CHAPTER II. —THE CHURCH
Section 7.—Divine Right of a Form of Church Government.

question suggested by the history of the council of Jerusalem is, whether or not a particular form of church govern­ment is laid down in Scripture so as to be binding by God’s authority, or, jure divino, upon the church in subsequent ages? This question has given rise to a good deal of discussion, though it has not infrequently been discussed in such a way as to resolve very much into a dispute about words, in which men, whose views did not very materially differ from each other, right support the affirmative or the negative in the question, according to the precise sense in which its terms might be explained. It has been the most generally prevalent opinion in the Christian church, that a particular form of church government has been laid down in Scripture so as to be binding upon future ages, though there has, of course, been much difference of opinion as to what the parti­cular form of church government is which has received the sanction of Scripture. Those who have disputed or denied this general position about the Scripture sanctioning a particular form of church government, have been most commonly men who had some particular purpose to serve, who were exposed to the temptation of being influenced in their views and practice by some other con­sideration than a pure love of truth, —as, for instance, a desire to leave room for the interference of the civil power in the govern­ment of the church, or to palliate their own submission to what the civil power may have sanctioned and established in this matter. And in defending the position, that no particular form of church government was laid down in Scripture, they have usually repre­sented the opposite opinion in a manner which the statements of its supporters do not warrant, as if they meant to assert that the whole detailed particulars of a full directory for the government of the church were laid down in Scripture, and admitted of no change, —a position which is manifestly untenable.

Papists, Prelatists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists, have, in general, contended that their own system of church government is laid down in Scripture, and is binding upon the church in all ages; but they have also in general admitted, that it is only the leading features, or fundamental principles of their system, that are sanctioned by Scripture, without claiming direct scriptural authority for its details, and without denying that there are things of minor importance connected with the government of the church which the church herself may regulate from time to time, accord­ing as local or temporary circumstances may suggest or require. In this way it sometimes happens, that the more reasonable and judi­cious affirmers and deniers of the jus divinum of a particular form of church government, do not differ very materially from each other on the general question, while very considerable differences are to be found on both sides as to what particular form of church government it is that has the sanction of Scripture, or can make out the most plausible claims to support upon scriptural grounds. It is also to be noticed, that those who concur in maintaining that there is a form of church government laid down in Scripture, differ considerably among themselves as to the extent to which they claim a scriptural sanction for the subordinate features of their own scheme; and as to the view they take of the fullness and clearness of the scriptural evidence even of what they may think the Scripture sanctions. So that, in laying down the position usually maintained by the defenders of the binding scriptural authority of a particular form of church government, it must be stated in this way, that the fundamental principles or leading features of a particular form of government for the church of all ages are indicated in Scripture, and are indicated in such a way as to impose an obligation of conformity upon the church in all succeeding times. I have no doubt of the truth of this position, and think that it can be satisfactorily established.

I think it can be, and has often been, proved that the Presby­terian form of church government, in its fundamental principles and leading features, is sanctioned by Scripture and apostolic practice; or, to adopt the language of our ordination formula, “is founded upon the word of God, and agreeable thereto;” and that this can not be truly predicated of any other form of church government, such as Prelacy and Congregationalism. I am not called upon at present to establish this position, as I am merely proposing to illustrate the general topic of the way in which the subject of the jus divinum of church government has been, and should be, discussed. I may remark, however, in general, that the mode in which this position is to be established is that of an induction of particulars, —i.e., we proceed in the way of collating from Scripture certain rules in regard to the government of the church, which have the sanction of apostolic practice; we combine these together; we show that, when combined, they constitute what may be fairly called a scheme or system of church govern­ment; and that this scheme or system is just Presbyterianism in its fundamental principles and leading features, as it has been held by the great body of those who have been usually classed under this designation. It is no very difficult matter, I think, to prove from Scripture that the apostles, in establishing and organizing churches, committed the ordinary administration of divine ordinances, and the ordinary regulation of ecclesiastical affairs, not to the body of the ordinary members of the church, but to rulers or office‑bearers; that these office-bearers, settled and constituted by the apostles in the churches which they founded, were of two classes, viz., presbyters, —called also bishops, —and deacons; that no other ordinary class of functionaries was introduced by them into the administration of the government of the church, and especially no class of ordinary functionaries of superior rank or authority to the ministers of the word—the pastors of congregations; that these: presbyters or bishops were divided into two classes, one of whom both taught and ruled, and the other only ruled, but did not ordi­narily exercise the function of public teaching; that while these presbyters alone administered the spiritual affairs of the church, they all, in conjunction with the deacons, managed its temporal or secular affairs; that, in some cases at least, several congregations were placed under one presbyterial government; and that some countenance is given to the general idea of a gradation of judicatories—the general principle of a subordination of courts.

