Anglican Recognition of Presbyterian Orders

 

In 1610, three Scottish ministers were consecrated as bishops. Most of the historians I have read on the Scottish Reformation consider this to be a turning point constituting the "restoration of the Scottish episcopacy." Peculiarly, they were not required to be ordained as presbyters first. The ordinations were carried out by bishops and presbyters together, and the ministers were not required to have episcopal ordination. This precedent was cited by the Lambeth Conference of 1908 as a possible means of reunion.

These consecrations took place as part of King James VI’s project to restore episcopacy in Scotland. Titular bishops were appointed in 1606, but the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly did not agree to King James’ proposals until 1610.

Lancelot Andrewes objected that these men first be appointed as deacons or priests. Archbishop Richard Bancroft responded by saying “that thereof there was no necessity, seeing where Bishops could not be had the ordination given by the presbyters must be esteemed lawful, otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches.” (John Spottiswoode, History of the Church of Scotland [1851], 3:209)

There is scholarship arguing that the high church Anglicans who favored jure divino episcopacy nonetheless didn’t cross the line into invalidating the Reformed churches of Europe (Norman Sykes, Old Priest and New Presbyter: The Anglican attitude to Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and Papacy since the Reformation [Cambridge University Press, 1957], pg. 69). Prior to William Laud, many of these theologians took a more sympathetic tone to the continental Reformed polity, viewing it as a mistake done for the purposes of necessity.

Many Anglican divines (particularly Richard Hooker) acknowledged that Scripture does not set forward a strict church polity in all its precise details. This led them to accept the validity of presbyterian ordinations in cases of necessity, This is seen even amongst those who accepted a jure divino view of episcopacy:

“Whereas hereupon some do infer that no ordination can stand but only such as is made by bishops…..to this we answer that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop. The whole church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain; howbeit as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary ways…..And therefore we are not simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination. These cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may ordain but only bishops.” (Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 7.14.11)

In his famous correspondence with Pierre du Moulin, Bishop Lancelot Andrewes wrote: “Nevertheless if our form be of divine right, it doth not follow from thence that there is no salvation without it, or that a church cannot consist without it. He is blind who does not see churches consisting without it; he is hard-hearted who denieth them salvation. We are none of these hard-hearted persons, we put a great difference between these things. There may be something absent in the exterior regiment, which is of divine right, and yet salvation to be had…..To prefer a better, is not to condemn a thing. Nor is it to condemn your church if we recall it to another, namely our own, which the better agrees with all antiquity.” (Lancelot Andrewes, Of Episcopacy [London, 1641], pg. 24)

“You demand then, Whether your Churches sin against the Divine Right? I did not say it; this only I said, that your Churches wanted somewhat that is of Divine Right: wanted, but not by your fault, but by the iniquity of the times. For that your France had not your Kings so propitious at the reforming of your Church, as our England had: in the interim, when God shall vouchsafe you better times, even this, which now you want, will, by his grace, be supplied. But, in the meanwhile, the Name of Bishop, which we find so frequent in the Scriptures, ought not to have been abolished by you. Though to what purpose is it to abolish the Name, and to retain the Thing? (For even you retain the Thing, without the Title.” (Lancelot Andrewes, “The Bishop’s Answer to the Third Epistle,” in Of Episcopacy, pg. 56)

“If at any time a minister so ordained in these French churches, came to incorporate himself in ours and to receive a public charge of cure of souls among us in the church of England, (as I have known some of them to have so done of late and can instance in many other before my time), our Bishops did not re-ordain him before they admitted to his charge, as they would have done if his former ordained here in France had been void.” (John Cosin, “Letter to Mr. Cordel at Blois,” in The Works of John Cosin, 4:403)

We have a few concrete cases showing the Church of England’s willingness to recognize the validity of orders in foreign Reformed churches within continental Europe:

1. In a biography of Archbishop John Tilliston, we read of the interesting case of Peter de Laune, a minister from Norwich. In 1618/19, de Launce approached Bishop John Overall concerning the matter of re-ordination. The following account originally came from John Cosin himself (according to Birch):

“Dr. De Laune, who translated the English liturgy into French, being collated to a living, and coming to the Bishop, then at Norwich, with his presentation, his Lordship [John Overall], ask’d him, where he had his orders. He answer’d, that he was ordain’d by the Presbytery at Leyden. The Bishop upon this advis’d him to take the opinion of counsel, whether by the laws of England he was capable of a benefice without being ordained by a Bishop. The Doctor replied, that he thought his Lordship would be unwilling to re-ordain him, if his counsel should say, that he was not otherwise capable of the Living by law. The Bishop rejoin’d, ‘Re-ordination we must not admit, no more than a re-baptization: But in case you find it doubtful, whether you be a Priest capable to receive a benefice among us, or no, I will do the same office for you, if you desire it, that I should do for one, who doubts of his baptism. When all things belonging essentially unto it have not been duly observed in the administration of it, according to the rule in the book of Common-prayer, If thou beest not already, &c. Yet for mine own part, if you will adventure the orders that you have, I will admit your presentation, and give you institution into the Living howsoever.’....yet afterwards Dr de Laune was admitted into another benefice without any new ordination.” (Thomas Birch, The Life of John Tillotson, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury [London, 1753], pgs. 170-71)

2. 
   Caesar Calandrini received presbyterian orders outside of England, but later came there and graduated from Exeter College, Oxford. In 1620, he was instituted to the rectory of Stapleford Abbotts in Essex. Afterwards, he took letters from Archbishop Abbot to receive the orders of deacon and priest. Archbishop Marcus Antonius de Dominis urged Bishop Thomas Morton of Lichfield to have Calandrini reordained by the episcopate. Richard Montagu desired Calandrini to be ejected Bishop Morton defended Calandrini and denied his re-ordination, saying as follows:
   

