God had a "chosen people" under both the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations among whom there were devout souls who "walked with God" and obeyed His will so far as it was revealed to them. But the institution known as the Church, the Church of God, or the Church of Christ, came into existence on the first Pentecost following the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. This occurred in the city of Jerusalem in about the year A. D. 29 or 30. There was a concurrence of events at this time and place that marked the introduction of a new age, or dispensation.
Fifty days before this event Jesus had been crucified at the time of the Jewish Passover. On the third day afterwards he had risen from the dead. Forty days after his resurrection he remained among his disciples, appearing to them at different times and furnishing them many "infallible proofs" of his identity and of the reality of his resurrection. He had then ascended to his Father from the Mount of Olives, where, under the brilliant light of the Syrian sun, he was parted from them in the act of blessing them, and was received into heaven. One week later, being the day of Pentecost, he fulfilled his promise to his disciples by sending upon them "the promise of the Father." The week between the ascension of Jesus and the advent of the Holy Spirit seems to have been spent by the disciples in a prayer meeting, (Acts 1:14.)
Being thus gathered together, the Spirit descended upon them, "and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Peter, who seems to have been the chief speaker, explained the phenomena which they were witnessing as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel concerning the pouring out of the Spirit in the last days, and vindicated Jesus as the true Messiah by announcing his resurrection and coronation in heaven. As a result of his preaching and that of the other apostles, three thousand were convicted of sin, and were baptized in the name of Christ on that day. (Acts 2.)
At that time and in that place came into being what has since been known in history as the Church. It could not have come into existence earlier, because (1) Jesus had not died for our sins according to the Scriptures; (2) had not risen from the dead for our justification; (3) had not ascended into heaven and thus vindicated his claims to the Messiahship; nor (4) had the Holy Spirit been given in his new relation to men, through whom men were to be convicted of sin and made alive to Christ. Besides, this was the time and place for this event, according to the Scriptures. Centuries before Isaiah had prophesied, saying "And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted among the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he shall teach us of his ways, and we shall walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." (See also Micah 4:1, 2.)
Concerning this same event, Jesus had prophesied more specifically when he said to two of his disciples on the way to Emmaus, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:46-49.) This passage fixes definitely both the time and the place of the beginning of that great spiritual movement which we call the Church.
There was a time of necessary preparation going before this in the life and personal ministry of Jesus Christ, and in the training of his apostles who were to be the charter members and nucleus of his Church, and ministers plenipotentiary in the proclamation of the Gospel and the terms of salvation. But even these apostles had a vague and inadequate conception of the mission of Jesus and of the nature of his kingdom until they had received the enduement of power from on high. How much less prepared were the others to become spiritual members of the Church made up of regenerated persons! It was not the work of Jesus during his earthly ministry to establish his Church and win men to his spiritual reign by his own personal appeal. That was to be the work of the apostles and others who should come after them. His was a work of preparation--the preparation of the Gospel message and of men who were to declare it. This was why he could say to his disciples "And greater works than this shall he do [who believes on me] because I go unto my Father." (John 14:12.) His going to the Father by the way of the cross, the sepulcher, the resurrection and the ascension, would complete a message which, when told by men under the power of the Spirit, would enable them to do greater works than any miracle he had wrought. Jesus always taught his disciples to esteem spiritual blessings far beyond any material blessings, even the saving of their physical lives. Hence the moral and spiritual changes to be effected by the Gospel through the preaching of his disciples were in his thought "greater works" than any physical miracles he had wrought.
Thus came into existence, through the preaching by the apostles of Jesus Christ and him crucified, and through faith in and obedience to him, that Church whose fortunes we are to follow, and the secret of whose unity we are to seek to find. It is important to note the following facts in connection with the beginning of the Church, as they will have an important bearing in our future investigation of this subject:
1. The subject matter of the preaching which produced the faith and conviction of sin, causing the men who heard it to cry out, "Brethren, what shall we do?" was Jesus Christ, crucified, risen again from the dead, ascended into heaven, crowned king, and sending forth his Holy Spirit upon them, through whom he declared the message of life and salvation. In other words, it was the simple facts of the Gospel--a story which later came to be summarized in a single phrase, "the Cross of Christ." There were no theological definitions or philosophical speculations or far-drawn inferences, but the earnest proclamation of well-attested facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth.
2. The power by which these facts were declared, and which used these facts in convicting of sin those who had been the murderers of Jesus, was the Holy Spirit, without whose enduement they were not permitted to begin their work.
3. So clear and convincing was the preaching, and so unmistakable were the directions given to these men that three thousand persons on that same day yielded obedience to the Lord in baptism and were added to the Church.
4. Notice, further, that this Church was a spiritual institution, the Gospel having been preached by men who were "filled with the Spirit," and each individual member, having believed, repented and been baptized unto the remission of sins, received the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38.)
It is not strange to read of such a Church that "The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul; and no one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common, and with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace as upon them all. (Acts 4:32, 33.)
