Is there any biblical support for the Church to allow governments to close churches and prevent public worship?

Indeed, there is Biblical support:

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.

Matthew 21:12*

Fr. Rick Heilman mentioned this passage on his latest U.S. Grace Force podcast, that Jesus getting a whip and driving out the money changers from the temple is a good example for us. It's an example righteous anger toward current events.

But, introspectively and conversely, the National Catholic Register reports that

A majority of respondents in their survey said that government and public health officials should treat houses of worship such as synagogues, mosques, and churches with at least the same priority for re-opening as businesses such as malls, restaurants, and retail stores.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/treat-churches-like-businesses-during-lockdowns-americans-say

which is to say, we have made God's house a den of thieves instead of a house of prayer by actually wanting the government to treat it like any other business during this pandemic. Instead of a refuge for souls in times of trouble, it's lumped in with Dave and Busters and whatever funplexes you have in England.

So, the basis is that, an evil generation will allow the profanation of its houses of prayer, even if the modern form of profanation is just a matter of perspective. Jesus says the same thing about adultery when He talks about looking at a woman with lust in your heart, in the New Covenant, where much is expected of us, even our perspective is tested against our hearts.

If we view church as a mere business, then we've profaned it and deserve to be driven from it.

_{* Matthew 21:12 being an inauspicious veiled anachronistic reference to the Rush album pointing to the priests of the Temple of Syrnix}

Every Christian must surely be keen to support their government in its unenviable task of trying to contain and then to (hopefully) eradicate this awful pandemic. An immense amount of prayer is going up to God, that governments get the knowledge and help they need to deal with this killer virus. In harmony with those prayers, Christians are strenuously seeking to co-operate in this monumental task. It is logical to forego certain customs and privileges in order to save thousands of lives, including our own. This is not a question of “caving in to government from the word ‘go’,” as your comment implied. It is not a sign of Christian weakness to support government in trying to deal with a pandemic. Nor should Christians withdraw their support just because government is “preventing like-minded believers to gather together for worship, prayer, singing hymns and partaking of Communion.” This isn’t just about us. This is about the entire human population.

What is needed is reflection on what has happened so far, where this seems to be leading, and how to continue being faithful to God. At what point does government exceed its God-given task and encroach illegitimately into Christian obedience to God? One example given has been that of Daniel, as in chapter 6 of his book in the Bible. Can we sort out any principles from that?

A national prohibition against prayer or petition to any but King Darius had been promoted by people in government out to get Daniel. It was temporary - for a mere 30 days - and incorporated everybody. The Jews were not being singled out, let alone Daniel personally. Daniel could have 'gone private' with his daily prayer routine (three times a day, facing Jerusalem) but he continued visibly praying at his open window. He knew the consequences - being thrown to the lions. It's not come to that with Covid-19 as church buildings can open for individual prayer, yet worship services in England are illegal for the second time now (but allowed again in Scotland after an initial banning).

Will this be temporary, or will government keep switching from “Churches can open for worship with masking, distancing and limited numbers” to “No worship in Church buildings”? Not being a prognosticator, I cannot answer my own question. Not even the government can. We might need to remind ourselves that no government can prevent any Christians from worshipping God, even if they close buildings down.

