1. The Greek word denotes an assembly met about business, whether lawful or unlawful, Act 19:32; Act 19:39.
2. It is understood of the collective body of Christians, or all those over the face of the earth who profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge him to be the Saviour of mankind: this is called the visible church, Eph 3:21. 1Ti 3:15. Eph 4:11-12.
3. By the word church, also, we are to understand the whole body of God’s chosen people, in every period of time: this is the invisible church. Those on earth are also called the militant, and those in heaven the triumphant church, Heb 12:23. Act 20:28. Eph 1:1-23 Mat 16:28.
4. By a particular church we understand an assembly of Christians united together, and meeting in one place for the solemn worship of God. To this agree the definition given by the compilers of the thirty-nine articles:
"A congregation of faithful men, in which the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinances, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." Act 9:31. Gal 1:2; Gal 1:22. 1Co 14:34. Act 20:17. Col 4:15.
5. The word is now used also to denote any particular denomination of Christians distinguished by particular doctrines, ceremonies, &c.: as the Romish church, Greek church. and English church, &c. Congregational church is so called from their maintaining that each congregation of Christians which meet in one place for religious worship is a complete church, and has sufficient power to act and perform every thing relative to religious government within itself, and is in no respect subject or accountable to any other church. It does not appear, say they, that the primitive churches were national; they were not even provincial; for, though there were many believers and professing Christians in Judea, in Galilee, and Samaria, in Macedonia, in Galatia, and other provinces, yet we never read of a provincial church in any of those places.
The particular societies of Christians in these districts are mentioned in the plural number, 2Co 8:1. Gal 1:2. Act 9:31. According to them, we find no mention made of diocesan churches in the New Testament. In the days of the apostles, bishops were so far from presiding over more churches than one, that sometimes a plurality of bishops presided over the same church.
See Php 1:1. Nor do we find any mention made of parochial churches. Some of the inhabitants of a parish may be Infidels, Mahometans, or Jews; but Gospel churches consist of such as make an open profession of their faith in Christ, and subjection to the Gospel, Rom.i.7. 1Co 14:33. It seems plain, then, that the primitive churches of Christ were properly congregational. The first church at Jerusalem met together in one place at the same time, Act 1:14-15. The church of Antioch did the same, Act 14:27. The church of Corinth the same, 1Co 14:23. The same did the church at Troas, Act 20:7. There was a church at Cenchrea, a port of Corinth, distinct from the church in that city, Rom 16:1-27: He that was a member of one church was not a member of another. The apostle Paul, writing to the Colossian society, says
"Epaphras, who is one of you, saluteth you, " Col 4:12. Such a church is a body distinguished from the civil societies of the world by the spiritual nature and design of its government; for, though Christ would have order kept in his church, yet without any coercive force; a thing inconsistent with the very nature of such a society, whose end is instruction; and a practice suitable to it, which can never in the nature of things be accomplished by penal laws or external coersion, Isa 33:22. Mat 23:8; Mat 23:10. Joh 18:36. Psa 2:6. 2Co 10:4-5. Zec 4:6, &c. 1. Church members are those who compose or belong to the church. As to the visible church, it may be observed that real saintship is not the distinguishing criterion of the members of it. None, indeed, can without it honestly offer themselves to church fellowship; but they cannot be refused admission for the mere want of it; for
1. God alone can judge the heart. Deceivers can counterfeit saintship, 1Sa 16:1; 1Sa 16:7.
2. God himself admitted many members of the Jewish church whose hearts were unsanctified, Deu 29:3-4; Deu 29:13. Joh 6:70.
3. John the Baptist and the apostles required no more than outward appearance of faith and repentance in order to baptism, Mat 3:5; Mat 3:7. Act 2:28.vii. 13, 23.
4. Many that were admitted members in the churches of Judea, Corinth, Philippi, Laodicea, Sardis, &c. were unregenerated, Act 5:1; Act 5:10; Act 8:13; Act 8:23. 1Co 1:11; 1Co 5:11. Php 3:18-19. Rev 3:5; Rev 3:15; Rev 17:1-18:
5. Christ compares the Gospel church to a floor on which corn and chaff are mingled together: to a net in which good and bad are gathered, &c.
See Mat 13:1-58: As to the real church,
1. The true members of it are such as are born again.
2. They come out from the world, 1Co 6:17.
3. They openly profess love to Christ, Jas 2:14; Jas 2:26. Mar 8:34 &c.
4. They walk in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless. None but such are proper members of the true church; nor should any be admitted to any particular church without some appearance of these, at least. 2. Church fellowship is the communion that the members enjoy one with another. The end of church fellowship is,
1. The maintenance and exhibition of a system of sound principles, 2Ti 1:13. 1Ti 6:3-4. 1Co 8:5-6. Heb 2:1. Eph 4:21.
2. The support of the ordinances of Gospel worship in their purity and simplicity, Deu 12:31-32. Rom 15:6.
3. The impartial exercise of church government and discipline, Heb 12:15. Gal 6:1. 2Ti 2:24; 2Ti 2:26. Tit 3:10. 1Co 5:1-13: Jas 3:17.
4. The promotion of holiness in all manner of conversation, Php 1:27; Php 2:15-16. 2Pe 3:11. Php 4:8. The more particular duties are.
1. Earnest study to keep peace and unity, Eph 4:3. Php 2:2-3. Php 3:15-16.
2. Bearing of one another’s burdens, Gal 6:1; Gal 2:1-21:
3. Earnest endeavours to prevent each other’s stumblings, 1Co 10:2-3. Heb 10:24; Heb 10:27. Rom 14:13.
4. Stedfast continuance in the faith and worship of the Gospel, Act 2:42.
5. Praying for and sympathizing with each other, 1Sa 12:23. Eph 6:18. The advantages are,
1. Peculiar incitements to holiness, Ecc 4:11.
2. There are some promises applicable to none but those who attend the ordinances of God, and hold communion with the saints, Psa 92:13. Isa 25:6. Psa 122: 13, 16. Psa 36:8. Jer 31:12.
3. Such are under the watchful eye and care of their pastor, Heb 13:7.
4. Subject to the friendly reproof or kind advice of the saints, 1Co 12:25.
5. Their zeal and love are animated by reciprocal conversation, Mal 3:16. Pro 27:17.
6. They may restore each other if they fall, Ecc 4:10. Gal 6:1.
7. More easily promote the cause, and spread the Gospel elsewhere. 3. Church ordinances are,
1. Reading of the Scriptures, Neh 9:3. Act 17:11. Neh 8:3-4. Luk 4:16.
2. Preaching and expounding, 1Ti 3:2. 2Ti 2:24. Eph 4:8. Rom 10:15. Heb 5:4.
3. Hearing, Is. 4: 1. Jas 1:21. 1Pe 2:2. 1Ti 4:13.
4. Prayer, Psa 5:1-2. Psa 95:6. Psa 121:1. Psa 28:2. Act 12:12; Act 1:14.
5. Singing of psalms, Ps. xivii. 1 to 6. Col 3:16. 1Co 14:15. Eph 5:1-33.
6. Thanksgiving, Psa 50:14. Psa 100:1-5: Jas 5:13.
7. The Lord’s supper, 1Co 11:23, &c. Act 20:7. Baptism is not properly a church ordinance, since it ought to be administered before a person be admitted into church fellowship.
See BAPTISM. 4. church officers are those appointed by Christ for preaching the word, and the superintendence of church affairs: such are bishops and deacons, to which some add, elders.
See these articles. 5. As to church order and discipline, it may be observed, that every Christian society formed on the congregational plan is strictly independent of all other religious societies. No other church however numerous or respectable; no person or persons, however eminent for authority, abilities, or influence, have any right to assume arbitrary jurisdiction over such a society. They have but one master, who is Christ.
Even the officers which Christ has appointed in his church have no power to give new laws to it; but only, in conjunction with the other members of the society, to execute the commands of Christ. They have no dominion over any man’s faith, nor any compulsive power over the consciences of any. Every particular church has a right to judge of the fitness of those who offer themselves as members, Act 9:26. If they are found to be proper persons, they must then be admitted; and this should always be followed with prayer, and with a solemn exhortation to the persons received. If any member walk disorderly, and continue to do so, the church is empowered to exclude him, 1Co 5:7. 2Th 3:6. Rom 16:17. which should be done with the greatest tenderness; but if evident signs of repentance should be discovered, such must be received again, Gal 6:1. This and other church business is generally done on some day preceding the sabbath on which the ordinance is administered.
See art. EXCOMMUNICATION; Dr. Owen on the Nature of a Gospel Church and its Government; Watts’s Rational Foundation of a Christian Church; Turner’s Compendium of Soc. Rel; Fawcett’s Constitution and Order of a Gospel Church; Watts’s Works, ser. 53. vol. 1:; Goodwin’s Works, vol. 4:; Fuller’s Remarks on the Discipline of the Primitive Churches; and Bryson’s Compendious View.
In the Old and New Testament language, by the church of God is uniformly meant, the whole body of the faithful, of which Christ is the Head. The apostle to the Hebrews defines the meaning of the church, when he calls it "the general assembly and church of the first - born, which are written in heaven." (Heb. x2: 23.) And the apostle John no less defines it, when he speaks of the names written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Rev. xxi. 27.) Yea, our Lord himself fixeth the meaning, when bidding devils, being subject to them, in hisname, but because their names were written in heaven. (Luke x. 20.) By the church therefore, is meant, the whole body of Christ both in heaven and earth, the elect of God in Christ, given by the Father to the Son, redeemed by the Son, and sanctified by God the Holy Ghost, and called. And, although we sometimes meet with the expression of churches in the word of God, such as when it is said, the churches had rest throughout all Judea, (Acts ix. 31.) and again, all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks, (Rom. 16. 4.)yet, the whole multitude of the people, of what kindred or nation forever, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things, form but one and the same body, of which Christ is the glorious Head. Such is the church.
And it is blessed to see in the word of God how plainly and evidently this church, made up of Christ’s members, and gathered out of the world’s wide wilderness, is distinguished so as to prove whose she is, and to whom she belongs.
The Lord Jesus himself describes her union with himself under the similitude of branches in a vine, (John xv. 1, &c.) and shews, as plain as words can make if, that the vine and the branches are not more closely knit together, and forming one, than is Christ and his church. Yea, the figure doth not come up to the reality; for a branch may be, and sometimes is, separated from the vine, but not so can this take place between Christ and his church, for he saith, "Because I live, ye shall live also. (John 14. 19.) And his servant, theapostle Paul, describes the intimate connection of Christ with his church, under the similitude of the marriage state. (Ephes. v. 25 - 32.) "This is a great mystery, (saith the apostle, ) but I speak concerning Christ and the church."
Nevertheless, even here again, this beautiful figure, tender and affectionate as it is, falls far short of the oneness and union between Christ and his church. For death puts an end to all the connections of man and wife upon earth. But in respect to Christ and his spouse, the church, the dying day of the believer is but the wedding day. It is but as an espousal, a betrothing before; but in that day the church is brought home by her all - lovely and all - loving Husband, to the marriage supper of the lamb in heaven. (See thoseScriptures, Hos. 2: 19, 20. Rev. xix. 7 - 9.)
The best service, I apprehend, which I can render to the reader, under this article of the church, will be (to do what I should otherwise have done under the former, when speaking of Christ, but conceiving it might as well be noticed under this, ) to bring into one view the several names which Christ and his church have, in common, in the word of God, which certainly form the highest evidence that can be desired, in proof of their union and oneness and interest in each other. Nothing, indeed, can be more lovely and delightful tothe contemplation. It will be proper to introduce this account, with first shewing some of the special and peculiar privileges the church possesseth, both in name and in interest, from her union and oneness with her Lord, and then follow this up with the view of those names and appellations Jesus and his church have in common together. The church is distinguished, by virtue of her interest in Christ, as
The body of Christ, Ephes. 1. 23.
Brethren of Christ, Rom. 8. 29. Heb. 3: 1.
The bride, the Lamb’s wife, Rev. xxi. 9.
Children of the kingdom, Matt. 13. 38.
They are called christians after Christ, Acts 11. 26.
The church of God, 1 Cor. i. 2.
Companions, Ps. xlv. 14. Song i. 7
Complete in Christ, Col. 2: 10.
Daughter of the King, Ps. xlv. 13.
Comely in Christ’s comeliness, Eze 16:14.
Election, Rom. ix. 11.
Family of God, Ephes. 3: 15.
Flock of God, Acts xx. 28.
Fold of Christ, John x. 16.
Friends of God. James 2: 23.
Glory of God, Isa. xlvi. 13.
Habitation of God, Ephes. 2: 22.
Heritage of God, Jer. x2: 7. Ps. c27. 3. Joel 3: 2.
The Israel of God, Gal. vi. 16
The lot of God’s inheritance, Deut. xxx 2: 9.
Members of Christ, Ephes. v. 30.
Peculiar people, 1 Pet. 2: 9.
The portion of the Lord, Deut. xxx2: 9.
The temple of God, 1 Cor. 3: 16.
The treasure of God, Ps. cxxxv. 4.
Vessels of mercy, Rom. ix. 23.
The vineyard of the Lord, Isa . v. 1, &c.
These, with many others of the like nature, are among the distinguishing, names by which the church of Christ is known in Scripture, by reason of her oneness and union with Him. But this view of the intimate and everlasting connection between Christ and his church will be abundantly heightened, if we add to it what was proposed to shew the sameness between them, from being known under the same names, as descriptive of this union. A few examples in point will be known by the name of Adam, as our first father: "As the first Adam was made a living soul, so the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit." (1 Cor xv. 45.) As Christ is called a Babe, so are they said to be babes in Christ. (Luke 2: 16. 1 Pet. 2: 2.) As Christ is declared to be the dearly beloved of the Father, (Jer. x2: 7.) so the church is said to be dearly beloved also, (1Co 10:14. Phil. 4: 1. 2 Tim i. 2.) Is Christ the Elect, in whom JEHOVAH’S soul delighteth? so are they elect, according to the foreknowledge of God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Isa. xl2: 1. 1 Pet. i. 2.) Is Jesus the heir of all things? (Heb. i. 2.) so are they heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, (Rom. 8. 17.) And when that Christ, by the spirit of prophecy, is called JEHOVAH our righteousness, the church as his wife, and entitled to every thing in him, is also called by the same name, JEHOVAH our righteousness. (See, compared together, Jer. 23. 6. with 33. 16.) Yea, in one remarkable instance, the church not only bears Christ’s name, but Christ bears hers. He is called Jacob, and Israel. (Isa. xli. 8. and xlix. 3.)
Without enlarging this point farther, for enough, I presume, hath been advanced in proof of the thing itself, nothing can be more plain, and nothing can be more highly satisfactory, than this oneness, from union and participation between Christ and his church. And I trust, the review will be always blessed to the believer’s heart, and, under the Holy Ghost’s teaching, be always leading out the affections to the full enjoyment of it, agreeably to the mind and will of God.
The Greek word
2. By a particular church we understand an assembly of Christians united together, and meeting in one place, for the solemn worship of God. To this agrees the definition given by the compilers of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England: “A congregation of faithful men, in which the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinances, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same,” Act 9:31; Act 20:17; Gal 1:2; Gal 1:22; 1Co 14:34; Col 4:15. The word is now also used to denote any particular denomination of Christians, distinguished by particular doctrines, ceremonies, &c, as the Romish church, the Greek church, the English church, &c.
3. On the subject of the church, opinions as opposite or varying as possible have been held, from that of the Papists, who contend for its visible unity throughout the world under a visible head, down to that of the Independents, who consider the universal church as composed of congregational churches, each perfect in itself, and entirely independent of every other. The first opinion is manifestly contradicted by the language of the Apostles, who, while they teach that there is but one church, composed of believers throughout the world, think it not at all inconsistent with this to speak of “the churches of Judea,” “of Achaia,” “the seven churches of Asia,” “the church at Ephesus,” &c. Among themselves the Apostles had no common head; but planted churches and gave directions for their government, in most cases without any apparent correspondence with each other. The Popish doctrine is certainly not found in their writings; and so far were they from making provision for the government of this one supposed church, by the appointment of one visible and exclusive head, that they provide for the future government of the respective churches raised up by them in a totally different manner, that is, by the ordination of ministers for each church, who are indifferently called bishops, and presbyters, and pastors. The only unity of which they speak is the unity of the whole church in Christ, the invisible head, by faith; and the unity produced by “fervent love toward each other.” Nor has the Popish doctrine of the visible unity of the church any countenance from early antiquity. The best ecclesiastical historians have showed, that, through the greater part of the second century, the Christian churches were independent of each other. “Each Christian assembly,” says Mosheim, “was a little state governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least, approved, by the society. But in process of time, all the churches of a province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like confederate states, assembled at certain times in order to deliberate about the common interests of the whole.” So far indeed this union of churches appears to have been a wise and useful arrangement, although afterward it was carried to an injurious extreme, until finally it gave birth to the assumptions of the bishop of Rome, as universal bishop; a claim, however, which, when most successful, was but partially submitted to, the eastern churches having, for the most part, always maintained their independence. To very large association of churches of any kind existed till toward the close of the second century, which sufficiently refutes the papal argument from antiquity. The independence of the early Christian churches does not, however, appear to have resembled that of the churches which, in modern times, are called Independent. During the lives of the Apostles and Evangelists they were certainly subject to their counsel and control, which proves that the independency of separate societies was not the first form of the church. It may, indeed, be allowed, that some of the smaller and more insulated churches might, after the death of the Apostles and Evangelists, retain this form for some considerable time; but the larger churches, in the chief cities, and those planted in populous neighbourhoods, had many presbyters, and, as the members multiplied, they had several separate assemblies or congregations, yet all under the same common government. And when churches were raised up in the neighbourhood of cities, the appointment of chorepiscopi, or country bishops, and of visiting presbyters, both acting under the presbytery of the city, with the bishop at its head, is sufficiently in proof, that the ancient churches, especially the larger and more prosperous of them, existed in that form which, in modern times, we should call a religious connection, subject to a common government. This appears to have arisen out of the very circumstance of the increase of the church, through the zeal of the first Christians; and it was doubtless much more in the spirit of the very first discipline exercised by the Apostles and Evangelists, (when none of the churches were independent, but remained under the government of those who had been chiefly instrumental in raising them up,) to place themselves under a common inspection, and to unite the weak with the strong, and the newly converted with those who were “in Christ before them.” There was also in this, greater security afforded both for the continuance of wholesome doctrine, and of godly discipline.
4. Church members are those who compose or belong to the visible church. As to the real church, the true members of it are such as come out from the world, 2Co 6:17; who are born again, 1Pe 1:23; or made new creatures, 2Co 5:17; whose faith works by love to God and all mankind, Gal 5:6; Jas 2:14; Jas 2:26; who walk in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless. None but such are members of the true church; nor should any be admitted into any particular church without some evidence of their earnestly seeking this state of salvation.
5. Church fellowship is the communion that the members enjoy one with another. The ends of church fellowship are, the maintenance and exhibition of a system of sound doctrine; the support of the ordinances of evangelical worship in their purity and simplicity; the impartial exercise of church government and discipline; the promotion of holiness in all manner of conversation. The more particular duties are, earnest study to keep peace and unity; bearing of one another’s burdens, Gal 6:1-2; earnest endeavours to prevent each other’s stumbling, 1Co 10:23-33; Heb 10:24-27; Rom 14:13; steadfast continuance in the faith and worship of the Gospel, Act 2:42; praying for and sympathizing with each other, 1Sa 12:23; Eph 6:18. The advantages are, peculiar incitement to holiness; the right to some promises applicable to none but those who attend the ordinances of God. and hold communion with the saints, Psa 92:13; Psa 132:13; Psa 132:16; Psa 36:8; Jer 31:12; the being placed under the watchful eye of pastors, Heb 13:7; that they may restore each other if they fall, Gal 6:1; and the more effectually promote the cause of true religion.
6. As to church order and discipline, without entering into the discussion of the many questions which have been raised on this subject, and argued in so many distinct treatises, it may be sufficient generally to observe, that the church of Christ being a visible and permanent society, bound to observe certain rites, and to obey, certain rules, the existence of government in it is necessarily supposed. All religious rites suppose order, all order direction and control, and these a directive and controlling power. Again: all laws are nugatory without enforcement, in the present mixed and imperfect state of society; and all enforcement supposes an executive. If baptism be the door of admission into the church, some must judge of the fitness of candidates, and administrators of the rite must be appointed; if the Lord’s Supper must be partaken of, the times and the mode are to be determined, the qualifications of communicants judged of, and the administration placed in suitable hands; if worship must be social and public, here again there must be an appointment of times, an order, and an administration; if the word of God is to be read and preached, then readers and preachers are necessary; if the continuance of any one in the fellowship of Christians be conditional upon good conduct, so that the purity and credit of the church may be guarded, then the power of enforcing discipline must be lodged some where. Thus government flows necessarily from the very nature of the institution of the Christian church; and since this institution has the authority of Christ and his Apostles, it is not to be supposed, that its government was left unprovided for; and if they have in fact made such a provision, it is no more a matter of mere option with Christians whether they will be subject to government in the church, than it is optional with them to confess Christ by becoming its members. The nature of this government, and the persons to whom it is committed, are both points which we must briefly examine by the light of the Holy Scriptures. As to the first, it is wholly spiritual:— “My kingdom,” says our Lord, “is not of this world.” The church is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love, for the personal edification of its members in holiness, and for the religious benefit of the world. The nature of its government is thus determined; it is concerned only with spiritual objects. It cannot employ force to compel men into its pale; for the only door of the church is faith, to which there can be no compulsion;— “he that believeth and is baptized” becomes a member. It cannot inflict pains and penalties upon the disobedient and refractory, like civil governments; for the only punitive discipline authorized in the New Testament, is comprised in “admonition,” “reproof,” “sharp rebukes,” and, finally, “excision from the society.” The last will be better understood, if we consider the special relations in which true Christians stand to each other, and the duties resulting from them. They are members of one body, and are therefore bound to tenderness and sympathy; they are the conjoint instructers of others, and are therefore to strive to be of “one judgment;” they are brethren, and they are to love one another as such, that is, with an affection more special than that general good will which they are commanded to bear to all mankind; they are therefore to seek the intimacy of friendly society among themselves, and, except in the ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they are bound to keep themselves separate from the world; they are enjoined to do good unto all men, but “especially to them that are of the household of faith;” and they are forbidden “to eat” at the Lord’s table with immoral persons, that is, with those who, although they continue their Christian profession, dishonour it by their practice. With these relations of Christians to each other and to the world, and their correspondent duties, before our minds, we may easily interpret the nature of that extreme discipline which is vested in the church. “Persons who will not hear the church” are to be held “as Heathen men and publicans,” as those who are not members of it; that is, they are to be separated from it, and regarded as of “the world,” quite out of the range of the above mentioned relations of Christians to each other, and their correspondent duties; but still, like “Heathen men and publicans” they are to be the objects of pity, and general benevolence. Nor is this extreme discipline to be hastily inflicted before “a first and second admonition,” nor before those who are “spiritual” have attempted “to restore a brother overtaken by a fault;” and when the “wicked person” is “put away,” still the door is to be kept open for his reception again upon repentance. The true excommunication of the Christian church is therefore a merciful and considerate separation of an incorrigible offender from the body of Christians, without any infliction of civil pains or penalties. “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye have received from us,” 2Th 3:6. “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump,” 1Co 5:7. “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, no not to eat,” 1Co 5:11. This then is the moral discipline which is imperative upon the church of Christ, and its government is criminally defective whenever it is not enforced. On the other hand, the disabilities and penalties which established churches in different places have connected with these sentences of excommunication, have no countenance at all in Scripture, and are wholly inconsistent with the spiritual character and ends of the Christian association.
