Tracing the history upwards from Irenaeus, we find in the Epistles of Ignatius, which may be assigned perhaps to about 140, the presbyters holding essentially the same position as they have at the end of the century. With Ignatius also the presbyters come into account only as a college; according to him they constitute a senate, as it were; he compares them to the college of the apostles, but gives great prominence to their subordination under the bishop, whom he likens to our Lord Himself. Except in the Ignatian Epistles, however, one finds the presbyters holding a different position within the Christian communities of the period from 90 to 140. This is not at all surprising, for there was not at that time any rigid and uniform organization of the congregations at all; as yet no one bishop stood at the head of each congregation, and as yet the church constitution was not determined by the idea of office alone, that of charismata (spiritual gifts) still having wide scope alongside of the other. Church organization was still influenced by a variety of ways of looking at the question—ways which sometimes crossed each other, and from the combination of which it cannot be doubted that a variety of constitutions resulted. We are not in a position to give a complete view of these, the historical material being insufficient, but points of leading importance can be established. Before all it is of consequence to recognize that in the congregations a threefold organization had place. (1) The duty of edifying and of preaching the gospel was not yet attached to an office but to a charisma. “Service in the word” was the business of apostles, prophets, and teachers who had been awakened by the Spirit and by the Spirit endowed. These were the iγγovμevoι in the congregations; they alone in the first instance form the class of persons entitled to honour in Christendom; they never belonged to any one congregation exclusively, but were held to be “organs of the Spirit,” given by God to the whole church. (2) In so far as each local church embraced a system of higher and lower functions—each was indeed a little world to itself—it possessed a governing body (οικονόμοι). For the care of the poor, for worship, for correspondence,—in a word, for its “economy,” in the widest sense of that word, the congregation needed controlling officials. These were the bishop and the deacons,—the former for higher, the latter for inferior services; they owed their official position to the congregation, and in the nature of their offices there was, strictly speaking, nothing which could have laid the foundation of any special rank or exaltation. Many of the functions discharged by them nevertheless had the result of making the post of a bishop a very influential one (charge of the worship, control of the funds), and in so far as their service rested upon a charisma (χάρισμα ττ}ς αpτιλιj∕zι∕'∈ωs) a certain inner relation between them and the teachers endowed with the gift of the Spirit was established. (3) In so far as the individual congregation was an actual organism in which the varieties of age, of sex, of experience, of manner of life, and of ethical culture continued to exist and which had to be admonished, disciplined, and heeded, it from the nature of the case divided itself into leaders and led, a distinction which would assert itself in every sphere of the congregation’s activities. The leaders were, as might be expected, the “elders” (oi πpeσ-βυτepoι), or, so to speak, the patrons; the led were the “younger” members (oi veωτερoι). Out of this distinction arose equally naturally—for it was impossible for all the ‘‘elders” to take part in the conduct of affairs—the separation of an elected ruling college (oi 7rpe<ry0υr∈poι oi πpoισ-τaμevoι) from the πλήθος (plebs, λαό?). Thus an “order” (ordo) arose, placed over the congregation by the congregation itself. To the presbyters belonged a τιμτ) καθήκουσα, —that is to say, the honour which naturallv came from their position in life. In some congregations it may have been long before the elders were chosen, in others this may have come very soon; in some the sphere of the competency of the presbyters and patrons may have been quite indefinite and in others more precise. In some congregations, lastly, as in those of Asia Minor, the presbyters may have enjoyed particular honour for the special reason that they had known apostles or disciples of apostles personally; in the majority of congregations this was not the case. With the congregational administration, properly so called, in any case, they had nothing to do.

