then, we can conclude the following prin
ciples
of
Presbyterian government:
I. There is in the
Word
of Christ a pattern of one
presbyterial government in common over several single
congregations in one church. -
The Divine Right
o
Church Government, p. 217.
2. In every such presbyterial church made up of
diverse single congregations
there
were ecclesiastical
roling-officers which are counted or called the officers
of
that church, but never counted or called . . elders .. .of any
one single congregation therein,
as
in the church of
Jerusalem, Acts 11:27,30, 15:2, of Antioch, Acts 13:1 3
with 15:35, of Ephesus, Acts 20:17,28, and of the church
of Corinth, I Corinthians 1:12, 4:15 and 14:29. - pp. 217-
218.
3. ''The officers
of
such presbyterial churches met
together for acts
of
church gove=eat, such as: to take
charge
of
the church's goods and
of
he
due
distribution
thereof, Acts 4:35,37,11:30;
to
ordain, appoint and send
forth church officers, Acts 6:2-3,6, 13:1 3; to excommuni
cate notorious offenders, I Corinthians 5:4-5, 7,13
compared with II Corinthians 2:6; and to restore again
penitent persons to church communion, II Corinthians 2:7-
9. - p. 218.
4. ''The apostles themselves in their joint acts
of
government
n
such churches
acted
as
ordinary
officers
viz. as presbyters or elders
2
p
218.
5.
They took in the church's conseat with themselves,
wherein it was necessary as
n the
election
and appoint-
ment of deacons, Acts 6:2-6. - p. 219.
Let ll these considerations
be
hnpartially balanced
in
the scales of indifferent unprejudiced judgments, and they
plainly delineate in the word, a pattern o one Presbyterial
Government
in
c mmon over diverse single ongregations
within one Church. - p. 219.
Third, in the apostolic church in the New
Testament we see the existence of synodical
presbyteries, or what we call today general
assemblies, Hebrews 12:22f, or synods. These
presbyteries are of the broadest jurisdiction and
authority. They are
of
a broader region than
presbyteries. They can include all the presby
ters from
an
entire nation meeting together
or
they
can
consist
of
pres
byters from
churches
throughout the Christian world meeting together,
hence ecumenical councils as in the Early
Church e.g.
Nicea,
or ecumenical Synods e.g.
the
Synod of Dort in 1618.' This would mean that
as the
session
has
oversight of
the
local
region,
and the
presbytery
over a specific
region,
synod
would have
oversight
over
all
the church
in
all
regions of a larger region. Furthermore, it would
mean
that as church members have the
right
to
appeal a session s decision to a presbytery so
they have the
right
to appeal a
presbytery's
decision to a synod or general assembly.
Now, what is our Biblical basis for believing
that the.apostolic church had synodical
presbyteries?
Jesus Christ, the head
of
the
church, laid down
in
His Word the basis and
warrant for synodical presbyteries as broad
courts
of appeal in the Christian church. How do we
know this?
First, the
Old Testament presents us with a
church court in Israel superior to her other
courts Exodus 18:22-26, Deuteronomy 17:8,12
compared with
II Chronicles 19:8,11; Psalm
122:4-5.
f
the ecclesiastical government
of the
church of Israel in the Old Testament had
syna
gogues
in
every city
which
were subordinate to
the supreme ecclesiastical court at Jernsalem, then
there
ought
to be a subordination of particular
churches among us to higher a s s e m b l i e s . ~ he
Divine Right, p.239.
Second, Jesus words in Matthew 18:15-21 infer
such
synodical
presbyteries as church courts of
appeal.
From
this
provision
Jesus made for
dealing
with
wayward members-reproof
in
private admonition before witnesses
and
appeal
to the
church
elders, we
infer
that: if Christ has
instituted that the offence of an obstinate brother
should be complained of to the church, then much
more is it intended that the obstinacy
of
a great
number (suppose of a whole church) be brought
before an higher assembly. But the former is true,
therefore the
latter. - The Divine Right, p. 241.
