CHAPTER IV.CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP

Albert Taylor Bledsoe, of whom it has been truthfully said, “He was one of the most candid and trustworthy writers that the Methodist Church has produced,” says:

It is an article of our faith, that “the baptism of young children (infants) is in any wise to be retained in the church, as one most agreeable to the institution of Christ.” But yet, with all our searching, we have been unable to find, in the New Testament, a single express declaration, or word, in favor of infant baptism. We justify this rite, therefore, solely on the ground of logical inference, and not on any express word of Christ or his apostles. This may, perhaps, be deemed, by some of our readers, a strange position for a pedobaptist. It is by no means, however, a singular opinion. Hundreds of learned pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion; especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly practiced by controversalists. (Southern Review, Vol. 14, page 334.)

John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, says:

As Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism, it would appear that baptism is not properly administered unless when preceded by faith. (Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. 3, page 38.)

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, German Lutheran, the “prince of New Testament exegetes,” says:

The baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the New Testament, is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance; but it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose in post-apostolic times in connection with the development of ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and although already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that connection. (Commentary on Acts 16:15, page 312.)

August Wilhelm Neander, Lutheran, who is unanimously conceded to be by far the greatest of all ecclesiastical historians, and is surnamed “the father of modern church history,” says:

Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptismfrom apostolic institution somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition serves to confirm this hypothesis. (Church History, Vol. 1, page 424.)

Moses Stuart, a Congregationalist, called “the father of Biblical literature in America”, says:

On the subject of infant baptism I have said nothing. The present occasion did not call for it; and I have no wish or intention to enter into the controversy respecting it. I have only to say that I believe in both the propriety and expediency of the rite thus administered; and therefore accede to it ex animo. Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament relative to it, I do not find. Nor, with my views of it, do I need them. (Mode of Christian Baptism, pages 189, 190.)

But I have given enough; it is a thing made out that infant baptism was not an apostolic practice. So, indeed, have all the scholars who have thoroughly investigated this subject conceded. I know of no subject which seems to be more clearly made out, and I can not see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.

As we have already learned that infant baptism was not an apostolic practice, we will give it no further attention at present. The conditions of membership in the apostolic Church naturally divide themselves into two classes—those of admission into the Church and those of continued membership.

Concerning admission into the Church it is said in connection with its establishment that “the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved” (Acts 2:47). This implies that the Lord saved the people and added them by one and the same process. They were not first saved and then added, nor added and afterward saved, but they were saved in being added, and added by being saved. Hence it was not a formal adding to a local congregation by extending the “hand of fellowship” after salvation from sin, but an adding to the one body of Christ in the obtaining of salvation by obedience to the Gospel. While they were added by the Lord, he added them through certain agencies, both human and divine—the Holy Spirit, the Gospel and the preacher—all present and active in the work. What the Lord did, therefore, he did through these agencies.

In the second chapter of Acts the Holy Spirit gives the directions that God gave to guide sinners into the Church. This being the first time that men were guided into the Church, the directions given would necessarily be more minute and particular in every step than after the way was fully made known to men.

After his resurrection from the dead Jesus said to his disciples, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth,” to show them that he had the right and authority to speak the words that come next: “Go ye,therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19, 20). They were not to go yet, for he had sealed their lips. On the day of his ascension to heaven he said unto them: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mark 16:15, 16); “but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). So they returned to Jerusalem and waited for the coming of the Spirit who was to unseal their lips and to speak to the world in the name of Jesus. The day of Pentecost came, they were in the temple, when suddenly a sound from heaven filled the house where they were sitting, and they felt themselves moved inwardly by a new power, under which they began to speak to the multitude in the temple, addressing them in all the different languages represented by the nations there assembled. The time had come when they can tell to the world all they know about Jesus fully and freely. And when they had praised God, to the amazement of the people, in all their tongues, Peter arose, now having the keys to the kingdom in his hands, now ready to execute his high commission to open the gates and admit those who were entitled to enter, and for the first time in his life begins to inform men who Jesus is. He delivers a discourse in which he says: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hands of lawless men did crucify and slay: whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death.”

