Basic HTML Version
564
King. As Christ is the only sovereign Ruler of the Church, His word is the only word that is law in
the absolute sense. Consequently, all despotic power is contraband in the Church. There is no
ruling power independent of Christ. The Pope of Rome stands condemned in that he, while
professing to be Christ’s vicar on earth, virtually supplants Christ and supersedes His word by
human innovations. He not only places tradition on an equal footing with Scripture, but also
claims to be the infallible interpreter of both when speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith and
morals. Scripture and tradition may be the mediate or remote rules of faith, the immediate rule
is the teaching of the Church, which has its guarantee in papal infallibility.[Cf. Wilmers,
Handbook of the Christian Religion, p. 134.] The word of the Pope is the word of God. But while
it is true that Christ exercises His authority in the Church through the officers, this is not to be
understood in the sense that He transfers His authority to His servants. He Himself rules the
Church through all the ages, but in doing this, He uses the officers of the Church as His organs.
They have no absolute or independent, but only a derived and ministerial power.
3. CHRIST AS KING HAS ENDOWED THE CHURCH WITH POWER.
A rather delicate question
arises at this point, namely, Who are the first and proper subjects of Church power? To whom
has Christ committed this power in the first instance? Roman Catholics and Episcopalians
answer: to the officers as a separate class, in contradistinction from the ordinary members of
the Church. This view has also been held by some eminent Presbyterian divines, such as
Rutherford and Baillie. Diametrically opposed to this is the theory of the Independents, that this
power is vested in the Church at large, and that the officers are merely the organs of the body
as a whole. The great Puritan divine, Owen, adopts this view with some modifications. In recent
years some Reformed theologians apparently favored this view, though without subscribing to
the separatism of the Independents. There is another view, however, representing a mean
between these two extremes, which would seem to deserve preference. According to it
ecclesiastical power is committed by Christ to the Church as a whole, that is to the ordinary
members and the officers alike; but in addition to that the officers receive such an additional
measure of power as is required for the performance of their respective duties in the Church of
Christ. They share in the original power bestowed upon the Church, and receive their authority
and power as officers directly from Christ. They are representatives, but not mere deputies or
delegates of the people. Older theologians often say: “All Church power, in actu primo, or
fundamentally, is in the Church itself; in actu secundo, or its exercise, in them that are specially
called thereto.” This is substantially the view held by Voetius, Gillespie (in his work on
Ceremonies), Bannerman, Porteous, Bavinck, and Vos.
4. CHRIST PROVIDED FOR THE SPECIFIC EXERCISE OF THIS POWER BY REPRESENTATIVE
ORGANS.
While Christ committed power to the Church as a whole, He also provided for it that
this power should be exercised ordinarily and specifically by representative organs, set aside for