A holy church
Since the local church was designed to exhibit concretely the spiritual body of Christ, none but saved persons couldproperlyhold membership therein; therefore the local church when in its normal condition was free from sin and sinners. The physical body, which Paul uses to illustrate the spiritual body, is normal only when every member possesses the life of the body and functions properly. So also was the body of Christ. It was not God's will that there should be (as recognized members) "sinners in the congregation of the righteous" (Psa. 1: 5). It was his will to purge Jerusalem "by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning" until "he that is leftin Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be calledholy, evenevery onethat is written among the living in Jerusalem" (Isa. 4:3,4).
Discernment and judgement necessary
The local congregation in Jerusalem did not cease to be the church of God because two unworthy persons obtained recognition in it. This incident gave occasion for the church to manifest its inherentlifeby its ability to discern and then cast off the secret offenders just as a healthy physical body casts off effete matter. As a result of the judgment pronounced on Ananias and Sapphira, "great fear came upon all the church ... and of the restdurst no man join himself to them; but the people magnified them" (Acts 5:11, 13). The fiery judgments of God put an end to formal church-joining there, as a result of which "believers were the moreadded to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women" (verse 14). "And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved" (Acts 2:47, R.V.).
A clean, pure local church was the divine standard. It is evident that such could never be obtained and maintained except by the power of the Holy Spirit, who discerned evil and prompted its elimination. Peter discerned the condition of the two false members in the church at Jerusalem and removed that blemish. He also exposed the hypocrisy of Simon at Samaria, and Paul pointed out the evil affection in the church at Corinth and directed its removal. Chief responsibility for the maintenance of the normal condition of the church will be considered inour discussion of the particular features of church organization and government.
Apostasy possible
We have shown the characteristic, spiritual features of a New Testament congregation in its normal condition; also the possibility of deviation from that standard. A practical question is, How far could such a congregation lapse into an abnormal state and still be a church of God? Or, Can a church as a body backslide? The church at Ephesus evidently was on the verge of such an apostasy. Therefore in the special message addressed to it in Revelation the Lord said: "I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, andwill remove thy candlestickout of his place" (Rev. 2: 4, 5). So also the church at Laodicea. "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art luke warm, and neither cold nor hot,I will spew thee out of my mouth" (Rev. 3: 15, 16).
The line of distinction
The physical body may experience the mutilation of some of its members and still survive, but there is a limit beyond which death will ensue. So also the spiritual body may survive the encumbrance of a few false members. From the general facts and principles already adduced, however, we may safely assert that a local church is a church of God only so long as it is able to function properlyas a body. As long as the Spirit of God is in the ascendency, so that the people of God as a body manifest the power of God, maintain the truth of God, are filled with the Spirit of God, and are actually used by the Spirit in performing the works of God, so long they are the church of God. Whenever another spirit gains the ascendency and the divine, spiritual characteristics are lost to view, then is brought to pass the saying that is written, "I will spew thee out of my mouth." Beyond that time they may continue their formal services, singing hymns, saying prayers, and making speeches; but the real message of God describing their condition is, as was true of Sardis, "Thou hast a name that thou livest,and art dead" (Rev. 3: 1). Such dead congregations are no longer a part of the true church and are unworthy of the recognition of spiritual congregations.
The fact of organization
We have already shown that the words of Christ "I will build my church" have a deeper meaning than the simple preaching of the kingdom. They imply the formation of an organized structure against which even the gates of hell should not prevail. They can signify nothing less than the visible establishment of the church among men as the concrete embodiment of the divine kingdom or family. The church, then, as made up of local congregations, is an institution of divine appointment. This is shown by the words of Christ in Matt. 18: 17, according to which it sometimes becomes necessary in admonishing and disciplining trespassers to "tell it unto the church"; and the appellation "church ofGod" is frequently applied to individual congregations (1 Cor. 1: 2, et al.).
Many teachers hold that Christ did not build a church and that the "form of church organization is not definitely prescribed in the New Testament, but is a matter of expediency, every body of believers being permitted to adopt that method of organization which best suits its circumstances and condition." Such is the Protestant view put forth by those who seek an excuse for the modern system of sect-building. The incorrectness of this theory is easily shown. First, as we shall see, it underestimates the need of divine direction in church relationship and ignores well-established facts in the New Testament history. Secondly, if it proves anything, it proves too much; for to admit such a principle of "church powers" is to admit that the papacyand every other human system of church control is justified—systems which can be historically shown to be subversive of the church as a spiritual body.
