Witherow’s Case for Presbyterianism
Thomas Witherow was a minister and professor of church history in Northern Ireland in the middle of the nineteenth century. His little book, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? makes one of the most concise and compelling arguments for the presbyterian form of church government in print. There are only three sections. The first introduces the three main possible forms of polity and then the last applies the standards he devises to those three forms. It is the second section that I will have most to say about, as it makes the actual argument from Scripture. I have only one fault with it, and it is roughly the same as I have with the section in Calvin’s Institutes on the same material, which I will explain under the first of Witherow’s six principles.
Church Polity and Why It Matters
Witherow’s first chapter does more than simply introduce the three contenders. He begins with a matter that is seldom considered. Why does this even matter? More than that, has it not been shown that the New Testament does not have much to say about the exact structure of the church? That was certainly the argument of Richard Hooker against the proto-presbyterian Thomas Cartwright in the last decade of the sixteenth century. There are two basic problems with this thinking, and Witherow addresses them both.
As to the question of its importance, he wrote,
It is very common for professing Christians to draw a distinction between essentials and non-essentials in religion, and to infer that, if any fact or doctrine rightly belongs to the latter class, it must be a matter of very little importance, and may in practice be safely set at nought. The great bulk of men take their opinions on trust; they will not undergo the toil of thinking, searching, and reasoning about anything, and one of the most usual expedients adopted to save them the trouble of inquiry, and to turn aside the force of any disagreeable fact, is to meet it by saying, “The matter is not essential to salvation; therefore we need give ourselves little concern on the subject.”1
As a sub-set to the impulse to minimize whatever is not “essential to salvation,” there is also the misguided truism, “You can’t find the perfect church!” In a very important sense, that is untrue. You find the perfect church as it is in heaven. Someone may reply with eyes rolled and a knowing smile, “Well, sure, but that isn’t the question. We are talking about here on earth—in this age.” We have no disagreement on that. But are we quite sure that this should be the only question? There is a great distinction to be made between the very being (esse) of the church as opposed to the “well being” (bene esse) of the church.
Theologians rightly classify the purity of the church among the subdivisions of ecclesiology. Now why can such a thing as purity be studied with a straight fact if, in fact, “You can’t find the perfect church” except on the Last Day? I will not bore my reader with how the loss of metaphysical thinking reduced the idea of a thing “in heaven” to be merely a matter of eschatology—a horizontal point off in the distant future. I will only put it in common sense terms: namely, that one cannot talk about a more or less pure thing, a thing with more or less wellness in its well being, unless the idea of its being and perfection were in some objective sense revealed and known.
That brings us to Witherow’s second preliminary observation of note: What does the Bible have to say about it? While Hooker may have succeeded in many minds in making Cartwright out to be a biblical maximalist, Witherow’s case reveals that Hooker’s resolution really lands us in a biblical minimalism.
Though every statement in the Scripture cannot be regarded as absolutely essential to salvation, yet everything there is essential to some other wise and important end, else it would not find a place in the good Word of God. Human wisdom may be baffled in attempting to specify the design of every truth that forms a component part of Divine revelation, but eternity will show us that no portion of it is useless. All Scripture is profitable. A fact written therein may not be essential to human salvation, and yet it may be highly conducive to some other great and gracious purpose in the economy of God – it may be necessary for our personal comfort, for our guidance in life, or for our growth in holiness, and most certainly it is essential to the completeness of the system of Divine truth. The law of the Lord is perfect. Strike out of the Bible the truth that seems the most insignificant of all, and the law of the Lord would not be perfect any more.2
What exactly qualifies to be a concrete statement about the church’s “structure” anyway? When it comes to the basic form of church polity, things are simplified by practical necessity. Whatever other secondary issues ought not to be the source of division, the plain fact of the matter is that you cannot have more than one form of church government operating in the same building. That would not be a church, but a schism, no matter how many layers of pretended unity it seeks to wear as a cover. We should also observe that there really are not many basic options from which to choose. Witherow calls them by three names: prelacy, independency, and presbytery. Think of any others, and he would tell you that they fall under one of these three.
Prelacy is that form of Church Government which is administered by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical office-bearers depending on that hierarchy; and is such as we see exemplified in the Greek Church, the Church of Rome, and the Church of England.
