Translated from the German by HENRY JOHN ROSE, B.D.
Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
THE following Extracts from the above work are given, as tending in some measure to throw light on a question which is exercising the minds of many saints at the present day, viz. Church Constitution, Church Order, and Church Authority. As it is by no means intended to review the work, very much that is valuable in its commencement on the state of Judaism and Gentile Philosophy, before and at the time of the Incarnation, is passed over, and also a masterly analysis of the principles which led to the early persecutions.
In the extracts given, it is by no means to be understood that they contain no objectionable statements, on the contrary, many and important exceptions might be taken. The Author’s views of the important distinction between Flesh and Spirit appear far from clear, when he says, “a nature, which retained, indeed, its individual character, but was regenerated and ennobled by the influence of the Holy Spirit.” However common such a notion is, it is most decidedly opposed to the truth that “that which is born of the Flesh is Flesh,” and we know is incapable of being ennobled, it “profiteth nothing.” This makes way for a very loose statement immediately following, respecting the Charismata, as if they were not actually gifts conferred, (however the vessel might be fitted and doubtless was,) but only the improvement of the natural faculties.
It should be added that the Translator says of the Author, “His Work is distinguished in general by his candor and acuteness, his diligence and fidelity, of which I have some right to speak, from having verified almost all his quotations, and I have found him uniformly entitled to this praise.” At the same time he avows that he is very far from concurring in all the views propounded in the Work, and cannot accede to the arguments by which some of them are supported, especially those which relate to the early form of Church government.
Since it is from this part of the Work that the Extracts are taken, so much need to be said in justice to the Translator, who partly in the preface and partly in notes, has stated his objections to Neander’s arguments on this question.
It has been thought best to give the Extracts in full, that the views of the Author may be fairly stated, without expressing at present what appears to be sound in them, and what to need qualification.
All Christians a Priestly Race
“THE formation of the Christian Church, being derived from the peculiarities of Christianity, must essentially differ from that of all other religious unions. A class of priests, who were to guide all other men, under an assumption of their incompetence in religious matters, whose business it was exclusively to provide for the satisfaction of the religious wants of the rest of mankind, and to form a link between them and God, and godly things; such a class of priests could find no place in Christianity. While the Gospel put away that which separated man from God, by bringing all men into the same communion with God through Christ, it also removed that partition-wall which separated one man from his fellows, in regard to his more elevated interests. The same High Priest and Mediator for all, by whom all being reconciled and united with God, become themselves a priestly and spiritual race! One heavenly King, Guide and Teacher, through whom all are taught from God! One faith! One hope! One Spirit, which must animate all! One oracle in the hearts of all!—the voice of the Spirit which proceeds from God! And all citizens of one heavenly kingdom, with whose heavenly powers they have already been sent forth as strangers in the world! When the Apostles introduced the notion of a priest which is found in the Old Testament, into Christianity, it was always only with the intention of showing that no such visible distinct priesthood as existed in the economy of the Old Testament, could find admittance into that of the New; that inasmuch as free access to God and to heaven was once for all opened to the faithful, by the one High Priest Christ, they had become, by union with Himself, a holy and spiritual people, and their calling was only this, viz, to consecrate their whole life as a sacrifice of thanksgiving for the mercy of God’s redemption, and to preach the power and grace of Him, who had called them from the kingdom of darkness into His wonderful light; and their whole life was to be a continued priesthood, a spiritual serving of God, proceeding from the affections of a faith working by love, and also a continued witness of their Redeemer.” (Compare 1 Peter 2:9, Rom. 12:1, and the spirit and connection of ideas throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebrews.)
“And thus also the furtherance of God’s kingdom, both in general and in each individual community, the furtherance of the propagation of Christianity among the heathen, and the improvement of each particular Church, was not to be the concern of a particular chosen class of Christians, but the nearest duty of every individual Christian. Every one was to contribute to this object from the station assigned to Mtn by the invisible Head of the Church, and by the gifts peculiar to him, which were given to him by God, and grounded in his nature—a nature which retained, indeed, its individual character, but was regenerated and ennobled by the influence of the Holy Ghost, There was here no division into spiritual and worldly, but all as Christians, in their inward life and dispositions, were to be men, dead to the ungodliness of the world, and thus far departed out of the world; men animated by the Spirit of God and not by the spirit of the world. The peculiar and prevailing capabilities of Christians, as far as they were sanctified and consecrated by this Spirit, and employed by it as the organs of its active influence, became charismata, or gifts of grace. Hence the Apostle Paul began his address to the Corinthian Church, on the subject of gifts, in this manner, (1 Cor. 12) ‘Once, when ye were heathen, ye suffered yourselves to be led blindly by your priests to dumb idols; ye were dead and dumb as they. Now, while ye serve the living God through Christ, ye have no longer any such leaders, to draw you blindly by leading strings. Ye have yourselves now the Spirit of God for your guide, who enlightens you. Ye no more follow in silence, He speaks out of you; there are many gifts, but there is one Spirit.’ Who shall arrogate that to himself, which the enlightened Apostle ventured not to do, to be lord over the faith of Christians?”