That the church was actually organized into local assemblies in apostolic days is abundantly shown by the New Testament record. They had regular meetings at stated times (Heb. 10:25; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:12); officers (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Eph. 4:11, 12); recognized authority (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17); discipline (1 Cor. 5:13; 2 Thess. 3:6, 10-14); a system of contributions (1 Cor. 16:1, 2); ordinances (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11: 23-29); a common work, etc. On one occasion Paul instructed Titus to "set in orderthe things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city" (Tit. 1:5).
By whom effected
The words of Jesus "I will build my church" point us to the Christ as its real founder. Since the life and genius of the church is the superhuman element, which element must at all times be given precedence over mere outward forms andhuman characteristics, and since this life proceeds from Christ as the Redeemer of men, therefore in all fundamental aspects he is the personal founder of the church. But more than this, working by proxy, Jesus gave even external form to his church, employing for this purpose his chosen apostles, to whom he gave special instruction and authority. Even during his personal ministry Jesus performed some of his work by proxy. It is expressly stated that he baptized many (John 3: 22; 4: 1), and yet explanation is made that "Jesus himself baptized not,but his disciples" (John 4: 2).
So also in the organization of the church. The germ of that organization existed during Christ's personal ministry. Doctrine was given, ministers preached, baptism was administered, and people believed, but this embryonic organization could not be completely established as a church before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Therefore provision was made for its progressive development under the tutelage of specially inspired apostles. Doctrine was given gradually, yet invariably through the oral and written teaching of these inspired apostles. Therefore we can not but believe that the same invariable guidance of the Holy Spirit also perfected through them God's own plan of church organization and work. The gradual development of church organization under the labors of the apostles, therefore, no more proves the theory of a constant historic development than does the fact of a gradual unfolding of the Christian faith and doctrine by the apostles prove a constant and unending revelation of the gospel through all succeeding ages. One writer has well said, "The same promise of the Spirit which renders the New Testament an unerring and sufficient rule of faith renders it also an unerring and sufficientrule of practisefor the church in all places and times." We must therefore regard the organization of the church, as we do the unfolding of the gospel message, as complete in all its fundamental and essential aspects before the close of the sacred canon.
Apostolic agency
There is no doubt that the apostles occupied a special place in the divine establishment of the church and its message. Regarded as a temple, the church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone" (Eph. 2: 20). The Old Testament Scripture "came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1: 21). But now we read, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last daysspoken unto usBY HIS SON" (Heb. 1: 1, 2). Moses, representative of the law, and Elias, representative of the prophets, appeared in glory on the Mount of Transfiguration; but when Peter suggested that they be accorded equal honors with Jesus, immediately a cloud overshadowed the company and a voice out of the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; HEAR YE HIM." "And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, saveJesus only" (Matt. 17:1-8).
Model for all ages
The revelation of divine truth, therefore, as the foundation of our faith, reached its highest level in the Son. We need not look for another gospel—hear him. He has also said, "I will build my church"; hence we need not look for another church—HEAR HIM! Paul declares that the gospel with its revelation of the "mystery" of the union of the saved in one body, the church, was in his day "made manifest," and, "according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nationsfor the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:25, 26). See Eph. 2; 3:1-10. While therefore Christ was the author of the truth in its highest form of revelation, also the founder of his church, both reached their fulness of perfection under the inspired apostles and was by them "made known to all nationsfor the obedience of faith." The unity of all believers for which Christ solemnly prayed was to be accomplished through the direct agency of the apostles, the result of believing on Christ "throughTHEIRWord" (John 17:20).
In describing how both Jews and Gentiles were reconciled in one body by the cross, Paul says that God "hath raised us uptogether, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:that in the ages to comehe might show the exceeding riches of his grace" (Eph. 2: 6, 7). The unified church of the apostolic day is therefore the divine model for all succeeding ages.
Paul's relation thereto
Since the first apostles were employed as special agents in establishing the perfected New Testament church, Paul's connection therewith is of particular importance. Paul was not one of the original twelve, yet he exerted a tremendous influence in that period and was undoubtedly one of the chief agents used in establishing the church and fixing its external form and character.