The fact that stands out in bold significance on the pages of the New Testament is that the Church of the first century was an undivided Church. It had its local assemblies or congregations in different places, as the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc., but these were regarded as component parts of the one united Church of God in the world. The term church (ekklesia) was used in two senses only, the one local, the other general. "The church of God, which is at Corinth" (I Cor. 1:2), and the "Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. 3:15), are instances of the local and general uses of the term. The latter use of the word Church may mean either the actual Church, as a whole, or the ideal Church.[1]
The important thing to notice is, that there was no prefix or affix to the term "Church," except to denote its location. There was nothing to indicate different kinds of churches having different creeds and terms of fellowship, for the simple reason that no such churches existed. Whatever may have been their differences of opinion and feeling on many points--and these were very great, as we shall point out later--they regarded themselves, and were so regarded by the apostles, as constituting one Church, or "one body," having "one Spirit" and "one hope," with "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism." (Eph 4:4, 5.) A member going from any one of the local churches to another, in the apostolic age, would have been welcomed into its fellowship on giving evidence of his membership elsewhere. So far as the location of these churches and the limited methods of communication and transportation made it possible, they were ready to co-operate with each other in furthering the common interests of a common Church. As we have already seen, the multitude of disciples at Jerusalem were "of one heart and one soul," practicing even a community of goods. The Macedonian churches made offerings to relieve the poor saints in Judea.
When one sits down to study the causes which made possible the marvelous success of the Gospel in the first century, in the face of Jewish narrowness and bigotry and Gentile licentiousness and idolatry, he can not fail to see that without the unity which characterized the Church of that age its victories would have been impossible. The very fact that the new religion possessed a unifying power that could bind together in harmony Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian, bond and free, gave it a tremendous moral power and momentum which triumphed over all opposition. Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the world, felt its quickening touch and owned its transforming power. Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth and Rome were in turn shaken to their foundations by the new dynamic of a divine evangel preached by a united Church. Blending hearts in one, breaking down ancient barriers of hatred and prejudice, it had one supreme passion--the extension of Christ's reign over all the habitable world. Passing through fires of persecution undaunted and undismayed, this Gospel of human brotherhood, under the divine Fatherhood, spread throughout the Roman empire and later mounted to the very throne of the Caesars.
Let it be remembered, too, that the Church began its career at a time when deep-seated prejudices and bitter hostility divided the different races and classes of men. The Jew and the Gentile despised each other, while a feeling of bitter hostility existed between the Samaritans and the Jews. And yet, in spite of all these racial and class prejudices and religious feuds, there were gathered together out of these hostile elements a united Church, whose members were bound together by ties which even death could not sever. What was the secret of its unity? What made the Church of the first century, composed as it was of these diverse elements, a united Church? Its bond of unity was the personal allegiance of its members to the personal Christ as Saviour and Lord. Their common faith was faith in him. Their common love was love for him. Their common hope was hope in him. Their common baptism was baptism in his name. Their unity--the unity of the Spirit--was in him. Their union with each other was the direct result of their union with him. He had communicated to them his Spirit. In his life and teaching, in his wonderful works of mercy, in his atoning death and resurrection from the dead, in his ascension to the right hand of God, and coronation as King of kings and Lord of lords, they found all that was necessary to their spiritual life and growth, their triumph over all the forces of evil, and their pledge of immortality. It was no human formulation of doctrines, nor was it any pressure of external authority, that made them one, but the cohesive power of a mutual love for their divine Lord and for all his disciples. So close was this personal tie between the disciples and their Lord that he suffered with all their sufferings, bore their reproaches and they shared in his life and in all his triumphs.
Such was the unity of the Church in the beginning. We shall see, further on, to what severe tests this unity was put by questions which arose in the apostolic age, and which excited warm discussion and wide differences of opinion
It should be stated that the unity which prevailed in the Church immediately following Pentecost, and for a few years later, was of that simple, naive kind which flowed naturally out of their first love for each other and for their common Master, and which had not been tried. This divine impulse was sufficient to overcome, for the time at least, the ancient differences and alienations which existed between sects and races, but would the bond of unity be strong enough to hold the Church together when there should spring up within the Church itself serious differences of opinion touching the very nature and scope of the new religion? It was not long before the unity of the Church in the apostolic age was subjected to such a test.
In less than a score of years, after Christianity had passed beyond Jewish limitations, and Gentile converts had been brought into the Church, a fierce controversy arose concerning the reception of Gentile converts, as to whether they should not be required to submit to circumcision and to keep the law of Moses. Paul, the missionary to the Gentiles, championed the cause of Christian liberty, and held firmly to the position that to impose circumcision on these converts was to nullify the Gospel, while to accept circumcision was to become a debtor to do the whole law and to be severed from Christ. (Gal. 5:1-4.) On the other hand we can well understand how radical and revolutionary it must have seemed to certain Jewish brethren to receive on terms of religious equality those who had never submitted to circumcision and the Jewish law. To them it seemed like trampling under feet the religion of their fathers, and therefore not to be tolerated. This man Paul, who was receiving Gentile converts into the Church without circumcision and was teaching them that the law of Moses was superseded by the Gospel of Christ, was, in their estimation, an arch heretic whose mouth should be stopped.
It is a sad fact to which history bears abundant testimony that at every great crisis in the Church, when some advance step is to be taken to adjust the forces of righteousness to the demands of the new age, some one whom God has chosen for the purpose must make himself "of no reputation" with a large section of the Church in order to voice God's will to that age. These leaders have had to bear not only the travail of soul which every honest man experiences in breaking away from once cherished opinions, but they have had to endure the opprobrium of their brethren who have not been able to see the truth in its new light and in its wider relations, nor to acknowledge the equal loyalty of those who do see it. Paul may be considered the most conspicuous example of this type of leader in the early Church, though Stephen, the proto-martyr, was before him in his apprehension of the spiritual nature of Christianity and in sealing his testimony with his blood.
