Questions on Chapter 8.
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 8.
QUESTION 1. What is named as one of the prominent features connected with the organization of the Christian Church?
2. What Scripture authority is given showing the origin and ordination of the Christian ministry?
3. What may be inferred from the fact that none but regularly authorized persons exercised the functions of the ministerial office?
4. What diversity of sentiment has prevailed in regard to the connection between the ministry and the Churches?
5. What two important elements on this subject are exhibited in the New Testament?
6. What Scripture testimony is adduced showing that a regular pastorate was placed over the organized Churches?
7. What two important positions are said to be demonstrated on this subject by the New Testament history?
8. What confirmatory evidence is given from Church history?
9. What conclusive inferences are made from the facts presented? CHAPTER 9. — THE CLAIMS OF INDEPENDENCY
EXAMINED.
IT is assumed by the advocates of Independency in Church-government —
1. That the laity composing a Church have the power of discipline, including the right to receive and exclude members.
2. That they have the right of electing their own pastors. I. We will examine the proof of the position, that the laity have the power of discipline, and the right of receiving and excluding members.
1. The first proof of this position offered by the advocates of Independency, is founded upon the following scripture:
“Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” Matthew 18:15-17.
It is admitted on all hands, that our Lord did not set up and organize the Christian Church by his personal agency, but that he committed this work to his inspired apostles; hence the Christian Church dates its origin from the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were “endued with power from on high.” Bearing in mind this admitted fact, it will readily be perceived how futile must be the attempt to prove, by the scripture adduced, that the Church-government is vested in the laity.
(1) The attempt is made to found an argument for Independency in the government of the Christian Church upon a regulation made, not in reference to that Church, but to a state of things previous to its existence. As the only Church or congregation of worshipers with which these disciples were now connected was that of the Jewish temple or synagogue, it was to that Church, and not to the Christian Church, that the Saviour referred. Surely it cannot be presumed that he undertook to innovate upon the Jewish polity in reference to the synagogue service! And it is well known that these synagogues were governed by a select court of rulers, or elders, and not by the whole congregation on the principles of Independency. To attempt thus, as has been done, to prove Independency by this instruction of our Lord, given before the Christian Church had an existence, and having no reference whatever to its polity, is palpably illogical. As well might we plead that when our Saviour sent forth his apostles, saying, “Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass, in your purses; nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats” — as well might we contend that our Lord was thus prescribing the law of the Church, regulating the outfit of missionaries for all subsequent ages.
(2) The argument here postulated for Independency fails, because it substitutes a general direction relating to individual behavior for an ecclesiastical law for the government of the Christian Church. The scripture under review contains a salutary precept for regulating the deportment of the disciples in their association with each other and with their Jewish brethren, but not one word as to the polity of the Christian Church, which was not to be organized till after Pentecost. There is no intimation here given as to the form according to which the Christian Church should proceed in the trial and expulsion of an unruly member. Shall it be done through the medium of appropriate officers? and, if so, how are they to be chosen? and by what form inducted into office? by what laws is the case to be tried? and who shall interpret those laws? Or is the whole Church, as a collective body, to be prosecutor, advocate, judge, jury, and every thing else? Here we find not one word in reference to any of these important particulars; and the reason is obvious. Our Lord was not prescribing a code of laws or form of government for the Christian organization which the apostles were to erect after his departure. He was simply instructing his disciples in reference to their behavior in their intercourse and fellowship with each other as individuals. So far as his instructions embodied principles of behavior concerning Christian fellowship, they would apply, of course, after the organization of the gospel Church as well as before; but by no legitimate mode of interpretation can they shed any light as to the form of ecclesiastical polity. “If thy brother trespass against thee,” said our Saviour. Hence it is a private, personal offense, to which he refers, therefore take private means to reclaim him; but if these fail, “then tell it unto the Church” — that is, inform the Church through her rulers. For surely our Saviour would not encourage his disciples to ignore or set at naught the established order of the synagogue; on the contrary, he encouraged submission to existing authorities, saying, “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.” Matthew 23:2, 3. But when the Church has thus, through her rulers, been informed of the sin of the offender, there is not one word here as to the form of the investigation. Was it before the whole Church, or before their stated rulers? On this question our Saviour is silent. But that the matter was adjudicated, not by the whole Church, but by the “rulers of the synagogue,” cannot be denied.
Our Saviour proceeds: “If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican” — that is, after the Church has finished its proceedings, whatever they may have been, and failed to reclaim the offender, withdraw, as individual Christians, your fellowship from him.