Independency is that form of Church Government whose distinctive principle is, that each separate congregation is under Christ subject to no external jurisdiction whatever, but has within itself – in its office-bearers and members – all the materials of government; and is such as is at present in practical operation among Congregationalists and Baptists.
Presbytery is that form of Church Government which is dispensed by presbyters or elders, met in Session, Presbytery, Synod, or General Assembly; and is such as is presented in the several Presbyterian Churches of Ireland, Scotland, England, and America.3
The question is which the Bible teaches; and Witherow cuts out the legs from the biblicist response by reminded his reader what a simple inference is. He uses the analogy of applying principles of the moral law to their more obvious applications. The same sort of reasoning will function here. Here the principles are called “apostolic principles” because they are given by the Spirit-inspired apostles in the New Testament: whether by example, precept, or good and necessary consequence. Once that is accepted, “The modern Church which embodies in its government most apostolic principles, comes nearest in its government to the Apostolic Church.”4
Six Apostolic Principles
There are, according to Witherow, six such principles, or criteria, that may be derived from the New Testament. Stated most concisely, they are:
(1) Church officers take origin from the Lord Jesus, yet are chosen by the people.
(2) The office of elder, or presbyter, is frequently set forth in the New Testament.
(3) There was a plurality of these elders in all the individual churches.
(4) Ordination to such offices was the act of the presbytery—the plurality of elders.
(5) An assembly of elders constitute, and receive appeals from, the church.
(6) Christ alone is Head of the church.
Each of these requires further elaboration and then demonstration from the Scriptures.
(1) Church officers take origin from the Lord Jesus, yet are chosen by the people.
The principle as stated is blameless, but it may remain ambiguous for the reader. Witherow first shows how Jesus was in fact each of these things: Apostle (Heb. 3:1), Evangelist, “preaching peace” (Eph. 2:17), Overseer (1 Pet. 2:25), Shepherd (1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4), and even Deacon, or Servant (Mk. 10:45). So Jesus modeled these before He instituted them in His church for others. In Matthew 10, we see the very first list of the Apostles because it was there that Jesus first sent them out. It is not as though they become Apostles at some point in the transition from the Gospels to Acts. Certainly the giving of the Holy Spirit had everything to do with their special anointing at Pentecost and their heightened understanding of the person and work of Christ. Yet the word that names the office itself just comes from the Greek verb meaning “I send” (ἀποστέλλω).
Even when Judas was being replaced and lots were cast, it adds that, “they prayed and said, ‘You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place’” (Acts 1:24-25). This prayer recognized that Jesus is the one who chooses the officer. Any time such decisions were committed to prayer, it was indicated that the Lord Himself was establishing the man in the office: “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23).
Interestingly, the one verse most clearly showing the rationale of Jesus providing these offices to the church is not one that Witherow mentions. Paul says, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). The pivot point of this first principle is that, “after the Lord has ascended to heaven, the personal call, except in case of Paul, who was one born out of due time, was not the passport of any man either to the ministry or apostleship. Men were no more put into office by the living voice of the Lord Jesus.”5 We cannot disagree with that. Must we, however, gravitate back to Hooker’s biblio-ecclesial minimalism?
As with sacraments of the church, so with church offices: they must be instituted by Christ Himself. These are indeed affirmed by the congregation, yet they are made by Jesus. If the Scriptures are clear on their form, perhaps they are also clear on their tasks and on their qualifications. Yet how clear? Not every part of Scripture is equally clear, and our doctrine of the clarity of Scripture does not demand so. To a certain extent, all Witherow was doing was showing the “mean” of Presbyterianism: i.e., that by a “mixed form,” this form of government takes the best of the popular element of congregationalism and the best hierarchical element of episcopacy. That is how I choose to read Witherow, at any rate. In other words, this popular “vote” is really more like a vote of confidence in the man that the elders had already identified, trained, and set forth.
(2) The office of elder, or presbyter, is frequently set forth in the New Testament.
