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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/8

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

2001 issue 4 - the presbyterian government of the apostolic church - counsel of chalcedon

Documents