2. The effort has also been made to prove that the power of discipline, with the right to receive and exclude members, is vested in the laity, by appealing to the testimony of St. Paul. The following passages have been relied on for this purpose:
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6. “Mark them which cause divisions and offenses, contrary to doctrines which ye have learned, and avoid them.” Romans 16:17.
These passages only instruct Christians in reference to their deportment, as individuals, toward disorderly members — that is, they are admonished to avoid associating with disorderly persons; to shun their society; to come not under their influence; to be not contaminated by their example; to give them no countenance; not to “bid them God speed” in their sinful course.
3. Again: To show that the power of discipline is in the laity, strong reliance has been placed on the following text:
“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump.” 1 Corinthians 5:7.
If, by “purging out the old leaven,” the apostle means that the pestiferous member is to be expelled, he only expresses the general truth, that discipline should be so maintained as to preserve the body of the Church in a sound and healthy condition, free from the contagious influence of immorality; but as to the form or mode of procedure in the carrying out of that discipline, he utters not a word. The Church at Corinth, at that time, was composed of private members, together with ministers, officers, and rulers. Already parties had ranged themselves under their respective leaders, clearly showing the existence of inequality among the people in the management of Church affairs. In this same Epistle, the apostle mentions the fact that these officers, rulers, or leaders, existed among them by divine appointment. His words are: “God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” 1 Corinthians 12:28.
Now, we demand, what right have we to infer that the apostle intended by the general exhortation to the Corinthians, “Purge out the old leaven,” to establish a platform of Independency in Church-government? In this same letter he refers to an existing order of government, with officers of various grades and powers, and that under the appointment of God. These officers originated, not in the popular election of the Church, for the apostle declares, “God hath set some in the Church,” referring the arrangement, not to voluntary Church-action, but to divine control. The apostle then proceeds in his enumeration expressly to mention “governments,” clearly implying that the power of government had been placed in individuals, and was not deposited in the collective body according to Independency. From the exhortation, “Purge out the old leaven,” we can see no more ground for inferring Independency than any other form of
Church-government. The exhortation was addressed to the ministers and officers of the Corinthian Church as much as to the laity. It only enjoins upon all — upon, ministers, officers, and private members — the duty of maintaining the purity of the Church by wholesome discipline; but in what form that discipline is to be administered — whether according to Independency, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, or any other type of ecclesiastical rule — we must go elsewhere to learn.
II. The next question to be considered is, THE APPOINTMENT OF PASTORS TO THE CHURCHES.
Independency claims that each particular Church has the right to elect its own pastor.
In attempting to sustain this position, we might reasonably infer, judging a priori, that the abettors of Independency would either adduce a plain example, showing that such was the practice of the Christian Church under the apostolic administration, or that they would show an express precept to that effect. We cannot see how any thing short of one or the other of these methods of proof can avail for the purpose in hand; but we think it will appear in the sequel that they have not attempted either.
1. The first resort of Independency to prove the right of each Church to elect its own pastor, is to what is said in the first chapter of The Acts in reference to the appointment of Matthias to fill the vacancy in the apostolate caused by the apostasy of Judas.
The total irrelevancy of the case here adduced to the point in hand, may be seen at a glance. Observe, the point to be proved is, that the body of members composing any Christian Church have the right to choose their own pastor. That this position cannot be established by reference to the case of Matthias, will appear from the following facts:
(1) Matthias was not chosen as pastor of a Christian Church.
(2) He was not chosen by the members constituting a particular Christian Church.
(3) He was not elected by the votes of the disciples present, but by lot, after prayer for the divine direction.
(4) In that prayer, the disciples repudiated the position that the prerogative of choosing in the case was vested in them. They prayed, saying, “Show whether of these two thou hast chosen” — thus proving that they recognized no right of choice as existing in them.
(5) This appointment of Matthias transpired, not only previous to the organization of the Christian Church, but before the apostles had been “endued with power from an high” for the execution of that work. Of course it can prove nothing as to the method of appointing the pastors of Christian Churches.
(6) There is no evidence that Matthias ever did serve as the pastor of a particular Christian Church.
(7) The disciples, in the case in hand, did not act of their own accord, but under the instruction of Peter, simply yielding to his control. With these seven facts before us, no one of which can be disputed, and the admission of any one of which demonstrates the irrelevancy of the case of Matthias as proof of the point in question, we may be allowed to dismiss this first argument to establish the right of the laity to choose their own pastor. The attempt to found Independency upon the case of Matthias is a palpable failure.
2. Next. The attempt is made to prove the right of each Church to select its own pastor from the choosing of the “seven deacons,” as recorded in the sixth chapter of The Acts.
This case comes nearer being applicable to the point in hand than the former, in one particular, and in that only — that is, it is not a case occurring anterior to the organization of the Christian Church. But that it as signally fails to prove that each Church has the right to choose its own pastor, is easily shown.
