The Christian church derived its earliest form from a small society of believers, who were united together by no law but that of the love which they felt to one another, and to their common Lord.1 After his ascension, they continued to meet, in singleness of heart, for the mutual interchange of sympathy and love, and for the worship of their Lord and Master. The government which, in process of time, the fraternity adopted for themselves, was free and voluntary. Each individual church possessed the rights and powers inherent in an independent popular assembly; or, to adopt the language of another, “The right to enact their laws, and the entire government of the church, was vested in each individual association of which the church was composed, and was exercised by the members of the same, in connection with their overseers and teachers, and, when the apostles were present, in common also with them.”2 This general exposition of the government of the primitive church, it will be our [25] business to illustrate and defend in the following pages. The course of our inquiries will lead us to examine the popular government of the apostolical and primitive church, to trace the gradual extinction of this form of government, and the rise of the Episcopal system; and also to consider the simplicity of primitive worship in its several parts.
The arguments for the popular government of the apostolical and primitive church may be arranged under the following heads.
1. It harmonizes with the primitive simplicity of all forms of government.
The multiplication of offices, the adjustment of the gradations of rank and power, and a complicated system of rites and forms, are the work of time. At first, the rules of government, however administered, are few and simple. The early Christians, especially, associating together in the confidence of mutual love, and uniting in sincerity of heart for the worship of God, may fairly be presumed to have had only a few conventional rules for the regulation of their fraternity.
2. It is, perhaps, the only organization which the church could safely have formed, at that time, under the Roman government.
Without any established religion, the Romans tolerated indeed, different religious sects, and might have extended the same indulgence to the primitive Christians. But they looked with suspicion upon every organization of party or sect, as treason against the state, and punished with cruel jealousy every indication of a confederacy within the empire. The charge of treasonable intentions prevailed with the Roman governor against our Lord. And under Trajan, A.D. 103, a bloody persecution was commenced against the church, on the suspicion that it might be a secret society, formed for seditious purposes. Under these circumstances, [26] it is difficult to conceive how a diocesan consolidation of the churches established by the apostles, could have been effected without bringing down upon them the vengeance of the Roman government, to crush, at the outset, a coalition to it so obnoxious. Their apparently harmless and informal assemblies, and the total absence of all connection, one with another, was, according to Planck and many others, the means of saving the early churches so long and so extensively from the exterminating sword of Roman jealousy.3
Crevit occulto, velut arbor, aevo.
3. Such an organization must have been formed, it would seem, in order to unite the discordant parties in the primitive churches.
Here was the Jew, the Greek, the Roman, and Barbarians of every form of superstition; converts, indeed, to faith in Christ, but with all their partialities and prejudices still. What but a voluntary principle, guaranteeing to all the freedom of a popular assembly, could unite these parties in one fraternity? Our Lord himself employed no artificial bands to bind his followers together into a permanent body; and they were alienated from him upon the slightest offense. The apostles had still less to bind their adherents firmly to themselves. It required all their wisdom and address to reconcile the discordant prejudices of their converts, and unite them in harmonious fellowship one with another. This difficulty met the apostles at the outset of their ministry, in the murmuring of the Greeks against the Jews, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. This mutual jealousy was a continual trial besetting them on every side, from the churches which they had formed. Under such circumstances, they assumed not the responsibility of setting these controversies by apostolical or Episcopal authority; but by their counsel and persuasion, they sought to obviate the [27] prejudices of their brethren. Everything relating to the interests of each church they left to be publicly discussed, and decided by mutual consent. In this manner they quieted these complaints of the Greeks respecting the distribution of alms. Acts 6: 1-8. And such, no doubt, became their settled policy in their care of the churches. Even the apostles were not exempt from these infirmities and misunderstandings, and might have found no small difficulty in arranging among themselves a more artificial and complicated system of church government.4
4. The same is inferred from the existence of popular rights and privileges in the early periods of the Christian church.
It is known to every one at all acquainted with the early history of the church, that from the second century down to the final triumph of papacy, there was a strong and increasing tendency to exalt and extend the authority of the clergy, and to curtail and depress that of the people. The fact is undeniable. But how shall it be explained? If a prelatical form of organization was divinely appointed by Christ and his apostles, vesting in the clergy alone the right of government, and if the tide of clerical encroachment ran so steadily and strongly from the first, then it is inconceivable, how, under these circumstances, the doctrine of popular rights should ever have obtained such a footing in the church, as to maintain itself for centuries against the influences of a jealous and oppressive hierarchy. Had the doctrine of the popular rights been totally lost in the second and third centuries, this would by no means warrant the inference that such rights were unknown in the days of the [28] apostles. They might have all been swept away by the irresistible tide of clerical influence and authority. But they were not lost. They were recognized even in the fourth and fifth centuries, and long after the hierarchy was established in connection with the state, and its authority enforced by imperial power. Were not the rights of the people established by Christ and the apostles? If not, how could they have come in and maintained their ground against the current that continually ran with such strength in the opposite direction?
