What are the different forms of church polity?

The systems may be divided under two heads — successional, which claim that in the ministry itself is invested the power of ordaining its successors*; and congregational, which hold that in the church or congregation resides the power of appointing, ordaining, or formally recognizing ministers.

Immediately after the ground had been cleared for the erection of a new ecclesiastical edifice, Knox was ready with the plan of the Reformed church in what is known as "The First Book of Discipline." The constitution of the church, as set forth in this symbolic book, is strictly Presbyterian. It recognizes four classes of ordinary and permanent office bearers-the minister, the doctor, the elder, and the deacon. 1. Ministers, who preach to the congregation. 2. Doctors who expound scripture to students in seminaries and universities. 3. Elders, who are associated with the ministers in ruling the congregation. 4. Deacons, who manage money matters, and care for the poor. Then there are four courts- the Kirk-session, the Presbytery, the Provincial Synod, and the General Assembly.

The ecclesiastical foundations of the French Reformation were then laid. The basis consisted of four grades of power, or church courts. 1. The consistory, or kirk-session-composed of the elders and deacons, the minister being their president; the affairs of the congregation were the objects of their care. 2. The colloquy, or the congregations of a district consulting each other by their deputies on their mutual interests. 3. The provincial Synod, or court of appeal from the kirk-session, in a meeting of the churches of the province. If possible, the minister and an elder from each were expected to be present. 4. The national assembly. Two ministers and two elders were expected from each of the provincial Synods. It was the highest court; it heard all appeals; determined all great causes; and to its authority, in the last resort, all were subject.*

"Fathers and Brethren - Our church polity is apostolical. It 'is founded upon the word of God, and agreeable thereto,' as our Confession so well states the matter. It is framed upon the practice of the apostolic age, while yet inspired men were in the Church to give authority to its doctrines, and accuracy to its history. From these halcyon days of Christianity our church derives its constitution. There we get the principles that regulate all our polity. We admit, as our Confession does, 'that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.' But we also hold 'That the scriptural proof of any arrangement or practice having existed in the apostolic churches, ordinarily and primâ facie imposes an obligation on all churches to adopt it - an obligation that is imperative and unlimited in regard to all those things which obviously enter into the substance of the government and worship of the Church, and the mode in which they are administered.' In the scriptures, then, we read that a church comprehended a society of the people of God, either in a single congregation, as in the house of Nymphas (Col. 4:15), or in a city, as in Jerusalem (Acts 2:22), where there were at least eight thousand persons; or the whole community of a nation, as in Acts 7:38, where St. Stephen speaks of 'the church in the wilderness,' or all the Christians in the world, as where the apostle says (1 Cor. 12:28), 'God hath set some in the church'; or, finally, all the people of God in heaven and on earth, as in Ephesians 5:25: 'Christ also loved the church.' The word has only one meaning everywhere, but capable of any extension. In the scripture we read that the office-bearers of the Church were elected by the people. Whether it was the election of an apostle to fill the vacant bishopric of Judas (Acts 1:23), or of deacons to look after the temporal affairs of the early Church (Acts 6), it was a popular choice. There we read what will not now be controverted by any scholar, that bishops and presbyters or elders were identical. In the apostolic Church, and in the many references of the inspired epistles to this office, there was no difference between bishop and presbyter. The names expressed the same office, and are used interchangeably by the sacred writers. In the New Testament we read that there was a plurality of bishops or elders in every church, in Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, as well as in the larger congregations of the greater cities. There, too, we read that ordination to the office of the ministry was an act of the presbytery, of a plurality of elders. This was preferred by the apostles themselves when they were all together in Jerusalem (Acts 6). Thus SS. Paul and Barnabas were ordained at Antioch (Acts 13:3). Thus Timothy was ordained (1 Tim. 1:14). And after this model it is most scriptural to set apart men to sacred office. There we learn that there was a right of appeal allowed to members of the church, or single congregations, from a decision among themselves to an assembly of apostles and elders, as the office-bearers of the Church. Apostolic dicta pronounced by inspired lips did not settle the controversies of the early Church. The appeal from Antioch was discussed in an assembly convened for the purpose, and in which the apostles were members. The decision was authoritative and final. The decrees of the assembly at Jerusalem were binding upon the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and were received with submission. The government of the Church was representative, and final decisions were given by the assembly of bishops or elders. There, too, we read that supreme power was lodged nowhere else, not in an apostle, or a prince of apostles, a president of assembly, still less in an earthly potentate, but that the Lord Jesus Christ was the sole King and Head of the Church. His revealed will was the only standard, and His officers the only court of appeal in all matters ecclesiastical. There was a gradation of judicatories; but the Church was possessed of an inherent right to settle all spiritual causes. There, too, we read that there were elders who ruled, as distinct from those who also laboured in word and doctrine (1 Tim. 5:17). They all had equal status, but not equal functions.

321 "These features of the apostolical polity have been apparent, with varied degrees of clearness, in different ages of our church. The election of all office-bearers is vested in the people, and even where patronage has been imposed, as in established churches, the call of the people is recognized. There is no distinction between bishop and presbyter; and though every church court has its moderator, he is primus inter pares. There are several elders in every congregation, who constitute a governing body in all spiritual affairs. There is the right of appeal from local presbyters, whose judgment may have been biassed by party feeling or personal animosities, to a district or provincial synod, or assembly of elders duly elected and lawfully convened, whose decision is held to be final, and subject to no appeal to co-ordinate courts in the State. This polity protects the rights of the people on the one hand, and the rights of the members of presbytery on the other, and when properly worked is calculated to preserve the discipline of the church, and promote the welfare of the people.