Many believe that Paul belonged among the twelve as the real successor of Judas. According to this view, the election of Matthias to the apostleship was without divine sanction, being proposed by the impetuous Peter, who, before the descent of the Holy Ghost, often proposed inadvised things. Strength is given this view by the oft-repeated assertion of Paul that he was an apostle, "not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1: 1). We are not forced to that conclusion concerning Matthias, however. In writing the Acts of the Apostles, Luke the companion of Paul, records the appointment of Matthias without intimating that it was a mistake. In Scripture usage a certain parallelism is maintained between the twelve apostles of the Lamb and the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. When we recall that there were literally thirteen tribes in Israel, Ephriam and Manasseh standing for Joseph, we need not be surprized that there should be literally thirteen foundational apostles in the Christian church, Matthias and Paul standing, as it were, in the place of Judas.
There can be no doubt that Paul really ranked with the Twelve. He was a "chosen vessel," the "apostle of the Gentiles." Although as one "born out of due time," he himself saw Jesus and from him received the entire gospel by direct revelation. Consequently the other apostles possessed no advantage over him. He himself says, "The gospel which was preached of me was not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11, 12). He "was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5). And it was through Paul particularly that the revelation of the "mystery" was made complete—"that both Jews and Gentiles should be fellow heirs and oftheSAMEbody," and he was commissioned "to make all men see" it.
The general church was, therefore, made up of various local congregations, which were "set in order" by apostolic authority. The essential nature of this organization is determined by the object for which these congregations were formed, the conditions of membership therein, and the kind of laws by which theywere governed.
Nature of its organization
The primary object for which the local church was formed was the establishment and extension of the kingdom of God among men. A secondary object was the encouragement and mutual edification of the believers themselves, which was best obtained by united worship in prayer, exhortation, praise, thanksgiving, and religious instruction.
We have already noted the conditions of membership in the local church. None but those who were already members of the body of Christ could properly be recognized as members in a congregation which was designed by Christ to exhibit in local and temporary form the true idea of the church universal. According to this standard of membership, every individual owed allegiance directly to Christ himself as the great head of the church. Christ was the only lawgiver. The relation of the individual to the local church, then, did not in any sense supersede his personal relations to Christ, but simply strengthened and further expressed this higher relationship.
In this standard of church-membership is found the secret of the union in one body of all apostolic Christians. The standard waspersonal relationship to Christ, and this relationship could be obtained only by an experience of salvation and humble obedience to the law of Christ. Therefore all the truly saved were members of Christ and members of each other. This standard being the same for all, it led to absolute equality among members. Hence Paul could say, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all onein Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
The law of the church, as already stated, was simply "the law of Christ"; first as delivered orally by specially inspired apostles, and afterwards expressed by them in the Christian Scriptures.
Organization and government
The closest relationship necessarily existed between the organization of the church and its method of government. It is impossible for us to get a clear conception of either independently of the other; and in order to understand the subject at all, we must bear in mind the fundamental nature of the church itself, what it was and what it was designed to accomplish. The church was not, as we have seen, a mere aggregate of individuals that happened to gather or that assembled for ordinary purposes. A social club or a business organization would have possessed all those features. The church was the body of Christ, the body to which he gave spiritual life and through which he designed to manifest his power and glory. Hence its visible organization was secondary, merely incidental as the means for the accomplishment of those higher ends involved in the transcendental element of the church. The relation of the divine and the human characteristics was, therefore, the relation ofsoul and body—Christ, the soul; redeemed humanity, the body. The establishment of this relationship was the manifestation to the world of the "body of Christ." It was organization of the church.
From the foregoing considerations, we are certain that in the apostolic church the real emphasis was placed onlifeand that the governmental power and authority of the church was derived from its divine life in Christ and not from its organization. Apostolic church government was, therefore, more than the adoption of some particular form of external organization and administration.
Divine administration
The origin of the church was divine. Jesus said, "I will build my church." And though, as we have seen, he employed human agents in its completion, these agents were so specially inspired and directed by Christ through the Holy Spirit that it was in realityhiswork. Jesus was not only the initial founder of the church, but he was its permanent head and governor. Isaiah, predicting the coming of Christ, declares that "the governmentshall be uponHISshoulder" (Isa. 9:6). And again, we read that "HEis the head of the body, the church ... that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18). He it was who called and commissioned Paul and then personally directed his ministerial labors (Acts 26:13-19; 16:6-9). He it was who walked in the midst ofthe seven golden candlesticks, encouraging or reproving the congregations of Asia (Rev. 1:17, et seq.). He is "alive forever more" (Rev. 1:18); "the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13: 8); "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:3). "To him be gloryin the church... throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Eph. 3:21).