Outward Form Necessary
“Now, although all Christians had the same priestly calling, and the same priestly right, and although there could not be any distinct class of priests in the first Christian Church, yet every Church, as a society for establishing and extending the kingdom of God, an union for the avowal of the same faith in word and work, for the mutual confirmation and animation of this faith, for communion and for the mutual furtherance of that higher life which flowed from this faith—an union for these most lofty aims, must obtain a form and consistence proportioned to them; for without this form, nothing can continue to exist among men. Christian Churches stood still more in need of such an established order, since they must develop themselves, and make their progress in a world so foreign to them, and under the influence of such various sources of threats and disturbance, or at least of affliction. In every society, a certain government and conduct of the common interests must exist. Those forms of government must have corresponded best to the spirit of Christianity and the purposes for which Churches were formed, which were calculated the most to further the free development of Christianity, in its influence on outward conduct which proceeds from within, and also to further the collecting together and mutual efficacy of all individual powers and gifts.”
“The monarchical form of government would have too much tendency to repress and overwhelm the free development of different peculiarities, and to introduce a system by which one definite human form should be stamped on everything, instead of allowing the Spirit free choice to develop itself under a variety of human forms, and these mutually to lay hold of each other. It would too, probably lead to a result by which that which is human would be prized too highly, and one man have too much weight, so that he should become the center around which everything would gather itself, instead of the one invisible Shepherd of all becoming the center of all. How anxiously do the Apostles strive to keep off such a danger! How much does the Apostle Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, insist on the free co-operation of all, that no one power or disposition might overwhelm the rest and reign triumphant The Apostles themselves, conscious as they were of that higher degree of illumination which was necessary for them alone in their capacity of founders of the first Church, and teachers of pure Christianity for all times—conscious as they were of a higher degree of authority and power, delivered to them by the divine Founder of the Church Himself, such as was given to no other men, yet came forward as little as possible in a commanding manner, and endeavored as much as in them lay, to act with the free co-operation of the Churches in all the circumstances which concerned the Church, as we shall have occasion hereafter to notice more particularly. Peter and John, in their Epistles, placed themselves in the same rank with the leaders of the Churches, instead of claiming to be the general leaders of the Churches over them. How difficult must it have been in the Churches to find one individual who united in himself all the qualities requisite for the conduct of the affairs of the Churches, and who alone possessed the confidence of all men.”
“Far easier must it have been to find a number of fathers of families in each Church, whose peculiarities were calculated to supply each others defects in the administration of the various offices, and of whom one might be entrusted with the confidence of one part of the community, and another, with that of others. The monarchical principle in spiritual things, accords ill with the spirit of Christianity, which continually points to the feelings of mutual need, and the necessity and blessing of common deliberation, as well as of common prayer. Where two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord, there also, He promises, will He be among them.”
In addition to this, it was the custom of Christianity to appropriate to it own use existing forms, when it found any which suited its spirit and its essence. Now there was actually a form of government existing in the Jewish synagogues, and in all the sects which had their origin in Judaism; and this was in no respect a monarchical, but an aristocratical form; a council of elderly men— זקנים πρεσβυτεροι which conducted all common affairs. This form must also, wherever Churches were established in the Roman Empire among the heathen, have appeared the most natural; for men were here accustomed from of old to see the affairs of towns carried on by a senate, the assembly of decuriones. That the comparison of ecclesiastical administration with the political really took place here, is shown by this, that the spiritual persons were afterward named an Ordo, the leading senate of the Church; for Ordo was a word peculiarly appropriated to this rank of senators.”
Presbyters or Bishops-Deacons
“In compliance with this form a council of Elders was generally appointed to conduct the affairs of the Churches; but it was not necessary that it should be strictly composed of those who were the most aged, although age was taken very much into the account; but age was rather considered here as a sign of dignity, as in the Latin Senates, or in the Greek γερουσια. Besides the usual appellation of these governors of the Churches, namely, πρεσβυτεροι, there were many others also in use, designating their peculiar sphere of action, as ποιμενες Shepherds כּדנסין ηγουμενοι-προεζωτες των αδελϕων and one of these appellations was also επισκοπος, denoting their office as leaders and overseers over the whole of the Church.”
