a christian church is a society with a corporate life, organized on some definite plan, adapted to some definite purpose, which it proposes to accomplish. it has, therefore, its officers and ordinances, its laws and regulations, fitted to administer its government and carry out its purposes. the question then arises, what is the true and proper form of church organization and government? we do not care to inquire as to the various and contradictory forms, as we see them about us in the different denominations, but what was the organic form and government of the first churches, planted by and molded under the hands of christ’s inspired apostles.
there are three special and widely different forms of church government which have gained prevalence in christian communities during past age, and which are still maintained with varied success, each of which [p. 141] claims to have been the original primitive form:
1. the prelatical, in which the governing power resides in prelates, or diocesan bishops, and the higher clergy; as in the roman, greek, english, and most oriental churches.
2. the presbyterian, in which the governing power resides in assemblies, synods, presbyteries, and sessions; as in the scottish kirk, the lutheran, and the various presbyterian churches.
3. the independent, in which the body is self-governing, each single and local church administering its own government by the voice of the majority of its members; as among baptists, congregationalists, independents, and some other bodies.
now which of these modes of church life and administration is taught in the new testament, if either? or which best accords with the constitution and government of the apostolic churches?
baptists hold that each separate, local church is an independent body, governing itself according to the laws of christ, as found in the new testament; that each [p. 142] such church is independent of all other churches, and of all other persons, so far as administration is concerned, owing comity and fellowship to all, but allegiance and submission to none. the government is administered by the body of the members, where no one possesses a preeminence of authority, but each enjoys an equality of rights, and in which, in matters of opinion, the majority decides.
that this style of church structure is according to the new testament appears evident from a study of the sacred records themselves. the apostles treated the churches as independent bodies. their epistles were addressed to the churches as such; they reported their doings to them; enjoined upon them the duty of discipline; exhorted, instructed, and reproved them as independent and responsible bodies. they recognized the right of the churches to elect their own teachers and officers, a primary and fundamental right, which, when conceded supposes all other rights and powers necessary to a self-governing community acting under divinely given laws.
neander, the distinguished historian, says of the first age: “the churches were taught [p. 143] to govern themselves.” “the brethren chose their own officers from among themselves.” “in respect to the election of church officers, the ancient principle was still adhered to: that the consent of the community was necessary to the validity of every such election, and each one was at liberty to offer reasons against it.” introd. coleman’s prim. christ’y, p. 19; ch. hist., vol. i., p. 199; plant. and train., p. 156.
mosheim says of the first century: “in those primitive times, each christian church was composed of the people, the presiding officers, and the assistants, or deacons. these must be the component parts of every society. the principal voice was that of the people, or of the whole body of christians.” “the assembled people, therefore, elected their own rulers and teachers.” of the second century, he adds: “one president, or bishop, presides over each church. he was created by the common suffrages of the people.” “during a great part of this century, all the churches continued to be, as at first, independent of each other. each church was a kind of small, independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted, or at least sanctioned, by the people.” [p. 144] eccl. hist., cent. 1, part 1, ch. 2, sec. 5, 6; cent. 2, ch. 2, sec. 1, 2.
coleman says: “these churches, wherever formed, became separate and independent bodies, competent to appoint their own officers and administer their own government without reference or subordination to any control, authority or foreign power. no fact connected with the history of the primitive church is more fully established or more generally conceded.” prim. christ. exemp., ch. 4, sec. 4, p. 95.
archbishop whately, doctor barrow, doctor burton, doctor waddington—all of them church of england divines—fully agree with this testimony, and confirm the evidence cited:
geiseler, the historian, says, concerning early changes: “country churches, which had grown up around some city, seem, with their bishops, to have been usually, in a certain degree, under the authority of the mother church. with this exception, all the churches were alike independent, though some were especially held in honor, on such grounds as their apostolic origin, or the importance of the city in which they were situated.” ch. hist., period 1, div. 1, ch. 3, sec. 52.
[p. 145] further discussion on this subject is not needed. the point is proved, and the independent form of church government is manifestly primitive and apostolic, as advocated and practiced by baptists.
