Saint Andrew’s Chapel’s intent to unite with the Presbyterian Church in America, formally ratified Sunday, June 4, 2023, would appear to be the quintessential case in point of an unpresbyterated church submitting in obedience to jus divinum: divine law.


Editor’s note: This disquisition first was published as “The jure divino basis for an unpresbyterated church submitting to the Presbyterian courts,” on September 18, 2020, as Appendix III in the Complaint of Peter Benyola versus the Central Florida Presbytery, elevated on December 7, 2020, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, becoming SJC (Standing Judicial Commission) Case No. 2020-13. The title here is simplified yet the content is unchanged from its original submission to the PCA judicatories. 

Central Florida Presbytery for nearly a quarter century has been ecclesiastically entangled with an independent church where it allows ministers to labor outside its oversight even within its own geographical jurisdiction, and this situation seems to not be very different from clerical quagmires with independent churches that both Scottish and American Presbyterian churches have trudged in past centuries. One instance is found in the American Presbyterian Church’s Assembly of 1857: 

“The privilege claimed by the Independent ministers, of holding and teaching doctrines not in harmony with the Confession of Faith, is a privilege which, even if harmless in this particular case, might be abused as a precedent, and lead in other quarters and in other relations to serious mischief … in the event that the Independent ministers and churches cannot relinquish their particularities, with a good conscience, this Assembly will cherish them in the bonds of a Christian love but it cannot see its way clear to embrace them in the same denomination.”
(Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (Old School), 1857, p. 42)

Certain authors of the Westminster Assembly, the ministers of Sion College, asserted, 

The Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XXXI. Of Synods and Councils
1. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils: and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.

An Advertisement to the Pious and Judicious Reader
“A perfect enumeration and description of scandals can be made in no book, but in the Scriptures; and when all is done, must we not refer to that? All scandals are punishable as well as any; to inflict penalties on some and not on others as bad or worse is inexcusable partiality. Why should not presbyteries duly constituted, especially the greater [ones], be accounted at least as faithful, intelligent, prudent [as an individual curate], and every way as competent judges of what is scandal [or] what not, according to Scriptures, and that without arbitrariness and tyrannicalness, as any civil court, committee or commissioners or whatever? Ruling church assemblies are entrusted with the whole government in the church, consequently, with this and every part. The best reformed churches allow to their presbyteries power to keep scandalous persons from the ordinances … Therefore, no new thing is desired but what is commonly practiced in the Reformed Churches, whom we should imitate as far as they lead us on towards purity and perfection.”
(Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, p. 46) 

Part One: Of the Nature of Divine Right
Chapter Two. Of the nature of a jus divinum or a divine right in general
“It is so obligatory unto all churches in the whole Christian world, that they ought uniformly to submit themselves unto it in all the substantials of it so far as is possible. For a jus divinum is equally obligatory to all persons, states and degrees, that none ought to be exempted from that church government which is jure divino, nor to be tolerated in another church government which is but jure humano; nor ought any Christian to seek after or content himself with any such exemption or toleration. For in so doing, inventions of men are preferred before the ordinances of God; our own wisdom, will, authority before the wisdom, will, authority of Christ. And we should in effect say, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us’ (Luke 19:27); ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their cords away from us’ (Ps. 2:3).”
(ibid., p. 59)

Part Two: Of the Nature of that Church Government which is of Divine Right According to the Scripture
Chapter Three. Of the genus or general nature of church government, power & authority.
“About persons, the church also has a power to be exercised, for calling them to their duty and keeping them in their duty according to the Word of God: [such] as, {to charge the elders, ‘Take heed to yourselves, and the whole flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers’ (Acts 20:28); to say to Archippus, ‘take heed to the ministry that you fulfill it’ (Col. 4:17);} to rebuke them before all, that sin before all (1 Tim. 5:20); to elect deacons (Acts 6:2-3, etc.); to ordain elders (Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23); to use the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the dispensing of all ordinances (Matt. 18:18-20 and John 20:21-23 with Matt. 28:18-20); and in a word (as the cause shall require) to judge of all them that are within the church (1 Cor. 5:12).
This is the power and authority wherein the nature of church government generally does consist.”
(ibid., pp. 93-94) 

The Three Forms of Unity are not Presbyterian, although they sometimes appear in PCA liturgy.

