5. Let's say it's the most scriptural system! It would be a mistake to see precise details of how it works out in scripture, but the principle is there.
Although Episcopal and Congregational forms of church government were instituted with a good and useful intent, I believe the Presbyterian polity is superior.
I recently found this Martin Chemnitz quote dated 1593-1603. It seems Chemnitz was presbyterian before Presbyterianism.
Quote
Ministry, Word and Sacraments 24 Is a Christian magistrate, therefore, permitted to call and appoint ministers in the church without the will and consent of the ministry and the rest of the church?
As the Roman pontiff, with them who are his, has committed a great sacrilege in this, that he has taken the election and call of ministers away from the church and transferred [it] to himself alone, so a political magistrate also becomes guilty of the same offense when he takes for himself alone the power to appoint the ministries in the church, with the ministry and the rest of the church excluded. For a pious magistrate is not the whole church, but only part of it. Ps 47:9. nor is he the lord of the church, but nursing father (Is 49:23), in fact, its servant (Is 60:10).
25 But do Anabaptists do right, who entrust the whole right of calling to the common multitude (which they take the word ekklesia to mean), with the ministry and pious magistrate excluded?
By no means. For the church in each place is called, and is, the whole body embracing under Christ, the Head, all the members of that place. Eph 4:15-16; 1 Co 12:12-14, 27. Therefore as the call belongs not only to the ministry nor only to the magistrate, so also is it not to be made subject to the mere will [and] whim of the common multitude, for no part, with either one or both [of the others] excluded, is the church. But the call should be and remain in the power of the whole church, but with due order observed.
26 Ought then the whole multitude (especially where it is very large) indiscriminately and without order handle the matter of election and call?
God is not a God of confusion; He rather wants all things to be done and administered decently and in order in the church. 1 Co 14:40. Therefore to avoid confusion, at the time of the apostles and also after their time in the ancient and pure church, the matter of the election and call of ministers of the Word was always handled according to a certain order by the chief members of the church in the name and with the consent of the whole church. Thus the apostles first set forth a directive as to what kind of persons are to be chosen for the ministries of the church. Acts 1:15 ff.; 6:2ff. Then the church, according to that rule of the directive, chose and set forth some. But since the call belongs not only to the multitude or common people in the church, therefore they submitted those who were chosen and nominated to the judgment of the apostles, whether they be fit for that ministry according to the rule of the divine Word. And so the election of the multitude was confirmed by the approval of the apostles.
And thus finally the ministries are committed to those nominated, elected, and called, with the solemn prayer of the whole church and public testimony, namely the laying on of hands. Acts 6:5-6. But since the multitude of the church is not always such that it can search out and propose for election those that are fit, the apostles themselves often nominated suitable persons and proposed them to the churches. Tts 1:5; 1 Ti 1:3, 2 Ti 2:2.
Thus Paul sent Titus, Timothy, [and] Silvanus to churches. But the apostles did not thrust those persons on the churches without either invitation or consent, but nominated or presented them to the churches, which then approved and confirmed that nomination or election with their own free election, as Luke describes this custom with the word cheirotonia, Acts 14:23.
Finally, after the church had grown into a large multitude, a presbytery was arranged and set up already at the very time of the apostles to handle this matter. 1 Ti 4:14. In this [presbytery], according to the accounts of Tertullian and Ambrose, some were chosen and appointed, from all the orders or members of the church, to take care of and administer these and similar church matters in the name and with the consent of the whole church. And thus the call remained that of the whole complete church, yet with proper and decent order observed. The church immediately following diligently followed these apostolic footsteps. And since the government also began to embrace the doctrine of the Gospel, the whole matter of the election and call of ministers was ordinarily best distributed among the three chief orders of the church, namely, clergy, the pious ruler, and the faithful people. Many notable old canons are quoted regarding this rite, Dist. 23, 24, 62, 65, and 67. And the old church histories testify that at times the bishops and clergy proposed persons to be called, at times a pious ruler nominated [them], at times the people requested [them], but they then presented those proposed, nominated and requested persons to the other orders or members of the church, that the election might be approved and confirmed by their judgment and consent, Cyprian, Book 1, Ep. 4; Augustine, Ep. 100. From this there still remain the words nomination, request, presentation, consensus, confirmation, and conferring; from these words, rightly considered, it can be understood how and with what order the call of ministers of the church both was once regulated and ought to be properly administered in our time.