5. A popular form of church government harmonizes with the spirit, the instructions, and the example of Christ.
(a) With his spirit. He was of a meek and lowly spirit, unostentatious and unassuming. He shrank from the demonstrations of power, and refused the titles and honors that, at times, were pressed upon his acceptance. With such a spirit, that religious system must be congenial, which, without any parade of titles and of rank, has few offices, and little to excite the pride or tempt the ambition of man.
(b) With his instructions. Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his live a ransom for many. Matt. 20: 25-28. Comp. Mark 10: 42-45.
(c) With his example. This was in perfect coincidence with his instructions, and a striking illustration of his spirit. His life was a pattern of humility, of untiring, unostentatious benevolence. He condescended to the condition of all; and, as one of the latest and most expressive acts of his life, washed his disciples’ feet, giving them an example for their [29] imitation, as the servants of all men. Has such a spirit its just expression in a hierarchy, which has often dishonored the religion of Christ by the display of princely pomp, and the assumption of regal and imperial power?5
6. It equally accords with the spirit, the instructions, and the example of the apostles.
(a) With their spirit. They had renounced their hopes of aggrandizement in the kingdom of Christ, and had imbibed much of his spirit. The world took knowledge of them they had been with Jesus, and had learned of him, who was meek and lowly of heart. They accounted themselves the least of all saints, and the servants of all. This spirit, it would seem, must be foreign from the distinctions of rank and of office, as well as from the authority and power which are inherent in every form of the Episcopal system.
(b) With their instructions. These were in coincidence with those of their Master. The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men; apt to teach; patient (under injuries); in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves. 2 Tim. 2: 24-25. Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 1 Cor. 3: 5. They disowned personal authority over the church; and instructed the elders not to lord it over God’s heritage, but to be examples to the flock. 1 Pet. 5: 3. If, in the discharge of his ministry, one has occasion to reprove sin in an elder, this he is charged, before God and the elect angels, to do with all circumspection, without prejudice or partiality. 1 Tim. 5: 21.
(c) With their example. This is the best comment upon their instructions, and the clearest indication of that [30] organization which the church received at their hands. They exercised, indeed, a controlling influence over the several churches which they established, as an American missionary does in organizing his Christian converts into a church, while he constitutes them a popular assembly under a Congregational or Presbyterian form. In like manner, it is observable, that the apostles studiously declined the exercise of prelatical or Episcopal authority.6 But the control which they at first exercised in the management of the affairs of the church was no part of their office. It was only a temporary expedient, resulting from the necessity of the case. Accordingly, they carefully disclaimed the official exercise of all clerical authority; and, as soon as the circumstances of the churches would admit, they submitted to each the administration of its own government. In this manner, they gave to the churches the character of voluntary, deliberative assemblies, invested with the rights and privileges of religious liberty. In support of this position we have to offer the following considerations:
(α) They addressed the members of the church as brethren and sisters, and fellow-laborers. I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes, I purposed to come unto you. Rom. 1: 13. And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not in excellency of speech. 1 Cor. 2: 1. I commend unto you Phebe, our sister. Rom. 16: 1. The same familiar, affectionate style of address runs through all the epistles, showing in what consideration the apostles held all the members of the church. “The apostles severally were very far from placing themselves in a relation that bore any analogy to a mediating priesthood. In this respect they always [31] placed themselves on a footing of equality. If Paul assured them of his intercessory prayers for them, he in return requested their prayers for himself.”7
(β) The apostles remonstrate with the members of the church as with brethren, instead of rebuking them authoritatively. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you. 1 Cor. 1: 10. Furthermore, then, we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you. 1 Thess. 4: 1. My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. James 2: 1. They spoke not by commandment, but in the language of mutual counsellors. 1 Cor. 11: 13-16.8
(γ) They treated with the church as an independent body, competent to judge and act for itself. They appealed to the judgment of their brethren personally. 1 Cor. 11: 13-16. 1 Thess. 5: 21. They reported their own doings to the church, as if amenable to that body, Acts 11: 1-18. 14: 26, 27, and exhorted the brethren to hold their teachers under their watch and discipline. Rom. 16: 17.
(δ) They addressed their epistles, not to the pastors of the churches, but to the churches, or to the churches and pastors collectively, giving precedence, in some instances, to the church. Phil. 1: 1. Even the epistles which treat of controverted ecclesiastical matters, are addressed, not to the bishops and presbyters, but to the whole body of believers, indicating that the decision belonged to them. Had it been [32] otherwise, would not such instructions and advice have been given to the ministers of the churches?9
(ζ) They recognize the right of the churches to send out their own religious teachers and messengers, as they might have occasion. Acts 11: 19-24; 15: 32, 33. 2 Cor. 8: 23. Phil. 2: 25. 1 Cor. 16: 3, 4. These deputations, and the power of sending them, indicate the independent authority of the churches.