“In the case of Caesar Calandrinus, a man well worthy of praise both by his own learning and by your commendation, I would gladly and freely satisfy your letter; but he has brought to me a Form of his Admission into Holy Orders, in which (if I have any skill in Theology) nothing which is necessary to the essentials of holy ordination, remains to be desired. Unless perchance we should wish to deny the power of ordination to the Pastors by whom he was ordained; which indeed cannot be done, as it seems to me, without great and intolerable offence to all the foreign Churches, of which I am not willing to be the agent. What some maintain is to be feared, namely that unless the custom of our country be observed, he may not enjoy safely any rectory according to the laws of the realm, is of no importance; if indeed it is the fact, which is also stated in his Form, that the custom of the aforementioned churches is approved by royal authority.” (J.H. Hessels, Ecclesiae Londino-Bataviae Archivum, Tomus Primus [1887], pgs. 848-49)

3. John Morrison received presbyteral orders from Synod of Lothian in the Scottish Kirk. In 1582, he was licensed to preach and administer the sacraments in the province of Canterbury by the vicar-general of Archbishop Edmund Grindal. The license was as follows:

"Since you the foresaid John Morrison about five years past, in the town of Garvet in the county of Lothian of the kingdom of Scotland, were admitted and ordained to sacred Orders and the holy Ministry, by the imposition of hands, according to the laudable form and rite of the reformed Church of  Scotland ; and since the congregation of that county of  Lothian is conformable to the orthodox faith and sincere  religion now received in this realm of England, and established by public authority: we therefore, as much as lies in us, and as by right we may, approving and ratifying the form of your ordination and preferment [præfectionis] done in such manner aforesaid, grant to you a licence and faculty, with the consent and express command of the most reverend Father in Christ the Lord Edmund by the Divine providence Archbishop of Canterbury, to us signified, that in such Orders by you taken,you may, and have power, in any convenient places in and throughout the whole province of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, to minister the Sacraments, &c.  as much as in us lies, and we may dejure, and as far as the laws of the kingdom do allow, &c” (John Strype, The History of the Life and Acts of the Most Reverend Father in God, Edmund Grindal [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1821], pgs. 402-403)

Archbishop Wake denied that this licensure proved any sort of fixed recognition of presbyteral orders, saying “The License granted by Archbishop Grindal’s Vicar-General to a Scot-Presbyterian to officiate here in England, I freely own it, is not what I should have approved of, yet dare not condemn.” (Biographia Britannica, vol. 6, pt. 2, pg. 4094)

Presbyterian Government: Jerusalem and Ephesus

 

Semantical Analysis of the word “Church”

When Christ directs grieved church members to tell their case “to the Church” (Matthew 18:17-18), is He referring to the church officers (elders) or to the whole multitude of believers in that congregation?

In the original biblical languages, the words קָהָל and ἐκκλησία respectively mean “church”, “congregation,” or “assembly.” קָהָל also refers at times to assemblies and gatherings of nations and people in a civil context (Genesis 28:3; 35:11; Jeremiah 50:9). Some NT examples include Acts 19:38-39 and Luke 22:66 (synedrion).  

What it is important for us here to note is that there are instances in which קָהָל denotes a sitting body of judges and/or elders (1 Chronicles 13:2-4; 29:1, compare with 28:1; 2 Chronicles 1:2-3). 

For Hebrew, the term עֵדָה is also used which can refer to a congregational multitude of people (Exodus 12:6, 19; 16:1-2; Leviticus 8:4-5, plus many more examples) or a council of judges and elders (Psalm 82:1). 

Was There a Presbytery at Jerusalem?

It is highly probable that there was more than one congregation of believers in Jerusalem due to the large numbers we read of that were converted there (Acts 2:41, 46; 4:4; 5:14; 21:20). All these singular congregations are referred to collectively as one church (Acts 8:1). 

The dispersion (Acts 8:1) doesn’t prove such a scattering, such that there might not remain more than one congregation in Jerusalem. See Acts 9:31; 12:24; 21:20, for the increase of the church even in the midst of the persecution. There was still one church (Acts 12:5). 

We also read of a plurality of elders in Jerusalem, over the multiplicity of congregations collectively designated as “one church”:

“27 Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). 29 So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. 30 And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.” (Acts 11:27-30) 

“When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.” (Acts 15:4)

“When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.” (Acts 21:17-18)

Furthermore, the apostles were elders (1 Peter 5:1). The acts they exercised towards many congregations they did as elders in relation to them. This gives strong precedent for presbyterian government.

Objection: “In the beginnings of that church, their meetings are wet out to us by two adjuncts. (1) That they met ὁμοθυμαδὸν, with one accord in the same duty of prayer (Acts 1:14). And (2) ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ together in one and the same company (verse 15).” (Chris Coldwell, The Grand Debate: The Westminster Assembly’s Deliberations on Presbyterian Government [Naphtali Press & Reformation Heritage Books, 2024], pg. 74). —{This is in Sessions 161-162 of The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn [Oxford University Press, 2012], 2:540-552.}

Response: The term ὁμοθυμαδὸν in no way teaches that all of the believers were meeting in one place, but rather that they were all of one spirit, as the word is used elsewhere (Acts 15:25; 18:12; 19:12; Rom. 15:6). 

The meeting of the disciplines in Acts 1 was not a gathering for the public worship of God as such, but for the electing of the new apostle to replace Judas Iscariot. 

Objection: In Acts 6:2, we read that the apostles called together the “whole multitude” of disciples for the choosing and ordaining of deacons. 

Response: “We do deny that the mentioning of the multitude and the whole multitude proved that all and every one of them that believed in Jerusalem were at that meeting. For it may signify either a great multitude—as Luke 8:37, ‘the whole multitude of the Gadarens besought him to depart from them,’ and Acts 25:24, Festus says, ‘all the multitude had dealt with’ him about Paul—not every individual Gadaren or Jew, but a great number of them, or the generality, which the Greeks use to express by πανδημεί.” (The Grand Debate, pg. 118).