In addition to the remarks made on this subject in a preceding chapter, we think it only necessary to fix the attention upon the following particulars:
(1) The disciples only did as they were commanded by the apostles. They did not proceed as though they considered themselves vested with the prerogative of doing as they pleased in the matter.
(2) The right of appointment was evidently not in the disciples, nor did they attempt to exercise it. It existed in and was exercised by the apostles.
(3) But, after all, what is fatal to the case as proof of the point in hand — these deacons were not appointed as pastors of Churches.
Wonderful logic! The argument of Independency is this: the apostles, whose right it was to “ordain elders in every city,” and to organize all the Churches, giving to each Church the requisite officers, directed the Church at Jerusalem to select seven men, having specific qualifications, to superintend the collection and disbursement of the poor-fund of the Church; therefore each Christian Church everywhere has the right to choose its own pastor!
3. But to prove the position in question, Independency has resorted to the celebrated council at Jerusalem, whose history we have in the fifteenth chapter of The Acts.
Referring to what we have already said upon this subject in a former chapter, as in itself ample proof that nothing can be derived from this source in support of Independency, we need here add but little. The facts, so far as they bear on the case, are briefly these: The Church at Antioch appealed to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem for the settlement of a question relating to Church-communion: the apostles and elders met in council, and, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, settled the question; but, because the laity were present and signified their approval — were “pleased” with the conclusion arrived at — therefore it is inferred that the laity, in every Christian Church, have the right to choose their own pastor. The fallacy of the argument which would prove the point in hand, by the case referred to, may easily be shown.
(1) The question was not settled by “the whole Church,” but by the “apostles and elders.” “The whole Church” only assented to it, or were “pleased” with it.
(2) If the appeal had been made to “the whole Church,” and “the whole Church” had settled the question in Church-capacity on the Congregational plan, and sent the Epistle officially as their Church-action, it could not avail the weight of a feather as a proof of the point in hand. It had no relation whatever to the question of selecting Church-pastors.
The argument for Independency, as founded on the action of this council, in logical form, is in substance as follows:
“The whole Church” at Jerusalem was once consulted in reference to one matter, therefore “the whole Church” in every place has the right to decide another matter, of an entirely different nature. Because “the whole Church” at Jerusalem approved or sanctioned the decision of the apostles and elders, that circumcision is not an essential prerequisite to communion, therefore every Church in every place, independently of “apostles and elders,” may select its own pastor. We consider the reasoning that would find a ground for Independency in the case before us, too inconsequential to justify any farther notice.
4. The Christian Churches sometimes gave letters of commendation as an introductory passport to certain ministers when going among strangers. This fact has been seized upon as proof that those Churches had the right to elect their own pastors. If the advocates of Independency can see any force in the argument they here predicate, we must say they can see what, to our perception, is undiscernible. Why these letters might not be as useful to a minister in connection with one as another mode of
Church-government, is quite beyond our ken. If there could be any difference in the value of such letters, it would be likely to be in favor of those ministers who had their appointment from some other source than the collective body of the Church. If their appointment, as ministers, is from “the whole Church,” they already possess all the indorsement the Church is able to impart; but if their appointment is from a bishop, a presbytery, a council, or a conference, a letter from a Church acquainted with their character and deportment may, under some circumstances, be very useful and satisfactory.
5. An effort has been made to found an argument on this question upon the fact that Christians are exhorted to “try the spirits,” and to watch against the wiles of false prophets and false teachers.
Such characters they are exhorted to detect, to shun their influence, and not to “bid them Godspeed.” This is all wholesome advice, and it seems to us just as necessary under one method of inducting ministers into office as another. Why can such advice be more needed or useful when each Church selects its own pastor than when they are otherwise supplied? Is it to be supposed that ministers elected by their respective Churches are less trustworthy or more to be suspected on that account? By whatever plan ministers may be appointed, unworthy persons cannot be kept from sometimes intruding into sacred places; and, while this is the case, it will continue to be the duty of all — both ministers and laity — to “try the spirits,” and to judge the tree by its fruit. But how the fact that it is the duty of all Churches and of all Christians to guard against the seductive wiles of false teachers, and the baneful influence of false doctrine — how this fact can demonstrate that the right exists in each Church to select its own pastor, is beyond our capacity to perceive. Mark, the duty of thus “trying the spirits,” and of not receiving a false teacher “into our house,” or” bidding him Godspeed,” is not enjoined upon Churches, as such, more than upon individuals, as such. If, then, it proves that each Church has the right to select its own pastor, it must also prove that each individual possesses that right; and this would subvert all Church-organization, and