We may call the first-named organization the spiritual, the second the administrative, the third the patriarchal. It is obvious that from the first it was impossible they should coexist side by side without coming into contact. Here two facts are of the highest importance. (1) If in any congregation prophets and teachers were wanting, then the administrative officials charged themselves with their function. (2) The bishops had as such a seat and a voice in the presbyters’ college; every bishop was at the same time a presbyter, whether old or young, but every presbyter was not necessarily also a bishop. In many communities, indeed—as, for example, at Philippi, at Ephesus, and in Crete —all the presbyters may possibly also have been bishops, although this is by no means certain; but in other cases—as, for example, in that of Rome, as we learn from the Pastor of Hermas— all presbyters were not also bishops. Thus it is not the case that originally the bishops were simply identical with the presbyters, and that the one bishop was a gradual development out of the presbyters’ college; on the contrary, the attributes of presbyters and bishops were originally distinct. But, since the bishops had a seat and a voice in the college and exercised special functions of importance besides, they ultimately acquired a higher place.

The office of presbyter was not during the oldest period (90-140) a spiritual one. The apostle,, the prophet, the teacher, in a certain sense also even the old bishop and deacon, had a spiritual character, for they possessed a charisma. It was not so with the presbyters; they had no charisma, and the respect in which they were held arose out of the natural position which they took within the congregations. Hence the newly-discovered Διδαχή των αποστόλων has nothing to say at all about presbyters, but only about apostles, prophets, teachers, bishops, and deacons. The design of that writing was to give those institutions of the apostles which are peculiar to the Christian community. The system of leaders and led is, however, a matter of order; it does not depend upon the special Christian charismata, and therefore does not impart to the Christian community its peculiar character. But, on the other hand, that the community is God’s building is shown by such marks as these, that the apostles spread the gospel by their inspired preaching, that prophets and teachers edify the churches, that everywhere bishops and deacons are found at work in the churches, endowed with the gift of government and of loving service. Other communities also—towns, temples, synagogues, and the like—have presbyters, but they have no persons endowed with the gift of the Spirit. A sure proof of the correctness of the view just given is found in the circumstance that before the time of Domitian we do not 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, while 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 precipitate to assert that before the time of Domitian there were no presbyters in the Christian churches; on the contrary, it may be assumed that the distinction between “elder” and “younger” 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 “elder” is akin to the Jewish or to any kind of heathen “elder.” 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 communities 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 Lehre der zwölf Apostel (1884).

