Questions on Chapter 3.

manifestly against it; and we should be slow to subscribe to the sentiment in the absence of clear and decided proof of its correctness. QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 3.

QUESTION 1. To what extent were the apostles under the influence of divine inspiration?

2. What proof is given in support of this position?

3. By what rule may we decide when they were and when they were not inspired?

4. What is the first question proposed as to the form of Church-government?

5. How is the question answered?

6. What evil results have followed from an erroneous position on this question?

7. How is the position that the Scriptures establish “no particular form of Church-government” shown to be absurd?

8. How have the abettors of this erroneous view shifted their ground, and how is it shown that in all its phases their position is alike untenable?

9. How is the Christian Church defined?

10. Is the position that “no form of Church-government has been established” reconcilable with the definition given of the Church? CHAPTER 4. — FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT —

SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY — THE OLD TESTAMENT.

DID Christ and his apostles establish any particular form of Church-government? We proceed to examine the Scripture testimony in reference to this question.

1. Our first argument from Scripture is founded upon the general analogy between the law and the gospel.

The law and the gospel are the two great and important divine institutions constituting the leading subject-matter of revelation. The one is the prominent theme of the Old Testament and the other the engrossing topic of the New. The law was properly introductory to and typical of the gospel; and so intimate and important was the connection between them, that the law derived all its excellence, its life, vigor, and efficacy, from that gospel which it foreshadowed, and by the introduction of which it was to be superseded, while the gospel is a comment upon the mysteries of the law — the substance of which the law was the shadow, and the “bringing in of a better covenant,” as an abiding substitute for that which was “ready to vanish away.”

In connection with these evidences of the intimate relation subsisting between the law and the gospel, and the constant reference had by the former to the latter, when we remember the emphatic and minute sense in which the numerous parts of the complicated Mosaic system were prescribed and enjoined by the direct authority of God, it will appear unreasonable to suppose that the government of the Christian Church should be left in a state of vagueness and uncertainty. In the law of Moses, the introductory and inferior dispensation, the utmost pains are taken that all things may be explicit; but are we to suppose that in the gospel of Christ, the superior dispensation, “shadows, clouds, and darkness,” are to rest upon the institution? In an institution of types and symbols, we find clear and specific arrangements; but in an institution of substance and reality, are we to look for obscurity and uncertainty? In a transient system, we find the organization and government, in their numerous features and minute details, specifically prescribed and rigidly enjoined; but, in a permanent system, are we to be told that no definite organization or form of government is laid down?

In the Mosaic economy, specific instructions are given for the adjustment of all the parts of the system — the furniture of the temple, its altars and its offerings, its priests and its services, the worshipers and their duties, the fasts and the feasts, the ordinances and the commandments, all, all these are deemed sufficiently important to receive the divine regard — but are the organization and government of the Christian Church to be passed over as mere circumstances, as matters of indifference, or of so trivial importance that all men are to be left to the entire guidance of their own peculiar notions of fitness, propriety, or expediency? To our mind, the analogical argument based upon the peculiar character of the Mosaic institution, and its connection with the gospel, furnishes strong, presumptive evidence against the hypothesis, that “no particular form of Church-government is laid down in the New Testament.”

2. Our next argument upon this question is based upon the essential identity of the Church under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations. Upon this point, we adopt the remarks of Mr. Watson in his Biblical and Theological Dictionary — Art. “CHURCH”:

“The Christian Church is not another Church, but the very same that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and interested in the same covenant. Great alterations, indeed, were made in the outward state and condition of the Church by the coming of the Messiah. The carnal privileges of the Jews, in their separation from other nations to give birth to the Messiah, then failed, and with that also their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham. The ordinances of worship suited to that state of things then expired, and came to an end. New ordinances of worship were appointed, suitable to the new light and grace which were then bestowed upon the Church. The Gentiles came into the faith of Abraham along with the Jews, being made joint-partakers with them in his blessing. But none of these things, nor the whole collectively, did make such an alteration in the Church, but that it was still one and the same. The olive-tree was still the same, only some branches were broken off, and others grafted into it.” When we see, therefore, that the Church of God is the same Church under the gospel that it was under the law, is it reasonable to suppose that under the law there should be a specific organization and ecclesiastical polity, divinely prescribed, but that under the gospel there is no divine prescription on the subject? Under the law, the Church of God was a divine institution — a society or community of persons organized and placed under an ecclesiastical regimen or government by the authority of God. Now, if under the gospel there be no society or association of persons organized, and placed under a system of ecclesiastical regimen or government, by the appointment and authority of God, we demand, how can two societies, or associations, be essentially the same, when so radically variant, in all that is necessary to constitute a society?

If there be no Church-government laid down in the New Testament, as of divine authority, then it follows that the New Testament Church is under no government whatever, or under a government of human origin and authority. But, as we have seen, the Old Testament Church was under a government of divine origin and authority. Now, if it be said that the New Testament Church is under no government at all, then, we ask, how can a society or Church, under an organization and government of divine authority, be essentially the same with a society or Church destitute of any organization or government whatever? Organization and government seem to us to be essential to the very existence of a society or Church. How, then, we repeat, can a society or Church, under an organization and government of divine origin, be essentially the same with something which is destitute of what is essential to the very existence of a society or Church? But if it be said that the New Testament Church is under an organization and government of human origin and authority, then, we ask, how such a society can be essentially the same with one divinely constituted?

3. Our third argument on this subject is founded upon the fact that Christ and the gospel Church are, in Scripture, designated by terms and appellations, necessarily implying a specific and definite organization and government.

In the Old Testament, the language of prophecy speaks of the coming Messiah and of gospel times in terms which can scarcely be intelligibly interpreted, but upon the supposition that Christ has instituted a Church with a specific organization and government.

The Messiah is repeatedly spoken of by the prophets as a King, and his Church as a kingdom. “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Psalm 2:6-8. Here the Messiah is denominated a King. He is represented as publishing his laws — “I will declare the decree” — and as extending his dominion over the Gentiles — “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,” etc.

In Isaiah 9:6, 7, he is styled the “Prince of Peace;” and it is added: “Of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no end.” Isaiah 32:1: “Behold a King shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.” Daniel 2:44: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,” etc.

But in what sense, we ask, are we to understand these predictions? Surely no Christian will construe them, like the blinded Jew, as referring to an earthly monarch. While we do not construe the kingdom of Messiah as referring to an earthly monarchy, on the other hand we should not restrict it to the internal dominion over the heart, and thus fall into the error of the Mystic or the Quaker. Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world;” but, at the same time, he came to establish a new institution of a peculiarly excellent order. He said to Peter: “On this rock will I build my Church;” hence it is evident that the kingdom of Messiah, foretold by prophets, was not only to consist of righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost — of internal principles of holiness — but it was to consist of an outward, visible Church. Assuming, then, that the kingdom of Christ referred to by the prophets embraced the visible gospel Church, we now ask, how can we reconcile the language of prophecy with the supposition that there is no Church-government and polity established by Christ and his apostles? What is a kingdom without laws, and a regular administration of those laws? In allusion to the Jewish kingdom, Isaiah speaks of the Messiah as sitting “on the throne of David to order it, and to establish it with judgment and justice.” Does this language favor the idea that he was to leave his Church without a government of his own ordination? Daniel, after having described the various leading earthly monarchies, declares: “In the days of these kings, shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,” etc. Here we ask, How can a kingdom be “set up” by “the God of heaven,” unless the organization and government be of divine origin and authority? Whoever will carefully attend to the manner in which the prophets of the Old Testament habitually spoke of the Messiah and his reign, will not be likely to conclude that the prima facie evidence, from that source, favors the