It is easy for us, at this distant age, to underestimate the gravity of that issue. It was a question of far-reaching importance, on the right settlement of which depended the future triumphs of Christianity in the world. It was the beginning of that age-long conflict between Christian liberty and a stolid and narrow conservatism which clings to ideas and customs long after they have ceased to meet the needs of men. The question came to a crisis when "certain men came down [to Antioch] from Judea and taught the brethren, saying, except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses ye can not be saved." Is it too severe to say that these self-appointed regulators of their brethren were not half so much concerned about saving these Antiochians as they were about saving their traditions? We are not surprised to read that "Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them." The result was that "the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:1, 2.) There the matter was amicably settled, and settled in favor of Paul's position, with a few concessions to Jewish prejudice which involved no principle, and the observance of certain moral requirements which Paul had not neglected.
Gentile converts need not be circumcised, but they would be asked to "abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." This was the settlement which "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us"--the apostles and elders.
Thus a great crisis in the Church was safely passed. It was fortunate that the cause of Christian liberty had such an able champion as Paul. It would have been easy to have split the Church in twain on that subject, if the leaders had been less guided by the Holy Spirit, and had been ambitious to be party leaders. It was the spirit of unity, and loyalty to a common Lord, on the part of Paul and Barnabas--the liberal leaders--and Peter and James--the conservative leaders--that brought about this happy settlement and averted a disruption in the Church. It may be questioned whether a single division in the Church to-day is based on a more important question of difference than that which this conference at Jerusalem settled. What were the principles observed in this settlement?
1. Christian liberty prevailed over the narrower interpretation of God's will and purpose. When has it not done so?
2. But there was no compromise of truth. The will of Christ, as manifested in his word and in the events of that day, was honored and carried out.
3. Love triumphed over partisan feeling, and catholicity over provincialism.
We have spoken of the question of the relation of Gentile Christians to the law as having been settled by the conference at Jerusalem. It was, indeed, a settlement of this question among the leaders of the Church, and probably a majority of the members. If any one supposes, however, that the Judaizing party in Jerusalem accepted this official decision as final, and were silenced by it, he reckons without the record. When was the spirit of faction, or of opinionism, ever submissive to the wisdom and wish of the leaders of the Church, and the majority of its members?
It is clear from the record of this council, as it has been called, that there was opposition to the decision at the time, and notwithstanding the agreement reached between the "pillar" apostles at Jerusalem, Peter, James and John, on the one side, and the heads of the Gentile mission, Paul and Barnabas, on the other, this opposition increased in strength and fury until the party resolved to send out propagandists to visit the Gentile churches and persuade them to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses, if they would not imperil their salvation. Of course this was in direct violation of the decision which had been reached, and of the apostolic rescript conveying this decision to the churches. But no doubt these men justified their course on the ground that it was more important to see that the law of Moses was obeyed than that they should obey a decision issued by men of their own time, and that, too, against their wishes. Besides, did they not have a "Thus saith the Lord" enjoining circumcision and other legal observances?
"For years and years these emissaries of a narrow-minded fanaticism, which believed itself to be the only genuine Christianity, diffused themselves over all the churches founded by Paul throughout the Gentile world. Their work was not to found churches of their own; they had none of the original pioneer ability of their great rival. Their business was to steal into the Christian communities he had founded and win them to their own narrow views. They haunted Paul's footsteps wherever he went, and for many years were a cause to him of unspeakable pain. They whispered to his converts that his version of the Gospel was not the true one, and that his authority was not to be trusted. Was he one of the twelve apostles? Had he kept company with Christ? They represented themselves as having brought the true form of Christianity from Jerusalem, the sacred headquarters; and they did not scruple to profess that they had been sent from the apostles there. They distorted the very noblest parts of Paul's conduct to their purpose. For instance, his refusal to accept money for his services they imputed to a sense of his own lack of authority; the real apostles always received pay. In the same way they misconstrued his abstinence from marriage. They were men not without ability for the work they had undertaken; they had smooth, insinuating tongues, they could assume an air of dignity, and they did not stick at trifles."[2] Nor were the efforts of these men without success. Particularly were the Galatian and Corinthian churches affected by them. The Galatian letter is one of the hot bolts which Paul hurled against his enemies, who, in time, were silenced, but not without making a severe test of the bond of unity which held the early Church together as one body.
Another question soon rose upon the horizon, which was close akin to the one whose disturbing influence we have just seen. Was it right for the Jewish Christians to continue to observe the law of Moses? It is certain that Paul's view of Christianity, if rigidly applied, would have put a stop to all such legal observances. Besides, it was a logical conclusion from the decision in reference to Gentile Christians. There could not be two sets of terms of admission into the Church--one for Jews and another for Gentiles. Paul, however, was about the only leader who saw clearly that the law of Moses was superseded by Christianity, and that the believer in Christ was complete in him and needed not to observe the ceremonials of the law. It is certain that the main body of the Jewish converts to Christianity, including perhaps the apostles at Jerusalem, had not yet reached this conception of Christianity. As a matter of fact we know they continued to observe the law for many years after their conversion to Christianity, so that James could say to Paul, on his return from his third missionary tour, as late perhaps as the year A. D. 56, or 57, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe; and they are all jealous of the law; and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after their customs." For a quarter of a century, therefore, the Jews who believed on Christ had continued to be "jealous of the law." There is no evidence that Paul had ever raised his voice against the custom. The rumor, that had reached Jerusalem to that effect was probably one of the false reports circulated by his enemies to injure his influence. "By one huge blow he had cut himself free from the bigotry of bondage; but he never fell into the bigotry of liberty."
