THE CHURCH: ITS ORGANIZATION AND MINISTRY

The work of the Holy Spirit necessarily demands an objective economy. This new economy is the Church, or the mystical body of Christ. It represents a new order of spiritual life on earth, was created by the advent of Christ, and is preserved by the perpetual indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The word church as found in the New Testament, is from the Greek word ecclesia (ekklhsia), and in its simplest connotation, means an assembly or body of called out ones. The English word church comes from another Greek term, that of kuriakos (kuriakov") or the Lord's house. The church, therefore, may be regarded as at once the sphere of the Spirit's operations, and the organ of Christ's administration of redemption. As a corporate body, it was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ, and is invested with certain notes and attributes which are representative of His agency among men. It is (1) the ecclesia, or assembly of called out ones, and is made up of the divinely adopted sons of God. It is not, therefore, merely a human organization. Christ is its Head. From Him it receives its life through the indwelling Spirit, and as such, discharges a twofold function - as an institute of worship, and as a depository of the faith. It is (2) the Body of Christ, as constituting a mystical extension of the nature of Christ, and consequently is composed of those who have been made partakers of that nature. The relation between Christ and the Church is organic. As such, it embodies and affords on earth, the conditions under which, and by means of which; the Holy Spirit supernaturally extends to men, the redemptive work of Christ. In it and from it, Christ communicates to the membership of this body, the quickening and sanctifying offices of the Holy Spirit, for the extension of His work among men.

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The Christian Church is linked historically with the Jewish - sometimes known as the "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38). When our Lord at the opening of His ministry, proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, He by this means, related His own work to the Jewish theocracy as to its inner spirit, though not as to its outward form. In order to the establishment of the church, there was of necessity a gradual preparation for it, previous to, and during the earthly ministry of our Lord. This preparation is based upon the presupposition of a fundamental human society, or what Dr. Gerhart calls "the law of social integration," which he says, "demands and begets religious organization, an organization corresponding to the plane on which the religious life moves, whether lower or higher. Christianity recognizes and conserves every original law. Hence Christian life becomes organized life; Christian activity becomes organized activity; and, we may add, if human nature were not an organism, if it did not by virtue of the social principle spontaneously develop into some form of social organization, Christian life would not develop in the form of the 'kingdom of heaven'" (GERHART, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, p. 455). In the development of this organization, we may note three distinct stages: (1) The Positive Preparation in the Old Testament; (2) The Intermediate Community during the earthly life of Christ; and (3) The Immediate Formation of the Church at Pentecost.

[Dr. Dorner includes the following subjects in his discussion of the church: (1) the genesis of the church, through the new birth of the Spirit, or Regeneration; (2) the growth and persistence of the church through the continuous operation of the Spirit in the means of grace, or Ecclesiology proper, as others call it; (3) the completion of the church, or Eschatology.]

The Positive Preparation in the Old Testament. The church of the Old Testament was the first representative of the ecclesia or called out ones. The Hebrew word kahal which is derived from the verb meaning to call together, signifies an assembly, or a congregation convened for any purpose, but especially for religious worship. The word kahal is translated ecclesia seventy times in the Septuagint. While presupposing the natural law of social integration, the Old Testament church must nevertheless be distinguished (1) from all natural human organizations, such as the family and the State; and (2) from all pagan religions, by the fact that it was built upon the protevangelium or primeval promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. This promise took definite form in the Abrahamic covenant. The law which was added four hundred and thirty years after the confirmation of the covenant, St. Paul regarded as a pedagogic institution - a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ (Gal. 3:16, 17, 24, 25). The Old Testament church was, therefore, a community of the Spirit; and while manifesting itself through natural and social laws, was nevertheless a supernatural organization. As such, it made a direct and positive contribution to the Christian Church, first, in that it cultivated and matured the religion which should finally issue in the kingdom of God; secondly, and chiefly, because it was the community that gave Christ to the world. Who are the Israelites, inquires St. Paul in a rhetorical question which he answers by saying, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever (Rom. 9:4,5).

The Intermediate Community. The second step in preparation for the church, was the formation of the "little flock" by our Lord himself. This must be regarded as an intermediate community, in that it stood midway between the Mosaic economy and Pentecost. We may distinguish two stages in its formation, as recorded in the Gospels. (1) The first comprised the group of disciples which clustered about John the Baptist as the forerunner of Jesus. In John, the old economy drew to a close. Hence the words, He must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30) The one who said of himself, I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, must give place to Him of whom it was said, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire (Matt. 3:11). (2) The second comprised the group which clustered about Jesus himself, being bound to Him by a common sympathy and devotion. In this latter group, three classes may be mentioned, (a) the Twelve Apostles; (b) the Seventy; and (c) an indefinite number of devout Jews - about five hundred. These were animated by a common belief that Jesus was the Christ, and were fused into an informal organization by their love for the Master and their faith in His words. Thus they were spiritually qualified to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, and became thereby, the true nucleus of the Christian Church. During this period of earthly instruction, two things are noticeable in the development of the intermediate community. (1) A new meaning is injected into the teaching concerning the kingdom. It was revealed to the disciples, that the kingdom of God was to be Messiah's kingdom also, but only in the sense of the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom on earth must await His Second Coming. It was in this sense that Jesus interpreted the kingdom when He said, the kingdom of God cometh not with observation (Luke 17:20); the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21); and My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). He taught, however, that there was to be in the consummation of all things, a kingdom of both heaven and earth, and therefore taught His disciples to pray specifically, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). (2) To the institution embodying the kingdom in this limited sense, our Lord gave the new name "My church" (Matt. 16:18). This statement, introduced as it is in the midst of St. Matthew's collection of parables on the kingdom, is significant, not only as indicating the name which should apply to it during the present age, but as indicating also, the relation which the church should bear to the kingdom. Twice only, does Jesus use the term church, in speaking of it as "founded upon this rock," which seems to be a reference to the "house of prayer for all nations" (Matt. 16:18; cf. Mark ii 17); and as a visible assembly of people, gathered in one place for the administration of its laws (Matt. 18:17). Here is a reference to both the visible and invisible church. In the last discourses, including the high priestly prayer, Jesus gives us further insight into His teachings concerning the church. This is especially true concerning the provision made for the sacraments, one as an initiatory rite, and the other as a memorial of perpetuity. In the high priestly prayer, the church was formally dedicated to God, in what Dr. Pope significantly calls "the first prayer in His own house." Always, even in this prayer, Jesus regards the church as yet to come. He laid the foundations Himself, and left a body of instruction, but this must await the Day of Pentecost, and the coming of the Comforter, before it could be disclosed in the fullness of its meaning.

The Formation of the Church at Pentecost. Pentecost was the birthday of the Christian Church. The prepared disciples in obedience to the command of their Lord, were assembled with one accord in Jerusalem, when suddenly the Holy Spirit fell upon them, making the intermediate community, in the truest sense of that term, "the new temple of the Triune God." As under the older economy, Pentecost was marked by the presentation of the fruits of the harvest, so in the new dispensation it marks the ushering in of the fullness of the Spirit. Furthermore, though not by divine enactment, Pentecost celebrated the giving of the law at Sinai; so also, it now represents the fullness of the New Covenant, in which the law of God is written upon the . heart by the Spirit. Pentecost placed the Christian community under the jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit, who represents the invisible Head of a body now visible.