The exhortation, tell
i t
to the church in
Matthew 18: 17, is an allusion to the practice
of
the Jewish church, which was represented not
only by parts, in the single synagogue or congre
gation, but wholly in the Sanhedrin consisting of
s e l e c ~ persons, appointed
by
God for deciding
controversies incident to their particular congre-
gations
and
their members. So
that
we may
thus
reaso
ll
: . the subordination here established by
Christ is to be extended so
far
in the Christian
Church, as it was in the Church
of
the Jews; for
C h r i s t : . ~ l l u d e s t o the Jewish practice. But in the
Jewish .Church there was a subordination
of
fewer
: or m q ~ ~ not only within the same synagogue or
, c o n g ~ e g a t i o n , but within the whole nation; for all
synagogues were under the
great
Council at
Jerusalem. Now that Christ gives here the same
, rule that was given of old to the Jews for Church
government is clear: (I). From the censure ofihe
obstinate,
which
was to be
reputed
a
heathen
and
a publican, wherein is a
manifest
allusion to
the
present estate
of the Church of the Jews. (2).
And
from the familiarity and plainness of Christ's
speech, Tell it to the church, which Church could
not have been understood by the disciples, had
not
Christ
spoken of the Jewish judicatory, be
sides
which
they knew none for such offences as
Christ spake
of
to them-there being no particular
church
which
had given its name to Christ. (3).
And also from his citing
the
words of that text,
Deuteronomy
19:15, where the witnesses and
offenders were by way
of further
appeal to
stand
26 -
THE
COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon - June/July, 2001
-
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 4 - The Presbyterian Government of the Apostolic Church - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/8
before the Lord, before the priests for judgment,
vs. 17. (4). t is plain that our Savior intended a
liberty of going beyond a
particular
congregation
for
determining
cases of
controversy, from
the
reason of
that
subordination which Christ enjoins,
of
one
to two to
three,
and of them to
the
church ... To
this
we
might
add the
testimonies of
Calvin:
'Christ instituted
no
new thing, but
follows the custom observed in
the
church of His
own nation.'
Again,
'he
had respect unto the
form
of discipline received among the Jews,
which
was
in the power of the elders, the representatives of
the Church.
'- The
Divine Right p. 243.
Third, the unity
and
catholicity of the visible
church is
the
theological
foundation for
church
government by
synodical
presbyteries.
Christ has
one visible catholic church.
s
He has
given this
church His form
of
government
for her
in
the
Bible.
6
The ordinances
Christ
has
instituted
belong to
the entire visible church for
her
edifica
tion, and not just to single congregations.? There
fore, since there is one
visible
catholic
church
having a form of government by divine right,
being
commanded
by Christ
in
the Bible; and
since this government belongs to the whole body
of Christ, it
must be
necessarily inferred
that
the
more
generally
and extensively
Christ's
ordinance
of
church-government
is managed in
greater and
more
general assemblies,
the more
fully
the
perfection
and end of government, viz,
the
edifi
cation
of the whole body of
Christ is attained.
Consequently, if there is divine
warrant
for
chnrch-government by single congregational
elderships, is the warrant not much more for
church-government by presbyteries, and synods,
and councils, wherein more complete provision is
made
for the
edification of the general church or
body
of Jesus Christ? -
The Divine Right ojChurch
Government
pp.
225-226.
Fourth, the apostolic
church provides
us
with
a
model
for synodical presbyteries in the New
Testament, i.e., Acts 15 and 16. The regional
presbyterial
church
at Antioch, and probably
the
churches of
Syria and Cilicia
as well, vss. 23, 41,
sent
representatives
to a broader synodical
byterial church at
Jerusalem to settle
an
issue that
was troubling the less
broad region
of Antioch,
Syria and Cilicia. The adjudicating assembly of
appeal was a public meeting of the apostles and
elders, with an apparent multitude of non-or
dained
church
members in attendance, vss.
12, 22,
23. The decision that was made was
directed to
all
the
presbyterial churches by name-Antioch,
Syria and Cilicia, vss. 23f-and was
binding
upon
all, each having elders representing each at the
meeting in Jerusalem. t
also was
binding upon
the churches of
Derbe and Lystra,
16:1-4. The
conclusion: the regional
presbyterial church
of
Antioch was snbordinate to
the broader
synodical
presbytery of Jerusalem;
therefore
we conclude
that a particular church is subordinate to higher
assemblies.
The power of presbyteries is
limited
by the
lordship of Christ and the
Word
of God. t is the
spiritual power of
the
keys of the
kingdom,
not
the political power of
the sword.
t is neither
absolute nor infallible,
but
limited and fallible.