A very important principle of union comes to light in the foregoing facts. There are those, no doubt, who think Paul should have made an issue with his conservative brethren and forced them to abandon their Jewish observances or himself pulled out, with his party, in order to have a "pure" Christian Church. But he deemed it wiser and more in accordance with Christ's spirit not to interfere with the deep-seated prejudices and long-established customs of his Jewish brethren, believing that the growth of the Christian life within them would ultimately remedy the matter. So long as they held to Christ as Lord and Saviour, he felt that they should be recognized as Christians, and that Christ himself would reveal to them the way of the Lord more perfectly. Without this spirit of mutual toleration the Church could not have passed through the apostolic age an undivided Church.
It is equally true that this same spirit of conciliation and mutual recognition of each other's right to think for themselves is an essential condition of union in our day. The two types of mind represented in the early Church in these controversies are in the Church to-day, have always been, and will always be. If conservative and liberal brethren can not dwell together in the unity of a common faith in spite of differences of opinion, then the cause of union is hopeless, and made so by him who constituted us with different kinds of minds. But he who broke down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles has shown us how to be one in faith and loyalty to him while differing in our apprehension of truth.
We have seen what a strain was put upon the unity of the Church in the apostolic age by the differences which arose concerning the relation of Christianity to the law of Moses. As the Church spread over a larger territory and included a greater variety of people, other differences of more or less importance developed, of which we can see the evidences in the apostolic letters to the churches. We are not to think of the unity of the Church in that age as consisting of perfect uniformity of opinion, of methods of worship, or forms of organization. We have but to study the internal history of the Church of that period to know that such was far from being its real condition. In his history of the early Church, Dr. Mosheim says of the Church of the first century:
"The Christian Church was scarcely formed when in different places there started up certain pretended reformers, who, not satisfied with the simplicity of that religion which was taught by the apostles, meditated changes of doctrine and worship, and set up a new religion drawn from their own licentious imaginations. This we learn from the writings of the apostles, and particularly from the epistles of St. Paul, where we find that some were inclined to force the doctrines of Christianity into conformity with the philosophical systems they had adopted, while others were as studious to blend with these doctrines the opinions, customs and traditions of the Jews. Several of these are mentioned by the apostles, such as Hymeneus, Alexander, Philetus, Hermogenes, Demas and Diotrephes; though the four last are to be considered as apostates from the truth rather than as corrupters of it."[3]
Among other false doctrines in the apostolic age was Gnosticism, though it developed itself more fully in the post-apostolic age. Reference to this sect and its false teachings may be seen in Paul's letters to the Ephesians and Colossians. Among the false teachers of this period was Simon Magus, whom ancient writers describe as exerting a wide and pernicious influence after the experience recorded in the Acts of Apostles. Menander and Cerenthus are other names mentioned by Mosheim as teachers of false doctrines during the apostolic age. The Pauline epistles have acquainted us with certain questions which arose among the churches in relation to the eating of meat offered to idols and to other idolatrous practices. This class of questions usually arose in churches composed of both Jews and Gentiles. Where no vital principle was involved the Apostle always advised the application of the law of love and the principle of mutual forbearance, and especially that the strong should bear the infirmities of the weak.
More serious differences, however, arose in the church at Corinth, where they assumed the form of incipient divisions. The root of these differences seems to have been personal preferences. Most church historians are agreed in associating the rise of these differences with the visit of Apollos, the eloquent Alexandrian Jew, who visited that city. "The immediate occasion of this factional development," says Dr. McGiffert, in his "Apostolic Age," "is not far to seek. It was evidently due to the presence of Apollos, who had come to Corinth not long after Paul's departure from the city, and had labored there for some time" (Acts 18:27). Concerning the local situation there, Paul says (I Cor. 1:12): "Now this I mean, that each of you sayeth, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." In his "Life of St. Paul" (p. 130) James Stalker describes this factional movement at Corinth as follows: "The body of the members was split up into four theological factions. Some called themselves after Paul himself. These treated the scruples of the weaker brethren about meats and other things with scorn. Others took the name of Apollonians from Apollos, an eloquent teacher from Alexandria, who visited Corinth between Paul's second and third journeys. These were the philosophical party; they denied the doctrine of the resurrection because it was absurd to suppose that the scattered atoms of the dead body could ever be reunited again. The third party took the name of Peter, or Cephas, as in their Hebrew purism they preferred to call him. These were narrow minded Jews, who objected to the liberality of Paul's views. The fourth party affected to be above all parties and called themselves simply Christians. Like many despisers of the sects since then who have used the name of Christian in the same way, these were the most bitterly sectarian of all and rejected Paul's authority with malicious scorn."
