Chapter 3 — Form of Church-Government.

CHAPTER 3 — FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT.

I. BEFORE we proceed to inquire particularly concerning the constitution of the Church, as established under the apostolic administration, we will consider the light in which the acts and doings of the apostles in the premises should be viewed by the Church in all succeeding ages, and the extent to which they should be considered of binding authority. From the supreme authority with which the apostles were invested, and the divine inspiration with which they were endued, it does not necessarily follow that they acted under the sanction of this authority, and under the guidance of this inspiration, in all the minute history of their lives. In Galatians 2:11-13, St. Paul speaks as follows: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him.” Here we find Peter, one of the inspired and divinely-commissioned apostles, acting with dissimulation, and receiving the righteous reprimand of St. Paul. No one can suppose that Peter, in this case, was acting under the authority of that divine commission he had received of the Lord Jesus, or that he had a right to claim, while acting in contravention of the spirit of the mission, the fulfillment of the promise — “Lo, I am with you alway.”

In 1 Corinthians 7:6, St. Paul says: “But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” On this verse Dr. Clarke remarks: “We may understand the apostle here as saying that the directions already given were from his own judgment, and not from any divine inspiration; and we may take it for granted that when he does not make this observation he is writing under the immediate afflatus of the Holy Spirit.” Seeing, then, from these scriptures, that the apostles themselves were liable, in some cases, to err, and did not profess to speak at all times under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is matter of special importance to us to be able certainly to distinguish their errors from their authoritative acts, and their personal advice from their divinely-inspired instructions. To admit that there are no means by which we may gain a knowledge of this distinction, would be to shroud the New Testament in obscurity, and greatly weaken its authority; but we are not left, in this matter, to be tossed upon the waves of uncertainty.

We inquire therefore, How may we arrive at the knowledge in question? As the apostles were specially commissioned to establish and organize the Christian Church, and endued with miraculous powers and plenary inspiration, for the accomplishment of this great work, we view it as a matter of clear and necessary inference that in all their official arts and instructions they were so guided by the Spirit of unerring truth that all they did and said, belonging or in anywise appertaining to the great work for which they had been set apart, was of divine authority and perpetual obligation. And as the Scriptures of the New Testament are presented under the divine sanction as the infallible record of the gospel system, containing the history of its Divine Author, of his death, resurrection, ascension, and glorification, together with the setting up, under apostolic administration, of the Church, and all doctrines and regulations necessary for its permanence and prosperity, we infer that whatsoever may be recorded erroneous in the conduct, or of mere human advice in the teachings, of the apostles, are only the exceptions to the general rule; and as such, the New Testament itself, by the manner in which such facts are recorded or such instructions are delivered, will clearly show that they are exceptions. We therefore conclude that the example, the institutions, the regulations, and the instructions of the apostles, are of divine authority, and of permanent obligation, except when the Scriptures themselves plainly indicate to the contrary.

II. We now inquire concerning the FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND POLITY according to which the New Testament Church has been organized. In entering upon this subject, the first question to be considered is this. Has any particular form of Church-government been laid down in the New Testament?

In modern times, a numerous portion of the followers of Christ have adopted the negative side of the question now before us. Assuming that Christ and his apostles laid down for the Church which they reared “no particular form of government,” many have proceeded to erect and organize ecclesiastical fabrics, according to their own conceptions of propriety or expediency, until Christendom has become severed into an almost endless number of dissimilar institutions, resembling each other as little as the diversified systems of political rule throughout the known world. The causes which have tended to give currency to this sentiment, and its pernicious influence upon Christianity itself, we will not now consider. It is our present business to examine its claims to truth. Is it true that Christ and his apostles have established no particular form of Church-government?

The position that no particular form of government has been established for the New Testament Church, upon the admission that such a Church has been established, seems to us to imply all absurdity. How can we conceive of a Church without a government? or of a government without a form? The very idea seems too ethereal for comprehension. As well might we speak of a house without a form, or of a world without a form, as of a government without a form. Form is something which necessarily inheres in all created substances, whether material or immaterial, whether simple or complex. It is essential to their very existence. Who can conceive of a political government without a form? It may be irregular in its arrangements, incongruous in its parts, or rough-hewn in its aspects, but if it be a government it must have a form. It may come under none of the heads, according to the definitions commonly given, of the different forms of government; but, without a form of some kind, it would not be a government at all.

Some who aver that “no particular form of Church-government is laid down in the New Testament,” say they do not mean that there is “no form of Church-government therein laid down,” but “no particular form,” etc. If this be the position, then we demand: What is meant by “a particular form”? Is not one form as much “a particular form” as another? If not, what form is that which comes under the definition of particular? Perhaps the meaning of some who use the phrase is, that “no one form of government is established more than, or in preference to, another.” If the shift be made to this position, then we reply that one or the other of two things must be true. If “no one form of government be established more than, or in preference to, another,” then it will follow either that no form at all is established or that various forms are established. For if one form is established, and others are not, it is clear that one is more established than others. But if the position be taken in real sincerity, that Christ and his apostles established various forms of government for the gospel Church, then we demand: What were those various forms of government? In what did their essential difference consist? If there was an essential difference between them, was not one preferable to the others? If one was preferable to the others, why was not that one universally established? Was there an essential difference in human nature, or in the nature of true Christianity, in different places, that rendered these various systems of Church-government necessary? Did the same apostle establish different systems of Church-government? or did Paul establish one system, Peter another, and James another? Was one an Episcopalian, another a Presbyterian, and another a Congregationalist?

But, seeing the absurdity of all these positions, we are inclined to believe that the real meaning of those who contend that “Christ and his apostles established no particular form of Church-government,” is that they established no Church-government whatever. Assuming, then, that this is the true meaning of the position against which we are now contending, we may dismiss from the controversy the words “particular” and “form” as mere expletives, and then the question will be narrowed down to one single point: Did Christ and his apostles establish any Church-government? To comprehend this subject thoroughly, it will be necessary for us to inquire: What is the Christian Church? The word Church is, in the Greek, ekklhsia, which means a congregation assembled for purposes of business, whatever be the character of the business. A Church may properly be said to be established whenever a society or congregation is organized — that is, when arrangement is made for the regular meeting of the congregation and the transaction of business therein, according to established order or rule. But, in a religious sense, by a Church is generally understood “a congregation of faithful men, in which the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered, according to Christ’s ordinances, in those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” From the foregoing, it appears that, according to the generally received sentiment, a Church is a regularly-organized religious association, or society. Now, to our mind, it is difficult to conceive of such a society without a government. If the society be organized, it must be organized according to some constitution or rule; and that constitution or rule would form the basis of government. To suppose that Christ and his apostles established the Christian Church, and yet that they prescribed no rule, no order, no fixed principle, for the transaction of business, no government for the regulation of the ecclesiastical body which they created, is a position which, judging a priori, we must consider exceedingly improbable. In view of the nature and fitness of things, and judging from the general analogy of the works and administration of God, prima facie evidence is