“That the name also of Episcopus was altogether synonymous with that of Presbyter, is clearly collected from the passages of Scripture, where both appellations are interchanged, (Acts 20 compare ver. 17 with ver. 28. Epistle to Titus, chap. 1 vers. 1-5) as well as from those where the mention of the office of Deacon follows immediately after that of Episcopi; so that a third class of officers could not lie between the two. (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-8.) This interchange of the two appellations is a proof of their entire coincidence; if the name Bishop had originally been the appellation of the President of this Church senate, of a primus inter pares, such an interchange could never have taken place. In the letter also, which Clement, the disciple of Paul, wrote in the name of the Roman Church, after the Bishops, as Presidents of the Churches, the Deacons are immediately named.” (See chap. 42.)
Gift of Διδασκαλια
“These Presbyters or Bishops, had the superintendence over the whole Church, the conduct of all its common affairs, but the Office of Teacher was not exclusively assigned to them; for as we have above observed, all Christians had the right to pour out their hearts before their brethren in the assemblies of the Church, and to speak for their edification. At the same time it does not follow that all the members, of the Church were destined to the ordinary office of teaching; there is a great distinction between a regular capability of teaching, always under the control of him who possessed it, and an outpouring (like prophecy or the gift of tongues) proceeding from a sudden inspiration, and accompanied with a peculiar and elevated, but transient state of mind, and the latter might very probably descend from above on all vital Christians in those first times of extraordinary excitement, when the divine life first entered into the limits of this earthly world.”
“On such transient excitements of a peculiar state of mind in individuals, care for the maintenance, propagation and advancement of clear religious knowledge could not be made safely to depend, any more than the defense of the pure and genuine apostolic doctrine against the manifold false tendencies of Jewish or heathen feelings, which had already thus early begun to threaten the Church. Although all Christians must be taught only by the one Heavenly Guide, yet regard to the weakness of human nature, which is destined to keep the treasures of heaven in earthen vessels, made it requisite that persons should never be wanting in the Church, who were peculiarly qualified constantly to set strongly before their brethren their relation to the common Guide and Redeemer of all, to impress it on their hearts forcibly, to show them how everything ought to be viewed in connection with this one relation, and to warn them against everything which threatened to withdraw them from this fundamental principle of Christian life. Such a capability of expounding, which was always under the control of him who possessed it, pre-supposed a certain cultivation of the intellect, a certain clearness and acuteness of thought, and a certain power of communicating its impressions to others, which, when they were present, and penetrated and animated by the power of the Spirit of God, became the χαρισμα δἱδασκαλιας.
“Those who possessed this charisma, were, on that account, appointed to provide for the constant maintenance of pure doctrines in the Church, and for the confirmation and advancement of Christian knowledge, without excluding the co-operation of others, each in his own station, according to the gift bestowed upon him. in the Apostolic age, therefore, the χαρισμα δἱδασκαλιας, and the rank of Teachers of the Church, δἱδασκαλοι, who where distinguished by that gift, are mentioned as something quite distinct, 1 Cor. 12:28, 14:6; Eph. 4:11. All the members of the Church might feel themselves impelled at particular moments to address the congregation of brethren, or to cry out to God, and praise Him before them; but only a few had that χαρισμα δἱδασκαλιας and were δἱδασκαλοι.”
Gift of Κυβερνησις.
“But it is also clear, from the case itself, that this talent of instruction is quite a different thing from the talent for administering the affairs of the Church, the χαρισμα κυβερνησεως which was particularly required for the office of a member of the council, a Presbyter or Bishop. A man might possess to a great extent dexterity in outward matters and Christian prudence, and in general those more practical capacities which are required for such an office in the Church, without uniting to them the turn of mind and the cultivation of the understanding requisite for that of a Teacher. In the first Apostolic Church, to whose spirit all arbitrary and idle distinction of ranks was so foreign; in which offices being considered only in regard to the object which they were destined to obtain, were limited by an inward necessity; the offices of governing and those of teaching the Churches, the office of a διδασκαλος and that of a ποιμην were accordingly separated from each other.”