We can quite well understand how a party animated by a purely sectarian spirit might use the name of Christ to accomplish its factional purpose. Such a thing is not unknown in our day. It may well be questioned, however, whether this statement by Dr. Stalker, which we think is held by a number of other Bible scholars, is justified by the facts in the case at Corinth. Paul's treatment of the situation does not seem to favor that view. We are inclined, on the whole, to agree with Dr. McGiffert as to the true nature of this alleged fourth party in Corinth. He does not believe there was any fourth party at Corinth. "Had there been," he says, "Paul could hardly have spoken in the unguarded way he does in his epistle to those who were Christ's." After mentioning other objections to the view Dr. McGiffert adds:
"But the decisive argument against the existence of any Christ-party in the Corinthian church is to be found in I Cor. 3:22, sq. In that passage, at the close of his discussion of the divisions, and at the very climax of his denunciation of the party spirit, Paul speaks of three parties, but says nothing whatever of the fourth, or Christ-party, which, according to the common theory, was the worst and most dangerous of all. And more than that, he plays directly into the hands of that party, if it existed, by exhorting all the Corinthians to range themselves under the banner of Christ. 'All things are yours,' he cries, 'whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas; . . . all are yours: and ye are Christ's.' In view of these considerations, it is difficult to suppose that there was a fourth faction in Corinth, calling itself by the name of Christ. And indeed, when carefully examined, the passage in which the parties are referred to is seen itself to imply the existence of only three. The words in verse 13, 'Is Christ divided?' indicate that the fault of the Corinthians was not that they were rejecting Christ, and substituting another leader for him, but that they were dividing him. The implication is, that they all regarded themselves as alike under the banner of Christ, but that some were Pauline Christians; some Apollos-Christians; some Cephas-Christians.[4] It seems clear, therefore, that the fourth term of verse 12 was not, like the first three terms, a party watchword, but that it constituted the cry of other Corinthian disciples who belonged to none of the three factions, and who, disgusted at the display of party spirit, declared against all such divisions and announced their allegiance to Christ alone. With such a course Paul himself must have been in hearty sympathy. It was, in fact, just what he exhorted all the others to do. 'Do not divide Christ,' he says in effect. 'We, Paul and Apollos and Cephas, whom ye are making the leaders of your parties, are only builders; Christ is the one foundation upon whom we all build; we are all Christ's, and ye are all Christ's.'"[5]
But whatever may have been the cause and nature of these parties in the Corinthian church, there is no evidence that either Peter, Paul, or Apollos were directly responsible for such division. They were simply the occasion of the development of these differences. No doubt they represented different types of mind and each had his own peculiar way of presenting the truth, but they were all loyal to a common Master. These parties never came to an open rupture, though it was perhaps only prevented by the timely and vigorous protest of Paul. These party cries, "I am of Paul;" "I am of Cephas;" "I am of Apollos," however, were prophetic of future divisions which were destined to mar the unity of Christ's Church.
We have already expressed our concurrence in the opinion of Dr. McGiffert that the brethren in Corinth who said, "I am of Christ," did not represent a fourth faction equally partisan with the others, but were making a rational protest against the tendency to divide up into factions designated by certain favorite leaders. The rebuke of Paul--"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?"--is favorable to that view, as is also the fact that there seems to have been no ground for a fourth faction either in doctrinal divergencies or in personal leadership. Those who claimed Peter as their leader were probably Jewish Christians of the more conservative class, while the more liberal, who treated with perhaps too little respect the scruples of the conservatives, claimed to be followers of Paul. There would be certain to be Greeks, in Corinth, who would be carried away with the eloquence of Apollos, of Alexandria, who, not unnaturally, might have mingled some of the Alexandrian philosophy with the Gospel. These were the three leaders who, innocently perhaps, or at least, unconsciously, had stirred up this factional feeling. Is it not probable that there were, among the wiser heads and more irenic spirits of the Church, some members who, possessing the gift of knowledge, were able to see that all the saving truth preached by these three leaders came from Christ, and who would protest against these divisions based on partial views, and express their attitude in contrast with that of others by saying, "I am of Christ"?[6]
But, after all, there is a more important and fundamental question than the above. Regardless of the historic question as to whether or not there were, as a matter of fact, a part of the Church at Corinth who occupied the common catholic ground, taking Christ alone as their Leader, was not this the very position that ought to have been taken by the Church, and is it not precisely the position which Paul did take and which he urged the whole Church to take? That is the real question which vitally concerns us. Even if it were granted that those who said, "I am of Christ," were the worst partisans in the Church, it would not follow that their position was wrong, but only that their spirit was wrong, and we could only regret that there had not been those in the Church in Corinth who, in sincere loyalty to Christ, and with due appreciation of all his faithful ministers, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, would have planted themselves upon the "one foundation" other than which no man can lay, protesting against parceling out his truth among jealous and warring factions.
There seems to be but one possible answer to the question we have raised: There should have been in the Church at Corinth, if there were not, just such a class of Christians as we have described--Christians who were broad-minded enough to accept the truth no matter by whom spoken, and whose loyalty to Christ's teaching and Christ's Spirit would have led them to stand like a rock against these divisive tendencies. They could not have done this by occupying a partisan position themselves. They could not have said, for instance, "We are of John," and made a successful protest against those claiming to be of Paul, or Peter, or Apollos. They must choose a non-partisan Leader who embodied in himself all the truth preached by all his ministers, and whose name would be honored and respected by all his followers. They should not, of course, have said, "I am of Christ," in any boastful spirit, or in any tone of personal superiority, but in profound humility and gratitude, and with unfeigned sorrow that any of their brethren, who also were "of Christ," really, should be willing to allow that fact to be obscured by placing even an apostle as their leader.
