Let's have a word of prayer and ask the Lord to bless us tonight as we come together and come to study. Let's just seek the Lord. Our Heavenly Father, we bow humbly and reverently in thy holy presence this evening. We come before thee in and through the name of our blessed Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. We rejoice that we are found together the purpose of studying thy word. We rejoice that we can come together in fellowship and that we can learn of thee and we just ask, O God, that as we come to study this evening that thou wilt bless our hearts, prepare our hearts to meet with thee, grant us a teachable spirit and grant, O God, that we will learn much of thee tonight. Bless our brother, who has come into our midst, we ask that thou wilt be to him all that he needs. Undertake for him and grant, O God and Father, that he might know the blessing and the leading of the Spirit of God upon his ministry this evening. Put a covering of the precious blood around us and we ask, O God and Father, that we will know thy presence and thy blessing. Undertake for all that is said and done and grant again, O God, that in all things Christ may have the pre-eminence. Do us good, meet with us. We pray these things for Jesus' sake. Amen. Well brethren, we are glad to have you tonight and we are very glad to welcome our brother the Reverend Ian Smith into our midst. He is coming to speak hopefully on what is the first of a series of four lectures And this evening, Mr. Smith's going to deal with the subject of the foundations of Presbyterianism. So we're going to let him go. Thanks. Thank you, Mark. I'll take off my jacket because he made me wear a tie. I sent him a text this morning and I asked him, was the meeting a formal one or a non-formal one? And of course, being Irish, he read the message form, didn't he? He insisted I should wear a collar and tie. No, I didn't. He said it was a formal, but he misunderstood my question. Anyway, thanks for the invitation, brethren. And I do pray that the Lord will be glorified in our midst tonight. Now, I wasn't sure what the setup was going to be here. I wasn't sure if you had an overhead projector, but I don't think you have. Oh, that's that old-fashioned now, isn't it? You have a... We have a wall projector. Yeah, it's too late anyway, because I didn't prepare sheets for it. What I have done, I'm going to leave a copy of the paper I'm going to deliver with you, and if you wish you can put a copy in and circulate it if you wish. What I've done is I've prepared these headings so you can perhaps follow me along just as I nurse you with the dust. Don't be over-concerned about all these headings, because although there are nine of them, they really refer to fairly short paragraphs dealing with each particular... Perhaps we can turn to the Word of God, New Testament, Scriptures, Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 and we can read from verse 6 down to verse 29 now this concerns what we have come to know as the Council of Jerusalem where the Apostles and others gathered to discuss a problem, or more than one problem actually, that arose particularly amongst the gentile churches in Asia and Southern Europe. And this is their meeting to discuss these problems. And the apostles, verse 6, and the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And where there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, You know how that a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentiles, by my mouth, should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." Then all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. After that they held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me. Simeon Halford declared how God and the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down, and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up, that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things, known unto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God, but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollution, from virus, from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every sabbath day. Then pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely Judas, surnamed Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. And they wrote letters by them after this manner. The apostles and elders and brethren sent greeting unto the brethren, which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your soul, saying, You must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment. It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost unto us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that you abstain from meats, offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which, if you keep yourselves, you shall do well, fare thee well. May God bless to us that reading of the scriptures. Well, let me turn then to the paper, friends, and the first item is just a brief reference to a brief introduction. As with all things Christian, the important matter for us is what say the Scriptures. We must begin at what the Word of God says. The Church of Christ can only teach and impose on the conscience of men. that which the Bible itself teaches, and that which is authoritatively stated in the Word of God. And if Presbyterianism, or for that matter any form of church government, is lacking in that respect, the church has no right to impose this upon its people, thereby binding them by the authority of men rather than the authority of God. Now having said that, it must also be recognised that the Bible doesn't provide fine detail on the matter of church government. It