He quotes language of the prophets to prove this. He then presents the testimony of himself and his fellow apostles to the effect that Jesus had been raised from the dead,and that they had seen him with their eyes and handled him with their hands. He further states that God had said to Jesus: “Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet,” and closes this powerful argument with this soul-stirring appeal: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.”

Three thousand of those who stood in the hearing of Peter’s voice believed this, felt pricked in their hearts—that sense of guilt which overwhelmed them when they realized that they had been guilty of murdering the Son of the living God, the greatest crime that human being ever committed—and in great agony of soul, they cried out: “Brethren, what shall we do?” to get rid of this pricking of our hearts, to get rid of the awful crime, to get rid of our sins before God and escape its consequences in the day of God’s wrath against sin.

Moved by the Holy Spirit, Peter answered: “Repent ye, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” This was God’s answer, that enabled them to get rid of their guilt and condemnation at once. And to assure them still further, he said: “For to you is the promise” (the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit), “and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him,” for the commission was to “all nations,” “even unto the end of the world.” But Peter did not stop here, for “with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ Then they that received his word were baptized; and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.”

Now, let us see if we can gather from this brief narrative what agencies God used in bringing about the conversion of these people, and what conditions they had to comply with in order to receive the benefits of the redemption which was provided by the blood of Christ.

1. The Holy Spirit.

2. The apostles, speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance, testifying of the Christ and pleading with sinners, were the leading human agents in this case of conversion, as they are still and ever will be; for though dead they yet speak through the Gospel which they first preached through the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. As they were agents then through their spoken testimony, so they are agents now through their written testimony. Their words live in all their vitalizing power, and can never be destroyed.

3. The sinners themselves, guilt-stricken and inquiring, had also an agency in this work which so vitally concerned themselves. It was theirs to attend to the things spoken by the apostles, to hearken to the divine counsel, to learn of Jesus, and to receive the truth that they might be made alive. They had the divinely-given power to do this; and they also had the power to reject the Gospel and die, otherwise the apostle could not say, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation”—seize the help God was holding out from heaven.

1. They heard (vs. 8, 11, 14, 22, 37).

2. Believed (vs. 30), in accordance with the apostle’s appeal to them, otherwise they would not have been pricked in their hearts.

3. They repented.

4. Were baptized in his name. Thus they entered through these divinely-appointed conditions into the enjoyment of the blessings graciously provided for them through the death and mediation.

This was the first time the Gospel in its fullness was ever preached under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, leading men into the Church of God and into the remission of their sins, under the world-wide commission of Jesus, the Lord and Master; for Peter, in giving an account of the conversion of Cornelius, said: “As I began to speak, theHoly Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). On the first occasion, when the world knew not the way, there was of necessity a demand for a fullness and specificness of direction, a careful and distinct enumeration of the steps to be taken in their connection, and the agencies used, that was not needful in after references; after the steps to be taken and the order was once clearly made known, an allusion to one leading step or point or the order called up all of them. These were the steps to be taken, this the rule to be followed, the fixed directions of the spirit of God, sealed by the blood of Christ, worldwide in its application, and to stand to the end of the world. No human power can abrogate, change or modify this commission of the Lord Jesus, this guidance of the Spirit; and I feel sure that no one can have a well-grounded assurance of citizenship in that kingdom until he has complied with the conditions presented in the blood-sealed commission of Jesus Christ, given under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This brings us to the discussion of the second division of the subject—

To all those who entered into the apostolic Church the exhortation was given: “Putting away, therefore, all wickedness, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as new-born babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation” (I Peter 2:1, 2). They were also taught to “let the word of Christ dwell in them richly” (Col. 3:16). This was necessary in the mind of inspired men because they realized that to be a Christian was to be like God. It was to be like God in the flesh. Jesus Christ was Immanuel—“God with us” in the flesh. He came in the flesh to take on himself all the feelings, temptations, and weaknesses of humanity, to show what and how the Christian should live. With this in mind it is easy to see that with them the Christian was God growing in the flesh up to the stage of maturity in man and perfection under “the law of the Spirit of lifein Christ Jesus.” In the growth of the Christian there was a constant but gradual growth of all the desires and affections into the likeness of the character affections that move God; a growth in character in the feelings and in thoughts and in actions to the life and character of God. The Christian’s life was a continual growth into a nobler life with God. They were to grow in thoughts and feelings, in purposes and actions, into the likeness of God. Solomon said: “For as he thinketh within himself, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). The thoughts and feelings that a man cherishes in his heart mold and shape the character and make him what he is. A spirit that loves as God loves and seeks to do good and bless as God does will grow into the likeness of God. They were taught that a man must not only think as God thinks; but that the thoughts must grow into permanent principles cherished in the heart; that they must mold the actions to make him act as God acts. Faith in God made them desire to think, feel and act like God, which is the end and accomplishment of the turning to God.