It is not to be supposed for a moment that those who said, "I am of Paul"; or "I am of Apollos"; or "I am of Cephas"; intended thereby to reject Christ. It was not the sin of rejecting Christ for which Paul rebuked them, but for dividing Christ. They had allowed their zeal for some particular truth, or phase of truth, preached by their favorite leader, to obscure other truths, perhaps no less important, and had made these partial views of truth their rallying centers instead of Christ, and so were torn into factions. They were not only, by this course, producing divisions in the body of Christ, but they were impoverishing their own souls by limiting themselves to the truths preached by their particular leaders. It was this folly of building on the partial truth in the person of Christ's ministers instead of on the whole truth incarnate in Christ, that led Paul to that magnificent outburst of catholicity: "Wherefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."
Perhaps there is no one term that has entered into the discussion of Christian union in modern times that has been more confusing than this word "organic." Some of those who labor and pray for the realization of Christ's prayer for the unity of his disciples express themselves as opposed to "organic unity"; while others declare that nothing short of "organic unity" meets the demands of Christ's prayer. It is probable that these two classes of unionists do not differ so much in reality as they do in the meaning they attach to the term, "organic." This is a good place, therefore, to raise the question, Was the unity of the Church in the apostolic age "organic unity"?
When we face the facts of the apostolic age, what we find is a group of local churches having their origin in a common faith, which held them in allegiance to one common Lord. There was no general organization of an external kind of which these several congregations were component parts, as is the case with many of our modern ecclesiastical organizations. They were united to Christ and to each other by the internal bond of faith in, love for, and personal allegiance to, a common Master whom they acknowledged as Savior and Lord. Their unity was not the result of external authority, for even the apostles, whose influence was no doubt very great, governed not so much by their official authority as by their spiritual character and their intimate knowledge of Christ. "It was the permanent indwelling of the Spirit in the souls of believers, as an illuminating and sanctifying power, that united them in one body."[7]
If the term "organic," therefore, be used to signify one external ecclesiastical organization, with a central power or earthly head controlling it, it is clear that no such "organic" union existed in the apostolic age. No doubt, if the conditions had been favorable, the local churches of that age would have co-operated to a much larger extent than they did in the furtherance of the common interests of the kingdom, but it is not likely that any organization which might have been necessary for such co-operation would have been permitted, during that age, to exercise any legislative authority over the local congregations, or to formulate in any authoritative way a statement of doctrine that would have been binding upon the churches. At any rate, we are safe in saying that no such organization existed.[8]
"If we wish to speak correctly of 'the Church' as it has historically appeared, with reference to organization, we shall be obliged to define it in a very catholic and comprehensive manner, as including the sum of those organizations which have been formed to serve as organs of Christ, for the expression and promotion of his religion. If we accept a definition that applies to some one of these alone, we leave unincluded much of the organized fruit of Christ in the world, and thus do injustice to the facts that we are considering. It does not appear to have been the providential purpose that all Christians should be gathered into one great organization, and it does not seem probable that such a purpose will hereafter be manifested by the fulfillment of it. Organization, helpful as it is, is a very different thing from that inner life of the soul in God in which religion consists, and can not properly be counted as a part of religion. But it certainly is the divine will and pleasure that Christians should be together, united in some practical order for mutual benefit and common service to their Lord. Any company of Christians gathered in his name for this purpose, has the promise of the Master's presence (Matt. 18:20). Any group of Christians that offers itself to Christ is an organ of Christ, through which he may express himself in his own activities. The Church, regarded as the sum of all the actual organizations, has been a powerful help to the Christian purpose in the world. No organization has promise of perpetuity, apart from its fitness for the Master's use, and Christianity may yet express itself in new forms, if the old prove insufficient or un-adapted to its growing needs."[9]
No candid student of the New Testament will call in question this statement of Dr. Clarke. The idea of the church organization, or church government, as it is often called, assumed a prominence in after years, and has held it to the present time, which it nowhere has in the New Testament. What we find there is a new life, entering into the world through Christ, and organizing itself so as to give expression to its real character, and to extend its principles among men. Life precedes and creates organization, and not vice versa. One of the most important steps that can be taken toward Christian unity is the frank recognition of the fact that the New Testament furnishes us no prescribed form of ecclesiastical organization, beyond the local church, and this seems to have been the natural expression of that divine life in men which drew them together in common fellowship and service. When this fact is once clearly grasped all hope of uniting a divided church on the basis of an "historic episcopate," or under the authority of an infallible pope, vanishes as an idle dream. Even if such a union were possible it would not be Christian union; but it is not possible.
But if there were no organic unity in the sense of one ecclesiastical organization embracing all the churches in the apostolic age, in what sense was the Church one, and how can we conceive of it as a divine organism?