7. As to the persons to whom the government of the church is committed, it is necessary to consider the composition, so to speak, of the primitive church, as stated in the New Testament. A full enunciation of these offices we find in Eph 4:11: “And he gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Of these, the office of Apostle is allowed by all to have been confined to those immediately commissioned by Christ to witness the fact of his miracles, and of his resurrection from the dead, and to reveal the complete system of Christian doctrine and duty; confirming their extraordinary mission by miracles wrought by themselves. If by “prophets” we are to understand persons who foretold future events, then the office was from its very nature extraordinary, and the gift of prophecy has passed away with the other miraculous endowments of the first age of Christianity. If, with others, we understand that these prophets were extraordinary teachers raised up until the churches were settled under permanent qualified instructers; still the office was temporary. The “Evangelists” are generally understood to be assistants of the Apostles, who acted under their especial authority and direction. Of this number were Timothy and Titus; and as the Apostle Paul directed them to ordain bishops or presbyters in the several churches, but gave them no authority to ordain successors to themselves in their particular office as Evangelists, it is clear that the Evangelists must also be reckoned among the number of extraordinary and temporary ministers suited to the first age of Christianity. Whether by “pastors and teachers” two offices be meant, or one, has been disputed. The change in the mode of expression seems to favour the latter view, and so the text is interpreted by St. Jerom, and St. Augustine; but the point is of little consequence. A pastor was a teacher, although every teacher might not be a pastor; but in many cases his office might be one of subordinate instruction, whether as an expounder of doctrine, a catechist, or even a more private instructer of those who as yet were unacquainted with the first principles of the Gospel of Christ. The term pastor implies the duties both of instruction and of government, of feeding and of ruling the flock of Christ; and, as the presbyters or bishops were ordained in the several churches, both by the Apostles and Evangelists, and rules are left by St. Paul as to their appointment, there can be no doubt but that these are the “pastors” spoken of in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and that they were designed to be the permanent ministers of the church; and that with them both the government of the church and the performance of its leading religious services were deposited. Deacons had the charge of the gifts and offerings for charitable purposes, although, it appears from Justin Martyr, not in every instance; for he speaks of the weekly oblations as being deposited with the chief minister, and distributed by him. These pastors appear to have been indifferently called BISHOPS and PRESBYTERS, and with them the regulation of the churches was, doubtless, deposited; not without checks and guards, the principal of which, however, was, in the primitive church, and continues to be in all modern churches which have no support from the magistracy, or are made independent of the people by endowments, the voluntariness of the association. A perfect religious liberty is always supposed by the Apostles to exist among Christians; no compulsion of the civil power is any where assumed by them as the basis of their advices or directions; no binding of the members to one church, without liberty to join another, by any ties but those involved in moral considerations, of sufficient weight, however, to prevent the evils of faction and schism. It was this which created a natural and competent check upon the ministers of the church; for being only sustained by the opinion of the churches, they could not but have respect to it; and it was this which gave to the sound part of a fallen church the advantage of renouncing, upon sufficient and well-weighed grounds, their communion with it, and of kindling up the light of a pure ministry and a holy discipline, by forming a separate association, bearing its testimony against errors in doctrine, and failures in practice. Nor is it to be conceived, that, had this simple principle of perfect religious liberty been left unviolated through subsequent ages, the church could ever have become so corrupt, or with such difficulty and slowness have been recovered from its fall. This ancient Christian liberty has happily been restored in a few parts of Christendom. See EPISCOPACY and See PRESBYTERIANISM.
The original Greek word which is thus rendered, in its larger signification denotes a number of persons called together for any purpose, an assembly of any kind, civil or religious. As, however, it is usually applied in the New Testament to religious assemblages, it is very properly translated by ’assembly’ in the few instances in which it occurs in the civil sense (Act 19:32; Act 19:39; Act 19:41). It is, however, well to note that the word rendered ’assembly’ in these verses is the same which is rendered ’church’ everywhere else.
In a few places the word occurs in the Jewish sense, of a congregation, an assembly of the people for worship, either in a synagogue (Mat 18:17) or generally of the Jews regarded as a religious body (Act 7:38; Heb 2:12).
But the word most frequently occurs in the Christian sense of an assemblage (of Christians) generally (1Co 11:18). Hence it denotes a church, the Christian church; in which, however, we distinguish certain shades of meaning, viz.—
A particular church, a church in a certain place, as in Jerusalem (Act 8:1; Act 11:22, etc.), in Antioch (Act 11:26; Act 13:1, etc.), in Corinth (1Co 1:2; 2Co 1:1), etc. etc.
Churches of (Gentile) Christians, without distinguishing place (Rom 16:4).
An assembly of Christians which meets anywhere, as in the house of any one (Rom 16:5; 1Co 16:19; Phm 1:2).
The Church universal—the whole body of Christian believers (Mat 16:18; 1Co 12:28; Gal 1:13; Eph 1:22; Eph 3:10; Heb 12:23, etc.).
The Greek word translated church signifies generally an assembly, either common or religious; and it is sometimes so translated, as in Mal 19:32,39 . In the New Testament it usually means a congregation of religious worshippers, either Jewish, as Mal 7:38, or Christians, as Mat 16:18 1Co 6:4 . The latter sense is the more common one; and it is thus used in a twofold manner, denoting,\par 1. The universal Christian church: either the invisible church, consisting of those whose names are written in heaven, whom God knows, but whom we cannot infallibly know, Heb 12:23 ; or the visible church, made up of the professed followers of Christ on earth, Col 1:24 1Ti 3:5,15 \par 2. A particular church or body of professing believers, who meet and worship together in one place; as the churches of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, etc., to which Paul addressed epistles.\par
Church.
1. The derivation of the word is generally said to be from the Greek kuriakon, "belonging to the Lord". But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably connected with kirk, the Latin circus, circulus, the Greek kuklos, (kuklos), because the congregations were gathered in circles.
2. Ecclesia, the Greek word for church, originally meant an assembly called out by the magistrate, or by legitimate authority. It was, in this last sense, that the word was adapted and applied by the writers of the New Testament to the Christian congregation.
In the one Gospel of St. Matthew, the church is spoken of no less than thirty-six times as "the kingdom." Other descriptions or titles are hardly found in the evangelists.
It is Christ’s household, Mat 10:25,
the salt and light of the world, Mat 5:13; Mat 5:15,
Christ’s flock, Mat 26:31; Joh 10:15,
its members are the branches growing on Christ the Vine, John 15;
but the general description of it, not metaphorical but direct, is that it is a kingdom. Mat 16:19.
From the Gospel then, we learn that Christ was about to establish his heavenly kingdom on earth, which was to be the substitute for the Jewish Church and kingdom, now doomed to destruction Mat 21:43.
The Day of Pentecost is the birthday of the Christian church. Before, they had been individual followers Jesus; now they became his mystical body, animated by his spirit. On the evening of the Day of Pentecost, the 3140 members of which the Church consisted were --
(1) Apostles;
(2) previous Disciples;
(3) Converts.
In Act 2:41, we have indirectly exhibited the essential conditions of church communion. They are
(1) Baptism, baptism implying on the part of the recipient repentance and faith;
(2) Apostolic Doctrine;
(3) Fellowship with the Apostles;
(4) The Lord’s Supper;
(5) Public Worship.
The real Church consists of all who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ as his disciples, and are one in love, in character, in hope, in Christ as the head of all, though as the body of Christ it consists of many parts.
From the Greek
The household of Christ and of God (Mat 10:25; Eph 2:19). The temple of the Holy Spirit, made up of living stones (Eph 2:22; 1Co 3:16; 1Pe 2:5).
Constituted as Christ’s mystical body on Pentecost; thenceforth expanding in the successive stages traced in ACTS . Described in a beautiful summary (Act 2:41; Act 2:47). (On its apostasy
The faultless perfection and the glorious promises in Scripture assigned to the church (election, adoption, spiritual priesthood, sure guidance by the Spirit into all truth, eternal salvation) belong not to all of the visible church, but to those alone of it who are in living union with Christ (Eph 5:23-27; Heb 12:22-23). The claim for the visible church of what belongs to the invisible, in spite of Christ’s warning parable of the tares and wheat (Mat 13:24-30; Mat 13:36-43), has led to some of Rome’s deadliest errors. On the other hand, the attempt to sever the tares from the wheat prematurely has led to many schisms, which have invariably failed in the attempt and only generated fresh separations. We must wait until Christ’s manifestation for the manifestation of the sons of God (Rom 8:19; Col 3:4).
The true universal church is restricted to "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1Co 1:2). They are visible in so far as their light of good works so shines before men that their Father in heaven is glorified (Mat 5:16). They are invisible insofar that it is God alone who can infallibly see who among professors are animated by a living, loving faith, and who are not. A visible community, consisting of various members and aggregations of members, was founded by Christ Himself, as needed for the extension and continuation of Christianity to all lands and all ages. The ministry of the word and the two sacraments, baptism, and the supper of the Lord, (both in part derived from existing Jewish rites, Mat 26:26-28; 1Co 5:7-8).
Baptism, the Lord’s Supper were appointed as the church’s distinctive ordinances (Mat 28:19-20, Greek text): "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and (only on condition of your doing so) I am with you always," etc.
When used at all as to the Christian church it is used of the whole body of Christians; since not merely ministers, as the Aaronic priests, but all equally, have near access to the heavenly holy place, through the torn veil of Christ’s flesh (Heb 10:19-22; Heb 13:15-16; 1Pe 2:19; Rev 1:6). All alike offer "spiritual sacrifices." For a minister to pretend to offer a literal sacrifice in the Lord’s supper, or to have the sacerdotal priesthood (which pertains to Christ alone), would be the sin which Moses charged on Korah: "Seemeth it but a small thing unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation to bring you near to Himself, ... to stand before the congregation to minister to them; and seek ye the priesthood also?" The temple then not being the model to the Christian church, the synagogue alone remained to be copied.
In the absence of the temple during the captivity the people assembled together on sabbaths and other days to be instructed by the prophet (Eze 14:1; Eze 20:1; Eze 33:31). In Neh 8:1-8 a specimen is given of such a service, which the synagogues afterward continued, and which consisted in Scripture reading, with explanation, prayers, and thanksgivings. The synagogue officers consisted of a "ruler of the synagogue," the "legate of the church" (
James, the brother of our Lord, after the martyrdom of James, the son of Zebedee and the flight of Peter (Act 12:17), alone remained behind in Jerusalem, the recognized head there. His Jewish tendencies made him the least unpopular to the Jews, and so adapted him for the presidency there without the title (Act 15:13-19; Act 21:18; Gal 2:2; Gal 2:9; Gal 2:12). This was the first specimen of apostolic local episcopacy without the name. The presbyters of the synagogue were called also
The steps were apostle; then vicar apostolic or apostolic delegate, as Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete, temporarily (1Ti 1:3; 2Ti 4:21; Tit 3:12; Tit 1:5), then angel, then bishop in the present sense. Episcopacy gives more of centralized unity, but when made an absolute law it tends to spiritual despotism. The visible church, while avoiding needless alterations, has power under God to modify her polity as shall tend most to edification (Mat 18:18; 1Co 12:28-30; 1Co 14:26; Eph 4:11-16). The Holy Spirit first unites souls individually to the Father in Christ, then with one another as "the communion of saints." Then followed the government and ministry, which are not specified in detail until the pastoral epistles, namely, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, the latest epistles.
To be "in Christ" (John 15) presupposes repentance and faith, of which the sacraments are the seal. The church order is not imposed as a rigid unchangeable system from without, but is left to develop itself from within outwardly, according as the indwelling Spirit of life may suggest. The church is "holy" in respect to those alone of it who are sanctified, and "one" only in respect to those who "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4:3-6; Eph 4:15-16), "growing up ... into the Head, Christ, in all things." The latest honorable and only Christian use of "synagogue" (KJV "assembly") occurs in James (Jas 2:2), the apostle who maintained to the latest the bonds between the Jewish synagogue and the Christian church.
Soon the continued resistance of the truth by the Jews led Christians to leave the term to them exclusively (Rev 2:9). Synagogue expresses a congregation not necessarily bound together; church, a people mutually bound together, even when not assembled, a body called out (
Christian church buildings were built like synagogues, with the holy table placed where the chest containing the law had been. The desk and pulpit were the chief furniture in both, but no altar. When the ruler of the synagogue became a Christian, he naturally was made bishop, as tradition records that Crispus became at Corinth (Act 18:8). Common to both church and synagogue were the discipline (Mat 18:17), excommunication (1Co 5:4), and the collection of alms (1Co 16:2).
I. The word Church. —
1. The origin of the word is uncertain. In the Germanic and Slavonic languages it is found as follows: Anglo-Saxon, cyrica, circ, cyric; English, church; Scottish, kirk; German, kirche; Low-German, karke; Frisian, tzierke or tziurke; Danish, kyrke; Swedish, kyrka; Bohemian, cyrkew; Polish, cerkiew; Russian, zerkow. The following derivations have been assigned to the word: (1) Heb.
2. N.T. uses of the word Church. — The Greek word
3. Common uses of the word Church. — The most common sense in which the word church is used is to denote the body of the acknowledged followers of Christ, or his visible body.
2. It is also used to denote the community of true believers, whether known to be such or not. between believers yet on earth, and still contending with opposition, and believers already glorified in heaven.
4. It is used to designate the house of Christian worship.
5. Any particular denomination of Christian people, as the Lutheran, or the Protestant Episcopal, or Methodist Episcopal Church.
6. A particular congregation of any one denomination of Christians.
7. The religious establishment of any particular nation or government, as the Church of England.
8. The sum of the various Christian denominations in a country, as the Church in America.
These are the ordinary uses of the word, and it is important, in order to a right understanding of its force in any case, to know in which of these senses it is employed. Much confusion might be avoided if disputants would always clearly state in, which of all these equally admissible senses they use the word.
II. Idea of the Church. — The Christian religion (subjectively considered) is a divine life wrought in the soul of the believer in Jesus by the Holy Ghost, whereby the man is united through Christ unto God, walks before him in holiness, and finally dies in his favor, and is received into his eternal glory. The personal relation lies wholly between the individual and God. But the instinct of this new life is to propagate itself by diffusion, and for this diffusion it must have organization. This organization is found in the Church, whose function it is to make universal the religion of the individual. Moreover, the individual believer, for the nourishment of his own spiritual life, seeks communion with other believers; and this communion is furnished by the Church. “The Christian Church is a religious-moral society, connected together by a common faith in Christ, and which seeks to represent in its united life the kingdom of God announced by Christ” (Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. vol. 1, § 1). Christianity contains, on the one hand, a divine philosophy, which we may call its religion, and a divine polity, which is its Church” (Arnold, Miscell. Works, N. Y. p. 11). The Church is the particular form or expression of the kingdom of God, the institution through whose agency this spiritual and eternal kingdom is to be made effective among men. But, although there are elements of truth in the statements already made, it is further true that. the Church, under the dispensation of the Spirit, is the necessary form or body of Christianity in the world.
Not that the Church is Christianity, any more than the body of man is his life. The object of Christianity is the redemption of mankind; and the Church is the divinely constituted means of the ordinary application of redemption to individuals of mankind. It is therefore something altogether more and higher than a mere form of society, or an organization springing, like any merely human society, from the common wants and sympathies of those who unite to form it. It is “the kingdom and the royal dwelling-place of Christ” upon the earth (Neander). It has, therefore, a life of its own, of which Christ is the source, independent of the ordinary life of the order of nature. Christ, indeed, is the central source of life for both kingdoms (the kingdom of nature, and the kingdom of grace), but the mode of his vivifying operation is very different in the one from what it is in the other. But the Romanist view (and so the Greek and High Anglican) assumes that the Church is a form of organic life imposed upon the Christian society in a sort of outward way. The Protestant doctrine, on the other hand, is, that the Church is the divinely inspired organic growth of the Christian life; not, therefore, a merely human society, but the society of the faithful, constituted by the Divine Spirit. The Romanist view makes the outward form of the Church essential, and regards the internal nature as derivative; the Protestant view regards the internal life as the essence, and the outward and visible form as derivative, but both as divinely inspired and constituted (Joh 10:16; Mat 16:18; Mat 18:15-18).
1. The Scripture Idea. — In the N.T. the Church denotes “that one mystical body of which Christ is the sole head, and in the unity of which all saints, whether in heaven, or on earth, or elsewhere, are necessarily included as constituent parts.” For this Church Christ gave himself (Eph 5:23). This Church, chosen in him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4; 1Pe 1:2), he nourisheth and cherisheth as his own flesh (Eph 5:29-30). The Church is called the House, the City, the Temple of God. To whom coming ye are built up a spiritual house, a holy temple (1Pe 2:4-5). This spiritual temple is composed of all God’s people, and is his dwelling-place (1Co 3:17; 2Co 6:16; Rev 21:3; Rev 22:14-15). The Church is uniformly represented in the N.T. as the company of the saved; and they are spoken of as the body of Christ (1Co 12:27), as one body (Eph 3:6; Eph 4:4; 1Co 12:13; 1Co 12:20). Of this body Christ is the Savior (Eph 5:23). They are also his bride (Eph 5:31-32; Rev 21:9-10), and his fullness (Eph 1:23). They are termed also the light of the world (Mat 5:14), and the salt of the earth (Mat 5:13), as indicating the Church to be the true source of spiritual illumination and the instrument of salvation to the world. For the work which the Church is to accomplish for Christ by teaching, disciplining,. comforting, etc., it must necessarily be visible, though all its members may not always be known.
2. The Creeds and Dogmatic Definitions. — The Apostles’ Creed says, I believe “in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints,” to which the Nicene Creed adds apostolicity. The Catechism in use in the Greek Church gives the following definition: “The Church is a divinely-instituted community of men, united by the orthodox faith, the law of God, the hierarchy, and the sacraments” (Full Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, Moscow, 1839). In speaking of the unity of the Church, Platon says: “From this unity of the Church all those have separated who either do not receive the divine word at all, or mix with it their own absurd opinions” (see Bibliotheca Sacra, 21:827). The Roman Catholic Church (Catechism of Trent) says, “The Church is one, because, as the apostle says, there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism;’ but more especially because it has one invisible Ruler, Christ, and one visible, viz., the occupant for the time being of the chair of St. Peter at Rome”... “The Church is holy, first, because it is dedicated to God; secondly, because the Church, consisting of good and evil mixed together, is united to Christ, the source of all holiness; thirdly, because to the Church alone has been committed the administration of the sacraments, through which, as efficient instruments of divine grace, God makes us holy; so that whoever is truly sanctified must be found within the pale of the Church. The Church is catholic or universal because it is diffused throughout the world, embracing within its pale men of all nations and conditions, and also because it comprehends all who have believed from the beginning, and all who shall believe henceforward to the end of time. The Church is termed apostolic, both because it derives its doctrines from the apostles, whereby it is enabled to convict heretics of error, and because it is governed by an apostolic ministry, which is the organ of the Spirit of God” (Catechism, Conc. Trid. c. 10, § 1). Bellarmine defines the Church thus: “It is a society of men united by a profession of the same Christian faith, and a participation of the same sacraments, under the government of lawful pastors, and especially of the one vicar of Christ upon earth, the Roman pontiff.” The Lutheran Church defines the Church to be “a congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is purely preached and the sacraments are rightly administered” (Confession of Augsburg, sec. 7). “The sum of what we here profess to believe is therefore this: I believe that there is upon earth a certain community of saints, composed solely of holy persons, under one Head, collected together by the Spirit; of one faith and one mind, endowed with manifold gifts, but united in love, and without sects or divisions” (Luther’s Larger Catechism).
The Reformed Confessions. — The Church of England: “A congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that are of necessity requisite to the same” (art. 19). — The same definition is given by the Methodist Episcopal Church. — “The Church is a community of believers or saints, gathered out of the world; whose distinction it is to know and to worship, through the Word and by the Spirit, the true God in Christ our Savior, and by faith to participate in all the blessings freely given to us through Christ. Those are all citizens of one polity, subjects of the same Lord under the same laws, and recipients of the same spiritual blessings” (Helvetic Confession, 1566). — “The Catholic Church is the community of all true believers, viz., those who hope in Christ alone for salvation, and are sanctified by his Spirit. It is not attached to any one place or limited to particular persons, the members of it being dispersed throughout the world” (Belg. Confession, sec. 27, 29). — The Scotch Confession (Conf. Scot. art. 16) defines the Church “to be a society of the elect of all ages and countries, both Jews and Gentiles; this is the catholic or universal Church. Those who are members of it worship God in Christ, and enjoy fellowship with him through the Spirit. This Church is invisible, known only to God, who alone knows who are his, and comprehends both the departed in the Lord and the elect upon earth.” — The Confession of Polish churches: “There are particular churches and the Church universal. The true universal Church is the community of all believers dispersed throughout the world, who are and who remain one catholic Church so long as they are united by subjection to one Head, Christ, by the indwelling of one spirit and the profession of the same faith; and this though they be not associated in one common external polity, but, as regards external fellowship and ecclesiastical regimen, be not in communion with each other.” — “A true particular Church is distinguished from a false one by the profession of the true faith, the unmutilated administrations of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline” (Declaratio Thoruniensis); — Dr. Gerhart, speaking for the German Reformed Church of America in its later form of thought, under the influence of the so-called Mercersburg theology, says: “The Christian Church is a divine-human constitution in time and space: divine as to its ultimate ground and interior life, and human as to its form; brought into existence by the miraculous working of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, who is sent by Christ as the bearer of his incarnate life and salvation, in order to continue and develop this life and salvation, according to the law of the Spirit, in its membership down to the end of time uninterruptedly. As such, it is not a collection of units, but an objective organism that has a principle, a unity, a law, organs, and resources of power and grace, which are in it and its own absolutely” (Bibliotheca Sacra, 1863, p. 53, 54. See also Dr. Nevin, in Mercersburg Review, vol. 9 [articles on “Hedge on Ephesians”]; vol. 10 [“Thoughts on the Church,” two articles]).
Such is the notion of the Church as presented in the great leading symbols of the principal churches and by their representative men. The subject is one beset with difficulties, because of the failure always to discriminate between the visible and invisible Church, and because every denomination, in order to render itself powerful and practical, must assume the form of a Church, and is consequently driven to define the Church to suit its own position and history. The distinction between the visible and invisible Church was recognized by Augustine; in his controversy with the Donatists, who held that to predicate catholicity of the Church it was necessary it should have subjective purity in its members, and that, so soon as it allowed corrupt and unworthy members, it ceases to be catholic, he maintained, “Many, by partaking of the sacrament, are with the Church, and yet are not in the Church.” Further: “Those who appear to be the Church, and to contradict Christ, therefore do not be long to that Church which is called the body of Christ” (see Neander, Christian Dogmas, 2, 395). That there is one visible Church all these Confessions concede; but whether or not there be a visible Church on earth entitled to be called the true Church, and the only true Church, is the question at issue between. Romanists and Protestants. Certainly, “if we judge of the various churches into which Christendom is divided by their conforming in all respects by the principles and requirements of the Gospels, we cannot allow that any one of them is the perfect representation of that ideal state at which they all aim; nor, on the other hand, can we entirely deny the name of a Christian Church to any one which professes to be built on the Gospel of Christ. They have all so much in common in this religious faith and life, and so much which distinguishes them from all other religious societies, as to justify us in considering them as one whole, and calling them, in a wide sense, The Christian Church? (Gieseler, Church History, vol. 1, § 1).
3. Notes, Faith, and Attributes of the Church. —
(1.) The notes of the Church are the signs by which the visible Church is distinguished, and differ according to the views which are held in the definition of the Church.
(a) The Roman Catechism states them to be unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity (Cat. Cone. Trid. p. 80, 81). Bellarmine assigns, in addition to these, antiquity, uninterrupted duration, amplitude, agreement in doctrine with the primitive Church, sanctity of doctrine, efficacy of the doctrine, the glory of miracles, the light of prophecy, the confession of adversaries, the unhappy end of the Church’s enemies, and temporal felicity (Bellarmine’s Notes of the Church examined and refuted by eminent English Divines, Lond. 1840). The “unhappy end of the Church’s enemies” and “temporal prosperity” are rejected by Tournely, Bailly, and generally by modern Romish theologians (see Palmer, On the Church, 1:27).
(b) The Church of England has no authoritative declaration beyond its sixth article – the preaching of the pure word of God and the due administration of the sacraments, etc.; but the proper administration of the sacraments by ministers regularly authorized has led to a difference of opinion in determining these notes, which has become a wide divergency, the one side adhering to a free interpretation, in common with all Protestants, and the other approaching to the stricter Roman Catholic view. The strict, so-called, churchly interpretation begins with the inclusion of apostolicity (Palmer), and extends to truth of doctrine, use of means (as well as sacraments) instituted by Christ, antiquity without change of doctrine, lawful succession without change of doctrine, and universality in the successive sense, i.e. the prevalence of the Church successively in all nations (Dr. Field). This tendency towards Romanizing views has culminated in what is, for convenience, termed the High-Church, or Sacramentarian party, some of whom openly advocate a union of the Church of England with the Church of Rome and the Greek Church, in order to realize their note of the visible unity of the Church. “It is worthy of remark,” says Litton, “that every theory of the Church, whether it profess to be Romanist or not, which teaches that the true being thereof lies in its visible characteristic, adopts instinctively the Romish notes, and rejects the Protestant.”
