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

before him, and from infancy to hoary age, he was accustomed to repair to that hallowed place of worship, to listen to the reading of his sacred books, to pray and sing praises unto the God of Israel. In accordance with pious usage, therefore, the apostles continued to frequent the synagogues of the Jews. Wherever they went, they resorted to these places of worship, and strove to convert their brethren to faith in Christ, not as a new religion, but as a modification of their own.

In their own religious assemblies they also conformed, as far as was consistent with the spirit of the Christian religion, to the same rites, and gradually settled upon a church-organization which harmonized, in a remarkable manner, with that of the Jewish synagogue. They even retained the same name, as the appellation of their Christian assemblies. "If there come into your assembly, ovvaywrýr, if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, etc." James 2: 2. Compare also intovraywrýv. Heb. 10: 25. Their modes of worship were, substantially, the same as those of the synagogue. The titles of their officers they also borrowed from the same source. The titles, Bishop, Pastor, Presbyter, etc., were all familiar to them, as synonymous terms, denoting the same class of officers in the synagogue. Their duties and prerogatives remained, in substance, the same in the Christian church as in that of the Jews.

So great was this similarity between the primitive Christian churches and the Jewish synagogues, that by the Pagan nations they were mistaken for the same institutions. Pagan historians uniformly treated the primitive Christians as Jews.! As such, they suffered under the persecutions of their idolatrous rulers. These, and many other particulars that might be mentioned, are sufficient to show, that the ecclesiastical polity of the Jewish synagogue was very closely

1

Vitringa, De Synagog. Vet. Prolegom. pp. 3, 4.

copied by the apostles and primitive Christians in the organization of their assemblies.

In support of the foregoing statements, authorities to any extent, and of the highest character, might easily be adduced. Let the following, however, suffice, from Neander, who is generally acknowledged to be more profoundly skilled in the history of the Christian church than any other man now living. "The disciples had not yet attained a clear understanding of that call, which Christ had already given them by so many intimations, to form a church entirely separated from the existing Jewish economy; to that economy they adhered as much as possible; all the forms of the national theocracy were sacred in their esteem; it seemed the natural element of their religious consciousness, though a higher principle of life had been imparted, by which that consciousness was to be progressively inspired and transformed. They remained outwardly Jews, although, in proportion as their faith in Jesus as the Redeemer became clearer and stronger, they would inwardly cease to be Jews, and all external rites would assume a different relation to their internal life. It was their belief, that the existing religious forms would continue till the second coming of Christ, when a new and higher order of things would be established, and this great change they expected would shortly take place. Hence the establishment of a distinct mode of worship was far from entering their thoughts. Although new ideas respecting the essence of true worship arose in their minds from the light of faith in the Redeemer, they felt as great an interest in the temple worship as any devout Jews. They believed, however, that a sifting would take place among the members of the theocracy, and that the better part would, by the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, be incorporated with the Christian community. As the believers, in opposition to the mass of the Jewish nation who remained hardened in their unbelief, now formed a community inter