Bishops in Presbyterianism

by Wyatt Pruitt

A Biblical, Patristic, Reformed, & Theological Argument for Bishops in Presbyterianism

The following is the transcript from my YouTube Video: Response to @MatthewEverhard and @theisaiahwlong : BISHOPS are a Presbyterian Thing!:

Presbyterianism Compatible with Bishops

Prolegomena
Introduction

Today I want to make a response to 2 recent videos. One from Isaiah Long where he interviewed Pastor Matt Everhard on Presbyterian Church Government. The other is Biblical Understanding’s series on the church fathers and church government. I am not necessarily going to be reacting point for point, but I will be giving a biblical, patristic, and reformed response to why the current presbyterian polity is incomplete. If you do not know who I am, I am Wyatt Pruitt, a layman in the Presbyterian Church in America. Since I am a laymen, Pastor Everhard, I want to let you know that I fully submit to the teachings of the presbyterian church, I believe that all that I am about to say is in line with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. I know a guy that sometimes goes to your parish and I admire you and have learned a lot from you. This is all in good fun. I run this Youtube channel and I run a website called reformedpress.org where you can find articles from like-minded Re-formed Catholics. Link in the description. In Isaiah’s interview Pastor Everhard and Isaiah covered many different topics from the practicality of presbyterian polity to the actual pastoral offices. In this video I am going to specifically cover the Holy Order of the church and how Presbyterianism is not only compatible with Bishops but is not complete without them. I will prove the distinct office of the Bishop using only scripture, I will then support the scripture with tradition, then I will show how the Episcopate was corrupted over time by the papacy, I will show the validity of presbyterial succession, show how all of the main Reformers wanted the episcopate back and finally I will show the episcopates compatibility with current PCA polity. But first there are a few things that I want to discuss before we get into it.

Episcopacy does not equal Monarchy.

There is a common misunderstanding that episcopacy always equals monarchy. This is false. The episcopacy only, in its most fundamental form, means the offices of ἐπίσκοπος, πρεσβύτερος, and διάκονος. The Romish doctrine of the episcopate should not be assumed as the reformational understanding of episcopacy. Neither should the Eastern polity as well. In the same way we get frustrated when Baptists think Presbyterians are doing works to be saved by Baptizing babies because they think its Romish, we should not assume that just because the episcopate looks Romish that it is not Biblical or that we are talking about the same doctrine. This is my first clarification.
My second clarification is that we must define what the role of an Apostle is. In the scriptures Peter is both an Apostle and an Elder. Peter says in 1 Peter 5:1, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:” Yet Peter is also an Apostle. He holds both the Office of Apostle and Elder at the same time. Peter is time and time again rebuked, and he does not have a universal authority over the whole church given that it is Paul, the least of the Apostles, who rebukes him in Galatians chapter 2. If we are going to argue for biblical Bishops then they should be modeled after the relationships of the Apostles. Peter, the undoubted leader of the Apostles, did not have monarchical authority, therefore Bishops should not as well.

Synodality

Rather the early church, as in Presbyterianism, is built on a synodal model. John Calvin, who was a pioneer of the Presbyterian model of government had this to say about the office of Bishop

The bishop, however, was not so superior in honour and dignity as to have dominion over his colleagues, but as it belongs to a president in an assembly to bring matters before them, collect their opinions, take precedence of others in consulting, advising, exhorting, guide the whole procedure by his authority, and execute what is decreed by common consent, a bishop held the same office in a meeting of presbyters. -Calvin’s Institutes 4.4.2

Calvin understands correctly that the Bishop is the ruler of the presbyters not in a monarchial way but as a Prime Minister. Pastor Everhard says in the video,

…as I understand the founding of our nation the states were to have the locus of authority whereas the federal government was to do things that states couldn’t do so for instance putting together an army protecting the borders of the nation things like that so important roles but distinct from the states well Presbyterian government is very very similar in that we have local government which would be the elders of a local church we have a regional government which we call a presbytery. Long 3:41-3-59

It is true that the presbyterian government is the template for the American government. But unlike the American government and unlike the early and biblical church, the PCA has no executive branch. This is what the Bishops do. They are Presidents, not Kings. They are only Lord’s in that they represent the authority of Christ to the laity, but in the function of the day to day they operate like Presidents.
According to Ignatius of Antioch the Bishops are not authoritarians, they are presiders. These presiders do not rule with an iron fist, but delegate the assembly of the presbyters.