(c) The distinctively ‘Protestant notes” — the preaching of the pure word of God and the right administration of the sacraments — are applicable not to the mystical body of Christ, but to the visible Church, or, rather, to churches or congregations of believers. “The Protestant says, in general, the church (or a part of it) is there where the Word and the sacraments are; and the society in which the one is preached and the other administered is a legitimate part of the visible Catholic Church” (Litton, On the Church, Phila. p. 254). “Some formularies, e.g. the Scotch Conf. (art. 18) add the exercise of discipline” (ibid.); and this it does very properly, for if purity of doctrine and life is to be maintained, it must always be a mark of a true Church that there be discipline. But inasmuch as it is impossible to discern always who are inwardly pure, and also perfectly to enforce discipline, the visible Church will always be liable to the intrusion of the wicked, and hence cannot claim to be identical with the mystical body of Christ in any one place, but may claim to be a part of it, so far as in its doctrine and life it conforms to the requirements of the Gospel. “As notes” (the sacraments and the ministry of the Word), “therefore, serve to assure us of the existence of that mystical body which in itself is an object not of sense, but of faith; by which the charge brought of old against Protestant doctrine — that its invisible Church is a fiction of the imagination — is abundantly refuted” (Litton, p. 257).
(2.) Faith. — The faith of the Church is given, in authoritative, though not in dogmatical form, in the Word of God. “‘The Church, as the body of believers in Christ, existed before the New Testament was written. It was to the Church that the Word was addressed. It is by the Church that the authenticity of the Word has been witnessed from the beginning. But the Word was given to the Church as its test and standard of faith. The ‘faith’ was in the Church before the Word was written; but the Word was given to be the norm of faith, by which the Church might and should, in all ages, test the faith, or any proposed modifications or developments of the faith.”
The Church’s faith, as drawn from, and resting on, the Word of God, is expressed in her creeds or confessions. At successive periods, as the exigencies of the times have required, or have seemed to require, its leading minds have convened, sometimes by civil, sometimes by ecclesiastical authority, at other times by both, in general councils, when, by consent, the doctrines of the Church have been thrown into the form of confessions or symbols. In these symbols, the floating, undefined, but current beliefs of the general Church have crystallized, and thus have been transmitted to us. The first is the Apostles’ Creed. This is universally accepted in the Church, and is of highest authority. Though the most ancient of all the formularies of belief, there is no evidence that the apostles composed it as it now reads; the best explanation is that it grew into shape from the common and general confession of faith in the primitive Church until it very early assumed the form it now has. It is the germ of all subsequent creed development. The next is the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan symbol, commonly called the Nicene Creed, which was the work of two oecumenical councils in 325 and 381. This has always been of great weight, as chiefly settling the doctrine of the Trinity, and expresses the general view of the Church to this day. The Chalcedon symbol followed in 451; and then the Athanasian Creed, called after Athanasius, though it is doubtful if he was the author. There were no other confessions until the Reformation, since which we have the Lutheran symbols (7); the Reformed (18); the papal (Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini. 1545; Professio fidei Tridentina of Pope Pius IV, etc.); confessions of the Greek Church; Arminian and Socinian confessions; but none of these are of universal authority, as are the original four of the early Church.
(3.) The attributes of the Church are unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. These also are explained differently, according to the theory of the Church maintained. Protestants generally find these attributes only in the invisible Church. There is evidently a unity of faith (Eph 4:13), a unity of love (1Co 13:13), one spirit (Eph 4:4), one hope (ibid. 12), one body (Rom 12:5), one head (Eph 4:15), and one object of worship (Eph 4:6). That this unity is under one common earthly head is held by Roman Catholics, but denied by Protestants. By these a spiritual unity is affirmed to exist, even where there is not uniformity of Church polity, nor entire agreement of doctrine, nor, indeed, any internal bond save that of the “communion of saints.” Holiness is ascribed to the Church as expressing the moral purity of its members; they are addressed in the N.T. as “saints,” sanctified,” by reason of their union with Christ as their living head, and the possession of the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier (1Co 1:2; 1Co 6:19). Because this holiness is a personal work in the hearts of believers as such, it can be predicated strictly only of the invisible Church, but it ought to be manifested in the individual and corporate life of the Church, in order that she may fulfill its original constitution.
Catholicity: was first applied to the Christian Church to designate not only its universality as embracing all true believers, but also the oneness of those believers as excluding all heretics. In modern times it is used to mean the universally diffused nature of the Church by its presence, without respect to local or national boundaries. The Romanist claims that all, and those only, who are united to the pontiff at Rome belong to the Catholic Church; while Protestants admit it to be the whole body of Christians, in whatever visible communion they may be: hence composed of all the churches of all nations (Mar 15:15; Act 10:34-35), the same in all time (Mat 28:20), and possessed, by reason of the presence of its great head, of the means of saving grace (ibid.; Eph 1:22). Apostolicity is not insisted upon by Protestants; when used, however, by them, it means the possession by the Church of true apostolic doctrine, spirit, and life; while by Roman Catholics it means having a ministry regularly and visibly succeeding to the apostles.
The attributes (unity, holiness, catholicity, perpetuity) are unquestionably essential to the true Church, and are ascribed to her in the New Testament. But neither the N.T. nor the Apostles’ Creed define the Church as a visible organization, but as the “communion of saints.” This Church has always existed; but no visible corporation or society on earth has ever been endowed with the attributes above named. See this argument well stated in the Princeton Review (Oct. 1853); compare Barrow, Sermon on the Unity of the Church, 3. 311 (N.Y. 1845).
III. History of the Doctrine of the Church. — The apostles and their immediate successors were too much engrossed with the work of spreading the Gospel to pause to prescribe the nature of an institution which was sure to grow into shape as the necessities of the case required. The apostles themselves were too earnestly employed in fulfilling the command of Christ to disciple all nations, and hose directly following them partook too largely of their spirit, and understood too fully their mind, to be turned aside by the necessity of explaining what they knew to be a fact. Hence “no exact definitions of the Church are found previous to the time of Cyprian” (Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, 1:193). The definitions of the latter (Cyprian) make an epoch in the history of this doctrine. The first difficulty arose as to the unity of the Church, in confounding the inward with the outward. “Irenaeus shows the first germs of this perversion; it was matured b)y Cyprian” (Neander, Christian Dogmas, vol. 1, p. 220). “Thus the Jewish stand-point (a theocracy), which at first had been overcome, made its way into the Church in another form” (ibid.).
Irenaeus says the Church alone contains all the riches of truth; Clement describes the Church as a mother, both as a mother and virgin, as the body of the Lord; Origen, though usually mild towards heretics, knows of no salvation out of the Church; Tertullian claimed that whoever separated from the connection with the outward communion, which was of apostolic origin, and had at its head the sedes apostolicae, in so doing renounced Christ, though after joining the Montanists he essentially changed his opinion. It is of no avail, says Cyprian, what a man teaches; it is enough that he teaches out of the Church; where the bishop is, there is the church, etc. The roots of the extreme church doctrine are to be traced thus early. A reaction, however, soon took place, growing out of a more scientific discernment of the spiritual idea of the Church. Clement calls the Church a community of men led by the divine Logos, an invincible city upon earth, which no force can subdue, where the will of God is done as it is in heaven. Others combated the outward unity of the Church as unscriptural. Montanism insisted that the unity is inward; it regarded the internal fact of possessing the Spirit as the fundamental thing — not the ordinary influence of of the spirit in sanctification, but his extraordinary power in giving new revelations, which were the sources of authority and unity in the Church. A farther reaction of separatism against the Catholic idea took place in Novatian and his followers. They insisted that the Catholic Church is essentially holy in all its members, and hence must exclude from its communion all unworthy members, and never readmit them, otherwise it would lose its catholicity. They consequently withdrew, and claimed to be the Catholic Church. “The false idealism of the Gnostics, and the subjective, heretical, and schismatical tendencies of separate sects, especially of the Montanists and the followers of Novatian (the primitive Puritans), form a striking contrast with this false external unity of the Catholic Church”, SEE HAGENBACH AND NEANDER.
“Two causes contributed (in the second period of the Church history) to determine about the Church: 1. The external triumph of the Church itself in its victory over Paganism, and its rising power under the protection of the state. 2. The victory of Augustinism over the doctrines of the Pelagians, Manichaeans, and Donatists, which in different ways threatened to destroy ecclesiastical unity. In opposition to the Donatists, Augustine asserted that the Church consists of the sum total of all who are baptized, and that the (ideal) sanctity of the Church is not impaired by the impure elements externally connected with it. The bishops of Rome impressed upon this catholicism the stamp of the papal hierarchyby claiming for themselves the primacy of Peter. But, whatever variant opinions were held respecting the seat and nature of the true Church, the proposition that there is no salvation out of the Church was firmly adhered to, and carried out in all its consequences” (Hagenbach, vol. 1, p. 352). It is ,vorthy of note that at this period Jovinian taught that the Church is founded on Faith, Hope, and Love. In this Church there is nothing impure; every one is naught of God.; no one can break into it by violence or steal into it by artifice.” “As Jovinian taught the Pauline doctrine of faith, so he did the Pauline idea of the invisible Church, while Augustine obstructed his similar fundamental idea by a mixture of the Catholic idea of the Church.” “Here again we have a sign of the Protestant element in Augustine” (his comment on the “Thou art Peter”), “that all religious consciousness is immediately to be traced up to Christ, and that with him the community originates which is called the Church” (Neander, Christian Dogmas, vol. 2, p. 397, 398).
Until the 14th century the Roman hierarchy had comparatively no opposition in carrying out supremacy in the West to its fullest extent; at this time a freer spirit began to show itself. Even on the Catholic stand- point a difference was stirred respecting the relation of the changeable and unchangeable in the development of the Church; on the position of the papacy in respect of the Church; whether the pope was to be regarded as its representative or sovereign head; whether the general councils or the pope stood highest. The University of Paris, with chancellor Gerson at its head, led on this controversy. SEE GERSON. “The mystical idea of the Church and the notion of a universal priesthood, which was intimately connected with it, was propounded, with more or less accuracy of definition, by Hugo of St.Victor, as well as by the forerunners of the Reformation, Wycliffe, Matthias of Janow, Huss, John of Wesel,Wessel, and Savonarola” (Hagenbach). These tendencies were fully developed in the Reformation and in its results. The Western religious world became divided in the statement of the Church dogma, as it looked at the question of salvation. The Protestant, regarding the doctrine of justification by faith as fundamental, said the Church is approached through it; the Romanist, still adhering to the Church as the fountain of spiritual life, affirmed that justification is obtained through the Church. Protestants assert that the Church consists in the invisible fellowship of all those who are united by the bonds of true faith, which ideal union is but imperfectly represented by the visible Church, in which the true Gospel is taught and the sacraments are rightly administered; the Roman Catholics, that the Church is a visible society of all baptized persons who adopt a certain external creed, have the same sacraments, and acknowledge the pope as their common head.
The recent controversies concerning the idea and nature of the Church all revolve about the one point, viz., whether the Church of which Christ is the “Head” is, or is not, a visible corporation here on earth, entitled to the promises, privileges, and authority which the Scriptures assign to the spiritual Church. Protestants generally deny; the Romanists, the HighAnglicans, and a few writers in other branches of the Protestant Church, affirm. The so-called New-Lutheran divines of Germany have developed a theory of the Church in which the Protestant idea gives way to the hierarchical; in which the sacraments are not merely notes of the true Church, but the real guards of its continued life. The profound and mysterious synthesis of the divine and human is found in faith, according to the old Protestant system; according to the new, it is found in the sacraments (compare Schwartz, Zur Geschichte d. neuesten Theologie, bk. 3. ch. 3). Rothe has developed, with his usual vigor, a theory of the Church akin to that of Arnold, viz., that the Church is indispensable to the moral education of humanity; but that, as humanity improves, the necessity for the Church diminishes; and, finally, the state will become religious (a real theocracy), and the Church will become absorbed in the state.
IV. Constitution of the Church. — Christ did not so much create a Church during his sojourn on earth as implant principles which would be subsequently developed into a Church. Whilst he was yet with his disciples, they needed no other bond to hold them together than his person. The founder of the new manifestation of the kingdom of God seemed not to design to collect about him numerous adherents, but to implant deeply into the minds of a few the higher animating spirit of this kingdom, which through their lives should work out into a complete and effective organization. He found those whom he called for this work Jews; he associated with and instructed them after the customs of Judaism. He distinctly told them, however, that they, in their persons, faith, life, and teaching, were to constitute the beginning and the agency of a new order of things.
They were commanded to go forth after his death and disciple all nations, and to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and thus bring all people into the kingdom of God. It is thus clear that the religion of Christ was designed by him to supersede all others, not only by its spirit and essence, but also in the particular method or form of its manifestation. He made provision for this result by constituting apostles, who should authoritatively command and teach, should open and shut the kingdom of heaven, bind and loose on earth, and so render visible and powerful his Word among men. Before entering upon their mission, they were to tarry in Jerusalem until endued with power from on high (Luke), which power they were assured would come not many days after the ascension of their Lord.
That they already recognized themselves as chosen for a high especial work is evident by their filling up the vacancy in their number caused by the apostasy and death of Judas Iscariot with the selection of another, Matthias, to fill his place (Act 1:15; Act 1:26). Thus complete, they continued to wait and pray for the space of seven days. When the day of Pentecost had fully come, “while the apostles and disciples, a hundred and twenty in number, were assembled in or near the Temple for the morning devotions of the festal day, and were waiting in prayer for the fulfillment of the promise, the exalted Savior poured down from his heavenly throne the fullness of the Holy Ghost upon them, and founded his Church upon earth” (Schaff, Church History, vol. 1, p. 59). The day of Pentecost may be regarded as the birthday of the Christian Church. Then it was formed; thence its gradual development proceeded. There is a diversity of opinion as to the internal polity it assumed, as might be expected; but it must be conceded by all that the apostles would have “sufficient guidance” as to the manner in which it was to be organized. This guidance does not imply that its particular form must have been given to them by Christ, but only such direction as would lead them to pursue the wisest methods. Consequently they began by preaching; and, as converts were made, by baptizing them, and then taking them into a closer fellowship for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, spiritual instruction, and worship (Acts 3:42, etc.).
As they were Jews, it was likely they would adopt the methods of worship, government, etc., to which they were accustomed. Archbishop Whately says (Kingdom of Christ delineated, p. 88): “It appears highly probable, I might say morally certain, that the synagogue was brought — the whole or chief part of it — to embrace the Gospel. The apostles did not, then, so much form a Christian Church (or congregation, ecclesia) as make an existing congregation Christian by introducing the Christian sacraments and worship, and establishing whatever regulations were necessary for the newly-adopted faith, leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of government unchanged; the rulers of synagogues, elders, and other officers, whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, or both, being already provided in the existing institutions.” Vitringa (see his De Synagoga Vetere), Neander, Litton, and many others, agree in this opinion, that the synagogues were the pattern which the apostles proposed to themselves, though it is by no means certain that they adopted any model.
1. All that can be done in the determination of the polity of the apostolic Church is to trace the practice of the apostles as recorded in their acts and writings. This polity is not presented as legislative enactments, but simply as facts, showing how the apostles acted in given cases. In the first account we find the Church composed of the apostles and other disciples, and then of the apostles and “the multitude of them that believed.” Hence it appears that the Church was at first composed entirely of members standing on an equality with one another, and that the apostles alone held a higher rank, and exercised a directing influence over the whole, which arose from the original position in which Christ had placed them in relation to other believers (Neander, Planting and Training, p. 32). The apostles, as necessity required, created other offices, the first of which we have mention is that of deacon (
Since the apostolic times the Constitution of the Christian Church has undergone various modifications. The first of these changes is the distinction between bishop and elder. It is maintained by extreme advocates of Episcopacy that St. Paul, in empowering Timothy at Corinth, and Titus in Crete, in the capacity of presbyters, to ordain elders in every city, and to exercise jurisdiction over officers of that class, as well as those who held the office of deacon, appointed them thus to be permanent, and so created the office known in after times as the local bishop. The moderate Episcopalians and the Presbyterians hold that the mission of Titus and Timothy was peculiar, contemplating a special work, and that the mission ceased with its accomplishment.
On the whole, on this case, as well as on that of St. James at Jerusalem, and the angels of the apocalyptic churches, Litton says, “Respecting the origin of the episcopal order, Scripture leaves us very much in the dark. No order of ministers other than these three — apostles, presbyters, and deaconsare mentioned in the New Testament as forming part of the then existing polity of the Church; for every attempt to establish a distinction between the presbyter and the bishop of Scripture will prove fruitless, so abundant is the evidence which proves they were but different appellations of one and the same office (p. 412).” As to the rise of episcopacy, it is said “to these successors of the apostolic delegates” (such as Timothy) “came to be appropriated the title of bishop, which was originally applied to presbyters. At the commencement of the second century and thenceforward, bishops, presbyters, and deacons are the officers of the Church wherever the Church existed. Ignatius’s epistles (in their unadulterated form), and the other records which are preserved to us, are on this point decisive...
They (the bishops) retained in their own hands authority over presbyters and the functions of ordination, but with respect to each other they were equals” (Smith’s Dict. of Bible, art. CHURCH). Dr. Hitchcock (Am. Presbyt. and Theol. Rev. vol. 5, no. 17) affirms, “Thus throughout do we find in Clement the original New Testament polity (identity of presbyters and bishops) as yet unchanged” (p. 137). “In short, the Ignatian Episcopacy, instead of having the appearance of a settled polity, handed down from the apostles, has the appearance of being a new and growing institution, unlike what went before, as well as what was coming after it” (ibid. p. 146). “The wavering terminology of Irenaeus is indicative not of apostolic tradition, but of later genesis and growth, and that growth not yet completed” (ibid. 147). “No hesitation in Tertullian in accepting the Episcopal regimen. Evidently this had become the settled polity. The maturity of the system is indicated by entire steadiness in the use of terms” (ibid. 148). “In Cyprian of Carthage, between 248-258, we find the system fully matured. Now these are tokens of growth, and are inconsistent with the idea of apostolic tradition” (ibid. 153). There is but little doubt the bishops at first succeeded to office by seniority, and afterwards, as the difficulties of the office increased, A.D. 200, they became elective (Hilary). As the Church multiplied and expanded, the older churches and the most numerous became relatively more important and influential, and their bishops more powerful; hence we find the episcopacy undergoing marked changes: 1. The bishoprics at Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Corinth are termed by pre-eminence sedes apostolicae, without, however, the concession of superior authority; 2. Consequent upon provincial synods the metropolitan dignity arose; also, 3. The patriarchal; and 4, finally, the papacy. Cyprian allowed that “precedency should be given to Peter, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.’“ “The same propension to monarchical unity, which created out of the episcopate a center, first for each congregation, then for each diocese, pressed on towards a visible center for the whole Church. Primacy and episcopacy grew together” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, p. 427).
The high antiquity of the Roman Church; the missionary labors at Rome of Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles; the political pre-eminence of the metropolis of the world; the executive wisdom and orthodox instinct of the Roman Church, and other secondary causes, favored the ascendency of the Roman see (ibid.). The early fathers, as Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, etc., concede precedence to the Church at Rome, but only in honor, not in jurisdiction. After the conversion of Constantine, and the removal of the Roman capital to Byzantium (afterwards called Constantinople), the see of the new capital boldly disputed the supremacy with the see of Rome, from which time, as new agitations arose in the Church, and the empire gradually fell to decay, the two great divisions into the Eastern or Greek, and Western or Roman Catholic took place, and became the settled forms and sources of ecclesiastical dominion. Additional and inferior orders of the ministry rapidly multiplied in the Church. These were, archdeacons, deaconesses, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, lectors or readers, ostiarii or door-keepers, psalmists or singers, copiatae or fossarii, catechists, defensores or syndics; oeconomi or stewards, besides others (Bingham’s Antiquities of Christ. Ch. vol. 1, p. 126). There were four several ways of designating persons to the ministry in the apostolic and primitive Church: 1. By casting lot; 2. By choice of the first-fruits of the Gentiles; 3. By particular direction of the Holy Ghost; 4. By common suffrage and election. Ordination was first by the laying on of the hands of the apostles or elders, and afterwards of a bishop or bishops (see ibid.).
As to the powers of the clergy in the government of the Church, two principal, distinct, and opposite theories obtain. The Roman Catholic is, that “the government of the Church is a hierarchy, or the relation of the clerical body. to the Christian people is that of a secular magistracy to its subjects, and Christian ministers are mediators between God and man-that is, are priests in the proper sense of the word” (Litton. p. 395). “The hierarchism of Rome is the natural and inevitable consequence of the doctrine that the clergy are
The Protestant theory is that all believers are a spiritual priesthood, and, as such, constitute the Church, and that the whole Church, thus composed of believers differing in gifts according to the operation of the Spirit, is the fountain of authority in the administration of government. “In short, no principle of ecclesiastical polity is more clearly deducible from Scripture than that the sovereignty of a church resides not in the people apart from their pastors. This, however, being admitted, the converse also remains true, that the sovereignty of a church is not in the pastors exclusively of the people” (Litton, p. 399). Dr. Schaff says, in reference to the first council of Jerusalem, “though not a binding precedent, (it) is a significant example, giving the apostolic sanction to the synodical form of church government, in which all classes of the Christian community are represented in the management of public affairs and in settling controversies respecting faith and practice” (Ch. Hist. vol. 1, p. 136). By many Protestants this view of the council is questioned, and the right of laymen to an equal participation in church government, from this and other apostolic examples, denied; so that, to this day, the relative powers of ministry and laity, in the administration of ecclesiastical government, remain undefined among some of the great Protestant churches.
Membership of the Church. — “Church members are those who compose or belong to the visible church. As to the real church, the true members of it are such as come out from the world, 2Co 6:17; who are born again, 1Pe 1:23; or made new creatures, 2Co 5:17; whose faith works by love to God and all mankind, Gal 5:6; Jas 2:14; Jas 2:26; who walk in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless. None but such are members of the true church; nor should any be admitted into any particular church without evidence of their earnestly seeking this state of salvation.
Fellowship. — “Church fellowship is the communion that the members enjoy one with another. The ends of church fellowship are, the maintenance and exhibition of a system of sound doctrine; the support of the ordinances of evangelical worship in their purity and simplicity; the impartial exercise of church government and discipline; the promotion of holiness in all manner of conversation. The more particular duties are, earnest study to keep peace and unity; bearing of one another’s burdens, Gal 6:1-2; earnest endeavors to prevent each other’s stumbling, 1Co 10:23-33; Heb 10:24-27; Rom 14:13; steadfast continuance in the faith and worship of the Gospel, Act 2:42; praying for and sympathizing with each other, 1Sa 12:23; Eph 6:18. The advantages are, peculiar incitement to holiness; the right to some promises applicable to none but those who attend the ordinances of God, and hold communion with the saints, Psa 92:13; Psa 132:13; Psa 132:16; Psa 36:8; Jer 31:12; the being placed under the watchful eye of pastors, Heb 13:7; that they may restore each other if they fall, Gal 6:1; and the more effectually promote the cause of true religion” (Watson, s.v.).
Literature. — Besides the works already cited, see Hooker, Eccles. Polity, 1:346; 2:226, 345; 3:442 (Oxford, 1793, 3 vols. 8vo); Calvin, Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 1; Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, art. 9; Cranmer, Works; Burnet, On the 39 Articles, art. 19; Browne, On the 39 Articles, art. 19; Palmer, Treatise of the Church (Anglican: N. Y. 1851, 2 vols. 8vo); Litton, The Church of Christ (Protestant view: London, 1851, 8vo; Philadelphia, revised ed. 1863, 8vo); Stone, The Church Universal (Protestant: N. Y. 1846; new ed. 1867); Watson, Theological Institutes, pt. 4, ch. 1; Schaff, Apostolical Church, ch. 2; Rothe, Die Anfdnge d. christlichen Kirche (vol. 1:1837). In the Romanist view, Perrone, Prcelectiones Theologicae, 1:181 sq.; Mohler, Symbolism, p. 330 (N. Y. 1844, 8vo). Against the Romanist view, Cramp, Text-book of Popery, p. 42; Elliott, Delineations of Romanism, bk. 3. ch. 1; Jackson and Sanderson, On the Church, edited by Goode (Philadelphia, 1844,18mo); Whately, Kingdom of Christ (N. Y. 1843, 12mo). On the doctrine of the Church in the creeds of the churches, Guericke, Allgemeine christliche Symbolik (3d ed. Lpzg. 1861, § 71; partly translated from 1st ed. in evangelical Review, 1853, art. 2); Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, 2, § 459-490; Winer, Comnpar. Darstellung, 19. See also Coleman, Ancient Christianity, ch. 6; N. Brit. Review, Feb. 1853, art. 5; Lond. Quart. Rev. (Methodist), June, 1854; April, 1855; Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 1, ch. 1. For the Congregational view, Ripley, Church Polity (Boston, 1867, 18mo); B. Cooper, Free Church of Ancient Christendom (Lond. n. d., 18mo); Dexter, On Congregationalism, ch. 2 (Boston, 1865, 8vo).
ekklesia (G1577) Church
synagoge (G4864) Synagogue
panegyris (G3831) Assembly, Congregation
There are words whose etymology it is interesting to watch as they are transformed and consecrated by the Christian churchwords that the church did not invent but. has employed in a loftier sense than the world has ever used them. The very word by which the church is named is a key example of this type of transformation. For we have ekklesia in three distinct stages of meaningthe secular, the Jewish, and the Christian. As a secular term, he ekklesia (= ekkletoi) was the lawful assembly of free Greek citizens met to transact public affairs. That they were summoned is expressed in the latter part of the word; the first syllable indicates that they were summoned out of the whole population as a select portion that included neither the populace, strangers, nor those who had forfeited their civic rights. Both the calling (the klesis [G2821]; Php_3:14; 2Ti_1:9) and the calling out (the ekloge [G1589]; Rom_11:7; 2Pe_1:10) are the distinctives that make the word well adapted for its new Christian usage. It is interesting to observe how the word returns to this earlier significance on one occasion in the New Testament (Act_19:32; Act_19:39; Act_19:41).
