In compliance with the request of my worthy friend, the Rev. Mr. Coleman, I am happy to accompany his proposed work, on the Constitution and Worship of the apostolical and primitive church, with some preliminary remarks. I regard it as one of the remarkable signs of the times, that Christians, separated from each other by land and by sea, by language and government, are becoming more closely united in the consciousness that they are only different members of one universal church, grounded and built on the rock of Christ Jesus. And it is with the hope of promoting this catholic union, that I gladly improve this opportunity to address my Christian brethren beyond the waters, on some important subjects of common interest to the church of Christ.
This is not the proper place to express in detail, and to defend my own views upon the controverted topics which, as I have reason to expect from the respected author, will be the subject of an extended, thorough and impartial examination in his proposed work. My own sentiments have [13] already been expressed, in a work which, I am happy to learn, is offered to the English reader in a translation by my friend, the Rev. Mr. Ryland, of Northampton, in England.1 I have only time and space, in this place, briefly to express the results of former inquiries, which, with the reasons for them, have on other occasions already been given to the public.
It is of the utmost importance, to keep ever in view the difference between the economy of the Old Testament and that of the New. The neglect of this has given rise to the grossest errors, and to divisions, by which those who ought to be united together in the bonds of Christian love, have been sundered from each other. In the Old Testament, everything relating to the kingdom of God was estimated by outward forms, and promoted by specific external rites. In the New, everything is made to depend upon what is internal and spiritual. Other foundation, as the apostle Paul has said, can no man lay than that is laid. Upon this the Christian church at first was grounded, and upon this alone, in all time to come, must it be reared anew and compacted together. Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, the Saviour of the world, and union with him,—this is that inward principle, that unchangeable foundation, on which the Christian church essentially rests. But whenever, instead of making the existence of the church to depend on this [14] inward principle alone, the necessity of some outward form is asserted as an indispensable means of grace, we readily perceive that the purity of its character is impaired. The spirit of the Old Testament is commingled with that of the New. Neither Christ nor the apostles, have given any unchangeable law on the subject. Where two or three are gathered together in my name, says Christ, there am I in the midst of them. This coming together in his name, he assures us, alone renders the assembly well pleasing in his sight, whatever be the different forms of government under which his people meet.
The apostle Paul says indeed, Eph. 4: 11, that Christ gave to the church certain offices, through which he operated with his Spirit, and its attendant gifts. But assuredly Paul did not mean to say that Christ, during his abode on earth, appointed these offices in the church, or authorized the form of government that was necessarily connected with them. All the offices here mentioned, with the single exception of that of the apostles, were instituted by the apostles themselves, after our Lord’s ascension. In making these appointments, they acted, as they did in everything else, only as the organs of Christ. Paul, therefore, very justly ascribes to Christ himself what was done by the apostles in this instance as his agents. But the apostles themselves have given no law, requiring that any such form of government as indicated in this passage should be perpetual. Under the guidance of the Spirit of God, they gave the church this particular organization, which, while it was best adapted to the circumstances and relations of the church at that time, was also best suited to the extension of [15] the churches in their peculiar condition, and for the development of the inward principles of their communion. But forms may change with every change of circumstances. Many of the offices mentioned in that passage, either were entirely unknown at a later period, or existed in relations one to another entirely new.2
Whenever at a later period, also, any form of church government has arisen out of a series of events according to the direction of divine providence, and is organized and governed with regard to the Lord’s will, he may be said, himself, to have established it, and to operate through it, by his Spirit; without which nothing pertaining to the church [16] can prosper. The great principles which are given by the apostle, in the passage before us, for the guidance of the church,—these, and these only, remain unchangeably the same; because they are immediately connected with the nature of the Christian church, as a spiritual community. All else is mutable. The form of the church remained not the same, even through the whole course of the apostolic age, from the first descent of the Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, to the death of John the apostle. Particular forms of church government may be more or less suited to the nature of the Christian church; and we may add, no one is absolutely perfect, neither are all alike good under all circumstances. Would then that all, in their strivings after forms of church government, would abide fast by those which they believe to be best adapted to promote their own spiritual edification, and which they may have found, by experience, to be best suited to the wants of their own Christian community. Only let them not seek to impose upon all Christians any one form as indispensably necessary. Only let them remember, that the upbuilding of the church of Christ may be carried on under other forms also; and that the same Spirit, on which the existence of the church depends, can as truly operate in other churches as in their own. Would that Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians, Calvinists and Lutherans, would abide by that only unchangeable foundation which Christ has laid. Would that on such foundation, which no man can lay, they would meet as brethren in Christ, acknowledging each other as members of one catholic church, and organs of the same [17] Spirit, co-operating together for the promotion of the great ends indicated by the apostle Paul in Eph. 4: 13-16.