The answer to this question is to be found in the fact that Christ's disciples are bound to him by a spiritual tie. The union was spiritual, but manifested itself in many visible ways. The apostles were missionaries, rather than rulers, in the modern sense, and yet their influence was very great, no doubt, in settling controversies and in promoting and maintaining unity among the churches. In spite of the fact, however, that there was no ecclesiastical system with an authoritative head, it remains true, as we have before stated, that the Church of the apostolic age was undivided. It was one Church. Its unity consisted in the fact that each of the churches making up the one Church of God had the "one Lord, one faith and one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). They had each the same foundation, the same creed, and the same initiatory ordinance. Jesus Christ was their one Leader and Lord; faith in him was the essential, saving faith, and when this living faith manifested itself in the one baptism, the believer was admitted without question into the fellowship of the saved. The faith which united them was, in other words, a personal faith, and not the acceptance of any doctrinal statement. The evidence of this faith was the willingness to confess Christ with the mouth and to surrender to him in the act of baptism, which symbolized in its form the same truth which had been confessed with the mouth. So long as this state of things lasted there could be no such thing as rival sects, rival creeds and rival party leaders. A member in good standing in any one of the churches of the apostolic age would have been readily admitted into any other church, because they all together made up what Paul called the "body of Christ."
This leads us to the kind of organic unity which did exist, to some degree at least, in the apostolic age, and which exists to a perfect degree in the ideal Church of which Paul speaks. This conception of the Church is presented by Paul more fully in the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians. The Church is conceived of as the "body of Christ," while he is its head, and all Christians are regarded as members of that body. "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit" (I Cor. 12:13). So completely is Christ identified with his Church in this passage that the term "Christ" seems to be used for the Church in the twelfth verse.
Of course, that is an ideal unity that has never yet been realized, but it is one toward which the Church must continue to approach as it becomes more and more an organ for the complete expression of the mind and will of Christ, and all its individual members, each according to the measure of his ability, shall fulfill his function in the divine organism, That term organism expresses perhaps just what many of us mean when we say we believe in organic union. It is sometimes held that an organism is a divine thing, while organization is human. The use of the two words, however, hardly justifies this broad distinction. "The universe is not a machine, but an organism, with an indwelling principle of life," says Prof. John Fiske, in his "Idea of God." "Christianity stands in organic connection with the Old Testament religion, both being parts of a gradually developing system," says Professor Fisher, in his "Beginnings of Christianity." An organism is defined by the Century Dictionary as: "A body exhibiting organization and organic life; a member of the animal or vegetable kingdom; an individual composed of a number of essential and mutually dependent parts, all of which partake of a common life;" "anything that is organized or organic." It will be seen from these statements and definitions that the meanings of the two terms glide into each other, and to some extent they seem to have a common meaning. There is this distinction, however: an organism always has life, and all its component parts share in that common life; an organization which may have resulted from life, may exist after the life has departed. The Church, as a divine organism, has manifested its life in a variety of organizations under different conditions, but there is no one external organization that embraces all the component parts of that divine organism which we call the Church, all of whose members share in a common life, even the life of God.
To return, then, to the question with which we began: Was the unity of the early Church organic? we reply:
1. It was not organic in the sense of being one external ecclesiastical organization, for no such organization existed.
2. It was an organic unity only in the sense that the various local churches and individual members were united to Christ and to each other by a common faith and a common life. It was a vital, not a mechanical, union--an organism rather than an organization.
And yet it was a visible union, in this, that all men could see by the faith and the practice, the life and the fellowship, of these various churches that they had one common Master, and had partaken of his life and were governed by his will. For the sake of avoiding confusion, it would perhaps be better to discard the term "organic" while we plead for a real, visible and manifested unity, which will show to the world our oneness in our divine Lord.
Before we pass on to a brief study of the Post-Apostolic Age, let us pause long enough to gather up some of the principal results of our study of the first century, as respects the unity of the Church of that period.
1. The Church of the Apostolic Age was one and undivided. It existed in numerous local assemblies or churches, some of them widely separated, geographically, but all constituting the one Church of the one living and true God. There were no denominations, in our modern sense of that word, the members of which regarded themselves as belonging to separate and independent bodies, differing from each other in their bases of fellowship and conditions of membership. A member in good standing in any one local church was, by virtue of that fact, eligible to membership in every other church.
2. The bond of unity in that age was personal faith in and allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. No other faith than this was required as a condition of church membership and fellowship. "What think ye of Christ; whose Son is he?" was the great and decisive question of that age. Whoever confessed him, as Peter did, as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," and was willing to turn away from his sins, was straightway baptized into the name of Christ, and numbered with the saved. This was the simple creed, and this the simple method of initiation. There were only two ordinances--baptism and the Lord's supper--the one commemorating Christ's death for our sins, and the other his burial and resurrection from the dead. Baptism symbolized also the believer's death to sin, and he was henceforth expected to "walk in newness of life." It was in view of these facts that Paul could say, "There is one body and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord; one faith; one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all" (Eph. 4:4-6).
