I am forced to admit that the description of the church organization in the New Testament is not all one could wish it to be. Only the faintest outline may be traced in those documents which all Christians accept as authority, and as they are fragmentary the description of the church contained in them is necessarily imperfect.
From what is written it appears that the quorum of the Twelve Apostles exercised a universal jurisdiction over the church, and a sort of primacy seems to be accorded to three of their number, Peter, James and John. Before the crucifixion Jesus also called into existence quorums of seventies to whom he gave similar powers to those bestowed upon the Twelve;1 but for some reason, doubtless the imperfection of the Christian records, we can learn nothing more of them than is set down in the tenth chapter of Luke.
After the departure of the resurrected Messiah from his disciples at Bethany, the apostles, as fast as men were brought to faith and repentance through their preaching, organized in the various cities where they labored branches of the church, over which they appointed elders or bishops to preside;2 and these evidently were assisted in their duties by deacons.3 In an enumeration of the church officers given by Paul, we have other officers named besides apostles, prophets, seventies; viz., evangelists, pastors and teachers.4
It is difficult from the New Testament to determine the exact nature and full extent of the duties of these respective officers in the church, or their gradation. But that there was a prescribed duty to each officer, a limit to the authority of each, and a gradation among them, which made a harmonious whole—a complete ecclesiastical government, with all the parts properly adjusted and assigned their respective duties, there can be no question. For Paul likens the church of Christ to the body of a man, which, though it hath many members, yet is it one body; and all the members are necessary; one cannot say to the other, "I have no need of thee." So all these officers in the church, the apostle argues, are necessary; and as the head in the natural body cannot say to the foot, "I have no need of thee," neither in the church can the apostle say to the deacon, "I have no need of thee;" much less can the deacon say to the apostle, "I have no need of thee."5 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?" he asks. The implied answer is, No; but, as he elsewhere says, the whole body—i. e., the church—"is fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth."6
This organization as given by the Master had for its purpose the perfecting of the saints; the work of the ministry; edifying the body of Christ; and to prevent the saints being carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight and cunning of men.7 The apostle who thus specifies the purposes of the church organization also intimates that it was to be perpetuated until the saints all come to the "unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God—unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the fullness of the stature of Christ."8 Furthermore, it is obvious that since the church organization was given for the purposes above enumerated, so long as there are saints to be perfected, or a necessity for work in the ministry; so long as the church needs edifying or the saints guarding from heresy, and the deceitfulness of false teachers—just so long will this organization of the church with apostles and prophets, seventies and elders, bishops and pastors, teachers and deacons be needed; and since the kinds of work enumerated in the foregoing will always be necessary, we arrive at the conclusion that the church organization as established by the apostles was designed to be perpetual.9 But that it was not perpetuated is clearly demonstrated by writers of the second century, who, with the single exception of Clement of Alexandria, who calls Clement of Rome an "Apostle," recognize no other officers in the church than bishops, presbyters (elders) and deacons. It is difficult to account for the sudden loss of so many orders of officers in the church, unless, indeed, the apostasy for which I contend had made very great progress as early as the opening of the second century, which, I believe, was the case.
It appears from a statement of Clement of Rome10 that persons selected by the apostles to be bishops, and after the death of the apostles those selected by other men of repute in the church, were submitted to the people for their approval, and this was the custom until the fourth century. It was also the custom of the bishops to employ the elders as a sort of council; and to call upon the people for their assent in the important matters of church government. In course of time, however, early in the fourth century, this respect for the principle of common consent was lost. The people were first altogether excluded from a voice in ecclesiastical affairs; and the next step was to deprive the elders of their former authority.11 Thus power was centralized in the hands of the bishops, which enabled them to control everything at their discretion, and paved the way for those abuses of power which bear evidence of the awful apostasy of the church.
So far as can be learned from the Christian annals, the churches that grew up under the preaching of the apostles recognized in that quorum a general presidency over all the churches established; and in fact seemed to regard each separate church as but a member of the one great household of faith. But after the death of the apostles, these several branches seem to be considered separate and independent organizations, united in faith and charity, it is true, but in nothing more. There is no evidence that there was such a thing as subordination among the churches, or rank among the bishops. As might be expected, however, there was a peculiar respect paid to the churches founded by the apostles. Those churches were appealed to in controversies on points of doctrine, as most likely to know what the apostles taught, but the appeal had no other significance. This equality of rank among the bishops, together with the simple form of church government, described above, was soon changed. The bishops who lived in cities, either by their own labors or those of the elders associated with them, raised up new churches in the adjacent villages and hamlets. The bishops of these rural districts being nominated and ordained by the bishops presiding in the cities, very naturally felt themselves under the protection and dependent upon the city bishops. This idea continued to grow until these bishops of "the suburbs and the fields" were looked upon as a distinct order of officers, possessing a dignity and authority above the elders, and yet subordinate to the bishops of the cities who, wherever they presided over bishops in outlying districts, soon came to be designated as archbishops.
Gradually, and perhaps almost imperceptibly, the church in the west in its government followed the civil divisions of the Roman empire. The bishop of the metropolis of a civil province, in time came to be regarded as having a general supervision of all the churches in that province, and soon it became the custom to style them metropolitans.
The bishops of the great cities of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, after the ascension of Constantine, were made to correspond to the four praetorian prefects created by Constantine in the civil government; and before the end of the fourth century received the title of patriarchs.12 It is also said by Mosheim, though denied by other writers, that next to the patriarchs were bishops whose jurisdiction extended over several provinces and corresponded to the civil exarchs; next came the metropolitan bishops whose jurisdiction, as already stated, was limited to a single province, and corresponded to the governor of the provinces. The arch-bishops presided over a district including several bishoprics within a province; and lastly came the bishops of churches.
Concurrent with these changes arose the custom, first derived from the Greeks, of holding provincial councils. The bishops living in a single province met in council to confer upon mattes of common interest to their churches. At first the attending bishops looked upon themselves as merely the representatives of their respective churches, without further jurisdiction than to discuss and come to agreement on matters of common concern. But gradually they usurped the power to order by decree where at first they were wont to advise or entreat. Nor was it long ere the decrees of these provincial councils were forced upon the respective churches as laws to be implicitly obeyed.
There was some resistance to this from the lower clergy, but it was quickly overcome by the activity and ambition of the bishops, who were only too glad to escape the restraints imposed upon their movements by the doctrine of common consent. It is said also that as