only lays down broad principles, fairly broad principles, but they are laid down quite clearly for us. Now to discover what even these are, attention must be given first of all to the basic rudiments of the Christian church as these are stated for us in the scriptures. And that leads us to our first main heading, the church. Now, if we don't get this right, then we're going to go wrong in everything else. We have to be clear in our minds and perhaps more so in our day than since the Reformation times because there is more and more effort at undermining the traditional definition of what the church is in the world. So let's consider its basic concept as the Bible teaches it to us. The Greek word for church is Ekklesia and it is found on numerous occasions throughout the New Testament scripture and its biblical usage and I emphasize the biblical usage because you could find this word Ekklesia in for example classical Greek and it simply means a gathering of people but in the biblical usage of Ekklesia it is always referring to a gathering of people for the worship of God. That is the only sense in which it is used in the Holy Scriptures. The Old Testament has a similar word, quall. It's frequently translated as assembly. Let me give you one example of this, Exodus 12 verse 6 referring to a sacrifice, you shall keep it up until the 14th day of the same month and the whole assembly, the Quo of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. Now, unlike many of our Baptist and brethren friends and particularly dispensationalists that refuse to acknowledge that there is or that there was a church in the Old Testament times, only the nation state of Israel, Presbyterians and others argue and insist that there was indeed a church from the earliest times of the Old Testament era. As sure as there was a covenant, there was a church. Because where the one is, the other necessarily must exist. You cannot have a covenant and not have a church. So where you will find the one, you will find the other. and therefore we find New Testament writers referring to the Old Testament church in the sense of acknowledging the reality of a church. Let me give you an example of this, Stephen shortly before they killed him, in Act 7 he gave that wonderful address to those who were opposed to him Acts 7 verse 38, particularly, this is he that was in the church, in the ecclesia, in the wilderness with the angel which spoke to him in Mount Sinai. Now, due to the problem which particularly dispensationalists have introduced into the Christian church in our day, we have to lay down some presupposition. we have to insist on certain things being in situ before we proceed to establish our arguments whether it's about church government or about baptism or a number of other things including salvation. Let me give you a number of these presuppositions and I'll give them to you in a series of ones. First of all, from Genesis to Revelation there is but one inspired, infallible Word of God from Genesis to Revelation of equal authority, of equal value. Secondly, there is only one way of salvation from the dawn of history until the end of the world. a way of salvation which of course was differently administered perhaps in the Old Testament era because of types, shadows and symbols whereas we have the clarity of the New Testament on the cross. Third one, there is but one covenant of grace in both Old Testament era and the New Testament times. there is but one Redeemer of God's elect in every age. And finally, there has only ever been one Ecclesia on earth, one Church of the Living God. Now, it would be untenable to suggest, as dispensationalists do, that the Hebrew people of the Old Testament, that they had the oracles of God, that they had salvation by free grace alone, that there was a covenant of grace, that there was one Saviour for God's people, Jesus Christ, whether it's in the economy of tax symbols or otherwise, but that there was no church. It doesn't make sense. in any way whatsoever. It violates every principle of unity and purpose that are usually associated with the divine rationale of redeeming a people as the family of God. Now, this becomes infinitely more acute when the definition of Ecclesia is that of a people whose redemption was accomplished by the blood of Lamb. It then becomes de facto that a church did exist in the Old Testament and that it was this church that the disciples belonged to and that they began to expand. Now friends, this is a terribly important point in our day and generation that we must insist that there has always been the Church of God on the face of the earth in whatever day which we live. because of the forces that are at work nowadays, we have to defend this point. Let's move on then to our next heading, the New Testament. Now the suggestion of some that the roots of the Christian Church go no deeper than the incident concerning Peter at Caesarea Philippi where he was the first man to profess openly the Lord Jesus Christ. You remember that incident when the Lord Jesus asked a general question, who do these people say that I am? And of course the answer came back, well some are saying you're Elijah, some are saying you're a prophet or whatever. And then he asked, who do you say that I am? And it seemed to be directing it at Peter. And then Peter responded with that marvellous profession of faith, thou art the Christ of God. That led to Jesus' response, Matthew 16, 18, I say unto thee, thou watch Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now, to suggest that this is the root of the New Testament Christian Church is nothing if not a Popish