Stress is laid here on the interchangeable use of the terms—“shepherd” or “pastor” (ποιμήν), “elder” (πρεσβύτερος), and “overseer” or “bishop” (ἐπίσκοπος). At Ephesus, Paul “called the elders of the church to come to him” (Acts 20:17), yet to these same he says that “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God” (v. 28). The same dynamic occurs in his instructions to Titus, who is to “appoint elders” (1:5), since “an overseer, as God’s steward, must be” (v. 7) this and that. The reason for different names is most likely to highlight distinct necessary elements of the task. Any man who would lead in God’s church must, to some degree, be these three things. He must be engaged in these things as second nature.
While Paul opens off his letter to the Philippians, addressing “overseers and deacons” (v. 1) in an official capacity, Two verses in Peter connect these two words to the third. Jesus Himself is called both, that is, “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25). A few chapters later, he says, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder … shepherd the flock of God” (1 Pet. 5:1, 2). The elders shepherd because the elders are shepherds, and the shepherds are elders. Both in turn are overseers.
(3) There was a plurality of these elders in all the individual churches.
In places like Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, we are told “they had appointed elders for them in every church” (Acts 14:23). There was likewise a plurality of “elders” in the Ephesian church (Acts 20:17). Similarly, in the Titus 1 passage already examined, we see that he was to “appoint elders in every town” (v. 6). Such a description is not indicative of “an elder” for each town, but rather of a plurality for each. Those who are sick are encouraged to “call for the elders of the church” (Jas. 5:14), a rather inconvenient task for ordinary laypeople who are physically ailing unless it means the plurality of elders in one’s own place.
(4) Ordination to such offices was the act of the presbytery—the plurality of elders.
The laying on of hands was a standard practice of church leaders for a variety of circumstances: such as praying for the sick, as already seen in the James 5:14 text (cf. Acts 28:8); but also that those who believed in Samaria would “received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:17). It was also the case for the commissioning of the apostles and those in their circle:
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off (Acts 13:2-3; cf. 19:6).
This was the case about the first deacons: “These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them” (Acts 6:6). Perhaps falling under the designation “evangelist” in the special sense meant of those directly under the Apostles, Timothy is told: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you” (1 Tim. 4:14). Of elders it is later said, “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22).
(5) An assembly of elders constitute, and receive appeals from, the church.
One of the crucial passages for the Presbyterian form of polity is Acts 15. Witherow tells his reader, due to the length of the chapter and on the assumption that it contains many things not to be skipped: “let him open up the Bible and read that chapter carefully from the commencement to the close.”6 From such a reading six indisputable facts emerge:
1. That Barnabas and Paul had a dispute about circumcision with certain false teachers who came down from Judea;
2. This dispute was not settled in the Church of Antioch where it originated;
3. The matter was referred to an external ecclesiastical assembly consisting of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem;
4. This assembly met publicly to deliberate on the question;
5. They pronounced a decision;
6. To this decision the Church of Antioch and the Churches of Syria and Cilicia yielded submission.7
From such a representative body called a “church,” Witherow derives two sub-principles: “the privilege of appeal to the assembly of elders, and the right of government exercised by them in their associate capacity.”8
(6) Christ alone is Head of the church.
Since the days of the initial Reformation, this point has had to be asserted most pointedly against Rome. Presbyterianism is the mean not only between prelacy and independency, but also between antichrist and anarchy.
Calvin spoke of the balance in this way,
For though it is right that [Christ] alone should rule and reign in the Church, that he should preside and be conspicuous in it, and that its government should be exercised and administered solely by his word; yet as he does not dwell among us in visible presence, so as to declare his will to us by his own lips, he in this (as we have said) uses the ministry of men, by making them, as it were, his substitutes, not by transferring his right and honour to them, but only doing his own work by their lips, just as an artificer uses a tool for any purpose.9
There must be many members to one body, and there is hierarchy even among those who are not properly the head; yet only of Christ is it said, “he is the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18). The Apostles disabuse their audience of any notion that a lesser head could ever explain its own authority: “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:1; cf. 2:11).
