The analytics of church government

Chapter II. Apostolical Acts - - - 137

Chapter III. Discussion of Differences be¬ tween Apostles and Elders 152 Chapter IV. Discussion of the Special Order 171 Chapter V. Discussion of the Biblical Sys¬ tem in Extenso - 192

Chapter VI. The Special Order in History - 210

Chapter VII. Discussion of the Historical

System in Extenso - - 225

part III* Bearings and Deductions

Chapter I. Discussion of Modern Systems 247 Chapter II. Discussion of Modern Systems,

Continued - 265

Chapter III. The Problem of Unity - - 285 preface

The quality of suggestiveness is all that I dare claim for the discussion herewith offered to those who care for new incur¬ sions into such old territory. The surety of conviction that blesses the author from the study of the subject is not, from the very nature of things, to be expected of others. It is enough if all along the line, which is a very extended one indeed, suggestions break into view which the reader can feel glad to receive. Analysis has just that very advantage—it is stimulating by reason of the many avenues it opens, and things are seen in relation. But while the only assurance of interest that I venture to give is in the line of suggestiveness, yet I must confess that the motive lying behind all my effort is zeal for a truth. I have not simply tried to write a book, nor have I thrust into an always burning discussion in order to exploit a view. My desire has been to re-fortify an old citadel by a most thorough-going circumvallation, try¬ ing to leave no approach unguarded, and especially to make all secure against a flanking or an undermining attack. I shall not succeed in this extensive desire, of course, but this confession will explain somewhat the extent of the foundations I seek to lay, and the pains taken over outlying bastions. Twenty years of thought and purpose, and unsatisfactory writing, have culminated in this effort. If I fail, I will face it humbly; if I succeed, even a little, I will rejoice.

R. W. Barnwell.

Untrobuctton

The great difficulty that attends all discussion of the matter of ecclesiastical government is the paucity of definite facts. When every possible quotation from Scripture and the history of the first one hundred and fifty years that gives a statement of facts is collected, the mass remains extremely small. In the early years, when the Church first established her forms, there was ample evi¬ dence to guide, but the establishment being accomplished, and the lapsing of centuries coming on, we are left with very meagre data to go upon, if we undertake to question that early settlement. Ordinarily, the actual conditions seen not many decades after the death of the last apostle would be taken to fairly represent an earlier condition as well, but the controversies of modern times will not allow such a mode of settlement, and even the giving to such a condition any force whatever is questioned. We are there¬ fore compelled, in order to satisfy minds we would fain influence, to try to let the settlement of the momentous matter be viewed in the light of only such facts as we can find expressed in Scrip¬ ture, and the earliest records of the historical period. Besides, too, in addition to being few, the facts are also very general in character as a rule—enough to connect an established condition with a past, but hardly definite enough for a new building.

But there is a background for facts, as well as the facts them¬ selves, that enters in as an important factor. Some background will be placed behind the facts by every mind, and therefore, it is necessary to discuss backgrounds as well as facts. In the light of the paucity and general nature of the facts, the nature of the background becomes a more weighty element in the discussion; for this background can well depend on principles much more closely set forth than the facts which happen to be at our dis¬ posal. At any rate, the proper background is an essential element, and only after having clear conceptions of both this and the facts will we be able to form our convictions.

To get at this proper background we must remember that Church Government lies in the spheres of Beligion, of Govern-

Introduction ment, of Ministry and of History. I have conceived as necessary to adequate consideration, that in the sphere of Religion, there must be an analysis made of the forces and lines of Grace, and Faith; in that of Government, we must understand the principles and the forms of government, and of ecclesiastical government; in that of Ministry, the forms and functions; while in the sphere of History, come the origins and developments of Systems, and the status of conditions at the time of the Church’s birth, in those matters bearing on the new departure about to be inaugu¬ rated. The Church came in the middle of time, and was a product as well as a new beginning, and just to be able to draw our lines between the old and the new,—just to see what use was made of old things in the formative stage of growth, is a gain.

But certain acts of our Lord are much plainer than some acts of the Apostles, and it is part of the plan I design to follow, to place those acts against the background derived from study of the above matters, and by means of thus gaining a new Back¬ ground to test the remaining facts. By careful analysis, verified by the test made by means of our Lord’s acts, a background might be gained, against which, what facts we have given in the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles will become more luminous.

At any rate, whether proof appear or not, as the result of all our labors, it cannot but be, that such analysis as will be en¬ tered into will be of benefit to the cause of investigation along lines of Ecclesiastical Polity.