idea, and we've heard much about this over the recent weeks since the Pope's death that the first Pope was of course Peter and this is the text that they have built their evil system upon. Now the whole ethos of thought and practice amongst our Lord and amongst his apostles is one of presupposing an entity known as the Ecclesia everything about the Gospel, the ministry of Jesus and the missionary work of the Apostles, everything gives this aura of recognizing and accepting the reality of the Church as something already in existence. And nowhere in the New Testament is it introduced to us as a new concept, as a new idea, rather as a structure and an organization that was embedded even in the Judaism that was familiar to the Lord and his followers. The words of the Lord on the subject of church discipline demonstrate this to some degree that his own mind was firmly church oriented. Matthew 18 verse 17 If ye shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Ecclesia." Tell it unto the Church. The blessing of God on the Apostles' labors has a similar focus in Acts 2.47. The Lord added to the Ecclesia, to the Church. such as should be saved. Now, we could refer to many other instances of New Testament writings that would further reinforce this argument, but I think the point is made. So, accepting the presupposition of a church existing before the finished work of the cross, we then look to how this church was to be organised in terms of its government. how it was supposed to be administered in not just in a Jewish environment but also in a Gentile one. It would be natural for us to expect such protocol as they have already recognized in Judaism to find something similar to it in the New Testament Christian Church because God is a God of order. God is a God who does things in a specific manner and Paul was deeply convicted of this, he makes reference to it in 1 Corinthians 14.33 and again in verse 14. The injunction in that last verse, let all things be done decently and in order, that begs the question that the New Testament Ecclesia should be formally stated, governed by an administration that is approved by God in the Scriptures. So, we'll move on to the offices, our next heading. When the missionaries began to establish the churches in non-Jewish countries, in Asia and Europe particularly, they complied with that requirement for order. And this comes through time and time again and in a number of different ways. But we have to recognize that the transition period from Old Testament Church, from Old Testament format of worship, from Old Testament administrative ideas to the slick and more sophisticated New Testament Christian Church. That transition period was not going to be easy. It wasn't going to be the mere turning over of a leaf. and the more I think about this actually, the more amazed I am at how few problems there arose. I thought it would be much, much more difficult for them. Nevertheless, there were things in that period, particularly from the death of Christ until the end of the first century, until the end of the apostolic era, that were unusual and that were designed by God for that period to reinforce the infant Christian Church as it was in its Gentile phase, or should I say Jewish Gentile phase. And when you read through the Acts of the Apostles you find a number of these strange incidents such as them taking napkins from an apostle and giving them to somebody who was ill and the people being cured thereby. It was the gift of tongues and much else besides. I want you to take your attention to the plurality of offices that were introduced at this phase of the church's development. Such as we find for example in Ephesians 4 verse 11 He gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors, and teachers. Now, Calvinists have always considered the first three mentioned in that verse as temporary offices designed to overcome the many difficulties that these missionaries came across as they walked their way through the Gentile world. The more regular offices, the ones that were to be of perpetual significance to the church were the offices of Elder and Deacon. So we find these missionaries at the first opportunity choosing men suitable for those offices, men of sound conviction, men of good character, men of experience that could fill that role. And they are called, in the first instance, elders, prasputeros in the New Testament Scriptures. Listen to these two examples of this, and I'm only giving you examples, Acts 14 verse 23. When they had ordained them elders in every church, Now it would seem that this term was familiar to the apostles familiar to the missionaries of the New Testament. And in all likelihood they would have referred, they would have been familiar to them because they referred to older men, it was a term for seniority, but it was also a term associated with the position of Jews in the courts of the Old Testament Church. In, for example, the Sanhedrin, they would have been referred to as elders of different ranks. Now, perhaps for that reason, that when they moved into the Gentile world, taking with them this idea of the prosbyteros, because of how steeped it was in Old Testament format, Maybe that's the reason that Paul saw wise to introduce another term, the term that is familiar to us as Bishop, Episcop. Now, that word by usage of the Apostles has become far churchier, far new testamentish than the Presbyteros. And the Bible, the New Testament goes on to use both terms interchangeably, with perhaps more of an emphasis regarding the ability to teach on the office of the Bishop. Now let me give you an example of this. 1 Timothy 