Before more fully considering ekklesia, however, it is necessary to review the earlier history of synagoge. Although synagoge occurs two or three times in Plato, it is by no means an old word in classical Greek. It completely lacks the technical signification that it began to receive in the Septuagint, and even more plainly in the Apocrypha, and that it has fully acquired in the New Testament. But synagoge, while evolving in this direction, did not lose the meaning it had in classical Greek; it often denotes any gathering or bringing together of persons or things. Between the closing of the Old Testament canon and the opening of the New, synagoge acquired the technical meaning that it possesses when the gospel history begins. It designates the places set apart for purposes of worship and the reading and expounding of the Word of God, the "synagogues." Although numerous, they were the necessary complement of the temple, which by divine intention was unique.
Ekklesia did not pass immediately from the heathen world to the Christian church; the Septuagint supplied the point of transition. When the Alexandrian translators undertook the rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures, they found two constantly recurring words: 'edah (H5712) and qahal (H6951). For these they employed their most adequate Greek equivalents: synagoge and ekklesia. This is the rule they seem to have followed: to render 'edahfor the most part by synagoge and never by ekklesia. We may wish that theyhad shown the same consistency with respect to qahal, but they did not. Although ekklesia is the more frequent rendering of qahal, synagoge is also used, thus breaking down for the Greek reader the distinction that undoubtedly exists between the words. Our Authorized Version shows the same lack of consistency in its use of "congregation" and "assembly." Instead of constantly assigning one English word to the same Hebrew word, it renders 'edah now by "congregation" (Lev_10:17; Num_1:16; Jos_9:27) and now by "assembly" (Lev_4:13). Qahal is sometimes translated "assembly" (Jdg_21:8; 2Ch_30:23) but much more often "congregation" (Jdg_21:5; Jos_8:35).
Vitringa has an interesting discussion on the distinction between these two Hebrew synonyms.
Qahal, strictly speaking, denotes an entire multitude of some people united by the bonds of society and making up a republic or a certain state, while the word 'edah, from the nature and force of its emphasis, speaks of only any assembly and gathering of people, whether small or large.
Later in the same discussion, he says:
synagoge, as also 'edah, always signifies an assembly joined and gathered together, although bound by no strong bond; but he ekklesia [=qahal] designates some multitude which makes up a people joined together by laws and bonds, although frequently they may happen not to be assembled or are not able to be assembled.
This distinction resulted in the choice of ekklesia by Christ (Mat_16:18; Mat_18:17) and his apostles as the more noble of the two words. It designated the new society of which Jesus was the founder, being as it was a society knit together by the closest spiritual bonds and altogether independent of space.
The title ekklesia, however, is not wholly withdrawn from the Jewish congregation; that too was "the church in the wilderness" (Act_7:38), for the Christian and Jewish congregations differed only in degree and not in kind. Synagoge is not wholly renounced by the church; the only Christian use of it in the New Testament is by James (2:2), the apostle who maintained unbroken to the latest possible moment the outward bonds connecting the synagogue and the church. Episynagoge (G1997), I may add, on two occasions is honorably used but in a more general sense (2Th_2:1; Heb_10:25). Still, there were causes at work that led the faithful to use synagoge less and less of themselves and in the end to leave it to those whom the Lord had characterized for their fierce opposition to the truth as "the synagogue of Satan" (Rev_3:9; cf. Joh_8:4). In addition, the use of ekklesia became more widespread as the church rooted itself more predominantly in the soil of the secular world, breaking away from its Jewish stock and stem. The use of synagoge declined because it was permanently associated with Jewish worship, while the use of ekklesia increased, not only because it was already familiar but also because it had an honorable meaning in Greek culture. It is interesting that the Ebionites (in reality a Jewish sect, though temporarily part of the Christian church) acknowledged the appropriateness of this distribution of terms. Epiphanius reports of the Ebionites: "These people call their own congregation an assembly and not a church."
Given these conclusions, Augustine, by a piece of good fortune, was only half in the wrong when he transferred his Latin etymologies to the Greek and Hebrew without pausing to enquire whether they would hold good there. He finds the reason for attributing synagoge to the Jewish church and ekklesia to the Christian church in the fact that convocatio (= ekklesia) is a nobler term than congregatio (= synagoge). Convocatio is the calling together of men, while the second term is the gathering together (congregatio, from congrego [gather together], and that from grex [herd, flock]) of cattle.
The panegyris differs from the ekklesia. In the ekklesia there is the sense of an assembly coming together for the transaction of business, while the panegyris was a solemn assembly whose purpose was festal rejoicing. Business might grow out of the fact that such multitudes were assembled (and many for various reasons would be glad to avail themselves of the gathering) but only in the same way as a "fair" grew out of a "feria" and a "holiday" out of a "holy-day." Strabo notes the businesslike aspect that the panegyreis commonly assumed and that was to such an extent their prominent feature that the Latins rendered panegyris by mercatus (festive assembly), even when the Olympic games were intended. These, with the other solemn games, were eminently, though not exclusively, the panegyreis of the Greek nation.Keeping this festal character of the panegyris in mind, we shall find a peculiar fitness in the word's employment in Heb_12:23, the only place in the New Testament where it occurs. The apostle sets forth the communion of the church militant on earth with the church triumphant in heavenof the church toiling and suffering here with that church from which all weariness and toil have forever passed away (Rev_21:4). How could he better describe this last state than as a panegyris, the glad and festal assembly of heaven? Very beautifully Delitzsch says:
Panegyris is an assembly that is at full count (or has a large attendance) and is exceedingly festive in mood and indulges itself in a revelry of delights. At the mention of panegyris, one thinks of festive song, festive frolicking, festive games; and, indeed, life in the presence of God is a truly unending festive celebration.
Church. The terms which this word represents are variously used by the sacred writers. Mat 16:18. It may be sufficient to notice two uses of the term. In the New Testament it is applied particularly to Christians as a body or community. Act 16:5. It is also applied to the people of God in all ages of the world, whether Jews or Christians, Act 7:38; Act 12:1; Eph 3:21; Eph 5:25; for although there have been two dispensations, viz., that of the law by Moses, and that of the gospel by Jesus Christ, yet the religion of the Bible is one religion: whether before or after the coming of Christ, true believers are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28. Of this church or company of the redeemed, the Lord Jesus Christ is now the Head, and the Church is therefore called the body, Col 1:18; Col 1:24, and comprises the redeemed who are gone to heaven, as well as those who are, or will be, on the earth. Heb 12:23. Particular portions of the whole body of Christians are also called the church, as the church at Jerusalem, at Corinth, etc. Act 8:1; 1Co 1:2; 1Co 4:17. As the great work wrought on earth and the reigning of Christ in heaven constitute him the Founder and Head of the Church, as it now exists, he is compared to "the chief corner-stone" in the building, Eph 2:20, on whom the whole structure is dependent. For this purpose God "hath put all things under his feet." Eph 1:22. The figurative language which is employed by Christ, himself, as well as by his apostles, to denote the nature of his relations to the church (as composed of all true believers), and its relations to him, is of the most significant character. Some of these have been intimated above; others are that of husband and wife, Eph 5:30-32, a vine and its branches, Joh 15:1-6, and a shepherd and his flock, Joh 10:11. And it is by many supposed that the Song of Solomon is a highly figurative and poetical illustration of the mutual love of Christ and the people of his church in all ages. In modern times the word is applied to various associations of Christians, united by a common mode of faith or form of government; as the Episcopal Church, the Baptist Church, the Moravian Church, etc. The word church is but once (then doubtfully) applied in Scriptures to a building. 1Ti 3:15. The visible Israelitish church was divided into twelve tribes separated, yet to be united as the people of God: having one Scripture, one sacrifice, one Jehovah. Christ told his apostles, "Ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Mat 19:28. James addresses his epistle, "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" ("which are of the dispersion," R. V.). Jas 1:1. In the progress of the church "there were sealed one hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of Israel," Rev 7:4, showing that the visible church will continue to be divided into tribes, with one Scripture and one Saviour. The world seldom was in greater darkness than when for 1260 years it was controlled by one visible church, the Church of Rome. And the clamor of many to make a united visible church by attacking all creeds and confessions holding the great doctrines of the Scriptures, and in their place to adopt the assumptions of idolatrous churches, will never be realized. The church had in New Testament times, elders, overseers or bishops, in each congregation. Mat 26:3; Act 14:23; Tit 1:5; Tit 1:7; Act 20:17; Act 20:28; 1Pe 5:1; 1Pe 5:3. Compare Exo 3:16; Exo 4:29. The various tribes of the ancient visible church were constantly adopting the idolatries of the surrounding nations, and were brought into subjection by them, and at last were scattered and the most of them lost on that account. The most of the prophets were sent to the church to upbraid them for their idolatries and for forsaking God. Christ came to the visible church and was rejected. The epistles speak of errors in the churches founded by the apostles. And as was predicted in the second and third chapters of Revelation, the candlestick of nearly every one of them has been removed.
This English word is said to be derived from the Greek
The word is used in reference to Israel in the N.T. on one occasion in Act 7:38, and to a Gentile throng in Act 19:32; Act 19:41. Its first occurrence in relation to Christianity is in Mat 16:18, where upon Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Son of the living God, the Lord rejoins, "upon this rock I will build my assembly," etc. Historically this spiritual building, (for ’building’ never refers to a material edifice) was begun after His death and resurrection, when the Holy Ghost descended at the day of Pentecost. In this aspect of the church there is no room for any failure - the "gates of hades shall not prevail against it." It is what Christ Himself effects by His Spirit in souls, and it contemplates the full and final result. In 1Pe 2:4-5 we have the progressive work, "ye also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house," etc. The idea of ’building’ here supposes a work so wrought that souls become conscious of forming part of the dwelling place of God, and are rendered able to offer up spiritual sacrifices as a holy priesthood.
But there is an aspect of the assembly as a building in which it is viewed in relation to human responsibility, and where consequently human failure has left its unmistakable mark. In 1 Cor. 3. the apostle speaks of himself as a wise master-builder, who has well laid the foundation, which is ’Christ Jesus;’ but he adds that ’others build thereupon,’ and warns every one to take heed how he does so. Here may be found ’wood, hay, stubble,’ as well as ’gold, silver, precious stones.’ Men may ’corrupt the temple of God,’ and alas! this has been done only too effectually, professing Christendom being the outcome of it. But this aspect of it must in no way be confounded with that which Christ builds, where no failure is found.
There is also another view of the church or assembly as the body and the bride of Christ. Eph 1:22-23; Eph 5:26-27. By one Spirit believers are baptised into one body. 1Co 12:13. They are God’s "workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works. . . . ." Eph 2:10. There is the effectual operation of God in quickening them with Christ, in raising them (Jews and Gentiles) up together, and making them to sit together in heavenly places in Christ. They are livingly united to the Head in heaven by the Spirit of God. This body is on earth that the graces of the Head may be displayed in it. His people are to put on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, longsuffering, etc. Col 3:12-17. It is the mystery hidden throughout the ages, but now revealed, in order that to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies might be known through the assembly the all various wisdom of God. Eph 3:9-10. The assembly will be eventually presented by Christ to Himself as His bride, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. There can be no false members of Christ’s body, and no spot or wrinkle in His bride. Those united to Him are ’all of one’ with the sanctifier Himself; they are ’His brethren;’ they derive from the corn of wheat which has fallen into the ground and died, and which has borne much fruit. Heb 2.; Joh 12:24. Moreover the assembly is one. Eph 4:4; 1Co 12:13. There is not another.
If division has come in on every hand, as it did at Corinth, faith will still recognise that the body is one, and will maintain the truth of it. Gifts were bestowed on the assembly, and will be acknowledged as such by faith, and their exercise welcomed in whatever feebleness. If the assembly has become like a great house, where there are vessels of gold and silver, as well as of wood and of earth (2Ti 2:20), the believer is encouraged to purge himself from the latter - the dishonourable vessels - that he may be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work. He is taught in scripture how to behave himself in the house of God, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. 1Ti 3:15.
It must be carefully observed that the churches or assemblies at Jerusalem, Corinth, Rome, etc., were not separate or independent organisations, as in the modern idea of the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, the Church of England, and so on. There was only one assembly, the Church of God, though expressed in different localities, in which indeed there were local office bearers, as elders and deacons, and where also discipline was locally carried out. There was entire inter-communion. In the present divided state of God’s people, the man of faith will be careful to recognise that every true Christian is a part of that one body, with which, as has been said, there can be no failure; while, at the same time, he will pursue a path of separation from evil; and will "follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." 2Ti 2:22.
The church will continue on earth until the rapture, revealed in 1Th 4:15-18. As there were saints on earth before the church was formed, so there will be saints on the earth after the rapture: all will be equally saved, but all will not form a part of the church of God as revealed in scripture. This fills a wonderfully unique place, designed of God that in it the principalities and powers in the heavenlies should even now learn the manifold wisdom of God; and in the ages to come the exceeding riches of God’s grace be manifested "in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." Eph 2:7; Eph 3:10.
CHURCH.—It is proposed in this article to deal with the references to the Church in the Gospels, particularly as they bear upon Christ’s relation to the Church. The other books of the NT, and the beliefs and practices of the early ages of Christianity, will be referred to only as far as they appear to throw light upon the teaching and actions of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. It will be assumed that the accounts of the life and teaching of Christ contained in the four Gospels as well as the narrative of the Acts are substantially historical, and that the thirteen Epistles usually ascribed to St. Paul are genuine. Without this limitation the inquiry would be of quite a different character.
The historical society known as the Church has never claimed to have come into complete existence until the day of Pentecost, and its growth and organization were a gradual process. We shall not, therefore, on any theory, expect to find in the Gospels a complete and explicit account of the foundation and characteristics of the Church, and it will be a convenient method of procedure to take the chief elements of the conception of the Church which was generally accepted at a later date, when the community was fully constituted, and to inquire how far these can be traced back to the teaching of Christ Himself, and how far they may be regarded as later accretions, or the natural but not necessary development of ideas which existed before, if at all, only in germ. Now our knowledge of the first days of Christianity derived from the NT is but fragmentary, and the period immediately following is one of great obscurity; but from the middle of the 2nd cent. there is no doubt about the prevalent and almost universal belief of Christians with regard to the Church. It was believed that the Church, as it then existed, was a society founded by Christ as an integral part of His work for mankind. It was further believed that the Church possessed characteristics which were summed up under the words, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. And while it was believed that the Church stood in the most intimate spiritual relation to Christ, it was also held that its outward unity and continuity were secured by a definite organization and form of government, the essential features of which had been imposed upon the Church by the Apostles, acting under a commission given them by Christ Himself. The Church was further regarded as the instrument appointed by Christ for the completion of His work for mankind. The fact that these beliefs were generally held, at all events from the middle of the 2nd cent. onwards, suggests the following division of the subject. First, it will be asked whether the belief that it was Christ’s intention to found a visible society is borne out (1) by what we know of His own actions and teaching, and (2) by the records of the earliest days of Christian life. Secondly, the characteristics ascribed to the Church in the Christian creeds will be examined in the light of the NT writings.
i. Indications of a visible Church.
1. In the teaching and actions of Christ: (a) the Messianic claim and the Kingdom of God; (b) the body of disciples; (c) the institution of sacraments.
2. In the earliest period of Christian history.
ii. Characteristics of the Church.
1. Unity: (a) essential and transcendental; (b) taking outward expression; (c) imperfect.
2. Holiness.
3. Catholicity.
4. Apostolicity: (a) doctrine; (b) worship; (c) discipline.
Note.—The words ‘Church’ and ‘Ecclesia.’
Literature.
i. Indications of a visible Church.
1. In the Teaching and Actions of Christ.
(a) Relation of Christ to the Messianic Hope and the Kingdom of God.—The idea of a covenant relation between God and man is found in the earliest records of the Hebrew race. Covenants were at first made with individuals and families; but with the beginning of Jewish nationality there is a consciousness of a peculiar relation between the nation and Jehovah. The idea of a national God was, of course, shared by the Jews with all the nations with which they came into contact; but as their conception of the Deity advanced, and their religion developed through monolatry into a pure monotheism, the idea of Jehovah as a national God passed into the idea of the selection of Israel by the one God of all the earth for a special destiny and special privileges. Thus the Jewish religion was a religion of hope, and its Golden Age was in the future. This national hope became closely associated in thought with the kingdom,—at first the actual kingdom, and then the kingdom to be restored in the future. After the fall of the actual kingdom, the idea of the future kingdom became, to a great extent, idealized, and in close connexion with it there grew up the expectation of a personal Messiah. It is not necessary for the present purpose to inquire when this expectation first becomes apparent, or to trace the growth of the Messianic hope in detail. The important fact is that at the time of Christ’s birth Israel as a nation was looking for a kingdom of God and a Messianic King. With many, perhaps with most, the expectation may have been mainly that of an independent and powerful earthly kingdom; but the remains of Jewish literature in the last century before Christ show that the more spiritually minded Jews undoubtedly looked for a kingdom which would indeed have Jerusalem for its centre, and of which the faithful Jews would be the nucleus, but which would also be world-wide and spiritual in character. It must also be noticed that the doctrine of a Remnant, which had taken strong hold of the Jewish mind since the time of Isaiah, had accustomed them to think of a community of the faithful, within and growing out of the existing nation, who should in a special sense be the heirs of the promises.
The most conspicuous feature in the teaching of Christ, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, is undoubtedly His claim to be the Messiah, and His announcement of the coming of the Kingdom of God. In using these terms, He must have intended to appeal to, and to a great extent to sanction, the ideas and hopes of those whom He addressed. And yet it very soon became plain that the kingdom which He preached was something very different from anything that the most spiritual of the Jews had conceived. The old Jewish kings had led the people in war, they had judged them in peace, they had levied tribute; but these functions Christ expressly disclaimed. He would not allow His followers to think of appealing to force (Mat 26:52), He repudiated the idea of being a ruler or a judge of ordinary contentions (Luk 12:14), He accepted the payment of tribute to an alien potentate as a thing indifferent (Mar 12:17). But, on the other hand, the great acts which Jehovah Himself had performed for the Jewish nation, in virtue of which He Himself had been regarded as their King, Christ performed for a new nation. Jehovah had called Abraham and the patriarchs, and had attached them to Himself by intimate ties and covenants, and out of their seed had formed a nation which He ruled; and, in the second place, He had given this nation His own law. So Christ called from among the Jews His own disciples, from whom He required an absolute personal devotion, and to them He delivered a new law to fulfil or supersede the old (Mat 5:17). See, further, art. Kingdom of God.
What is the relation of the Kingdom of God to the Church?—The two things are not simply identical, and the predominant sense of the Kingdom in the NT appears to be rather that of a reign than of a realm. But these two ideas are complementary, and the one implies the other. Sometimes it is hardly possible to distinguish between them. It may be true that ‘by the words the Kingdom of God our Lord denotes not so much His disciples, whether individually or even as forming a collective body, as something which they receive—a state upon which they enter’ (Robertson, Regnum Dei); but at the same time the whole history of the growth of the idea of the Kingdom led, naturally, to the belief that the Kingdom of God about which Christ taught would be expressed and realized in a society. The teaching of Christ about the Kingdom of Heaven does not perhaps, taken by itself, prove that He was the Founder of the church; but if this is established by other evidence, it may at least be said that His Kingdom is visibly represented in His Church, and that ‘the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven in so far as it has already come, and it prepares for the Kingdom as it is to come in glory.’
(b) How far the line of action adopted by Christ during His ministry tended to the formation of a society.—Christ began from the first to attach to Himself a number of disciples. Their numbers varied, and they did not all stand in equally close relations to Him; they were indeed still a vague and indeterminate body at the time of His death, but they tended to define themselves more and more. There was a process of sifting (Joh 6:66), and immediately after the Ascension an expression is used which suggests some sort of list (Act 1:15). As much as this, indeed, might be said of most religious and philosophical leaders, but Christ did more than create an unorganized mass of disciples. From an early period He formed an inner circle ‘that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth’ (Mar 3:14). The name ‘Apostles’ may have been given to the Twelve in the first instance with reference to a temporary mission, but subsequent events showed that this temporary mission was itself only part of a system of training to which Christ devoted more and more of His time. The Twelve became in a special sense ‘the disciples,’ and this is what they are usually called in the Fourth Gospel. The larger body are also disciples, but the Twelve are their leaders and representatives. Their representative character culminates at the Last Supper, where the Eucharist is given to them alone, but, as the event showed, in trust for the whole body.
Certain sayings recorded of Christ in connexion with the Apostles and their functions will be noticed later. For the present it is enough to call attention to the fact that, apart from any special saying or commission, the general course of Christ’s actions not only tended to produce a society, but provided what is a necessary condition of the effectiveness and permanence of a society—the nucleus of an organization; and that the greater part of His labours was directed towards the training of this inner circle for carrying on a work which He would not complete Himself.
(c) The significance of the institution of the sacraments.—A society, to be plainly visible and unmistakable, requires some outward act or sign of distinction by which all its members can be recognized. Circumcision had been such to the Jews. And in order to be both effective and permanent, a society further requires some definite corporate action, binding upon all its members, and relating to the object for which the society exists. The observance of the Law has been the corporate action of the Jews. No society has, as a matter of fact, succeeded in maintaining itself in existence for an indefinite period without such signs of distinction and corporate actions. Both requirements were supplied by Christ, if the Gospel narrative may be trusted, in the sacraments which He instituted. In Baptism He provided a definite means of incorporation, and in the Eucharist a corporate act and a visible bond of union. This is indeed only part of the significance of the sacraments, but when they are regarded from another point of view it becomes all the more striking that the means appointed to convey the grace of God to the individual should be necessarily social in their character. The general tendency of the teaching of Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, with regard to the Jewish Law and to the relation of the inward and outward, gives great significance to the fact that He should have ordered any external acts of the nature of sacraments, and makes it still more remarkable that He should have laid emphasis on their necessity as a condition of entrance into the Kingdom and to the possession of life (Joh 3:5; Joh 6:54). And he fact that these are necessarily social is of primary importance in considering the relation of the Church to Christ.
It thus appears from a general view of Christ’s ministry as recorded in the Gospels, without taking into consideration particular sayings ascribed to Him, that before the Ascension He had provided everything that was necessary for the existence of a society, for the development of an organization, and for its permanence and corporate action. The only thing wanting to the complete constitution of the Church was the fulfilment of the promise of the gift of the indwelling spirit, for which the disciples were bidden to wait (Luk 24:49, Act 1:4).
