Chapter 6. — The Highest Governmental Authority — Originally Vested in The Apostles.

CHAPTER 6. — THE HIGHEST GOVERNMENTAL

AUTHORITY — ORIGINALLY VESTED IN THE

APOSTLES.

THE New Testament sets forth the principles and laws according to which the Christian Church should be organized and governed, and designates proper officers for the administration of its government, and specifies their prerogatives and qualifications.

In all governments, whether civil or ecclesiastical, the supreme or highest power is vested somewhere; and the first thing to be considered in the investigation of the genius and character of a government is, the depository and source of this power and authority.

That the highest authority must be deposited in some definite source, is just as essential in the Church as in the State. The various denominations of Christians, in the respective systems they have established, have vested the highest power in different sources. Few seem to have taken much pains to inquire at the proper oracle for information on this subject; although much has been written concerning the peculiar advantages of different systems of Church-government, resulting from that feature by which the depository of the highest authority is fixed, yet too seldom has the inquiry been made: What saith the Bible on the subject?

If, on any question connected with the Church, the teachings of the Holy Scriptures are deemed important, surely on this great radical question we should bow with the most implicit reverence and submission to what God has been pleased to ordain and establish.

Upon this question, among the various orders of professed Christians, there are five different leading views:

1. That the highest authority in the Church is vested in each congregation of Christians collectively. This is the theory of the Congregationalists and Independents.

2. That it is vested in the Pope, or some one individual, constituted the visible head of the Church. This is the theory of the Roman Catholics, or Papists.

3. That it is vested in the ministers and lay officers taken together. This is the theory of the Presbyterians.

4. That it is vested in a superior order in the ministry, constituted, as to the power of government and ordination, the apostles’ successors. This is the theory of Protestant Episcopalians.

5. That it is vested in the ordained ministry, or eldership of the Church generally. This is the view of the Methodists, and of individuals in different denominations.

So far as we are informed, all the different views on this subject worthy of attention are embraced in the five different systems above specified. As to the notions of those who contend that “no particular form of Church-government is prescribed in Scripture,” it is clear that their theory necessarily implies that the highest power in the Church is not, by divine authority, assigned any definite position, and that consequently, all Christians are left to arrange this principle of their constitution as they may judge expedient.

In the discussion of this subject, we deem it unnecessary to enter upon the formal refutation of any of the conflicting theories specified. If it can be shown from the Scriptures in whom the highest power in the government of the Church is vested, it will follow by consequence that all conflicting theories are disproved. That the Scriptures are explicit and satisfactory on this question is our clear conviction, and we shall present the evidence on which that conviction is founded.

It cannot be doubted but that the holy apostles were invested with all the divine authority connected with the great work of their mission — the establishment and organization of the gospel Church — which the Saviour himself possessed. From this it necessarily follows that, as the Saviour had power to delegate his authority to the apostles, so had the apostles power to delegate their authority to others. It follows also, that if the apostles have failed to transmit to others the high authority for the ordering and government of the Church which they received of the Lord Jesus, that authority must have expired with them, and can exist nowhere in the Church. It can only exist where the apostles have placed it, and there it must exist. Therefore, if the high power of government in question exists in the collective body of each congregation, or any portion of them, it must be because the apostles themselves have thus transmitted it, and ordained its perpetuity. It will not do to argue that all societies possess the inherent right to govern themselves, Such reasoning may be valid when civil government or human institutions are in question; but in reference to a divine institution it is futile and inadmissible.

In the “beginning of Christ’s religion” it is most certain that the power of government was not in the congregations or Churches collectively, but in the ministers who organized them. Ministers were before Churches were — Churches did not make or ordain the ministers, but ministers made or constituted Churches. Now, is it not undeniable that, as the highest power of government originally existed, not in the united congregation of the people, but in the ministry, it must remain in the ministry, unless it be fairly shown that the apostles have expressly ordered otherwise? But that we may decide this matter, we will examine the record of the teachings and doings of the apostles bearing upon the subject. We commence with the establishment of the first Christian Church at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. About three thousand were added unto the Church by baptism on this occasion. In the account here given, there is not one word about the apostles delegating to this large community, or to any portion of them, the right to make their own regulations and govern themselves; on the contrary, it is obvious that this right remained in the apostles, and was exercised by them.