3, 1 and 2. This is a true saying, if a man desires the office of a Bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach." Now, as an example of the use of this word, bishops, in the greeting Paul gives to the church at Philippi, in the opening verse of Philippians chapter 1, we find these words Paul and Timotheus the servants of Jesus Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi were the bishops and deacons now let's suppose that the three tier rank of elder, bishop and deacon existed would Paul greet the bishops and the deacons, and miss out the all-important rank of the elder? There is no mention of elder here. And in Paul's mind, and to the whole ethos of the New Testament, the radical office is the office of the prosbyteros. So it would be inconceivable that Paul would greet bishops and deacons and not mention elder. So we have to conclude from this that there was no such three tier ranking in the mindset of the apostles. There was only the two, with the bishops and the elders being used interchangeably. Furthermore, what is not commonly referred to are the other titles or terms in the New Testament which refer to office bearers in the Christian Church. There is one term translated in 1 Thessalonians 5.12 as those that rule over you. The paper gives you the Greek words as well. There is another one in 1 Corinthians 12.28 translated as government. There is another one in Hebrews 13.7 translated as those that rule. Three distinct titles referring to office bearers in the Christian church. But these carried no weight in the thinking of the apostles, only the term elder and bishop and deacon. Now you may very well ask, well, why don't we continue using the idea of the bishop? Well, I believe the reason for that is that the early church recognized how the church which eventually developed into the Roman church abused the system which the New Testament taught and exalted the rank of the bishop and therefore the early church ceased to use the word bishop in favour of the term elder. Now, perhaps these two offices of elder and deacon correspond with a distinction between Old Testament roles of priest and Levite. I'm not sure, but I think there may be something in that. In Enochus, the office and work of the deacon has always been broadly understood in terms of what we find in Acts 6, verses 1-6. I'm sure that's familiar to you. So that makes up then the two tiered system we find in the New Testament scriptures and that are familiar to Presbyterian churches. Elders looking after the spiritual side of things and deacons looking after the more practical issues. Let's move on then to our next heading, Authority. Now that these officers had responsibility, authority and power is evidenced from the, if I can put it this way, the Ecclesia speak, the church speak of the New Testament. The Lord placed huge responsibility on the shoulders of men when he spoke these words to them recorded for us in Matthew 16 verse 19. and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven these are awesome words my friends words that imply a responsibility that is staggering in its potential. They refer, of course, to the disciplined life of God's people here on earth. And in the observation and execution of that discipline, God does not expect any single individual to cope with that kind of responsibility, to carry out on one's own the requirements of church discipline in the New Testament Church. There wasn't a greater mind since Christ himself than the mind of the Apostle Paul. And there wasn't a greater man to cope with responsibility than that man. Yet, when a major decision had to be made with respect to the Gentiles participating in gospel privileges, that very man inspired apostle that he was, refused to take an executive role and speak authoritatively on the matter. He looked to the collective wisdom of the brethren that would gather at Jerusalem in that portion we read in Acts 15. And he let that collective wisdom make the decision rather than speak on it himself. Other words from the Lord Jesus also imply a collective decision making process, particularly in matters of discipline. Listen to these words, Matthew 18 verse 17, talking about discipline. If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Ecclesia, tell it unto the Church. Now Paul's sentiments echo this when writing to the Church at Corinth, as well as at Thessalonica or Thessalonica if you wish. Let me give you two texts, 1 Corinthians 5, 4-5. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together in my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. to Thessalonians 3, 14 and 15, If any man obey not your word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Now these words aren't talking in the first instance about how you as a Christian, as a member of this church should treat another person. They're talking in the first instance, or addressing in the first instance, the church, the ecclesia, in the process of church discipline. That will have implications for you, how you are to consider that person that the church may or may not have to discipline. But in the first instance, they are addressing the church. Now this and much more besides imply that the church of God on earth should be characterized by a mechanism that would have an oversight of the flock. Further, this system was not to be some toothless watchdog, nor was it to rest on any one person, as I said earlier, but rather be an effective expression of the collective wisdom of the Ecclesia. Which brings us to a very brief paragraph on the courts. This structure should evidently be in place to carry out the pastoral and