2. In the earliest period of Church history.—The conclusions to which the Gospels appear to point will be corroborated if there is evidence that a society actually did exist immediately after the events recorded in the Gospels. Of this early period the only existing record is that which is contained in the Acts. There is also contemporary evidence of the ideas of a somewhat later period in St. Paul’s Epistles. If the evidence of the Acts is accepted, there is no doubt of its general tendency. Immediately after the Ascension there appears a well defined body disciples, led by the Apostles (Act 1:13-15). At the day of Pentecost this body is fully constituted for its mission, and receives a large accession of numbers. The mention of definite numbers (Act 1:15; Act 2:41; Act_Act 4:4) shows that there was no doubt who the persons were who belonged to the society. Nor is there any doubt, from the constant mention of baptism throughout the book, that this was the invariable means of acquiring membership. It is expressly mentioned even in the exceptional case recorded in Act 10:47 f. Throughout the whole narrative the Apostles appear as the leaders and teachers of the whole community. Membership implies adherence to their teaching and fellowship, with ‘the breaking of bread’ and common prayer as a bond of union (Act 2:42). The practice of community of goods is an evidence of the closeness of the bond, while the fact that this was voluntary shows that ‘neither the community was lost in the individuals, nor the individuals in the community’ (Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 48). The meetings of the Church must have been in houses, and none in Jerusalem can possibly have contained all the disciples; but no importance is attached to the place of meeting, nor are house congregations ever spoken of or alluded to as separate units of Church life. A theory has been formed that the Church as a society arose out of a federation of house assemblies, but there is absolutely no trace whatever of such a possibility in the Acts: the whole body of disciples is the only unit. The word ecclesia occurs for the first time in Act 5:11, and there it is the whole body which is spoken of. In the course of time the increase in the number of adherents led to an advance in organization, the Apostles delegating some of their functions to a lower order of ministers, and soon afterwards persecution caused an extension of the Church to other parts of Palestine. But there is as yet no subdivision; questions which arise in Samaria and Joppa are dealt, with at Jerusalem (Act 8:14; Act 11:1 f.). This state of things, however, could not last. When the process of extension had gone further, it became impossible to administer all the affairs of the community from a single centre. And so when a body of Christians established themselves in Antioch, a new use of the word ecclesia appears (Act 11:26). Hitherto it has meant the whole body of the brethren; now it is applied also to parts of the whole. Each centre is capable of separate action, and deals with local affairs, while remaining in close union with the whole. And so the step which was perhaps the most momentous of any that have been taken in Church history—the mission of Paul and Barnabas—was apparently the work of the Church in Antioch alone, without any reference to Jerusalem (Act 13:1 ff.). This mission led to the foundation of a large number of local ecclesiœ, each of which was provided by the Apostle with a local ministry (Act 14:23), while he exercised a continual supervision over them, and visited them as often as circumstances would allow. The difficult questions which arise out of this great extension of the Church are referred to the ‘Apostles and presbyters’ at Jerusalem. The precise relations between the authority of the whole body and the legitimate independence of the local communities are undefined, but the recognition of the unity of the whole Church and of the Apostolic authority is unmistakable. In the Epistles of St. Paul the term ecclesia is constantly used of the local communities, of which he had frequent occasion to speak; the church in a city (1Co 1:2) or even in a house (Rom 16:5, Col 4:15) is a familiar expression, and the churches of a region are spoken of (1Co 16:1; 1Co 16:19) in a way that possibly suggests the beginnings of a provincial organization. But ‘the Church’ is the one undivided Church of which these several churches are only local divisions. It is in the Epistle to the Ephesians that his doctrine of ‘the Church’ culminates. It is particularly with reference to this teaching that a distinction has been drawn between the actual and the ideal Church. This distinction is a real one, if it means that the ideal of the Church has never yet been realized in fact. But neither St. Paul nor any other NT writer draws any distinction, or appears to be conscious of the need of any. The Church, like the individual Christian, is regarded as being that which it is becoming. As the individual Christian, in spite of his imperfections, is a saint, so the existing body of Christians whom he is addressing is the Body of Christ, which is to be presented a glorious Church, holy and without blemish (1Co 12:27, Eph 5:27). See Organization.
ii. The Characteristics of the Church.—Assuming now that the Church is a society founded by Christ to carry on His work for the redemption of mankind, the characteristic notes of the Church, as they have been embodied in the Creeds, may be considered with reference to the teaching contained in the Gospels. It is convenient to state at the outset what the principal passages in the Gospels are which bear upon the subject. In the first place, all the teaching relative to the Kingdom of God bears more or less directly on the Church. Some points with regard to this have already been noticed. Then there are the two passages in which the word ecclesia is used, Mat 16:13-20; Mat 18:15-20. In connexion with the former, the other two ‘Petrine’ texts, Luk 22:28-32 and Joh 21:15-17, may be considered. There are also the charges given to the Apostles in general, Matthew 10, Mar 3:13-15; Mar 6:7-13, Mat 28:16-20, Joh 20:21-23, and the accounts of the institution of the Eucharist. And there is the long passage John 14-17, which specially bears upon the relations of Christ to the Church. The authenticity or credibility of some of these passages has been disputed on various grounds, but it will be assumed for the present purpose that they contain a credible record of the teaching of Christ. It will be convenient to consider this teaching under the heads of those notes of the Church which have been commonly ascribed to it from early times, and have been embodied in the Creeds.
1. Unity.—If the conclusion already reached about the origin of the Church is true, it is clear that it must be one society. The teaching of Christ on this point, as recorded in the Fourth Gospel, is very emphatic (Joh 17:21-23), and He bases the unity of the Church on the unity of God (cf. Eph 4:4-6). It is also to be a visible unity, for it is to be a sign to the world: ‘that the world may believe.’ It is, however, implied that it will be a progressive unity, not at once perfectly realized (Joh 17:23; Joh 10:10). This is illustrated by St. Paul, who speaks of unity as a thing to be gradually attained to (Eph 4:13). These three points may be taken in order.
(a) If the unity of the Church is based upon the unity of God, it follows that it is an essential and transcendental, and not an accidental unity; i.e. it is not a merely political or voluntary association of men combining together with a view to effect certain ends, nor is it merely occasioned by the social instincts of human nature. These lower kinds of unity are not, indeed, excluded by the higher, but they are by themselves an insufficient explanation. It has been maintained that the idea of the unity of the Church is an afterthought, caused by the strong tendency to religious associations which prevailed in the Empire in the early ages of Christianity. Abundant evidence already exists, and more is being accumulated, of the existence of this tendency; but even if it should be shown that non-Christian associations influenced the manner in which the Christian community framed its external life and that they assisted its growth, this would not in the least disprove the essential unity of the Church. As far, however, as investigation has gone at present, it seems that the Church owed remarkably little to heathen precedents. The fact that from the earliest times there were some who more or less separated themselves and stood aloof, has been alleged as a proof that unity was not regarded as essential. But imperfection, as has already been noted, is a condition of the earthly state of the Church; and the strong condemnation with which separation is invariably spoken of in the NT and by all early writers, is very strong evidence of the belief of the Church that unity is one of its essential marks. The existence from the first of the power of excommunication (1 Corinthians 5, etc.), is further evidence to the same effect.
The unity of the Church is, then, a theological unity, arising from the unity of God, from the fact that all members of the Church are members of Christ and abide in Him as the branches abide in the vine, and from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. From this flows a moral unity of thought and action among the members of the Church, who are bound together by the invisible bonds of faith, hope, and love.
(b) But this invisible unity will express itself, as far as regards that part of the Church which is on earth, in an outward form. There has not unnaturally been a good deal of conflict of opinion throughout the greater part of Church history as to the precise nature of the outward form which is necessary. Confining ourselves to the teaching of Christ upon the subject, the first thing to be noticed is that institution of the visible actions called sacraments which has been already spoken of. The necessity for performing certain outward actions at once distinguishes those persons who perform them, and these particular actions are social in their nature, and cannot be performed except in connexion with a visible society. In the next place, the administration of sacraments implies discipline, for a certain amount of organization is necessary in order to enable a society to act, and social actions cannot be performed in isolation. For this Christ provided by the institution of a ministry in the persons of the Apostles, to whom Ho expressly committed the sacraments. It follows that among the things which are necessary to their valid administration, the preservation of the order instituted by the Church under the direction of the Apostles must be reckoned. And while the Church has recognized all its members as valid ministers of Baptism in case of necessity, the administration of the Eucharist has been confined amongst most Christians to those who have received special Apostolic authority for the purpose.
It is further held by a very large number of Christians, that in addition to the external bonds of union formed by the sacraments and the Apostolic ministry, the Church on earth, being visible, must have a visible head, and that this headship was given by Christ to St. Peter, and by implication to his successors. Union with the earthly head of the Church is therefore necessary to avoid the guilt of schism. It is alleged that this is the natural sense of the passages which record the special charges given by Christ to St. Peter (Mat 16:13-20, Luk 22:28-32, and Joh 20:21-23), and that this interpretation of His words is borne out by the claims made from the earliest times by the bishops of Rome, and allowed or acquiesced in by the Church at large. It is argued, on the other side, that the passages in question were not interpreted in this sense by early Church writers, and that the testimony of the Acts and Epistles and of early Church history shows that such a position was not actually held by St. Peter. The controversy is of such enormous proportions that it can only be alluded to here, but a few of the innumerable books that deal with the subject are mentioned in the list of Literature at the end.
(c) These inward and outward bonds of union give a real numerical unity to the Church, so that it will be one in any one place, one throughout the world, and one in all time. Nothing less than this can satisfy the conception of unity put before us in the NT. But it must be noted, in the third place, that unity may be real while it is still imperfect. The perfection of the Church, in respect of unity as well as of all other characteristics, is possible only when all its members are perfect, and therefore it cannot be fully realized in this life. Any loosening of those bonds which have been mentioned, whether inward or outward, must necessarily impair unity. It is not necessary that there should be an outward breach. A lack of charity, leading to party spirit, such as existed at Corinth, was regarded by St. Paul as impairing the unity of the Church although no visible severance had taken place. A want of faith, or errors concerning the faith, must have the same effect. A departure from the faith of the Church on fundamental matters is called ‘heresy,’ and any great want of either charity or faith on the part of a section of the Church commonly leads to a breach of the external conditions of union, which is called ‘schism.’ This again admits of different degrees, and is of two principal kinds. A suspension or refusal of communion between two parts of the Church undoubtedly amounts to a schism, even though both parts retain the due administration of the sacraments and the Apostolic ministry. Such a schism has arisen between the Churches of the East and the West, and it was the work of centuries of gradual estrangement, so that it is impossible to say at what precise moment the want of intercommunion became such as to amount to a formal schism. There is a breach of a very similar character between the Anglican Churches and those which adhere to the Roman obedience. There is also another kind of schism, which is caused when bodies of baptized persons form new associations which do not claim to be connected with the Apostolic Church, or which reject the sacraments. There is no other cause for such breaches of outward communion than the imperfection of the faith and charity of the members of the Church. But if such imperfection does not in itself destroy the unity of the Church, the external consequences which naturally result from it do not necessarily do so. Heresy and schism impair unity, but do not altogether destroy it, just as the spiritual life of the individual is not altogether destroyed even by grievous sins.
1. The Invisible Church.—So far only the unity of that part of the Church which is on earth has been spoken of. But members of the Body of Christ do not cease to be united to Him, and therefore to each other after death. That part of the Church which has passed away from earth is called the Invisible Church, in contrast to the Visible Church upon earth, but they are essentially one. With regard to the state of the departed, very little direct teaching is recorded to have been given by Christ Himself, and we must not presume to speculate too much where knowledge has been withheld. Perhaps little more can be said than that in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luk 16:19-31) Christ gave a general sanction to current Jewish beliefs as to the state of the departed, and that His words to the penitent thief (Luk 23:43) assure us that union with Himself is not impaired by death. If this is so, it is sufficient justification for the universal belief of early Christians, that the Invisible Church is united to the Visible by common worship.
2. Holiness.—The Church may be called holy because it is a Divine institution, of which Christ is the head, and the special sphere of the working of the Holy Spirit, or because its members, being united to Christ as the branches are to a vine or the limbs to a body, are called to a life of holiness, and have a real though imperfect holiness infused into them. Something has already been said on these first points, and it is hardly necessary to show at length that Christ required holiness from His followers (Joh 17:16-19, Mat 5:48). It is no less evident that the holiness spoken of here and elsewhere is a progressive holiness.
One difficulty which has arisen with regard to this characteristic of the Church is that the want of holiness in many of those who have fulfilled the outward conditions of Church membership has often in Church history led to attempts to secure greater purity by a sacrifice of external unity. The Novatians, the Donatists, and many later bodies of separatists, have made such attempts. The persistency of this tendency in the face of such teaching of Christ as is contained in the parables of the Tares and the Draw-net is somewhat surprising, but at all events it testifies to a deep underlying conviction of the necessity of holiness. St. Paul emphasizes the holiness of any body of Christians which he addresses, by giving them the title of ‘saints,’ however imperfect many of the individuals might be (Rom 1:7, 1Co 1:2, 2Co 1:1, Eph 1:1, Php 1:1, Col 1:2; cf. Act 9:32). They are both individually and collectively a holy temple, and the habitation of the Holy Spirit (1Co 3:10-11; 1Co 3:16; 1Co 6:19, Eph 2:16-22). And, as has already been pointed out, he does not draw any sharp line of division between the imperfect society on earth and that which shall be perfected hereafter (Eph 5:25-27): he regards both the individual and the society as being already that which they are becoming.
‘As a whole the Church is holy in that it retains faithfully those means of sanctification which Christ gave her, holy Sacraments, holy laws, holy teaching, so that, amid whatever imperfections, her whole aim is that the tendency of her acts and her teaching shall be to promote holiness and the inward spiritual life.… An university is learned, or a city rich, which abounds in learning or riches, although there may be many unlearned or poor, and although the learned or rich may yet be short of the ideal of learning or wealth.’—Forbes, Nic. Creed, p. 278.
3. Catholicity.—The earliest extant use of the word ‘Catholic’ as applied to the Church is in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. viii. 2): ‘Wherever the bishop appears, there must the multitude be; just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.’ The natural sense of the word would appear to be that of the Church throughout all the world as opposed to that in one place; but this is not the sense in which the term has been commonly used. The Church has been called ‘Catholic’ not because it has actually extended throughout the world, for this it has never yet done, nor even simply because it is destined to be so extended, but rather as possessing characteristics which make it capable of being a universal religion, adapted to all classes of men in all parts of the world, and throughout all time. Even apart from particular words of Christ, such as those recorded in Mat 28:19, nothing is more apparent in His teaching than that the religion which He taught was intended to be a universal religion, in special contrast to Judaism, which, like the religions of the ancient world generally, was a strictly national religion, and appealed only to a part of mankind. In spite of the many anticipations of universalism which are to be found in Jewish prophecy, the controversy which took place in the early Church about the observance of the Jewish law shows with what difficulty the idea was accepted by those who had been Jews. This quality, again, of universal applicability to all men at all times can belong only to a Divine revelation sufficient for the needs of all mankind. Such a revelation Christ professed to give, and the Catholicity of the Church must depend upon its faithfulness to the fulness of the truth revealed in Christ. And so, in addition to the idea of universal extension, the word Catholic has been used to convey the idea of orthodoxy in the communion of the Church. The well-known definition of Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xviii. 23) co-ordinates these two ideas. ‘The Church is called Catholic because it extends throughout the whole world … because it teaches completely all doctrines which men ought to know … because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of men … and because it treats and heals every sort of sins … and has in it every form of virtue.’ In this sense the Church was called Catholic when it was very far from being extended even over a considerable part of the world, and the term can be applied even to the Church in a particular place, as being in communion with and possessing the characteristics of the whole. So in the Martyrdom of Polycarp he is spoken of as ‘Bishop of the Catholic Church that is in Smyrna.’ The Church or any part of it approaches the ideal of Catholicity in proportion as it possesses all the qualities which are necessary to make it literally universal; and, on the other hand, ‘everything which hinders or lessens the capacity of the Church to be universal, everything which deprives it of part of the full truth or inserts in its teaching anything which does not belong to the truth, everything which cramps its power of getting rid of sin and increasing godliness, has a tendency to draw the Church away from the ideal of its Catholic life. To become such that it could not appeal to the whole world or to all classes of men, to deny essential parts of the revealed faith, to become in its accepted principles a necessary instrument of some sins or a necessary opponent of some virtues, would be, in proportion as this was wilful and deliberate and fully carried out, a sinking below the minimum which the note of Catholicity requires’ (Stone, The Church, p. 59).
4. Apostolicity.—It has already been pointed out that Christ selected twelve of His followers to stand in a specially close relation to Himself, and to be charged with a special mission. In what is probably the earliest account of their appointment (Mar 3:14), it is said they were to ‘be with him,’ and that He would ‘send them forth.’ Hence they were called Apostles (Luk 6:13). The nature of this relation and this mission must now be examined in order to ascertain the sense in which the Church may be called Apostolic. It may first be noticed that a sharp distinction has sometimes been drawn between the position of the Twelve as representative disciples, that is, as standing in a specially close relationship to Christ, of the same kind, however, as that of other disciples, and their position as Apostles, that is, as men sent forth on a special mission. No such sharp distinction is drawn in the NT, nor does it appear to be necessary. The two things are spoken of in the passage of St. Mark just referred to as two sides of the same fact, not as two separable things. The close discipleship was necessary to fit the Apostles for their mission, and it therefore formed part of it.
The nature of this Apostolic mission is stated in the most comprehensive terms in Joh 20:21. ‘As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you’; that is to say, it was the task of carrying on upon earth the work of Christ Himself. It seems to be of little or no consequence to our estimate of the nature of the Apostolic functions whether others besides the Twelve were present upon the occasion when these particular words were spoken. The Twelve are frequently called ‘the disciples,’ especially in the Fourth Gospel. And the mission of the Apostles is not a separate thing from the mission of the Church. If, as St. Paul so constantly teaches, the Church is one body with many members, the acts of the organs of the body are the acts of the body itself. St. Paul insists equally strongly upon the unity of the whole and the differentiation of function within the whole. And so the point to be considered is not whether a separate mission was given to the Apostles apart from that of the whole Church, but rather what special functions of the Church were committed to the Apostles to be performed, by themselves or under their direction, on the Church’s behalf.
(a) One principal object with which the Apostles were sent out in the first instance was undoubtedly that they might teach (Mar 3:14). And it is equally clear that this was not merely a temporary, but a permanent function. Even the special directions given to them on their first sending out (Matthew 10) are not intelligible unless a continuance of the work of teaching be understood. And the Twelve were specially trained by close and continual intercourse with Christ for the work of being witnesses to Him (Act 1:8), and it is clear that they considered this as one of their special functions (Act 1:22, Act 2:32, Act 3:15, Act 4:33 etc.). And although this personal witness to the actions and words of Christ was necessarily confined to those who had been with Him, the transmission of the witness and the function of teaching in general are permanent. The commission given by Christ to the Twelve to make disciples of all the nations (Mat 28:19-20) is one which was not, and could not be, accomplished by themselves in person, and it implies the continuance of the teaching office of the Church until this end is accomplished. So it is recognized as one of the special duties of those who were appointed by the Apostles to take part in their work (1Ti 3:12-13; 1Ti 5:17; 1Ti 6:20, 2Ti 1:14; 2Ti 2:2, Tit 2:15 etc.). It is this teaching work of the Church which corresponds to the prophetical office of Christ Himself.
(b) The worship of the Church.—The Sacraments, which were especially committed to the Apostles, have been spoken of as social acts necessary to the existence and cohesion of the Church as a visible society. They are also means by which the relation of the Church to God is expressed, and channels by which the individual receives Divine grace. The worship of the Church centres and culminates in the Eucharist, the specially appointed action by which the Church takes part in the sacrifice offered by Christ. It makes a memorial of that part of His sacrificial work which has been accomplished in time (Luk 22:29, 1Co 11:26), and it unites itself with Him in His present mediatorial work of pleading that sacrifice in heaven (Heb 7:24-25). So the whole Church, as the Body of Christ, takes part in His priestly work (1Pe 2:9, Rev 5:9-10), and this has always been emphasized by the language of all the liturgies. See artt. Lord’s Supper, Sacraments.
(c) Discipline.—A visible society could hardly exist, or at least continue to exist, without some form of discipline. Christ sanctioned for His followers (Mat 18:15), not only individual remonstrance, which may be considered as the gentlest form in which discipline can be administered (cf. 1Th 5:14), but also, in the case of the failure of this, the collective censure of the community (cf. 1Ti 5:20, Gal 2:11), and in the last resort the exercise of the natural right of a society to expel one of its members (cf. 1Co 5:5, 2Co 2:5-10). These last passages alone would suffice to show, what is certain enough, that the power of excommunication was recognized and practised in the Church from the earliest times.
A still more emphatic commission was given by Christ to St. Peter (Mat 16:19), and to ‘the disciples’ (18:18). Whatever may be the exact meaning of these words, it is difficult to give them any interpretation which does not include the idea of jurisdiction. At all events the words in Joh 20:22-23 relate directly to discipline, and are of the most unqualified character. If the historical character of these passages is admitted, there can be no doubt that a disciplinary commission was given. There have been, however, differences of opinion as to the persons to whom it was given. The chief views held on this point may be roughly classed under four heads.
(
We may therefore conclude that the Church may be sailed Apostolic in so far as it has held fast to the teaching, worship, and discipline of the Church as intrusted by Christ to the Apostles, and according to the order established by them.
The word
It has often been supposed that the word
The fact that the word
Literature.—The number of books which deal with the subject of the Church from exactly the point of view taken in this article may not be very large, but the literature which bears more or less upon the original constitution and characteristics of the Church is of stupendous extent; and the most that can he done here is to mention a very few specimens of different classes of books which relate to different parts of the subject. In the first place, most commentaries on the NT deal with the exegesis of the passages which bear upon the Church, but it is not worth while to attempt a selection here. The writings of most of the early Fathers contain either contributions to the history of the growth of the Church, or information as to the opinions of the writers on the subject. A few specially important works are mentioned below. During the Middle Ages there was a great mass of literature dealing with the Papal authority and the relations of the Church to the State. From the time of Hildebrand onwards this aspect of the question was especially prominent. The Reformation period naturally produced abundant discussions in which the presuppositions of the Middle Ages were to a great extent laid aside. In modern times, and especially during the last fifty years, the early institutions of the Church have been investigated with great minuteness, especially by German writers, and there has been a great abundance of general Church Histories, which often contain discussions on the doctrine of the Church. This is also dealt with in all treatises on Christian doctrine to a greater or less extent, and from all points of view. The books mentioned below must be regarded merely as examples of the different kinds of works in which the subject may he studied.
Early Writers: Patres Apostolici (ed. Lightfoot); Irenaeus, circa (about) Haeres, iii. 1–9; Tertullian, de Praescr. Haeret.; Cyprian, de Unitate Eccles., de Lapsis; Augustine, de Baptismo, and circa (about) Donatistas.
General Church Histories: Neander, History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church (English translation (1851); Gieseler. Compendium of Eccles. Hist. (English translation 1846); Renan, Origines du Christianisme (1883); Schaff, History of the Apostolic Age (1886); Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age (English translation 1895); Ramsay, The Church in the Romon Empire (1893); Cheetham, History of the Christian Church (1894).
Church Organization: Ritschl, Die Entstehung der Alt. kath. Kirche (1857); Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry (1868); Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches (1880); Sohm, Kirchenrecht (1892); Gore, The Ministry of the Christian Church (1888); Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry (1902).
Doctrinal Books (General.): (Roman Catholic) Scheeben, Handbuch der Kath. Dogmatik (1878); Schouppe, Elementa Theologiae Dogmaticae (1861); Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (1895); (Lutheran) Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine (English translation 1880); Martensen, Christian Dogmatics (English translation 1866); (non-Catholic) Harnack, History of Dogma (English translation 1894); Seeberg, Dogmengesch. (1886); (Anglican) Forbes, Explanation of the Thirty-nine Articles (1867), and Explanation of the Nicene Creed (1865); Mason, The Faith of the Gospel (1888); Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles (1896); Stone, Outlines of Christian Dogma (1900).
Books bearing more exclusively on the subject of this article: Lacordaire, Conférences de l’Église (1849); Seeley, Ecce Homo (1866); Gore, Roman Catholic Claims (1898); Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (1893); Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood (1897); Robertson, Regnum Dei (1902); Tyrrell Green, The Church of Christ (1902).
J. H. Maude.
CHURCH.—1. The word ecclesia, which in its Christian application is usually tr.