Objection: “For the mention of the five thousand (Acts 4:4), this cannot be evinced from that place that the five thousand were a new number added to the three thousand….But that this number of five thousand should refer to them that believed, is not certain; seeing both the Greek will bear it and favor it, as well to be meant of the number that heard, as of the men that believed; and of the two, that former is the more probable, that he should say of the men that heard they were five thousand, and that of them that heard many believed, this sounds well, and is no way forced.” (The Grand Debate, pg. 76)

Response: 1) Augustine understands the text as importing that the 5,000 here mentioned are a new number added to the previous 3,000 (Tractate 31 on the Gospel of John). 2) The syntax of the Greek indicates that the “many [πολλοὶ δὲ] who heard the Word” are the subject of the verb ἐπίστευσαν (“believed”). 3) We read of other multitudes being converted (Acts 5:14; 6:1, 7) so that the evidence overwhelmingly works against Congregationalism. 

Objection: The large numbers of converts were not members who remained in fixed churches at Jerusalem. “Those three thousand who were converted, were not settled dwellers at Jerusalem, but strangers, sojourners of the ten tribes, which were dispersed in all those countries mentioned in [Acts] 2:9, who came up to the feast of Pentecost, as the manner of the Jews was (Acts 21:20, 27-28). Jews that lived in Asia came to the feast of Pentecost as Paul also did, compared with Acts 20:16.” (Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:541) Furthermore, Acts 2:14 distinguishes between “Jews” and “dwellers at Jerusalem.” 

Response: Acts 2:14 works against this argument, since those non-citizens who dwelled at Jerusalem very well may have been members of the church there. That many in Jerusalem were from other countries (Acts 2:9) doesn’t prove that they were not fixed in their dwellings in the city for the feasts as well as the expectation of the Messiah (Luke 19:11). This is further evident since the same chapter tells us that the multitude of believers Peter preached to were “added to their number” (Acts 2:47). If they were not members of the church of Jerusalem, why were they involved in the local fixed fellowship (vv. 42, 44-46) and the acts pertaining thereunto? Lastly, the dispersion of Acts 8:1 says that those scattered throughout Judea and Samaria were from the church of Jerusalem.

Objection: The diversity of languages amongst the dispersed Jews who came to Jerusalem (Acts 2:8-11) does not prove that there was more than one fixed congregation there. We may infer that most Jews were generally well-learned in the Hebrew language. In Acts 20-22, the Jews from throughout the world came to the feast of Pentecost. Concerning the Jews from Asia, we read that “He [Paul] made a speech to them, and they heard him speak the Hebrew tongue, they kept silent and heard him patiently.” (Session 164, in Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:557-563). 

Response: Paul was speaking only to the Jews who had brought accusations against him. To infer from this, that the general dispersion of Jews in Asia and other nations had a comprehensive understanding of the Hebrew language is to try and prove more than what may be proven from Scripture. 

Objection: We do not read of an elders at the church of Jerusalem, until after the dispersion of Acts 8:1. Therefore, the strength of the Presbyterian argument depends upon there being many congregations in Jerusalem after the dispersion. 

Response: The order of existence does not always follow the order of the history, i.e. just because Luke only mentions elders in Jerusalem after the dispersion does not mean that the apostles neglected to ordain any there until after the dispersion. 

Objection:  “Although the apostles are called elders (1 Peter 5:1; 2 John 1), yet they are so called virtually, not formally, and but because apostleship contains all offices in it; so they are elders but upon this ground, that they are apostles…And surely those offices which Christ distinguishes (Ephesians 4), he gave some apostles, some pastors and teachers, the same person is not formally both, though virtually he may be. All that they did in that church of Jerusalem they are said to act as apostles….They exercised it together, because it fell out that they were together; and it was fit none of them should be excluded. But it depended not upon this union of all in a body, as acts of elders in a presbytery do.” (The Grand Debate, pgs. 84-85) 

Response: [a]. “But if by formally they mean, they were not made elders before or after they were made apostles, but that being apostles, they might and did act as elders (which they disprove not) that is sufficient for our argument.” (The Grand Debate, pg. 147). [b]. Distinct offices may exist formally in the same person, as Melchizedek was both king and priest. [c]. As for the reason that “all the acts done by the apostles in Jerusalem were done insofar as they were apostles,” — While Scripture says that these acts were done by apostles, it nowhere says that they were done by apostles qua erant apostoli exclusive (insofar as they were apostles exclusively). If that were the case, it would follow that nobody could these acts (such as ordaining other elders and deacons, and public preaching in Jerusalem) but apostles alone, which neither Congregationalists nor Presbyterians would ever concede. [d]. In the case of Acts 6, the apostles acted partly as apostles and partly as elders. They acted as apostles in their instituting of a new office of the diaconate, which did not previously exist in the newly established church. They acted as elders in ordaining men to that office. 

Objection: The apostles’ power over many congregations was founded upon their power over all the churches (which is extraordinary), and so cannot be a pattern for the power of elders over many.

Response: “The apostles’ power over many congregations as one church, to govern them all as one church jointly, and in common, was not founded upon their power over all churches, but upon the union of those congregations into one church, which union lays a foundation for the power of elders governing many congregations, and the apostles’ practice in governing many congregations jointly as one church, is the pattern and precedent of that government, even as our brethren would make the apostles’ joint governing one congregation, to be the pattern of many ministers governing one congregation.” (The Grand Debate, pg. 145)

Objection: Though Acts 11:30 does speak of a general group of elders in Jerusalem, yet we read of no presbyterial acts of government or jurisdiction done by them. Rather, the elders simply received alms given for the aid of the Christians in Judea. Furthermore, verse 29 indicates that the whole text is speaking not of the elders of Jerusalem, but rather those of Judea. 

Response: [a] The elders of Judea are not at all spoken of in Acts 11, but rather the distressed brothers there (due to the famine prophesied by Agabus). [b] Jerusalem is included in the ancient province of Judea. The messengers of churches abroad are always directed to the elders of Jerusalem when going to Judea. Thus, the prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 11:22), among whom Agabus warned of the famine. 

Was There a Presbytery at Ephesus?

The Westminster divines argued for a plurality of congregations at Ephesus on the basis that Paul spent 3 years preaching and ministering there (Acts 20:31). Similarly, we find a large multitude of believers in Ephesus (Acts 19:17-20). Hence the price of the books burned was as great as 50,000 pieces of silver (Acts 19:19). 