I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ. -Ignatius to the Magnesians 6

The word here for presides is translated correctly. It is προκαθημένου which is a genative singular of the word προκαθήμενος which means “to sit before, to preside” it in no way infers to a despot that rules in the place of God, but that the Bishops of the church are in service to the church in order to bring unity.

What is the Episcopate?

This brings us to the question: What is a Bishop? I have described the general function of the church as a council or synod, but what is the point of Bishops. I will go into the Biblical and Historical arguments after this but first let us give a clear definition. A Bishop is one who, through the line of the Apostles, has been selected by the Presbyters and other Bishops to oversee the presbyters and all sacramental or pastoral functions in a given area. In and of himself he is an elder and a successor to the apostles. As Ignatius says,

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. -Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8

I will now explain a purely biblical argument for the Episcopate

Biblical

Old Testament

As Reformed Christians we see that there are two covenants: one of works and one of Grace. “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (Romans 5:18). Moses is not a covenant of works, it is a covenant of Grace. The Westminster Confession says, “There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations” (WCF 7.6). The Church is the fulfillment of Israel. One of the major reasons why we baptize babies is because we see the continuity in dispensations between Circumcision and Baptism. This continuity between dispensations informs our whole outlook on biblical hermeneutics. It should be applied equally among all doctrines of the faith because it gives the whole word of God context, meaning, and application. Jesus Christ says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17). All of the Old Testament must have some fulfillment in Christ and in the New Testament Age. This includes ecclesiology. In the Old Covenant God selects Moses to be His Chief Prophet, Priest, and King over Israel. Moses is called a prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15, he is a Priest in Exodus 24:6-8 and he is a King in Exodus 18:13-26 and Deuteronomy 33:4-5. For the Old Covenant to be fully distributed through the land and live on after Moses’ death he must implement successors to his order. In this he ordains a three-fold ministry of the High Priest/Priests, the elders, and the Levites. In the Old Covenant the sacramental ministry is tied to one location, and this is the Temple in Jerusalem. This is the place where God has promised that he will be.

Take care that you do not offer your burnt offerings at any place that you see, but at the place that the LORD will choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I am commanding you.
-Deut. 12:13-14

This Sacramental ministry is for the covering of sins, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (Heb. 10:4). The Priests were taken from the tribe of Levi and they held the sacramental ministry. Of them was the High Priest who was a son of Aaron, who represented all of the Priests and served as the chief sacramental minister. The Elders were legal and moral deputies that oversaw local families and villages outside of Jerusalem. They also had spiritual oversight and were advisors to the King (Deuteronomy 21:2-9; Ruth 4:1-2). The Levites were descendants of Levi but not of Aaron, they were temple servants, helped in preparing for the sacrifices, catechized the people (2 Chron. 17:7-9) and Distributed alms.

New Testament

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of Moses. Acts confirms this when it says, Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers’” (Acts 3:22). In this Jesus is the sum of the ministry, Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus rules over the Earth from heaven and is interceding for us at the right hand of the Father. He left, Apostles, in his stead to represent his full authority as seen in John 20:21. Ephesians 2:20 says the church is, “Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” These Apostles, during their life, set up two offices in the Church: Presbyter/Bishop and Deacon. This New Testament Elder was not just an administer of justice and a ruler, but he also had sacramental authority unlike his Old Testament counterpart. In James, the church is instructed to call upon the elders for the anointing of the sick with prayer. In the Old Covenant this would be only for the priests (Leviticus 14). They are also to administer in teaching, as according to 1 Tim. 3:2. They are also to administer over the sacraments. This authority does not come directly from their office themselves but comes from the Apostles (2 Tim. 2:2). The reason that the elders are given this authority is because the New Covenant is now not tied to the Temple in Jerusalem, but now the sacramental ministry has expanded into the local synagogue as seen in Hebrews 13:10. The function of the local church then is fourfold “…they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42)
To help in the administration of this the Apostles instituted the new Levites: the deacons. These were to administer alms (Acts 6), to catechize (Acts 7 (Stevens sermon), 8:5), and to function as helpers in the Eucharistic liturgy just as the old levites would. We see that in 1 Tim 3:8-13 Deacons are to hold the “mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” This refers to both their belief in Jesus Christ but also their function as helpers in the Eucharistic ministry, in administering it to the people.
After the Apostles died they made successors (just like Joshua) to take their place. It is shown that the Apostles are to be replaced in Acts 1 when Matthias is chosen to be the replacement of Judas in succession of the Apostles. Both Timothy and Titus are these successors given to continue the work of the oversight of the church. Here I would like to make a distinction between what an apostle is and what a Bishop/Elder is. In the New Testament, Bishop and Elder are used interchangeably. This does not mean that there is no distinction between elders. The Apostles chose some elders and appointed them to be presidents over the other elders. Sometimes they are called Apostles. This includes Barnabas who is explicitly called an Apostle in Acts 14:14. The difference between Paul and Barnabas is that Paul is a prophet of Jesus Christ, sent with the authority to write scripture which is infallible. Barnabas is a witness to Christ yes, but he is just delegated the overseeing authority of an Apostle. Later the word Bishop is used to describe an Elder who stands in the place of the Apostles and rules but is also an Elder. Titus and Timothy can be identified as these “ruling elders” by their description of function. In Titus 1:5 Titus is commanded to appoint elders. In 2 Timothy 2:2, Timothy is told to entrust the ministry to faithful men. This shows that both Titus and Timothy had the role of confirming and ordaining new presbyters. This does not mean the Presbyters do not have a role in the laying on of hands, nor that the laity do not have the right to accept or reject a call to the ministry. Rather it means that Timothy and Titus, as overseers, and as heads of the presbytery have the function of chief sacramental officer, ordainers, callers, and confirmers (I will get into the validity of presbyterians ordinations later). All this is to say that in the Old Covenant there was a threefold ministry of Priest, Elder, and Levite, the Early Church had Apostles, Presbyter, and Deacon. And at the time of the last Apostle, John, the Church had given the title Bishop to the successors of the Apostles. I will now show how this is confirmed in the Apostolic Fathers.