2. Ecclesia is used constantly with its Christian meaning in the Pauline Epistles. Its earliest use chronologically is probably in 1Th 1:1. But the growth of its use is hest studied by beginning with Acts. Here the term first occurs in Act 5:11, applied to the Christians of Jerusalem in their corporate capacity. In Act 1:15 St. Peter is represented as standing up ‘in the midst of the brethren.’ Thus from the first Christians are a brotherhood or family, not a promiscuous gathering. That this family is considered capable of an ordered extension is evident (a) from the steps immediately taken to fill a vacant post of authority (Act 1:25), and (b) from the way in which converts on receiving baptism are spoken of as added to a fellowship (Act 2:47 AV
3. As Christianity spread, the local units of the brotherhood came to he called ecclesiæ (Act 9:31; Act 13:1; Act 14:23; Act 15:41; Act 20:17 etc.), the original community being now distinguished as ‘the ecclesia in Jerusalem’ (Act 8:1). Thus we reach the familiar use of the Pauline Epistles, e.g. the ecclesia of the Thessalonians (1Th 1:1), of Laodicea (Col 4:16), of Corinth (1Co 1:2); cf. 1Pe 5:13, Rev 2:1 etc. They are summed up in the expression ‘all the ecclesiœ of Christ’ (Rom 16:16). This language has doubtless given rise to the modern conception of ‘the churches’; but it must be observed that the Pauline idea is territorial, the only apparent departure from this usage being the application of the name to sections of a local ecclesia, which seem in some instances to have met for additional worship in the houses of prominent disciples (Rom 16:5, 1Co 16:19 etc.). The existence of independent congregations of Christians within a single area, like the Hellenistic and Hebrew synagogues (see Act 6:1; Act 6:9), does not appear to be contemplated in the NT.
4. The conception of a Catholic Church in the sense of a constitutional federation of local Christian organizations in a universal community is post-Apostolic. The phrase is first found in Ignatius (c
5. But already in the NT that ideal element, which distinguished the primitive fellowship as the Kingdom of Messiah, is beginning to express itself in a conception of the ecclesia which, while it never loses touch with the actual concrete society or societies of Christians, has nevertheless no constitutional value. It is scarcely possible to suppose that the adoption of the name ecclesia for the Christian society was altogether unrelated to the celebrated use of the word by the Lord Himself in His conversation with the disciples at Cæsarea Philippi (Mat 16:13-20 ||). Two suggestions with regard to this passage may be dismissed. The first is that it was interpolated to support the growth of ecclesiastical authority in the 2nd cent.; this rests solely on an assumption that begs the question. The second is that ecclesia has been substituted for ‘kingdom’ in our Lord’s utterance through subsequent identification of ideas. But the occasion was one that Christ evidently intended to signalize by a unique deliverance, the full significance of which would not become apparent till interpreted by later experience (cf. Mat 10:38, Joh 6:53). The metaphor of building as applied to the nation of Israel is found in the OT (Jer 33:7; cf. Amo 9:11, Psa 102:16). There is therefore little doubt that Jesus meant His disciples to understand the establishment of Messiah’s Kingdom; and that the use of the less common word ecclesia, far from being unintentional, is designed to connect with the new and enlarged Israel only the spiritual associations of Jehovah’s congregation, and to discourage the temporal aspirations which they were only too ready to derive from the promised Kingdom.
6. The Kingdom of God, or of Heaven, is a prominent conception in the Synoptic Gospels. It is rather the Kingdom than the King that Christ Himself proclaims (Mar 1:14-15, cf. Mat 4:17). The idea, partially understood by His contemporaries, was broadened and spiritualized by Jesus. It had been outlined by prophets and apocalyptic writers. It was to realize the hopes of that congregation of Israel which had been purchased and redeemed of old (Psa 74:2), and of which the Davidic monarchy had been the pledge (Mic 4:8, Isa 55:3 etc.). Typical passages are Dan 2:44; Dan 7:14. This was the Kingdom which the crowd hailed at the Triumphal Entry (Mat 21:9 ||). Christ begins from the point of Jewish expectation, but the Kingdom which He proclaims, though not less actual, surpasses any previous conception in the minds of His followers. It is already present (Luk 11:20; Luk 17:21 RVm
It is hardly to be doubted, therefore, that the name ecclesia, as given to the primitive community of Christians at Jerusalem, even if suggested rather by the synagogue than by our Lord’s declaration to St. Peter, could not be used without identifying that society with the Kingdom of God, so far as this was capable of realization in an institution, and endowing it with those ideal qualities which belong thereto. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples at Pentecost, fulfilling as it did the expectation of a baptism of fire that was to accompany the establishment of the Kingdom (Act 1:5; Act 2:3-4, Mat 3:11), connects the Church with the Kingdom, and the scattering of its members after Stephen’s death (Act 8:1) would begin to familiarize the disciples with the idea of the unity in Christ unbroken by local separation (cf. Act 8:1 and Act 9:31).
7. But it is only in the theology of St. Paul that we find the Kingdom of the Gospels interpreted in terms of the actual experience of the Christian ecclesia. The extension of the fellowship beyond the limits of a single city has shown that the ideal Church cannot be identified simpliciter with any Christian community, while the idealization of the federated ecclesiœ, natural enough in a later age, is, in the absence of a wider ecclesiastical organization, not yet possible. It is still further from the truth to assert that St. Paul had the conception of an invisible Church, of which the local communities were at best typical. ‘We have no evidence that St. Paul regarded membership of the universal ecclesia as invisible’ (Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 169). The method by which the Apostle reached his doctrine of the Church is best illustrated by his charge to the elders at Miletus to feed the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers (Act 20:28). Here the local Ephesian Church represents practically God’s Church purchased with His precious blood (Act 20:28), a real community of which visibility is an essential characteristic, but which by the nature of the case is incapable of a complete manifestation in history. The passage combines in a remarkable degree the three elements in the Divine Society, namely, the redeemed congregation of Israel (Psa 74:2), the Kingdom or ecclesia of Messiah (Mat 16:18), and the body established upon the Atonement (Col 1:20-22, Eph 2:13). All three notes are present in the teaching of the Epistles concerning the ecclesia. It is the historical fact of the inclusion of the Gentiles (Eph 2:18) that is the starting-point. Those nations which under the old covenant were alien from the people of God (Eph 2:12) are now included in the vast citizenship or polity (Eph 2:13 ff.) which membership in a local ecclesia involves. The Church has existed from all eternity as an idea in the mind of God (Eph 3:3-11), the heritage prepared for Christ (Eph 1:10-11). It is the people of possession (Eph 1:14, cf. 1Pe 2:9, Tit 2:14), identified with the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12), and as such the immediate object of redemption (Eph 5:25); but through the reconciliation of the Cross extended (Eph 2:14), and, as it were, reincorporated on a wider basis (Eph 2:15), as the sphere of universal forgiveness (Eph 2:16), the home of the Spirit (Eph 2:18), and the one body of Christ (Eph 4:12 etc.), in which all have access to the Father (Eph 2:18). The interlaced figures of growth and building (Eph 4:12; Eph 4:16), under which it is presented, witness to its organic and therefore not exclusively spiritual character. Baptism, administered by the local ecclesiœ and resulting in rights and duties in respect of them, is yet primarily the method of entrance to the ideal community (Rom 6:3-4, 1Co 12:13, Gal 3:27-28, Eph 4:5), to which also belong those offices and functions which, whether universal like the Apostolate (1Co 12:27-28) or particular like the presbyterate (Act 20:17; Act 20:28; cf. 1Co 12:8-11, Eph 4:11), are exercised only in relation to the local societies. It is the Church of God that suffers persecution in the persons of those who are of ‘the Way’ (1Co 15:9, Act 8:3; Act 9:1); is profaned by misuse of sacred ordinances at Corinth (1Co 11:22); becomes at Ephesus the pillar and ground of the truth (1Ti 3:16).
That St. Paul, in speaking of the Church now in the local now in the universal sense, is not dealing with ideas connected only by analogy, is proved by the ease with which he passes from the one to the other use (Col 4:15-16; cf. Col 1:18; cf. Col 1:24 and Eph. passim). The Church is essentially visible, the shrine of God (1Co 3:16-17), the body of Christ (Eph 1:23 etc.); schism and party-strife involving a breach in the unity of the Spirit (Eph 4:3). Under another figure the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph 5:25 ff.), His complement or fulness (Eph 1:23), deriving its life from Him as He does from the Father (Eph 1:22, 1Co 11:3).
8. Thus the Biblical view of the Church differs alike from the materialized conception of Augustine, which identifies it with the constitutionally incorporated and œcumenical society of the Roman Empire, with its canon law and hierarchical jurisdiction, and from that Kingdom of Christ which Luther, as interpreted by Ritschl, regarded as ‘the inward spiritual union of believers with Christ’ (Justification and Reconciliation, Eng. tr.
9. The Church in its corporate capacity is the primary object of redemption. This truth, besides being definitely asserted (Eph 5:25; Eph 5:27, Act 20:28, Tit 2:14), is involved in the conception of Christ as the second Adam (Rom 5:12-21, 1Co 15:20-22), the federal head of a redeemed race; underlies the institutions of Baptism and the Eucharist; and is expressed in the Apostolic teaching concerning the two Sacraments (see above, also 1Co 10:16-18; 1Co 11:20-34). The Church is thus not a voluntary association of justified persons for purposes of mutual edification and common worship, but the body in which the individual believer normally realizes his redemption. Christ’s love for the Church, for which He gave Himself (Eph 5:25), constituting a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of possession (1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:9) through His blood (Eph 2:13), completes the parallel, or rather marks the identity, with the historical Israel. Membership in Abraham’s covenanted race, of which circumcision was the sign (Gen 17:8), brought the Israelite into relation with Jehovah. The sacrifices covered the whole ‘church in the wilderness’ (Act 7:38), and each worshipper approached God in virtue of his inclusion in the holy people. No foreigner might eat of the Passover (Exo 12:45). The propitiatory ritual of the Day of Atonement was expressly designed for the consecration of the whole nation (Lev 16:1-34). So the sacrifice of the Cross is our Passover (1Co 5:7). The worship of the Christian congregation is the Paschal feast (1Co 5:8, cf. Heb 13:10-16). In Christ those who are now fellow-citizens have a common access to the Father (Eph 2:18, Heb 10:22). Through the Mediator of a new covenant (Heb 12:24) those that are consecrated (Heb 10:14; Heb 10:22) are come to the Church of the first-born (Heb 12:23), which includes the spirits of the perfected saints (ib.) in the fellowship of God’s household (Eph 2:19, Heb 10:21). See also following article.
J. G. Simpson.
(Greek: kyriakon, belonging to the Lord)
A term used from the 3rd century to signify a Christian place of worship, a society of men united in the true worship of God. Since, in the present order, true religion was and is religion revealed and supernatural, by the word "Church" we properly understand a supernatural religious society, "a society of rational beings united in the true supernatural worship of God." According to this proper acceptation, the word Church is taken in its broadest sense, as meaning the society of all those, whether they be angels or men, from Adam to the end of time, who, adhering to God, are united into what we call the Communion of Saints. This is the Church of God, in its broadest sense, which comprehends the Church Militant on earth, the Church Suffering in Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant in Heaven. The word Church is taken in a stricter sense to designate only the Church Militant. According to this acceptation, Church signifies the supernatural society of all the faithful on earth, from the beginning of the world until its consummation, wao have been united in the true worship of God. This acceptation embraces all the faithful, whether they have existed under the law of nature, the Mosaic law, or the law of grace. We distinguish the status of the Church Militant in a threefold way: the Church of the Natural Law, the Church of Moses, and the Church of Jesus Christ. Finally, in the strict sense the word Church is taken to mean the Church of Christ, or the Church of the New Testament, i.e., the supernatural society of the faithful living under the New Testament. Even in this strict sense the word Church can have several meanings, for it is used to signify not only the entire group of all the faithful, but also: those placed at the head of the Church, or the Church teaching and ruling; the mass of the faithful, or the Church learning. Each of these designations signifies an essential part of the Church, the former constituting the formal element, holding together and informing the whole, and the latter constituting the material element, which is held together and informed by the formal element. The word Church also means the particular Church of one city, province, or country; in this sense, Church signifies a particular grouping, considered as part of the whole, and sharing in the nature of the whole. Sometimes the word Church is referred not so much to the society of the faithful as it refers to the building in which a group is actually congregated to worship God. More properly, such a building is called a sacred edifice; or a sacred temple of God, although the common usage of the word is correct. The Church of God on this earth, according to the broad sense declared above, is the society of the faithful, or the society of those worshiping God by the true cult. But just as in the economy of revelation and of salvation through Christ the Redeemer, three stages are distinguished, by which there is a perpetual progress from the more imperfect, through the more perfect, to the fulness of time, so we distinguish a threefold status of the Church to correspond: the Church of the Natural Law; the Church of Moses; the Church of Jesus Christ.
THE CHURCH OF THE NATURAL LAW
This was the Church in the time of the beginning of things, which is called the period of the natural law. The Church was instituted to repair human nature immediately, after the lapse of our protoparents, with the promise of a future Redeemer. Just as Revelation itself in the beginning was less full and less clear, so also the Church in that state of beginnings was less clear-cut and was held together simply by the profession of the true faith, and the true cult, of God. Hence, the visible unity of the Church, at this time rather loose, was practically brought right down to one profession of the true faith, and to the truth of the cult offered to God. Therefore, the corpus of the Church, which is held together in unity, as collstituted in its first formation, was perfect.
THE CHURCH OF MOSES
The whole economy of the ancient dispensation from the time of Adam lay in the fact that the old dispensation was a preparation and a type of Christ and His Church. In order that that economy might correspond more perfectly to this purpose, God, in the course of time, chose and instituted through Moses a particular people in whom, as Revelation and its typical character became clear, the form of the Church became more distinct. The Church, according to this peculiar form, did not comprehend the whole people of God, but was only a divinely instituted society made up of a particular people of God. Therefore, the Mosaic Church did not constitute the whole Church of God, but was the principal part of the whole Church of God which was promised and instituted in the proto-parents of the race for all posterity. Through the particular covenant entered into with the people of Israel; the universal promise made by God to Adam for the whole human race was not abolished or restricted, but was especially preserved, propagated, and more distinctly explained in one chosen people. Therefore the Gentiles were not bound to that peculiar form of the Church which was defined for the Hebrews. Rather for the Gentiles up to the time of Christ the Church of the Natural Law remained. The form of that peculiar Church instituted in the people of Israel, instead of the more imperfect form of the Natural Law, was more clear-cut in the unity of its sacred ministry, in the element of spiritual sovereignty, and in the teaching power, by which the unity of that whole people was determined in the worship of God, as well as in sacred learning and doctrine. Yet this was but a foreshadowing and a preparation for the Church of Jesus Christ in the perfect status of the New Testament. The form of the Church, imperfect as it was in the Old Testament, did not cease to exist in Christ by way of destruction, but by way of translation, for He translated it from an imperfect to a perfect status. "I am not come to destroy but to fulfill."
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
The Church of God received from Christ a special form and constitution. Besides a more ample Revelation, the Church obtained from Christ, as its Author, the perfect organization of a supernatural society, viz., a hierarchy by which it was to be ruled and taught, and the sacraments by which it was to be sanctified. Henceforth men would adhere to Christ as their Head just in so far as they were united to and subject to the hierarchy instituted by Him. The Church, considered from this special aspect, as a perfect society, is new, taking its beginning from Christ, and is accordingly called the Church of Christ. As the form given to the Church by Christ is a necessary mode of the Church of Christ, it remains clear that after the time of Christ, the true Church could not continue to exist without the form given by Christ. Therefore, no one can belong to the true Church of God, who is outside the Church of Christ.
I. Pre-Christian History of the Term
II. Its Adoption by Jesus
III. Its Use in the New Testament
1. In the Gospels
2. In Acts
3. In the Pauline Epistles
IV. The Notes of the Church
1. Faith
2. Fellowship
3. Unity
4. Consecration
5. Power
V. Organization of the Church
1. The General and Prophetic Ministry
2. The Local and Practical Ministry
Literature
The word “church,” which is derived from
I. Pre-Christian History of the Term
Although
II. Its Adoption by Jesus
According to Mat 16:18 the name
III. Its Use in the New Testament
1. In the Gospels
Apart from the passage just referred to, the word
2. In Acts
In Acts the
3. In the Pauline Epistles
In the Pauline Epistles both of these usages are frequent. Thus the apostle writes of “the church of the Thessalonians” (1Th 1:1), “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1Co 1:2; 2Co 1:1). Indeed he localizes and particularizes the word yet further by applying it to a single Christian household or to little groups of believers who were accustomed to assemble in private houses for worship and fellowship (Rom 16:5; 1Co 16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 1:2) - an employment of the word which recalls the saying of Jesus in Mat 18:20. The universal use, again, may be illustrated by the contrast he draws between Jews and Greeks on the one hand and the church of God on the other (1Co 10:32), and by the declaration that God has set in the church apostles, prophets, and teachers (1Co 12:28).
But Paul in his later epistles has another use of
IV. The Notes of the Church
1. Faith
Although a systematic doctrine of the church is neither to be found nor to be looked for in the New Testament, certain characteristic notes or features of the Christian society are brought before us from which we can form some conception as to its nature. The fundamental note is faith. It was to Peter confessing his faith in Christ that the promise came, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Mat 16:18). Until Jesus found a man full of faith He could not begin to build His church; and unless Peter had been the prototype of others whose faith was like his own, the walls of the church would never have risen into the air. Primarily the church is a society not of thinkers or workers or even of worshippers, but of believers. Hence, we find that “believers” or “they that believed” is constantly used as a synonym for the members of the Christian society (e.g. Act 2:44; Act 4:32; Act 5:14; 1Ti 4:12). Hence, too, the rite of baptism, which from the first was the condition of entrance into the apostolic church and the seal of membership in it, was recognized as preëminently the sacrament of faith and of confession (Act 2:41; Act 8:12, Act 8:36; Rom 6:4; 1Co 12:13). This church-founding and church-building faith, of which baptism was the seal, was much more than an act of intellectual assent. It was a personal laying hold of the personal Saviour, the bond of a vital union between Christ and the believer which resulted in nothing less than a new creation (Rom 6:4; Rom 8:1, Rom 8:2; 2Co 5:17).
2. Fellowship
If faith in Christ is the fundamental note of the Christian society, the next is fellowship among the members. This follows from the very nature of faith as just described; for if each believer is vitally joined to Christ, all believers must stand in a living relation to one another. In Paul’s favorite figure, Christians are members one of another because they are members in particular of the body of Christ (Rom 12:5; 1Co 12:27). That the Christian society was recognized from the first as a fellowship appears from the name “the brethren,” which is so commonly applied to those who belong to it. In Acts the name is of very frequent occurrence (Act 9:30, etc.), and it is employed by Paul in the epistles of every period of his career (1Th 4:10, etc.). Similar testimony lies in the fact that “the
3. Unity
Although local congregations sprang up wherever the gospel was preached, and each of these enjoyed an independent life of its own, the unity of the church was clearly recognized from the first. The intercourse between Jerusalem and Antioch (Act 11:22; Act 15:2), the conference held in the former city (Act 15:6), the right hand of fellowship given by the elder apostles to Paul and Barnabas (Gal 2:9), the untiring efforts made by Paul himself to forge strong links of love and mutual service between Gentile and Jewish Christians (2 Cor 8) - all these things serve to show how fully it was realized that though there were many churches, there was but one church. This truth comes to its complete expression in the epistles of Paul’s imprisonment, with their vision of the church as a body of which Christ is the head, a body animated by one spirit, and having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph 4:4; Col 1:18; Col 3:11). And this unity, it is to be noticed, is conceived of as a visible unity. Jesus Himself evidently conceived it so when He prayed for His disciples that they all might be one, so that the world might believe (Joh 17:21). And the unity of which Paul writes and for which he strove is a unity that finds visible expression. Not, it is true, in any uniformity of outward polity, but through the manifestation of a common faith in acts of mutual love (Eph 4:3, Eph 4:13; 2Co 9:1-15).
4. Consecration
Another dominant note of the New Testament church lay in the consecration of its members. “Saints” is one of the most frequently recurring designations for them that we find. As Thus employed, the word has in the first place an objective meaning; the sainthood of the Christian society consisted in its separation from the world by God’s electing grace; in this respect it has succeeded to the prerogatives of Israel under the old covenant. The members of the church, as Peter said, are “an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1Pe 2:9). But side by side with this sense of an outward and priestly consecration, the flame “saints” carried within it the thought of an ethical holiness - a holiness consisting, not merely in a status determined by relation to Christ, but in an actual and practical saintliness, a consecration to God that finds expression in character and conduct. No doubt the members of the church are called saints even when the living evidences of sainthood are sadly lacking. Writing to the Corinthian church in which he found so much to blame, Paul addresses its members by this title (1Co 1:2; compare 1Co 6:11). But he does so for other than formal reasons - not only because consecration to God is their outward calling and status as believers; but also because he is assured that a work of real sanctification is going on, and must continue to go on, in their bodies and their spirits which are His. For those who are in Christ are a new creation (2Co 5:17), and those to whom has come the separating and consecrating call (2Co 6:17) must cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2Co 7:1). Paul looks upon the members of the church, just as he looks upon the church itself, with a prophetic eye; he sees them not as they are, but as they are to be. And in his view it is “by the washing of water with the word,” in other words by the progressive sanctification of its members, that the church itself is to be sanctified and cleansed, until Christ can present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph 5:26, Eph 5:27).
5. Power
Yet another note of the church was spiritual power. When the name
V. Organization of the Church
It seems evident from the New Testament that Jesus gave His disciples no formal prescriptions for the organization of the church. In the first days after Pentecost they had no thought of separating themselves from the religious life of Israel, and would not realize the need of any distinct organization of their own. The temple-worship was still adhered to (Act 2:46; Act 3:1), though it was supplemented by apostolic teaching, by prayer and fellowship, and by the breaking of bread (Act 2:42, Act 2:46). Organization was a thing of gradual growth suggested by emerging needs, and the differentiation of function among those who were drawn into the service of the church was due to the difference in the gifts bestowed by God upon the church members (1Co 12:28). At first the Twelve themselves, as the immediate companions of Jesus throughout His ministry and the prime witnesses of the Christian facts and especially of the resurrection (compare Act 1:21, Act 1:22), were the natural leaders and teachers of the community. Apart from this, the earliest evidence of anything like organization is found in the distinction drawn by the Twelve themselves between the ministry of the word and the ministry of tables (Act 6:2, Act 6:4) - a distinction which was fully recognized by Paul (Rom 12:6, Rom 12:8; 1Co 1:17; 1Co 9:14; 1Co 12:28), though he enlarged the latter type of ministry so as to include much more than the care of the poor. The two kinds of ministry, as they meet us at the first, may broadly be distinguished as the general and prophetic on the one hand, the local and practical on the other.
1. The General and Prophetic Ministry
From Act 6:1 we see that the Twelve recognized that they were Divinely called as apostles to proclaim the gospel; and Paul repeatedly makes the same claim for himself (1Co 1:17; 1Co 9:16; 2Co 3:6; 2Co 4:1; Col 1:23). But apostle ship was by no means confined to the Twelve (Act 14:14; Rom 16:7; compare Didache 11 4ff); and an itinerant ministry of the word was exercised in differing ways by prophets, evangelists, and teachers, as well as by apostles (1Co 12:28, 1Co 12:29; Eph 4:11). The fact that Paul himself is variously described as an apostle, a prophet, a teacher (Act 13:1; Act 14:14; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 1:11) appears to show that the prophetic ministry was not a ministry of stated office, but one of special gifts and functions. The apostle carried the good tidings of salvation to the ignorant and unbelieving (Gal 2:7, Gal 2:8), the prophet (in the more specific sense of the word) was a messenger to the church (1Co 14:4, 1Co 14:22); and while the teacher explained and applied truth that was already possessed (Heb 5:12), the prophet was recognized by those who had spiritual discernment (1Co 2:15; 1Co 14:29; 1Jn 4:1) as the Divinely employed medium of fresh revelations (1Co 14:25, 1Co 14:30, 1Co 14:31; Eph 3:5; compare Didache 4 1).
2. The Local and Practical Ministry
The earliest examples of this are the Seven of Jerusalem who were entrusted with the care of the “daily ministration” (Act 6:1). With the growth of the church, however, other needs arose, and the local ministry is seen developing in two distinct directions. First there is the presbyter or elder, otherwise known as the bishop or overseer, whose duties, while still local, are chiefly of a spiritual kind (Act 20:17, Act 20:28, Act 20:35; 1Ti 3:2, 1Ti 3:5; Jas 5:14; 1Pe 5:2). See BISHOP. Next there are the deacon and the deaconess (Php 1:1; 1Ti 3:8-13), whose work appears to have lain largely in house to house visitation and a practical ministry to the poor and needy (1Ti 5:8-11). The necessities of government, of discipline, and of regular and stated instruction had Thus brought it to pass that within New Testament times some of the functions of the general ministry of apostles and prophets were discharged by a local ministry. The general ministry, however, was still recognized to be the higher of the two. Paul addresses the presbyter-bishops of Ephesus in a tone of lofty spiritual authority (Act 20:17:ff). And according to the Didache, a true prophet when he visits a church is to take precedence over the resident bishops and deacons (Didache 10 7; 13 3). See CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
Literature
Hort, The Christian Ecclesia; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Cents., lects I-V; Hatch, Bampton Lectures; Gwatkin, Early Church History to ad 313; Köstlin, article “Kirche” in See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche; Armitage Robinson, article “Church” in Encyclopedia Biblica; Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, 513-34; Dargan, Ecclesiology; Denney, Studies in Theology, Ch viii.
