Book Review: Presbyterianism Defended Against the Exclusive Claims of Prelacy as Urged by Romanists and Tractarians, by Thomas Jackson Crawford

Another dead theologian

Thomas Jackson Crawford is another theologian from the 1800’s. He was a Scottish minister and professor of divinity at the University of Edinburgh. At age 55, he became the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This was in the year 1867. Moderator was the “highest” position within the Scottish Church.

Presbyterianism Defended Against the Exclusive Claims of Prelacy as Urged by Romanists and Tractarians, is a book produced from a Lecture Crawford delivered in St. George’s Church, Edinburgh on the evening of April 10^th, 1853.

In it, Crawford lectures convincingly against the claim of the Roman Catholic church that a hierarchy (prelacy) had been established by the Apostles within the New Testament. According to their view that the Apostles ordained and laid hands on certain bishops (aka overseers) to succeed them as Church leaders. And these bishops, in turn were supposed to ordain other bishops and presbyters (aka elders) to rule as well. Levels of authority were established based upon these ordinations.

Crawford disagrees that such a hierarchy exists to govern Jesus Christ’s Church. Whereas, by his day the Roman Church government had come into full expression including a central figure known as the pope, a college of cardinals, bishops, priests and deacons. A similar hierarchical view was proposed by the Tractarians of Crawford’s time. These were Church of England (Anglican/Episcopalian) brothers who promoted similar offices without the central figure of a pope.

Crawford disagrees with both branches and argues instead that the Apostle Paul considered the office of elder (presbyter) as the highest office and one in which its office-bearers were plural and equal. On page 2, Crawford maintains that all pastors (elders) of the Christian Church possess “parity and equality.”

He points to Paul’s final farewell meeting with the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 as a proof of this. Crawford says, “They were ordinary pastors of the Ephesian Church – those to whom the care of the flock had been committed. In the 17^th verse, they were denominated ‘Presbyters;’ while in the 28^th verse, they are denominated ‘Bishops.’”

So the same men are simultaneously called elders (presbyters) and overseers (bishops). He later argues strongly on this point, from pages 24-32.

In the beginning of the lecture, Crawford dismantles the alleged Scriptural proofs of hierarchy (prelacy). I mention just one. On page eight, he presents the prelate argument, “We are told, that the high priest corresponded to the bishop or prelate; while the priests who were under him answered to the presbyters; and the Levites, who occupied a still inferior position, resembled the deacons.”

Crawford refuses these Old Testament comparisons saying, “The high priest must be held to corresponding to the Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Scriptures of the New Testament most expressly declared to be the great Bishop of souls, and the High Priest of our profession. And then, if you insist upon carrying out the parallel, it is, as you will at once see, all in favour of our Presbyterian system, - the priests and Levites corresponding to our presbyters and deacons, with no one above them but the Great Head of the Church himself!”

Of course, Crawford does not ascribe to this analogy either, as he states moments later, “The Church of the New Testament is evidently framed after the model of the synagogue, rather than the temple. The temple with its priesthood and sacrifices, has been abolished. It pertains to that ceremonial and typical system, for which there is no place under the fulness of the Gospel. Accordingly, we nowhere find the title of priests assigned to Christian ministers in the New Testament, but frequently the titles of presbyters, overseers, pastors, teachers, angels, and the like, which were formerly applied to officers of the synagogue.”

I wish that the lecturer would have given support here, for I do think the church is an extrapolation of the synagogue system. Jesus attended the synagogue and respected its worship and order. It was common as well for the apostles to worship and preach in the synagogues. It is evident that many of the first converts, and perhaps some of the churches first elders, came from the Jewish synagogues. However, you will have to find support for this outside of Crawford’s lecture.

Presbyterianism Defended also contains arguments for the cessation and not continuation of the office of apostle and evangelist, pages 11-20. Both offices were important and called extraordinary for the founding of the church, however, the ordinary and continual offices were designed to be that of the elders and deacons.

One of the highlights of Crawford’s lecture is his traverse through early church history to prove a presbyterian government. Beginning on page 41, he records the testimony of many “uninspired writers” including church fathers: Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus. Each of them supported the idea that the terms presbyter and bishop were used as synonyms.

He admits on page 45, that the system of Prelacy or “diocesan episcopacy” was introduced in about the middle of the fourth century. Here he cites the works of Hilary, Chrysostome, Augustine, and Jerome. Each of these men refer to the various church hierarchical titles. Yet not one of them suggests Scriptural support for prelacy, but only its evolved reality. Crawford provides quotes to support this clarification.

One such example is Jerome (380-420AD), who wrote, “That presbyters and bishops were originally the same – that the primitive churches were governed by a council of presbyters – that, by little and little, for the sake of preserving order and preventing schism, the government came to be devolved on individuals – and that the bishops, in his own day, ought to know that they are greater than the presbyters, rather by custom than by the appointment of the Lord.” (See page 47.)

Crawford’s lecture moves on from the church fathers and reaches the many voices of the Reformation. Again, his church history is the highlight of the lecture.

Finally, there are two Appendix at the end of the book. Note A is called, The Office of Ruling Elder. Note B is called, Apostolic Succession. The pages on Apostolic Succession are worth the price of the book. However, those on the Office of Ruling Elder are disappointing.

Note A: Building an argument from 1 Timothy 5:17, Crawford here creates a distinction between a “ruling elder” and one who teaches or labors in “word and doctrine.” On page 57, he quotes Dr. Whittaker, Regius Professor of Theology at Cambridge. Wittaker writes, “If all who rule well are worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the Word and doctrine, it is plain there were some who did not so labour; for if all had been of this description, the meaning would have been absurd; but the word ‘especially,’ points out a difference.”

He then goes to church history again, this time looking to support a distinction between the ruling elder and that of a teaching elder. Crawford believes Scripture supports a difference of function between the two (though not, presumably, in an attempt to differentiate importance).

On this point, I get the sense that Crawford’s one office of presbyter/bishop just got broken in two again. To draw a distinction of duties based on the word “especially” seems wrong-headed. Rather should the stress be placed on the word “labour.” In other words, those who labor more at the teaching should certainly be paid more. It would be the same in other forms of labor, the more time one puts in the more he or she should be paid for it.

If we assume that additional labor this is the Apostle Paul’s emphasis, then the one office imperative still stands. All elders are the same, except for their added work. Equality and parity remain. And therefore, though all elders must be “apt to teach,” as required by 2 Timothy 2:24, those who commit more to the “labour” of Word and doctrine are especially to be recompensed by the double honor.

Thomas Witherow, in contrast to Crawford, makes the more satisfying point that some elders take on more teaching and preaching work than others because of their giftedness, education and effectiveness, but this does not exclude or debar the others from their responsibilities to teach in some form or other. If 2 Timothy 2:24 requires an elder to be apt to teach, then how can 1 Timothy 5:17 absolve them of the duty?

---