But all who entered into the apostolic Church did not choose to thus develop themselves into the likeness of God and continue in the fellowship with him, for some were put away. There were reasons for this. Since some were and some were not, it follows that there were conditions of continued fellowship. Some have interpreted the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:24-30)—“Let both grow together until the harvest”—to mean that there is to be no exclusion from the Church, but this is to make parabolic language conflict with plain, unfigurative statements and historical facts, which is not admissible. The Saviour directed that he who would not “hear the church” should be “as the Gentile and the publican” (Matt. 18:17). Concerning the incestuous man in the church at Corinth Paul said: “For I verily, being absent in the body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of theflesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (I Cor. 5:3-5). And to the Thessalonians he gave practically the same directions: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (II Thess. 3:6). The Holy Spirit mentions the following things as the works of the flesh: “Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envying, drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:10-21).

Those guilty of such things “can not inherit the kingdom of God.” Such things are disorderly, else they would not deprive one of the kingdom of God. For those that walk orderly enjoy the divine favor. Since such things are disorderly, and the Church is to withdraw from those who walk disorderly, it follows that the Church is to withdraw from all such. Therefore, the congregation that did not do it, disregarded the law and authority of Jesus Christ. Of course, it is understood that an earnest, faithful effort was to be made to bring such offenders to repentance, and an orderly life; but when such efforts failed, they were compelled by the law of Christ to put them away. Consequently the condition of continuing in the membership of the Church of God was an orderly Christian life, as I have already shown.

Of the people under the new covenant the Holy Spirit, through Peter, said: “But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (I Peter 2:9). They constitute a nation—not a republic, but a kingdom—so we read: “Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever” (Rev. 1:6, 7). “And madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests” (Rev. 5:10).

A nation or kingdom of priests is equal to a nation or kingdom without priests. And so the whole Church of God is his lot, heritage, “clergy,” or priesthood. As a kingdom, not of this world, though in the world. When on trial for his life, Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). Though on earth, not earthly, and its honors and grandeur are not akin to those of the nations of this world. The subjects of this “kingdom” were born, “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13); “born of water and the Spirit.” They were all the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty.

Congregated for worship and service they were not only a priesthood, but their edification was committed to the whole body of male members, excluding from ministering therein only those incapable of edifying. There were elders, required to be “apt to teach,” not to be the sole instructors of the church, but taking part therein; securing order and propriety on the part of all.

Every member was taught to attend the worship regularly, but this was not the end. Even if every member attended regularly and punctually, this was not to be the end of the teaching, the worship, the service. These were necessary, because without these the end could not be attained. The end was to excite and secure the active and earnest labor of every member in serving God and teaching and helping humanity. One could not serve God without helping others. He was to help them spiritually, morally, intellectually and materially. The end of all the teaching and training of men in the church was that they might bear fruit in doing good to men. Paul said of Christ Jesus: “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:14). They were to cease to do evil and be zealous in good works. “Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed in God may be careful to maintain good works. These are good and profitable unto men.... And let our people also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, and that they be not unfruitful” (Titus 3:8-14). The end of the teaching and the worship was to develop the activity and direct the energies of every member in good works. The first element of true good to others was to bring them into proper spiritual relations to God, for without this no good can be enjoyed. But this spiritual harmony with God must show itself in bringing every thought into harmony with the will of God and so direct the bodily energies as to bring all good—spiritual, intellectual and material—to all creatures.