“The perception of this distinction, so clearly laid down, might lead. us to the supposition, that originally those Teachers of the Church expressly so called, did not belong to the class of Rulers of the Churches, and certainly it is not capable of proof that they always belonged to the Presbyters. Thus much only is certain, it was a source of great satisfaction when, among the rulers of the Church, there were men qualified also for Teachers. Although to the Presbyters in general (as in Paul’s parting speech to the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, Acts 20) the guardianship over the maintenance of pure doctrine was assigned, it does not thence follow that they had to execute the office of Teacher in the stricter sense of the word; for the question here may merely have concerned the general care of the government of the Church. But when, in the Epistle to Titus, it is required of a Bishop, not only that he should for his own part hold fast the genuine pure doctrine of the gospel, but that he should also be capable of confirming others in it, and of gainsaying the adversaries of it, it clearly follows that the Bishop was required to possess also that gift of teaching. This might, under many circumstances of the Churches, as under those which are spoken of in this Epistle, perhaps be particularly desirable, on account of the danger that threatened the Church from the propagation of heresies, which the paternal authority of the Elders of the Church supported by their preeminence as Teachers was to oppose. Thus also, in the 1st Epistle to Timothy, v. 17, those Presbyters who were able to unite with the power of ruling, (the κυβερνησις) also that of teaching, (the διδασκαλια) were especially honored, which gives us at the same time a proof that both were not necessarily always united.”
Deacons-Deaconesses
“Besides this we find only one Church office in the Apostolic age, the office of Deacon. The business of this office was at first only external, as according to Acts 6 it was instituted to assist in the administration of alms; care for the poor and the sick belonging to the Church, to which afterward many other external cares were added, was peculiarly the business of this office. Besides the Deacons, there were also established for the female part of the community Deaconesses, where the free access of men to females, especially as the sexes are so carefully separated in the East, might excite suspicion and give offense. Although women in conformity to their natural destination, were excluded, from the offices of teaching and governing the Churches, yet in this manner, the peculiar qualities of females were brought into demand, as peculiar gifts for the service of the Church. By means of these Deaconesses the Gospel might be brought into the inmost recesses of family life, where from Eastern manners no man could have obtained admittance. As Christian mothers and mistresses of families experienced and tried in all the trials that belong to women, they were to uphold the younger women of the Church by their counsels and consolations.”
Mode of Election
“So far as regards the election to these offices, we are without sufficient information to decide certainly how it was managed in the first Apostolic times; and it is very possible, that from a difference in circumstances, the same method of proceeding was not adopted in all cases. As the Apostles in the appointment of the Deacons, allowed the Church itself to choose; and as this also was the case, when deputies were sent by the Churches in their name to accompany the Apostles, (2 Cor. 8:19.) we May conclude that a similar proceeding was resorted. to in the appointment to other Church offices. It may nevertheless have happened, that where the Apostles could not place implicit confidence in the Spirit of the first new Churches, they gave the important office of Presbyter to those who appeared to them, under the light of the Holy Spirit, the most fitted for it; their choice would also deserve the highest confidence on the part of the Church, (compare Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5.) although when Paul gives Titus power to appoint rulers of the Church, who had the requisite qualities, nothing is by that determined as to the nature of the election: it does not necessarily follow that an election by the Church itself is absolutely excluded. It appears to have been part of the system of discipline, that the Church offices should be confided to the first converted men, if they had the proper qualifications. (1 Cor. 16:16.) Clement of Rome brings forward the rule, as if laid down by the Apostles for the appointment to Church offices, that they should be possessed after the judgment of approved men, with the consent of the whole Church. The usual custom might be, that on a vacancy in any of these offices, the Presbyters themselves presented to the Church another to supply the place of the deceased, and that it was left to the Church to ratify their choice, or to reject on definite grounds.”
“Where the request to the Church for her consent was not a mere formality, this method of appointing to Church offices had its beneficial influence; that by its means the voice of the larger multitude would be guided by those who were capable of judging; all schisms would be suppressed, and no person would be obtruded on the Church who was not affectionately looked upon by them.”
“As to what further regards the relation of these Presbyters to the Churches, they were designed to be not unlimited monarchs, but rulers and guides in an ecclesiastical republic, and to conduct everything in conjunction with the Church assembled together, as the servants and not the masters of which they were to act.”
“The Apostles saw these relations in this manner, because they addressed their Epistles, which treated not of these dogmatical circumstances, but of things pertaining to the ecclesiastical life and discipline, not to the rulers of the Churches only, but to the whole of the Church. Where the Apostle Paul pronounces an exclusion from the communion of the Church, he represents himself as united in the Spirit with the whole Church, (1 Cor. 5:4.) supposing that for an affair of such general concernment the assembling of the Church would be regularly requisite.”