I almost wfish it had been possible to omit the first chapter, for the reason that the analysis of Grace and Faith is one that must go so deep into Theological Anthropology that it makes that chapter seem a thing apart from the rest of the book, which is far simpler and plainer, but there was literally no help for that effort to ground the foundations of the doctrine of the Grace of Orders aright. The more near to the very bed-rock we could approach, the better; for my whole conception of Authority was to be built upon it, and that conception of Authority would run through everything. If the reader is thrown out of the furrow of inclination by this first chapter, let him skip it until such time as the need of it is made plain by assumptions based upon it. Then, if unwilling to grant those assumptions, there will be no help but to wade through the intricacies of that opening chapter. But I am convinced that only by viewing Grace as both of the Holy Ghost and of Christ, and distinguishing between the two operations, and by recognizing the distinctions of Personality and Nature in the whole man, can the true basis of God’s part in the Church be made plain.

No appeal is made to authorities because the effort is made to avoid staking anything on opinions. The argument is one by analysis, not scholarship. The position ought to appear founded, not buttressed.

So, too, I have not attached notes or appendices, for I wanted the whole to resemble a straight away sail from open sea to port, not a coasting voyage, with excursions into all kinds of creeks and bays. No one confesses the power of the scholar’s form of presenting thought more, but it was set aside for the simpler method. It is hoped that some little scholarship will be apparent, even though not attested; but let the truth be told,—the French¬ man’s love of Ideas, and the German’s love of Abstractions appeal to the author more strongly than the Englishman’s love of Quota¬ tions—quotations, for the most part, as we know, from the Ideal¬ ists and Abstractionists of other times.

The book is divided into three parts because the subject of Church Government always involves both a discussion of evidence and a discussion of general principles, and these two require each a distinct manner of treatment (which probably also causes a dis¬ tinct style); while for the sake of order and clearness the last three chapters relating to deductions are also classed in a separate part.

Only a few friends have read the manuscript, and upon only one did I impose the task of criticism—the Rev. Prof. W. A. Guerry, of the University of the South. To him I acknowledge here a large debt, though still falling short of meeting his sug¬ gestions. I went as far as I dared, but probably should have dared more.

CHAPTER I (Brace anb jfaitb

There is in the Bible a simple text, which commends itself to readers of every school of theology, and yet which no school of theology, from the very fact that it is a school, a party only, has ever taken to its thought. Even more, the very broadest divi¬ sions in orthodox Christianity are, with very simple analysis, traced up to different understandings of the accent which is to be placed, now on the word “Grace, ” and now on the word “Faith / 1 in that famous passage of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, “For by Grace are ye saved through Faith.” Rome, for the very life of her, cannot forbear so to accent “Grace,” that Protestant¬ ism must of very necessity quarrel with her; and, on the other hand, the assertions of Protestantism in the line of “Faith” have drawn unqualified anathemas from Rome. Even when some particu - lar Branch of the Church braces itself for desperate effort to hold equally to the truth of both, it will soon be found split into sec¬ tions, leaning, one to one side, another to the other, and growing as violent in charges and counter-charges as the larger divisions of the Christian world. Every school is willing to come back to the text, assert it broadly, strongly, defiantly, preach from it to sin¬ ners of the other side, and vehemently declare their own right thinking and fair doing. Nevertheless, the line of cleavage is along the line of accent, and even if no one can just exactly de¬ termine the true balance, yet the unbalanced condition of all schools is too patent to need description.

If any one should attempt for himself the task of keeping full and true the balance, he would, as with many turnings he proceeds, inevitably be reminded of the Church’s efforts in early times correctly to define the Divinity and Humanity of the God-man with due regard to each. Again, in another line, he would recognize the immensity of the task of so conceiving humanity, that Personality and Nature would neither give nor lose to each other functions nor spheres. Still again, he would be driven to attempt to so analyse the work of Christ in the world, that he could assign now to His Divinity, and now to His Humanity re¬ spective grace, as it is variously adapted to particular work. As, for instance, in the question,—When He raises man from death, is it by means of working in man by a risen Humanity, or upon man by a rescuing Divinity? Surely, the task of theology to the end of time will be the balancing of “Grace” and “Faith/’ Con¬ sequently, no man, and no body of the baptized, at the present time, must be inordinately blamed for weighting the balance. It is not only human to err, but it is error’s own field, this theological stretch of almost uncharted country.