Every member of the Church was to participate in all the services of the church; and the members not only were competent to do all the work pertaining to the church, but they needed this work and service for their own spiritual growth. In this service alone could the Christian find the food and exercise needed for his growing wise and strong in the inner man. The spiritual man could no more growstrong and active without himself doing the worship and work of the church than the body could grow strong while refusing the food and exercise needed for its growth and life. In this service in the church man could alone find the highest development of the soul and the mind and the body. One could no more worship and do the work in the church by proxy and grow spiritually thereby than he could eat and take exercise by proxy and his body grow thereby. The well-being of every member demanded that he should take active part in the worship, the well-being of the church demanded the help of every member that it “may grow up in all things unto him, who is the head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, making the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love” (Eph. 4:15, 16). The point emphasized here is that every member had his work to do, his office to fill, and by this harmonious working of all the parts the body grew into the well-proportioned body of Christ—the Church. The welfare and development of the whole was dependent upon the proper workings of each and every member.

Every child of God, by virtue of his birthright into God’s family, a family of priests to God, had the right to perform any and every service connected with the Church of God, limited only by God’s directions and by the ability to do it decently and in order. All were encouraged to take part in the service, and in doing the service each member manifested his talent for the work and trained himself for fitness in God’s work.

Every dispensation has had its peculiar worship. That of the Jewish dispensation differed from the patriarchal. The worship under the Christian dispensation is radically different from both. The worship which was acceptable under the patriarchal would condemn a Jew; and that which would justify a Jew would condemn a Christian. During the patriarchal dispensation religion was confined to the family. Every one was his own priest, and he could buildhis own altar and offer his own sacrifices for himself and for his family. (Gen. 4:4; 8:20; Job. 1:5.) But when the priesthood was changed, and confined to the family of Levi (Ex. 28:1; Num. 25:11-13), this worship was no longer permitted by those included in the Sinaitic covenant; hence no longer acceptable. It is likewise true that the sacrifices offered by the Levitical priesthood ceased to be acceptable after the death of Christ and the establishment of the Church. When Christ ascended to the Father the priesthood was changed. The high priesthood then passed into the hands of one belonging “to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:13, 14). The priesthood being changed, a change of the Worship follows as a necessity. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12). While the worship of the three dispensations had some things in common, each had its distinctive peculiarities. Since Christianity is distinguished from every other religion by its institutions and worship, it of necessity follows that, in order to its preservation, these must be strictly observed. Nothing short of this can preserve the Church from degeneracy and final extinction. As we have already learned, a fundamental feature of the worship in the Church of God is theUniversal Priesthoodof its membership. All the members of God’s family have became “a royal priesthood,” who no longer offer bloody sacrifices of the law of Moses, but they offer their “bodies a living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1), and the “sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to his name” (Heb. 13:15). Since all were priests, all worshiped God without any mediatorship other than that of the Lord Jesus Christ. They could all come with equal boldness to the throne of grace. Such clerical distinction and arrogance as we have at the present time had no place then.

That the apostles taught the churches to do all the Lordcommanded will not be called in question by those who receive the Bible as authority. Whatever, then, the churches did by the appointment or concurrence of the apostles, they did by the commandment of Jesus Christ. Whatever acts of worship the apostles taught and sanctioned in one congregation, they taught and sanctioned in all, because all under the same government of the same King. But the church in Troas met “upon the first day of the week ... to break bread” (Acts 20:7), and Paul exhorts the Hebrew brethren to “consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more as ye see the day drawing nigh” (Heb. 10:24, 25). From the manner in which this meeting of the disciples at Troas is mentioned by Luke, two things are very evident: (1) That it was an established rule of the disciples to meet on the first day of the week; (2) that the primary object of their meeting was to break bread. And Luke also tells us that the Jerusalem church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayers” (Acts 2:42), which shows us that the breaking of bread was a prominent item in those stated meetings. Other corroborating evidences of the stated meetings on the first day of the week for religious purposes are indicated by the instructions Paul gave to the church in Galatia and Corinth: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come” (I Cor. 16:1, 2).