The Belgic Confession
Article 30: The Government of the Church
“We believe that this true Church must be governed according to the Spiritual order which our Lord has taught us in his Word. There should be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God, and to administer the sacraments; there should also be elders and deacons who, together with the pastors, form the council of the Church. By these means they preserve the true religion; they see to it that the true doctrine takes its course, that evil men are disciplined in a spiritual way, and are restrained, and also that the poor and all the afflicted are helped and comforted according to their need. By these means everything will be done well, and in good order when faithful men are chosen in agreement with the rule that the apostle Paul gave to Timothy.” 

In 1843, Thomas Smyth, a graduate of Princeton Seminary in 1831 and four-decade Presbyterian pastor in South Carolina, published An Ecclesiastical Catechism of the Presbyterian Church, stating the obligation of church courts to use their power of discipline over its officers and members.

Chapter 5. Power of the church
Section 7. Of admission to, and exclusion from, the church.
Are the rulers of the church deeply responsible for the right exercise of discipline?
They who hold office by appointment from Christ, whose faithfulness will be followed by so many and great blessings, whose negligence must be the source of such deep and lasting injuries to the church, dishonor to Christ, and evil to sinners; should feel themselves under a most solemn responsibility in this matter, and must expect to be called to a most strict account at the day of judgment, for the part which they act in relation to it.
(I Peter 5:4, Hebrews 13:17) 

He also execrated the folly of churches that refuse to unite with the larger body of Christ’s visible church and its common government. I recommend these answers may be useful for Presbytery as the Court encourages our own teaching elders who run Saint Andrew’s to reform their codified prelacy, which is a jure humano autocracy, and to finally presbyterate their particular church into alignment with our Reformed and Presbyterian polity, commensurate with their ordination vows. 

Chapter 2. Government of the church.
Section 2. Of the Presbyterian form of church government.
73. Is it, then, necessary, in order to constitute any particular church Presbyterian, that it should be in formal connection with a presbytery?
It has certainly been the unvarying doctrine of the Presbyterian church, founded on the word of God, that all particular churches should be united together, under one presbyterial government; and that any church, therefore, which remains in a state of isolated independency, or goes back to that condition, cannot be considered as a truly Presbyterian church.
74. What do you mean by the supreme headship of Jesus Christ?
By the supreme Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ, I mean, that under him the whole number of the elect shall be collected into one house and family of God; that he has given to the catholic visible church the ministry and ordinances, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life, to the end of the world; that he does, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto; and that further, besides the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no other Head of the church having authority to legislate for it, or to frame laws and institute officers, binding on the consciences of men.
(Psalm 2:6, Matthew 28:20, I Peter 5:3) 

