Basic HTML Version
560
III. The Government of the Church
A. DIFFERENT THEORIES RESPECTING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.
1. THE VIEW OF QUAKERS AND DARBYITES.
It is a matter of principle with the Quakers and
Darbyites to reject all Church Government. According to them every external Church formation
necessarily degenerates and leads to results that are contrary to the spirit of Christianity. It
exalts the human element at the expense of the divine. It neglects the divinely given charisms
and substitutes for them offices instituted by man, and consequently offers the Church the
husk of human knowledge rather than the vital communications of the Holy Spirit. Therefore
they regard it as not only unnecessary but decidedly sinful to organize the visible Church. Thus
the offices fall by the way, and in public worship each simply follows the promptings of the
Spirit. The tendency that becomes apparent in these sects, which gives clear evidence of the
leaven of Mysticism, must be regarded as a reaction against the hierarchical organization and
the formalism of the Established Church of England. In our country some of the Quakers have
regularly ordained ministers and conduct their worship very much as other Churches do.
2. THE ERASTIAN SYSTEM, NAMED AFTER ERASTUS, 1524-1583.
Erastians regard the Church as
a society which owes its existence and form to regulations enacted by the State. The officers of
the Church are merely instructors or preachers of the Word, without any right or power to rule,
except that which they derive from the civil magistrates. It is the function of the State to govern
the Church, to exercise discipline and to excommunicate. Church censures are civil
punishments, though their application may be entrusted to the legal officers of the Church. This
system has been variously applied in England, Scotland, and Germany (Lutheran Churches). It
conflicts with the fundamental principle of the Headship of Jesus Christ, and does not recognize
the fact that Church and State are distinct and independent in their origin, in their primary
objects, in the power they exercise, and in the administration of that power.
3. THE EPISCOPALIAN SYSTEM.
The Episcopalians hold that Christ, as the Head of the Church,
has entrusted the government of the Church directly and exclusively to an order of prelates or
bishops, as the successors of the apostles; and that He has constituted these bishops a
separate, independent, and self-perpetuating order. In this system the coetus fidelium or
community of believers has absolutely no share in the government of the Church. In the early
centuries this was the system of the Roman Catholic Church. In England it is combined with the
Erastian system. But the Bible does not warrant the existence of such a separate class of
superior officers, who have the inherent right of ordination and jurisdiction, and therefore do
not represent the people nor, in any sense of the word, derive their office from them. Scripture
clearly shows that the apostolic office was not of a permanent nature. The apostles did form a
clearly distinct and independent class, but it was not their special task to rule and administer