Historical
Early Fathers

In the early church fathers we have an almost uniform testimony, and I dont use that lightly, to the Bishops as synodal presiders over the presbytery as objective signs of unity in the church. Our first evidence comes from the book of first Clement, which may have been written by Clement himself or the Presbytery in Rome.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, in as much as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour. – 1 Clement 44

The office of the episcopate here is also referenced to the presbyters. He says, “if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world];” We already understand that the words for Bishop and Presbyter in the text of the New Testament are interchangeable. But here we can see something interesting. The words “Those presbyters” makes a distinction from those presbyters that are not Bishops. This means that a Bishop is a Presbyter but a Presbyter is not a Bishop. In the same way that Peter is an Apostle and an Elder but an Elder is not an Apostle. They are two offices. There is one holy order, that of Jesus Christ, or that of Melchizedek, with three different offices. We see in the previous chapter, chapter 42 that Clement uses this distinction:

Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith. -1 Clement 42

So according to Clement, Jesus Christ, established Apostles, Bishops, and Deacons as the perpetual offices of the Church. In chapter 40 Clement directly ties this to the three-fold order in the old testament, “For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.” So in the church then, as of old there were the High Priest, Priests, and Levites, according to Clement, there are the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. We can see that this fluidity of titles is true according to Jerome. “And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says:
For this cause I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint presbyters in every city, as I had instructed you: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having believing children not accused of wantonness or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God.” … When subsequently one was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. Jerome, Commentary on Titus 1:5
This is not incompatible with the narrative that the Apostles assigned successors which are Bishops. For the Apostles were the ones that selected the elders that would preside over the rest as we have seen in both Clement and Ignatius.
Development
Now that we have described the early church as a presbyterian polity with a stronger episcopal presider, we can move to how this developed into the monarchial episcopate. I think the chief place we can look to, for the sake of time is to look at the overreach of Augustine of Canterbury over the insular Celtic Church.

Augustine summoned the bishops of the nearest province of the Britons and asked them, in accordance with the pope’s command, to enter into a brotherly agreement in the Catholic faith… but they refused to recognize him as their archbishop. If they would obey him in small matters, such as celebrating Easter at the proper time… then he would be willing to bear with them in greater ones. But they refused. If they will not accept peace with their brethren, they shall accept war from their enemies… – Bede, 2.2

This is not the oversight of a episcopal presider, this is authoritarian rule and the beginning of the end of the British Biblical Episcopacy. This is not to say that this form of episcopacy is invalid, the three orders of ministry are present, but it is not the ideal of how Christ set up his church.