THE SPIRITUAL CHARACTER OF THE CHURCH

The Church is the creation of the Holy Spirit. Referring again to our discussion of the office of the Holy Spirit in relation to the church (Chapter XXVI), we indicated there, that the Holy Spirit administering the life of Christ is said to make us members of His spiritual body; and that ministering in His own proper personality as the Third Person of the Trinity, He is said to dwell in the holy temple thus constructed. The church, therefore, is not merely an independent creation of the spirit, but an enlargement of the incarnate life of Christ. The two most prominent symbols of the church then, are those of the body and the temple. The first represents the active side, or the church as an institute of evangelism; the second represents the passive side, or the church as an institute of worship.

The Church as the Body of Christ. Under this aspect of the church, there are three leading features to be considered - its unity, its growth and the sources of its ascendency. (1) The unity here mentioned is "the unity of the Spirit." It is something more than merely natural ties, whether of family, nation or race. No tie of outward relationship is capable of expressing this inward unity of the members of the church, or their entire oneness of life, and hence our Lord made His own Oneness with the Father an illustration of it. He prayed that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us (John 17:21). Thus our Lord found no union short of that in the divine life, by which to express His thought. They were to be one through the Spirit. The Holy Spirit being the bond of union in the Godhead, becomes likewise, the source of union in the Church, uniting the members to one another, to their exalted Head, and to Himself. St. Paul uses three symbols of unity in a gradually deepening significance, to express this spiritual relationship. (a) Filial unity, or that of a common parentage or origin. Christ is the first born among many brethren - the Only Begotten being infinite, those made in His likeness, finite. (b) Conjugal unity as expressed by the marriage relationship, because of its closeness of union, its fruitfulness, its indissoluble character, and its complete interchange of goods. (c) Organic unity, or that of the head and the body, both of which are permeated by a common life. But St. Paul's most perfect illustration is like that of his Master, patterned after the Trinity. He gives us a trinity of trinities - one body, one Spirit, one hope; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph. 4:4-8.) In all as a life-giving and sanctifying Spirit; through all as a charismatic or gift-bestowing Spirit; above all, as an anointing or empowering Spirit. (2) Growth is the second factor of this organism. This growth is through the truth as ministered by the Spirit. Hence St. Paul says, But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love (Eph. 4:15, 16). Here it is indicated that the growth of the individual spiritually, is to be interpreted, not by an increasing independency of action, but by a deeper and more joyful co-operation with other members of the body. And it is to be further noted that the growth of the body is through the individual contributions of its members. (3) The elements of ascendency are likewise given us by the same apostle. He tells us that the great gift of the ascended Christ to the Church is that of the ministry in its various types apostles and prophets as the foundational ministry; evangelists, pastors and teachers as the proclaiming or instructional ministry. The purpose of these officers he further states, is the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; and the goal of attainment is, Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Eph. 4:12, 13). This phase of the spiritual nature of the Church will be the foundation for further treatment, as embracing (I) The Organization of the Church; and (II) The Church and Its Ministry.

[ Dr. Hutchings points out the following interesting points of cornparison between the mystery of the incarnation and the mystery of Pentecost.

1. In each of these there is a personal coming, (a) in Nazareth, Mary in a hidden life is prepared for the marvel that was to be wrought in her; (b) in Jerusalem, the disciples with prayer and supplication, in secret withdrawal await the promised Comforter.

2. In Nazareth, the eternal Word descends from the bosom of the Father, to take into union with Himself, our nature in order to redeem it. In Jerusalem, the Third Person of the Trinity descends to dwell in our nature in order to sanctify it. As the creation of the body of Jesus was by the Holy Spirit, so He creates the Church as the visible organism of His Presence. (It behoveth the Holy Ghost to come among us in a bodily manner, as the Son had conversed with us in a body. - Gregory Nazianzen.)

3. In both unions, the same love is the moving cause; but in the second, love takes on a new degree of prominence and intensity. It is the second divine gift, and that after the first had been abused. It is the gift now, not of personal wisdom, but of personal love; and it is the gift which makes love and not fear, the ruling motive of obedience.

4. In both mysteries, the fellowship with created life is so close that divine actions are imputed to man, and human properties ascribed to God; in both, heaven vouchsafes a divine Person, and earth contributes a vessel for His presence. (Cf. Hutchings, Person and Work of the Holy Ghost, p. 127.)]

 

The Church as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The second aspect of the spiritual church is represented by the symbol of a temple. While St. Paul's "great metaphor" is that of the body, he refers to the Church also as a temple - In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit (Eph. 2:21, 22). As referring to individuals, he uses both figures in a single chapter: Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ (I Cor. 6:15); and Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost (I Cor. 6:19). St. Peter, however, uses this figure in a more elaborate manner. He says, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ (I Peter 2:5). The apostles understood clearly that the Lord Jesus Christ was Himself the Head of the Church, and not the Spirit. In instructing them concerning the corning of the Comforter, He had reserved His own dignity as One who should never be absent from them. He had said, I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you (John 14:18). Hence they saw by faith, that the great High Priest was interceding within the veil for them, and that the Spirit was present by no direct communication, but only through the mediatorship of Christ. As He was the temple of the Spirit, who dwelled in Him without measure, so the Church as His body is the temple of the Spirit communicated to it through its living Head. And further, as Christ was the image of the invisible God, so the church is to be the image of the invisible Christ; and when it is glorified, its members shall be like Him, for they shall see Him as He is.

This aspect of the Church will be given further consideration as an "Institute of Worship" and will include in its scope, (1) The Worship of the Church; (2) The Means of Grace; and (3) The Sacraments.

NOTES AND ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

Having considered the spiritual nature of the Church in its active aspect as the Body of Christ, or the organ of His manifestation in the world; and in its passive aspect as the Temple of the Holy Spirit, or sphere of .worship, we must now give attention to those attributes which combine both in their unity. By the term "attributes" we mean those characteristics of the Church which are set forth in the Scriptures; while the "Notes" are those attributes transformed into tests by which the true Church is supposed to be known. In the earlier creeds, such as the Apostles' and Nicene, four of these notes are mentioned - one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621), in an effort to defend the Roman Church, set up fifteen notes, and excluded every Christian society from all claim to the character of a church, which lacked any one of these as follows: "Catholicity, antiquity, duration, amplitude, episcopal succession, apostolic agreement, unity, sanctity of doctrine, efficacy of doctrine, holiness of life, miracles, prophecy, admission of adversaries, unhappy end of enemies, and temporal felicity." Over against these have been set up other notes and attributes which express more truly the Protestant idea of the Church. Dr. Pope mentions seven, and treats them in contrast with their opposites, as follows: (1) One and manifold; (2) sanctity and imperfection; (3) visible and invisible; (4) catholic and local; (5) apostolic and confessional; (6) indefectible and mutable; and (7) militant and triumphant. Dr. Summers is more controversial in his approach. He follows in general, the outline of Bellarmine, but opposes his positions, seeking to set forth the Protestant view on these important points. Our discussion must be brief, and we shall present only the four notes of the creeds, with their opposites, including in these some of the more important subdivisions.

1. Unity and Diversity. Unity is properly a note of the Church. There is one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. But this unity is one of manifoldness. The Scriptures nowhere speak of an outward or visible unity. There is no intimation of uniformity. The Scriptures never speak of the church of a province, but always of the churches. It is true that the churches were under a common bond of joint superintendency by the apostles, but there is even then, no evidence of a primacy among them. The unity is that of the Spirit; and the diversity includes anything that is not out of harmony with that spiritual unity.