Chapter 4. Courts of the church.
Section 3. Of the presbytery.
167. What is the design and use of a presbytery?
It is a court of appeal from church sessions; it affords an opportunity for mutual consultation and advice; it is a bond of visible union; as authority, to which common submission is due, and by which is ordered whatever pertains to the spiritual welfare of the churches under its care.
168. What is the Scriptural warrant for presbyteries, as courts of the church?
The first argument is found in the ordinance of God, instituted by Moses, by which particular congregations were taught to bring their hard and difficult controversies to a superior ecclesiastical judicatory. This order was reestablished by Jehoshaphat, who established an ecclesiastical senate at Jerusalem, to receive complaints and judge causes brought before them. This form of government is also commended unto us by David, as the praise of Jerusalem. So that the ecclesiastical assemblies and synagogues in Israel were not independent, but were under the government of superior courts.
(Deuteronomy 17:8-12, II Chronicles 19:8-11, Psalm 122:4-5)
169. But how does this establish any authority for such courts now?
Because they formed no part of the ceremonial law, but were based upon the principles of common and perpetual equity; and therefore are such courts equally in accord with the Divine will, and advantageous to the church now.
(cf. WCF 19.4, WLC 120)
170. What other argument can you give for the establishment of such courts in the Christian church?
They are required by that rule of discipline laid down by our Lord, for its government: tell it unto the church. For, since Christ here gave no rule, the Christian church not being organized, but appeals to one already familiar, he must have referred to the practice of the synagogue discipline already described; and must, therefore, be considered as teaching that particular churches are not independent, but are to be in subjection to superior judicatories.
(Matthew 18:15-20)
Section 6. Of the Presbytery concluded.
180. Is it necessary that all churches should be thus united together in one presbyterial government?
All the churches of Christ are certainly under obligation to conform to that primitive and scriptural order which is divinely authorized.
181. Why are they under this obligation?
Because the church, being a divine institution and not a mere voluntary or human society, particular churches are not at liberty to set aside any of the rules of Christ’s kingdom, and are therefore bound, if they have opportunity, to combine themselves into presbyteries for spiritual government.
182. Do they, by neglecting this order, commit evil?
Yes; all that neglect it offend against the communion of saints, and walk not as members of the Body of Christ.
(Romans 12:5, I Corinthians 12:25, Ephesians 4:16)
183. Do congregations, and their members, owe submission to the decrees of their presbyteries?
Such decrees are recognized by Jesus Christ, so far as they are in accord with his statutes, as contained in the Word of God; and to resist them, therefore, is, in such a case, to despise the authority of Christ.
(Matthew 16:19, cf. Isaiah 8:20, Acts 4:19)
184. Of what sin are churches guilty, who thus reject the scriptural determinations of their ecclesiastical courts?
Those churches which reject the sentence and determination of their church courts, when consonant to Scripture, commit a double sin; first, by transgressing against the written word of God; and secondly, by despising the ordinance of God, and throwing contempt upon the authority of his officers. For churches are just as much bound to their superior courts as are individual members to their particular churches; that is, so far as they act according to the truth and will of God.

Chapter 7. Relation of the Presbyterian Church to other denominations and to the world.
Section 2. Of prelacy.
306. Is there any thing else in the prelacy to which Presbyterians object?
Yes; they object to the power of ordination, and other ecclesiastical functions, being vested exclusively in the unscriptural order of prelates, since this makes void the word of God, and leads to spiritual despotism. Again; they object to the unscriptural distinction between consecration, or the setting apart of prelates, and ordination, or the setting apart of presbyters, to the work of the Gospel ministry, as being wholly unauthorized by the word of God.
(I Timothy 4:14, Matthew 20:25, 27)
Section 5. The advantages and claims of the Presbyterian church.
326. Name some of the further advantages possessed by members of the Presbyterian church?
They possess the right of choosing their own pastors and elders; they are neither subject to the spiritual despotism of a priesthood, nor to anarchy and misrule; they can bring any matter, — whether it be unfaithfulness in ministers or elders, or in the other officers and members of the church, or errors in doctrine, — before the church courts, composed of an equal proportion of clergymen and of representatives of the people, chosen by themselves, for investigation and decision; and they have the privilege and power, when their rights as 
citizens of Zion are assailed, of appealing from one church court to another. 

John Murray wrote,

VI. Chapter 26. The Nature and Unity of the Church
“But while spurious unity is to be condemned, the lack of unity among churches of Christ which profess the faith in its purity is a patent violation of the unity of the body of Christ, and of that unity which the prayer of our Lord requires us to promote. We cannot escape from the implications for us by resorting to the notion of the invisible church. The body of Christ is not an invisible entity, and the prayer of Jesus was directed to the end that the world might believe. The unity prayed for was one that would bear witness to the world, and therefore belonged to the realm of the observable. The implications for visible confession and witness are unavoidable.
It is to be admitted that the fragmentation and lack of co-ordination and solidarity which we find within strictly evangelical and Reformed Churches create a difficult situation, and how this disunity is to be remedied ‘in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace’ is a task not easily accomplished. But what needs to be indicted, and indicted with vehemence, is the complacency so widespread, and the failure to be aware that this is an evil, dishonouring to Christ, destructive of the edification denied by the apostle ‘as the increase of the body into the building up of itself in love’ (Eph. 4:16), and prejudicial to the evangelistic outreach to the world. If we are once convinced of this evil, the evil of schism in the body of Christ, the evil of disruption in the communion of saints, then we have made great progress. We shall then be constrained to preach the evil, to bring conviction to the hearts of others also, to implore God’s grace and wisdom in remedying the evil, and to devise ways and means of healing these ruptures, to the promotion of united witness to the faith of Jesus and the whole counsel of God.”
(Collected Writings of John Murray Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 335)