Nor does that impact on family worship at home, but millions of Christians are the only Christians in their household or live on their own. Most now have no Christian fellowship with anyone (Zoom does not count as fellowship in the biblical sense, in my opinion, though it’s better than nothing.) Many elderly Christians cannot access such things anyway. Christianity is not a personal religion in the sense of we can individually isolate and still carry out Christ’s mandate for his Church body. Yes, we remain members of his body even in our isolation, yet if isolation leads to disintegration of the Church visible, we cannot assume that to be the will of God and just let it happen, without question. There are various ways in which current legislation could lead to actual disintegration of the Church visible, and we cannot assume that laws are temporary and that, of course, economic considerations will enable government to let us get back to public worship. An effective vaccine might achieve that, but a variant of the virus, or a completely new one, could afflict the globe later. Restrictive laws will be in place instantly, should that happen, so the question needs to be, “How do Christians prevent the Church visible from disintegrating into an almost voiceless and helpless institution that does not carry out Christ’s commission to us? Or, has that already happened, and is a spiritual reason for what we see now, and therefore it will only get worse?” Do Christians dare ask ourselves if decades of feeble (i.e. ineffective) spiritual leadership has resulted in a mere outward semblance of Christianity that is now crumbling under pressure? If so, then what remedy is there? Yet it should never lead to, “Each Christian for his or her own!” otherwise the great adversary has won. There’s a spiritual element to this, as Ephesians 2:2 indicates. A literal, deadly virus is in the air that we breathe, but do we allow the “prince of the power of the air”, that spirit of disobedience, to get us also?

Now some practical considerations to demonstrate what Christian leaders must sort out before long. If a believer wants to be baptised, hardly any option exists right now. A walk by a gentle stream at dawn or dusk, with a fellow (masked) walker quickly dunking him or her under the icy water when no others can see them, then carrying on their way (shivering)? A baptismal service in England was stopped by police on Sunday 15th November 2020 as 30 people met in a church building, for no worship is to go on in buildings, and private houses can hardly have others present. As for not being allowed to sing in public worship – TV has shown robed choirs singing along to the cathedral organ, the congregation masked and distanced, but the congregation cannot sing along behind their masks? I suggest all Christians switch to unaccompanied Psalm singing; so solemn a format that not even a passing fly would be harmed by their breath.

Meanwhile, football throngs yell, sing and embrace in public, and house-parties continue despite threat of fines. Worse of all is how government is stopping millions from working, and many of those fall through the financial safety net, being ineligible for subsidies, and are now suicidal with despair. Millions are becoming mentally ill. Even if they resist suicide, their lives are now wrecked, their self-employment ruined. Has any government got the right to stop ¾ of their nation from working?

This is not a digression from the question, because it’s about the right of government to do things nationally that impact the public regarding life and death issues. Forbidding public worship won’t kill anybody, but many of the other sweeping powers adopted will indirectly kill hundreds of thousands through suicide. They will not be included in the Covid-19 death statistics. But Christians are hardly able to reach out to those despairing people, as they would normally do, due to the illegality of meeting in other peoples’ homes! Not even family members can now do that apart from rare exceptions. Nursing Homes have seen utter despair and bewilderment with many elderly folk unable to touch visiting relatives behind glass or Perspex barriers. Dementia patients cannot understand and relatives are heartbroken, rarely even getting to the death-bed for a final farewell. That may be changing, but the inhumanity of it is only to be expected from government that deals with statistics and financial implications, thinking that human rights must be swept aside – and for how long? Should not Christian leaders be challenging government on such matters, while abiding by the law?

But if these restrictive laws keep coming and going, and then start becoming the norm, not the exception, the time will come for Christians to openly declare that they will obey God as ruler, rather than men – just so long as they can articulate where, exactly, government is overstepping its God-given mandate and infringing on the mandate given by God to the Church. Now is the time for Christian leaders to get together, irrespective of denominations, and seek clear, biblical vision.

Q: Is there any biblical support for the Church to allow Government to close its doors and prevent public worship?

Unfortunately, the way this is phrased is a "bad reason" fallacy or worse a "red herring" fallacy. For Christians, there is no Church building per se. Believers are the church.

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 1 Cor 12:27 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Rom 12:5

Have the authorities closed your door (mouth)? No.

With this in mind, we might better understand Peter's situation when he said, we should obey God, not man. He was not talking about meetings in a building, but rather an interior belief system that regardless of meeting place would still abide and be pronounced.

And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. Acts 5:41

Government has every right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or in the case of a despot to do what he sees fit, until God prevails. As also mentioned in the OP.

