ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY 40 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY
ble course ? Assuredly not, in the spirit in wliich he did it. The fundamental source of the mistake is here. The Christian Scriptures are a revelation of divine truth, and not a revelation of Church polity. The}' not only do not lay down the outline of such a polit}', but they do not even give the adequate and conclusive hints of one ; and for the best of all reasons, that it would have been entirely contrary to the spirit of Christiaiiitj' to have done so ; and because, in point of fact, the conditions of human progress do not admit of the imjjosition of any unvarying system of govern- ment, ecclesiastical or civil. The system adapts it- self to tiie life, everj'where expands -with it, or nar- rows with it, but is nowhere in any particular form the absolute condition of life. A definite outline of Church polity, therefore, or a definite code of social ethics, is nowhere given in the New Testament, and the spirit of it is entirely hostile to the absolute asser- tion of either the one or the other" (p. 182, 183). Dr. Tullocli, however, goes too far himself in saying that " Presbyterianism 'not merely asserted itself to be wise and conformable to Scripture, and therefore di- vine, but it claimed the direct impress of a divine right for all its details and applications.' This statement is untrue. There may be differences of opinion among Preslnterians as to the extent to which a divine right should be claimed for the subordinate features of the system, and some, no doubt, have gone to an extreme in the extent of their claims ; but no Presbyterians of eminence have ever claimed 'the direct impress of a divine right for all the details and applications' of their sj'stem. They have claimed a divine right, or Scrip- ture sanction, only for its fundamental principles, its leading features. It is these onlj' which the}' allege are indicated in Scripture in such a way as to be bind- ing upon the Church in all ages. And it is just the same ground that is taken by all the more intelligent and judicious among y^ire divino prelatists and Congre- gationalists" {Biit. und For. Ev. Revtetv, April, 1860). Moreover, Calvin did not "unchurch" ecclesiastical bodies which should not choose to adopt the Presbyte- rian regimen. He introduced his scheme where he had influence to do so ; and he employed all the vigor of his talents in pressing upon distant churches the propriety of regulating, in conformity with his senti- ments, their ecclesiastical government. But, at the same time, he says, " AVherever the preaching of the Gospel is heard with reverence, and the sacraments are not neglected, there at that time there is a church." Speaking of faithful pastors, he describes them to be "those who l)y the doctrine of Christ lead men to true piety, who properh' administer the sacred mj'steries, and who preserve and exercise right discipline."
The Reformers and greatest writers of the Church of Phigland held that no form of Church polity is en- joined in Scripture. Cranmer explicitly declared that bishops and priests were of the same order at the com- mencement of Christianity ; and this was the opinion of several of Ids distinguished contemporaries. '' Hold- ing tills maxim, their support of episcopacy must have proceeded from views of expediency, or, in some in- stances, from a conviction which prevailed very gen- erally at this early period, that it belonged to the su- preme civil magistrate to regulate the spiritual no less than the political government; an idea involving in it that no one form of ecclesiastical polity is of divine institution. At a later period, during the reign of queen Elizabeth, we find the same conviction, that it was 110 violation of Christianity to choose different modes of administering the Church. Archbishop Whit- gift, who distinguished himself bj' the zeal with which he supported the English liierarchy, frequentlj' main- tains that the form of discipline is not particularlj', and by name, set down in Scripture ; and lie also plain- ly asserts "that no form of Church government is l)y the Scriptures prescribed or commanded tolhe Church of God" (Watson, s. v.). Hooker maintains this prin-
ciple with great vigor in his Ecclesiastical Polity (book iii), where the following principles are laid down : 1. The Scripture, though the only standard and law of doctrine, is not a rule for discipline. 2. The practice of the apostles, as they acted according to circum- stances, is not an invariable rule for the Church. 3. Many things are left indifferent, and may be done without sin, although not expressly directed in Scrip- ture. 4. The Church, like other societies, maj' make laws for her own government, provided they interfere not with Scripture. 5. Human authority may inter- pose where the Scripture is silent. 6. Hence the Ciiurch may appoint ceremonies within the limits of the Scriptures. Stillingfleet indicates the same view at large in his Irenicum: "Those things may be said to he jure divino which are not determined one waj' or other by any positive law of God, but are left wholly as things lawful to the prudence of men, to determine them in a way agreeable to natural right and the gen- eral rules of the Word of God." His conclusion is that the reason or ground of Church government, the ratio regiminis ecclesiastici, is of divine right, Imt that the special mode or sj'stem of it is left to human dis- cretion. In other words, it is a thing forever and im- mutabl}' right that the Church should be under a defi- nite form of government. This is undoubtedly _yw,«^i/TO. In no other wa}- can the peace and unity of the Church be secured. But it is bj' no means equallj' indubita- ble what this form of government must be. The nec- essary end may be secured under diverse forms, as in the case of civil government. "Though the end of all be the same, yet monarchy, aristocrac}', and de- mocracy are in themselves lawful means for attaining the same common end. ... So the same reason of Church government may call for an equality in the persons acting as governors of the Church in one place which may call for superiority and subordination in another" (Irenicum, p. 40 gq., Phila. 1840).