(η) They united the church in mutual consultation upon doubtful questions. The brethren took part in the dissention with Peter, for having preached unto the Gentiles. Acts 11: 1-18. The apostles united with them in the discussion of the question respecting circumcision, which was submitted to them by the delegation from Antioch, and the result was published in the name of the apostles and the brethren, jointly. Acts 15: 1 seq.
(θ) They submitted to the church the settlement of their own difficulties. The appointment of the seven deacons, to obviate the murmurs of the Greeks, was made at the suggestion of the apostles, but the election was wholly the act of the church. Acts 6: 1-6. The apostles refused any authoritative arbitration in the case; and required the churches to choose arbitrators among themselves to settle their own litigations. 1 Cor. 6: 1.
(ι) They entrusted the church, also, with the important right of electing its own officers. As in the case of the seven deacons, which we have just stated; the apostles refused even the responsibility of supplying, in their own number, the place of the traitor Judas, but submitted the choice to the assembly of the disciples. Acts 1: 15, seq. In this connection should the appointment of elders, Acts 14: 23, also be mentioned, as may hereafter appear.
(κ) The apostles submitted to the church the discipline of [33] its members; as in the case of the incestuous person, who was excommunicated and afterwards restored to the church by that body. “The relations of presbyters to the church was not that of rules with monarchial powers, but of the officers of an ecclesiastical republic. In all things they were to act in connection with the church, and to perform their duties as the servants, and not the lords of the church. The apostles recognized the same relation. They addressed their epistles, not to the officers of the church, but to the whole body, when treating not merely of doctrinal points, but of moral duties and of church discipline. The apostle Paul, when speaking of the excommunication of the incestuous person at Corinth, regards himself as united in spirit with the whole church, 1 Cor. 5: 4; thus indicating the principle, that their co-operation was required in all such cases of general interest.”10
The churches, therefore, which were planted by the apostles, were under their sanction organized as independent popular assemblies, with power to elect officers, adopt rules, administer discipline, and to do all those acts which belong to such deliberative bodies.
7. The popular government of the primitive church is apparent from its analogy to the Jewish synagogue.
This and each of the following articles, under this head, will be the subjects of consideration in another place. They are assumed as so many separate heads of argumentation, so far as they may appear to be founded in truth. Comp. Chap. II.
8. The primitive churches were, severally, independent bodies, in Christian fellowship, but having no confederate relations one toward another.
“The power of enacting laws,” says Mosheim, “of [34] appointing teachers and ministers, and of determining controversies, was lodged in the people at large; nor did the apostles, though invested with divine authority, either resolve or sanction anything whatever, without the knowledge and concurrence of the general body of Christians, of which the church was composed.”11 Comp. Chap. III.
9. These churches severally enjoyed the inherent right of every independent body—that of choosing their own officers. This right, which, as we have seen, belonged to the apostolical churches, was retained in the churches during the ages immediately following. Comp. Chap. IV.
10. As in the apostolical, so in the other primitive churches, the right of discipline was vested, not in the clergy, but in each church collectively.12
Even the officers of the church were subject to the authority of the same. Clement recognizes this authority in his epistles to the Corinthians.13 Comp. Chap. V.