Christ the living head
Thus, the general nature of church government was an absolute monarchy, or, to use a better term, a theocracy. Christ was king and lawgiver, governor and administrator. Whoever the instruments employed in carrying out his purposes, whatever the scope of their particular activities, all were governed directly by Christ through the Holy Spirit. It washischurch. He was its living head. No other church was known in those days. It was only when the living, vital union of Christ with his church was lost to view that men began endeavoring to strengthen the bonds of external union by unscriptural human organization, just as when life is departed from the physical body we seek by an embalming process to prevent its speedy dissolution.
Delegated authority
In order to understand church government, therefore, we must begin at the central source of authority and proceed to its varied manifestations. We have seen that Christ employed human agents in accomplishing his work; hence, in thus performing the work of Christ as commanded by Christ, and as personally directed by the Spirit of Christ, these men possessed theauthority of Christ. Any church governmental authority that does not proceed directly from Christ through his Holy Spirit is but human authority, an usurped authority, and has no place in the real church of Christ.
Ministerial oversight
The apostles were the first to whom Christ delegated authority. They became his special representatives. They established the church and became responsible for its general direction and oversight, "the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" (Mark 16:20). But these twelve did not stand alone in the government of the church. Soon a host of ministers were raised up, and these also possessed divine authority for their representative lines of work. To the elders of Ephesus, Paul said, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over whichthe Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God" (Acts 20:28). Peter also writes: "The elders which are among you I exhort ... feed the flock of God which is among you,taking the oversight thereof" (1 Pet. 5:1, 2). "The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereuntoI have called them... so they,being sentforth by the Holy Ghost, departed" (Acts 13: 2-4). "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" (Eph. 4:11, 12). In accordance with this standard, we read, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls,as they that must give account" to him who is "that great shepherd of the sheep" (Heb. 13:17, 20). The ministers were under-shepherds appointed to feed the flock of God, for which service they had to give account to the great Shepherd.
The foregoing scriptures and many others show conclusively that, while in the apostolic church spiritual oversight was, in general, vested in the ministry, it did not originate with them; that it did not proceed from the general body of believers by a majority vote or by conference appointment; but that it came by the Holy Spirit direct from the great head of the church, who alone determined the general bounds of that authority and responsibility. This ministry, or presbytery, consisted of two classes—local ministers and general ministers. Before proceeding from this general classification to a discussion of the more specific duties and responsibilities of the individual ministers comprising this presbytery, I shall call attention briefly to the geographical distribution of their work as a body.
Local and general phase
We have already shownthat the church in its visible phase was made up of various local congregations "set in order" by apostolic authority. So far as their own local affairs were concerned, these congregations were autonomous. When a matter was purely local, such as the financial oversight and ministration in the church at Jerusalem, the local congregation itself determined the course of action and (excepting that class of officials who were divinely chosen) who should be appointed to oversee it. In the Jerusalem example cited, the apostles suggested, "Look ye out among youseven men," etc., "and the saying pleased the whole multitude:and they chose" the proper persons for that work (Acts 6:1-5).
But while these congregations possessed such autonomy and were distributed over a wide territory, they were not in all respects independent, isolated units. As members of Christ sharing in a common life and engaged in a common cause, they were bound together in one brotherhood by ties of fellowship and love. In addition to the union of separate individuals in one locality under the care of the local presbytery, the local congregations themselves were brought into close, sympathetic relationship with one another through the labors and influence of those general ministers who were not attached to particular churches, but whose gifts, callings, and qualifications fitted them for general service throughout the various congregations. The responsibility and authority of these general ministers varied in accordance with their own gifts and qualifications and the degree of development attained by the churches among which they labored. In the case of infant churches, it is evident that oversight was of the apostolic kind—direct and immediate. But whenever they became thoroughly established, the principle of local autonomy was recognized and the relation of the general ministers to such congregations was evangelistic rather than apostolic—helpers and advisors, not administrative directors.
Geographical distribution
That the foregoing analysis is correct is abundantly proved by the history of events in the Acts respecting the geographical distribution of the churches and their relation to one another. Jerusalem was the original seat of Christianity. Isaiah prophesied, "Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isa. 2:3). Jesus told the apostles "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). And again, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Philip went from Jerusalem to Samaria and there preached Christ with great success. "Now when the apostleswhich were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God,they sent unto them Peter and John" (Acts 8:14). Later we read that when churches had been established throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, "it came to pass,as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda" (Acts 9: 31, 32). It was while he was on this general tour visiting the churches that he came to Joppa and there received the vision which led him to the household of Cornelius, after which he came to Jerusalem and was there called to account for his action in visiting the uncircumcised Gentiles.
