pointing teachers and ministers, and of determining controversies, was lodged in the people at large; nor did the apostles, though invested with divine authority, either resolve or sanction anything whatever, without the knowledge and concurrence of the general body of Christians, of which the church was composed."11 Comp. Chap. III.

9. These churches severally enjoyed the inherent right of every independent body-that of choosing their own officers. This right, which, as we have seen, belonged to the apostolical churches, was retained in the churches during the ages immediately following. Comp. Chap. IV.

10. As in the apostolical, so in the other primitive churches, the right of discipline was vested, not in the clergy, but in each church collectively.12

Even the officers of the church were subject to the authority of the same. Clement recognizes this authority in his epistles to the Corinthians. 13 Comp. Chap. V.

11. The appropriate officers of the church were deacons and pastors. These pastors were denominated indiscriminately bishops, overseers, and elders, presbyters, and were at first identical. Comp. Chap. VI.

11 De Rebus Christ., etc. § 1, 37. To the same effect, also, is the authority of Neander, Apost. Kirch. pp. 1, 161, 201, 214, 3d ed.

12 Primo omnibus ecclesiae membris jus eligendi pastores et diaconos erat. Communicatio erat quaedam inter varios coetus christianos vel ecclesias; literae quas altera acceperat alteri legendae mittebantur. Pecunias ad pauperes sublevandos ecclesia ecclesiae donabat. De rebus fidei et disciplinae jam apostoli deliberaverunt. Quaequae ecclesia exercebat jus excommunicandi eos qui doctrinae et vitae christianae renunciaverant, eosque recipiendi quorum poenitentia et mentis mutatio constabat. Sic prima christianorum ecclesia libertate, concordia, sanctitate floruit. Sack Comment, ad Theol. Inst. p. 141.

13 Epist. § 54, comp. 44. Also Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. I. 362.

The government of the church was the peculiar office of the bishops or presbyters. It was their business to watch over the general order,-to maintain the purity of the Christian doctrine and of Christian practice, to guard against abuses, to admonish the faulty,-and to guide the public deliberations; as appears from the passages in the New Testament where their functions are described. But their government by no means excluded the participation of the whole church in the management of their common concerns, as may be inferred from what we have already remarked respecting the nature of Christian communion, and as is also evident from many individual examples in the apostolical churches. The whole church at Jerusalem took part in the deliberations respecting the relation of the Jewish and Gentile Christians to each other, and the epistle drawn up after these deliberations was likewise in the name of the whole church. The epistles of the apostle Paul, as has already been remarked, which treat of various controverted ecclesiastical matters, are addressed to the whole churches; implying that the decision belonged to the whole body. Had it been otherwise, would he not have addressed his instructions and advice, principally at least, to the overseers of the church? When a licentious person belonging to the church at Corinth is to be excommunicated, the apostle treats it as a measure that ought to proceed from the whole society; and places himself, therefore, in spirit among them, to unite with them in passing judgment; 1 Cor. 5: 3-5. Also when discoursing of the settlement of litigations, the apostle does not affirm that it properly belonged to the overseers of the church; although, if this had been the prevalent custom, he would no doubt have referred to it; what he says, seems rather to imply that it was usual, in particular instances, to select arbitrators from among the members of the church, 1 Cor. 6: 5.14 Greiling, after going through with an examination of the 14 Neander, Apost. Kirch. I. pp. 1, 201. Comp. also, p. 214.

government of the apostolical churches, gives the following summary: “In the age of the apostles, there was no primate of the churches, but the entire equality of brethren prevailed. The apostles themselves exercised no kind of authority or power over the churches; but styled themselves their helpers and servants. The settlement of controverted points, the adoption of new rites, the discipline of the church, the election of presbyters, and even the choice of an apostle, were submitted to the church. The principle on which the apostles proceeded was, that the church, that is, the elders and the members of the church unitedly, were the depositaries of all their social rights; that no others could exercise this right but those to whom the church might entrust it, and who were accordingly amenable to the church. Even the apostles, though next to Christ himself, invested with the highest authority, assumed no superiority over the presbyters, but treated them as brethren, and styled themselves fellow-presbyters, thus recognizing them as associates in office."15

Finally, the worship of the primitive churches was remarkable for its freedom and simplicity. Their religious rites were few and simple; and restrained by no complicated ritual, or prescribed ceremonials. This point is considered, at length, in a subsequent part of the work.

The government throughout was wholly popular. Every church adopted its own regulations, and enacted its own laws. These laws were administered by officers elected by the church. No church was dependent upon another. They were represented in synod by their own delegates. Their discipline was administered, not by the clergy, but by the people or the church collectively. And even after ordination became the exclusive right of the bishop, no one was permitted to preach to any congregation, who was not sufficiently approved, and duly accepted by the congregation; and all

15 Apostol. Christengemeine. Halberstadt, 1819.

their religious worship was conducted on the same principles of freedom and equality.

Such was the organization of the Christian church in its primitive simplicity and purity. The national peculiarities of the Jewish and gentile converts, in some degree, modified individual churches, but the form of government was substantially the same in all. We claim not for it authority absolutely imperative and divine, to the exclusion of every other system; but it has, we must believe, enough of precept, of precedent, and of principle, to give it a sanction truly apostolic. Its advantages and practical results justly claim an attentive consideration.

CHAPTER II.

THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES FORMED AFTER THE MODEL OF THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE.

THE apostles and the first disciples were Jews, who, after their conversion, retained the prejudices and partialities of their nation. They observed still all the rites of their religion; and, firmly believing that salvation by Christ belonged only to the circumcision, they refused the ministry of reconciliation to the Gentiles. All their national peculiarities led them to conform the Christian to the Jewish church.

With the temple-service and the Mosaic ritual, however, Christianity had no affinity. The sacrificial offerings of the temple, and the Levitical priesthood, it abolished. But in the synagogue-worship, the followers of Christ found a more congenial institution. It invited them to the reading of the Scriptures, and to prayer. It gave them liberty of speech in exhortation, and in worshipping and praising God. The rules and government of the synagogue, while they offered little, comparatively, to excite the pride of office and of power, commended themselves the more to the humble believer in Christ. The synagogue was endeared to the devout Jew by sacred associations and tender recollections. It was near at hand, and not, like the temple, afar off. He went but seldom up to Jerusalem; and only on great occasions joined in the rites of the temple-service. But in the synagogue he paid his constant devotions to the God of his fathers. It met his eye in every place. It was constantly