disciplinary obligations of the gospel. Now we have come to know these structures as church courts and I think it's a reasonable expectation to look in the New Testament church for something akin to what went before in the Old Testament era. There the organisational administrative procedures were well ordered. For example the Jewish High Court which we know as the Sanhedrin it could not meet on an ad hoc basis it had to meet formally constituted by acknowledging God. Paradoxically the meeting in Jerusalem referred to in Matthew 26 would have convened in the name of God even if it was to plot the death of his beloved son Matthew 26.3 Then assembled together the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest that was called Caiaphas. Now ever since Moses was first counseled to take on board the benefits of collective wisdom and responsibility in Exodus 18 the principle has constantly raised its head in the course of God's business here on earth. and its natural offspring are the church courts which we associate with the Christian church. Hence, we as Presbyterians have our deacon's courts, we have our church sessions, we have our presbyteries, and in some cases, for sheer size demands, there are synods and also assemblies. These all meet in a formal manner just as the Old Testament courts met. Which brings us finally to Presbyterianism. So far we have identified the existence of a church, we have identified the biblical mandate for office bearers and also the principle of a church structure within which the business of the church should be conducted. Presbyterianism is based on a manner in which the apostles came together, in that incident we read about in Acts chapter 15, responding to a crisis that arose particularly in the churches of Southern Europe. The missionaries were hounded by religious zealots, by Jews that would not accept the Messiah, and even when some of them did accept and became part of the Jew-Gentile Church, they could not see themselves free to have fellowship with Gentiles unless the Gentiles accepted some of the most basic rudiments of Judaism. such as some other food laws and the right of circumcision in particular. Now, one imagines that Paul, being the forthright, inspired apostle that he was, one imagines that he could have spoken authoritatively on this matter, as he did for example in the controversy on the Church of Corinth concerning the woman's headwear business. There he did speak authoritatively and gave his view on it. Instead, in this instance, he left the whole matter to the collective wisdom of his brethren that came to Jerusalem. Acts 15 verse 6, the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter as we read a moment ago. And they came from far and wide representing the various churches with whom they had been labouring in the Gospel. And this, as I said earlier, became known and is still known as the Council of Jerusalem. And it is universally recognised, by Presbyterians at least, as the prototype for our Presbyteries. Now, while the Jerusalem meeting heard much debate from various speakers and there seemed to have been quite a few of them, they then proceeded to focus in on the matter and by collective wisdom they came to a conclusion, they came to a consensus and they dictated a letter and they dispersed this letter by messengers to the various churches and One of the key phrases in that chapter referring to this is in verse 22 of Acts 15. Then pleased did the apostles and the elders and the whole church. They had the corporate ecclesia in mind to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch and so on. Now, it is argued that whatever differences separate the various denominations of the contemporary Christian church that adhere to the principle of the plurality of congregations under one overarching umbrella such as a presbytery, whatever our strengths and weaknesses in that respect, there is no biblical foundation whatsoever for the mushrooming these days of independency, of parachurches that are out there on their own, accountable to no one and proceeding with an independent spirit. You just cannot find that in the New Testament Scriptures. Now, even when the general principle of many under one umbrella is accepted, how that is then interpreted that is another matter altogether because the notion of Anglicanism and perhaps even the notion of Romanism isn't altogether that far removed from Acts 15 but the embellishment of bishops and cardinals and popes pervert the principle to such a degree that it is no longer recognisable And the Baptist church, for their part, their inclination to grant autonomy to the pastor, frequently resulting in a dictatorial rule, also fails, as far as I can see, the principle of rule by party. So we come to the next heading, the second last one, that of creed. And this will be very brief because I rather think that Neil McKinley might be dealing with this one. Now this has been a fruit of the Jerusalem Council. The recognition of a creed or a confessional standard. This is part and parcel of Presbyterianism. The Presbyterian form of church government and the necessity of a creed go hand in hand. Church government by confessional standard has become something of a byword in our day. it is throttled very much under through the crisis. We only need the Bible. That's all we need. We don't need the confession of faith. We don't need standards that have been introduced by men. Well, my friends, Paul and his fellow missionaries, they have the Bible. They have the leading of the Holy Spirit. They have even perhaps the beginnings of the New Testament Scriptures in the first