We are accustomed to think of the first Chris- tians as having no government, other than that of ' Peter with the Eleven ' (Ac 2^''). Harnack ( Con^^.
210
CHURCH GOVEKXMEXT
CHURCH GOVERNMENT
and Law of the Church, p. 20 f.) has pointed out that they had a number of authorities, to be loyal to all of which was sometimes perplexing. They had inherited from Judaism the ordinances of the Jewish Church. To administer these there was the Sanhedrin. There were the known commands of Christ, which included the authority of the whole community to forgive and to punish offenders. There were the occasional promptings of the Spirit (Ac G^- 1» S-" lO^" IP" =8 igv). There were also the brethren of the Lord, who had some kind of autliority. Perplexity might arise as to reconciling Jewish ordinances with the commands of Christ, and there might be ditierences between the Twelve and the Lord's brethren. We know that there was collision between the Divine com- mands and the decrees of the Sanhedrin, and that of course it was the latter that were disobeyed (419 529. 32)_ Nevertheless, none of these provided a constitution, and the common view that the germs of one are to be looked for in the Twelve is not far from the truth.
The Twelve left the selection of the Seven, which was a first step towards development, to the whole body of Christians, most of whom were Palestinian Jews. These showed their liberality by electing men, all of whom bear Greek names and were presumably, but not certainly, Greek- speaking Jews, who would be more acceptable to the murmuring Hellenists. One of the Seven was only a proselyte, and we have here a very early illustration of the expansive power of the Church. St. Luke's silence about elders in this connexion is the more remarkable, because distribution of the means of life was one of their functions (Ac IP"). The common identification of the Seven with the deacons is questionable. Probably tiiey were temporary officials, scattered by the persecution which was fatal to Stephen, and never re-estab- lished. See Deacon.
The apostles' plan of leaving the choice of the Seven to the community was perhaps followed by St. Paul in his earlier work. In Romans he men- tions no body of commissioned clergy. We cannot be sure from this that the Church in Rome was not yet organized : possibly there was no need to mention officials. In 1 and 2 Cor. there is no trace of a sacerdotal class ; and it is possible that there and elsewhere the Apostle was trying the experiment of a Christian democracy without any hierarchy. Corinth had its charismatic ministry, and this seems to have sufficed for a time. The charismatic ministry came to an end very quickly there and elsewhere. There is little trace of it later than the Didache (A.D. 100-150). While it lasted, it supplied teachers, not rulers. The in- fant Gentile churches seem to have governed themselves under tlie direction of the Apostle who founded them. The Apostle does not address his letters to any official at Thessalonica, Corinth, or Rome. He leaves it to the congregation to punish and pardon offenders, to manage the collection of money, and to decide who shall take charge of the fund. These Gentile churches have gifted persons who take the lend in public worship, 'apostles, prophets, and teachers' (1 Co 12-*, Eph 4" ; cf. Ro 12^"*), but they form no part of the permanent organization of the local church. They do not govern, nor are they tied to one community ; they may go from one local church to another. They are not classes of officials each with special duties ; they are individual believers with special gifts, with which they edify congregations. They are ministers of the word, proclaiming and explaining the gospel, and their business is to convert and in- struct rather than to rule. They are ' spiritual ' men (Tryeuynan/coi), endowed by the Spirit (wvevfia) with powers (xapicr/itaTa) which are not common to
all Christians ; and their authority depends not upon election or appointment by others, but upon these personal endowments, exercised with the con- sent of the congregation.
Yet it is scarcely credible that the infant Gen- tile churches remained very long without rulers of any kind. Congregations which consisted chiefly of Jewish Christians had ' elders ' analogous to ' elders ' among the Jews ; and in the Gentile communities something similar would grow up, with or without the suggestion of the Apostle who founded the church. The converts who were senior, whether by standing or age, and persons of social position or secular experience, would naturally be looked upon as leaders ; e.g. ' the elder brethren,' which is the true reading in Ac 15'-^. There are similar leaders at Ephesus. St. Luke calls them ' the elders of the Church,' but he does not report that St. Paul in his address to them does so (Ac 20"'^^). Except in the Pastorals, St. Paul does not mention ' elders.' In the earliest of his letters (1 Th 5'-) he exhorts his Gentile converts ' to esteem exceeding highly them that labour among you and guide (Trpdi<xTatiivovs) you in the Lord and admonish you.' F. J. A. Hort (Christian Ecclesia, 1897, p. 126) points out that although TTpoiffTaixivovs cannot be the technical title of an office, standing as it does between labouring and admonishing, yet the persons meant seem to be office-bearers in the Church. The words which follow, 'Admonish the disorderly, etc.,' appear to be addressed to these guardians. But here again these guides, like the ' apostles, prophets, and teachers,' seem to owe their appoint- ment to personal qualities. The difference is that they guide and admonish rather than teach. But no strict line would be drawn between leading and teaching. The same man would often have a gift for both, and would be specially influential in consequence. When official appointments began to be made, persons with this double qualification would be chosen, and they became ' presbyters ' or ' elders ' in the technical sense.