Monarchical Overreach

A second issue is the influence of princes and kings in the church. We see this in the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy. In 1309, King Philip IV of France, after attacking the Pope in 1303, and his subsequent death, manipulated the election of the new Pope ensuring Clement V, a Frenchman, would be Pope. He then in 1309 moved the Papacy to Avignon, France. This then led to the Great Western Schism. At the conclusion of the Great Western Schism the bishops and the Pope assumed great political power. This terrible age in the life of the church set the stage for the Reformation. Calvin says in his Necessity of Reforming the Church, “What is the government of the Church under the Papacy but a confused mixture of Church and State, in which the Pope, under the cloak of spiritual authority, exercises a more than kingly power?”

Reformation

By 1517 the Reformation was underway. This began the chaos of figuring out how to govern the church when Bishops were corrupt. John Calvin says,

“Let them then show us a hierarchy in which the bishops are distinguished, but not for refusing to be subject to Christ, in which they depend upon him as the only head, and act solely with reference to him, in which they cultivate brotherly fellowship with each other, bound together by no other tie than his truth; then, indeed, I will confess that there is no anathema too strong for those who do not regard them with reverence, and yield them the fullest obedience. -Calvin, Necessity of Reforming the Church 107

Calvin would have submitted to the Episcopal rule if they were following the teachings of Christ, if they were not so corrupted that they moved back to the synodal understanding of Church government. If they went back to actually doing their God given office, Calvin would have no problem with the office of Bishops. The issue is that the Romish Bishops around Geneva were corrupt.

“Many of the priests openly keep concubines, some are drunkards, and many are wholly unlearned. They bring scandal on the holy sacraments and do more harm than good.”
-Register of the General Council of Geneva, 1520, quoted in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. VIII, §93.

The Bishops of Geneva were not doing there pastoral duty to uproot corruption. The then begs the question. Is presbyterial succession alone valid?
Validity of Presbyterial Succession

In the Alexandrain church of the 2nd & 3rd centuries the church elected its own head Bishop. “In the city of Alexandria, it was the custom that, when the patriarch died, the twelve presbyters would assemble and lay hands on one of their own number and appoint him patriarch.” -Eutychius of Alexandria, Annals, quoted in J.B. Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry, Appendix (Macmillan, 1890), p. 193–194 This is very abnormal for the time period, but seen as valid. According to Apostolic Tradition by Hyppolytus, “Let the bishop be ordained, being elected by all the people. When he has been named and approved, let the presbyters and deacons assemble with the bishop who lays hands on him… Let two or three bishops lay hands on him.”” This lays a precedent for Episcopal ordinations. Also according to the Council of Nicaea, “ A bishop must be appointed by all the bishops of the province; but if this is difficult, at least three must meet to perform the ordination, and the rest give their consent in writing.”” So presbyters electing other presbyters to be Bishops in order to have Episcopal oversight is not unheard of. This shows that in an emergency, presbyterial succession can be used. I think it is safe to say that until the reformation is completed, which I pray is soon, we will need to use presbyterial succession, but I will now show how this is not what the reformers wanted, but in fact they wanted to bring back the episcopate, including Knox and Calvin.

Presbyterian Compatibility
John Knox and the other Johns

In book four of his Church History John Knox claims the church had been purified by the word of God. “And yet in how great purity God did establish amongst us His true religion, as well in doctrine as in ceremonies!” (Knox). Then John Knox speaks of the Superintendents as part of the church (Superintendent being the translation of Bishop into English instead of using the transliteration: Bishop). “There were nominated as superintendents Master John Spottiswood for Lothian….” (Knox). And there were many more instances of his praise of the Superintendents in his book. Along with this the First Book of Discipline, written by John Knox and the other “Johns” includes the Superintendents over the Presbyteries. “Every inferior church shall by one of their seniors and one of their deacons, once in the year, notify unto the ministry of the superintendent’s church, the life, manners, study, and diligence of their ministers, to the end that the discretion of some may correct the lenity of others” (First Book of Discipline). These Superintendents were the heads of Presbytery and filled the functional equivalent of a Bishop over a diocese but had a checked power of the Republican Presbyterian system. Notice how John Knox calls the Church pure, even though it has Bishops. He was not trying to get rid of the Bishops, he was trying to restore synodality. Presbyterianism at its core is a movement of synodality not anti-episcopalianism.