The very forces of Nature, too, in the realm of mind, necessi¬ tate warfare on these lines. The tendencies of men are, both according to the age-spirit and the individual propensities, prone, either to quiescent reliance on help, or to active energies of achiev¬ ing. Some prefer to let others even do their thinking for them; others will barely tolerate aid of any kind. The very Faith of some is exercised only so far as to accept; that of others reaches out eagerly to obtain—almost seize. When the Church of Rome developed her system, men demanded, and she gave to them in accordance with a world condition of darkness and lack of vision; but when the roots of Protestant systems struck into the soil, light had come, and the plant lifted up its head to a sun burst¬ ing through the clouds. The philosophy of human nature almost explains, why, in one age, it was the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in another, the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost, with all the implication of co-operating Faith, that most impressed the children struggling to deserve the love of God.

But now, in the following treatise on the analysis of Church Government, so much depends on a fair recognition of principles springing from Grace and Faith, that, although we may well par¬ don, in the past, and for the future, a reasonably limited one-sided¬ ness, yet, if we are to accomplish our aim, we must not ourselves commit the fault which we have insisted is so natural as to be almost unavoidable.

The task of strict analysis would be, indeed, hopeless, at this stage of the world, if we had certain subjects to deal with. Fortunately, for the purpose of Church Government, we have the larger outlines only to distinguish and combine; and for this purpose, the stage of theological analysis to which the religious world has already attained, possibly suffices.

All efforts to solve from the Scriptures the Divine mind upon the subject of Church Government are, perhaps, most deeply of all, prejudiced by the Protestant or Roman accent on “Grace” or “Faith.” Men take with them in germ the idea they wish to evolve in terms. The most conservative of them are as guilty as the radical. It is inevitable. One cannot discuss the subject at all without the bias derived from one’s accent on “Grace” or “Faith.” The only h£pe of fairness is, that the analysis of “Grace” and “Faith” be first made and shown, so that the inner logic of mind may be judged as well as the outer logic of word. Even though one should try to hold no brief for any theory or system, but rigidly to analyse as far as the subject goes, yet be¬ cause the subject is approached, it is necessary to fairness, that whatever bias be carried into it should be known.

Views about “Grace” and “Faith” are unquestionably in¬ volved. There has never been a discussion about the Ministry but what there has been an inevitable drift to the point where it was seen that each side leaned to his interpretation of Biblical facts or statements in consequence of views about Grace and Faith. For instance, upon what principle is a Church member under Authority? Does Faith attract him there, and then per¬ suasively keep him there? Or, does Grace put him there, and bmd him there? Is he free to come and go, or is he helpless to validly break away? When a Protestant changes from one body to another, he feels, as a rule, that he has a perfect right, but a member of the Church of Rome is brought up to believe such a change is a terrible sacrilege. To one a change of Faith is conclu¬ sive; to the other, where Grace has placed him, there he must stay. Now, if the Ministry be a product of the Church’s mind, and if it be a proper subject for adjustment, the right to change might be clear; but if the Church can no more change its Min¬ istry than it can its Sacraments, and a person baptized is under officers as children are under parents, it is easy to see how a change must mean a most momentous step. The Grace of Orders has been an issue for centuries, and while the scope of that idea brings chiefly into view a doctrine of help, it bears directly upon such questions as a change of membership very fully. Indeed there is no escape for any one attempting an analysis of Church Gov¬ ernment from going deeply into the subject of Grace and Faith, their relative place and workings. Even though such analysis be sure to make the chapter devoted to it markedly different from every other, both far more complex and, sad to say, dryer, yet manifestly it would be a vast mistake to omit such analysis and thus leave a fundamental out of consideration. In fact, while a discussion of underlying Grace may make dull reading for some, and to others resemble a running start of tiring length, yet to scholars who know the importance of it, no apologies need be urged.

Faith is so marvellous that often things are attributed to it that are really out of its sphere, and it is the object of this discus¬ sion to present the scope of Faith. Then, too, Grace is such an indefinite term that it is necessary to discuss just what we mean by Grace. So there must be sought some good starting point from which to make this plain.

Grace is God’s help to humanity but it may come either from Christ or from the Holy Spirit, and each of these kinds must differ. Again, it may be given to man either in his soul, or in his body—(let us remember Christ’s resurrection of our bodies). An analysis of Grace must pass through these fields therefore, and probably the very best starting point would be to look first at the present-day scientific discrimination between soul and body, and then adjust our analysis of the workings of Grace to our conclu¬ sions. We cannot ignore what Science says about the body; and its late conclusions as to the extent to which all our thought and feeling can be traced to mere mechanism compels the Christian to consider what room is left for the soul. We cannot contra¬ dict what Science has found out about the body and brain-mechan¬ ism. We can only hope to get our bearings properly by consid¬ ering Grace in connection with them. But all the science as to body cannot destroy man’s convictions as to the existence of a soul. They call it Personality now—"Mechanism” and "Person¬ ality.” There is and needs must be a Person. So then our dis¬ cussion must include a recognition of these modern positions.

