Responding to this objection to Presbyterian polity by Richard Hooker?

[clawrence9008]

A dear Reformed Anglican brother on Instagram posted this quote from Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity on his story:

“It is rather peculiar that your presbyterian government should be so clearly taught by Christ and His Apostles in Scripture, but never discovered by any church until now, while the sort of church government which you so resolutely oppose has been observed by Christians everywhere, and none of them noticed that it was forbidden by Scripture. I challenge you to find one church upon the face of the earth that has had such a church government, or that has not been episcopally-governed since the time of the Apostles!”

... and I was curious to see if any of you knew whether Gillespie, Rutherford, or any others responded to this claim in their polemical writings on polity? I am fully convinced of Presbyterian polity from the Scriptures but I also want to grow in my understanding of its historicity (I'm aware of a few quotes by Jerome to that end, but my early church knowledge is far too insufficient for anything beyond that).

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Well, he’s right in a sense and wrong in a sense.
Presbyterianism was a novelty when it appeared in the 16th Century but he’s wrong in that the Episcopal type of church government was also a development in the Post-Apostolic period.

The Apostolic Church itself was built around associational Congregationalism, similar to modern Reformed Baptists today. The Episcopacy then developed on from that.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It's the hierarchical assertion that there was no purer, primitive church government from which a devolution into top-down, centralized, beaurocratic governance came to be. Apostolic leadership was assumed to transfer to a new generation of legates in the persons of big city bishops. Bishops" description need not have hierarchy "read into" it, as from later development; but interpreted as ministers (in the Presbyterian conception).

We reject the caricature of Hooker, that we ignore church history in favor of our novelty. He assumes there is no need or requirement to correct such error, as that moved slowly but in the long run very far indeed from the purity and good order if the NT. We affirm all the history, including how Christ's ministry was steadily debased.

 

[clawrence9008]

The Apostolic Church itself was built around associational Congregationalism, similar to modern Reformed Baptists today. The Episcopacy then developed on from that.

I mean, that’s certainly one way of looking at the issue… I am sure you have your reasons as a Reformed Baptist for believing that but I certainly can’t get behind that.

 

[MW]

16th and 17th century defences of Presbyterianism include regular appeals to the fathers and schoolmen to demonstrate the principles are not only Scriptural but acknowledged as such in the tradition. For historical precedents one might consult Wylie's History of Protestantism. The Culdees are often mentioned in this respect.

Hooker's view of Scripture was a form of liberal rationalism. Scripture teaches the way of salvation. Other parts of Scripture are non essential. Reason using the laws of nature and the principle of consensus is to arrive at what is beneficial for the government and ceremonies of the church. And, lo and behold, thus just happens to fully justify the Elizabethan settlement of Hooker's church.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

A dear Reformed Anglican brother on Instagram posted this quote from Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity on his story:

... and I was curious to see if any of you knew whether Gillespie, Rutherford, or any others responded to this claim in their polemical writings on polity? I am fully convinced of Presbyterian polity from the Scriptures but I also want to grow in my understanding of its historicity (I'm aware of a few quotes by Jerome to that end, but my early church knowledge is far too insufficient for anything beyond that).

Richard Hooker fanboys are generally facile thinkers engaging in a theology of convenience. And I say that as someone who is not even the slightest bit anti-Anglican. Hooker comes to the wrong conclusion because he asks the wrong question. The real question is which form of church government is divinely appointed, not is a certain system forbidden.

As for the historical argument, Jerome admitted that the church originally had a presbyterial government. Ambrosiaster, moreover, recognised the antiquity of ruling elders. Even John Whitgift, of all people, acknowledged the office of ruling elder in the early church. Not to mention the Reformed churches who adopted a Presbyterian church government after the Reformation. Even without these testimonies to Presbyterianism, or at least to aspects of it, one could argue that since the spirit of the antichrist was already at work in Paul's day, it should not be surprising that a form of church government more conducive to antichristianity emerged at an early stage in church history. (Granted we need to be nuanced regarding what exactly is meant by episcopacy.)

Indeed, if justification by faith alone could be rediscovered at the Reformation, after centuries of the doctrine of justification not being articulated in accordance with scripture, what reason have we for thinking that the church was immune from falling into error regarding church government?

 

[Charles Johnson]

I have Anglican friends that claim that episcopal government is Apostolic, since "it's in Ignatius." Which is funny, given that in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius said,
"See that you all follow the presbytery as you would the apostles."

 

[Northern Crofter]

Presbyterianism was a novelty when it appeared in the 16th Century

That would be news to Moses and the 70 elders (cf. Exodus ch.18 with ch.24)

I also want to grow in my understanding of its historicity (I'm aware of a few quotes by Jerome to that end, but my early church knowledge is far too insufficient for anything beyond that).

This is always worth a quick read - the history of the presbyterial form of government since apostolic times is laid out pretty clearly and succinctly: https://thewestminsterstandard.org/form-of-presbyterial-church-government/ .