We read of a body of elders that existed over the collective church in that city:

“Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church (τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας) to come to him.” (Acts 20:17, cf. verse 28)

In Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, we read of other workers who accompanied him and assisted him in his work there, such as Gaius and Aristarchus (Acts 19:29; 20:4), Timothy and Erastus (Acts 19:22). Is it to be considered probable that such a company of men were all employed in the business of only one congregation in Ephesus?

When Christ writes to the seven churches of Asia, Ephesus is one of the cities whom He addressed. It is referred to as the “church” in the singular number (Revelation 2:1), and it had one common ecclesiastical government, e.g. church discipline - “I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.”

Yet the apostle John intimates that there was a plurality of congregations in the church of Ephesus - “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Revelation 2:7). This same phrase appears in all seven letters to the churches of Asia, and yet they are each called one church. 

Paul mentions the particular house church of Aquila and Priscilla (1 Corinthians 16:8-9), which was at Ephesus. Surely all the thousands of believers did not meet in that one place, but rather it was one of many congregations?

Objection: As for Paul’s 3-year stay, it does not prove that there were so many converts in Ephesus as could not meet in one place, for — 1) suppose there were two or three thousand converts, and yet they could still meet in one place. This would account for Paul’s long stay at Ephesus. 2) The efficacy of Paul’s preaching extended not only to Ephesus, but also to the rest of Asia (Acts 19:26). And when Paul mentions his 3-year stay (Acts 20:31), this is to be understood in reference to his missionary activities in the whole region of Asia (20:18). 

Response: a) With respect to what is said about all Asia in Acts 19:26, this should be understood more in regard to the large multitudes of people throughout Asia who came to Ephesus (likely the pagan worship of Diana and Artemis) rather than to Paul going through Asia in this space of time, therefore the Scripture says “all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.” (Acts 19:10). b) Concerning Acts 20:18, 31 — this does not prove that Paul’s 3-year stay was not confined to Ephesus. Acts 19:8-10 says clearly that Paul spent two years and three months in Ephesus, and we do not read any express statement in Acts that Paul traveled elsewhere right after that time. It is likely that the remaining 8 months also took place in Ephesus. 

Objection: The church in Aquila’s house was but a family church, not a proper independent congregation which met for the preaching of the Word and the sacraments.

Response: If we take a look at the entire text of the verse in question, it becomes clear that a congregation was meant: “The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 16:19). Thus, Aquila and Priscilla’s church was counted among “the churches of Asia.” This language clearly expresses it to be a congregational church. Finally, there were many house churches at the time due to the persecutions (Acts 12:12; 19:9; 20:8; 28:23). 

Debates at Westminster on the Office of Teacher/Doctor

 

At the Westminster assembly, the debate on whether or not there was a distinct office of teacher lasted from November 14-November 21, 1643. The Scottish commissioners and the Independents were more in favor of such a view, while the English Presbyterians inclined against it. However, the Scottish view allowed that Doctors were not necessary for every congregation (Letters and Journal of Robert Baillie, 2:110). 

Cornelius Burgess said “In some congregations it may be & some it must be, but the office ex natura sua doth not require it…If in a particular congregation, they are the same. But if in university, or where you will plant any to read a divinity lecture, then we acknowledge there is use of such an office in the church.” (Session 95, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:312-313)

Stephen Marshall said “there is nothing that the one may do but the other may do for the substance of [the] office.” (Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:315)

The Independent divine Sidrach Simpson said “If one may be an officer who hath ability to exhort and not to teach, then they are distinct officers.” (Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:340). 

As this discussion came to an end, the committee reported the following propositions which were agreed upon by the assembly as a means of accommodation between the slightly opposing views:

“1) That there be different gifts, and different exercises, according to the difference of those gifts in the ministers. 2) Those different gifts may be in and exercised by one and the same minister. 3) Where there be several ministers in the same congregation, they may be designed to several employments. 4) He that doth more excel in exposition, doctrine, and convincing them in application, and accordingly employed therein, may be called a teacher or doctor. 5) A teacher or doctor is of excellent use in schools or universities. 6) Where there is but one minister in a particular congregation, he is to perform, so far as he is able, the whole work of the ministry.” (Session 100, November 21, 1643, in George Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines [Edinburgh: Robert Ogle & Oliver & Boyd, 1846], pg. 4)

“On the basis of a recognition that men possessed different gifts, the Assembly made it permissible for a congregation having more than one minister to assign one or more of them to the specific task of teaching and to give to those who were so engaged the title of ‘teacher’ or ‘doctor.’” (Wayne R. Spear, Covenanted Uniformity in Religion: The Influence of the Scottish Commissioners on the Ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013], pg. 103)

The distinct office of teacher had stronger precedent in the Church of Scotland. For example, see John Knox’s “Order of Geneva”:

“These Ministers are called Teachers or Doctors, [Eph. 4, 1 Cor. 12] whose office is to instruct and teach the faithful in sound doctrine… Therefore to term it by a word more usual in these days, we may call it the Order of Schools, wherein the highest degree, and moste annexed to the ministry and government of the Church, is the exposition of God's Word…. But because men cannot so well profit in that knowledge, except they be first instructed in the tongues and human sciences…it is necessary that…Scholes also be erected, and Colleges maintained, with just and sufficient stipends, wherein youth may be trained in the knowledge and fear of God, that in their ripe age they may prove worthy members of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether it be to rule in Civil policy, or to serve in the Spiritual ministry, or else to live in godly reverence and subjection.” (The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing [Edinburgh, 1855], 4:177)

The Scottish Second Book of Discipline refers to the office of teacher as one of the “four ordinary functions or offices in the Kirk of God.” (2.10). 

“The Doctor being an officer, as said is, should assist the Pastor in the government of the Kirk, and concur with the other Elders, his brethren, in all assemblies.” (Second Book of Discipline, 6.5)

King James VI, in an attempt to counter the influence of Andrew Melville, severely limited the Doctor’s ruling abilities and excluded them from attendance at the General Assembly (Appendix to the Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland [n.p., 1845], pg. 935).