It is said (Acts 2:42): “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship” — clearly implying that they were still under the jurisdiction of the apostles.

A few days after this about two thousand more were added to the Church; and still we find no evidence of the transfer, of the governmental authority from the apostles, but direct proof to the contrary. So full and complete was the apostolic jurisdiction that, when the people had sold their possessions, “they brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet.” Acts 4:34, 35. Here we find that even the temporal treasures of the Church were subjected to the control of the apostles.

But it may be contended that we find a transfer of governmental authority in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, when the “seven deacons” were appointed. The passage reads thus: “Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” Now, it is contended that the right of electing the deacons was here transferred to the body of the Church — “the multitude of the disciples” — and that consequently, with this elective franchise was transferred the governing power in the Church. In reference to this transaction we remark, that the mere fact that the apostles chose to consult the congregation as to the particular persons to be appointed deacons, does not prove that the jurisdiction of the apostles in the premises had been relinquished. As the particular exigency giving rise to the appointment of the deacons at this time was an existing dissatisfaction in a portion of the congregation with the administration of affairs, it is quite reasonable to suppose that skillful governors might consult the choice of the congregation, even in a matter over which the entire authority and jurisdiction vested in themselves; and, as all evidence that such was the fact in the present instance, we remark the following particulars:

1. The congregation did not choose these “deacons” till they had been directed so to do by the apostles; hence they were not exercising an independent authority of their own, but merely acting by permission, under direction of the apostles.

2. The apostles prescribed the character of the persons to be selected. 3.There is no evidence that the apostles would have ordained persons of a different character, had such been selected.

4. The right of appointment was still retained by the apostles in their own hands. The apostles did not direct the congregation to select and appoint their own “deacons.” The command was: “Look ye out seven men whom we may appoint.” And, after they had been selected, they were not “deacons” until “they had set them before the apostles,” and they had “prayed, and laid their hands on them.” So we can find no evidence in this transaction of any settlement of the sovereign power in the whole or any portion of the congregation; nor is there any proof that St. Peter, or any one of the apostles, was placed in authority over the others. The supreme authority was evidently in the “twelve,” without partition or preeminence. In the fifteenth chapter of The Acts, we have an account of the famous Apostolic Council at Jerusalem. Here we derive satisfactory evidence against the Congregational system of Church-polity, in its common acceptation. Had the apostles delegated to each congregation the sovereign right to govern themselves, independently of any superior jurisdiction or authority, we may be sure the Church at Antioch would have exercised that right, and settled their controversy in their own body.

Again: Had each individual Church been constituted an independent body, the decrees of the council in question could not have been issued as an official, authoritative document, obligatory on the Churches of “Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia,” as they evidently were; and had each Church been constituted an independent body, then the action of the council could not have assumed the form it did. A council might have deliberated and come to a conclusion, but that conclusion would have been mere advice, and not law; but the very form in which the action of the council is recorded, demonstrates that it possessed the attribute of authority and law. St. James says: “Wherefore my sentence is,” etc, — that is, my decision; or, as Chrysostom paraphrases it. “I with authority say this.”

We learn, also, from this transaction, that St. Peter had not been constituted the supreme visible head of the Church. Had such been the fact, the appeal would have been made to him, and the sentence would have gone forth in his name and under his authority; but he seems to have had no preeminence whatever. He did not even preside in the council — St. James was the presiding officer. He spoke last, and formally announced the decision; but we cannot infer from this that he possessed any right to decide this question more than belonged to each of the other apostles. His apparent superiority resulted, no doubt, from the circumstance of his acting as President of the council; and that fact is readily accounted for on the probable supposition that, by an understanding among the apostles, the special jurisdiction over the Church at Jerusalem had been assigned to him. The appeal was made to “the apostles,” “the apostles” assembled together on the occasion, “the apostles” agreed unanimously in the decision, and the official document was issued in the name of “the apostles;” and all this without any evidence of the preeminence of one over the others. Hence it appears that the apostles were still exercising that supreme authority over the Church with which they had originally been invested by the Lord Jesus. But the inquiry may arise, If the apostles were thus supremely authorized, could not any one of them have decided the question? and whence the necessity for calling the council? To this it may be replied, that this council was not convened for the purpose of enlightening the apostles, but to give greater influence to their decision, and secure harmony in the Church. Any one of the apostles could have decided the question; and Paul and Barnabas had already decided it. They “had no small dissension and disputation” with a portion of the Church at Antioch on the subject; but the authority of every apostle, and especially that of St. Paul, was not everywhere understood and acknowledged as it should have been. It was to remedy this evil, and to produce an acquiescence in the apostolic doctrine of justification by faith alone, that this council deliberated, and issued their joint authoritative decrees.