2. Holiness and Imperfection. The term hagia (agia) or sancta is applied both to the body of Christ and to the members which compose that body. In either instance, it signifies to be set apart from the world and devoted to God. In the case of the individual person, there must of necessity be a preliminary work of spiritual cleansing in order to this full devotement. The Organization itself is regarded as holy on account of the purpose and end for which it exists. This implies an absolute and a relative holiness. The former applies to the membership of the Church having entered into the fullness of the new covenant privileges, and therefore holy through the blood of Christ. The latter applies to the organization as such, which though holy in purpose and end, may yet include those who have not individually been made holy. This is evident from the apostolic epistles, which though addressed to "saints" contain much in rebuke of that which is unholy. The same is true of our Lord's own epistles to the churches, which He holds in His hands, and yet finds much which needs amendment.

3. Catholic and Local. The word catholic is not found in the earlier creeds. In the symbols of Jerome, Tertullian and other western creeds, the statement is simply the "holy church." It appears first in the early creeds of the east, especially those of Jerusalem and of Alexandria, but soon came to be incorporated in the Latin creeds also. The word was added to the Apostles' Creed about the close of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. The idea of catholicity at first included merely the universality of the Church in design and destiny, and was used in opposition to the Jewish conception of the church as local and national. But the term was never used in the sense of excluding the local churches, and hence we read of the church in Jerusalem, the churches of Galatia, and the seven churches of Asia (Cf. Acts 2:47; Gal. 1:2; Rev. 1:4). The varying emphasis upon these two notes has given rise to widely different conceptions of church organization. About the middle of the second century, the term catholic began to he used in a sense more ecclesiastical than scriptural, as referring to the body of the Church in opposition to the numerous smaller sects which arose at that time. The latter came to be known as schismatics and heretics, and hence were not regarded as a part of the catholic body. When the eastern and western churches divided, Rome assumed the name of catholic, and regarded all dissentients from the see of St. Peter, even the eastern church itself, as being outside the one only catholic church. The eastern church did not assume the use of the term catholic, preferring to be known as orthodox and apostolic.

[ Bishop Pearson gives this definition of catholicity. "This catholicism of the Church consisteth generally In universality, as embracing all sorts of persons, as to be disseminated through all nations, as comprehending all ages, as containing all necessary and saving truths, as obliging all conditions of men to all kinds of obedience as curing all diseases, and planting all graces in the souls of men." - Pearson, On the Creed.

  "The term schism (scivsma) means division viewed as to the corporate body, the term heresy (aiJvresi") makes prominent the private judgment which leads to it. But the history of Christianity shows that the words must be applied with discrimination: they have been more abused than almost any others." - Pope, Higher Catechism, p. 328.]

Included in the note of catholicity, we may mention also the church as visible and invisible. By the invisible Church, is meant the mystical body of Christ as animated by His spirit. This mystical fellowship is therefore, in its deepest and most profound character, a spiritual and unseen reality. The term catholic may be applied to either the invisible or the visible church. As applying to the former, it is simply the universal b6dy of believers. Thus in the creed we have a statement concerning the general Church as follows: "The Church of God is composed of all spiritually regenerate persons, whose names are written in heaven" (Creed, Part II, Art. I). However, the invisible Church is frequently regarded as including, not only those now living, but those of every age - past, present and future. As applying to the latter, it includes within the visible church, all those particular constituencies which make up the total body of professed believers in Jesus Christ. The particular errors which attach to these notes are due to the overemphasis upon one to the minimizing or exclusion of the other. Roman Catholicism while believing technically in an invisible Church, so exalts the visible aspect as to suppress almost entirely, its invisible character. Hence it makes exclusiveness a note of the visible instead of the invisible church, and, therefore, holds that there can be no salvation outside of it. The opposite error is found in those smaller bodies which emphasize the invisible church, to the minimizing or exclusion of all external organization. Nothing is clearer in the Scriptures, however, than its teachings concerning external organization, and this in itself is a sufficient refutation of this error. Another question in this connection has been the source of much controversy. "What constitutes a visible church?" The position of Protestantism as found in the various creeds is essentially this, "The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that are of necessity requisite to the same" (Wesley's revision of Anglican Creed) . "The churches severally," we say, "are composed of such regenerate persons as by providential permission, and by the leadings of the Holy Spirit, become associated together for holy fellowship and ministries" (Creed, Part II, Art. 11).

[ To obtain an accurate conception of the Christian Church, it is necessary that we distinguish properly between the ideal and the reality, between the inner nature and the external manifested form of the subject - in a word, between church and congregation. Conceived as a moral religious society, the Church embraces, without exception, all who are called by the name of Christ; viewed as a spiritual body, the congregation is the union of those who by a living faith are personally united to Christ, whether they belong to the Church militant on earth, or to the Church triumphant in heaven. The distinction between the visible and invisible Church is therefore correct in principle, and must be firmly held, as a matter of deep importance. where it is arbitrarily drawn out into irreconcilable antithesis, sectarianism at once appears, which divides and weakens the Church, without being able to supply its place for a continuance. - Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, II, p. 702.]

 

Another aspect of catholicity is that which regards the church as militant and triumphant. The church militant is the one body waging war with principalities and powers; and the church triumphant is the one body of believers, who having passed through death are now in Paradise with Christ, awaiting that more perfect state which the church shall enter at the end of the age. The simple, spiritual relation existing between the church militant and triumphant, which proved a source of courage and inspiration to the early martyrs, was soon corrupted. From the time of Origin, there was a tendency to interpose an intermediate state between the two, known as purgatory, which was neither wholly militant nor yet triumphant. With the widening of this gap, there developed a false position as to the offices of prayer - intercession for the dead on the part of those still living; intercession on the part of the saints in heaven for both those on earth, and those believed to be still in purgatory. This teaching is not only unscriptural, but anti-scriptural.

 

[The marks of a true church according to the Methodist Article (XIII) as given above is a revision of the Anglican Creed (Article XIX). Mr. Wesley adopted the first part of the article but rejected the second paragraph. The Anglican article is supposed to be derived from Article VII of the Augsburg Confession. Both of these articles are given below.

ARTICLE XIX of the Anglican Creed. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly ministered according to Christ's ordinances, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

Article VII of the Augsburg Confession. "They likewise teach there will always be one holy Church. The Church is the congregation of the saints, in which the gospel is correctly taught and the sacraments are properly administered. And for the true unity of the Church nothing more is required than agreement concerning the doctrines of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Nor is it necessary that the same human traditions - that is, rites and ceremonies instituted by men - should be everywhere observed. As Paul says, 'One faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all and in you all.']

 

4. Apostolic and Confessional. The church is apostolic in the sense that it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Eph. 2:20). It is confessional in that it requires for membership, a confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom. 10:10). The errors which gradually arose m the church concerning these notes are marked, (1) by the theory which merged the apostolic authority of the Twelve into that of St. Peter; and (2) by the development of the so called apostolic succession which resulted in the papacy. There are other churches, however, apart from Rome, which hold to an apostolic succession and profess to trace their orders through episcopal hands to the apostles. At the opposite extreme is the error, which holds that the church has had the apostolate restored to it, with the miraculous gifts and endowments which pertained to the original apostles. Both St. John and St. Paul seem to indicate, however, that the apostolate would be withdrawn from the church. Protestantism in general, has substituted belief in the Scriptures for living apostolic authority. "Hence we may lay down our dogma" says Dr. Pope, that "the Church is apostolic, as being still ruled by the apostolical authority living in the writings of the apostles, that authority being the standard of appeal in all the confessions that hold the head" (POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., III, p. 285).

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

The organization of the church, in the strictest sense, belongs to the study of church polity. Here we can give only a brief survey of the several factors which enter into and constitute the church, a visible organization. We shall discuss (1) The Preliminary Forms of Organization; (2) Organization of the Christian Church; (3) Types of Organization; (4) The Churches as Local and Voluntary Organizations; (5) Conditions of Membership, and (6) The Function of the church.