All of
its decrees
and decisions
are
to
be
in total
The
power of presbyteries is
limited
by
the
lordship
of
Christ
and the
Word
of God.
It
is
the
spiritual power of the keys of
the kingdom, not
the
political
power of the sword.
agreement with
the
Word of God. And if the
decision of
any
presbytery is not
consonant with
that Word, a member or a presbytery has
the right
of appeal, from the
local session to the
regional
presbytery to the synodical
presbytery
or
general
assembly.
Furthermore the power
of
presbytery
is
not only
persuasive,
it is also juridical. In other
words, the presbytery is
not
only able to give
solemn advice and counsel with forceful moral
persuasions, but
everyone
within its bounds is
obliged
reverently to esteem, and dutifully to
submit unto so far as agreeable to the
Word
of
Christ. -
The Divine Right
p. 224.
It belongs to synods nd councils ministerially to
determine controversies offaith nd cases of conscience;
to
set down rules nd directions j r the better ordering
oj
the public worship ojGod nd government ojHis church;
to receive complaints in cases ofmal-administration nd
authoritatively to detennine the same: which decrees
nd
determinations
i
consonant to the word
oj
God are to be
received with reverence
nd
submission not only
for
their
agreement with the word but alsojor the
power
whereby
they are made as being an ordinance
oj
God. appointed
thereunto in His word.-
Westminster Confession of Faith,
XXXI, III
The Main Lessons about Church Government from the
Jerusalem Presbytery in Acts 15-16
(Taken from William Cunningham s book,
Historical Theology VoL I
Acts 15 and 16 describe the
apostolic
church
meeting together in synodical presbytery in
Jerusalem.
We
should make the following
general
observations: (1). Barnabas and Paul had a
dispute with certain false teachers from Judea
who were teaching that
circumcision
is a
prereq
uisite
for salvation,
15:1. (2). This dispute was
not
settled
in the church
at Antioch where it
originated,
15:2-4. (3). The matter was referred
to a synodical
presbytery consisting
of
apostles
and elders at Jerusalem, l5:4f. (4). This
presbytery met
publicly to deliberate the issue,
15:6-7. (5). These apostles and elders, acting
jointly as presbytery, rendered a decision on the
June/July,
2001 -
THE
COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon
-
27
-
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 4 - The Presbyterian Government of the Apostolic Church - Counsel of Chalcedon
4/8
issue,
15:22f.
(6). To
this decision,
the church at
Antioch
and
the
churches
of
Syria,
Cilicia,
Derbe,
and Lystra yielded submission,
15:23f, 16:lf.
When the presbytery at Jerusalem sent its
official decision to the churches, it
was signed
in
the name of the apostles and elders, 15:22-23.
This teaches uS that whenever any controversies
arise which
cannot
be
settled withiu a congrega
tion, they
may
be
referred
to
the presbytery for
settlement.
Thus
we see two facts
in
the life
of
the
early church.
First,
there
existed the
privilege
of appeal and the privilege of referring disputed
issues to the decision of assemblies consisting of
the elders of the church, who have the authority
from Christ to meet, deliberate, decide and de
mand obedience to
its
decisions when they are
consistent
with
the word of the Lord. Second,
this ecclesiastical assembly, or presbytery,
therefore,
had
the authority
and
duty to govern
the
church
in its associated,
joint
capacity under
the head of
the
church
whom
it
represented.
From the record of the Jerusalem
presbytery
we
can
learn SIX
IMPORTANT
LESSONS about
church government in the
ew
Testament, con-
cerning:
I).
The Standard of Church Authority;
(2). The
Authority
of Church Officers; (3). The
Role of
Non-ordained Church Members; (4).
The
Subordination of Church Courts; (5).
The
Obliga
tion of
Apostolic Example and
Practice;
and
(6).
The
Divine Right of
Presbyterian
Church Govern
ment.
