it is difficult to conceive how a diocesan consolidation of the churches established by the apostles, could have been effected without bringing down upon them the vengeance of the Roman government, to crush, at the outset, a coalition to it so obnoxious. Their apparently harmless and informal assemblies, and the total absence of all connection, one with another, was, according to Planck and many others, the means of saving the early churches so long and so extensively from the exterminating sword of Roman jealousy.3

Crevit occulto, velut arbor, aevo.

3. Such an organization must have been formed, it would seem, in order to unite the discordant parties in the primitive churches.

Here was the Jew, the Greek, the Roman, and Barbarians of every form of superstition; converts, indeed, to faith in Christ, but with all their partialities and prejudices still. What but a voluntary principle, guaranteeing to all the freedom of a popular assembly, could unite these parties in one fraternity? Our Lord himself employed no artificial bands to bind his followers together into a permanent body; and they were alienated from him upon the slightest offence. The apostles had still less to bind their adherents firmly to themselves. It required all their wisdom and address to reconcile the discordant prejudices of their converts, and unite them in harmonious fellowship one with another. This dif ficulty met the apostles at the outset of their ministry, in the murmuring of the Greeks against the Jews, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. This mutual jealousy was a continual trial besetting them on every side, from the churches which they had formed. Under such circumstances, they assumed not the responsibility of settling these controversies by apostolical or Episcopal authority; but by their counsel and persuasion, they sought to obviate the

3 Gesellschafts-Verfass, I. S. 40—50.

prejudices of their brethren. Everything relating to the interests of each church they left to be publicly discussed, and decided by mutual consent. In this manner they quieted these complaints of the Greeks respecting the distribution of alms. Acts 6: 1-8. And such, no doubt, became their settled policy in their care of the churches. Even the apostles were not exempt from these infirmities and misunderstandings, and might have found no small difficulty in arranging among themselves a more artificial and complicated system of church government.4

4. The same is inferred from the existence of popular rights and privileges in the early periods of the Christian church.

It is known to every one at all acquainted with the early history of the church, that from the second century down to the final triumph of papacy, there was a strong and increasing tendency to exalt and extend the authority of the clergy, and to curtail and depress that of the people. The fact is undeniable. But how shall it be explained? If a prelatical form of organization was divinely appointed by Christ and his apostles, vesting in the clergy alone the right of government, and if the tide of clerical encroachment ran so steadily and strongly from the first, then it is inconceivable, how, under these circumstances, the doctrine of popular rights should ever have obtained such a footing in the church, as to maintain itself for centuries against the influences of a jealous and oppressive hierarchy. Had the doctrine of the popular rights been totally lost in the second and third centuries, this would by no means warrant the inference that such rights were unknown in the days of the

4 Schroeter und Klein, Für Christenthum Oppositionsschrift, I. S. 567. Siegel, Handbuch, Il. 455—6. Arnold, Wahre-Abbildung der Ersten Christen, B. II. c. 5, seq. Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen

d. Kirch. Gebräuch, I. S. 234—5.

apostles. They might have all been swept away by the irresistible tide of clerical influence and authority. But they were not lost. They were recognized even in the fourth and fifth centuries, and long after the hierarchy was established in connection with the state, and its authority enforced by imperial power. Were not the rights of the people established by Christ and the apostles? If not, how could they have come in and maintained their ground against the current that continually ran with such strength in the opposite direction?

5. A popular form of church government harmonizes with the spirit, the instructions, and the example of Christ.

(a) With his spirit. He was of a meek and lowly spirit, unostentatious and unassuming. He shrank from the demonstrations of power, and refused the titles and honors that, at times, were pressed upon his acceptance. With such a spirit, that religious system must be congenial, which, without any parade of titles and of rank, has few offices, and little to excite the pride or tempt the ambition of man.

(b) With his instructions. Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Matt. 20: 25-28. Comp. Mark 10: 42-45.

(c) With his example. This was in perfect coincidence with his instructions, and a striking illustration of his spirit. His life was a pattern of humility, of untiring, unostentatious benevolence. He condescended to the condition of all; and, as one of the latest and most expressive acts of his life, washed his disciples' feet, giving them an example for their

imitation, as the servants of all men. Has such a spirit its just expression in a hierarchy, which has often dishonored the religion of Christ by the display of princely pomp, and the assumption of regal and imperial power?

5

6. It equally accords with the spirit, the instructions, and the example of the apostles.

(a) With their spirit. They had renounced their hopes of aggrandizement in the kingdom of Christ, and had imbibed much of his spirit. The world took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus, and had learned of him, who was meek and lowly of heart. They accounted themselves the least of all saints, and the servants of all. This spirit, it would seem, must be foreign from the distinctions of rank and of office, as well as from the authority and power which are inherent in every form of the Episcopal system.

(b) With their instructions. These were in coincidence with those of their Master. The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men; apt to teach; patient (under injuries); in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves. 2 Tim. 2: 24-25. Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 1 Cor. 3: 5. They disowned personal authority over the church; and instructed the elders not to lord it over God's heritage, but to be examples to the flock. 1 Pet. 5: 3. If, in the discharge of his ministry, one has occasion to reprove sin in an elder, this he is charged, before God and the elect angels, to do with all circumspection, without prejudice or partiality. 1 Tim. 5: 21.

(c) With their example. This is the best comment upon their instructions, and the clearest indication of that organ

5 The French infidels have an expression relating to our Saviour, which, though impious and profane, clearly indicates the nature of his instructions and example,-“ Jesus Christ, the great Democrat."

They ex

ization which the church received at their hands. ercised, indeed, a controlling influence over the several churches which they established, as an American missionary does in organizing his Christian converts into a church, while he constitutes them a popular assembly under a Congregational or Presbyterian form. In like manner, it is observable, that the apostles studiously declined the exercise of prelatical or Episcopal authority. 6 But the control which they at first exercised in the management of the affairs of the church was no part of their office. It was only a temporary expedient, resulting from the necessity of the case. Accordingly, they carefully disclaimed the official exercise of all clerical authority; and, as soon as the circumstances of the churches would admit, they submitted to each the administration of its own government. In this manner, they gave to the churches the character of voluntary, deliberative assemblies, invested with the rights and privileges of religious liberty. In support of this position we have to offer the following considerations:

(a) They addressed the members of the church as brethren and sisters, and fellow-laborers. I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes, I purposed to come unto you. Rom. 1: 13. And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not in excellency of speech. 1 Cor. 2: 1. I commend unto you Phebe, our sister. Rom. 16: 1. The same familiar, affectionate style of address runs through all the epistles, showing in what consideration the apostles held all the members of the church. "The apostles severally were very far from placing themselves in a relation that bore any analogy to a mediating priesthood. In this respect they always

Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass., 1. S. 39. Spittler, Can. Recht, c. 1. § 3. Pertsch, Can. Recht, c. 1. § 5-8. Siegel, Kirchliche Verfassungsformen, in Handbuch, II. S. 455. Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. I. S. 156-170, 362-370.