inspired epistles. Yet they saw it necessary to come to Jerusalem and to seek the collective wisdom of the Brethren. And without a shadow of a doubt these men were more in tune with the mind of God than we are in our generation. But God didn't allow the Jerusalem Council to take any course other that come to a consensus, that there is no suggestion that there was a pressing, if you like, outpouring from on high, leaving them with no other course to take. There are instances of this in the Bible, where men were compelled, constrained to take a certain route because of the compunction upon them by the Holy Spirit of God. But in the Council of Jerusalem there was a lot of debate went on in the beginning and the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter, verse 7, and when there had been much disputing there was a lot of debating and arguing going on before the more experienced apostles eventually spoke. and the conclusion of this, the fruit of it, was that letter that was dictated and circulated to all the churches. That is the prototype of the confession of faith and indeed all the confessions of the 17th century they will appeal to this incident as their basis. Well, let me say now just a brief word on the last point, the historical. It is a misconception that Presbyterianism originated after Reformation, or indeed with Calvin. It may have been fine-tuned then, I think most Presbyterians would accept that, but its roots go back to the New Testament times. The Popish idea or notion of a particular system of church government, as I said earlier, being based on patriarchal confession, It hardly warrants the time to argue. It really doesn't. Even the view that the Palactic or Anglican system ruled by bishops and cardinals was in place during the Apostolic Era, that is untenable on the basis of the evidence available to us. There are two extant documents which have always been considered by Presbyterians and indeed by historians as accurate and reasonably feared free from ecclesiastical bias. And these two documents testify in favor of Presbyterianism and the earliest times, even the apostolic times. They came from men that overlapped in time with the age of inspiration and infallibility. And the documents have become known as Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarp's Epistle to the Church at Philippi. In both of them there is clear evidence that it is the broad Presbyterian ethic that was the practice in those two churches and we have no reason to suggest that it wasn't the practice in other churches of the time as well. Sadly, the perversion we know now as the Popish system of government did take hold before too long and it ruled the day until God stirred up a reformation in his church. Martin Luther, one of the first things that he realised was that the system whereby one office bearer could hold rule and authority over others Luther realised that this was not scriptural. It had no biblical foundation. But, for whatever reason Luther was not able to take a matter much further forward, possibly because God had other designs for him. It was left to John Calvin to put the mechanics of Presbyterianism afoot and it was on a great length. on this subject in Book 4 of famous institutes of the Christian religion. It demonstrates quite clearly that the offices Christ had appointed through the apostles are indeed the offices we associate usually with Presbyterianism. John Knox, the Scottish reformer, took this aspect of Calvinism, along with others of course, he took it with him to Scotland and gave it a nephos that is arguably distinct until this very day. Knox and his fellow Puritans insisted that the reformational principle of sola scriptura would be the guiding light of both their ecclesiology and their theology. Not just the theology but also in matters relating to the church. And that meant fighting the erroneous view arising from the Romanist church and also from the Episcopalians that church government should be ruled by bishops and cardinals and so on. So that in the areas of faith, order, discipline and worship, Knox and his followers they insisted that appeal must be made to the scriptures. and this developed into what has now become known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. Everything we do as a practice which we impose upon our people has to be regulated by the teaching of the Word of God. The Ecclesiastical position can be summed up under the following three headings. The Priesthood of All Believers, a Parity of Eldership, and a conciliar system of church government. That three-fold basis is sufficiently robust to allow for necessary latitude in how Presbyterianism is practised. For example, in Scotland there tends to be only one overarching assembly for all the churches, whether it's the Church of Scotland or the Free Church or whatever, but there are a number of synods that are free in Scotland and there is another one in Canada. In Australia, there can be a plurality of assemblies, as there are with the general Presbyterian church, and that is something that they had to introduce, I suppose, to overcome the tyranny of distance. In smaller Presbyterian denominations, like the one I belong to myself, a synod, or as in our case, a presbytery, can be considered as the Supreme Court, the Court of Final Appeal if you like. So that's Presbyterianism as far as I can make out. I could have gone into much more detail on the history part but I've already been going for almost an hour so that's it. If you want to ask questions I'm not very sure I'll be able to answer them but feel free in any case. and the pre-prestiges. you