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 Government, who also had the final decision in all questions of importance. Franz Lambert, at the same time, provided for the ∫hurch 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 congregation 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, practically 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, Oecolampadius, 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 “censorum consensus.” 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 fortnight 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, and abortive. Calvin set himself to create a majestic and comprehensive system and to give to it the double authority of argumentative statement and practical realization. He saw that the impulses and the aspirations of the Reformation were, 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 Protestantism. The contrast with Luther is complete: Luther created, Calvin fashioned; “the watchword of the one was war, of the other order.” Calvin, surrounded by Catholic powers, felt more strongly than Luther that a definite protest 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 persons are appointed with the consent and approbation of the people, but that other pastors should preside over the election 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 “governors,” whom he “apprehends” 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 sq., 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 tλvo—pastors and doctors—were for all time. Doctors are concerned only with interpretation and exposition, pastors with preaching, sacraments, discipline. From the pastors some are singled out (1 Tim. v. 17), called, and ordained to “labour in the word,” to occupy themselves, in fixed charges, with preaching and administering sacraments; while the rest are invested with jurisdiction in the correction of manners and with the care of the poor. For, although Christ gave to the whole congregation the power of excommunication, as in the Jewish Sanhedrim, and although, therefore, the elders are to use their power only with the consent of the congregation, yet the crowd are not to rule, lest arbitrariness and confusion enter. Deacons (or elders who have the care of the poor) are of two kinds, those who administer alms and those who attend to the sick. For additional sanction to his views Calvin often refers to the primitive church and the writings of the fathers. But with respect to this his position is best indicated by his own words in the preface to the Institutes : “We so read their writings as always to keep in view the saying of Paul (1 Cor. iii. 21-23) that all things are ours, to serve us that is, and not to rule over us, while we ourselves belong to the Lord, whom, without exception, we must all obey.” (1) His system, while preserving the democratical theory in so far as it recognized the congregation as the holder of church power, was in practice strictly aristocratic, inasmuch as the congregation is never allowed any direct use of that power, which is invested in the whole body of elders; and the system constantly tended to development in the aristocratic direction. (2) The great object is discipline of life: “We come now to the third branch of the power of the church, and that which is the principal one in a well-regulated state, which, we have said, consists in jurisdiction. The whole jurisdiction of the state relates to the discipline of manners” (iv. 11, 1). In his correspondence too Calvin is ever on this subject, while the eldership itself is seldom mentioned; at Strasburg his mind was constantly occupied with it; it was the first business that he set his hand to in Geneva; it was for insisting upon this that he was banished; and he made it his first condition for return (iv. 12). (3) Although the Presbyterian form of church government has to thank Calvin for its vertebrate existence, he nowhere makes the true church depend upon this or any other form of government. The inner life is what he insists upon, not the outward form; all that is needed for a true church, he asserts, is the word of God duly preached and the pure administration of the sacraments. He held the jus divinum of the ministerial office as admitting of no question—“that mode of governing the church by its ministers which the Lord appointed to be of perpetual continuance” (iv. 3, 1-3)— but the manner in which the ministerial office is divided is to some extent in his mind a matter of argument and “apprehension.” The same elasticity and desire for adaptation may often be noticed in his words, as, for example, when on the very question of election of ministers, whether it should be by the congregation or not, he says, “We must be guided in this respect by times and circumstances” (Henry, i. 371). Nor does he put forward any theory as to the details—the number, method of choice, or period of office. All these he leaves to each individual church. (4) He does not include synods as necessary. Should controversy arise respecting doctrine (iv. 9, 13), there is no better or more certain remedy, he says, than to assemble a council of true “bishops,” in which the controverted doctrine may be discussed. Regarding the question historically he gives to the ancient councils a modified approbation, but he denies the power of councils to frame new doctrine.

With regard to the relations between the church and the state, Calvin was utterly opposed to the Zwinglian theory, whereby all ecclesiastical power was handed over to the state. The political administration, he says, is as necessary to human weakness as are food and light and air; but it has not the right to legislate for religion or divine worship, though it must take care that the gospel religion is not insulted or injured. “The church of God stands in need of a certain spiritual polity, which, however, is entirely distinct from civil polity, and is so far from obstructing or weakening it, that on the contrary it highly conduces to its assistance and advancement” (iv. H,2). “The church does not assume to itself what belongs to the magistrate, nor can the magistrate execute that which is executed by the church.” Thus, the magistrate imprisons a man for drunkenness; the church excommunicates him, and regards him spiritually as an outlaw. Should he repent, the magistrate takes no cognizance of his repentance, but the church can do so by allowing him to return to communion. The magistrate makes laws, and God makes laws; the breach of the one is a “crime,” that of the latter is a “sin,” though perhaps no crime; it is with the sin that the church deals. The magistrate may neglect to punish magisterially; the church, with spiritual penalty, supplies the neglect.

But, though the church disclaims interference with the domain of the state, she expects the state to support her. Indeed, while Calvin utterly abjures the thought of an imperium in imperio, while he spends much labour in showing how the papacy, by continual encroachments, secured the civil power, and in condemning this confusion of two distinct spheres of action, the function of giving support to the church is in the Calvinistic system really the raison d'etre of the state. In a very remarkable passage (iv. 20, 3) Calvin’s position is clearly shown. A well-ordered state, that for which the best of the popes strove, is a theocracy. There can be no question as to what doctrine is right, for the law of God, the only possible doctrine, is plainly stated in the Bible. That law is the highest thing that a state can regard; it is indeed the very life of the state, and the position of the state towards the church follows at once. The words “toward the church” alone introduce the difficulty. They should be “toward God.” If the state fail to support the church, it fails to support, not a human, but a divine organization. In the infliction of punishments, for example, the magistrate should regard himself merely as executing the judgments of God. So that the objection of the invperium in imperio, the assertion that the church claims spiritual liberty independent of the judgment of the state, while at the same time insisting on the support of that state whose authority she thus disregards, falls to the ground. The civil magistracy is as much a divine institution as is the ministry of Christ; the state and the church are as much one as are the veins and the blood which permeates and vivifies them.