John Calvin

John Calvin, the Reformers of Reformers, according to the church of England, sent a letter to Queen Elizabeth I asking for episcopacy, but the letter was intercepted by papists, and did not come to light until after Calvin’s debt. I will now read the full story from John Strype’s, The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker,

Perusing some papers of our predecessor Matthew Parker, we find that John Calvin, and others of the Protestant churches of Germany and elsewhere, would have had episcopacy, if permitted : but could not upon several accounts, partly fearing the other princes of the Roman Catholic faith would have joined with the Emperor and the rest of the Popish Bishops, to have depressed the same; partly being newly reformed, and not settled, they had not sufficient wealth to support episcopacy, by reason of their daily persecutions. Another, and a main cause was, they would not have any Popish hands laid over their Clergy. And whereas John Calvin had sent a letter in King Edward the VIth’s reign, to have conferred with the Clergy of England about some things to this effect, two Bishops, viz. Gardiner and Boner, intercepted the same: whereby Mr. Calvin’s offerture perished. And he received an answer, as if it had been from the reformed Divines of those times; wherein they checked him, and slighted his proposals: from which time John Calvin and the Church of England were at variance in several points; which otherwise through God’s mercy had been qualified, if those papers of his proposals had been discovered unto the Queen’s Majesty during John Calvin’s life. But being not discovered until or about the sixth year of her Majesty’s reign, her Majesty much lamented they were not found sooner: which she expressed before her Council at the same time, in the presence of her great friends, Sir Henry Sidney, and Sir William Cecil . -John Strype, The life and acts of Matthew Parker 70

The Continental and Scottish faith are not only congruent with the Episcopacy, but the fullness of the Reformed Catholic faith requires Episcopacy. John Knox had it and John Calvin wanted it. The Church of England never got rid of it. This Episcopacy is required for the unity of the reformed catholic faith. As said before, St Clement of Rome said, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate” (1 Clement 44, Schaff). This has been true even through the reformation. As can be seen it wasn’t rejected by any of the pillars of the Reformed faith. The presbyterian church must restore the office of the episcopate of the catholic church.

PCA BCO
The PCA is the perfect Church to test the Knoxian Episcopate on. She is orthodox and conservative. The BCO is flexible enough to test this in at least one presbytery. I am currently in the Susquehanna Presbytery. The Presbytery already chooses an elder to be a moderator of the presbytery. This could be extended to include oversight of other churches for a period of time. This pastor, who is also Bishop according to the BCO, has his membership in the Presbytery and so has teaching authority in all other churches of the presbytery as a visiting brother if accepted by the other pastors. This could be used to, by common consent of the presbytery, test the knoxian synodal model. This is to further unity in the church and bring missional consistency between presbyterian churches. In my area we have 6 PCA churches and many other presbyterian churches that are all at different levels of unity in practice and doctrine. According to Clement,

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry”

They knew that the church would be in disunity without a synodal head, which is why they gave us the Bishops. The Church is always in need of reforming, and I believe that this is the best, biblical way that we can restore unity in the church. I believe that we need to push forward in orthodoxy, confront our paradigms with the bible and tradition and move forward in the unity that Christ prayed us to be in, and I believe that this is the first step. If you want to learn more you can go to reformedpress.org, and also shoot me a dm on Instagram @wyatt_pruitt043 Thank you!
Works Cited

ESV
Calvin, Institutes 4.4.2
Ignatius of Antioch, To the Magnesians 6
Ignatius of Antioch, To the Smyrneans
1 Clement 44
Calvin, Necessity of Reforming the Church

2023 BCO PCA, http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-BCO-PCA.pdf.
“Ante-Nicene Fathers.” Translated by Philip Schaff, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01/anf01.i.html. Accessed 17 July 2024.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge, Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Calvin, Jean, and Casey Carmichael. The Necessity of Reforming the Church: With a Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto. Reformation Trust, a Division of Ligonier Ministries, 2020.
“The First Book of Discipline.” Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 12 July 2014, http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/important-documents/the-first-book-of-discipline-1560/.
Jerome. St. Jerome’s Commentary on Titus.
Knox, John. Edited by Cuthbert Lennox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland , http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48250/48250-h/48250-h.htm. Accessed 6 July 2024.
Lightfoot, J.B. The Christian Ministry. Macmillan, 1890.
(See especially Appendix, pp. 193–194, where Lightfoot quotes from Eutychius of Alexandria’s Annals regarding presbyteral ordination in the early Alexandrian Church.)
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. the Swiss Reformation. Independently Published, 2017.
Strype, John. “The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker .” Internet Archive, 1 Jan. 1698, https://ia600505.us.archive.org/22/items/bim_eighteenth-century_the-life-and-acts-of-mat_strype-john_1711/bim_eighteenth-century_the-life-and-acts-of-mat_strype-john_1711.pdf
“The Westminster Standards.” Reformed Theology at A Puritan’s Mind, http://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/. Accessed 17 July 2024.