TO determine the relation of the ruling elder—or, as we commonly say, elder—to the preaching elder—or, as we commonly say, minister—may not be a vital matter, but it is not quite an easy matter. The Free Presbyterian Synod, as such, by its recent resolution on the subject of elders conducting public religious services, did not commit itself to any view on the question I am just now seeking to determine; but some words of my own, as I commended the said resolution to the Synod’s acceptance, did so far raise the question. Are they one office, with higher and lower departments within that office; or, as some would put it, are they one order, with higher and lower offices within that order? Or, on the contrary, do the elder and the minister belong to two different orders or offices? My own conviction is for the one office or one order—for practically the same thing is meant by those who say one office and those who say one order—and against the construction which makes the elder and the minister belong to two different orders or offices.
We should, I deem, take our stand on the New Testament. And it appertains to the prosecution of this argument that we should show that the New Testament recognises only two permanent offices in the Church, to wit, those of the bishop and of the deacon, or what, according to the view here advocated, means the same thing—those of the elder and of the deacon. That the New Testament recognises the diaconate as a distinct office no one questions; and therefore the question here is, “Is there only one other permanent office recognised in the New Testament?” Do the terms “bishop” and “elder” stand for one and the same office in the New Testament? If the answer is in the affirmative, it, one would think, virtually establishes the thesis that the preaching elder and the ruling elder must belong to one and the same office or order.
The position of the Church of England is well known from the language made use of in the Preface to the “Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, according to the order of the Church of England,” in the sense “that it is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been three orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” Yet it is not too much to say that practically every New Testament scholar now admits that in the New Testament bishop and elder or presbyter—which last word the Church of England unhappily Englishes in the form “priest”—mean one and the same office-bearer. On the Presbyterian side, for example, the late Prof. Witherow, of Londonderry, in his “The Apostolic Church,” puts the matter very succinctly. “The same verse of Scripture,” says he, “never speaks of bishops and elders. When Paul, for example, writes to the Philippian Church (i. 1), he mentions the bishops and deacons, but says nothing of elders. When James directs the sick to call for the elders of the Church (v. 14), he says nothing of bishops. If the offices of bishop and elder were quite distinct—if a bishop were an office-bearer bearing rule over a number of elders, it does seem strange that no passage of Scripture speaks at the same time of bishops and elders. There is one supposition, and only one, that would furnish a satisfactory reason for this fact. If the two terms be only different names for the same office, then to speak of bishops and elders would be a violation of the laws of language—it would be tautology—it would be the same thing as to speak of presbyters and elders, or of bishops and bishops. To suppose that the two offices were identical, accounts sufficiently for the significant fact that they are never mentioned together in the same passage of the Word of God; for it is plain that one of the terms being adequate to indicate the office-bearer intended, there was no need to introduce the other at the same time.
Still, there must be something stronger than presumption to warrant us in saying that the two terms were only different names for the same person. This obliges us to consult the Scriptures farther on this question.
The first passage that comes before us is (Titus i. 5-7), “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre.” This passage strongly confirms the truth of the supposition already made, that the two offices were identical. It appears that Paul left Titus behind him in Crete to ordain elders in every city. To guide him in the discharge of this duty, the Apostle proceeds to state the qualifications of an elder. No private member of the Church was eligible to that office except he was a man of blameless life, the husband of one wife, and had obedient children; “for,” says he, “a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” Dr. King well observes on this passage, “that the term elder, used at the commencement, is exchanged for the term bishop in the conclusion, while the same office-bearer is spoken of. An elder must have such and such qualifications. Why? Because a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God. Does not this identify the elder and the bishop? If not, identification is impossible.”
Professor Witherow then discusses 2 John i., 1 Peter v. 1, Acts xx. 17-28, and concludes his discussion of all the passages in these words: “This conducts us to a principle—namely, that, in the Apostolic Church, the offices of bishop and elder were identical.”
On the Anglican side, the late Bishop Lightfoot, in his scholarly dissertation on the Christian ministry—see his Commentary on Philippians—admits that “it is a fact now generally recognised by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament, the same officer in the Church is called indifferently bishop and elder or presbyter.” The late Vice-Principal Hatch makes the same admission equally frankly and strongly in his Bampton Lectures.
Thus by the admission of every competent person, in the New Testament bishop, elder, and deacon do not stand for three offices but for two. The conclusion is that the preaching elder and the ruling elder must divide the one office of bishop, or presbyter, or elder between them. And this division of departments within the same office is recognised in the New Testament, most plainly of all, in 1 Timothy v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine,” where elders labouring in word and doctrine are distinguished from elders who rule, even if the latter rule well. It is very likely that in New Testament times, when miraculous gifts were a common thing in the Christian Church, the line of demarcation between the ruling elder and the preaching elder was not so distinct as we have been accustomed to see it in ordinary use in our Presbyterian congregations. But the distinction was recognised from the beginning, and when miraculous gifts were withdrawn, and the preaching elder required a more thorough training to fulfil the functions of his own department, the distinction between the two departments was merely more emphasised, and therefore more marked.
All this being as we have put it, one may be disposed to ask where the difficulty to which we referred in the opening sentence of this Note comes in? It comes in this way. Vitrunga on the continent of Europe, Thornwell in America, and Witherow in Ireland, as well as others, have contended that the facts, as laid down in the New Testament, being as I have already sought to set forth, the only consistent position for Presbyterians is to assert that with ourselves, as Presbyterians, the identity of the office of preaching elder and ruling elder, with a difference in departments, should be fully recognised and acted on. On the other hand, a man so distinguished as the late Dr. Charles Hodge, and other lesser men, stoutly maintained that in the historic Presbyterianism of Europe the minister and the elder belonged to two entirely different orders, and those of this school urge that as two entirely separate orders we should regard them. But although there are few modern men for whom the writer of this Note has the respect that he has for Dr. Hodge, one has not much hesitation in differing from him on this question; and that for this reason: When Dr. Hodge and others like-minded with him on this particular point are asked to give the warrant for the office of ruling elder, in their sense of the office, they have to fall back largely on expediency. Now, one would say that in matters concerning which it cannot be said that the Scriptures give any clear judgment, the principle of expediency ought to come into action, as our Westminster Confession (chapter i. 6) puts it: “That there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence.” But in a case like the present the matter does not seem to have been thus left by the Scriptures, and therefore I think that the position of Vitrinaga, Thornwell, and Witherow, is the one we should follow.
But returning for a moment to the Synod’s resolution on the question of elders conducting public religious services, I have to say that Dr. Charles Hodge has left evidence in his works that he would have been entirely with the Synod.