The history of the Church in the Apostolic Age may be treated under the following heads; (1) Sources, (2) Importance, (3) Name, (4) Origin, (5) Growth, (6) Conflict between Jewish and Gentile elements, (7) Character, (8) Relation to the State and other systems.
1. Sources.-Our sources of information are not nearly so full as we might wish, but some of them are excellent; and, although we are obliged to leave several important questions open, yet criticism enables us to secure solid and sure results. Our earliest sources are the Epistles of St. Paul, and the large majority of those which bear his name are now firmly established as his. Doubts still exist with regard to the Pastoral Epistles, but it is generally admitted that they contain portions which are by the Apostle, and at any rate they are evidence as to a period closely connected with his age. Hebrews, whoever wrote it, is evidence respecting a similar period. With the possible exception of 2 Peter, all the other Epistles and the Apocalypse are sources. More full of information than the Pauline Epistles, though later in date, is the Book of Acts, now firmly established as the work of St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul. Those who fully admit this differ considerably in their estimate of the value of Acts as a historical document, but the trend of criticism is in the direction of a high estimate rather than of a low one. Microscopic investigation and a number of recent discoveries show how accurate a writer St. Luke generally is. We have to lament tantalizing omissions much more often than to suspect serious inaccuracies. The Gospels give some help; for what they record explains many features in the Epistles and Acts.
Outside the NT, but within the 1st cent., we have the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians and the Epistle of Barnabas, one representing Gentile and the other Jewish Christianity. Within the first three decades of the 2nd cent., we have the writings of three men whose lives overlapped those of some of the Apostles-Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias; and to the same period probably belongs the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve. Something of considerable value may also be obtained from two writers near the middle of the 2nd cent.-Hermas and Justin Martyr; and even so late as the last quarter of the cent. we can find apostolic traditions of great value in the writings of Irenaeus. From outside the Christian Church we have good material, especially respecting the great crisis of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, from the Jewish writer, Josephus; and also some important statements from the heathen writers, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, who were contemporary with Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
2. Importance.-The importance of the history of the Apostolic Church is very great, but it is sometimes misunderstood. The sources mentioned above tell us something about the beliefs, organization, and ritual of the first Christians; and they are all very simple. It is sometimes supposed that if we take these simple elements and close our eyes to later developments, we get the essence of Christianity, free from unessential forms, and that this constitutes the importance of the primitive Church. It is the model to which all Church reformers ought to look, with a view to restoring its simplicity. Two considerations show that this estimate is erroneous. Essence without form is unattainable. The Apostolic Church had forms which were the outcome of the conditions in which the Church existed. Some of those conditions changed very quickly, and the forms changed also. The restoration of the simplicity of the primitive forms will have little value or vitality unless we also restore the primitive conditions, and that is impossible. Secondly, the sources do not tell us the whole truth. On some important points we can obtain nothing better than degrees of probability because the evidence is so inadequate; on other points there is no evidence, and we have to fall back on pure conjecture. If it had been intended that all subsequent ages should take the Apostolic Church as a model, then we might reasonably expect that a complete description of it would have been preserved. A sketch which has to be gathered piecemeal from different sources, and which, when put together, is incomplete both in outline and in contents, cannot be made an authoritative example. ‘Christianity is not an archaeological puzzle’ (J. H. Ropes, Apostolic Age, London, 1906, p. 20).
Nevertheless, the importance of this age is real and great, (a) The spiritual essence of Christianity may be said to consist in the inner relation of each soul to God, to His Christ, and to His Spirit, and in the inner and outer relations of all believers to one another. In the first age of the Church this essence existed in such simple vigour that it gave reality and life to forms which had not yet had time to become mistaken for essentials. About the simplicity of these beginnings there is no doubt; it is an established fact; but that does not prove that this primitive simplicity is a binding authority for all ages. (b) This ago produced the NT-the group of writings which has had greater influence for good than any which the world has ever known: a group of writings which reflects the ideas and habits of that age and must be interpreted by a knowledge of those ideas and habits. (c) This age exhibits the first effects which the gospel produced upon Jew and Gentile-two very different soils, which might bear very different fruits. (d) It is the first stage in the complex development of the Church and the churches; and in order to understand that development, we must study its beginnings.
3. Name.-The name ‘Church’ is in itself strong evidence of the connexion between the Old Covenant and the New. In the OT, two different words are used to denote gatherings of the chosen people or their representatives-‘çdhâh (Revised Version ‘congregation’) and qâhâl (Revised Version ‘assembly’). In the Septuagint , óõíáãùãÞ is the usual translation of ‘çdhâh, while qâhâl is commonly rendered ἐêêëçóßá. Both qâhâl and ἐêêëçóßá by their derivation indicate calling or summoning to a place of meeting; but ‘there is no foundation for the widely spread notion that ἐêêëçóßá means a people or a number of individual men called out of the world or mankind’ (F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, London, 1897, p. 5). Qâhâl or ἐêêëçóßá is the more sacred term; it denotes the people in relation to Jahweh, especially in public worship. Perhaps for this very reason the less sacred term óõíáãùãÞ was more commonly used by the Jews in our Lord’s time, and probably influenced the first believers in adopting ἐêêëçóßá for Christian use. óõíáãùãÞ quickly went out of use for a Christian assembly (Jam_2:2), except in sects which were more Jewish than Christian. Owing to the growing hostility of the Jews, it came to indicate opposition to the Church (Rev_2:9; Rev_3:9). ἐêêëçóßá, therefore, at once suggests the new people of God, the new Israel.
We do not know who so happily adopted the word for Christian use. It is not impossible that Christ Himself may have used it, for He sometimes spoke Greek. He used it or its equivalent in a Christian sense (Mat_16:18); but Mat_18:17, though capable of being transferred to Christians, must at the time when it was spoken have meant a Jewish assembly. St. Paul probably found the word already in use, and outside the Gospels it is very frequent in the NT. We find three uses of the term: the general body of believers (Act_5:11; Act_9:31; Act_12:1); the believers in a certain place (1Th_1:1, 2Th_1:1); an assembly for public worship (1Co_11:18; 1Co_14:19; 1Co_14:35). It had already become a technical term with strongly religious associations, which were partly borrowed from a Jewish ideal, but had been so enriched and transfigured as to indicate a body that was entirely new. The Jewish idea of a chosen people in relation to God received a fuller meaning, and to this was added the idea of a chosen people in relation to the Incarnate and Risen Son of God and to the Spirit of God. ἐêêëçóßá is nowhere used of heathen religious assemblies.
4. Origin.-Whether or no the Christian community owes its name of ‘Church’ (ἐêêëçóßá) to Christ, beyond reasonable doubt it owes its origin to Him. It is a strange misreading of plain facts to elevate St. Paul into the founder of the Christian Church. The theory that in Christianity, as in some other religions, there was a gradual deification of the founder, continues to be advocated, but it will not bear serious investigation. If St. Paul originated Christianity, who originated St. Paul? What was it that turned Saul the persecutor of the Church into Paul the apostle of Jesus Christ? It was the indelible conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, and that He had risen from the dead and conversed with him on the road to Damascus, that converted and ever afterwards controlled St. Paul. The conviction that the Messiah had been crucified, and had risen, and was now the Lord in heaven, was reached very quickly and surely by large numbers, who had good opportunities of ascertaining the truth and staked everything on the result. This conviction was based upon the experiences of those who were quite certain that the Risen Christ had appeared to them and conversed with them. Those appearances were realities, however we may explain them; they are among those things which prove themselves by their otherwise inexplicable results; and the convictions which they produced remain undestroyed and indestructible. It was upon them that the Apostolic Church was built. From the Risen Christ it had received the amazing commission to go forth and conquer the world; about that there was no doubt among those who joyously undertook this stupendous work. The apostles must have known whether Christ intended them to form a Church; and their view of His intention is shown by the fact that, immediately after His withdrawal from their sight, they set to work to construct one. If the new religion was to conquer the world, it must be both individualistic and social; it must provide for communion between each soul and God, and also for communion between its adherents. In other words, there must be a Church. Christ showed how this was to be done. He was not content with being an itinerant teacher, preaching to casual audiences. He selected a few disciples and trained them to be His helpers and His successors. It is manifest that He intended them to found a society; for although He gave few rules for its organization, yet He instituted two rites, one for admission to it and one for its preservation (W. Hobhouse, The Church and the World [Bampton Lectures, London, 1910], p. 17ff.). ‘An isolated Christian’ is a contradiction, for every Christian is a member of Christ’s Body. In reference to the world Christians are ‘saints’ (ἅãéïé); in reference to one another they are ‘brethren’; in reference to Christ they are ‘members.’ In the original constitution of the human body God placed differently endowed members, and He has done the same in the original constitution of the Church (1Co_12:28). Both are in origin Divine, the product of the creative action of Father, Son, and Spirit.
5. Growth.-The growth of the Apostolic Church was very rapid. The first missionary efforts of the original believers were confined to Jerusalem and its immediate neighbourhood, and the converts were Palestinian or Hellenistic Jews who were living or sojourning in or near the capital. At first the Hellenists were in a minority, but this soon ceased to be the case. Persecution caused flight from Jerusalem, and then missionary effort was extended to Jews of the Dispersion and to Gentiles. At Antioch in Syria the momentous change was made to a mixed congregation containing both Jews and Christians. Then what had seemed even to the Jews themselves to be a mere Jewish sect became a universal Church (Act_11:19-26). As soon as it was seen that Judaism, in spite of all its OT glories, would never become a universal religion, missions to the heathen became a necessity. The first missionaries to the Gentiles, the men who took this momentous step of bringing the gospel to pagans, are for the most part unknown to us. Who won the first Gentile converts at Antioch? Who first took Christianity to Rome? Whoever they were, there had been a long and complex preparation for their work, which goes a considerable way towards explaining its success. This indeed was to be hoped for in accordance with Christ’s command (Mat_28:18, Luk_24:47) and St. Peter’s Pentecostal promise ‘to all that are afar off’ (Act_2:39); but we can see some of the details which helped fulfilment.
The only thing which adequately explains the great expansion of Christianity in the 1st cent. is the fact of its Divine origin; but there were a number of causes which favoured its spread and more than counteracted the active opposition and other difficulties with which it had to contend.
(a) The dispersion of the Jews in civilized countries secured a knowledge of monotheism and a sound moral code.
(b) Roman law had become almost co-extensive with the civilized world. Tribal and national ideas, often irrational and debasing, had given place to principles of natural right and justice, Roman law, like the Mosaic Law, was a ðáéäáãùãüò to lead men to Christ.
(c) The splendid organization of the Roman Empire gave great facilities for travel and correspondence.
(d) The dissolution of nationalities by Roman conquests prepared men’s minds for a religion which was not national but universal; and it is not impossible, in spite of the horror which the writer of the Apocalypse exhibits towards the worship of the Emperor, that that worship, which was nominally universal, sometimes prepared people for a worship of the Power to which they owed existence, and not merely fitful security and peace.
(e) The Macedonian conquest had made men familiar with a type of civilization which seemed to be adaptable to the whole world, and had supplied a language which was still more adaptable. Greek was everywhere spoken in large towns, and in them converts were most likely to be found. Through the Septuagint , Greek was a Jewish as well as a pagan instrument of thought, and had become very flexible and simple, capable of expressing new ideas, and yet easily intelligible to plain men. Greek was the language of culture and of commerce even in Rome. It was also the sacred language of the world-wide worship of Isis. Hardly at any other period has the civilized world had a nearer approach to a universal language. The retention of a Greek liturgy in the Church of Rome for two centuries was due partly to the fact that the first missionaries taught in Greek and that the Greek Bible was used; partly to the desire to preserve the unity of the Church throughout the Empire. Its abandonment by the Roman Church prepared the way for the estrangement between East and West.
(f) There was a wide-spread sense of moral corruption and spiritual need. ‘A great religious longing swept over the length and breadth of the empire. The scepticism of the age of enlightenment had become bankrupt’ (E. v. Dobschütz, Apostol. Age, Eng. translation , London, 1909, p. 39). The prevalent religions and philosophies had stimulated longings which they could not satisfy. Speculations about conscience, sin, and judgment to come, about the efficacy of sacrifices, and the possibility of forgiveness and of life after death, had prepared men for what Christianity had to offer. Even if the gospel had not been given, some religious change would have come. The gospel often awakened spiritual aspirations; more often it found them awake and satisfied them. It satisfied them because it possessed the characteristics of a universal religion-incomparable sublimity of doctrine, inexhaustible adaptability, and an origin that was recognizable as Divine. The Jew might be won by the conviction that the law was transfigured in the gospel and that prophecy was fulfilled in Christ and His Church. St. Peter began his Pentecostal address to the assembled Jews by pointing out that the outpouring of the Spirit was a fulfilment of Jewish prophecy (Joe_2:28-31) and an inauguration of ‘the last days,’ which were to precede the coming of the Messiah in glory. But to the Gentile these considerations were not impressive. The great pagan world had to be won by the actual contents of Christianity, which were seen to be better than those of any religion that the world had thus far known. They were not only new, but ‘with authority’; and they stood the test of experience by bearing the wear and tear of life. Christianity was at once a mirror and a ‘mystery’; it reflected life so clearly and it suggested something much higher. It was a marvel of simplicity and richness. It was so plain that it could be told in a few words which might change the whole life. It was so varied and subtle that it could tax all the intellectual powers and excite the strongest feelings.
When the proconsul Saturninus said to the Scillitan Martyrs, ‘we also are religious people, and our religion is simple,’ one of the Christians, replied, ‘If you will grant me a quiet hearing, I will tell you the mystery of simplicity’ (Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs [Texts and Studies i. 2, 1891, p. 112]; cf. 1Co_2:7).
The number of Christians at the close of the 1st cent. is very uncertain. We read of a good many centres throughout the Empire; but we know little about the size of each of these local churches. In some the numbers were probably small. In Palestine they were numerous (Act_21:20).
(g) The zeal and ability of the first missionaries were very great. We know the names of comparatively few of them, but we know some of the results of their work. The extension of the Church in the 2nd cent. is proof of the good work done in the 1st. In accordance with Christ’s directions (Mar_6:7; cf. Luk_10:1), these missionaries commonly worked in pairs (H. Latham, Pastor Pastorum, Cambridge, 1890, p. 296f.). St. Paul as a general rule had one companion, and probably seldom more; and his ability in planning missions is conspicuous. He selected Roman colonies, whore, as a Roman citizen, he would have rights, and where he would be likely to find Jews, and men of other religions, trading under the protection of Rome. A synagogue was at first the usual starting-point for a Christian mission. But very soon the Jews became too hostile; so far from listening to the preachers, they stirred up the heathen against them (T. R. Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, London, 1909, ch. vi.).
It is impossible to say which of the forces which characterized Christianity contributed most to its success: its preaching of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, its lofty monotheism, its hope of immortality, its doctrine of the forgiveness of sins, its practical benevolence, its inward cohesion and unity. Each of these told, and we may be sure that their combined effect was great.
6. Conflict between Jewish and Gentile elements.-It is remarkable how soon this conflict in the Apostolic Church began. Not long after Christianity was born, it was severed from the nation which gave it birth, and, since the final destruction of Jerusalem, it has only in rare cases found a secure hold on Jewish soil. But it is not a just statement of the case to say that the Gentile Church first stripped Judaism of everything, the Scriptures included, and then left it by the wayside half dead; or that the daughter first robbed her mother, and then repudiated her. That is an inversion of the truth; it was the mother who drove out the daughter and then persistently blackened her character. As to the Scriptures, there has been no robbery, for both have possessed them. But the daughter has put them to far better account and has increased their value tenfold. Christianity did not come forward at first as a new religion aiming at ousting the Jews. Its Founder was the Jewish Messiah, the fulfilment of OT prophecies. It was the Jews who forced the opposition. The relation of Judaism to Christianity was, almost from the first, a hostile one. And, as it was the energetic Jew of Tarsus who led the first persecution of the Christians, so it was the Apostle of the Gentiles who caused the final separation of the Church from the Synagogue. In the Fourth Gospel, ‘the Jews’ are the opponents of the Christ. In the Apocalypse, they are ‘the synagogue of Satan’ (Rev_2:9; Rev_3:9; cf. Didache, 8). Barnabas goes still further: the Jews have never been in covenant with God (iv. 6-9, xiv. 1); the Jews are the sinners (xii. 10). Judaism is obsolete: the Christian Church has taken its place and succeeded to all its privileges, Hence the lofty enthusiasm of the first Christians, whose language often assumes a rhythmic strain when the Church is spoken of (Eph_4:4, Col_1:18, 1Ti_3:15, Heb_12:22, 1Pe_2:9, Mat_16:18). It was through the Christian Church that God filled the world with His Spirit; to it belonged the glorious future and the final triumph; for by it the religion of an exclusive nation had been transformed into a religion for the whole world.
It was inevitable that the Jews should resent such claims on the part of Christians, and especially of Gentile Christians; and the resentment became furious hostility when they saw the rapidity with which Christians made converts as compared with their own slowness in making proselytes here and there. Until the Maccabaean princes used force, not many had been made. Since then, religious aspirations had combined with interested motives to bring adherents to Judaism, and it was from these more serious proselytes that the Christian missionaries obtained much help. Under their roof both Jews and Gentiles could meet to hear the word of God (Act_18:7). Christianity could offer to a dissatisfied and earnest pagan all that Judaism could offer and a great deal more. Such inquirers after truth now ceased to seek admission to the Synagogue and joined the Church, and the downfall of Jerusalem accelerated this chance. The Jewish war of a.d. 66-70 was regarded by the Christians as a judgment for the murder of the Messiah, and also for the more recent murder in 62 of the Messiah’s brother, James the Just. That catastrophe destroyed both the centre of Jewish worship and also the Jews themselves as a nation. The loss of the Temple was to some extent mitigated by the system of synagogues, which had long been established. But that destruction, both in its immediate effect and in its far-reaching consequences, marks a crisis which has few parallels in history. Christianity felt both. The destruction of Jerusalem left the Gentile Churches, and especially the Church of Rome, without a rival, for the Jewish Church of Jerusalem sank into obscurity, and never recovered; nor did any other community of Jewish Christiana take its place. When a Christian community arose once more in the restored Jerusalem, it was a Gentile Church. Jewish Christianity was far on the road towards extinction. The Judaizing Christians persisted in regarding Judaism as the Divinely appointed universal religion, of which Christianity was only a special offshoot endowed with new powers. The Pauline view involved the hateful admission that the OT dispensation was relative and transitory. The Judaizers could not see that Christianity, although founded on the OT and realizing an OT ideal which had been seen but not reached by the prophets, was now independent of Judaism. Judaizing was a passing malady in the life of the Church, and had little influence on ecclesiastical development. The Judaizing Christians either gave up their Judaism or ceased to be Christian.
The Tübingen theory that the leading fact in the Apostolic Church was a struggle between St. Paul and the Twelve has been illuminating, but closer study of the evidence has shown that it is untenable. There were some differences, but there was no hostility, between St. Paul and the Twelve. The hostility was between St. Paul and the Judaizers, who claimed to represent the Twelve. It is possible that some of these Judaizing teachers had seen Christ during His ministry, and therefore said that they had a better right to the title of ‘apostle’ than he had. In the mis-called ‘Apostolic Council’ at Jerusalem, which was really a conference of apostles, elder brethren, and the whole Church of Jerusalem (Act_15:6; Act_15:12; Act_15:22-23), there was no conflict between the Twelve and St. Paul. St. Paul’s rebuke to St. Peter at Antioch (Gal_2:11-14) is no evidence of a difference of principle between them. St. Peter is blamed, not for having erroneous convictions, but for being unfaithful to true ones. He and St. Paul were entirely agreed that there was no need to make Gentile converts conform to the Mosaic Law; but St. Peter had been willing to make unworthy concessions to the prejudices of Jewish converts who were fresh from headquarters, by ceasing to eat with Gentile converts. He had perhaps argued that, as it was impossible to please both parties, it was better, for the moment, to keep on good terms with people from Jerusalem. He temporized in order to please the Judaizers.
‘But what it amounted to was that multitudes of baptized Gentile Christians, hitherto treated on terms of perfect equality, were now to be practically exhibited as unfit company for the circumcised Apostles of the Lord who died for them.… Such conduct, though in form it was not an expulsion of the Gentile converts, but only a self-withdrawal from their company, was in effect a summons to them to become Jews if they wished to remain in the fullest sense Christians. St. Paul does not tell us how the dispute ended: but he continued on excellent terms with the Jerusalem Apostles’ (F. J. A. Hort. Judaistic Christianity, Cambridge, 1894, pp. 78, 79).
The leading facts in the history of the Apostolic Church are-the freedom won for Gentile converts, the consequent expansion of Christianity and Christendom, and the transfer of the Christian centre from Palestine to Europe. When the Apostolic Age began, the Church was overwhelmingly Jewish; before it ended, the Church was overwhelmingly Gentile. Owing mainly to the influence of St. Paul-‘a Hebrew of Hebrews’-whose Jewish birth and training moulded his thoughts and language, but never induced him to sacrifice the freedom of the gospel to the bondage of the law, the break with Judaism became absolute, and, as Gentile converts increased, the restrictions of Judaism were almost forgotten. The Judaizing Christians, especially after the second destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian, drew further and further away from the Church, and ceased to influence its development.
7. Character.-The character of the Apostolic Church is not one that can be sketched in a few strokes. Simple as it was in form, it had varied and delicate characteristics. By its foundation in Jerusalem, which even the heathen regarded as no mean city, Christianity became, what it continued to be in the main for some centuries, a city-religion, a religion nearly all the adherents of which lived in large centres of population. It was in such centres that the first missionaries worked. For eighteen years or more (Gal_1:18; Gal_2:1) Jerusalem continued to be the headquarters of at least some of the Twelve; but even before the conversion of St. Paul there were Christians at Samaria (Act_8:14), Damascus (9:19), and Antioch (11:20), which soon eclipsed Jerusalem as the Christian metropolis.
It has been pointed out already that the Church is necessarily social in character; and it resembles other societies, especially those which have a political or moral aim, in requiring self-denying loyalty from its members. But it differs from other societies in claiming to be universal. The morality which it inculcates is not for any one nation or class, but for the whole of mankind. In the very small amount of legislation which Christ promulgated, He made it quite clear that in the Kingdom social interests are to prevail rather than private interests; and also that all men have a right to enter the society and ought to be invited to join it. The Church, therefore, is a commonwealth open to all the world. Every human being may find a place in it; and all those who belong to it will find that they have entered a vast family, in which all the members are brethren and have the obligations of brethren to promote one another’s well-being both of body and soul. This form of a free brotherhood was essential to a universal religion; and the proof of its superiority to other brotherhoods lay in its being suitable to all sorts and conditions of men. It prescribed conduct which can be recognized as binding on all; and, far more fully than any other system, it supplied to all what the soul of each individual craved. The name ‘disciples’ did not last long as a name for all Christians; the name ‘brethren’ took its place. St. Paul does not speak of Christians as ‘disciples’; that word came to be restricted to those who had been the personal disciples of Christ. He speaks of them as ‘brethren,’ a term in harmony with the Christians’ ‘enthusiasm of humanity,’ an enthusiasm which set no bounds to its affection, but gave to every individual, however degraded, full recognition. The mere fact of being a baptized believer gave an absolute claim to loving consideration from all the rest. This brotherhood of Christians was easily recognized by the heathen.
Lucian (Death of Peregrinus Proteus) says: ‘It was imposed upon them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers from the moment that they are converted.… An adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who has seen the world, has only to get among these simple souls, and his fortune is soon made.’ By pretending to be a ‘brother’ he can get anything out of them.