VI. Chapter 27. The Government of the Church
“The government exercised by men must always be conducted in accordance with the institution and will of Christ. It is a complete travesty of all order and authority in the church of Christ for the governmental affairs of the church to be arranged and conducted without constant reference to that revelation in which alone does Christ make known to us his will for the regulation of that which stands in no less intimate relation to him than his body, his church, the church for which he gave himself, that he might present it as the church glorious, holy and without blemish.
We act presumptuously, and take false refuge from our failure, when we so concentrate upon the eschatological realization of Ephesians 5:25-27 that we do not bring the various facets of its teaching to bear upon the jealousy for Christ’s honour and will with which we seek to conduct the government of the church. This is just saying that Ephesians 4:11-16, in respect of the implications for good government, sustains the closer relation to Ephesians 5:25-27 even in its eschatological consummation. …
The presbyterate is the form of government for the church of Christ. … Rule by elders is the apostolic institution for the government of the local congregation, and this involves the principles of plurality and parity. The inference is inescapable that this is a permanent provision for the government of the churches. Since the apostolate is not permanent, and since there is in the New Testament no other provision for the government of the local congregation, we must conclude that the council of elders is the only abiding institution for the government of the church of Christ according to the New Testament. …
The unity of the body must come to expression in every phase of the church’s activity. If we think in terms of
koinonia, whether the idea is that of fellowship or participation, in either case independency violates the principle of interdependence and mutual exchange which the fellowship involves. …
In the body of Christ the organic connection is such, that if one member suffers the whole body suffers. Are we to suppose that there is no redress that can be made by the whole body, when maladministration in one member of the churches of Christ imperils the health of the whole body? Surely the intimacy of relationship is such that not only is correction a mercy and blessing, but an obligation. …
We may not discount the example of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). The church at Antioch conferred with the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, and they determined the question in debate, not only for the church at Antioch, but for all the churches (Acts 16:4). It is all the more striking that the church should have resorted to such deliberation, and to this method of resolving an issue, since it was the era of special revelation (cf. the difference between this method and that exemplified in the case of Cornelius and the admission of the Gentiles—Acts 10).
There is provided for us a pattern of consultation and adjudication that cannot be neglected in the permanent government of the church. … The only permanent institution for government is the eldership, the presbuterion. In some way or other, this institution is the means whereby corporate government is to be effected. We should keep in mind that the gifts Christ bestows are for the good, for the edification of the whole body. It is consonant with this ecumenical extension of the relevance of gifts that the gifts for rule, as well as those for other phases of ministry, should be brought to bear upon the edification of the whole church, as well as upon the local congregation.”
(ibid., pp. 340, 342-344)