Preliminary Forms of Church Organization. The visible forms which the invisible Church has assumed from age to age, have been the consequence largely, of the historical struggles, and the various circumstances under which it has been forced to maintain itself. We may note the following: (1) The Patriarchal Form; and (2) The Theocratic Form.

1. The Patriarchal form of the church dates from the beginning of time. Before the fall, it was unsullied and perfect. What the form of organization would have been, had this state continued, we need not inquire. But after the fall, imperfection characterized the church, and will continue to do so, until the consummation of all things, when it shall again be presented faultless before the throne with exceeding joy. In its earliest form, the creed was simple - the protevangelium or redemptive promise being the sole condition of membership. The only official was a priest. Apparently the priesthood was not limited to the head of the family, for both Cain and Abel offered sacrifices. The church was individualistic in the extreme. With the call of Abraham, the individualistic form of organization gave way to that of the family, and the patriarchal form of government in its truest sense began. Abraham was the priest of his own family, and was succeeded in turn by Isaac and Jacob.

2. The Theocratic form of government began with Moses, who reorganized the church at Sinai, giving it an elaborate constitution, both civil and ecclesiastical. It was not designed, however, to be a state fulfilling churchly offices, but a church assuming the functions of the state. The religious idea permeated the whole social structure. Theoretically, this must ever be the true ideal for the church - not indeed the identification of church and state, but such a coalescence of the two as shall bring both to their highest efficiency. Such an ideal, however, can never be realized, until He who is Prophet and Priest shall also become King. Then He shall be not only the Lord of the church but the Ruler of the nations - He shall be King of kings, and Lord of lords (Rev. 11:15).

Organization of the Christian Church. Nothing is more clearly taught than the fact of an

external organization of the church. This is shown from (1) the stated times of meeting (Acts 20:7), and the exhortation to not forsake the assembling of themselves together (Heb. 10:25); (2) a regularly constituted ministry known as bishops (ejpivskopoi), elders or presbyters (presbuvteroi) and deacons (diavkonoi) (Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:17, 28), with standards of eligibility (I Tim. 3:1-13); (3) formal elections (Acts 1:23-26; 6:5, 6); (4) a financial system for the local support 6f the ministry (I Tim. 5:17), and for the more general interests of charity (I Cor. 16:i, 2); (5) disciplinary authority on the part of ministers and churches (I Tim. 5:17; I Peter 5:2; Matt. 18:17, I Cor. 5:4, 5, 13); (6) common customs (I Cor. ii 16) and ordinances (Acts 2:41, 42; I Cor. ii 23-26); (7) qualifications for membership (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:47); (8) register of widows (I Tim. 5:9); (9) official letters of commendation (Acts 18:27; II Cor. 3:1); and (10) the common work of all the churches (Phil. 2:30).

There are three general views concerning church organization. The first holds that the church is exclusively a spiritual body and, therefore, needs no external organization. This position is illogical and is held by only a few of the minor sects. It should be observed that a simple form of government does not necessarily imply a written creed; it may exist in oral form. Such an organization may exist also without written records, lists of members, or formal choice of officers. After all, these things must be regarded as aids and not essentials. The second theory is at the other extreme, and maintains that the Scriptures give us a formal plan of organization for the church. But even with those who hold this position, there is much controversy as to the form of government prescribed. It is held by both those who advocate the episcopal form of government on the one hand, and pure congregationalism on the other. There is a third and mediating theory, which holds that the New Testament lays down general principles of organization, but prescribes no specific form of church government. This is the position generally taken by the Protestant churches. Mr. Watson adopting the language of Bishop Tomline, says, "As it hath not pleased our Almighty Father to prescribe any particular form of government for the security of temporal comforts to his rational creatures, so neither has he prescribed any particular form of ecclesiastical polity as absolutely necessary to the attainment of eternal happiness. Thus the Gospel only lays down general principles, and leaves the application of them to free agents." Dr. Bangs takes the same position. "No specific form of church government," he says, is prescribed in the Scriptures and it is, therefore, left to the discretion of the church to regulate these matters as the exigencies, of time, place and circumstance shall dictate to be most expedient, always avoiding anything that God has prohibited." Dr. Miley holds that "the question of chief importance, is the adaptation of the polity to the attainment of the spiritual end for which the church is constituted. This should always be the determining principle. The principle means that the constitution of a polity is left to the discretion of the church; but it also means that the construction must be made in the light of her mission, and with a view to its very best accomplishment. The discretionary power of the church appears in the light of three facts: (1) the church must have a polity; (2) there is no divinely ordered polity; and (3) consequently it is left to the church and to each church rightfully existing as such, to determine her own polity" (MILEY, Syst. Th., II, pp. 416, 417).

[Mr. Wesley who was always a firm believer in the episcopal form of government, makes this admission. "As to my own judgment, I still believe the episcopal form of church government to be scriptural. and apostolic. I mean well agreeing with the practice and writings of the apostles. But that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe."

Dr. Thornwall states the distinguishing features of Presbytorianism as follows: (1) That the church is governed by representative assemblies. (2) Those assemblies constitute two houses, or two elements, the preaching and ruling elder. (3) The parity of eldership, all elders, preaching and ruling, appearing in our church courts with the same credentials, and having the same rights. (4) The unity of the church, as realized in the representative principle. (5) The ministerial and declarative power of the representative Presbyteries, Synods and Assemblies, as against mandatory power. - Thornswall, Writings, IV, p. 234.

"Thus a further confirmation is furnished of the view that has been taken: namely, that it was the plan of the sacred writers to lay down clearly the principles on which Christian Churches were to be formed and governed, leaving the mode of application of those principles undetermined and discretionary." - Whately, The Kingdom of Christ, p. 98.]

 

Types of Church Organization. In general, we may say that there are five leading types of organization, or forms of church government, held by professed Christians. These are concerned primarily, with the rightful authority of the visible church. (1) The Roman Catholic Church holds that the supreme and final authority is with the pope and is, therefore, a papacy. (2) At the other extreme, the Congregational Churches hold that the authority is vested in the separate congregations, and hence are known as independents. Between these extremes are the mediating positions. (3) The Episcopalians hold that the authority is vested in a superior order of the ministry; (4) The Presbyterians hold that it rests with the ministry and laity jointly; and (5) the Methodists hold that it is vested mainly in the elders of the church. These types may be reduced to three - the Episcopal, in which the authority is vested in the ministry ; the Congregational in which it is vested in the congregation ; and the Presbyterian, in which it is vested in both ministry and laity. "It is our opinion," says Bishop Weaver, "that the form of government in the New Testament was not exclusively Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Congregational, but a combination of certain elements of all...From a careful review of the whole question, we conclude that it is nearest in harmony with the practice and writings of the apostles to say that the authority in the visible church is vested in the ministry and laity taken together." Emphasis upon the extremes mentioned above, has given rise to sharply divergent views of the nature of Christianity itself. (1) According to the one, the Church is constituted by a divinely commissioned clerical order, who through apostolical succession, is alone authorized to transmit the blessings of the Christian religion through the sacraments. According to this view, the church depends wholly upon the ministry, and where there is no apostolic ministry, there is no church. (2) According to the other view, the church is constituted by the acceptance, on the part of individuals, of Christ as Saviour and Lord. These individuals through voluntary association, form the churches, which in turn appoint their own ''ministers'' or ''servants,'' for the more effective discharge of its functions. In this view, the ministry depends upon the church. Both views are equally unscriptural.