It must, indeed, be of great importance to examine impartially the relations of the apostolical church; for, at this time, the Spirit of Christ, through the apostles, wrought in its purest influence; by which means the mingling of foreign elements was prevented in the development of this system of ecclesiastical polity. In this respect we must all admit that the apostolical church commends itself to us as a model of church government. But, in the first place, let us remember, agreeably to what has already been said, that not all the forms of church government which were adapted to the exigencies of the church at this early period, can be received as patterns for the church at later times; neither can the imitation be pressed too far. Let us remember, that it is only that same Spirit which is imparted to us through the intervention of the apostles, which, at all times, and under all possible relations, will direct to the most appropriate and most efficient form of government, if, in humility and sincerity, we surrender ourselves up to its teaching and guidance. And secondly, let us remember, that, after true and faithful inquiry on these subjects, men may honestly differ in their views on those minor points, without interrupting the higher communion of faith and love.
In the apostolical church there was one office which bears no resemblance to any other, and to which none can be made to conform. This is the office of the apostles. They stand as the medium of communication between Christ and the whole Christian church, to transmit his word and his Spirit through all ages. In this respect the church must [18] ever continue to acknowledge her dependence upon them, and to own their rightful authority. Their authority and power can be delegated to none other. But the service which the apostles themselves ought to confer, was to transmit to men the word and the Spirit of the Lord, and, by this means, to establish independent Christian communities. These communities, when once established, they refused to hold in a state of slavish dependence upon themselves. Their object was, in the Spirit of the Lord, to make the churches free, and independent of their guidance. To the churches their language was, ”Ye beloved, ye are made free, be ye the servants of no man.“ The churches were taught to govern themselves. All the members were made to co-operate together as organs of one Spirit, in connection with which spiritual gifts were imparted to each as he might need. Thus they, whose prerogative it was to rule among the brethren, demeaned themselves as the servants of Christ and his church, as the organs of that Spirit with which all were inspired, and from which they derived the consciousness of their mutual Christian fellowship.
The brethren chose their own officers from among themselves. Or if, in the first organization of the churches, their officers were appointed by the apostles, it was with the approbation of the members of the same. The general concerns of the church were managed by the apostles in connection with their brethren in the church, to whom they also addressed their epistles.
The earliest constitution of the church was modelled, for the most part, after that religious community with which it [19] stood in closest connection, and to which it was most assimilated—the Jewish synagogue. This, however, was so modified as to conform to the nature of the Christian community, and to the new and peculiar spirit with which it was animated. Like the synagogue, the church was governed by an associated body of men appointed for this purpose.
The name of presbyters, which was appropriated to this body, was derived from the Jewish synagogue. But in the Gentile churches, formed by the apostle Paul, they took the name of επισκοποι, bishops, a term more significant of their office in the language generally spoken by the members of these churches. The name of presbyters denoted the dignity of their office. That of bishops, on the other hand, was expressive of the nature of their office, επισκοπειν την εκκλησιαν, to take the oversight of the church. Most certainly no other distinction originally existed between them. But, in process of time, some one, in the ordinary course of events, would gradually obtain pre-eminence over his colleagues, and by reason of that peculiar oversight which he exercised over the whole community, might come to be designated by the name επισκοπος, bishop, which was originally applied to them all indiscriminately. The constant tumults, from within and without, which agitated the church in the times of the apostles, may have given to such a one opportunity to exercise his influence the more efficiently; so that, at such a time, the controlling influence of one in this capacity may have been very salutary to the church. This change in the relation of the presbyters to each other was not the same in all the churches, but varied according [20] to their different circumstances. It may have been as early as the latter part of the life of John, when he was sole survivor of the other apostles, that one, as president of this body of presbyters, was distinguished by the name of επισκοπος, bishop. There is, however, no evidence that the apostle himself introduced this change; much less, that he authorized it as a perpetual ordinance for the future. Such an ordinance is in direct opposition to the spirit of that apostle.3
This change in the mode of administering the government of the church, resulting from peculiar circumstances, may have been introduced as a salutary expedient, without implying departure from the purity of the Christian spirit. When, however, the doctrine is, as it gradually gained currency in the third century,—that the bishops are, by divine right, the head of the church, and invested with the government of the same; that they are the successors of the apostles, and by this succession inherit apostolical [21] authority; that they are the medium through which, in consequence of that ordination which they have received, merely in an outward manner, the Holy Ghost, in all time to come, must be transmitted to the church—when this becomes the doctrine of the church, we certainly must perceive, in these assumptions, a strong corruption of the purity of the Christian system. It is a carnal perversion of the true idea of the Christian church. It is falling back into the spirit of the Jewish religion. Instead of the Christian idea of a church, based on inward principles of communion, and extending itself by means of these, it presents us with the image of one, like that under the Old Testament, resting in outward ordinances, and, by external rites, seeking to promote the propagation of the kingdom of God. This entire perversion of the original view of the Christian church was itself the origin of the whole system of the Roman Catholic religion,—the germ from which sprung the popery of the dark ages.