This changed when the General Assembly of 1638 recognized the Second Book of Discipline as the official polity of the Kirk of Scotland, and the ecclesiastical privileges of Teachers were restored. George Gillespie reaffirmed this view in his Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland. 

At the Westminster Assembly, the Scots were willing to compromise on the issue of Teachers administering the sacraments, which was prohibited by the Second Book of Discipline. They did not protest when other members of the Assembly asserted such a right. 

Addressing Recent Controversies Concerning Antisemitism and Jews

 

I do not normally write concerning the current events taking place in the United States and the world today, but when I notice that a particular theological theme and debate has entered the church afresh as a result of such current events, I feel it may be beneficial to address it.

A year ago on October 7, 2023, the terrorist group Hamas led an attack against the State of Israel, launching them into the longest raging armed conflict yet. Israel's actions in Gaza have led to the death of thousands of civilians, women and children being a large portion among them. Israel's war acts have led to global outrage and condemnation from both the popular Left and more traditional Right-wing thinkers. The majority of congressional Democrats and Republicans continue to spend foreign aid on Israel's siege of Gaza, and most recently, their conflicts with Iran and Lebanon. There is a justified fear of the Middle East entering its own world war (with the possibility of Western nations becoming involved). 

Within the Reformed world, there has been a lot of reflection on what the proper attitude of Christians towards Jews ought to be. Many popular level Baptist figures like James White, Owen Strachan, and others have been addressing it. On the other side, more confessional folks like Stephen Wolfe, Michael Spangler (who was divested, justly in my opinion, from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church due to his association with the Lutheran Neo-Nazi Corey Mahler who was excommunicated by the LCMS), and Jon Harris have weighed in. There has been a fresh wave of those who have an utter hatred for Jews simply on the grounds of race and prejudicial stereotypes (Mahler being a prime example). On the other hand, many have been falsely accused of antisemitism for having traditional views on these matters not much different than what we see in the early church fathers and our Reformed forefathers in the faith. I will give some special attention to the latter in this article. 

In this article, I want to try a navigate a way through this mess. I have great concerns with respect to both extremes within Christendom. In particular, I wish to define what I do and do not consider antisemitism (and provide reasons for my views) as well as show how Reformed divines historically addressed many of the challenges we are seeing today.

What Is and Is Not Antisemitic

1) It is not antisemitic to point certain general truths and statistics related to Jews and Judaism. For example, data from the Pew Research Center indicates that the religious group with the highest average income in the United States happens to be Jews. Similarly, many Jews are involved in financial and banking professions and are skilled at building wealth. Simply noticing and recognizing this is not antisemitic. It is a statistical fact. 

One of Christ's condemnations of the Pharisees was that they "devoured widows houses." (Matthew 23:14; many modern translations note that this verse is missing from some manuscripts. A case for its authenticity has been done by James Snapp). Thus, the Jewish religious leaders of Christ's day unjustly stole estates and property from the poor. If our Lord Himself would condemn this type of financial sin, why may not we do so also if it occurs?

It would however be very problematic if someone were to take a general statistical truth and insist that every person of Jewish ethnicity commits the sin of greed. Such an accusation (without evidence) would be slanderous and immoral.

2) It is not antisemitic to assert without qualification that the Jews killed the Lord Jesus Christ. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, the Apostle Paul tells us the following: "For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!" 

The teaching of the New Testament could not be more clear. The greatest opponents and enemies of the Lord Jesus during His earthly ministry were the Jewish teachers of the law and their followers, whom Christ called "children of the devil" (John 8:44). 

However, it was not the Jews alone who bear responsibility for the murder of the Messiah. The Romans, Pontius Pilate, and King Herod also share in the guilt of the worst sin in human history. 

The reason why Scripture emphasizes the Jewish role in the crucifixion is because of their special status as the covenanted people of God. The knowledge and light they had received made their sin all the more aggravated. Nonetheless, let us remember that some of those same Jews repented and believed the Gospel when present at the Apostle Peter's sermon as reported in Acts 2 & 3. Our prayer for Jews today is that they would repent of their unbelief and hatred of Christ, and be saved (Romans 10:1). God has the power to graft them in again to the covenant of grace (Romans 11). 

3) It is not antisemitic to point out the war crimes of the State of Israel. Anyone who spends enough time on the Internet may see the horrors of Zionist atrocities in the Gaza Trip since October 2023. The videos of dead children and mutilated people being pulled out from under rubble ought to give great pause to those wishing to promote the false teaching of Dispensationalism in the church. Christians are in no way whatsoever bound to the preferences and actions of Jews today. No ethnic group is blessed by God simply qua ethnicity. It is true that many nations and societies are much better than others and have received more common grace and expose to the Gospel, but it is not because anything intrinsic in them, but solely because of God's grace (Deuteronomy 7:6-8; Matthew 3:9; Romans 9:6-11). 

4) It is not antisemitic to acknowledge and notice the role of unbelieving secular Jews in various communist and left-wing movements which are currently leading in the destruction of the West. Karl Marx himself was Jewish, as well as some people who were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution (Leon Trotsky, ) and the Menshevik faction (Julius Martov, Pavel Axelrod, Aleksandr Martynov, etc.) The doctor who first promoted and practiced transgender degeneracy was a Jewish man named Magnus Hirschfeld. His clinic was later destroyed by the Nazis (whom I will address in a moment). Charles Silverstein was the individual who influenced the decision of the American Psychiatric Association's decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness. Al Goldstein was a wicked man who promoted the normalization of hardcore pornography and openly stated that their hatred of Christ and of Christian values motivated some Jews to participate in the pornography industry. Similarly, the owner of one of the most popular pornographic websites (I have chosen to omit any names so as to not incite sinful curiosity in any person more prone to be tempted) in the world is a Jewish rabbi. 

I believe that is problematic to assert that all Jews individually are subversive and promote anti-Christian ideas. Such is obviously not true given that there are prominent right-winger thinkers and leaders who are Jewish, such as Curtis Yarvin and Stephen Miller (the latter of whom served our country during the Trump administration). We must also acknowledge ethnic Jews who do embrace the gospel and the teachings of Scripture. No prejudice of any type ought to be shown against them (Galatians 3:28). 