The Churches as Local and Voluntary Organizations. We have seen that there are two widely different views of church organization - views so extreme as to affect even the concept of Christianity itself. These are (1) the papacy which regards the church as the one and entire visible organization throughout the world, and as such, ruled by one visible head the pope. According to this theory, the local bodies are not churches in truest sense of the word, but only parts of the one church. (2) At the other extreme is congregationalism, or independency, which holds strictly to the autonomy of the local church, and denies the title to any superimposed organizations. According to this view, the local body only is the church; and the universal church is merely a general term to express the totality of the churches, each perfect in itself and entirely independent.

[ The question of philosophical theory enters largely into the matter of organization, whether of church or state. Philosophy deals with such questions as the absolute and the individual, the general and the particular, unity and plurality. As applied to the State, we have absolute monarchy and pure democracy, and between these extremes, all shades and degrees of political organization. As applied to the church, we have the extremes of episcopacy and congregationalism, or more properly, the papacy and independency. Church organization always tends toward one of these extremes, but the church that insists upon the one to the exclusion of the other has at most only a half truth. Provision must be made for the freedom of the individual, but this can be done only by providing for a proper relation to others.

It is generally conceded to be impractical to aim at oneness in the visible church save in the fundamentals of faith, worship and discipline. It must be obvious to every dispassionate mind that there never has been since the times of the apostles any other unity than that which God alone can discern The Congregational theory which admits only of voluntary aggregation of churches, and neither has nor desires any guaranty for more than that, goes to an extreme but in a right direction - POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., III, p.273.

Dr. A. A. Hodge has this interesting statement concerning the importance of variety in the church. "I do believe that God's purpose, on the contrary, has been to differentiate His church without end. You know that the very highest form of beauty of which you can conceive, the very highest form of order, is multiplicity in unity and unity in multiplicity..Now what has God been doing? He has broken humanity up into infinite varieties.. . . through all time . . . . simply to build up variety, which constitutes beauty in unity, to build up the rich, inexhaustible variety, which constitutes the beauty in unity of this great, infinite church of the first-born..We do desire comprehensively to work together toward unity, but mongrelism is not the way to get it. It is not by the uniting of types, but by the unity of the Spirit; it is not by the working from without, but from within outward." - A. A. HODGE, Popular Lectures, pp. 212ff.

Mr. Wesley says, "Originally every Christian congregation was a church independent of all others." Dr. Adam Clarke takes the same position. "In the proper use of this word," he says, "there can be no such thing as the church exclusively; there may be a church, or the churches." So also Mr. Watson says, "Through the greater part of the second century the Christian churches were independent of each other."

"We are agreed on the necessity of a superintendency, which shall foster and care for churches already established, and whose duty it shall be to organize and encourage the organizing of churches everywhere." "We are agreed that authority given to superintendents shall not interfere with the independent action of a fully organized church, each church enjoying the right of selecting its own pastor, subject to such approval as the General Assembly shall find wise to institute; the election of delegates to the various assemblies; the management of their own finances; and of all other things pertaining to their local life and work." - Basis of Union, Manual, p. 18.]

The apostolic churches were voluntary associations. Those who joined themselves to them, did so freely and of their own accord. In this is to be found the outward expression of that inner life and freedom which characterizes the Church of Christ. The apostles made no provision for any visible head of the one supposedly visible church. There appears to have been no primate even in the apostolic college, although St. James presided over the Jerusalem council. On the contrary, the apostles provided for the government of the churches which they founded, in a totally different manner, that is, by raising up within the churches themselves, those whom they ordained as ministers. The only unity of which the apostles speak is the unity of the whole church in Christ its invisible Head. This unity is that of faith and fervent charity through the indwelling Spirit. Furthermore, the best ecclesiastical historians .are agreed that during the greater part of the second century, the churches were independent bodies, and only toward the close of this century were the larger associations formed. But this independency of the early Christian churches must not be regarded as identical with that of the churches which in modern times are called independent. It is evident from the Scriptures that the churches were founded by the apostles and evangelists, who during their lifetime, exercised control over them. This proves that the first churches were not marked by a complete independency. The Epistles to Timothy and Titus make it clear, also, that St. Paul committed to others, the authority to ordain elders in the churches, and to exercise a general supervision over their affairs. From this it appears that the type of organization established by the apostles, was a form of connectionalism, in which the local churches retained largely, the control of their own affairs, but were subject nevertheless in a general manner to a common government. This alone, seems to conform to the scripture teachings and historical facts concerning the organization of the early churches.

[ It may be allowed that some of the smaller and more insulated churches might, after the death of the apostles and evangelists, have retained this form for some considerable time; but the large churches in the chief cities, and those planted in populous neighborhoods, had many presbyters, and as the members multiplied they had several separate assemblies or congregations, yet all under the same common government. And when churches were raised up in the neighborhood of cities, the appointment of "chorepiscopi" or country bishops, and of visiting presbyters, both acting under the' presbytery of the city, with its bishop at its head, is sufficiently in proof that the ancient churches, especially the larger and more prosperous of them, existed in that form which in modem times we should call a religious connection, subject to a common government - WAKEFIELD, Christian Theology, p. 544.

  Mosheim, a Lutheran, in a statement concerning the churches in first century, says, "All the churches, . 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 frequently had the honor shown them to be consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no such judicial authority, no control, no power of giving laws. On the contrary, it is clear as the noonday, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were, in all respects, on a footing of equality."]

 

Conditions of Membership. "The churches severally are to be composed of such regenerate persons as by providential permission, and by the leadings of the Holy Spirit, become associated together for holy fellowship and ministries" (Creed, Part II, Art. 11). While regarding the church as a voluntary and visible organization, we nevertheless insist upon the divine and invisible element also and, therefore, make regeneration the basic condition of membership. Since the church is the fellowship and communion of believers, a confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, becomes the one essential requirement for admission to the visible organization. This confession Protestantism has interpreted to mean a "conscious Christian experience and life." The various denominations have generally some form of a covenant, including agreed statements of belief and practice, to which the applicant must be willing to conform. It is the duty of every Christian, not only openly to profess his faith in Christ, but to enter into fellowship with the body of believers in his community, and to take upon himself the responsibilities of church membership.

[ Morris in his Ecclesiology, p. 93, reduces saving belief to its several elements, and thus discovers four essential qualifications for membership. These qualifications are (1) a spiritual knowledge of God, especially as revealed in the gospel, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (2) Repentance for sin as committed against God, and trust in the divine mercy, especially as that mercy is manifested in and through Christ as a Redeemer. (3) Obedience to God and cordial devotion to His interests and kingdom, culminating under the Christian dispensation in personal conformity with Christ and loyal consecration to His service. (4) A public declaration of such faith and devotion and a holy covenant with God to he His servant, followed and confirmed by voluntary communion with His people, and under the gospel, with some branch of the Christian church.

Church members are those who compose or belong to the visible church. As to the real church, the true members of it are such as come out from the world (I Cor. 6:17); are born again (I Peter 1:23) or made new creatures (II Cor. 5:17); whose faith works by love to God and all mankind (Gal. 5:6; James 2:14, 26); who walk in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless. None but such are members of the true Church; nor should any he admitted into any particular church without some evidence of their earnestly seeking this state of salvation.

- Watson, Dictionary, Art. Church.]