As we have seen that whatever the primitive churches did by the approval of the apostles, they did by divine authority, now, as Paul approved their meeting on the first day of the week, it is as high authority as could be required for the practice of meeting to worship on the first day of every week. The items of their worship were:

They believed that the teaching of the apostles was fromGod and they constantly and diligently studied it, that they might know and do the whole will of God. The constant study of and the profound reverence for the Word of God were recognized traits of their character. They certainly had the word of Christ dwelling in them richly. Not only was reading the Scriptures a part of all the public worship, it was a daily custom in private life—in the family, the social circle, and even at their toil. On this point I will give the testimony of Lyman Coleman, who has gathered much information on this subject. He says:

No trait of the primitive Christians was more remarkable than their profound reverence for the Scriptures and their diligent study of them. The Word of God, dwelling in them richly and abounding, was their meditation all the day long. Those who could read never went abroad without taking some part of the Bible with them. The women, in their household labors, wore some portion of the sacred roll hanging about their necks; and the men made it the companion of their toil in the field and the workshop. Morning, noon and night they read it at their meals. By the recitals of the narratives of sacred history, by constant reading, by paraphrase, by commentary, and by sacred song, they taught the Scriptures diligently unto their children; talked of these heavenly themes when they sat in their house, when they walked by the way, when they laid themselves down, and when they rose up. One relates with great delight that he never sat at meat with Origen, A. D. 225, but one of the company read to the other. They never retired to rest without first reading the Bible. So diligent were they in this divine employment that “prayers succeeded reading of the Word, and the reading of the Word to prayer.” (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, Page 57.)

Augustus Neander says:

The nature of single acts of Christian worship will be evident from what we have remarked respecting its essence generally. As the elevation of the spirit and heart of the united Church of God was the end of the whole, so instruction and edification by uniting in the common contemplation of the divine Word, constituted, from the first, a principal part of Christian worship. The mode in which this was done might, like the form of the church constitution, be closely connected with the arrangement of the assemblies of the Jewish communities in the synagogues. As in the synagogue assemblies of the Jews the reading of portions from the Old Testament formed the basis of religious instruction, so the same practicepassed over into the Christian assemblies. The Old Testament was read first, particularly the prophetic parts of it, as referring to the Messiah; next, the gospels, and finally the apostolic epistles. The reading of the Scriptures was of the greater consequence, since it was desired to make every Christian familiar with them. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, Page 412.)

The leading idea of this term is that of joint participation. We have fellowship with God because we are made partakers of the divine nature, as we escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. We have fellowship with Jesus Christ because of the common sympathies which his life and sufferings have established between himself and us. To be in fellowship with him means to take part in his poverty and want, to share in his sorrows, his sufferings and self-denial in this world, as well as to partake of the joys and hopes, the consolations and blessedness of this world, and the hopes and glories of the world to come. We have fellowship with one another because of the mutual participation in each other’s affections, joys, sorrows and needs. The word as here used includes the contribution which was regularly made on the first day of every week. Paul says: “Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store as he may prosper” (I Cor. 16:2). The small offering of the poor was as much demanded as the greater ones of the rich, and just as acceptable. The regulation governing this was: “For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according as a man hath, not according as he hath not” (II Cor. 8:12). God never valued the offerings brought to him by their intrinsic value, but by the sacrifice made by the one making the offering. It was also required that the worshiper should be liberal and cheerful in giving. “He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Let each man do as he hath purposed in his heart; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (II Cor. 9:6, 7). This shows that a cheerful, bountiful offering to God is but a reasonable measure of liberality. God expected this of every worshiper.

That the churches in apostolic times met on the first day of every week to partake of the Lord’s Supper, is well at tested by both inspired and uninspired writers. It is plainly stated that the disciples at Troas gathered together to break bread; and what one church did by the authority of the Lord, as a part of his instituted worship, they all did. That they met for this purpose is not to be inferred, for Luke says: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). From the way this meeting is mentioned two things are quite obvious: (1) That it was an established custom for the disciples to meet on the first day of the week; and (2) that the primary object of this meeting was to break bread.