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Rom 13:7

Surely we can understand how a limitation to gather together in a building is clearly to try to slow the spread of a disease, but to frame this as a Christian's abrogation of a right to speak is ridiculous at best. Seriously, as if that limitation somehow squashes the body of Christ. It doesn't.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (wear a mask, social distance) and you are still a full-fledged, heaven bound Christian, unless your inability to gather somehow made you denounce Christ. This disease shall pass too.

But what about situations where government law prevents Christians from worshiping, praying and singing in church?

There is no Christian requirement to gather together in a church, or to pray or sing aloud, as should be clear from the tradition of hermits living in holy isolation. (One could even make an argument that effectively turning your house into a hermitage makes you closer to God!)

They did this recently and stopped a baptismal service from taking place.

The issue was not the baptism of the child, it was the fact that the whole family were there. Baptism of a child requires only the priest and child to be physically present at the font, in order to dedicate the child to God. Naturally the parents also need to be present to transport the child. There is no religious requirement for friends and family to be there though. Even the common custom of godparents making a commitment to the child's upbringing is only a social custom, not a doctrinal requirement.

which includes preventing Christians from partaking at the Lord’s Table – Communion

Even in Christian sects where Communion is an ordinance rather than a sacrament, there is no requirement for Communion to be taken at any specific frequency. For members of those sects, they should take Communion when possible, but if it is not possible then it does not make them lesser.

The obvious quote is Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

When the apostles disobeyed the religious leaders and refused to stop preaching the gospel

This goes to the heart of the issue. Every single one of your Biblical references concerns people who were banned from following their religion on religious grounds. The issue for Darius wasn't that they were praying, it was that they were not praying to him. The issue for the Pharisees wasn't that the apostles were praying, it was that they weren't praying in the way they wanted.

The rules established by all governments are entirely secular though, and are applied equally to every religion. Jews lost Passover earlier in the year. Muslims have lost Eid. Hindus have lost Diwali. Every religion has suffered equally. And as a result, none of these Biblical references apply. Instead we're left with your Romans quote. Or perhaps more appropriately, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s", which if you remember was a question about whether people should follow the Roman secular laws.

EDIT: To cover your subsequent additional statement:

being unable to function as God intended them to

Jesus explicitly rejected any requirement for churches to exist. As per Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." Whatever plans God may have had about churches, he didn't let Jesus in on the secret.

I found a quote I like from an online news source called The Week (emphasis mine).

Like everything else in this world, Romans 13 makes sense within its broader context. And in the New Testament, this broader context is a big, raised middle finger at the government of the day, the Roman Empire. After all, Rome killed Jesus. And Paul is not short of contempt for the Roman Empire, which he likens to Old Testament-enemies of the Jews like Pharaoh and Babylon, and even at one point asserts that it is controlled by the Devil. So much for government worship.

So, what the heck? Well, Paul writes Romans 13 to say basically two things: First, just because the Roman Empire, and indeed most governments, are awful, doesn't mean that all government in principle is bad. And secondly, he wants to tell his audience that, while they should hold the Roman Empire in contempt and resist it however they can, they should not do so by breaking the law.

It's a very old idea that the law of the King of Kings is superior to the laws of mere kings. It caused a world of hurt, too, if I remember my history correctly. It's an awfully easy idea to abuse when you're generally assured no immediate punishment should you abuse the privilege. So, let's look at a couple of verses:

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matt 22:21)

It might feel like here in the U.S. the government is forcing itself on us. But the reality is that we really do have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We can change (with effort) any aspect of governing authority that we want. In other words, government imposes law with our consent. Therefore, so long as the government is acting within the bounds of law, it has the right to close church doors.

And Paul didn't express this idea only to the Romans. In his epistle to Titus he said:

Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. (Titus 3:1-2)

I'm especially fond of that last clause, to show "all meekness unto all [people]." I'm going to come back to that in a moment.