I. The Standard of Church Authority
The presbytery
at
Jerusalem
settled
the dispute
in Autioch by
the exposition and application of
the
Word of
God,
15:16, as
the
only way of
understanding
God's
providence and
of
refuting
false teachers. This teaches us that the
only
standard by
which the
affairs of the
church
are to
be
regulated
is the revealed will of God. Since
the false doctrine
troubling
the church
was
the
terms of salvation, 15:1, no one but God was
entitled to decide the question before the
THIS TEACHES US THAT THE
ONLY STANDARD Y WHICH THE
AFFAIRS
OF THE CHURCH
ARE
TO
E REGULATED IS THE REVEALED
WILL OF
GOD.
presbytery. As the Westminster Confession of
Faith
declares,
The supreme Judge
by which all
controversies of
religion are to
be
determined
and all decrees of cDuncils opinions of
ancient
writers
doctrines of men and private
spirits are
to
be
examined and n
whose sentence w are
to
rest
can
be
no
other but the Holy Spirit speaking
in the
Scripture.
I, X The church is ...
not
at
liberty to have regard to any other [standard]; as
this
would be
virtually to withdraw herself from
subjection
to Christ's authority,
and voluntarily
to
submii'to a foreign yoke ... - William
Cunningham, Historical Theology Vol. I, p. 49.
2. The Authority of Church Officers
The
inspired record of this Council of
Jerusa
lem
plainly
sanctions .the Presbyterian principle of
the
right
of the office-bearers of
the
church, as
distinguished
from
the ordinary members,
to
decide judicially any disputes that may arise
about the affairs of the church,-to be the ordi
nary interpreters and administrators of Christ's
laws for the government of His house. - William
Cunningham,
Historical Theology
Vol. I, p. 50.
This authority.of church officers
has definite
limits:
I) . While
restricted
exclusively
to the
affairs of
the
church .. even
there
[it is not to be]
lordly, or
legislative,
or discretionary, but purely
ministe'riaI, to be exercised in Christ's name, i.e.,
in
entire SUbjection to His authority and to His
Word. The office-bearers of the church are
not lords over God's heritage: they have no
dominion over men's faith; they have no jurisdic-
tion over the conscience; they are the mere
interpreters of Christ's word, the mere administra-
tors
ofthe
laws
which
He
has enacted. (2).
Even
within .>heir proper sphere of simply interpreting
and adrtJinistering Christ's laws ...
the
officer
bearer's of the church are not, as
Papists
allege,
infallible, so as to be entitled to
exact
implicit
and unquestioning obedience. - (3). The office
bearers of the church have no exclusive right to
interpret Christ's laws. Upon Scriptural and
Protestant principles, every man .. .is entitled to
interpret the Word of God
for himself
upon his
own responsibility,
for the
regulation of his own
opinions and conduct ... - Cunningham, VoL I, p.
51.
After saying this, it must be made clear that
these officers are Christ's ordinance for the
ordinary government of His visible church,-that
, it is
t ~ i r
function
and
duty, while it is not the
. function and duty of
any
other party, to adminis
ter His laws
for
the
management
of the
ordinary
necessary business of His
church,
f o r
deciding
and
regulating
all those matters
which
require to
,
be
regulated
and decided
wherever a churCh
of
, Christ exists and is
in
full operation. - Christ
has
not vested
the government of His
church ... either in civil rulers or in the body
of
ordinary members; and therefore they are not
entitled to interpret the word of God for the
p u r p ) ~ e
o
executing
this
function.
He
has
vested
the ordinary administration of the
affairs
of His
church in ecclesiastical
office-bearers; and
to
them,
therefore, and to them
alone, belongs the
right
of
interpreting
and applying His laws for the
attainment o this object the
accomplishment
of
this end. - But since the judicial determination
of the
office-bearer
of the church is the only
ordinary provision which Christ has made
for
28 -
THE
COUNSEL
of
Cbalcedon - June/July, 2001
-
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 4 - The Presbyterian Government of the Apostolic Church - Counsel of Chalcedon
5/8
administering the affairs
of
His church, no party
is entitled to interfere authoritatively with them in
the execution
of
this function; and
all
parties,
while exercising their own
right
of private
judg
ment,
ought
to regard the
decisions of
the ordi
nary and only competent authorities in the
matter
with
a certain measure of respect
and deference
at least
to this
extent, that if they
do
resolve to
condemn and
disobey
the
decisions, they ought to
be
very
sure
that
these decisions
are
opposed
to
the
mind and
will of
Christ, and
that, therefore,
they may confidently appeal from the decision
of
the office-bearers to the tribunal of the Head
of
the church Himself. - Cunningham, Vol. I, pp. 52-
53.