5) Our Reformed forefathers addressed with care the issue of how Jews should be treated in Christian nations by godly magistrates. It was common consensus that since the Christian magistrate should suppress public idolatry and blasphemy against Christ, Jewish synagogues and the Talmud shouldn't be tolerated (Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation against the Pretended Liberty of Conscience [London: Andrew Crook, 1649], pg. 316). 

One of the most comprehensive examples I've found is from the eminent Dutch divine Gisbertus Voetius (who I quote often on this blog). Voetius considered the following eight things to be detrimental to the conversion of the Jews and Christian societies ("De Judaismo," in Select Disputations, 2:109-110):

1. Granting them civil privileges and immunities.

2. Allowing them to associate too freely with Christians in society.

3. Granting them any degrees or authority, in government, in business, in medicine, in academics.

4. Allowing their divinations, or kaballistic-magical superstitions.

5. Allowing them unjust divorce and polygamy.

6. Allowing the practice of usury.

7. Allowing the public exercise of the Jewish religion, including the publishing of works teaching their Talmudic blasphemies.

8. Harshness and injustice toward them.

It may seem like #1-7 would be what Voetius is trying to warn against in #8. However, I'd contend that most of these are pretty common sense. For the sake of prudence, I would not advocate for some of these (particularly #3 and also #1 depending on how it is understood) in contemporary Western society. However, the others are perfectly within the purview of the Reformed tradition's teaching on the civil magistrate's authority concerning religious matters in a commonwealth. See the English Presbyterians' treatise Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici for an air-tight biblical defense.

A Word about the Obvious Dangers of Nazism

It shouldn't have to be said, but apparently some people on the Right need a fresh reminder of the evils of the ideology of National Socialism and violent race hatred that we see by Hitler's Germany during the Second World War. As I noted earlier, Rev. Michael Spangler was justly divested from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church due to his promotion of Corey Mahler's Stone Choir Podcast. Mahler is a heretic who has openly promoted the absurd and evil lie that Adolf Hitler was a Christian. It is perfectly reasonable to have suspicion towards a Reformed person who associates with such men.

Jon Harris, of the Conversations that Matter podcast, has written an excellent article documenting how many Right-Wing conservatives opposed Hitler and how the Nazis were diametrically opposed to Christianity as a whole. Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the SS, said "We shall not have succeeded until we have utterly rooted out Christianity." The Nazis also promoted a type of Marcionism by denying the teachings of the New Testament about Christ, and also their entire rejection of the Old Testament. More historical evidence for this can be seen here.

Questions about serious diplomatic mistakes made by Britain in the 1930s which helped stir the flame of war and concerns about Allied atrocities (such as the Atomic Bombings of Japan and the destruction of Dresden) are perfectly legitimate areas of historical inquiry. Writers like Charles Tansill, Patrick Buchanan, Victor Davis Hanson, and Ian Johnson have both articulated well-thought arguments for their positions on this. This discussion was mostly recently returned to the forefront due to Darryl Cooper's appearance on Tucker Carlson's podcast.

The same thing also applies to taking note of the mass murders committed by one of the Allied leaders, Joseph Stalin (the Soviet Union's crimes against humanity in WW2 are often overlooked today). It is simply a fact that Stalin had already killed millions more than Hitler before WW2 began. 

Aside from all this, Christians must never give any sympathy to National Socialists. They were unequivocally mass murderers and haters of the Gospel. It is true that the Left is currently a much more severe threat to the church and the West, given that they hold much control over our federal government, academic institutions, the media, and entertainment industries. By way of analogy: two sharks are both dangerous, but the one who is closer to you with more immediate power to harm you would be obviously me the more clear danger at the time. This does not in any way mitigate the danger of the other shark in itself. 

This is why I do not agree with the Twitter maxim "No enemies on the Right." I grant that conservative Christians should not be preoccupied with the lesser danger (see above paragraph), but that does not mean that we should not call it out for what it is. 

How do Synods and Ecclesiastical Rulings Bind the Conscience?

 

In Reformed polity, the judicial power of the Synod pertains to things like excommunication, church-censure, and depositions. The best and most comprehensive explanation I have found of this is in the Dutch Reformed scholastic divine Gisbertus Voetius, from his magnum opus on church government Politicae Ecclesiasticae (4 vols!):

“I add that they have legislative power to make ecclesiastical laws that bind the conscience, not indeed directly, primarily, and immediately, but indirectly, mediately, and by consequence…They also make laws or constitutions and canons about particular orders, modes, and other circumstantial aspects of conducting sacred rites and exercising ecclesiastical government and discipline, to the reception and observance of all which, insofar as they do not contradict divine and natural law, consciences are bound mediately, indirectly, and by consequence,....We see, therefore, that in this whole line of argumentation, the statement is a figment: that true and genuine power of government is to formally contain the power properly and principally of making laws for consciences, binding and obliging the conscience primarily, per se, immediately, and directly. If this fabrication were granted or conceded, it would follow that magistrates have no remaining legislative power, nor parents, masters, or teachers any power of commanding children, servants, or students, nor the latter any glory or necessity of obeying.” (Gisbertus Voetius, Politicae Ecclesiasticae, Pt. III, Book IV, tract. 1, Q. 7)

Obj: If Synods and their decrees ought to be tried and examined by the Word of God, and are not binding in and of themselves, then how can they be authoritative in any manner, when anyone may reject them by private judgment? 

Resp: “That any man should duly, and as he ought beleeve, and receive the decision of a Synod, it must be both true, and he must believe and know that it is true, but that it may oblige him and doth oblige him, whether his conscience be erroneous or no, is as true, for then this Commandment (Thou shalt not kill) (Honor thy father and thy mother) should lay no obligation on a man that believes it is service to God to kill the Apostle, as Joh. 16. some doe. For no man is exempted from an obligation to obey God's Law, because of his own sinful and culpable ignorance, for we speak not now of invincible ignorance of these things which we are not obliged to know or believe. But if our sinful and erroneous conscience free us from actual obligation to be tyed by a Law, then our erroneous conscience freeth us from sinning against a Law, and so from punishment, for whatever freeth a man from actual obligation freeth him also from actual sinning, for all sinne is a doing against a Law-obligation, and if so, then are none to be led by any rule but their own conscience, the written Law and Gospel is not henceforth our rule any more.” (Samuel Rutherford)

Obj: Is an erroneous conscience binding?