All Biblical scholars and church historians, without regard to denomination, generally concede that the apostolic church observed the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week. Out of the many proofs that might be given of this I will give the testimony of only one. Mosheim says:

The first of all the Christian churches founded by the apostles was that of Jerusalem; and after the form and model of this, all the others of that age were constituted. That Church, however, was governed immediately by the apostles, to whom the presbyters and the deacons, or overseers of the poor, were subject. Though the people had not withdrawn themselves from the Jewish worship, yet they held their own separate meetings, in which they were instructed by the apostles and presbyters, offered up their united prayers, celebrated the sacred supper, the memorial of Jesus Christ, of his death, and the salvation he procured.... The Christians of this century assembled for the worship of God and for their advancement in piety on the first day of the week, the day on which Christ reassumed his life; for that this day was set apart for religious worship by the apostles themselves, and that, after the example of the Church of Jerusalem, it was generally observed we have unexceptional testimony. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, page 46, 85.)

This testimony is confirmed by the pagan Pliny in his well-known letter to Trajan (about A. D. 100), writtenwhile he presided over Pontus and Bithynia. He says:

The Christians affirm the whole of their guilt or error to be that they were accustomed to meet together on a stated day, before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as a god, and to bind themselves by a sacrimentum, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery; never to break their word or to refuse, when called upon, to deliver up any trust; after which it was their custom to separate, and to assemble again to take a meal, but a general one, and without guilty purpose. (Epistle X, 97.)

Simplicity characterized everything in the primitive worship. Consequently the prayers of the first Christians were of the most simple and artless character. They regarded prayer as a quickening spirit, drawing forth the inward inspirations of the soul after God, and accompanied every important act of their public and private life with this holy privilege, and Paul exhorts his readers to “pray without ceasing.” On this subject Lyman Coleman says:

The prayers of the Church were offered in language the most artless and natural. Even the most learned of the apologists and early fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, who were no strangers to the graces of diction, refused all ornamental embellishments in their addresses to the throne of grace, alleging that the kingdom of heaven consists not in words, but in power. Their prayers were accordingly offered in the greatest simplicity, and as far as possible in the phraseology of Scripture. This artlessness and elegant simplicity appears in striking contrast with the ostentation and bombast of a later date. This contrast appears equally great also in the brevity of these prayers. It was a maxim of the primitive Church that many words should never be employed to express what might be better said in a few. (Ibid, page 316.)

Their singing was a real heartfelt service. The Holy Spirit said: “And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord” (Eph. 5:18, 19). And again, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly;in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God” (Col. 3:16). In this delightful service the whole congregation doubtless took part. It has been contended, recently, that the singing of the first churches was not congregational, and therefore our congregational singing is as unscriptural and unauthorized as any musical performance in the worship. The testimony of history is against this statement. On this subject Philip Schaff says:

The song, a form of prayer, in the festive dress of pietry and the elevated language of inspiration, raising the congregation to the highest pitch of devotion, and giving it a part in the heavenly harmonies of the saints. This passed immediately, with psalms of the Old Testament, those inexhaustible treasures of spiritual experience, edification and comfort, from the temple and the synagogue into the Christian Church. The Lord himself inaugurated psalmody into the new covenant at the institution of the holy Supper, and Paul expressly enjoined the singing of “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” as a means of social edification. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. I, page 463.)

To the same effect testifies Lyman Coleman:

The prevailing mode of singing during the first three centuries was congregational. The whole congregation united their voices in the sacred song of praise, in strains suited to their ability. Their music, if such it could be called, was, of necessity, crude and simple. Indeed, it appears to have been a kind of recitative or chant. The charm of their sacred music was not in the harmony of sweet sounds, but in the melody of the heart.... But, however this may be, the most ancient and most common mode of singing was confessedly for the whole assembly; men, women and children blend their voices in their songs of praise in the great congregation. Such is the testimony of Hillary, of Augustin and Chrysostom. “Formerly all came together and united in their song, as is still our custom.” “Men and women, the aged and the young, were distinguished only by their skill in singing, for the spirit which led the voice of each one blended all in one harmonious melody.” (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, pages 329, 330.)