[ he
decrees
and
decisions of presbyteries]
ifconso-
nant to the wordofGod. are to be received with reverence
and
submission not only for their agreement with the
Word
but alsofor the power whereby they are made as
being an ordinance ofGod appointed thereunto in His
word.- Westminster Confession of Faith, XXXI, Ill.
3. The Place of Church Members
The history of
the
Council
suggests to us,
that,
in important ecclesiastical
matters, the
Christian people,
or
the
ordinary members of
the
church, though not
possessed
of a judicial or
authoritative voice
in
determining them, ought to
be consulted; that the merits of the case ought to
be
expounded to them, and that their
consent
and
concurrence should,
if
possible,
be
obtained.
There is a very marked distinction
kept
up
through the whole
of
the narrative we are now
considering, as
well
as through the
New
Testa
ment in general,
between the
position
and func
tions of
the
apostles
and
elders, or of
the
office
bearers, on
the one hand,
and
of
the people or
ordinary
members
on the other. The
assembly ... was composed
properly
and formally
only of the apostles and elders, and its decisions
were ... 'the decrees that were
ordained
of the
apostles and elders which were
in Jerusalem.'
All
this is very plain,-so plain,
that
it cannot
be
explained away; and therefore
what
is said or
indicated
of
the place and standing
of
the
people ... must, if
possible, be
so interpreted
as'to
be
consistent
with this.
. Cunningham,
Vol. I, pp.
5455.
The people, or brethren, are first mentioned in
verse 12, indicating that
they
were
present
as
observers, and
nothing
more. The
next time
they
are mentioned is in verse 22, where it says that
i t
pleased
the
apostles
and elders, with the whole
church, to send chosen
men
of
their own
com
pany to Antioch.
Now, the way
in
which
they
are here
introduced, plainly implies that they did
not stand upon the same platform in the matter
with the apostles and elders .. t does imply,
however, that
after
the apostles .and elders had
made np their minds as to
what
was the mind and
will
of
God in this matter, and
what
decision
shonld be
pronounced,
the subject was
brought
before the people,-that
they
were called upon
to
attend to it, to exercise their
judgment
upon
and to make up their
mind
regarding it.
t implies
that all this
was done, and that, as the
result of it,
the
brethren
were convinced
of
the
justice and
soundness of
the
decision,
and
expressed
their
concurrence in it. ..All this having taken place it
was
perfectly natnral that
the public
letter ad
dressed upon
the subject to the
Gentile chnrches,
shonld
run
in
the
name
of
the whole
body
of
those
who at
Jerusalem
had adopted or concnrred
in
the
decision or judgment prononnced, [vs.
22]...
-
... the mere
introduction
of the
brethren,
along
with the apostles and elders, into the
letter,
cannot
be
fairly
held
to indicate, as it
certainly
does
not
necessarily
imply, that the brethren
formed
a
constituent part
of
the assembly,
or that they had
acted
with
anything
like
jndicial anthority,
as
the
apostles
and
elders had
done, in
deciding the
qnestion. -Cunningham, Vol. I, p.
5556.
4. The Subordination of Church Courts
There is another
principle
of
church govern
ment which Presbyterians have
generally regarded
as sanctioned by the
transaction recorded in
this
chapter-viz., what
is
called
the
subordination
of
church courts,
...
the
right
of synodical
assemblies
[presbyteries and
sessions]
... to
receive appeals in
cases
of
maladministration, and
authoritatively
to
determine the same. The Scriptural warrant
for. ..
presbyteries
is,
that there
are
clear instances
in
Scripture
in
which
the
whole body of
Christians
of
a
particular place-as at
Jerusalem
and
Ephesus, where there must
have
been more than
one
congregation-are
spoken
of
as a
church, or
one church, which they conld
be only as
being
under one
and the
same presbyterial government,
having
a
joint
or
common
body of ecclesiastical
office-bearers, who
presided over them, and
regulated
their common ecclesiastical
affairs. The
chief direct warrant which Presbyterians profess
to find in Scriptures
...
higher
[church] courts
invested
with
some
measure of authority over
congregation and [presbyterial] assemblies or
elderships,
is
this
...
council at Jerusalem; and
I
have
no
doubt that it does give
countenance
to the
general idea on which the
Presbyterian
principle
of
a
snbordination of
courts is based. The whole
transaction
here recorded ... naturally
and obvi
ously wears
the aspect of
the
church at Antioch
referring
an
important and difficult
question,
becanse
of
its
importance
and
difficulty,
and
becanse
of
its
affecting
the interests
of
the
whole
church, to the church
of Jerusalem,
as to a
supe
rior authority;
and
of
that church accordingly
entertaining the
reference,
and
giving
an
authori
tative decision npon the snbject
referred
to
them. Cunningham,
Vol. I,
pp. 59-60.