Resp: “The learned Casuists teach us, that an erring conscience, though non obligat, yet ligat; though we be not obliged to doe that which it prescribeth, yet are we bound not to doe that which it condemneth….Because he who doeth anything against his conscience, doeth it against the Will of God, though not materially and truly, yet formally and by way of interpretation, for so much as that which conscience counselleth or prescribeth, it counselleth it under the respect and account of the Will of God He who reproacheth some private man, taking him to be the King, is thought to have hurt not the private man, but the King himself. So he that contemneth his conscience, contemneth God himselfe, because that which conscience counselleth or adviseth, is taken to be God's will.” (George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies
 [Leiden: W. Christiaens, 1637], pg. 16-17)

“It is most false then, that these Libertines say that the Word does not actually oblige except it be understood, for the understanding, information and indictment of conscience does not add any actual obligation to the Word that it had not before, it only is a reporter, to carry both the Word and the actual obligation to the man; the herald promulgating the law adds no obligation, actual or potential, to the law that it had not before, only it makes an union in distance, and near application and conjunction between the actually obliging law and the understanding knowledge of the person or subject, who is obliged to keep the law.” (Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation against the Pretended Liberty of Conscience [London: Andrew Crook, 1649], pg. 134)

Any will that is acting against its conscience is wrong and sinful. The Synods cannot oblige a person to act against his conscience:

“For in matters of indifference, the will that is at variance with erring reason or conscience, is evil in some way on account of the object, on which the goodness or malice of the will depends; not indeed on account of the object according as it is in its own nature; but according as it is accidentally apprehended by reason as something evil to do or to avoid. And since the object of the will is that which is proposed by the reason, as stated above (Article 3), from the very fact that a thing is proposed by the reason as being evil, the will by tending thereto becomes evil. And this is the case not only in indifferent matters, but also in those that are good or evil in themselves. For not only indifferent matters can received the character of goodness or malice accidentally; but also that which is good, can receive the character of evil, or that which is evil, can receive the character of goodness, on account of the reason apprehending it as such. For instance, to refrain from fornication is good: yet the will does not tend to this good except in so far as it is proposed by the reason. If, therefore, the erring reason propose it as an evil, the will tends to it as to something evil. Consequently the will is evil, because it wills evil, not indeed that which is evil in itself, but that which is evil accidentally, through being apprehended as such by the reason. In like manner, to believe in Christ is good in itself, and necessary for salvation: but the will does not tend thereto, except inasmuch as it is proposed by the reason. Consequently if it be proposed by the reason as something evil, the will tends to it as to something evil: not as if it were evil in itself, but because it is evil accidentally, through the apprehension of the reason. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 9) that "properly speaking the incontinent man is one who does not follow right reason; but accidentally, he is also one who does not follow false reason." We must therefore conclude that, absolutely speaking, every will at variance with reason, whether right or erring, is always evil.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-I, Q. 19, art. 5)

Obj: If a person only obeys the Church when they judge to be biblical and lawful, then ecclesiastical authority is rendered to be null and no more than binding than the private counsel of an individual.

Resp: " It follows in no sort, if rulers are only to be obeyed when they bring God’s Word, that then they are no more to be obeyed than equals and inferiors, because there is a double obedience, one of conscience, and [one] objective, coming from the thing commanded; And in respect of this, the Word has no less authority, and does no less challenge obedience of conscience, and objective, when my equal speaks it in a private way, yea, when I write it in my muse, than when a pastor speaks it by public authority; For we teach against Papists that the Word borrows no authority from men, nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man, but as indeed the Word of God, as the Scripture says: 1.  There is another obedience-official, which is also obedience of conscience, because the Fifth Commandment enjoins it.  Yet not obedience of conscience coming from the particular [positive aspect] commanded in human laws, as human; so I owe obedience of subjection, and submission of affection, of fear, love, honor, respect, by virtue of the Fifth Commandment to rulers when they command according to God’s Word, and this I owe not to equals or inferiors; and so it follows not that the power of rulers and synods is titular, because they must warrant their mandates from the Word…3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this, ‘Thou shalt not murder’, ‘Believe in Jesus Christ,’ when rulers and pastors command them, than when I read them in God’s Word…whether public or private person, adds not any intrinsical authority to the Word, for then the Word should be more or less God’s Word, as the bearers were public, or private, more or less worthy.  As God’s Word spoken by Amos, a prophet, should not be a word of such intrinsical authority as spoken by Moses, both a prince and a prophet." (Samuel Rutherford, The Divine Right of Church Government [London: John Field, 1646], pgs. 210-211)

Scriptural Proofs for the Office of the Ruling Elder

 

In the Old Testament, we do see a distinction between priests and the elders in the Jewish church, and between the civil and ecclesiastical Sanhedrim:

“8 If any case arises requiring a decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. 9 And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. 10 Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you. 11 According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. 12 The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.” (Deuteronomy 17:8-12)

“Thus says the LORD, ‘Go, buy a potter’s earthenware flask, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the elders of the priests.’” (Jeremiah 19:1)

“Of the Izharites, Chenaniah and his sons were for the outward business over Israel, for officers and judges.” (1 Chronicles 26:29)

“Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem.” (2 Chronicles 19:8)

“As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.” (Acts 22:5)

Some (such as Thomas Bilson) have thought that texts like 2 Chron. 19:8 are simply referring to civil magistrates. However, they are expressly distinguished from them in verse 11 of that same chapter. Similarly, the elders are distinguished from the heads of the twelve tribes in Deuteronomy 5:23; 2 Kings 10:5; Joshua 8:33.

These elders of Israel acted as the representatives of the people. In Exodus 12:3, the Lord prefaces the institution of the Passover with the words “Tell all the congregation of Israel….”, and in verse 21 “Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them….”. Thus, the elders represented the people.