The fallacy in all this is obvious. The argument necessarily presupposes a theocracy, and such a thing did not exist in Europe. A state church, claiming at once independence of the state and support from the state, must bring about contest and complication where the state is not prepared to recognize the claim. The imperium in imperio difficulty (expressed most briefly by James I.’s “No bishop, no king”) arises acutely at once, however much the church may refuse to admit it. This was the case in Scotland. And where, as was the case in France, it is not a state church but a union of persons holding a religion, and therefore views on important matters, which differ from those of the Government, oppression must arise in an age ignorant of religious liberty, and the oppressed will become a political party opposed to the Government, however much they may disclaim the position.

It can now be seen how far Calvin was able to carry out his theory. But for his life the theory, like those which preceded it, would probably have had no universal historical interest.

The course of events in Geneva had developed a theocratical feeling; and the essence of a theocracy seemed gained when the citizens were summoned by tens in 1536 to swear the confession contained in Calvin’s first Catechism (really an analysis of the Institutes'). They swore as citizens, and those who refused lost their citizenship. As soon, however, as Calvin attempted to make this a reality trouble followed. His ruling idea was discipline, and this was exercised against both the moral and the spiritual libertines,—against those who objected to the discipline of manners and those who disliked submission to the confession. As the reins were drawn tighter these two bodies gained influence in the council, and inveighed against the new popedom. At length, in 1538, when Calvin, Farel, and Conrad refused to give the communion in a city which, as represented by the council, would not submit to church discipline, the storm broke out. The three preachers were banished, and Calvin retired to Strasburg. This refusal of the sacrament is important as a matter of ecclesiastical history, because it is the essence of that whole system which Calvin subsequently introduced, and which rests on the principles that the church has the right to exclude those who, according to her judgment, appear unworthy, and that she is in no way subject to the state in matters of religion. For the present the state had refused to admit the claims of the church. Calvin laid down as the conditions of his return the recognition of the church’s independence, the division of the town into parishes, and the appointment by the council of elders in each parish for excommunication. The feeling, however, was for three years too strong; the banishment was confirmed on the specific ground that the insistence on excommunication was an attempt at despotic power. Calvin’s absence left the town a prey to anarchy: one party threatened to return to Romanism, another to give up their independence to Bern. It was felt to be a political necessity to recall Calvin, and in 1541 he returned on his own terms. Meanwhile he had been maturing and carrying out his system (Inst., iv. 8) in the French and Walloon churches in Strasburg.