That the decision was binding and authorita
tive, and was
not
merely a
counselor
advice
coming from a party whose judgment was entitled
to much moral weight, seems very
plain
from the
June/Jnly, 2001 -
THE
COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon - 29
-
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 4 - The Presbyterian Government of the Apostolic Church - Counsel of Chalcedon
6/8
whole strain
of
the narrative, and especially from
the 28
th
verse, where the council says,
It
seemed
good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you
no greater burden than these necessary
things;'
and
from the
4th
verse
of
the 16" chapter, where it
plainly appears
that 'the
decrees
which
were
ordained
of
the apostles and elders which were at
Jerusalem' were
promulgated
and prescribed as
laws binding upon all the churches. The last
circumstance-viz.
that the decrees were imposed
not only upon the church at Antioch, but upon all
other churches likewise, overturns another view
which has been propounded .. that this question
was referred
by
the church at Antioch to the
church at Jerusalem
simply
in the way
of
arbitration .. any obligation which might attach to
the one party to obey the decision being based
wholly upon
their own
voluntary
act,
in
agreeing
to submit it to the determination
of
the other. The
narrative
exhibits no trace
of
anything like a
voluntary submission to arbitration on the part of
the church 'at Antioch .. "-Cunningham, Vo .l, pp.
60-61.
.. the gerier l
prin iple
or ide of a represen
tative
character or standing, and of a correspond-
ing
jurisdiction or
right of exercising
judicial
control, is sufficiently indicated
and maintained
by the general
position
of the church at Jerusalem,
and especially
of
the apostles who resided there,
and
regulated and administered its affairs. The
apostles ... had ...
jurisdiction
over the whole church
of
Christ. Their authority was not confined to any
one particular place or district, but extended over
the
whole church ...
And if
so,
then
a Synod or
Council
of
which they were constituent members
might
be
fairly
regarded
as
representing
the
church, and as thus
entitled
to exercise
over the
whole
length and breadth of it whatever authority
and
jurisdiction was
in
itself
right
or competent.
This is quite sufficient to sanction .. the general
idea or principle of courts of review,
or
of a
subordination of courts of ecclesiastical office
bearers-of some assemblies possessed
of
a wider
representative character, and of a corresponding
wider
jurisdiction
than others. "-Cunningham, Vo .
l, p. 62.
5.
The
Obligation of Apostolic Practices.
"There can be no reasonable doubt that it may
be justly laid down as a general principle, that
apostolic
practice, such
as
that
exemplified
in the
Council t Jerusalem, does impose a permanent
binding obligation in regard
to the
constitution
and
government
of the
church, and
the
administra
tion
of
its affairs ... The
truth
of this general
principle
seems very clearly deducible from these
two positions-first,
that
Christ commissioned and
authorized the apostles to organize His church as
a distinct
visible
society, and to make provision
for
preserving
or
perpetuating i t to the end
of
the
world; and secondly,
that
the apostles, in execut
ing
this branch of their commission, have left us
few direct or formal precepts or instructions as to
the constitution and government of the church,
and have merely furnished us with some materials
for ascertaining what it was that they themselves
ordinarily did i)1 establishing and organizing
churches, o r what was the actual state and condi
tion
of
the church and the churches while under
their guidance...