Obj: In Deuteronomy 21:3-4, we read of the “elders of the city” who deal with cases of unsolved murders. Thus, these were simply the civil magistrates amongst the Jews.

Resp: On the contrary, these decisions were ecclesiastical, as in verse 5 where the dispute is settled by the priests and Levites. Furthermore, verse 2 distinguishes the elders of the city from the judges thereof. 

A concrete narrative example is Jeremiah 26, when the prophet Jeremiah is condemned to die by the priests and prophets of the people (Jer. 26:8-9), but his life is spared by the civil officials (vv. 10-11, 16). Thus, these civil and ecclesiastical courts were distinct. 

Some of the rabbinical writings of Jewish law also give us some indications about this. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 2a, 13-14) and Mishnah (Sanhedrin, 1.6), the Great Sanhedrin was made up of 70 judges (71 with Moses included during his lifetime) and the Lesser Sanhedrin had 23 judges. In Luke 22:66, we read of an “assembly of elders” at Jerusalem.

In the times of the New Testament, the Lord Jesus made a distinction between the civil courts and the Synagogue (Matthew 10:17). 

One key New Testament text for the proof of this distinct office of the ruling elder is Romans 12:8 - “Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.” 

Note here that the apostle, in enumerating various gifts and duties of Christ’s church, lists “ruling” as distinct from the act of exhorting. Some have objected that Paul here is referring to those who rule families, but this does not accord with Rom. 12:5 which speaks of Christ’s body and members. The apostle is therefore speaking about the church here in this text. 

Obj: In Romans 12:8, Paul is speaking merely of spiritual gifts, not of church offices.

Resp: On the contrary, verse 4 says “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office.” Thus, not all church members are to attend to the ruling spoken of in verse 8.

The next text to examine is 1 Timothy 5:17 - “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially [μάλιστα] they who labor in the word and doctrine.”

The great Scottish divine Samuel Rutherford gives five considerations upon this text to show that Paul is teaching that the ruling elder is a distinct office:

“But we desire that the confluence of these five may be looked onto : as 1. There is a genus, a general attribute πρεσβυτεροι, Elders ; and this agreeth both to well ruling Elders, and to those which labor in the word and doctrine. 2. There be here two participles, προεστῶτες, κοπιῶντες. 3. Two articles, οἱ, οἱ.  4. Two species, two kinds of Elders, under the generall attribute of πρεσβυτεροι As the one species or kind is, οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες, such Elders as rule well ; and the other kind of Elders be οι κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλία, such as labor in the Wordy as Pastors ; and in Dottrine, as Doctors. And fifthly, which is most considerable, here be two Participles, two Articles, two special Elders divided and separated διακριτως, by the discretive particle (μάλιστα)......also that μάλιστα is a particle of discretion and multiplication of divers kinds to me is clear, as Titus 1:11. There be many unruly and vain talkers μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, especially those of the circumcision. If μάλιστα the particle do not divide two sorts of vain talkers some vain talkers of the circumcision and some vain talkers not of the circumcision; then must this particle conjoin them, and make no vain talkers save only these of the circumcision ; and Paul shall say thea, there be many unruly and vain talking persons of the circumcision but especially those of the circumcision ; which nonsense is not to be ascribed to the spirit of God.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries [London: E. Griffin, 1644], pgs. 145-46)

One contrasting interpretation of the key term μάλιστα in this text is that it does not (as Rutherford says) function in the distinctive sense of enumerating two types of elders and a "multiplication of diverse kinds [genera]", but rather descriptively, so that the sense would be “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, namely those who labor in the word and doctrine.” However, this rendering of μάλιστα would make other texts in Scripture absurd. If we compare such passages, it is clear that μάλιστα functions in the distinctive sense (aside from the passage that Rutherford quotes from Titus 1:11):

"All the saints greet you, especially [μάλιστα δὲ] those of Caesar’s household." (Philippians 4:22)

“no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially [μάλιστα] to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philemon 1:16)

“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

Gisbertus Voetius provides us with a good argument from reason as to why this interpretation of 1 Tim. 5:17 is absurd:

“If προιστημι encompasses labor in preaching and doctrine (which is intended by the adversaries' interpretation); then it would follow that one who labors in one part of his office (in preaching and doctrine) is more worthy of double honor than one who labors in all parts of the office. This is indeed absurd, as it involves a contradiction: the whole is greater than its part.” (Gisbertus Voetius, Politicae Ecclesiasticae, 3:444) 

It is further evident that 1 Tim. 5:17 is speaking of the office of elder by the fact that verse 18 quotes Scripture saying that “the laborer deserves his wages.” And yet not all in the church are given wages and stipends as a result of their labor therein. Thus, Paul is speaking of church officers here.

Some have said that the text should be rendered thus: “Let elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, laboring greatly in the Word and doctrine.” By this faulty logic, we would need to render 1 Timothy 4:10 as follows: “God is the Savior of all men who believe much.”

Obj. If there are two sorts of elders, then there are two sorts of bishops, since Presbyterian polity teaches that these terms are synonymous in their biblical usage.

Resp: The Presbyterian position is that the preaching elder and “bishop” (episkopos) are the same, not that “bishop” and elder as a general category are the same. 

Obj. In Eph. 4:11, Paul does not list the ruling elder as one of the offices instituted by Christ for the church. Ergo, it is not a legitimate ecclesiastical office.

Resp: If this reasoning were true or valid, it would follow that we are not believe in the Holy Spirit as God, since John 17 says it is eternal life to know the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit not being mentioned in this particular text. Furthermore, Paul in Eph. 4 is listing the offices essential to planting a church, not for a church already constituted. 

The final text worth addressing here is 1 Corinthians 12:28 - “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”

Presbyterians have classically interpreted the “governments” Paul speaks of here as referring to ruling elder.

Obj: Paul is here dealing only with “governing” in the abstract as a spiritual gift, and not a concrete office, as he enumerates “apostles” and “prophets.”

Resp: In verses 29-30, Paul interprets himself and speaks of the things mentioned in verse 28 insofar as they exist in individual people - “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?”