There is a stronger bond thou that of belonging to one and the same society, commonwealth, and brotherhood. Seeing that the brotherhood implies that the Father of the family is God, there would seem to be nothing stronger than that. And yet there is: Christians are members of one Body, the Body of Christ, which is inspired by one Spirit. Just as no one did so much as St. Paul to free the new society from its cramping and stifling connexion with Judaism, so no one did so much as he to develop the idea of a free Christian Church, and of the relation of the Spirit to it. The local ἐêêëçóßá of believers is a temple in which God dwells by His Spirit; it is Christ’s Body, of which all become members by being baptized in one Spirit. No differences of rank or of spiritual endowments can destroy this fundamental unity, any more than the unity of a building or of the human body is destroyed by the complexity of its structure. In Ephesians, the Apostle looks forward to an ἐêêëçóßá, not local, but including all Christians that anywhere exist. The same Spirit dwells in each soul and makes the multitude of the faithful, irrespective of locality or condition, to be one (see Swete, The Holy Spirit in the NT, London, 1909, p. 308). From the ideal point of view, there is only one Church, which is imperfectly, but effectively, represented and realized in the numerous organizations in Christendom. Not that Christendom is the whole of which they are the constituent parts-that is a way of looking at it which is not found in the Apostolic Church, and it may easily be misleading. The more accurate view is to regard each member of a Christian organization as a member of the universal Church. The Church consists of duly qualified individuals; the intermediate groups may be convenient or inevitable, but they are not essential.
Separate organizations, or local churches, came into existence because bodies of Christians arose at different plates and increased. These bodies were independent, no one local church being in subjection to another. The congregations at Ephesus, Thessalonica, Philippi, Corinth, etc., were independent of one another and of the earlier churches of Antioch and Jerusalem. Their chief bond of union was that of the gospel and of membership in Christ. Besides this, the churches just named had the tie of being the product of one and the same founder; and, as children of the same spiritual father, they were in a special sense ‘brethren,’ St. Paul appeals to this fact and to their relationship to other churches. But, although he teaches that a church in need has claims upon the liberality of other churches, he nowhere gives one church authority over others. Nevertheless, even in apostolic times, congregations in the same district appear to have been regarded as connected groups, and it is possible that the congregation in the provincial capital had some sort of initiative in virtue of the importance of the city where they dwelt. Thus, we have ‘the churches of Galatia; (1Co_16:1, Gal_1:1), ‘the churches of Asia’ (1Co_16:19), ‘the churches of Judaea ’ (Gal_1:22), ‘the seven churches of Asia’ (Rev_1:4). In this way there arose between the local city church and the universal Church an organization which may he called the provincial Church (A. Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, Eng. translation , London, 1910, p. 160).
Besides these close ties of relationship and membership, the first Christians were held together by unity of creed. It is true that primitive Christianity was an enthusiasm rather than a creed; but there was a creed. It may be summed up in two strong convictions, one negative and the other positive. The negative one united the Christians with the Jews; the positive one was the chief cause of separation between the two. Both Jew and Christian declared with equal emphasis that the gods of the heathen were no-gods (Deu_32:17, 1Co_10:20): they were Shçdim, nullities. But the Divine nature of the Incarnate, Crucified, and Risen Son of God was what the Christian affirmed as confidently and constantly as the Jew denied it. Here no compromise was possible. The Divinity of the Crucified, which is such a difficulty to modern thought, appears to have caused little difficulty to the first Christians. It has been suggested that familiarity with polytheistic ideas helped them to believe in the Divinity of the Son. Possibly; but, on the other hand, their rejection of polytheism was absolute, and they died rather than make concessions. Heathen philosophers, who saw that polytheism was irrational, had a colourless theism which could make compromises with popular misbeliefs. Thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch could talk indifferently of God and gods, of the Divine Being and the deities; but for the early Christians that was impossible. They were not theologians, and they had only the rudiments of a creed; but they were quite clear about the necessity of worshipping God and His Christ, and about the folly and wickedness of worshipping men or idols. Hence, with all their simplicity of doctrine they had deep convictions which formed a strong bond of union. The heathen mysteries had something of the same kind.
P. Gardner has pointed out three common characteristics, all of which bring them into line with Christianity: rites of purification, rites of communion with some deity, and means of securing happiness in the other world. He holds that the Christian mystery of which St. Paul speaks is ‘the existence or a spiritual bond holding together a society in union with a spiritual lord with whom the society had communion, and from whom they received in the present life safety from sin and defilement, and in the world to come life everlasting’ (The Religious Experience of St. Paul, London, 1911, p. 79).
8. Relation to the State and other systems.-The question of the relation of the Church to the State was only beginning to arise towards the end of the apostolic period. The Church was developing its organization for its own purposes, without thinking of producing a power which might rival and oppose the State. The State had not yet become aware of any Christian organization, and it dealt with Christians as eccentrics, who sometimes became a public nuisance. The Jews were tolerated, less because they were not offensive to the Roman Government than because it was inexpedient to persecute them; and so long as Christians were regarded as a Jewish sect, they shared the immunity of the Jews and were generally unmolested. When the difference between Jews and Christians became manifest-and the Jews often pointed it out-Christians were persecuted whenever the temper of the magistrates or of the mob made it expedient to persecute. The State was intolerant on principle; it allowed no other corporation either inside or outside itself. While it freely permitted a variety of cults, it insisted on every citizen taking part in the State religion, especially in the worship of the Emperor. It was here that the Church came into complete and deadly collision with the Roman Empire, as the Apocalypse again and again shows. Nero was not fond of being styled a god; it seemed to imply that he was about to be translated from earth by death, and he preferred popularity during this life to worship after it was over. Domitian had no such feeling. He was not popular, and could not make himself so; but he could make his subjects worship him; and in the provinces, especially in the province of Asia, where Emperors were not often seen, but where the benefits of good government were felt, subjects were very willing to render Divine honours to the power that blessed them. Domitian began the formal letters which his procurators had to issue for him with the words: ‘Our Lord and God orders this to be done’ (Suet. Dom. 13). Festivals for the worship of the Emperor were often held by the magistrates at places in which there were Christians, e.g. at Ephesus, Sardis, Smyrna, and Philadelphia; and to refuse to take part in them was rebellion against the Government and blasphemy against the Augustus. Some magistrates were friendly, like the Asiarchs towards St. Paul (Act_19:31), but the possibilities of persecution for refusing to worship the Emperor or the local deities were so great that we may suspect that many attacks on Christians took place about which history records nothing (Swete, Apocalypse, London, 1907, Introd. ch. vii.; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, pt. i. vol. i. [1890] p. 104).
Even if this danger had not existed, the mere fact that the Church was a self-governing body, within the State-imperium in imperio-but not of it, was enough to bring it into collision with the Government. The attitude of the Church was as loyal as was possible. The apostles respected the civil power, even when represented by a Nero, as a Divinely appointed instrument for the preservation of order; but they could not allow it to interfere with their duty to Him who had ordained both the civil power and the Church. The Church was no leveller or democrat in the modern sense of those terms. Rulers are to be respected by subjects, masters by slaves, husbands by wives, and parents by children. St. Paul does not teach the fallacy that all men are equal; he teaches that in spiritual things all souls have equal value. As regards the things of this life, all men are brethren, and in this he went far beyond Stoicism; even now, perhaps, we have not yet grasped the full significance of his teaching. To both the Government and the governed the Christians were an enigma. They seemed to regard suffering as a dreadful thing, for they were always striving to relieve it; and yet to disregard it entirely, for they were always willing to endure it. In an age in which there were no charitable institutions, the whole congregation was a free institution for dispensing practical help; and yet, when their cult was in question, they scorned pain and misery. They fought against involuntary poverty as an evil, and yet declared that voluntary poverty was a blessing. And there was another paradox-Christianity was at once the most comprehensive and the most exclusive of all religions. All were invited to enter, because the yoke was so easy; and all were warned to count the cost, because the responsibilities were so great. Converts were told that they must begin by taking up the cross and that they must abjure the world. In practice, the severance between the Church and the world was not insisted upon (1Co_6:10): it was a difference of thought and life rather than of social intercourse. Many Christians mixed freely with heathens, and many heathens came sometimes to Christian services, without any thought of seeking baptism. Some heathens thought that the Way was good, but that there were other ways which were equally good. The mixture of Church and world began very early.
Among rival religious systems, none was more dangerous to the success of Christianity than Mithra-worship. Except in the form of ‘Mysteries,’ the old Greek religion had not much power; its gods and goddesses were openly ridiculed. But Mithraism was full of life; it could excite not only powerful emotions but moral aspirations as well. It inculcated courage and purity, and it taught the doctrine of rewards and penalties here and hereafter. Mithra would come one day from heaven, and there would be a general resurrection, after which the wicked world would be destroyed by fire and the good would receive immortality. Some Church teachers regarded it as a gross caricature of Christianity. As a missionary religion, it had the advantage of being able to make terms with paganism; its adherents had no objection to idolatrous rites, and therefore never came into collision with the Government. It probably gained thousands who might otherwise have accepted the gospel. The elastic simplicity and freedom of primitive Christianity exposed the Apostolic Church to perils of another kind. The troubles of Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and Montanism grew out of the contact of Christianity with Greek and Oriental systems of religion and philosophy, whose ideas found entrance into Christianity and were sometimes an enrichment and sometimes a corruption of it. The balance was on the side of gain. The gospel continued to supply the plain man with a simple rule of life, and it began to supply the philosopher with inexhaustible material for thought. This is a permanent cause of success.
Literature.-In addition to the important works cited above, see W. W. Shirley, The Church in the Apostolic Age, Oxford, 1867; P. Schaff, Apostolic Christianity, Edinburgh, 1883, vol. ii.; A. Harnack, Sources of the Apostolic Canons, Eng. translation , London, 1895; C. v. Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age2, Eng. translation , W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire6, London, 1900, St. Paul the Traveller6, do. 1902, Letters to the Seven Churches, do. 1904, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, do. 1910; C. Bigg, The Origins of Christianity, do. 1909; H. M. Gwatkin, Early Church Hist., do. 1909; L. Duchesne, Early Hist. of the Christian Church, Eng. translation , do. 1909-1912.
Alfred Plummer.
Some types of the Church:
Body, Joh 15:5 (a)
Branches, Eph 1:23 (a)
Bride, Rev 21:9 (a)
Building, Eph 2:21 (a)
Candlestick, Rev 1:20 (a)
Eve, Gen 3:20 (c)
Family, Eph 3:15 (a)
Household, Eph 2:19 (b)
Jewels, Mal 3:17 (b)
Light, Eph 5:8 (a)
Loaf, 1Co 10:17 (margin) (a)
Lump, 1Co 5:7 (a)
Olive tree, Rom 11:17 (a)
Queen, Psa 45:9 (b)
Rib, Gen 2:21 (c)
Seed, Mat 13:38 (a)
Sheep, Joh 10:11 (a)
Stones, 1Pe 2:5 (a)
Temple, Eph 2:21 (a)
Virgin, 2Co 11:2 (a)
Wife, Rev 21:9 (b)
After the repeated failures that characterized the early days of human history, God declared his purpose to choose for himself a people through whom he would work a plan of salvation for people everywhere. He began by choosing one man, Abraham, and promising to make from him a nation that would belong to God and be his channel of blessing to the world. The people of this nation, Israel, were therefore both the physical descendants of Abraham and the chosen people of God (Gen 12:1-3; Exo 6:7-8; Exo 19:5-6; Psa 105:6; Joh 8:33; Joh 8:37; Act 13:26).
This did not mean, however, that all those born into the Israelite race were, because of their nationality, forgiven their sins and blessed with God’s eternal salvation. The history of Israel shows that from the beginning most of the people were ungodly and unrepentant. Certainly there were those who, like Abraham, trusted God and desired to follow him obediently, but they were always only a minority within the nation (Isa 1:4; Isa 1:11-20; Amo 5:14-15; Rom 11:2-7; 1Co 10:1-5; Heb 3:16). These were God’s true people, the true Israel, the true children of Abraham (Rom 2:28-29; Rom 4:9-12; Rom 9:6-8).
From this faithful minority (or remnant) there came one person, Jesus the Messiah, who was the one particular descendant of Abraham to whom all God’s promises to Abraham pointed. God’s ideals for Israel and his promised blessings for the human race were fulfilled in Jesus (Gal 3:14; Gal 3:16). Jesus then took the few remaining faithful Israelites of his day and made them the nucleus of the new people of God, the Christian church (Mat 16:18).
The church, then, was both old and new. It was old in that it was a continuation of that body of believers who in every age had remained faithful to God. It was new in that it would not formally come into existence till after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension (Mat 16:18; Mat 16:21; Act 1:4-5; Tit 2:14; 1Pe 2:9). It was ‘born’ a few days after Jesus’ ascension, on the day of Pentecost (Act 2:1-4), and will reach its glorious destiny at Jesus’ return (Php 3:20-21; Heb 12:22-24; Rev 19:7-9).
God’s new community
The word which Jesus used and which has been translated ‘church’ meant originally a collection of people – a meeting, gathering or community. It was the word used for the Old Testament community of Israel, and was particularly suitable for the new community, the Christian church, that came into being on the day of Pentecost (Exo 12:3; Exo 12:6; Exo 35:1; Exo 35:4; Deu 9:10; Deu 23:3; Mat 16:18; Mat 18:17; Act 5:11; Act 7:38; Act 8:1; Act 11:26).
On that day Jesus, having returned to his heavenly Father, sent the Holy Spirit to indwell his disciples as he had promised (Luk 24:49; Joh 7:39; Joh 14:16-17; Joh 14:26; Joh 16:7). This was the baptism with the Holy Spirit of which Jesus had spoken and through which all who were already believers were bound together to form one united body, the church (Act 1:4-5; Act 2:33; see BAPTISM WITH THE SPIRIT).
From that time on, all who repent and believe the gospel are, through that same baptism with the Spirit, immediately made part of that one body and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:38; Act 2:47; 1Co 12:13). This applies equally to all people, irrespective of sex, age, status or race, for all are one in Christ Jesus (Act 2:17-18; Act 2:39). The new people of God consists of Abraham’s spiritual descendants, those who have been saved through faith in Christ, regardless of their nationality or social standing (Gal 3:14; Gal 3:28-29).
By his act of uniting in one body people who were once in conflict with each other, God has carried out part of a wider plan he has for his creation. That plan is for the ultimate removal of all conflict and all evil from the universe, and the establishment of perfect peace and unity through Jesus Christ (Eph 1:9-10; Eph 2:13-16; Eph 3:8-11).
The body of Christ
Christ and the church, being inseparably united, make up one complete whole, just as the head and the body together make up one complete person. Through his resurrection and ascension, Jesus Christ became head over the church and the source of its life and growth (Eph 1:20-23; Eph 4:15-16; Col 1:18; Col 2:19; Col 3:1-4).
As the head has absolute control over the body, so Christ has supreme authority over the church (Eph 1:22-23). On the other hand, as the body shares in the life of the head, so the church shares in the life of the risen Christ. It is united with him in his victory over death and all the evil spiritual forces of the universe (Mat 16:18; Eph 1:21; Eph 2:5-7; Eph 3:10; Eph 3:21; Col 2:13-15).
If the picture of the body emphasizes the life, unity and growth that Christ gives to the church, the picture of marriage emphasizes the love that Christ has for the church. That love was so great that, to gain the church as his bride, Christ laid down his life in sacrifice (Eph 5:25; cf. Act 20:28). Both pictures illustrate Christ’s headship of the church (Eph 1:22-23; Eph 5:23), and both make it clear that God can accept the church as holy and faultless only because it shares the life and righteousness of Christ (Eph 5:26-27; Col 1:22).
This view of the church in all its perfection as the body of Christ is one that only God sees. The view that people in general see is one of imperfection, because the church exists in a world where everything is spoiled by human sin and failure (cf. 1Co 1:2 with 1Co 3:1-3; cf. Eph 1:1-4 with Eph 4:25-32). God sees the church as the total number of all believers in all nations in all eras – a vast, ongoing, international community commonly referred to as the church universal. But people see it only in the form of those believers who are living in a particular place at a particular time.
Within what people in general see as the church there are genuine believers and those who have no true faith in Christ at all. Often it is difficult to tell the difference between the two, and the only certain division will take place at the final judgment. Only God knows which people are really his (Mat 13:47-50; Mat 25:31-46; 1Co 4:3-5; 1Co 10:1-11; 2Co 13:5; 2Ti 2:19).
The local church
While the Bible sometimes speaks of the church as a timeless and universal community, more commonly it speaks of it as a group of Christians meeting together in a particular locality. This community is the church in that locality. It is the local expression, a sort of miniature, of the timeless universal church (Act 13:1; Act 15:41; Act 20:17; 1Co 1:2).
Each local church, though in fellowship with other local churches (Act 11:27-30; 1Co 16:1-4; Col 4:15-16), is responsible directly to the head, Jesus Christ, in all things. The New Testament gives no guidelines for a central organization or head church to control all others. It lays down no set of laws either to hold the churches together in one body or to hold all the believers in one church together. Unity comes through a oneness of faith in the Spirit (Eph 4:4-6).
It is therefore better to think of the church not as an organization or institution, but as a family. Christ is the head, and all the believers are brothers and sisters (Gal 6:10; Eph 2:19; Rom 15:30; Rom 16:1; Rom 16:23). The strength of the church comes not from some organizational system, but from the spiritual life that each believer has and that all believers share in common (Act 14:23; Php 1:7; Php 2:1-2; 1Jn 1:3; see FELLOWSHIP).
According to Christ’s command and the early church’s example, those who repent and believe the gospel should be baptized (Mat 28:19-20; Act 2:38; Act 2:41; Act 10:48; see BAPTISM). By their faith they become members of Christ’s body, the church, and they show the truth of this union by joining with the Christians in their locality. In other words, having become part of the timeless universal church, they now become part of the local church (Act 2:41; Act 2:47).
The Bible gives no instructions concerning where the church in any one locality should meet. (Churches in New Testament times seem to have met in private homes or any ready-made places they could find; see Act 12:12; Act 19:9; Act 20:7-8; Rom 16:5; Rom 16:14-15; Col 4:15.) The meetings of the church are to be orderly and, what is more important, spiritually helpful (1Co 14:12; 1Co 14:26; 1Co 14:40). Christians must be built up through being taught the Scriptures and through having fellowship by worshipping, praying, singing praises and celebrating the Lord’s Supper together (Act 2:42; Act 20:7; Act 20:27; 1Co 10:16-17; 1Co 11:23-33; 1Co 14:15; see LORD’S SUPPER; WORSHIP).
Christians must not look upon the church as a sort of private fellowship that exists solely for their own benefit. From the church they must go out to spread the gospel to others, baptizing those who believe, bringing them into the church, teaching them the Christian truths and making them true disciples of Jesus Christ (Mat 28:19-20; Act 1:7-8; Act 8:4; Rom 10:14-17).
In addition, the church should be concerned with helping those who are the victims of sickness, hunger, conflict, injustice and other misfortunes (Mat 25:34-40; Rom 12:8; Rom 12:13; Gal 6:10; Jas 1:27). As with preaching the gospel, this ministry concerns both the church’s own locality and distant regions (Mat 28:19-20; Act 1:8; Act 2:45; Act 11:27-30; Act 13:2-4; Rom 15:25-26; see MISSION).
Leadership in the churches
Although the Bible gives clear guidelines concerning the responsibilities of the local church, it gives few organizational details. Christians grow in maturity as they exercise their judgment and carry out their responsibilities (Rom 12:6-8).
This does not mean that people may do as they like. The Spirit of the living Christ dwells within the church (1Co 3:16), and he has appointed leaders in the church to guide and feed it (Act 20:28). Their task is to work out how to apply the Bible’s timeless principles to the circumstances of their era and culture (1Co 14:26; 1Co 14:40; 1Th 5:12-13; 1Ti 3:15; 1Ti 4:13-15; 2Ti 2:7).
Those leaders who are chiefly responsible for the church’s well-being are commonly called elders. Deacons are those who assist the elders by relieving them of some of the more routine affairs (Php 1:1; 1Ti 3:1; 1Ti 3:8; see ELDER; DEACON). People who fill these leadership positions may be gifted in various ways. God has given certain sorts of people to the church to help build it up – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11) – and such people can be expected to be in positions of leadership in the church.
Apostles and prophets appear to have been given to the church mainly to instruct and direct it during the period of its infancy (Eph 2:20; see APOSTLE; PROPHET). Evangelists are people with special ability in making known the gospel and establishing churches in places where previously there were none (Act 14:1; Act 14:21; Act 14:23; Act 21:8; 2Ti 4:5; see EVANGELIST). Pastors and teachers care for the church as a shepherd cares for his flock, feeding it with spiritual food and protecting it from spiritual dangers (Joh 21:15-17; Act 20:28; 1Ti 5:17; 1Pe 5:2; see PASTOR; TEACHER).
The Bible does not divide people too sharply into one or other of these categories, as there is clearly some overlapping within the functions. Also some people may combine within them several of these gifts; e.g. Paul (Rom 15:20; 1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 2:7), James (Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9-10), Timothy (1Ti 4:13-16; 2Ti 4:5), Barnabas (Act 11:22-26; Act 14:14), Silas (Act 15:32; Act 17:10-14) and others.
Responsibilities of church members
There is no suggestion in the Bible that people with these gifts are the only ones who do spiritual work in the church. On the contrary, the purpose of their work is to equip others to work. They build up the Christians and so prepare them for fuller Christian service (Eph 4:11-13). The gifted ones teach others who, in turn, pass on the teaching to others (2Ti 2:2).
Every member of the church has some gift that the Holy Spirit has given for the service of God (1Co 12:11; 1Co 12:18). Just as the human body is made up of many parts, all with different functions, so is the church which is Christ’s body. Yet with the variety there is equality. The church, unlike ancient Israel, has no exclusive class of religious officials who have spiritual privileges that ordinary people do not have (Rom 12:4-8; 1Co 12:12; 1Co 12:27; Eph 2:18-20). There are many gifts, but Christians must use these gifts in dependence upon the Spirit’s power and in accordance with the Spirit’s teaching (1Co 12:4-11; 1Co 13:1-2; 1Co 14:37).
If a local church is to operate properly, each person in that church must find out which gifts the Holy Spirit has given him or her and then develop them (Rom 12:6-8; 1Ti 4:14-16). When people act with such honesty and responsibility, they will not fall to the temptations of pride on one hand or jealousy on the other. Instead, through the care of the members one for another, the church will be built up (1Co 12:14-30; see GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT).
Right attitudes and conduct
Another picture of the church is that of a building (1Co 3:9-10); specifically, a temple in which God dwells (1Pe 2:5). Apostles and prophets form the foundation, other believers form the main building, and all is built around and built into Christ. This emphasizes again the cooperation and harmony that there should be among all within the church (Eph 2:20-22). It also emphasizes that the church must be holy, for it is God’s dwelling place (1Co 3:16-17; 2Co 6:16-17).
Since God’s church is holy, it must deal with those who are guilty of serious errors in wrong teaching or wrong behaviour (1Co 5:1-2; 1Co 6:1-5; Tit 1:10-13; Tit 3:10). Wrongdoers must at least be warned or rebuked (2Th 3:14-15; 1Ti 1:3-7; 1Ti 5:19-20), both for their own benefit and for the benefit of others in the church who may be affected by their wrongdoing (1Co 5:6-7; 2Ti 2:14-18; Heb 12:15; 3Jn 1:9-10). Whatever action the church takes against wrongdoers should be with a view to restoring them to healthy spiritual life. It should not drive them further away from God and his people (2Co 2:5-11; Gal 6:1).
Some, however, may be so hardened in their sinful ways that they refuse to acknowledge their wrongdoing, and the church may have to expel them from its fellowship. But there is still the hope that because of such severe punishment, the wrongdoers may see the seriousness of their errors and turn from them (Mat 18:15-17; 1Co 5:1-5; 1Co 5:11-13; 1Ti 1:19-20).
The imperfections in the church can at times discourage people from full involvement in the church’s life. Some may even be tempted to try to live as Christians while keeping themselves apart from the church. But a person cannot reject the church and still live the Christian life properly. The church is not a club that a few like-minded people have formed, but a community that God himself has formed (Mat 16:18; Eph 3:9-11; Col 3:15). It is the body of Christ, and all Christians are part of it. They must therefore learn to function as part of the body if they are to function properly as Christians. Participation in the life of the church is necessary for Christian growth and maturity (Eph 4:12-13).
Literally, “assembly” or “community,”
the people who have been brought
together as God’s family through their
common faith in Jesus Christ. The word
often refers to a group of believers who
meet together or who live in the same
area, but it is also used to mean the
worldwide community of all believers in
Christ.
The word is used in two senses: the visible and the invisible church. The visible church consists of all the people that claim to be Christians and go to church. The invisible church is the actual body of Christians; those who are truly saved.
The true church of God is not an organization on earth consisting of people and buildings, but is really a supernatural entity comprised of those who are saved by Jesus. It spans the entire time of man’s existence on earth as well as all people who are called into it. We become members of the church (body of Christ) by faith (Act 2:41). We are edified by the Word (Eph 4:15-16), disciplined by God (Mat 18:15-17), unified in Christ (Gal 3:28), and sanctified by the Spirit (Eph 5:26-27).