For now, let's keep in mind that the Lord's admonition to give to government that which is its due and Paul's statement that we should submit to it are not the only admonitions to do so.

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. (1 Pet 2:13-16)

That statement from Peter is in sharp contrast with his statement in Acts 5:29. When you read the whole story (Acts 5:17-32), yes, he and the other apostles are speaking to the local government. But (a) they were trying to stop the apostles from teaching about Christ, not restricting their assembly for public safety and (b) they were the apostles, not common church goers. Maybe people don't want to think there's a difference, but I suspect there is. If the government tried to stop my church leaders from teaching Christ, I'd howl! Consequently, I don't think that particular verse is applicable to our current situation. In fact, let's look on the other side of the coin:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (Rom 8:35)

Persecution (if you can call restricting group gatherings during a time of pandemic persecution) is a function of Christianity. It's almost part of the job description. In fact, I wonder if I search hard enough if I wouldn't find Biblical support for the idea that refusing to permit persecution could compromise salvation (turning the other cheek comes to mind).

Was it wrong for Daniel to be thrown into the lion pit? Absolutely. Would it have been right for Daniel to complain and fight against it? That's an interesting question — it may have resulted in God being denied the opportunity to show His power. I'd hate to have to explain that to the Lord — and that brings us back to that last statement of Peter's about meekness. If we wish to inherit the Earth, then meekness is a mandate.

And it's worth noting that most people misunderstand what meekness is. They think the word is a synonym of "humility." It is not. Humility is, simplistically, a willingness to give credit where credit is due. It is the opposite of pride. Meekness, on the other hand, is a willingness to be subject to authority and a willingness to accept your judgement. It is the opposite of arrogance.

Conclusion: IMO there is Biblical evidence that we should obey government. About six months ago I asked my retired-attorney father just how much local government had the right here in the U.S. to contravene our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and free assembly. His answer was illuminating.

What powers are not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to local governments, which have used those powers to act for public safety in times of disaster and disease almost since the beginning of our Union. There is so much legal precedent that no attorney worth his salt would even try to act against it.

In the end, each Christian needs to act according to her or his conscience based on the influence of the Holy Ghost and their understanding of the Word. But it seems to me the Word clearly suggests that obedience to government is more valuable than fighting an obviously temporary restriction to gather. I'm sure there are several interpretations in this circumstance of this last verse, but it tells me that when the Lord said to give to government what is the right of government to require, it's better to obey than to fight your way into a building.

Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (1 Sam 15:22)

From your comments you are asking about the case where governments have made regulations in response to a pandemic (Covid19) preventing in-person meetings, or limited their size, and not given churches specific exemptions from those regulations.

Many church leaders have explained their response to Covid19 regulations, and most are very similar so I will explain them in general terms.

1. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities. It is the Biblical duty of all Christians to obey secular authorities where they do not conflict with God's laws. In most traditions and teachings there has to be a serious reason for any disobedience. The Biblical examples almost invariably relate to a total ban on teaching about God or worshiping him. More recent examples include laws aimed at persecuting some section of society, or significant injustices. These are not the situation with Covid regulations.
2. Covid regulations are not preventing Christian meetings or Christian activity. There is no prohibition on Christian meetings, as long as they are appropriately distanced, or online, or in some other way safe. There is no prohibition on broadcast of Christian material, Christian teaching. Christian schools continue to function under the same rules as non-Christian, and Christian meetings are not treated differently from non-Christians. Most churches have transitioned adequately to distanced or online meetings, with no more than a certain amount of inconvenience.
3. Continuing to meet in person in defiance of medical precautions is an offence against Jesus teaching to "love your neighbour". Meeting restrictions are intended to prevent people from becoming sick or dying. Defying them increases the likelihood of infecting others, causing them serious harm or death. Those harmed are not just the Christian community but anyone they interact with as well. Christians should not be taking action that actively harms their neighbours.