There is no doubt that there was exerted from Jerusalem a general care over the surrounding churches. Some of the disciples who were scattered from Jerusalem at the time of persecution, went as far as Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the word, and many believed and turned to the Lord. "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem:and they sent forth Barnabasthat he should go as far as Antioch" (Acts 11: 19-22). Barnabas went to Antioch and there found such a splendid work that he departed at once for Tarsus seeking Saul, and together they returned to Antioch and preached for a whole year.
Operative centers
While this principle of general superintendence of infant churches originated with the apostles themselves, it was extended to others who were not of the first apostles. Barnabas and Saul were successful at Antioch and there established the first Christian community outside the confines of Judaism, as the result of which Antioch became the seat of Gentile Christianity. Shortly afterwards "certain prophets and teachers" in the church at Antioch, men who were not of the original apostles, were directed by the Holy Ghost to send forth Barnabas and Saul on their first missionary journey, and they went forth establishing local churches and afterwards setting them in order by ordaining elders, after which these ministers returned to Antioch, gathered the church together, and gave them a report of their work. Antioch was, therefore, an operative center.
At a later time Paul established the truth in Ephesus, the chief city of Proconsular Asia. As might naturally be expected from the strategic position and political importance of that city, Ephesus also became an operative center for Christianity, "so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks" (Acts 19:10). Thessalonica in Macedonia and Corinth in Achaia are other examples of the kind.
Regional units
The work of the church naturally fell into these geographical units; therefore the word "church" is sometimes used as acollective term designating a body of regional congregations. The church "throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria" (Acts 9:31), "the seven churches which are in Asia" (Rev. 1:11), "the churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor. 8:1), "the churches of Galatia" (1 Cor. 16:1).
We must bear in mind, however, that this regional concept of the church was not an integral part of fundamental apostolic church government, but was merely incidental, the result of geographical location. In fundamental analysis distinctions are always drawn between things that aredifferent, not between things of the same kind. These regional churches were not different kinds of churches; they were not bound together in separate groups by an external organization which placed a wall between them and other congregations of the saints. There was no authority here for the national-church theory nor for the sectarian church idea. Geographical separation there was, but not denominationalism.
Common bond of unity
We have already shown from Paul's writings that under his ministry both Jews and Gentiles were united in one body, "thesamebody." That these regional units to which we have referred were no denial of this clear truth, but that collectively they constituted one body, is further shown by the indications we have of theiroperative unity. Notwithstanding the poor facilities for communication and travel in those days, which made general cooperation very difficult, and notwithstanding the fact that the record of historic Christianity in the Acts is exceedingly brief, we have, nevertheless, clear proof that there was cooperation throughout the apostolic church. Two instances, one of a business nature, the other ecclesiastical, establish this point. The churches of at least three provinces of the Roman Empire—Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia—united under Paul's direction in establishing a weekly financial system, the immediate object of which was to assist in accomplishing a particular object in which they were all interested (2 Cor. 8:9; 1 Cor. 16:1-3). The ecclesiastical example is the council of the apostles and elders held in Jerusalem and recorded in Acts 15. A question of doctrine and practise arose in Antioch; the church there was not able to settle it; therefore it was "determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other with them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question" (verse 2).
This was not a general council of the church. No other sections or provinces were represented. Nor did it meet as a legislative body, even though there were present specially inspired apostles, to whom had been given the commission to unfold the gospel as an authoritative revelation. It is clear that the ministers of this council even sought to avoid the legislative function. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" (verse 28). While thisincident does not prove an administrative human headship of the whole church centralized at Jerusalem, it does prove that the individual congregations were not isolated units, but that they had respect for, and sought the advice and counsel of, older established congregations, and particularly of those general ministers whose gifts, qualifications, and reputation fitted them for general care of all the churches.
When we consider the divine nature of the church's organization, with the ever-living Christ working mightily in all his ministers and through them in particular administering its government, we can see that the entire church was necessarily one body joined together in a common fellowship and actually laboring together in the performance of common tasks.
