[Form of Gov., chap. xv., sec. iv.—Digest of 1873, pp. 404, 405.]
The selection of pastors for particular congregations has, in all ages of the Church, been a matter of contention; and great diversity of usage has prevailed in relation to this subject. In prelatical churches, it often rests with the bishop of the diocese; in endowed churches, the right is vested in the patron; in the Dutch Reformed Church, the pastors are chosen by the great consistory, that is, (as elders are elected annually,) by the acting elders, and by all others belonging to the congregation, who have exercised the office of the eldership. In New England, according to the old usage, there were two distinct bodies, the church and the parish; the former consisting of the professedly regenerated, united by covenant, and the latter, of those inhabitants of the neighborhood (or parish) who frequented the church, and contributed to the support of its minister. These bodies voted separately for the pastor, and their concurrence was requisite for a choice. Of the church, only the male members, or brotherhood, voted. In the Presbyterian Church, great diversity of usage has prevailed. Perhaps the most common method is for heads of families, and they only, whether communicants or not, to vote in the choice of pastor. In other cases, all communicants, male and female, adults and minors, and all contributors vote. In others again, the elective franchise is confined to adult members of the congregation.
This diversity of practice betrays great confusion of ideas. There is no one clearly recognized theory by which the practical question is controlled. It is easy to say, a pastor is an ecclesiastical officer, he is a minister of the Church, and therefore only members of the Church can be entitled to a voice in his election. But then the question arises, what is the Church? This is a question to which no one answer can be given. In other words, the term is used in Scripture and in ecclesiastical language in very different senses. The Church, which is the body of Christ, which he loved, and for which he gave himself, is the whole body of the elect. Sometimes the word means the whole body of Christ’s true people on earth. Sometimes it designates the true children of God collectively, in some one place; at others, all those who profess the true religion throughout the world, together with their children; sometimes such professors when united in one organization, as when we speak of the Church of England, the Presbyterian, or the Methodist Church; or, in a more limited sense, the first, second, or third church of any place or city. These are only some of the legitimate meanings of the word; and it is evident that no progress is made in deciding who are members of the Church, until it is settled in what sense the word Church is to be taken. As men differ as to the meaning which they assign to the word, they of course differ on all the points involved in its interpretation. According to the Puritan, or Independent theory, a church is a body of regenerated persons united together by covenant, meeting together for Christian worship and mutual watch and care. According to others, a particular or individual church consists of all baptized persons united as an organized Christian assembly. According to the scriptural and common usage of the term, an individual church is a worshipping assembly of professed Christians. Thus, when we speak of St. Giles’ Church, Edinburgh, or the Grand Street church, New York, or the Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, every one understands us to mean the stated worshipping congregations which are thus designated. Thus, in the New Testament, the Church of Antioch, the Church in the house of Aquila. Perhaps the most common meaning of the word in the New Testament, is a worshipping assembly. As any assembly, or congregation of people, was an so any stated congregation of worshippers is an in the religious sense of the word. The is correctly defined to be coetus cultorum Dei.
It does not follow that all the members of the Church have the same privileges, any more than that all the citizens of a State have the same rights. The elective franchise, for example, in the State is confined to a small portion of the citizens. All minors, and females, at least, are excluded. So in the Church, different members have different privileges. Some have the right to administer discipline, some to the ordinance of baptism, some to admission of pastors, some to vote for Church officers. The right of particular members depends partly on their gifts and qualifications, partly on the judgment and choice of those authorized to decide in such cases. It is plain, therefore, that the decision of the question, who should be allowed to vote in the selection of a pastor, does not simply depend on the question who are members of the Church. That is one point to be settled, but it is not the only one.
The Puritan or Independent theory of the Church, that it consists exclusively of those who are deemed regenerate, and their minor children, has unfortunately gained ascendency over many of our ministers and members. This is to be attributed partly to the general familiarity with the writings of Owen and other English Independents, but especially to the all-prevailing influence of the ideas and principles of the New England Congregationalists. This theory, however, is thoroughly opposed to the common faith of the Church, and, as we think, to the plain teachings of the New Testament. It owes its origin to the desire to make the phenomenal agree with the real, the visible with the invisible Church. This can never be realized in this world, and it never was designed that men should accomplish this desirable end. Men cannot read the heart. They cannot discriminate between the growing wheat and tares. The apostolic Churches consisted largely of those who were carnal, and walked as men. The same is true of all Churches since that time. He is a Christian in the sight of God, who is a true believer; but we must regard and treat as Christians, those who profess the true religion, and are free from scandal. Whether they are regenerated or not, we cannot tell. It is, however, on this erroneous theory of the Church, that many are in favour of restricting the right of a voice in the choice of pastors to communicants.
The second theory on this subject is, that the visible church consists exclusively of those who have been baptized, and consequently, that no unbaptized person is entitled to vote. But this theory is clearly against our standards. Our Book, and the general consent of Christians, teach that the visible Church consists of those who profess the true religion, together with their children. Baptism is one, but not the only way of professing the true religion. Many confessors and martyrs never were baptized. An orthodox Quaker, if regenerated by the Holy Ghost, is a true Christian; and if he confesses Christ with the mouth, is a member of the visible Church. Baptism does not make a man a member of the Church; it is the public and orderly recognition of his membership. Since the recent New England custom of confining baptism to the children of communicants, some of the most respectable and worthy members of our congregations are unbaptized; and, on the other, some of the least worthy members of the community were baptized in infancy. There seems therefore no reason, either on the score of principle or of expediency, in confining the elective franchise to baptized persons.
The truth is, that a church, in the eye of the law, in the general usage of the community, according to the language of the New Testament, and the Westminster standards, is an organized Christian society. Such society may place what restrictions they please on the right of suffrage. They may confine it, as do the Dutch, to the eldership; or to the adult male communicants, or to the communicants whether male or female; or the heads of family, orderly members of the society; or they may throw it open to all contributors, whether adults or minors. We have no established rule, except the general directions contained in the Form of Government on this subject. The security, under our system, is in the Presbyteries. No man can be chosen or installed as pastor over any of our congregations, who has not passed through all the prescribed trials for ordination, and who has not received the official sanction of his brethren as an orthodox and faithful man.
← Chapter XIII. Church Officers, § 1. Title of Bishop · Contents · Chapter XIII. Church Officers, § 3. Support of the Clergy →