CHAPTER III. INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. THE churches which were established by the apostles and their disciples exhibit a remarkable example of unanimity. One in faith and the fellowship of love, they were united in spirit as different members of one body, or as brethren of the same family. This union and fellowship of spirit the apostles carefully promoted among all the churches. But they instituted no external form of union or confederation between those of different towns or provinces; nor, within the first century of the Christian era can any trace of such a confederacy, whether diocesan or conventional, be detected. on the page of history. The diocesan, metropolitan and patriarchal forms of organization belong to a later age. The idea of a holy catholic church, one and indivisible, had not yet arisen in the church, nor had it assumed any outward form of union. Wherever converts to Christianity were multiplied they formed themselves into a church, under the guidance of their religious teachers, for the enjoyment of Christian ordinances. But each individual church constituted an independent and separate community. The society was purely voluntary, and every church so constitu ted was strictly independent of all others in the conduct of its worship, the admission of its members, the exercise of its discipline, the choice of its officers and the entire management of its affairs. They were, in a word, independent 1 1 Cor. 12: 12, 13. Eph. 2: 20. 4: 3. republics, as Mosheim and Neander justly describe them. "Each individual church which had a bishop or presbyter of its own, assumed to itself the form and rights of a little distinct republic or commonwealth; and with regard to its internal concerns was wholly regulated by a code of laws, that if they did not originate with, had at least received the sanction of the people constituting such church." This is said with special reference to the earliest churches.2 "In regard to the relations of the presbyters to the churches, they were appointed, not to exercise unlimited authority, but to act as the leaders and rulers of ecclesiastical republics, to transact every thing in connection with the church, not as lords of the same, but as its servants."3 The opinion of these great historians of the church, in respect to the independent, popular character of the government of the primitive churches, is sufficiently obvious in these passages. Particular neighboring churches may for various reasons have sustained peculiar fraternal relations to each other. Local and other circumstances may, in time, have given rise to correspondence between churches more remote, or to mutual consultations by letter and by delegates, as in the instance of the churches at Antioch and Jerusalem, Acts xv, and of Corinth and Rome;4 but no established jurisdiction was exercised by one over the other, nor did any settled relations subsist between them. The church at Jerusalem, with the apostles and elders, addressed the church at Antioch, not in the language of authority, but of advice. Nor does ancient history, sacred or profane, relating to this early period, record a single instance in which one church presumed to impose laws of its own upon another. This independence of the churches, one of another, is ful'Although all the churches were, in this first stage of Christianity, united to ly and clearly presented by Mosheim. 2 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. 11. § 22. 3 Neander, Allgemein. Gesch., I. 291, 2. • See Epistle of Clement of Rome, to the Corinthians. gether in one common bond of faith and love, and were, in every respect, ready to promote the interest and welfare of each other by a reciprocal interchange of good offices, yet, with regard to government and internal economy, every individual church considered itself as an independent community, none of them ever looking beyond the circle of its own members for assistance, or recognizing any sort of external influence or authority. Neither in the New Testament, nor in any ancient document whatever, do we find anything recorded, from which it might be inferred that any of the minor churches were at all dependent on, or looked up for direction to, those of greater magnitude or consequence. On the contrary, several things occur therein which put it out of all doubt, that every one of them enjoyed the same rights, and was considered as being on a footing of the most perfect equality with the rest. Indeed it cannot, I will not say be proved, but even be made to appear probable, from testimony human or divine, that in this age it was the practice for several churches to enter into and maintain among themselves, that sort of association which afterwards came to subsist among the churches of almost every province. I allude to their assembling by their bishops, at stated periods, for the purpose of enacting general laws, and determining any questions or controversies that might arise respecting divine matters. It is not until the second century, that any traces of that sort of association from whence councils took their origin are to be perceived; when we find them occurring here. and there, some of them tolerably clear and distinct, others again but slight and faint, which seems plainly to prove that the practice arose subsequently to the times of the apostles, and that all that is urged concerning the councils of the first century, and the divine authority of councils, is sustained merely by the most uncertain kind of evidence, namely, the practice and opinion of more recent times."5 De Rebus Christ, Saec. I. § 48. Indications of this original independence are distinctly manifest even after the rise of Episcopacy. Every bishop had the right to form his own liturgy and creed, and to settle at pleasure his own time and mode of celebrating the religious festivals.6 Cyprian strongly asserts the right of every bishop to make laws for his own church. Socrates assigns this original independence of the bishops as the principal cause of the endless controversies in the church, respecting the observance of Easter and other festivals.7 But we need not enlarge. Nothing in the history of the primitive churches is more incontrovertible, than the fact of their absolute independence one of another. It is attested by the highest historical authorities, and appears to be generally conceded by Episcopal authors themselves. "At first," says the learned Dr. Barrow, "every church was settled apart under its own bishop and presbyters, so as independently and separately to manage its own concerns. was governed by its own head and had its own laws.”8 Each "Every church," according to Dr. Burton, "had its own spiritual head or bishop, and was independent of every other church, with respect to its own internal regulations and laws. There was, however, a connexion, more or less intimate, between neighboring churches, which was a consequence, in some degree, of the geographical or civil divisions of the empire. Thus the churches of one province, such as Achaia, Egypt, Cappadocia, etc., formed a kind of union, and the bishop of the capital, particularly if his see happened to be of apostolic foundation, acquired a precedence in rank and dignity over the rest. This superiority was often increased by the bishop of the capital (who was called, in later times, the metropolitan) having actually planted the church in small Greiling, Apostol. Christengemeine. S. 16. 7 Eccles. Hist. Lib. 5. c. 22. 8 Treatise on Pope's Supremacy, Works, Vol. I. p. 662. Comp. King's Prim. Christ. c. 12. p. 14, also 136. er and more distant places; so that the mother-church, as it might literally be termed, continued to feel a natural and parental regard for the churches planted by itself. These churches, however, were wholly independent in matters of internal jurisdiction; though it was likely that there would be a resemblance, in points even of slight importance, between churches of the same province." Riddle's account of this subject is as follows:-"The apostles or their representatives exercised a general superintendence over the churches by divine authority, attested by miraculous gifts. The subordinate government of each particular church was vested in itself; that is to say, the whole body elected its ministers and officers, and was consulted concerning all matters of importance. All churches were independent of each other, but were united by the bonds of holy charity, sympathy and friendship."9 Similar views are also expressed by Archbishop Whately. Though there was one Lord, one faith, one baptism, for all of these, yet they were each a distinct, independent community on earth, united by the common principles on which they were founded by their mutual agreement, affection and respect; but not having any one recognized head on earth, or acknowledging any sovereignty of one of those societies over others. Each bishop originally presided over one entire church."10 Now what, according to these Episcopal concessions, was the bishop at first, but the pastor of a single church, a parochial bishop, exercising only the jurisdiction, and enjoying the rights of an independent Congregational clergyman? But more of this hereafter. Several of the ancient churches firmly asserted and maintained their original religious liberty, by refusing to acknowledge the authority of the ancient councils, for a long time after the greater part of the churches had subjected them 9 Chronology, Beginning of Second Century. |