Many other passages could be brought in to support some of these same points, but I include, with the exceptions of two passages from Ephesians, only those which we mentioned by Witherow. The last thing I should say about the principles is that they are said to be in a certain order: “each rising in importance above that which precedes it, in ascending series, from Popular Election up to the Headship of the Lord.”10
Applying the Principles
It is plain enough that Presbyterianism is defined by these very six principles. Since the prelacy of the English monarch is, in a certain sense, preferable to that of the bishop of Rome, Witherow makes Anglicanism his point of comparison for prelacy. The title prelate comes from the Latin praelatus meaning “preferred one,” which usually denoted a civil dignitary, and further back from the verb praeferre which is “to carry before,” but then also “place before in esteem.” By the Middle Ages, the word was being used in French derivatives and then finally in English to mean mostly an ecclesiastical authority. Yet the Acts of the British crown, under Henry VIII and under Elizabeth I, made the monarch the Supreme Head over the Church.
Prelacy fails the first test, as the Crown appoints bishops and archbishops, whereas in Scripture, the congregation’s affirmation does so. Both will naturally affirm that God ultimately calls through their form, but that is immaterial to the difference. Prelacy fails the second test, since it treats those terms as standing for different offices—the local clergy or rector from the bishop. It fails the third because in each church is one such presbyter; the fourth because “ordination is an act exclusively performed by a prelate.”11 “In the Church of England,” fifthly, “there is no power of appeal except to the courts of law, or the Queen’s Privy Council, or some such tribunal.”12 And finally, sixth, it is the king or queen who is head of the Church.
The church traditions fitting under Independency, when it comes to the particulars of their several polities, “differ sometimes widely on important points.”13 Thus Witherow says that we must ascertain their principles in the general form. They at least have popular elections. We might think that since Witherow could not envision a century into the future, where many “non-denominational” churches lack any sense of polity, that therefore he could not envision a situation in which there were no elders, either functionally or else entirely. Not so.
He says,
On the principles of that theory of Church government, it is scarcely possible to have a plurality of elders, and in practice it rarely, if ever, occurs. Among them there is only one minister, or bishop, or elder, in each congregation. Practically, their system admits only of one elder to each Church.14
Likewise, ordination and appeal to a broader assembly are often deemed unnecessary by independents: “The decision of the pastor, and deacons, and people, assembled in a Church meeting, is final in every case … [and in extreme cases] the system deprives the injured man of the privilege of appeal, and clothes the perpetrators with irresponsible power.”15 Independents, he says, would agree completely on the principle that Christ is the only Head of the Church, so that on the first and last point there is agreement with the Presbyterians.
Those middle points raise a difficulty that the Presbyterian model must take pains to answer: Why is ordination so essential if, on the human side, congregational selection is also paramount? For instance, Witherow refers to a scenario in which, “The congregation, being destitute of a plurality of elders, his ordination can only come from the people, who have no Scriptural right to confer it, or from the neighboring pastor.”16 This is a real “chicken-and-egg” scenario in cases on the mission field or even in a more remote part of the country, or in a place in which a decisively aberrant form of Christianity predominates, and which a leader may indeed desire to submit himself to some presbytery, yet the process requires a year or perhaps a few years.
Should the people who have collected by means of a Bible study cease to do so until that time period is over? This has been a live question in recent decades. A balanced Presbyterianism should prize accountability and education, which it has historically done, but it must also take inventory of the comparative success of Baptist and Methodist growth in the early nineteenth century. The lesson is not to water down that accountability and educational standards. Rather, Presbyterians should frankly ask themselves how much elitism and liberalism in their own control centers may not be the occasional causes of refusing this or that mission church or young ministry prospect.
Yet even granting the worst examples, or painting one or two of Witherow’s points in its worst representation, the Presbyterian model nevertheless conforms to Scripture best—if one accepts that these six principle are indeed a clear expression of what the Bible teaches.
Witherow wrote other things, and, as is often the case, more recent books make the same case in either a fuller manner or by taking into account controversies and challenges that the earlier author did not foresee. I think of Guy Prentiss Waters’ recent volume entitled How Jesus Runs the Church (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2011) as a suitable example.
__________________________________________________
1. Thomas Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1990), 7.
2. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 8.
3. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 9.
4. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 20.
5. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 20.
6. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 32.
7. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 33-34.
8. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 35.
9. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.3.1.
10. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 39.
11. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 41.
12. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 41.
13. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 42.
14. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 43.
15. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 44.
16. Witherow, The Apostolic Church: Which Is It? 43.