By the term polity I mean the organic structure and government of the Church. Nothing is more obvious from the New Testament record than the simplicity which characterized its primitive organization. In this particular Christianity was in marked contrast with Judaism. With temple, tabernacle or altars; without priests or Levites, and almost without ceremonies, it made known at once its character and purpose as spiritual and not carnal, as, in fact, a kingdom of God “not of this world.” Its only authority was

We have already seen that the only creed of the primitive Church was the central truth of God’s revelation to man—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The whole New Testament is but an expansion of this thought. The early Christians, in confessing their faith in Christ, accepted the whole revelation of God based upon it as their absolute and only authority. The teaching of inspired men was to them what the New Testament is to us, till their teaching was recorded and the necessity for oral inspiration ceased.

The all-sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures is thus expressed by the inspired apostle: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: for the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (II Tim. 3:16, 17). This most evidently refers to the Old Testament as a whole—the book that Timothy had known from his childhood. The teaching of Jesus and the apostles in connection with the examples, the teachings, the warnings of the Old Testament Scriptures, are sufficient to thoroughly furnish the man of God with instruction necessary to carrying out all the requirements of God in every relationship of life. Paul’s confidence in the sufficiency of the Word of God is also expressed inthese words: “And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give the inheritance among them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). In the Lord’s prayer, just before his arrest and tragic death, he said: “Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth” (John 17:17).

From what is here stated it is evident that the early Christians were fully convinced that the Word of God in the work of redemption was all-sufficient for the accomplishment of the following things: (1) Teaching. (2) Reproof—conviction of sin. (3) Correction—for setting men upright. (4) Instruction in righteousness. (5) Build men up. (6) Sanctification. (7) Give an inheritance. (8) And perfection in good works.

Since the Bible furnishes all this, it would be difficult to conceive any want it does not supply. It leaves no room for a human creed, nor any other authority in matters of faith. Hence it is a fact, conceded by all Biblical students, that the apostolic Church accepted the Word of God as its absolute and only authority in all religious affairs.

Those who became followers of Christ in the early days of Christianity were designated by several names, all of which were significant. They were called “saints” because they had been set apart to the service of God; “brethren,” because of their relation as members of a common family; “elect” because they were chosen of God in Christ by the Gospel; “children of God,” because of their relation to him as a common Father; “believers,” because of their devotion to Christ and of their faith in him; “disciples,” because they were learners in the school of their Master; “Christians,” because they were followers of Christ and citizens of his kingdom. It was natural, therefore, that the last name should soon become the most prominent and be freely used by the friend and foe in times of persecution. Peter says: “If a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name” (I Peter 4:16). It was the name that united believers in the government ofChrist, and was the most comprehensive of all the names of those given to those who composed the body of Christ. To be called a Christian carried with it all the honors implied in all the other names. All these names were worn by divine authority, and were evidently given by inspiration.

Each congregation was independent of all others in its government. They sustained a fraternal relation to each other as parts of the body of Christ, but no one was under the ecclesiastical authority of another. There is no ecclesiastical authority recognized in the New Testament except that of a single congregation, and that only when acting strictly in obedience to the will of Christ. From such a decision there is no court of appeal. On this point I submit the testimony of a few distinguished men, who, while they stood identified with an eccleciasticism ruling the individual congregation, admit that no such thing was known to the New Testament. Mosheim says:

All the churches, in those primitive times, were independent bodies; or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For though the churches which were founded by the apostles themselves frequently had the honor shown them to be consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial authority, no control, no power of giving laws. On the contrary, it is as clear as the noon-day, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of equality. Nor does there appear in this first century any vestige of that consociation of the churches of the same provinces, which gave rise to ecclesiastical councils, and to metropolitans. But, rather as is manifest, it was not till the second century that the custom of holding ecclesiastical councils first began in Greece, and thence extended into other provinces. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, page 72.)

Concerning the churches of the second century, Mosheim says:

During a great part of this century, all churches continued to be as at first, independent of each other, or were connected by no consociation or confederation. Each church was a kind of small independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at least sanctioned by the people. But in the process of time it became customary for all the Christianchurches within the same province to unite and form a sort of larger society or commonwealth; and in the manner of confederated republics, to hold their conventions at stated times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the whole confederation. (Ibid, page 116.)

