Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/700

Rh P R E P R E possess in Christian literature a single sure testimony to the existence of presbyters. In the genuine epistles of St Paul and in the Epistle to the Hebrews they are not mentioned. In 1 Cor. xii. 28 Paul says that God has given to the church apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, gifts of healing, help, government ; but of presbyters he has not a word to say. Even from passages where he is speaking of the jurisdiction of the congregation as, for example, in 1 Cor. v., vi. the presbyters are absent, Avhile in Phil. i. 1 it is the bishops and deacons that he mentions. In the Epistle of James, in the First Epistle of Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the pastoral epistles the presbyters certainly occur, but no one is able to show that any of these writings are earlier than the age of Domitian. Even Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., 42, 4) does not say that the apostles had appointed presbyters in the congregation ; he speaks only of bishops and deacons. For this very reason is the statement in Acts xiv. 23 to be looked upon with suspicion. It would be much too pre cipitate to assert that before the time of Domitian there were no presbyters in the Christian churches ; on the con trary, it may be assumed that the distinction between &quot;elder&quot; and &quot;younger&quot; would not fail from the very first to assert itself in these communities, organized as they were so largely on the model of the family. But in this there is no reason for assigning any special importance to the distinction. Out of it there grew very gradually a special rank and gradually the presbyters had assigned to them definite functions ; or, in other words, the functions which they had exercised from the first, of exhorting, rebuking, superintending, became recognized ecclesiastical duties and privileges. There is accordingly no need for answering the question whether the Christian &quot; elder &quot; is akin to the Jewish or to any kind of heathen &quot; elder.&quot; This, however, can well be affirmed, that the pattern of the civic senates was not without its influence upon the later development of the presbyterate. As for the com munities of Jewish Christians, we know nothing certain about their constitution, and are therefore unable to say anything definite about their presbyters. See Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches (2d ed., 1882), and Harnack s excursus in the German translation of this work (1883) ; also Harnack, Die Lchre der zwolf Ajwstd (1884). (A. HA.) PEESBYTERIANISM Refor- rPHE Presbyterian form of church government began at mation | the Reformation and attained development only in theories. ^ e cnurc i ies commonly called &quot; Reformed.&quot; The Saxon Reformers were not indeed fundamentally averse to Pres byterian principles. Melanchthon, for instance, expressly declared that no minister, without a college of elders and the consent of worthy members of the congregation, might excommunicate; and, in a letter to Nuremberg (1540), Bugenhagen, Jonas, Luther, and Melanchthon say, &quot;Resti- tuatur et excommunicatio. . . adhibitis in hoc judicium senioribus in qualibet ecclesia.&quot; On the other hand, the &quot; Reformed &quot; churches did not all accept the system, ?.&amp;lt;/., Zwingli and the Zurich congregation. In 1526 John Brenz drew up at Halle (Swabia) a scheme, including elders, ministers chosen from the elders, and councils, by which the elders were chosen by the Govern ment, who also had the final decision in all questions of importance. Franz Lambert, at the same time, provided for the Church at Hesse provincial synods, representative of the churches, and a general or land synod, under the control of the Government. Within the limits of a con gregation the scheme was purely congregational. At Ziegenhain in 1539 a decided advance was made towards autonomy, as only half the elders, who had extended powers, were there chosen by the Government. Zwingli theoretically gave the power to the congregation, practic ally to the civil power, as being the representative of the church. In Basel in 1529 the clergy alone had the power of church discipline. In 1530, however, (Ecolampadius, fearing a spiritual tyranny, wished to join a body of elders with the clergy, to be chosen by the council partly from its own body and partly from the congregation, four from each, who with the clergy would form the &quot;censorum consensus.&quot; But the council, fearing the imperium in imperio, preferred four colleges, one for each parish, each college being formed by two members of the council, one of the congregation, and the minister; and the council also retained the final decision regarding excommunication. At Strasburg (1531) the council created an assembly of the ministers of the seven churches, with three life elders from each, nominated by the council. In 1534 this system was modified : ordinary matters were settled each fort night by the minister and three of the twenty-one elders. Difficult questions were carried to the twenty -one, and discipline, short of excommunication, to them with the seven ministers. Capito s system at Frankfort differed from this in that only three out of nine elders were elected by the council, and that the office was for three years only. These all remained mere theories, limited, fragmentary, Calv and abortive. Calvin set himself to create a majestic systt and comprehensive system and to give to it the double authority of argumentative statement and practical realiza tion. He saw that the impulses and the aspirations of the Reformation Avere, for want of discipline, robbed of a large part of their dynamic force. He threw these forces and aspirations into the mould of his own genius, developed order out of tumult, and created a definite, yet elastic code, which should match the discipline of Rome and at the same time frustrate the anarchical tendencies of extreme Pro testantism. The contrast with Luther is complete : Luther created, Calvin fashioned ; &quot; the watchword of the one was war, of the other order.&quot; Calvin, surrounded by Catholic powers, felt more strongly than Luther that a definite pro test as to church government was necessary. His leading principles are that (1) a separate ministry is an ordinance of God (Inst., iv. 3, 1-3) ; (2) ministers duly called and ordained may alone preach and administer sacraments (iv. 3, 10) ; (3) a legitimate ministry is one where suitable per sons are appointed with the consent and approbation of the people, but that other pastors should preside over the elec tion to guard against inconstancy, intrigue, or confusion (iv. 3, 15), the final act of ordination, the laying on of hands, being confined to the pastors; (4) to co-operate with the pastors there should be &quot;governors,&quot; whom he &quot;appre hends &quot; to be persons of advanced years, selected from the people to join with the pastors in admonishing and in exercising discipline (iv. 3, 8) ; (5) discipline, the ordering of men s lives, is all-important and is the special business of the governors aforesaid. Calvin arrived at these principles as follows. From Eph. iv. 11 s^., Rom. xii. 7, and 1 Cor. xii. 28 he deduced five orders, of which three apostles, prophets, and evangelists were extraordinary and had lapsed, but two pastors and doctors were for all time. Doctors are concerned only with interpretation and exposi tion, pastors with preaching, sacraments, discipline. From the pastors some are singled out (1 Tim. v. 17), called, and ordained to &quot; labour in the word,&quot; to occupy them selves, infixed charges, with preaching and administering