This was the way in which we see from Scripture that the apostles organized and made provision for the government of the churches which they planted. These different rules and arrange­ments, if really scriptural, as we believe they are, manifestly con­stitute, when combined together, a full scheme or system of government—what may be justly and reasonably called a par­ticular form of church government; and that form of church government is manifestly just Presbyterianism in all its essential, principles and leading features, as distinguished from Prelacy on the one hand, and from Congregationalism on the other. The Presbyterian form of church government, then, has the warrant and sanction of apostolic practice, i.e., we can show from Scripture that the churches planted by the apostles were organized substantially in accordance with the arrangements of what is usually called the Presbyterian system; and we have shown that there is no good ground for denying, and that there is quite sufficient ground for maintaining, as a general principle, with the limitations or modifications then explained, that the practice of the apostles in establishing and organizing churches, as made known or indicated to us in Scripture, is, and was intended to be, a permanent binding rule for regulating the government of the church of Christ, and of all its branches or sections. From all this the conclusion manifestly follows, that a particular form of church government has been laid down in Scripture as permanently binding upon the church of Christ—that form being the Presby­terian one.

This is what is implied in the profession which the ministers of our church are called upon to make when they receive ordination, and which,’ as I have already mentioned, is expressed in these words, that “the Presbyterian government and discipline of this church are founded upon the word of God, and agreeable thereto.” The language here employed is cautious and temperate, and is thus well suited to the circumstances of a solemn profession to be made by a numerous body of men, who might not all see their way to concur in stronger and more specific phraseology. Besides, it is to be observed that the profession respects not merely the fundamentals or essentials of Presbyterianism in the abstract, which alone can be reasonably maintained to have the clear and positive sanction of apostolic practice; but “the Pres­byterian government and discipline of this church,” including the detailed development of the essential principles of Presbyterianism as exhibited in the actual constitution and arrangements of our church, and of all this in the concrete, or taken complexly, nothing higher or stronger could with propriety be affirmed, than that it is founded upon the word of God, and agreeable thereto. Of the fundamental principles and leading features of the Presbyterian system of church government as above described, and as distin­guished from Prelacy and from Congregationalism, I would not hesitate to use stronger and more specific language than our ordination formula applies to the Presbyterian government and discipline of this church—viz., this, that in its substance it is the form in regard to which Christ has, with, sufficient plainness, indicated in His word, by the practice of His inspired apostles in establishing and organizing churches, that it is His mind and will that it, to the exclusion of all others, in so far as they are incon­sistent with it, should be the form of government adopted in His church, and in all its branches: in other words, that Presby­terianism, in its substance or fundamental principles, is binding jure divino as the form of government by which the church of Christ ought permanently and everywhere to be regulated.

Some, in opposing the principle of the permanent scriptural authority or jus divinum of any one particular form of church government, take the ground that we have no sufficient materials in Scripture for determining what the apostolic practice in esta­blishing and organizing churches was. Others—and this is the view taken by Mosheim—that the apostolic practice, though sub­stantially known and ascertained, does not constitute a rule per­manently binding upon the church; while others, again—though this is virtually a modification of the first view—found much upon an allegation that the apostles did not establish the same form of government in all the churches which they planted. For this last allegation no evidence whatever can be produced, and unless it be restricted to matters of a comparatively insignificant kind, and of a manifestly local and temporary character, such as would not affect the real position in dispute, there is much that conclusively disproves it. The first of these views implies a large amount of distorting and perverting the word of God, —the exer­cise of a great deal of sinful ingenuity in involving it in obscurity and confusion; while the second, unless restricted, as we have explained, within such narrow limits as to make it incapable of affecting the proper question in dispute, is based, as we have shown, upon a general principle that is not only untenable, but dangerous, as infringing upon the sufficiency and perfection of the written word.

These are nothing more than mere hints upon a somewhat difficult and complicated subject;[1] but. if pondered and followed out, they may help to form a judgment upon a topic of consider­able practical interest and importance in the present day, and may contribute to guard against the loose and latitudinarian views that are generally prevalent concerning it.

In conclusion, I would simply advert to another pretence which is sometimes employed in our day by those whose views concerning the government of the church, and the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs, cannot stand a scriptural investigation, and which is had recourse to for the purpose of evading the authority of Scripture, without needing to face the question of what it is that Scripture teaches and imposes upon the subject. It consists in the insinuation (for the notion is too absurd to be openly and explicitly asserted) of some such idea as this, that the obligation to be subject wholly to Christ, and to be guided exclusively by His written word in all things, attaches only to the invisible church, or to individual believers; and not, or at least not so fully, to the visible church and its separate branches.[2] To state this notion plainly and distinctly is to refute it, for nothing surely can be more obvious than that the obligation to be subject wholly to Christ’s authority, and to be guided exclusively by His word in all matters on which it furnishes any information, attaches equally to all societies as to all individuals, which profess to receive Him as their Master; that the general principles, in this respect, which apply to the invisible must apply equally to the visible church; and that the general principles and rules applicable to the catholic visible church in its totality, mast apply equally to every particular church, i.e., to every section or branch of the catholic visible church, to every distinct organized society, large or small, Prelatic, Presbyterian, or Congregational, which assumes to itself the character and designation of a church of Christ.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Fide Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, p. 37.

[2] Fide Elliott, author of Horse Apocalypticae, in his reply to Dr Candlish.