We hold, indeed, no controversy with that class of Episcopalians who adhere to the Episcopal system above mentioned as well adapted, in their opinion, to the exigencies of their church. We would live in harmony with them, notwithstanding their mistaken views of the true form of the church, provided they denounce not other systems of church government. But the doctrine of the absolute necessity of the Episcopal as the only valid form of government, and of the Episcopal succession of bishops above mentioned, in order to a participation in the gifts of the Spirit, all this we must regard as something foreign to the true idea of the Christian church. It is in direct conflict with the spirit of [22] protestantism; and is the origin, not of the true catholicism of the apostle, but of that of the Romish church. When, therefore, Episcopalians disown, as essentially deficient in their ecclesiastical organization, other protestant churches which evidently have the spirit of Christ, it only remains for us to protest, in the strongest terms, against their setting up such a standard of perfection for the Christian church. Far be it from us, who began with Luther in the spirit, that we should now desire to be made perfect by the flesh. Gal. 3: 3.
Dr. A. Neander.
Berlin, April 28th, 1843. [23]
1 History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church, by the Apostles, by Dr. A. Neander, Ordinary Professor of Theology, in the University of Berlin, Consistorial Counsellor; translated from the third edition, by J. E. Ryland.
2 One peculiar office, that of the prophets, in process of time ceased in the church, while something analogous to the gift of prophecy still remained; indeed it might be easily shown that the prophetic office continued at that early period, so long as it was necessary for the establishment of the Christian church, under its peculiar exigencies and relations. Pastors and teachers are mentioned in this passage, in the same connection. Their office, which related to the government of particular churches, is distinguished from that of those who had been mentioned before, and whose immediate object was the extension of the Christian church in general. And yet a distinction is also made between pastors and teachers, inasmuch as the qualifications for the outward government of the church, κυβερνησις, were different from those which were prerequisite for the guidance of the church by the preaching of the word, διδασκαλια. The first belonged especially to the presbyters of bishops who stood at the head of the organization for the outward government of the church. Certain it is, at least, that they did not all possess the gift of teaching as διδασκαλοι, teachers. On the other hand, there may have been persons endowed with the gift of teaching, and qualified thus to be teachers, who still belonged not to the class of presbyters. The relations of these offices to one another seem not to have been the same in all stages of the development of the apostolical churches.
3 In the angels of the churches in the seven epistles of the Apocalypse, I cannot recognize the shaliach tsabur [transliterated from Dr. Coleman’s Aramaic — M.L.] of the Jewish synagogue transferred to the Christian church. The application appears to me to be altogether arbitrary. Nor again can I discover in the angel of the church the bishop, addressed as representative of this body of believers. How much must we assume as already proved, which yet is entirely without evidence, in assigning to this early period the rise of such a monarchial system of government, that the bishop alone can be put in the place of the whole church? In this phraseology I recognize rather a symbolical application of the idea of guardian angels, similar to that of the Ferver of the Parsees, as a symbolical representation and image of the whole church. Such a figurative representation corresponds well with the poetical and symbolical character of the book throughout. It is also expressly said that the address is to the whole body of the churches.