11. The appropriate officers of the church were deacons and pastors. These pastors were denominated indiscriminantly bishops, overseers, and elders, presbyters, and were at first identical. Comp. Chap. VI. [35]
The government of the church was the peculiar office of the bishops or presbyters. It was their business to watch over the general order,—to maintain the purity of the Christian doctrine and of Christian practice,—to guard against abuses,—to admonish the faulty,—and to guide the public deliberations; as appears from the passages in the New Testament where their functions are described. But their government by no means excluded the participation of the whole church in the management of their common concerns, as may be inferred from what we have already remarked respecting the nature of Christian communion, and as is also evident from many individual examples in the apostolical churches. The whole church at Jerusalem took part in the deliberations respecting the relation of the Jewish and Gentile Christians to each other, and the epistle drawn up after these deliberations was likewise in the name of the whole church. The epistles of the apostle Paul, as has already been remarked, which treat of various controverted ecclesiastical matters, are addressed to their whole churches; implying that the decision belonged to the whole body. Had it been otherwise, would he not have addressed his instructions and advice, principally at least, to the overseers of the church? When a licentious person belonging to the church at Corinth is to be excommunicated, the apostle treats it as a measure that ought to proceed from the whole society; and places himself, therefore, in spirit among them, to unite with them in passing judgment; 1 Cor. 5: 3-5. Also when discoursing of the settlement of litigations, the apostle does not affirm that it properly belonged to the overseers of the church; although, if this had been the prevalent custom, he would no doubt have referred to it; what he says, seems rather to imply that it was usual, in particular instances, to select arbitrators from among the members of the church, 1 Cor. 6:5.14
Greiling, after going through with an examination of the [36] government of the apostolical churches, gives the following summary: “In the age of the apostles, there was no primate of the churches, but the entire equality of brethren prevailed. The apostles themselves exercised no kind of authority of power over the churches; but styled themselves their helpers and servants. The settlement of controverted points, the adoption of new rites, the discipline of the church, the election of presbyters, and even the choice of an apostle, were submitted to the church. The principle on which the apostles proceeded was, that the church, that is, the elders and the members of the church unitedly, were the depositaries of all their social rights; that no others could exercise this right but those to whom the church might entrust it, and who were accordingly amenable to the church. Even the apostles, though next to Christ himself, invested with the highest authority, assumed no superiority over the presbyters, but treated them as brethren, and styled themselves fellow-presbyters,—thus recognizing them as associates in office.15
Finally, the worship of the primitive churches was remarkable for its freedom and simplicity. Their religious rites were few and simple; and restrained by no complicated ritual, or prescribed ceremonials. This point is considered, at length, in a subsequent part of the work.
The government throughout was wholly popular. Every church adopted its own regulations, and enacted its own laws. These laws were administered by officers elected by the church. No church was dependent upon another. They were represented in synod by their own delegates. Their discipline was administered, not by the clergy, but by the people or the church collectively. And even after ordination became the exclusive right of the bishop, no one was permitted to preach to any congregation, who was not sufficiently approved, and duly accepted by the congregation; and all [37] their religious worship was conducted on the same principles of freedom and equality.
Such was the organization of the Christian church in its primitive simplicity and purity. The national peculiarities of the Jewish and gentile converts, in some degree, modified individual churches, but the form of government was substantially the same in all. We claim not for it authority absolutely imperative and divine, to the exclusion of every other system; but it has, we must believe, enough of precept, of precedent, and of principle, to give it a sanction truly apostolic. Its advantages and practical results justly claim an attentive consideration. [38]
1 Neander’s Apost. Kirch. Vol. I. c. 1. Rothe, Anfänge der Christ. Kirch. I. S. 141-142.
2 Cited in Allgemeine Kirch. Zeitung, 1833. No. 103.
3 Gesellschafts-Verfass, I. S. 40-50.
4 Schroeder and Klein, Für Christenthum Oppositionsschrift, I. S. 567. Siegel, Handbuch, II. 455-6. Arnold, Wahre-Abbildung der Ersten Christen, B. II. c. 5, seq. Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen d. Kirch. Gebräuch. I. S. 234-5.
5 The French infidels have an expression relating to our Saviour, which, though impious and profane, clearly indicates the nature of his instructions and example,—“Jesus Christ, the great Democrat.”
6 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verass., 1. S. 39. Spittler, Can. Recht, c. 1. § 3. Pertsch, Can. Recht. c. 1. § 5-8. Siegel, Kirchliche Verfassungsformen, in Handbuch, II. S. 455. Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. I. S. 156-170, 362-370.
7 Neander, Apostol. Kirch., I. p. 161, 3d edit.; and in the sequel much more to the same effect.
8 Comp. Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Lib. 5. c. 22.
9 Comp. Ep. Clem. and Euseb., h.e. Lib. 4. c. 15. Lib. 5. c. 1, c. 24.
10 Neander, Allgem. Gesch., I, S. 324, 2d ed.
11 De Rebus Christ, etc. § 1, 37. To the same effect, also, is the authority of Neander, Apost. Kirch. pp. 1, 161, 201, 214, 3d ed.
12 Primo omnibus ecclesiae membris jus eligendi pastores et diaconos erat. Communicato erat quaedam inter varios coetus christianos vel ecclesias; literae quas altera acceperat alteri legendae mittebantur. Pecunias ad pauperes sublevandos ecclesia ecclesiae donabat. De rebus fidei et disciplinae jam apostoli deliberaverunt. Quaequae ecclesiae exercebat jus excommunicandi eos qui doctrinae et vitae christianae renunciaverant, eosque recipendi quorum poenitentia et mentis mutatio constabat. Sic prima christianorum ecclesia libertate, concordia, sanctitate floruit. Sack Comment. ad Theol. Inst. p. 141.
13 Epist. § 54, comp. 44. Also Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. I. 362.
14 Neander, Apost. Kirch. I. pp. 1, 201. Comp. also, p. 214.