By the Ordonnances Ecclésiastiques de l ’ Église de Genève, which represent the terms on which Calvin consented to be pastor in Geneva and which were published on 20th November 1541 in the name of Almighty God by the syndics, the small and great councils, and the people, there are, as in the Institutes, the four orders,—pastors, doctors, elders, deacons. (1) The pastors preach, administer the sacraments, and, in conjunction with the elders, exercise discipline. In their totality they form the “vénérable compagnie.” It was the duty of each minister, with the elders of his parish, to be diligent in house-to-house visitation, to catechize, and, generally, to supervise family life. After being approved as to knowledge and manner of life, and ordained by the pastors already in office, and settled in a fixed charge by the magistrate with the consent of the congregation, the newly-made pastor vowed to be true in office, faithful to the church system, obedient to the laws and the civil government (with reservation of freedom in doctrine and the rights of office; compare Becket’s “saving our order” ), and, in especial, to exercise discipline without fear or favour. (2) The doctors teach the faithful in sound learning and guard the purity of doctrine. They too are subject to “discipline.” (3) The work of the elders (“Anciens, Commis ou Députez par la Seigneurie ou Consistoire ”) Calvin regarded as the sinew and essential substance of the system. They were the bond of union between church and state, and therefore the most important element of the theocratic government. Their business was to supervise daily life, to warn the disorderly, and to give notice to the consistory of cases requiring church chastisement. They were nominated by the small council and confirmed by the “two hundred.” Two were chosen from the small council, four from the “sixty,” eight from the “two hundred”; some were to live in each quarter, that the whole might be well supervised. After a year’s probation an elder might be dismissed or confirmed by the small council. If confirmed, he held office for life. To form the “consistoire” or church court, all the elders, with the pastors, met every Sunday under the presidency of one of the four syndics. This court was erected purely as a means to secure discipline. It could award punishments up to exclusion from the sacrament. It had, too, great authority (with appeal to the civil Government) in marriage questions. An officer of the Government was placed at its disposal to summon persons before it; should they refuse to appear, the Government itself compelled attendance. Moreover, the consistoire was bound to give notice of every excommunication to the Government, which attached to it certain civil penalties: “et que tout cela ne face en telle sorte que les ministres n’ayent aucune jurisdiction civile et que par ce consistoire ne soit rien derogué à l’authorité de la seigneurie, ni à la justice ordinaire, ainsi que la puissance divine demeure en son entier.”

The inevitable quarrel arose in 1546-53, when the council overruled the decision of the consistory in a question of excommunication. The deniers of the autonomy of the church referred to the clause which laid down that excommunications were to be notified to the small council; but Calvin argued that the aim of this was merely that in extreme cases the Government should support the action of the church, not criticize it, and he won the victory. His position gradually became stronger. In 1557 banishment was awarded to any one who contemned the sacrament or the sentence of the consistoire. In 1560 it was ordered that the names of the elders should be published, honoris causa ; and in the same year the appearance of state control, by the presence of a syndic with his staff' of office at the consistoire, was done away with. He was present, but not officially as a syndic, and without his staff.

It should be noticed (1) that the provision that in certain cases the censure of the consistoire should be followed by civil penalties is in keeping with the theocratic view. So too is the provision that members of political bodies alone were eligible to the eldership. The rights of the church as distinct from the state authority were preserved by the condition that the meeting of the consistoire was summoned by the ministers. (2) In the Institutes ecclesiastical power is ascribed to the congregation, to be exercised by foreknowledge of and in agreement with the acts of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But in the Ordonnances the congregation as a unit is passed over in silence as regards discipline and the choice of elders. (3) It must be remembered that Calvin never professed to regard this as a perfect plan, but as good as under the circumstances he could hope for. It was a compromise, and showed the practical character of the man. If he could secure the essence of his longed-for church discipline he was willing to waive the question of privilege.

To sum up the characteristics of early Presbyterianism —(1) It is an organization for discipline. Whatever else they may be, the elders of the Reformed churches are, primarily, censors of morals. (2) The institution claims the triple ground of Scripture, history, expediency. (3) The Lutheran doctrine of universal priesthood is wanting. (4) No voice is raised for the choice of elders by the congregation. As to eligibility there is as little anxiety: Brenz says, “from among the citizens”; Oecolampadius and Capito, partly from the Government, partly from the congregation; Calvin theoretically leaves it unsettled, but in practice gives it only to the political bodies. As to period of office, Capito wishes for regular change; the rest leave it in theory undetermined. Geneva retained permanence as the rule and change as the exception. (5) Synods have no place except with Lambert.

In 1549 Lasky, who had established a flourishing church at Emden, was driven to London. There in 1550 he became superintendent of the foreign congregation, which...