Consider also the testimony of Scripture in that Moses' 70 becomes the Sanhedrin which is evident throughout the Gospels and Acts, demonstrating an even longer historical precedent. When one acknowledges that "presbyterian" is just a fancy Greek transliteration for "elders," I don't think there is much of an argument against the idea.

 

[Frisian Gardener]

That would be news to Moses and the 70 elders (cf. Exodus ch.18 with ch.24)

I studied Exodus recently and to my surprise found that A.W. Pink, unlike every other commentator I read, thought Moses should not have heeded Jethro's advice to delegate.

The passage is too lengthy for us to quote in full, but let each reader turn to and read carefully Exodus 18:13-27. These verses record the failure of Moses and are written for our admonition. Several most important lesson are here plainly inculcated.

Moses had been appointed by the Lord as the leader and head of His people. As Jethro witnessed the exacting duties of his son-in-law, advising the people from morn to eve, he felt that Moses was undertaking too much. Jethro feared for his health, and suggested that his son-in-taw appoint some assistants. In listening to Jethro, Moses did wrong. From a natural standpoint Jethro’s counsel was kindly and well-meant. It was the amiability of the flesh, It presented a subtle temptation, no doubt. But the man of God is not to be guided by natural principles; only that which is spiritual should have any weight with him, Nor should he heed any human counsel when he is engaged in the service of the Lord; he is to take his orders only from the One who appointed him.

One thing that this passage does is to warn God’s servant’s against following the advise of their relatives according to the flesh. Jethro’s eye was not upon God, but upon Moses. It was not the eternal glory of Jehovah which was before him, but the temporal welfare of his son-in-law—"Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou and this people that is with thee; for this thing is too heavy far thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone" (v. 18). A parallel case is found in connection with our Savior. In Mark 3:20 we read, "And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could net so much as eat bread." The Lord Jesus knew what it was to "spend and be
spent." But those related to Him by fleshly ties did not appreciate this; for we are told in the very next verse that, "When His friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on Him; for they said, He is beside Himself." Very solemn is this and very necessary for the servant of God to heed. The flesh (in us) must be mortified in connection with our service just as much as in our daily walk.

When the Lord Jesus announced to His disciples for the first time that "He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes to be killed," we are told "then Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, Pity Thyself, Lord: this shall not be unto thee" (Matthew 16:21, 22). Here again we behold the amiability of the flesh. It was what men would call ‘the milk of human kindness.’ But it ignored the will and glory of God. The answer of our Lord on this occasion is very solemn: "He turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art an offense unto Me: for thou perceivest not the things that be of God, but Chose that be of men." That was the severest thing that Christ ever said to one of His own. What a solemn warning against being influenced by the natural affections of our friends!

Subtle as was the temptation presented to Moses. if he had remembered the Source of his strength, as well as his office, he would not have yielded to it. "Hearken now unto my counsel" said Jethro (v. 19). But that was the very thing which Moses had no business to do. "So shall it be easier for thyself" (v. 22) pleaded the tempter. But was not God’s grace sufficient! It is sad to see the effect which this specious suggestion had upon Moses. In Numbers 11 we find that Moses complained to the Lord—"I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me" (v. 14). Does some servant of God reading these lines feel much the same today? Then let him remember that he is not called upon to bear any people alone. Has not God said, "Fear thou not; for I am with thee, be not dismayed for I am thy God, I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of My righteousness" (Isa. 41:10)! And if the burden is "too heavy" for thee, remember that it is written, "Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall sustain thee" (Ps. 55:22).

"It is here the servant of Christ constantly fails; and the failure is all the more dangerous because it wears the appearance of humility. It seems like distrust of one’s self, and deep lowliness of spirit, to shrink from heavy
responsibility; but all we need to inquire is, Has God imposed that responsibility? If so, He will assuredly be with me in sustaining it; and having Him with me, I can sustain anything. With Him, the weight of a mountain is nothing; without Him, the weight of a feather is overwhelming. It is a totally different thing if a man, in the vanity of his mind, thrust himself forward and take a burden upon his shoulder which God never intended him to bear, and therefore never fitted him to bear it; we may then surely expect to see him crushed beneath the weight, but if God lays it upon him, He will qualify and strengthen him to carry it.