 

It is evident that the same difficulties which we discovered in our discussion of the visible and invisible church, attach also to the conditions of membership. Several leading errors may be mentioned. (1) Where the church is regarded solely as a visible organization, membership will be conditioned merely by subscription to outward forms of admission. In some Protestant churches, the partaking of the sacraments alone, is regarded as sufficient for church membership. (2) Where a confession of faith is required, another error has at times been dominant in the church. It is held that since men do not know the hearts of those who profess faith in Christ, no one has a right to make inquiry or question the profession of another. This is a mistaken principle, and where it has obtained, the church has been spiritually impoverished by a membership knowing nothing of a conscious Christian experience and life. For this reason, spiritual churches have guarded their membership by requiring that all candidates for admission be required to show evidence of salvation from their sins by a godly walk and vital piety. (Cf. General Rules V) . (3) at the other extreme is to be found the error of those who look for and expect to find, the purity of the invisible church, in the visible organization. This was the error of the early Donatists, who endeavored by rigid discipline to secure an absolutely pure ecclesiastical organization, refusing fellowship with all whose practice was more tolerant. Thus to maintain the outward semblance of purity, the inward sanctity of spiritual freedom was broken down, and in its stead, there developed a narrow, uncharitable and sectarian spirit. (4) Closely related to this is the error of attempting to carry on the operations of the invisible church in the world, without a visible organization. Finding it impossible to maintain an outwardly pure church, some have resorted to the expedient of denying the necessity of external organization. This error has been previously mentioned, and can exist only because of a mistaken view of the nature of organization itself.

 

[About 313 another schism broke out in Africa, owing to a dispute about the character of a bishop, and the validity of an ordination performed by him. The dissidents, called Donatists, from their leader, Donatus, inherited many of the opinions of the Montanists, the local remnant of which set they seemed to have absorbed. They strongly insisted on the absolute purity of the Church, accounting it sinful to exercise any forbearance toward unworthy members. They did not, however, like the Montanists and Novatians, refuse readmission to penitents. Their specialty was a belief that ministerial acts were invalid if performed by a person who either was, or deserved to be, excommunicated; and as a consequence, they claimed that valid sacraments were the exclusive possession of their own pure Church. The schism lasted through several generations, and before its extinction, ran into the wildest fanaticism. - Crippen, Hist. Chr. Doct., pp. 181, 182.]

 

The Function of the Church. The function of the church, considered as the body of Christ, is that of a missionary institute, or more properly an "Institute of Evangelism." As Christ assumed a body and came into this world, to reveal God and redeem men, so the Church as His body exists in the world for the spread of the gospel. It is the sphere of the Spirit's operation, and finds its highest expression in the great commission, given to the church by our Lord himself. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen (Matt. 28:19, 20). A word must be said also, as to the relation of the church to the kingdom. The kingdom is not to be narrowed down to the church, nor is the church to be broadened out to include the kingdom. "To do the first," says Dr. Taylor, "is to set up a monstrous ecclesiasticism; to do the second is to destroy the organism through which the kingdom manifests itself and does its work in the world." As the new dispensation began with the preaching of the kingdom, so it is the final form in which all the churches shall be absorbed at the end of the age. Only at the coming of the Lord, will the kingdom which had its preparatory stage in Israel, and its New Testament fulfillment in both Israel and the Gentiles, find its glorious consummation. Then shall the prophecy be fulfilled, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever (Rev. 11:15).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY

The Christian ministry may be said to discharge a twofold function, according as the church is viewed under the aspect of the Body of Christ, or as a Temple of the Spirit. In the first, as an institute of evangelism, the ministerial function is that of preaching the gospel and administering the affairs of the church; in the second, as an institute of worship, it has reference to the conduct of public worship and the administration of the sacraments. Before considering this subject more in detail, it is necessary to give some attention to the different conceptions of the office as held by Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The former holds to a priestly or sacerdotal ministry ; the latter to a prophetic or preaching ministry. The principle adopted by the Reformers, is that of "the universal priesthood of believers."

The Universal Priesthood of Believers. In the early church, the ministers were known indifferently as bishops, presbyters or elders. The Old Testament conception of a priesthood, exercised at first, but little influence upon the churchly idea of the office. The sacrifices were abolished, and there could be no priest without a sacrifice. Consequently the whole congregation regarded itself as a body of priests to offer up spiritual sacrifices through Jesus Christ, its one great High Priest. Gradually, however, there grew up an unscriptural distinction between the clergy and the laity, the former being known as sacerdotes, to whom pertained a priestly function. With this distinction established, it was impossible to prevent the Old Testament conception of the priesthood from having its influence upon the Christian ministry. Since in the temple service, the priests offered up sacrifices for the people, and thereby became mediators between them and God; so in the church, the sacrifice soon came to be offered for the people instead of by the people. As long as the faithful themselves offered up the spiritual sacrifices through the one high priest, there was no need for a sacerdotal order. Consequently the idea of a universal priesthood was dominant in the church. With the gradual change in the idea of the ministry and its functions, there came a changed conception of the eucharist, from a simple memorial feast to the sacrifice of the mass. This in turn strengthened the belief in the priestly character of the ministry; and thus, as Peter Lombard indicates in his Sentences, the priestly character of the higher clergy, and the sacrificial character of the mass, were transmitted to the medieval church and accepted as axiomatic. With the coming of the Reformation, h6wever, the idea of the universal priesthood of believers was again brought to the front, and has been the dominant characteristic of Protestantism since that time. As such, it teaches the essential equality of all true believers, and their direct relation to Christ through the Spirit, and thus preserves the true dignity of the individual Christian and the sanctity of corporate worship. It has at times unwisely been used against belief in a distinct ministerial order and, therefore, needs to be properly guarded.

The Divinely Constituted Ministry. Since the church is a divinely appointed institution, that is, it is the will of God that men organize themselves into societies for mutual edification and divine worship, so it is the will of God that individual persons be appointed to perform the duties and administer the sacraments of the church. In order to the more effective administration of the office, those who devote themselves exclusively to religious work are required to separate themselves from the ordinary vocations of secular life. This duty the Scriptures teach both directly and indirectly. In the Mosaic dispensation, Aaron and Levi were separated to do the work of the priesthood by divine commandment. The prophets were called of God, and spoke by divine commission (Ezek. 3:17). The divine order of the ministry is set forth even more clearly in the New Testament. The apostles were directly called and ordained by our Lord himself. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles (Luke 6:13); And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach (Mark 3:14). The Seventy were likewise appointed and sent forth. (Luke 10:1). St. Paul was specifically called to the ministry - a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15; cf. 27:16-18). It is recorded in the Acts also, that the apostles ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23).

In this connection, it is well to point out that the ministry is a vocation or calling and not merely a profession. As it is the will of God that churches be formed) so it is His will also that particular persons be called to serve as ministers of these churches. As to what constitutes a divine call, nothing is better than the test of "gifts, grace and usefulness" which served the early fathers so well in their choice of candidates for the ministry.

The Distinctive Offices of the Church. St. Paul enumerates the following classes in the New Testament ministry, as given to the church by our ascended Lord. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). From a further study of his epistles we learn also, of bishops, elders or presbyters, and deacons. Some of these terms, however, pertain to the same person, that is, the person may be designated sometimes by one, and sometimes by another of these official terms. The five offices mentioned by St. Paul, may be arranged in two main divisions, (1) The Extraordinary and Transitional Ministry, and (2) The Regular and Permanent Ministry.

 

1. The Extraordinary and Transitional Ministry includes the apostles, the prophets and the evangelists. The church was founded by a specially chosen and qualified body of men. Their ministry was transitional, continuing as it did, the extraordinary ministrations of the Holy Spirit under the old economy, and bringing them to their full consummation in the service of the new order. (1) The apostles were those who had been commissioned by our Lord in person, and were chosen to bear witness of His miracles and His resurrection. Their mission was to lay the broad foundations of the church in doctrine and practice, and to this end they were endowed with the gift of inspiration, and given the credentials or miracle working power. 

