My review of James Bannerman's "The Church of Christ."

Bannerman’s work is truly a masterpiece. He provides not only a solid Biblical presentation of the doctrine of the Church, he also gives a capable defense of Presbyterian polity. One gets more than one bargains for in this volume. Bannerman covers a wide array of subjects. His treatment of Church Officers is perhaps the best I have encountered. 

Bannerman destroys the theory that Scripture says nothing directly related to Church polity. He simply argues that if the Church truly is Christ's, since it is an institution of Divine origin, then it is inconceivable that God took no thought to its organization and decided to leave that up to us. While one may read this work and come away still holding to Prelacy or Independency (Bannerman's two primary targets), and not sold 100% on Presbyterianism, one cannot read it and come away thinking Scripture does not address Church government.

By way of criticism, I can only remark that the book seems unnecessarily long. (It is 2 volumes, actually.) This seems to be a result of two factors. On the one hand, Bannerman treats several subjects, at length no less, which are only perhaps tangentially related to his main subject. There are lengthy treatments of the Sacraments (in general, and considered separately) which, interesting and profitable as they are, really have no place in a work on church polity. Because Bannerman devotes so much space to these subjects, others which could stand more explication, get brief treatment, with the standard caveat that to treat these issues sufficiently would carry one too far afield and would unnecessarily expand his book. The second reason for the length of the volume(s) is Bannerman’s loquacity. He repeatedly crafts complex, yet beautiful sentences comprised of multiple dependent and independent clauses, strung together with numerous colons and semi-colons. This is fine. He is, after all, a very deft wordsmith. But on countless occasions, after having crafted an elaborate sentence in order to establish a point, he follows it up with something like: “Having demonstrated the foregoing point, namely _____,” whereupon he inserts the entire previous sentence and an introductory clause.

Perhaps this is a bit nit-picky when reading classic. I don’t mind loquacity. In fact, I rather enjoy it. But coupled with the unnecessary treatment of certain subjects, Bannerman’s habit of repeating himself tends to inflate the size of his work.

Overall, this truly is a classic and it is hard to feel critical of anything in it. It's just that because of multiple digressions, his real purpose (that of defending Presbyterian polity) doesn't really get the full treatment it deserves until well into Volume 2.

James Bannerman on the State's Duty to Defend Marriage

Marriage is one of those institutions which, although not of grace, but of nature, is yet adopted into the system of Christianity, and regulated by the rules which Christianity has laid down. The law of marriage has its origin in nature, and not in revelation; and yet the duties and rights connected with it, together with their exact nature and limits, are matters with which revelation deals. In so far as these involve moral or religious duties, we are to seek in the Bible for the code of law by which they are prescribed and determined. But marriage is, in another sense, a civil matter, coming under the province of the ordinary magistrate, and necessarily requiring to be dealt with in the way of civil enactment. There are civil rights intimately connected with it, in such a manner that the state cannot avoid the duty of legislating in regard to it, and regulating them by positive statutes and rules. In short, the institution of marriage is to be viewed in two lights, — either as a moral observance, falling to be regulated by the law of Scripture, or as a civil observance, falling to be regulated by the law of the state. And with this twofold character which it sustains, and this twofold legislation to which in every civilised and constituted society professing Christianity it is subjected, how, it may be asked, is a collision between the spiritual and the civil enactments on the subject — fraught, as it inevitably would be, with deadly consequence to the peace, if not the existence, of human society — to be avoided or prevented. If the state recognise the Bible as the Word of God, and the law of the Bible as the law of God, then it will take that law as the guiding principle for its own legislation, and make the enactments of the magistrate in regard to marriage coincident with the enactments of Scripture. But if the state do not recognise the Bible as the Word of God, there can be no security that its regulations shall not come into conflict with the regulations of Scripture as regards the institution of marriage, in such a manner as to put in peril not only the peace and purity of domestic life, but also through these the highest and holiest interests of human society. The ordinance of the family lies at the very foundation of civil society. It is the unit of combination around which the wider and more public relations of civil life associate themselves. Destroy or unhinge the domestic ordinances, unloose or unsettle the family bond, and no tie will be left holy enough or strong enough to bind up the broken and disjointed elements of human life. 

James Bannerman, The Church of Christ.