Of the independence of the apostolic churches, Prof. Lyman Coleman says:

These churches, whenever formed, became separate and independent bodies, competent to appoint their own officers, and to administer their own government without reference to subordination to any central authority or foreign power. No fact connected with the history of these primitive churches is more fully established or more generally conceded, so that the discussion of it need not be renewed at this place. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, page 95.)

From this we learn: (1) That during the first century and the early part of the second the churches were independent; and (2) that so soon as they confederated for the common interest their independency was destroyed and a tyrannical ecclesiasticism established. Much more might be given to establish the face of the congregational independence of the apostolic churches, but as that is so well established and so generally admitted, it does not seem necessary.

In every fully-developed church in apostolic times there was a plurality of elders or bishops. Luke says: “And from Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the church. And when they were come to him he said unto them, ... Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:17-28). From this we not only learn that there was a plurality of elders at Ephesus, but they were also called bishops, which clearly proves that the terms “elder” and “bishop” are used synonymously. Of Paul and Barnabas it is said: “And when they had preached the gospel to that city [Derbe], and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples.... And when they had appointed for them elders in everychurch, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed” (Acts 14:21-23). From this we learn thatelderswere appointedin every church. That there were a plurality of elders in every fully-developed church is abundantly proved by historical testimony.

The eldership is the most sacred trust of God to his church. God is the legislator, the only lawmaker of his people. His authority is absolute, his power omnipotent. To the elders is committed the work of teaching and enforcing the laws of God and of guarding them against all perversion or corruption by adding to or taking from, or by bringing in the customs, traditions, or doctrines of men. No elder can be faithful to God without holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to “exhort in sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). The Holy Spirit through Peter charges them to “tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock” (I Peter 5:2-4). Their office is to feed the flock on “the Spiritual milk which is without guile that they may grow thereby unto salvation.” (See I Peter 2:2.) They are the guardians of God’s heritage, to keep it from being led away from him.

They are to make no rules of their own, as though they are the lords or rulers over God’s house. They have no authority save to enforce the law of God, and so set an example of fidelity to God to be followed by the church. If elders conscientiously confine themselves to the law of God, they can give account with joy; otherwise with grief. The spirit in which this is to be done is given by Paul in his charge to the elders at Ephesus: “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing theflock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears, and now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:28-32). This exhortation was given to guide the elders in their work. A fundamental and all-pervading principle of this counsel is that nothing is to be taught or practiced of the precepts of man. The elders are to guard and preserve the purity of God’s word, the faith and peace of the church and so promote the salvation of man.

Their labors were confined to the congregation in which they held their membership, and to which they were responsible for their conduct.

There were also a plurality of deacons in every full-developed congregation. Luke tells us (Acts 6:3) that the Church in Jerusalem selected seven deacons. It is true that they are not here called deacons, but the work to which they were called corresponds to that of the deacons as described by Paul in his letter to Timothy. The work of both is expressed by the same word in the Greek. Paul addressed a letter “to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Hence there were a plurality in the Church at Philippi. This being true, and Jerusalem being the Church after which the others were modeled, I conclude that what was true of these churches was true of all the others.

In the New Testament Church there was a class of laborers called evangelists. Their work differed very materially from that of the elders and deacons. Philip, who was one of the seven that were appointed deacons in the Church at Jerusalem, is the first evangelist of which we have any account. He “went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ. And the multitude gaveheed with one accord unto the things that were spoken by Philip when they heard and saw the signs which he did.... [And] when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:5-12). Thence he went, in obedience to the instruction of the angel, “unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza,” where he met “a man of Ethiopia,” and “preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, Behold here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?... And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” From this we learn that a deacon may soon develop into an evangelist.

Timothy was exhorted to do the work of an evangelist; hence it is legitimate to infer that he was one. From the letters to Timothy and Titus it appears that the general work of an evangelist was to preach the Gospel in other fields than the congregation in which he held his membership, establish churches and take care of them, appoint elders and deacons when such work was appropriate, and to labor for such congregations as needed assistance, whether with or without an eldership.

Back to Index Next