[The apostles were ambassadors to the world; their credentials were a direct mission from the Lord in person, confirmed by miraculous powers. Their office was to preach the gospel to all men, in the name of the risen Lord, whose resurrection they proclaimed; and everywhere to lay the foundation of churches, or to sanction the foundation laid by others, to be the models for all the future. As the Spirit was the invisible representative of the Lord, so the apostles were the visible. Their absolute authority is indicated in two ways: first, as teachers of Christianity, by word and writing, they had the gift of inspiration; and, second, as founders of the Church, they had the power of the keys, of binding and loosing, that is, of uttering the unchangeable decrees of ecclesiastical government. Their sway everywhere is seen to be uncontrolled, and from their word there is no appeal. They had, and could have, no successors: they form a body of men chosen to lay the foundation of the universal Church built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20), and to commit to it the final documents of Scripture. A succession of such men would not have been in harmony with the will of Christ, which we may interpret as purposing to leave a fellowship with a settled organization, and a finished doctrine, and a natural development under the supreme guidance of the Holy Ghost. But being dead they yet speak in their writings, which are the only representatives of the apostolical company in the visible community. It is from St. Paul, the one apostle of the Gentiles that we gather our fullest information concerning the apostolical prerogative. - POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., III, pp. 338, 339.

(2) The prophets included those who in some instances foretold the future (Acts 11:28; 21:10, 11), but the term generally refers to that body of extraordinary teachers who were raised up for the purpose of establishing the churches in the truth, until such time as they should be under qualified and permanent instructors. Like the apostles, they spoke under the immediate inspiration of the Spirit; and while uttering truth immediately revealed to them for the instruction of the church, their revelations in only a few instances are preserved. It was to this class that the pentecostal promise pertained, And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy (Acts 2:18). This promise was abundantly fulfilled, and consequently we find references to numerous prophets in the Acts and Epistles. From the Epistle to the Corinthians, it is evident that the gift was exercised by both men and women, that it was occasional, and that it was frequently exercised in the congregation. (Cf. Acts 21:9; I Cor. 14:24, 25, 2933, 37). St. Paul defines the office of the prophets as speaking unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort (I Cor. 14:3); and assigns a high prerogative to the order by asserting that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20 cf. 3:5). It is in the sense of a foundational ministry only, that the order was transitory, as a proclamation of the truth, it abides in the church in the form of the regular ministry. (3) The evangelists were the assistants of the apostles, and performed the apostolic offices of preaching and founding churches. Their power was delegated to them by the apostles, to whom they were amenable, and under whose supervision their duties were performed. Timothy and Titus are representatives of this class. They were given the power to ordain bishops or elders in the churches, but since they had no authority to ordain their successors, the office must be regarded as temporary. It passed away with the apostolate upon which it depended. The evangelists had the gift of prophecy, as is shown by St. Paul's statement of Timothy's ordination, in which he speaks of the prophecies which went before on thee (I Tim. i 18); and exhorts him to Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy (I Tim. 4:14). The office was not only linked, therefore, to that of the prophets above it, but formed the transition to that of the regular ministry below it; and this in a twofold sense, as embracing both the administrative and instructional functions, which became permanent in the order of pastors and teachers. Eusebius seems to have been the first to apply the term evangelist to the writers of the Gospels. As used generally in later church history, evangelists represent that irregular ministry which is gifted in proclaiming the gospel to the unchurched, whether in new fields, or in reaching the unsaved through the means of established churches.

[ With the passing away of the apostles, the passing of the evangelist as an assistant of the apostle, also passed away; but as an irregular and proclaiming ministry of the church it continued, and must continue, if the church is to extend her borders. Eusebius, the learned bishop of Caesarea, gives us an account of the evangelists who lived and labored during the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). "Leaving their own country,,, he says, "they performed the office of evangelists to those who had not heard the faith; whilst with a noble ambition to proclaim Christ, they also delivered to them the books of the Holy Gospels. After laying the foundations of the faith in foreign parts as the particular object of their mission, and after appointing others as shepherds of the flocks, and committing to these the care of those who had been recently introduced, they went again to other regions and nations, with the grace and cooperation of God. The Holy Spirit also wrought many wonders as yet through them; so that as soon as the gospel was heard, men voluntarily in crowds, and eagerly embraced the true faith with their whole minds" (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., III, p. 36).]

 

2. The regular and permanent ministry was appointed to care for the church after the apostolic supervision should be withdrawn. Two classes of office are mentioned - the pastorate, pertaining especially to the spiritual oversight of the church; and the diaconate, to the management of its temporal affairs. Those who served in the first office, were known as elders or presbyters (presbuvteroi), and bishops (ejpivskopoi) ; those in the second, as deacons (diavkonoi).

[There is therefore no office of eldership as such, but there is of course an ejpiskophv..It is remarkable, however, that no episcopate is alluded to, in the' sense of a collective body of bishops; but once we read of a Christian Presbytery, as having ordained Timothy, after the pattern of the Jewish The elders of Judaism were seniors in age, chosen as assessors in the Sanhedrin with high priests and scribes. The elders of Christianity formed a body, generally but not always seniors in age, who presided over the Christian community as the only directing and governing authority. The term presbytery, therefore, runs up to the most reverend antiquity, and is invested with a dignity quite unique. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., III, p. 343.]

The office of the pastorate has a twofold function - administrative and instructional; hence those chosen to fill this position were known as "pastors and teachers." Since the term pastor implies the duties of both instruction and government; and since elders or bishops were ordained in the various churches by the apostles or evangelists, it is evident that these are the pastors to which St. Paul refers in his Epistle to the Ephesians. The term elder was taken from Judaism, and had reference to age or dignity; that of bishop came from the Greeks, and had reference to office. We are to understand by the use of the term elder, not so much an office, as an order in the ministry. Hence we read of the ordination of Timothy, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (I Tim. 4:14). In apostolic times, it appears that the larger churches had several presbyters or elders, as in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:4); the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17); and the prophets and teachers mentioned by name in Acts 13:1. When these elders met together for consultation or devotion, they would of necessity elect someone as moderator or presiding officer. Such an officer, we know from church history, was common during the second century, and was known as the proestwd or president of the church. It is not unlikely that it was to this that our Saviour referred when He addressed His epistles to the "angels" of the churches. This supposition is made more probable by the fact that in Judaism, the elder who officiated in the public prayers, was known as "the angel of the congregation." Whether the terms bishop and presbyter referred to the same office, or whether they express two distinct and sacred orders in the ministry has been the subject of much controversy in the church. It cannot be doubted that the distinction between the terms arose at an early period, but "This," says Mr. Watson, "gives not the least sanction to the notion that bishops are a superior order of ministers to presbyters, invested in virtue of that order, and by divine right, with powers to govern both presbyters and people, and with exclusive authority to ordain to the sacred offices of the church" (Wakefield, Chr. Th., p. 542).

[ Mr. Watson states that "the argument which is drawn from the promiscuous use of these terms in the New Testament, to prove that the same order of ministers is expressed by them, appears incontrovertible. When St. Paul, for instance, sends for the 'elders' or presbyters, of the church of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus, he thus charges them, 'Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost bath made you overseers,' or bishops. That here the elders or presbyters are called 'bishops' cannot be denied, and the very office assigned to them, to 'feed the church of God,' and the injunction, to 'take heed to the flock,' show that the office of elder or presbyter is the same as that of 'pastor' in the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Ephesians. St. Paul directs Titus to 'ordain elders (presbyters) in every city,' and then adds, as a directory of ordination, 'a bishop must be blameless' plainly marking the same office by these two convertible appellations. 'Bishops and deacons' are the only classes of - ministers addressed in the Epistle to the Philippians; and if the presbyters were not understood to be included under the term 'bishops,' the omission of any notice of this order of ministers is not to be accounted for." Watson, Institutes, II, pp. 575, 576.]