VI. Chapter 28. The Form of Government
“While it is all-important to maintain and promote presbyterian government on the level of the local congregation, and to recognize all the rights and prerogatives belonging to this presbuterion, yet it is also necessary to appreciate the broader fellowship that obtains in the church of Christ. In the presbyterian tradition this has come to expression in the gradation of courts of jurisdiction. This is a reasonable and proper way of giving expression to the unity of the church of Christ. It should be recognized that there is much in the form of organization and procedure adopted in presbyterian churches that cannot plead the authority of the New Testament. And the reason why certain forms of organization and procedure have been adopted and practised, which cannot plead the prescription or warrant of Scripture itself, is simply the recognition that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, in accord with the general principles of the Word of God. Much in the actual polity of the church falls into this category and we must guard against the notion that differences in the form of organization, and particularly in mode of procedure, necessarily violate the biblical principles of presbyterian government. There is much room for variety, and the church of Christ is always under the necessity of devising and adopting better forms of procedure and organization which tradition may have established.
But the main consideration at this point is that the unity of government exemplified in the gradation of courts of jurisdiction is a principle which belongs to the form of government which the New Testament sets forth. In the history of the church several facts have been appealed to in support of this principle of inclusive or expansive jurisdiction. The example of the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15 has been adduced, and that not without warrant. Apostolic example has the force of divine prescription. And the church at Antioch, in connection with the dissension that arose concerning circumcision, deemed it proper to send Paul and Barnabas and others to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles and elders about this question. The apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. The decrees that were issued by the council were regarded as having regulative force throughout the whole church. For we read that Paul and Silas on Paul’s second missionary journey, as they went through the cities, ‘delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem’ (Acts 16:4).
The consideration, however, that should be deemed primarily and basic in this connection is the unity and community of the church as the body of Christ. The local congregation is indeed the church of Christ, but so are all the assemblies of God’s people. The unity that belongs to the body of Christ must come to expression in government, as well as in the other functions which are properly those of the church. That each congregation should be entirely independent in its government is incompatible with the oneness of the body of Christ. ‘There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye were called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism: one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all’ (Eph. 4:4-6). The co-ordination and subordination exemplified in presbyterian churches are the expression in the sphere of government of this unity. In any case, there must be some way of bringing this unity to expression. And the only feasible way is that the whole church should be governed by a presbuterion that will be as widely representative as the church itself. All that is absolutely essential in terms of the New Testament is that government be as inclusive as the whole body. The particular ways of applying this ecumenity of government are but the expedients of Christian prudence in accord with the general principles of the word.”
(ibid., pp. 349-350) 

Besides providing an overview of ecclesiology and polity in his systematic theology, Dr. Murray intermittently mentioned that although the invisible church exists, the emphasis of the New Testament is on the visible church: the institution. Why? Because during the decades that Dr. Murray served in the church and in the seminary, he observed that the recognition of the universal body of Christ and tolerance for other expressions of the church was, whether intended or not, leading to deterioration of the Presbyterian form of government that God requires for his visible church. Dr. Murray was ceding that although the true church of Christ is comprised of all the truly faithful who are united in Christ, that fact should not become an excuse for the church to allow latitudinarianism and laxity toward the God-ordained structure for his covenant assembly.

According to the principle of corporate solidarity, elders’ transgressions can jeopardize the entire covenant community to become subject to the sanctions of divine covenant, especially when their people capitulate to evil and deviance. All who are invested with our Prime Minister’s authority, those who rule as well as those who are ruled, are admonished by a prophetic passage entitled “Judgment on Arrogance and Oppression” in the English Standard Version. 

“The people did not turn to him who struck them,
nor inquire of the LORD of hosts.
So the LORD cut off from Israel head and tail,
palm branch and reed in one day —
the elder and honored man is the head,
and the prophet who teaches lies is the tail;
for those who guide this people have been leading them astray,
and those who are guided by them are swallowed up.”
(Isaiah 9:13-16) 

(Psalm 94:20) “Can wicked rulers be allied with you [the LORD],
those who frame injustice by statute?” 

“In Prov. 31:23 the city elders are referred to as ‘the elders of the land.’ If the text of 1 Kings 20:7 is correct, this expression apparently could also refer to a more or less ad hoc consultative body representing the interests of the local communities at the royal court (cf. Jer. 26:17). At all events, the story of Naboth’s vineyard suggests elders readily abdicated their traditional obligations and became identied with the interests of the monarchy and its ruling elite (1 Kings 21:1-14). Isaiah places their perversion of justice within the context of their responsibilities as ‘the elders of his [God’s] people’ (Isa. 3:14). Those who should have been a ‘support’ and a ‘guide’ to the people have led them astray and will be ‘cut off from Israel’ (3:1-3; 9:14-16; cf. Ezek. 8:11-12). Isaiah, however, looks forward to the prospect of a cleansed and renewed Jerusalem, when God will reign on Mt. Zion ‘and before its elders, gloriously’ (24:23; cf. 1:26; Exod 24:9-11; Rev 4).”
(New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Vol. 1, K.T. Aitken, pp. 1138-1139) 

It seems that a church’s eldership whose documented rulings demonstrate that they are perverting justice and rebelling against jure divino government, while also depending on that same jure divino, should render right judgment upon their own vicious errors and delinquencies, and swiftly make amends — before they incur the Lord’s judgment upon themselves and the entire congregation.