If it be alleged that the fact that the apostles assembled to deliberate in council cannot comport with the view we have presented of the high prerogatives with which they were endowed, we reply: First. The “much disputing” which occurred in the council does not appear to have been a work of the apostles, but of others assembled with them. Secondly. The apostles spoke last of all, and were perfectly harmonious in their sentiments. Thirdly. It does not follow, from the fact that the apostles were inspired, that they were at all times favored so immediately with the divine guidance as entirely to supersede the importance of deliberation. Fourthly. It is evident that, in this matter, they acted under the immediate authority of God; for their decrees are prefaced with these words: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.”

But there is yet another important matter in connection with this council to be considered — the apostles were not alone on this occasion. The appeal was made unto “‘the apostles and elders.” “The apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter;” the decision “pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole Church;” the epistle containing the decrees was in the name of “the apostles, and elders, and brethren,” and when the messengers Went forth to the Churches, “they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” Here the question arises, Who were these “elders and brethren?” and why are they associated with the apostles? The Presbyterian has fancied that the account here given furnishes a clear divine warrant for depositing the sovereign power of Church-government in the Kirk-session, composed of the minister and several lay elders; or a model for a presbytery or synod, composed of clerical and lay representatives. As to the peculiar character of these “elders” — whether they were ministers or mere laymen — that is a question which can have no bearing upon the point now in hand. Our present inquiry is this: Did the apostles transmit to these “elders” the right to exercise that sovereign power in the Church which, as we have seen, they themselves had received of the Lord Jesus? We do not inquire whether the apostles so transferred this power out of their hands upon these “elders” as to cease to possess it themselves. No one supposes they did this. But the question is, Were these elders divinely authorized by the apostles to exercise the same sovereign jurisdiction over the Church which the apostles exercised? We think that the mere fact that the Church at Antioch sent their question up to “the apostles and elders” can furnish no evidence that these “elders” possessed authority equal to that of the apostles. The fact that the contentious Judaizers of that Church were not at once satisfied with the decision and arguments of Paul and Barnabas, is proof conclusive that they either did not understand or did not appreciate the high prerogatives of the apostolic office; hence they desired the apostles’ decision to be corroborated by the sanction of the elders of the first established Church at Jerusalem. It is also reasonable to suppose that the great body of the Church at Antioch, however well satisfied they themselves might be with the judgment of Paul and Barnabas, would desire also the corroborating testimony of the “apostles and elders,” knowing that such decision would tend greatly to the production of general satisfaction on the vexed question.

But it seems the elders did meet with the apostles, and probably took part in the deliberation; and it is demanded, Why did the apostles permit this, unless the elders possessed equal powers with themselves? To this we reply, that although the apostles possessed the right, ex cathedrâ, to decide all matters concerning the Church, yet they were prudent administrators, and, as such, they frequently consulted with others, and were ready to listen to their arguments. When the “seven deacons” were appointed, although the apostles possessed in themselves the sovereign right of appointment, yet they submitted their selection to the congregation. Even so here, although the apostles, as a college, or any one of them alone, possessed a divine right to decide the matter in controversy, yet they chose to exercise that right in such form as would be likely to wield the greatest influence over the Churches generally, and be productive of the most satisfactory and beneficial results. Hence, not only “the elders” were consulted, but the approval of “the whole Church” was secured, and the