 

[ The manner in which the distinction between bishop and presbyter came into the church is pretty fully explained by Jerome, in his commentary on Titus 1:6: "A presbyter is the same as a bishop; and before there were, by the instigation of the devil, parties in religion, the churches were governed by joint councils of presbyters. But afterward it was decreed throughout the whole world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of the church should be committed to him." Jerome proceeds to support his opinion, as to the original equality of presbyters and bishops, by commenting on Phil. 1:1, and on the interview of Paul with the Ephesian elders, and then adds, "Our design in these remarks is to show that among the ancients presbyter and bishop were the very same. But by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be plucked up, the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. As the presbyters, therefore, know that they are subjected, by the custom of the church, to him who is set over them, so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by any real appointment of Christ." In his Epistles to Evangelus and Occanus, Jerome assumes and maintains the same positions as in the foregoing passage. - POND, Christian Theology, p. 657.]

The office of the diaconate was concerned with the administration of the temporal affairs of the church. The appointment of the first deacons in the Christian church is distinctly recorded (Acts 6:1-16). The term deacon is derived from the Greek word diakonos which donates a "servant who attends his master, waits on him at table, and is always near his person to obey his orders." It was considered a more creditable form of service, than that implied in the term dou'lo" or slave. Our Lord used both terms in Matt. 20:26, 27, although these are somewhat veiled in the English translation. The qualifications of deacons and their wives are given by st. Paul in I Tim. 3:8-13. Christian women were invested with this office also, of whom Phoebe of Cenchrea, was one of the number (Rom. 16:1). The word wives (I Tim. 3:11) is sometimes translated deaconesses. It is probable, also, that St. Paul was speaking of the deaconesses when he describes the ministering widows (I Tim. 5:5-10). According to Calmet, "they served the church in those offices which the deacons could not themselves exercise, visiting those of their own sex in sickness, or when imprisoned for the faith. They were persons of advanced age, when chosen; and appointed to the office by imposition of hands." The word diakonia is a comprehensive term for ministry, and is once applied by our Lord to Himself (Matt. 20:28). In modern times, the word minister" which is equivalent to "deacon" has come into common use as a substitute for the word elder or presbyter. For this reason, the deacon, in some churches is merely a presbyter on trial - a first step toward ordination as an elder. 

[ In the time of the apostles, who were endowed with special gifts, the concurrence of the people in the appointment of men to the sacred office was not, perhaps, always formally taken; but the directions to Timothy and Titus imply a reference to the judgment of the members of the church, because from them only it could be learned whether the party fixed upon for ordination possessed those qualifications without which ordination was prohibited. when churches assumed a more regular form, it was usual for the people to be present at ordinations and to ratify the action by their approbation. Sometimes also they nominated persons by suffrages, and thus proposed them for ordination. The mode in which the people shall be made a concurrent party is a matter of prudential regulation; but they had an early, and certainly a reasonable right to a voice in the appointment of their ministers, though the power of ordination was vested in ministers alone, to be exercised on their responsibility to Christ - Wakefield, Chr. Th., p. 546.]

Ordination of Ministers. The Scriptures clearly teach that the early church ordained elders or presbyters, by a formal setting apart to the office and work of the ministry. While it may be true that no particular form is prescribed, it seems evident from numerous references that the elders were set apart by the imposition of hands. Furthermore, it is evident from the Scriptures that the power of ordination rested in the eldership itself; and that all candidates were to be adjudged as worthy or unworthy of the office only by those who had been themselves ordained. Ordination, therefore, is to be regarded as in some sense, a divinely authorized and prescribed form of investiture or inauguration to a particular order. But ordination does not make the elder an officer in a particular church. This can be done only as he is elected by the church, and freely accepts this election. Thus, the eldership is an order of the ministry, from which only pastors can be elected, but until so elected they are not pastors of particular churches. This does not prevent a licensed minister from serving in the capacity of a pastor, but until ordained as an elder, he is not invested with all the rights and privileges of the ministry, and therefore cannot in the fullest sense meet the requirements of the office. What is true of the pastorate, is true also of other and various offices of the church. We may safely maintain, therefore, that there is one order in the ministry, but many and various offices. The qualifications for bishops or elders, and deacons are fully stated by St. Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus (I Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).

Administrative and Disciplinary Functions. The church through its ministers exercises three forms of administrative power. (1) There is what the older theologians called the potestas ordinans, or diatactith: by which is meant the power of the church in relation to the laws of order and government. The fact that the church is an institution made up of human beings, implies that it must have laws, and that these must be properly administered. These laws must be scriptural, that is, they must be drawn immediately from the Scriptures, or indirectly by inference; "so that whatsoever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." They must be spiritual. The church has no voice in civil and secular matters, and, therefore, has no right to dictate to its members only in so far as moral and religious questions are involved. Again, these laws must be purely ministerial. Those through whom the government of the church is administered, are not the lords over God's heritage, but ensamples to the flock. (2) There is the potestas dogmatica, or the didactic functions of the church. Since the church is the depository of the Scriptures, its ministers are required to defend them as a precious heritage. It is further required of them to preach the Word, and to use every possible means for its promulgation. This includes the instruction of the youth, the use of the Scriptures, psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in the public services, and the conserving of sound doctrine in the church. (3) there is the potestas diakritikhv, or disciplinary function of the church. Ministers are not only required to teach, but to exercise proper discipline in the congregation. Neither the church nor its ministers, however, have power to use civil authority in even the severest cases of discipline. They have no right to inflict pain, to imprison individuals, or to confiscate property. Their power is limited to censure, suspension, or excommunication. Failure to observe this, has sometimes led to extravagant lengths in dealing with offenders against the church.

[ The authority of the church in matters of doctrine is thus summarized by Mr. Watson: (1) To declare the sense in which it interprets the language of Scripture on all the leading doctrines of Christianity; . . . . (2) To require from all its members, with whom the right of private judgment is by all Protestant churches left inviolate, to examine such declarations of faith, with modesty and respect to those grave and learned assemblies in which all these points have been weighed with deliberation; receiving them as guides to truth, not implicitly, it is true, but still docility and humility; (3) To silence within its own pale the preaching of all doctrines contrary to its received standards. Nor is there anything in the exercise of this authority contrary to Christian liberty; because the members of any communion, and especially the ministers, know beforehand the terms of fellowship with the churches whose confessions of faith are thus made public; and because also, where conscience is unfettered by public law, they are neither prevented from enjoying their own opinions in peace, nor from propagating them in other assemblies. - Watson, Institutes, II, p. 598.

Generally speaking, nothing is more unreasonable than the view that the state, the most comprehensive of all earthly institutions, and the one which so decidedly plays a chief part in the world's history, should be withdrawn from the influences of Christianity, and thus excluded from that transformation of things temporal which Christianity is designed to effect. The necessity for the Christian character of states is mainly founded on the fact that the state does not exist for the sake of this or that subordinate aim, but for the sake of human nature itself; that its vocation is to furnish and work out those external conditions which are indispensable to human culture and prosperity. It is for this very reason that there can he no constitution or government worthy of the name, which is not pervaded by a thorough understanding of the nature and destination of man, of the history of the race, and the ultimate object of human history. This ultimate object is above the state, nay, reaches beyond the sphere of the state. But the state must, nevertheless, regard itself as subservient thereto, and should in all its institutions keep it in view as a last resort. The object of the state will ever he erroneously viewed, so long as it is not consciously placed in relation with the object and aim of the race, - Martensen, Christian Ethics, II, pp. 98, 99.]