3. The fruit of this common faith in a common Lord was the love these disciples bore to one another. Jesus had taught them the "new commandment," that they should love each other even as he had loved them. This was the great distinguishing feature of the Christians of that age. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). The apostles repeated the instruction of Jesus in this respect. "Love is the fulfilling of the law," said Paul. "We know that we have passed out of death into life," said John, "because we love the brethren" (I John 3:14). Love for one another was connected with faith in Jesus, as constituting the divine requirement of men: "And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, even as he gave us commandment" (I John 3:23). "Above all things being fervent in your love among yourselves; for love covereth a multitude of sins," said Peter (I Pet. 4:8). The apostles are frequently spoken of as preserving unity by their official authority; but it is clear that they relied not upon their authority to promote and perpetuate unity, but upon the bond of allegiance to Christ and love for one another. They did indeed serve to preserve unity in the Church of the first century, but it was by refusing to lord it over men's faith and by their wise emphasis upon the things which unite.
4. As to organic unity, the Church was conceived of as a divine organism--the body of Christ--of which he was the living head. All who received life through Christ were regarded as being a part of that divine organism. That was the ideal Church of Paul. There was no one external ecclesiastical organization with grades of officials, from lower to higher, culminating in a supreme earthly head, whether that head be considered a pope, a council or an assembly. The self-governing congregations appointed bishops and deacons to look after their spiritual and temporal needs, and evangelists to carry the good news into the regions beyond, and that was about all the ecclesiastical machinery of that age. And yet, the union of the Church in that age was a visible union. Real, vital union among believers, such as results from vital union with Christ, never fails to manifest itself. Love can not be hidden. It does not conceal itself under the form of separation, harsh and unkind criticism, strife and open opposition, and plead an internal, unseen and spiritual love which does not deign to come to the light! Real unity unites. It abhors division as nature does a vacuum. It shows itself in mutual counsel, sympathy and co-operation. If one love the Lord with all his heart, can he hate another one who also loves him and is seeking to extend his reign? But if he love his brother, who also loves Christ, will he not unite with him in honoring their common Master by seeking others to love and serve him? The unity of the early Church, in spite of its diversity of opinions, manifested itself in avoiding divisions and in holding steadfastly to the "one Lord, one faith and one baptism." It showed itself in brotherly love (except in the case of certain factious spirits who loved their traditions and personal interests more than their Lord), and in such co-operation as was possible at that time. It triumphed over the personal preferences and partial views of truth, which said, "I am of Paul," "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and brought all at last to "glory not in men," but in Christ, and to give him the pre-eminence in all things.
We go back to the Apostolic Age not for its types of actual Church or individual Christian life, for except in rare instances these were infantile and imperfect; but we do well to go back to that creative period for its splendid ideals, yet to be realized, and for those inspired and inspiring truths and principles, which, applied to our own times, will give us a united Church and a nobler Christian civilization.
Endnotes:
1 "We may think of the Church as an 'empiric matter of fact,' i. e., as a collection of individuals, the actual Church, or we may cease to think of the Church as a noun of multitude and regard it as a single individual entity, the ideal Church. The second point of view is closely related to the first. If we ask what is in the minds of the writers in this usage we find that ultimately they are thinking not of a single entity, but of a collection of individuals. So when St. Paul says the Church is the 'body' or 'bride' of Christ, he is really expressing, under the figure of a single entity, the Church, the relation in which Christ stands to individual members. There is, however, a real difference between the conception of the actual and ideal church in two respects: (1) The conception of the actual Church regards it as it really is, i. e., a body of individuals of various degrees of imperfection; while the ideal Church is a body whose members represent the ideal of membership, i. e., it is a perfect Church, or at least one free from the negative aspect of evil. (2) The actual Church is composed of the members who are still alive and in the world at time of speaking; while the conception of the ideal Church does not denote a definite number of members at a definite time, but implies a membership independent of time. The latter is in fact an ideal, not an empirical, body."--Hastings Bible Dictionary, Vol. I., p. 425. [back]
2 "The Life of St. Paul," by Rev. James Stalker M. A., page 140. [back]
3 Mosheim's Church History, pp. 28, 29. [back]
4 Much as in our day we have Lutheran Christians, Calvinist Christians, Wesleyan Christians, etc. [back]
5 The Apostolic Age, pp. 296, 297. [back]
6 An interesting question emerges at this point: Supposing that the incipient division at Corinth had ripened into open schism, and that the Paulinians, Apollonians, and Cephasites had set up as independent denominations, each having formulated a creed to express its particular views, and the protesting members had stood fast on the common foundation, owning Christ alone as Leader, what would have been the status of this part of the Church occupying the original ground? Of course, the world would have regarded it as one of the four denominations; but in its essential characteristics it would certainly have been different from the three parties mentioned above. Should any body of Christians to-day put themselves wholly upon the original New Testament basis of faith and fellowship in order to clear themselves of the sin of schism, although they would be popularly regarded as a denomination, being only a part of the general body of Christ, yet their chief distinguishing feature would be their undenominational, or non-partisan, character. [back]
7 History of the Christian Age, by Professor George P. Fisher. p. 19. [back]
8 "The basis of ecclesiastical organization was the equality of believers. 'All ye are brethren.' Instead of a sacerdotal order there was a universal priesthood.* * * Complaints on the part of one disciple against another were to be carried to 'the church,' the body of disciples, with the apostles at their head. His injunctions to the apostles to superintend the flock, and the rites of baptism and the Lord's supper, imply definite association. The synagogue naturally served as a model in the organization of churches. They are even called by that name in the Epistle of James (James 2:2). This was their character at the outset." Professor George P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, p. 35. [back]
9 An Outline of Christian Theology, by Wm. Newton Clarke, D. D., pp. 381, 382. [back]