- ...
hut
as
they
were executing
their Master's commission when they were estab
lishing and organizing churches ... and as there is
no
intimation
in Scripture,
either
in the
way
of
general principle or
of
specific statement, that any
change was ever after to take place in the consti
tution and government of the church,
or
that any
authority was
to
exist warranted to introduce
innovations,
the
conclusion from all these consid
erations, taken in combination, seems unavoid
able, that the practice of the apostles, or what
they actuaIly did in establishing and organizing
churche,$ is, and was intended to be, a binding
rule to the church
in
all ages;
that
the Christian
churches of
subsequent times ought,
de
jure to be
fashioned after the model of the churches planted
and superintended by the apostles. - One very
obvious limitation
of
it
is, that
the
apostolic
practice which is adduced as binding, must be
itself established from the Word of God, and must
not
rest
merely upon materials derived from any
otber
a:q d
inferior source. This position is virtu
ally included in the great doctrine of the suffi
ciency and perfection of the written word,-a
doctrine held by Protestants in opposition to the
Church
of
Rome.
f
this doctrine be true, then it
foIlows
that anything which is imposed upon the
church as binding
by
God's
authority ...
must
be
traced to, and established by, something contained
in, or fairly deducible from, Scripture."
Cunningham, Vo . l, pp. 6465.
However, "everything which the apostles did
or
sanctioned, connected with the administration
of
the
affairs
of
the church, is not necessarily and
ipso Jacto
even when contained
in
and deduced
from Scripture, binding universally and perma
nently' u p o the church.
t
has, for instance, been
the opinion
of
the great body
of
divines of all
sects and parties, that the decrees of the Council
of
Jerusalem, simply as such, and irrespective of
anything else found in Scripture bearing upon any
of the subjects to which they refer, were not
, intended to be of universal and permanent obliga
tion, and re not now, in fact, binding upon
Christians.
t
was undoubtedly made imperative
upon the churches
of
that age by the decree
ofthe
Council, to abstain from things strangled, and
from blood; but the great body
of
divines
of
all
parties have been
of
opinion, that an obligation to
abstain from these things was not thereby imposed
permanently upon the church, and is not now
binding upon Christians. - There were some
things which, from their nature, seem to have
been local and temporary, suited only to the
particular circumstances of the church in that age,
and
in
the countries where the gospel was first
preached; and these have been generally regarded
30
- THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon - June/July; 2001
-
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 4 - The Presbyterian Government of the Apostolic Church - Counsel of Chalcedon
7/8
as destitute
of
all
permanent binding force.
Cunningham, Vol. J pp. 66-67.
Any donbt
or uncertainty
as
to some of
the
applications
of
the
principle
affords no ground for
the use
which
some have made
of
it in
rejecting
the principle altogether, and
denying
that apos
tolic practice, ordinarily and as a general rule,
forms a binding law for the
regulation of
the
affairs of the church. The general considerations
already adverted
to establish
the
truth
of
the
general position as
to
the ordinary binding force
of
apostolic practice. -Cunningham, Vol. J, p. 67.
The following are some
general
rules
to
guide
us in determining
which practices of the
apostles
are
binding
on the church.
1.
Nothing ougbt
to
be admitted into tbe ordinary
government and worship of the Christian church which
has not the sanction or warrant
of
Scriptural authority, or
apostolic practice at least, if not precept. .. [other than the
circumstances
concerning the worship of God excep-
tion]
...
2.
The Scriptural proof
of
any arrangement or practice
having existed in the apostolic churches ordinarily and
primofaeie imposes an obligation upon all churches to
adopt it. ..
3. The [burden
of
proof] lies upon those who propose
to omit
anytlling which has the sanction
of
apostolic
practice, and that they must produce a satisfactory reason
for doing so, derived either from some general priociple or
specific statement of Scripture bearing upon the point. .. -
Cunningham, Vol. J
p. 68.
6. The Divine Right
of
Presbyterian Church Government
Is a
particular
form
of church government
set
forth in the Bible as binding
by
God's authority,
or by divine right
upon
the
church
of
God in all
ages? An answer to this question is dependent
upon the collating from Scripture
certain
rules in
regard to the government
of
the church, which
have the sanction
of
apostolic
practice: then
upon the combining
of these
together, showing
that, when combined, they constitute what may
be fairly called a scheme
or
system
of
church
government. - Cunningham, Vol.
J
p. 75.
From
all this
the
conclusion
manifestly
follows,
that
a
particular
form
of church
govern
ment has
been laid
down
in Scripture
as perma
nently binding upon the church
of
Christ-that
form being the Presbyterian one. -Cunningham,
Vol. J p 76.
