Theory of the Eldership [pp. 702-759]

1860.] Destructive Tendencies of this Theory.
The Plymouth Brethren in England, and in their extended
churches and members over the world, are distinguished by this
rejection of a distinctive office of ministry, and have only general officers to rule, who may, any or all, preach. Now, as Dr.
Thornwell observes, "extreme cases prove principles," and if
we would avoid a similar result we must crush the serpent in
the egg.*
This theory-not its advocates-is certainly Romish in that
it makes ruling and the ruler paramount, and preaching and
the preacher subordinate; since it makes the ruler fundamental
and first, and the ministry only a new function or gift attached
to it.
This theory is also suicidal. The distinction between the
potestas ordinis, (i. e. "the power of teaching and administering the mysteries," which belongs to the minister or teaching
elder, and the potestas regiminis, (i. e. power of rule or government,) is, says Dr. Breckinridge, "fundamental; and the
difference in the exercise of the two powers is also fundamental, (pp. 641, 642,) which distinction must exist also in
those who hold the power, or else ALL of them MUST hold BO0TH
forms of church power, and the inherent distinction in the
nature of the power be liable to constant disregard." Now,
the argument of Dr. Mason carries these premises with irresistible force to the conclusion, that there must be distinct and
different names by which the holders of these powers, sofundamentally and inherently distinct, may be correctly known. To
think otherwise is to attribute to God what never has happened in the affairs of men from father Adam down to the present A. D. 1860, and what is inconsistent with the nature and
use of human language.t
And finally, on this point, by destroying the independence
of the ministry, and making ministers representatives of the
people, and dependent upon them, this theory destroys the
balance of power inherent in the senatorial character of the
ministry, and reduces our polity either to an oligarchy or a
democracy, which even Dr. Owen repudiates.
* Southern Presbyterian Review, 1859, p. 619.
t See Works, vol. ii., pp. 44, 45, &c.
VOL. XXXII.-NO. IV. 95
745