Theory of the Eldership [pp. 702-759]

1860.] Destructive Tendencies of this Theory.
ministry, called and commissioned by Christ, and as independent
of the laity as is a Senate in relation to a House of Representatives, that constitutes a hierarchy or priestcraft. No, but it is
the exclusion of the laity and of the representatives of the laity,
as a separate and independent house of lay delegates that makes
a despotic priestcraft, a prelacy. And such a prelacy is logically
created by this theory, which must land us either in Dr. Owen's
abhorred "popularity," (i. e. democracy,) or in a clerical
oligarchy of "ONE ORDER." The principle of representation
is destroyed, and with it our glorious free representative and
conservative commonwealth, of which we may say in the language of Milton, "it is the divinest, noblest, safest, and freest
commonwealth that can be established among men."
Nay, by this theory, the very existence of ruling elders at
any time, or anywhere, either in apostolic or subsequent times,
is seriously endangered. The evidence for a divinely instituted
presbyter, that is not by office and ordination qualified to
preach and administer sacraments, &c., has been called in
question on critical and historical grounds by many of our
own ablest judges, and best friends. Dr. Miller admits that
many of his brethren rejected it. Principal Hill regards
the evidence for it as very slender. (View, as before.) Dr.
Wilson of Philadelphia searched in vain to find such mute
presbyters during the first three centuries. Professor Jamieson of Scotland, one of the ablest and most learned champions
of presbytery, after having published in favour of such presbyters, publicly renounced it.* He quotes Blondel as of the
same opinion, and many Presbyterians. The Westminster
Assembly rejected the name ruling elder, which had been even
voted upon, &c.,t 1 Tim. v. 17, as a proof-text for any such
presbyter. Baxter says this was the prevalent opinion among
Presbyterians in his day.: It was also, as we have seen,
among the French Presbyterian churches, and those of the
Remonstrants. Mr. Boyce, in his very able work on the
Ancient Episcopacy, (p. 208,) affirms (and quotes Blondel as
believing) that "the primitive presbyters were all ordained to
* Sum of the Episcopal Controversy, p. 87. Cyprianus Isotimus, p. 541.
t See in Gillespie's Notes.
I Orme's Life of, pp. 74, 77, and on Episcopacy.
749