"This mode of presbyterial action is specially adapted to a new country. In some of its features it is being followed by all disestablished churches. Synods are sought by the Episcopal church in all places beyond the United Kingdom. The synod is becoming the supreme power of that church to which all officers are subject. The synod is the court of appeal where all grievances of doctrine or discipline are to be settled. The synod is the free assembly where all parties can express their sentiments and exercise their suffrages. Congregationalists are gravitating to the same mode of corporate action. Their writers of highest authority on ecclesiastical polity, such as Davidson and Stoughton, declare that 'they are wrong in splitting up what ought to be one church, the company of believers in modern towns, into several churches, each with its own pastor, which in their independent individuality are patches and shreds, often incapable of a right government, because they have lost sight of the unity and kind of government existing in the earliest churches.' Wesleyan Methodists have always had certain of these elements, and their difficulties of administration have chiefly arisen from the rules of a society, designed to be temporary, becoming the laws of a permanent and widespread church.

322 "In all new countries the apostolic principles of church polity have been proved to be most adapted to the new circumstances. In America our own church has advanced from a single presbytery, with a few members in the year 1705, to six thousand clergymen at the present day. Canada has already five hundred Presbyterian clergy; and Australasia, in less than half a century, and while the pioneer and father of our colonial Presbyterian church is still alive and vigorous, possesses three hundred clergy. Nor are our congregations in bondage, though bound to the church and submissive to its laws. Their liberty is not interfered with in all the minor details of their services or their finances. So long as they act in harmony with the general principles of the church, they are as independent of one another as if they were unconnected by ecclesiastical ties. More and more it appears that towards the apostolical polity of our church all Protestant churches are gravitating and in this we rejoice, not because we expect in the pre-millennial age an incorporation of all churches into one, but because by corporate action freer scope is afforded for the maintenance and diffusion of truth, and for the exercise of a healthy discipline.

The Presbyterians may have various church courts and have an aristocratic element in their organization; Congregationalists have all their decisions come to by each separate body and the vote of the members of the assemblies. But the whole is a human arrangement formed and carried on by man. A man is a member of a body which man has organized, and acts as such. The actual state of things is a church or assembly of which a certain number of persons are members with a person educated for the ministry at its head. It is Mr. So-and-so's flock or church: he is paid so much a year; he may or may not be converted, but he is ordained, he may be an evangelist and put into a pastor's place; he may be a pastor, but must preach to the world. Although, if he does not succeed in this, he may be dismissed, generally directly, sometimes indirectly. The whole constitution of the church of God is ignored - God's constitution, and man's substituted for it. And the order and the power of the Holy Ghost is ignored, or not believed in at all.

The following table shows how gatherings of Christians would act, depending on whether they follow the principles of independence, unity, or centralism:

Independence Unity Centralism 1. Structure independent units body hierarchy 2. Principle autonomy of "local assembly" united action must comply with HQ ('head quarter') 3. Binding valid in this particular meeting valid in all meetings ratification by HQ (?) 4. Case of a meeting tolerates known evil autonomy implies: other meetings cannot help as this would be 'interference' Other meetings care. In case of persistence they must finally separate. decision by HQ 5. Consequence of point 4. A "strict" meeting has no possibility to separate from evil! You may find yourself breaking bread in a 3rd meeting with somebody excluded in yours Separation from evil is possible depends on decision by HQ 6. Case of mistaken action taken by one meeting No help Other meetings (prayerfully) work towards restoration Decision by HQ must be accepted 7. Case of a new meeting starting A new' independent unit, so what? seeks fellowship with other meetings that are already meeting on the same principle recognition by HQ required

It is argued by many that since local churches are not seen in Scripture as forming a confederation, they must therefore be autonomous and independent. They are not to be formed into a definite circle accountable to some central ecclesiastical governing body at some designated location on earth. There is no such thing in the New Testament as a central oversight of the Churches of God.

It is constantly affirmed by those who seek to defend this independency of meetings that the only other alternative is a federation of assemblies, or a circle of meetings, controlled by a central authority. As a matter of fact neither alternative is true. There is however the truth of God as to the assembly, and this is found neither in independent assemblies nor in a confederation of assemblies. A confederation of assemblies is the principle that largely governs the great religious denominations of Christendom and, in principle, is pure sectarianism. The principle of independent assemblies leads to latitudinarianism, which allows of everybody's will and tries nobody's conscience.

Correctly speaking, the government is an absolute monarchy, the Holy Ghost in the churches being sovereign.* The idea, therefore, common among many, that the principle is that of a democracy, is totally wrong; although, of course, as a number of those who (not being prepared by the Spirit, either for helps or governments) exercise no office in the congregation, far exceeds that of those so gifted; and as all are supposed to have the apprehension of the Spirit's mind (see 1 Cor. 5 and 1 Cor. 10:15, "I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say," 1 John 4:6, etc). the responsibility rests mainly with the many, even though God† inform their judgments through the few. The only officers, found in the churches, are elders and deacons; for the apostles were for the building, and not continued dwelling, in these congregations.‡ In each of these two offices, then, we shall find the same principle of mutual dependence preserved by the appointment of a plurality of the officers.