Bishop and elder
The presbytery, to whom was given particular oversight and government of the church, was set apart by the Holy Ghost for this special work. Different terms, such as "elder" and "bishop," were used to designate this office. The term "bishop," which literally meansoverseer, implies the duties of the office, while "elder" denotes its rank. That these terms were used interchangeably and applied to the same order of persons is proved by Acts 20:28 (cf. 17); Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 8; Tit. 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2. This was admitted by many early writers, as Jerome, Augustine, Urban II, Petrus Lombardus, Chrysostom,Theodoret, and others.
From the general classification already given, let us proceed to the specific. This body was made up of elders or bishops. The fact that the terms "elder" and "bishop" were applied to all the presbyters shows equality of rank; that the office was one. We find, however, that these elders as individuals were diversified in their gifts and callings in accordance with the specific work which the Holy Ghost designed them to perform. Under one classification there were, broadly speaking, two kinds of elders—local and general; that is, those whose sphere of operation was particularly local and those whose influence, work, and responsibility extended beyond any congregational limitation. This distinction was not made arbitrarily, however; for it was essential to the performance of the twofold class of work to be done and was the inevitable result of that operation of the Spirit in individual ministers which fitted them particularly for these distinctive lines of activity.
Divine gifts
To be still more specific, we must go a step farther and consider the reason why and the process by which ministers became differentiated from other saints. In this we shall find the inner secret, both of particular spiritual organization and of divine church government. The apostle says, "By one Spirit are we allbaptized into one body" and "God hath set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him" (1 Cor. 12:13, 18). These texts suggest more than a mere attachment to the body: they implyfunctional activity in the body. The functions of the body as described by Paul means the exercise of spiritual gifts. "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit ... there are diversities of operations, but it is the same Godwhich worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues; but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (1 Cor. 12: 4-11).
Basis of ministerial authority
The foregoing scripture is a mere enumeration of the gifts that God implanted in the church as a body. The more particular application of these gifts and their relation to church organization and government are given further on in the same chapter. "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?But covet earnestly the best gifts" (verses 27-31).
Comparison of verses 4 to 11 with verses 27 to 31 of the chapter just quoted shows conclusively that one is the counterpart of the other, the latter merely amplifying and explaining the former. From this clear teaching it is evident that the work of apostleship, of teaching, of governing, etc., were all based upon and grew out of divine gifts implanted in the heart by the Holy Spirit.
The same truth is taught by Paul in another place. Speaking of Christ, the apostle says, "When he ascended up on high, he ...gave gifts unto men... and he gave some,apostles; and some,prophets; and some,evangelists; and some,pastorsandteachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph. 4: 8-12).
According to these scriptures, the very governmental positions of the church with their authority and responsibility were the product of those gifts and qualifications bestowed upon certain individuals in particular. Such gifts could be legitimately coveted with a view to spiritual edification of the body (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:12). "If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work" (1 Tim. 3:1). "Helps" doubtless included that class of assistants commonly called deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-11).
Since in the primitive church organization and government were determined by the divine gifts and callings possessed by individuals, it is evident that we have in this something totally different from that later conception of church government as a mere human arrangement. At a subsequent time, as we shall show, church government was patterned after the forms of political government in that it was vested inherently in men. Four such forms have been developed—the imperial, or papal; the episcopal; the presbyterial; and the congregational. While these four differ in external form, they are all alike in fundamental character, in that they assume that the governing power rests inherently inmen.
None of these forms of government represent the New Testament church. The organization and government of that church was based upon thecharisma, or divine gifts and callings, of individuals composing the church. The power and authority of an apostle or of an evangelist, for example, did not rest upon any selection or appointment made by men. The church did not act in a corporate capacity and confer ecclesiastical power and authority upon any one. All such power and authority came direct from God through the Holy Spirit, and it was in God's name and by his authority alone that they acted. The organization of the church was therefore charismatic. If, for example, the gifts of an apostle were conferred by the Holy Spirit upon an individual, he possessed apostolic responsibility and authority. The brethren recognized such gifts when these were evident, and submitted themselves voluntarily to such spiritual leadership and oversight; for at this period there had not been developed that ecclesiastical system by which human election and appointment gave positions and authority to men. In fact, we shall clearly show later that the true church can not belegallyorganized. Every attempt of men to assume the reins of authority and give governmental form and administrative direction to the church has been denominational and sectarian.