They are so well known that the briefest statement will suffice, which is here given, as follows:

Little by little, material scientists have been claiming the powers of man as but the functions of the mechanism of his physi¬ cal being. The senses stimulate nerves, the nerves the brain cells, molecular changes take place, the tides of blood flow and ebb around the changed tissue, and thus are explained the mental, moral and even spiritual processes of man for all his life. Yet most confidently can it be asserted that there is something in the being man that mechanism cannot explain. An interpreter of signs, molecular changes, blood torrents, mechanical forces and pressures; a determiner of action; a projector of future mechanical signs, changes, torrents and pressures—the Personality must and does exist. The metaphysicians’ claims are as strong, on the side of Person, as the scientists on the side of mechanism.

Seeing then, that man is thus a Person with a mechanism, (and let us say, since we are Christians, that, if this mechanism of matter die there is another mechanism, one of spirit, that can¬ not die, which the Personality can and will assume), let us briefly discuss, so far as suits our purpose, the Energies of the Person¬ ality and the Energies of the Nature.

First. There must of necessity be an energy of the Person. For, when a man lifts a hundred-pound weight, muscular contrac¬ tion expresses just that much power; and the power that con¬ tracts the muscles is also so measured. (No account is here taken of mechanical aids.) We finally get to the will, still carrying our supply of force; and the will must get its energy from the Per¬ sonality, in ultimate analysis. Energy must be attributed to the soul, therefore. Only when we come there can we halt.

But, now arises the question, does the Personality possess different kinds of energy, such as that of thought, feeling and will, or let us say, too, of faith, love, hope, etc.? It would seem not. It really appears, in the light of mehanical science, that the energy of the soul passes through the mechanism in different di¬ rections, and as that energy turns, or is turned towards different objects through the appropriate channels, it becomes memory, fancy or reason, hope, love or faith, muscular, mental or moral power. Thus, with muscular power, the energy of the soul is the ultimate power, and the modifiers are those peculiarities of will, nerve and muscle, that come from the mechanism of the man. There is a memory department of the brain, and it would seem, a department for every part of man’s powers. Indeed Sci¬ ence will not allow any function to be without mechanism, and all the metaphysician can claim is, that there is a personality, and that energy is its attribute—energy enough to use and control the mechanism. Religion teaches us, conformably with this, that Per¬ sonality can possess either the earthly mechanism or the spiritual— aye, even more, that a certain Personality did possess a Human Mechanism and a Divine (Nature, we prefer to call it, in this instance); and that in consequence of the vast energy of His Di¬ vine Person, however, limited by the Human mechanism, and in consequence of the limitations of the Human Mechanism, however filled with Divine energy, the God-man presents the peculiar phases of His marvelous life on earth.

Let us posit, then, as an essential element of our analysis, the conceptions of (a) Personality, as bare soul, (not necessarily altogether bare, but bare so far as not coming endowed with the qualities which are now seen as belonging to the mechanism, in opposition to former ideas on the subject) with energy; (b) Nature, as mechanism apportioning energy in all its complex relations to God and creation. Our conceptions of “Grace” and “Faith” must fit into these positions.

We come now, to a narrowing of the position. In spite of the truth of the above statement, such powers of man as reason, will, faith, etc., have always been conceived as of the Personality itself. They may be called in fact personal faculties to distinguish them from more animal faculties, like appetites, etc., but still they are all of the mechanism and not of the Personality. En¬ ergy, the Personality must have, in order to use the mechanism, but only that which emerges from the mechanism can he dis¬ tinguished as fancy, or memory, or faith, or love, or nerve force, or muscular activity. The personal energy may be only the steam which drives the mill, as it were, or it may be more but the tides of blood must flow over the brain tissue in certain parts of the head, ere energy is seen as memory. Science may well ask— What would a soul without a mechanism be? Can the musician play without an organ of sound? Can the soul think and feel without organs of thought and feeling? Energy is not thought, or faith, or love until it emerges with the impress of some determin¬ ing mold—material mechanism, or spiritual mechanism, it mat¬ ters not which, just so we have something with the function of making energy into its diverse forms.