Of
the
fundamental principles
and
leading
features
of the Presbyterian
system
of church
government
as
above described, and
as
distin
guished from Prelacy and from Congregational
ism, would not hesitate to
use
stronger and more
specific language ... viz., that
n
ts subst nce
[Presbyterian
government} is
the form
in regard
to which
Christ
has, with
sufficient plainness,
indicated in His Word, by the practice
of
His
inspired apostles in establishing and organizing
churches, that it is His mind and
will that
it to
the
ex lusion
of all others, in so far as they are
inconsistent
with
it,
shonld
be
the form of
govern
ment adopted
in His church, and
in all its
branches; in other words, that Presbyterianism, in
its substance and fundamental principles, is
binding
by divine right
or jure
divino as
the
form
of government by which
the
church of Christ
ought permanently and everywhere to be regu
lated. -Cunningham,
Vol. I, pp.
76-77.
Objections
To
This Viewpoint
The Roman
Catholic
argument against
Presby
terianism
found in Acts
15
is
merely this: Peter
spoke first. The Anglican argument is that James
spoke
last. Both
of
these
arguments
are
sheer
trifling. -
p.
44.
The Congregationalists also
argue
against Presbyterianism in Acts
15.
Their
argument
is this:
there
is no
model
for
church
government in Acts 15 because the matter was
decided
by
inspired
and
infallible
apostles,
acting
in
their extraordinary capacity
as
the foundation
of the church. The Presbyterian answer to all
these objections is that the apostles were acting
simply
as
the ordinary office-bearers of the
church, using the ordinary means
of
ascertaining
the
divine will,
and
enj oying only
the ordinary
guidance and influences
of
His Spirit.
Cunningham,
Vol. I,
p. 45.
Presbyterians contend
that
there are plain
indications in
the New Testament that
the apostles
sometimes acted in the administration of e lesi-
astical affairs, not as inspired
men
directed
by the
infallible guidance
of the Spirit
which
they
enjoyed in declaring truth and in organizing the
church, but simply as ordinary office-bearers in
co-operation with other elders, and more espe
cially that they
acted
in
this
capacity
merely
in
this
case
... [Acts 15] -
t
seems very manifest,
from the whole scope and strain of the narrative,
that the apostles did
not
act here as
inspired
and
infallible men,
but simply
as
ordinary
ecclesiasti
cal office-bearers, in conjunction with the elders
and ordinary pastors. Had it been the
purpose of
God to settle the controversy which arose about
the necessity of circumcision by an inspired
infallible
decision,
the
apostles
might have
at
once decided it without meeting, and without
discussion
of
any kind; or
anyone of
them might
have done so in the exercise of his apostolic
authority, and
confirmed
his
decision by the
'signs
of
an
apostle.'
Paul
himself
might have
done
so at Antioch, without
the
matter being
brought up to
Jerusalem
at all. This was
not
done; the matter was brought up to the church at
Jerusalem.
The
apostles
and
elders
assembled
to
deliberate
upon it
publicly
in the presence
of the
people;
and we are
expressly told that much
disputing took
place regarding
it, when
they were
assembled
to decide it. The
apostles who
took
part in the discussion, in place of at once declar
ing authoritatively
what was the mind and will
of
God
regarding
it,
formally
argued
the
question
June/July, 2001 - THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon - 31
-
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 4 - The Presbyterian Government of the Apostolic Church - Counsel of Chalcedon
8/8
upon
grounds derived at once
from
God's
providential deal
ings, and from statements
contained in the
Old Testament.
In
this way, and
by
this process,
they carried conviction to the
understandings
of
all who
heard
THE COUNSEL
of Chalcedon
115 Church Street
l \Jon-I-'roj-,t
Org.
u.s. Postage
PAID
Permit
#
1553
Greenville,
SC
29602
Cumming, GA 30040
them, so
that
they concurred at
length in an
unanimous
deci-
sion.
Here everything plainly
indicates, and seems to have
been obviously intended to
indicate,
that
inspiration
was
not
in exercise,
but that
the matter
was decided by means acces-
sible
to men in general under
the
ordinary
guidance
of the
Spirit. -
Cunningham, Vol. I,
pp. 45-46.
The statement,
t
seemed
good
to
the Holy
Ghost
and
to
ns,
certainly implies that
they
were confident that
the
decision
Please review
your
maIling label ,md If your date begllls \\
nh
a 9
or
IS
othel
W1se
lower
than
2170, renew
your
subscriptIOn nmv.
Th