"It is never the fruit of humility to depart from a ‘Divinely-appointed’ post. On the contrary, the deepest humility will express itself by remaining there in simple dependence upon God. It is a sure evidence of being occupied about self when we shrink from service on the ground of inability. God does not call us unto service on the ground of our ability, but of His own: hence, unless, I am filled with thoughts about myself, or with positive distrust of Him. I need not relinquish any position of service or testimony because of the heavy responsibilities attaching thereto. All power belongs to God, and it is quite the snide whether that power acts through one agent or through seventy—the power is still the same: but if one agent refuse the dignity, it is only so much the worse for him. God will not force people to abide in a place of honor if they cannot trust Him to sustain them there" (C.H.M.) Strikingly was this seen in the sequel. Moses complained to God of the burden, and the Lord rendered it; but in the removal went the high honor of being called to carry it alone. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone" (Num. 11:16, 17). Nothing was really gained. No fresh power was introduce; it was sin-ply a distribution of the "spirit" which had rested on one now being placed on seventy! Man cannot improve upon God’s appointments. If he persists in acting according to the dictates of ‘common sense’ nothing will be gained, and much will be lost.

A word should be said upon the closing verse of our chapter: "And Moses let his father-in-law depart; and he went his way into his own land" (v. 27). This receives amplification in Numbers 10: "And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite. Moses’ father-in-law, We are journeying unto the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you; come thou with us and we will do thee good: for the Lord had spoken good concerning Israel. And he said unto him, I will not go; but I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred" (vv. 29-30). How this revealed the heart of Jethro (here called Hobab). The ties of nature counted more with him than the blessings of Jehovah. He preferred his "own land" to the wilderness, and his own "kindred" to the people of God, He walked by sight, not faith; he had no respect unto "the recompense of the reward" of the future, but preferred the things of time and earth. How ill-fitted was such a one to counsel the servant of God!

In concluding this article we would point out how that Jethro’s departure from Moses in no wise mars the typical picture presented in the earlier part of this chapter; rather does it give completeness to it. Jethro returned to his own land and kindred because he had no heart for the Lord and his people. A similar tragedy will be witnessed at the end of the Millennium. In Psalm 18 we read, "Thou hast delivered me from the strivings of the people; and Thou hast made me the head of the heathen (Gentiles); a people whom I have not known shall serve Me. As soon as they hear of Me they shall obey Me; the strangers shall yield feigned obedience unto Me. The strangers (Gentiles) shall fade away" (vv. 43-45). This will find its fulfillment in the Millennium. Many Gentiles will turn to the Lord, but their hearts are not won by Him. At the end, when Satan is released, they will quickly flock to his banner (see Revelation 20:7-9).

May the Lord grant us steadfastness of heart, and keep us from being drawn away by the things of time and sense.

Pink was a Baptist -- is this view more typical of those with Congregationalist or Baptist polity, or is this a minority position among them?

 

[Northern Crofter]

I studied Exodus recently and to my surprise found that A.W. Pink, unlike every other commentator I read, thought Moses should not have heeded Jethro's advice to delegate.


Pink was a Baptist -- is this view more typical of those with Congregationalist or Baptist polity, or is this a minority position among them?

That is a very unique/odd take on Exodus 18. I don't see how one comes to Pink's conclusions strictly from the text - I notice he tries to bring other Scripture to bear but doesn't really deal with the text at hand. For example, consider v.23 (my emphasis added): "If thou do this thing, (and God command thee) both thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go quietly to their place." In other words, Jethro subjects his counsel to God's approval. I'm not sure how Pink can then say "Jethro’s eye was not upon God, but upon Moses." I notice Pink nowhere mentions this verse.

Pink spends a lot of his comments contrasting Moses with Christ, and yet he fails to mention that Christ, too, appointed 70 men to help him in Luke 10: "...the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them, two and two before him into every city and place, whither he himself should come. And he said unto them, The harvest is great, but the laborers are few" (vv.1-2).

I can only assume Pink was predisposed tot his interpretation due to other beliefs - perhaps it is related to Congregationalist/Baptist polity. This is certainly at odds with Reformation era thinking:

"Godly counsel ought ever to be obeyed, though it come of our inferiors, for to such God oftentimes giveth wisdom to humble them that are exalted, and to declare that one member hath need of another." (Geneva Bible notes on Exodus 18:24)

"If thou shalt do this thing. What immediately follows, “and God command thee so,” may be taken in connection with the beginning of the verse, as if, in self-correction, Jethro made the limitation, that he did not wish his counsel to be obeyed, unless God should approve of it. Others extend it more widely, that if Moses followed God’s commands in all things, this moderation of his duties would be useful. However you take it, Jethro declares that he would have nothing conceded to him, which should derogate from God’s supreme authority; but that there was nothing to prevent Moses from following, as he had done, God as his leader, and still adopting the proposed plan." (Calvin's commentary on v.23)

I like Pink devotionally, but I would not turn to him for counsel on Church polity or systematic theology.

 

[clawrence9008]

I have Anglican friends that claim that episcopal government is Apostolic, since "it's in Ignatius." Which is funny, given that in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius said,
"See that you all follow the presbytery as you would the apostles."

Hmm this is a very interesting and relevant reference!

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father; and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God” (ch. 8).

“I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually…” (ch. 12).

This seems very close to the typical 3-office view of minister, elder, and deacon that the Reformed tradition has historically believed.