As Presbytery helps imbue in the members of Saint Andrew’s a sense of their jure divino intrinsic prerogatives, I encourage with the sage, hopeful advice of authors of the Westminster Assembly: 

“The commodity which may probably accrue hereupon, we hope shall be manifold. For:
1. Who can tell but that some of them that in some things are misled and contrary-minded may be convinced and re-gained? And it will be no small reward of our labors, if but one erring brother may be reduced.
2. Some satisfaction may redound to such as are of pendulous, doubtful, unresolved minds, by removing their doubts and scruples, and ripening of their resolutions to pitch more safely in point of church government.
3. Those that as yet are unseen [inexperienced; unread] in the matter of church government, or that want [lack] money to buy, or leisure to read many books upon this subject, may here have much in a little, and competently inform themselves of the whole body of the government.
4. Consequently upon the attaining of the former ends, the work of reformation will be much facilitated and smoothed, the hearts of the people being prepared for the Lord and His ordinances.
5. The present attempt (if it reach not to that completeness and satisfaction which is desired) may yet incite some of our brethren of more acute and polished judgments to embark themselves for some further discoveries for the public benefit of the church.
6. But though it should fall out that in all the former we should be utterly disappointed, we shall [still] have this peace and comfort in our own spirits, that we have not hidden our talents in the earth, nor neglected to bear witness to this part of Christ’s truth touching the government of His church by His kingly power, in which Christ was opposed so much in all ages (Ps. 2:1-3; Luke 19:14, 27; Acts 4), and for which Christ did suffer so much in a special and immediate manner as some have observed. For this end Christ came into the world (and for this end we came into the ministerial calling): to bear witness to the truth.”
(Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, pp. 40-41) 

Yet, Bannerman said, we cannot effect in others a heart change toward divine precepts. Our duty is to do everything in our power to help people understand how God designed the Church of Christ. 

Part II. Power of the Church
Chapter III. The Nature of Church Power
“To secure the belief and obedience of men to the Word of God, the Church may and ought to put forth her power to teach, to instruct, to persuade, to preach the Gospel, and enforce it by the authority of God, who has revealed it. Anything beyond this exercise of spiritual authority defeats the very end intended, and, so far from securing, prevents the belief of the truth by men that they may be saved. A compulsory power can never secure my belief: it may force my submission, or hypocritical pretence of submission, to certain truths, but not the conviction of the understanding or the assent of the heart. It is not sufficient to say that a power not spiritual, by compulsory, ought not to be employed to secure my belief in the truth of God. The true state of the case is, that a power compulsory, and not spiritual, cannot be so employed. The very nature of the object to be attained renders it not merely improper, but impossible. The ‘potestas …’ is a spiritual authority on the part of the Church to be a witness and interpreter, ministerially, of the truth of God to the consciences and understandings of men; and it is essentially incompatible with any power addressed to aught but the conscience and the understanding.”
(The Church of Christ, James Bannerman, pp. 236-237) 


The points set forth in this disquisition are integral to a broader systematic view of Reformed and Presbyterian ecclesiology. For important further study, refer to the Fundamentals of Presbyterianism 2020 article series, which then became Appendix VI in the September 18, 2020 Complaint of Peter Benyola versus the Central Florida Presbytery (cf. SJC 2020-13): 
Why ecclesiology is important for Christians, Fundamentals of Presbyterianism, part 1
God’s apostolic model for elders in graded church courts, Fundamentals of Presbyterianism, part 2
God’s decree of congregational right to elect church officers, Fundamentals of Presbyterianism, part 3
God’s design for orderly discipline in graded church courts, Fundamentals of Presbyterianism, part 4
The folly of corrupt clergy who rape Christ’s bride of her electoral rights, Fundamentals of Presbyterianism, part 5

The pernicious erosion of ‘prelatic developments’ upon Presbyterian parity, plurality (originally Appendix II in the Complaint of Peter Benyola versus the Central Florida Presbytery)
The libertine menace of an unenforced Confessional Subscription (originally Appendix V in the Complaint of Peter Benyola versus the Central Florida Presbytery)

ecclesiology, polity, Presbyterianism