Faith is the eye, hand and mouth of the soul—its receptive faculty. But, how? We must get clear conceptions of this im¬ portant point. Let us put it thus. Without a mechanism, the soul, notwithstanding all its energy, would stand helpless before a fact, or a person, but, by means of a mechanism, it can stand in relation to either; just as by means of a digestive mechanism, it can make a grain of wheat contribute to the souls abidance in the present body. All manner of ways has the soul, by means of its woundrous mechanism, the body, of dealing with its environ¬ ments. It can love a person, know a fact, conceive an idea, will a movement, read a sign and strike a blow. Again, given a person or a fact, it can have many ways of treating this person or that fact. Yet again, we find, that amid all the relations to a fact or person, a wound to the brain will destroy one relation (memory, for instance) and leave the rest. It is simply then, of the nature of the mechanism, that faculties exist for certain relations of the Personality to environment. It is, too, a simple fact, that, by means of a certain power of the mechanism, the soul can go out towards a person or a fact in a manner that is not love of the person, or knowledge of the fact but belief in either. And, now, because the movement towards the object is an incomplete relation, an unsatisfied tendency, we behold a great function as pertaining to the believing power of man. Go¬ ing before love and knowledge, and yearning for them as its own completion. Faith becomes a motive power, influencing the whole man. Some relation towards persons or facts there must be. Love is final, and so is knowledge. What is the beginning of relationship, but faith; and what the function of that relation¬ ship but to draw towards the end?

It were useless here to inquire, why the Personality has such attractions for persons and facts, that it reveals a propensity to move towards or away from them, as surely as magnets exhibit similar qualities in their spheres. It is enough that the condi¬ tion is real. God and Truth are Personal necessities. Love and Knowledge are the consummations. Faith characterizes the process until the end is reached. Now every Personality has its initial energy, and its initial affinity for God and Truth. There is also the initial Nature to be considered. Finally, there are in all these the changes for better or worse that ensue upon the ini¬ tial stage. Therefore, we see the problem of Salvation is worked out with all these matters of affinity, energies and growth as fac¬ tors. But, since our law of Salvation is “By Grace, through Faith,” we must work the problem so as to find the value of these terms.

In the matter of the soul’s affinity for God, any increase brought about by God’s nearer approach and clearer revelation (magnet like) is at once seen to belong to the province of Grace.

Again, that the Personality should be able to grow in energy seems natural, and this too would be credited to Grace.

Then, too, there is a field for Grace in the mechanism itself, since that can be, through weakness in one direction, a poor mold for Faith; or through strength in some other, a determiner to¬ wards antagonistic efforts.

But, on the other hand, the Personality has control, more or less, over the mechanism, and is the seat of responsibility. The mechanism may have its tendencies, by reason of its variations, in different individuals, or, at different periods, in the same individual’s life and growth, according to its brain cells or nerves or flesh and blood, appetites, passions, affinities, etc.; but, there is an inalienable responsibility of the Personality, whether he laughs, talks, eats, sleeps, learns, works, believes or loves wisely or unwisely. Although he can not add a cubit to his stature, a man can yet gain a cubit through obedience to law, and by reason of Grace utilized. To seek the goal of his highest affinities is the acme of his responsibility, and, by controlling his mechanism Faithward, he can draw himself Loveward. Even though God Himself, with nearer and nearer approach stand before him, only by pouring his energy through his mechanism Faithward, can he draw near to God, so as to pour his energy through the same mechanism Loveward. (And the new mechanism, or mechan¬ isms*? after this life, is strangely interwoven with the present in all these ways). It ought to be observed of Faith, in this review, that, it can not bring God or Truth to the man, but it brings the man to God and Truth. Its power is on the Person¬ ality and Nature, but on nothing outside. Its power on the Nature is through the Personality and its control, conscious and unconscious, over the Nature. If unsatisfied, it reacts on the Personality, which is induced to exercise its energies in many directions, in order to fulfill the demands of belief. Faith can form nothing, and generate nothing. It can go out knowledgeward and loveward, and return revealing what it has found of fact, or even fancy; and even as the Personality has its affinities, so this unsatisfied quest by Faith leads the soul on.

But, is not another Nature—another mechanism in process of building all through the life of the Personality in the earthly? Is there not a spiritual Nature being formed? And is not the new logical to the Personality, in its growth or deterioration, in the old? If so, then we can see the influence of Faith on Per¬ sonality, and its constructive part in the new building. Faith then is in a sense formative after all, in that it finds its expression in the new building. Let Christ be the object of Faith, and the Personality will have Christ expressed in that spiritual Nature, which is in process of formation. But Faith can not be creative or generative. It is receptive and reproductive, but not crea¬ tive. Pre-existence is presumed in very terms. Perhaps the best presentation of the case would be this, that Faith is the assimila¬ tive faculty of the soul, as that soul in this life, like the caterpillar^ grows its mechanism for the next. But the process is, that it draws the Personality up to the selected truths, facts or standards, and in that strange new building the soul expresses itself in the new relations. We shall see more further on.