Ordination
The true church was the whole family of God directed by his Holy Spirit. Ministerial appointment, with its authority and responsibility, was therefore divine. We have seen that through the spiritual operation called the new birth, one became a member of Christ, and hence by divine right belonged to whichever congregation of the church he might be able to associate with; but that in practical experience, such local membership involved recognition on the part of the other members. So it was with the divine appointment to the ministry. The only other essential to its practical operation was simply recognition of that call. Such recognition, in the last analysis, belonged to the whole church (1 Tim. 3: 2-7; Tit. 1: 6-9), but was given formally by the laying on of the handsof the presbytery.
Plurality of local elders
The development of ministers in an apostolic church was a divine, natural process, the inevitable result of the emphasis placed on the gifts and callings of the Spirit. This free exercise of the Spirit's gifts working in the members doubtless accounts for the plurality of ruling elders found in those local churches. See Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:16, 17; Tit. 1:5. It could not be otherwise as long as the churches were Spirit-filled, working congregations and the Spirit of God had his way. The system that limited local church government to a one-man rule originated in the apostasy, after the gifts of the Spirit had died out. It is simply one part of that great system of human organization that developed the full-grown papacy. Of this we shall learn more hereafter.
The same principles that developed local ministers produced also ministers of the general class. While some naturally became "pastors," "teachers," and "helpers" in the local church, particular gifts and qualifications fitted others for "apostles" and "evangelists," whose particular sphere was general oversight and work in the churches. The prophet was not limited to either class.
Apostolic oversight
As it is not germane to my present purpose, I shall not here attempt to define the various phases of ministerial work designated by various terms but all included under the one generic term "elder." The work described by the term "apostle," however, requires brief notice, on account of its bearing on the subject of church government. The fact that Paul had particular "care of all the churches" (2 Cor. 11:28) and that he gave special instructions to Timothy and Titus, other ministers (1 Tim. 5: 21; Tit. 1:5), forms the basis for the episcopacy argument—church rule by a superior order of clergy called bishops.
"Apostle" literally signifies "a planter." The term belongs specifically to the first founders of the Christian faith, but is loosely applied in a more general sense to any minister who plants Christianity in a new territory. It is clear that the first apostles were especially inspired for a particular work in laying the foundations of the Christian church and in writing the New Testament Scriptures. Hence the apostolic office in this special sense passed away with them. But there was, nevertheless, an apostolic work such as planting and overseeing the infant work in a new field, and in this sense Barnabas also was an apostle (Acts 13:46 with 14:4).
That the word "apostle" really signified a planter and was therefore descriptive of the kind of work done is shownby the words of Paul himself: "For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:8). And again, he says to the Corinthians, "If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I amto you; forthe seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord" (1 Cor. 9:2). In another place he says to the same church, "Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).
The special, personal relation that the apostle, or planter, sustained to the work which he had founded and over which he exercised general jurisdiction, was but temporary, a sort of fatherly care. He was obliged to oversee the work as a whole, including young ministers, until it became thoroughly established. After others were able for the work and the apostle's special oversight was withdrawn, there might be ten thousand other instructors, butno more fathers. This disproves entirely the episcopal idea as an essential feature of church government. The apostle Peter even classes himself simply as an elder in common with other elders (1 Pet. 5:1). But with the exception of the original apostles, who were specially commissioned to reveal the doctrine and message of the gospel and to establish the Christian faith, the difference existing between elders in the primitive church was not a difference in kind, but in degree only, varying in accordance with their ability to put forth some portion of that moral and spiritual power by which alone Christ governs his church.
It is not my purpose to write an ecclesiastical history, but in order to make clear the work of final reformation, it will be necessary to present at least a brief sketch of historic Christianity, outlining particularly those leading features which show a radical departure from the true church as originally constituted by our Lord and his apostles.
"The faith"
In the days of primitive Christianity there was something called "the gospel," "the truth," "the form of sound words," "the faith."To understand its fundamental nature is not difficult, for it has been preserved and handed down to us in the writings of the New Testament. According to this record, the gospel message, or "the faith," centered in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died and rose again that he might be a "Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins" (Acts 5:31). "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). Around this central fact of salvation from sin through faith in Christ clustered those other truths and facts which either necessarily resulted from the new relationship of redeemed humanity with God or were essential to its visible manifestation and propagation. Prominent among these features were the entire sanctification of believers, holy life and conduct, the baptism, gifts, and leadership of the Holy Spirit, and the visible unity and relationship of believers in one body, the church.