CHURCH
747
CHURCH
The Church after the iscension. — The doctrine of
the Church as set forth by the Apostles after the
Ascension is in all respects identical with the teaching
of Christ just described. St. Peter, in his first ser
mon, delivered on tie- .lay of Pentecost, declares that
Jesus of Nazareth is the .Messianic king (Acts, ii, 36).
The means of salvation which he indicates is bap
tism; and by baptism his converts are aggregated
to tin' society of disciples (ii, 41). Though in these
days the Christians still availed themselves of the
Temple services, yet from the first the brotherhood of
Christ formed a society essentially distinct from the
synagogue. The reason why St. Peter bids his
hearers accept baptism is none other than that they
may "save themselves from this unbelieving genera-
tion". Within the society of believers not only were
the members united by common rites, but the tie of
unity was so close as to bring about in the Church of
Jerusalem that condition of things in which the
disciples had all things common lii. 11 I.
Christ had declared that His kingdom should be spread among all nations, and had committed the execution of the work to the twelve (Matt., xxviii, 19). Yet the universal mission of the Church re- vealed itself but gradually. St. Peter indeed makes mention of it from the first (Acts, ii, 39). But in the earliest years the Apostolic activity is confined to Jerusalem alone. Indeed an old tradition (Apollo- nius, cited by Eusebius "Hist. Eccl.", V. xvii, and Clem. Alex., "Strom.", VI, v, in P. G. IX, 264) as- serts that Christ had bidden the Apostles wait twelve years in Jerusalem before dispersing to carry their gi .New here. The first notable advance occurs [Uent on the persecution which arose after the death of Stephen, a. i>. 37. This was the occasion of the preaching of the Gospel to the Samaritans, a people excluded from the privileges of Israel, though acknowledging the Mosaic Law (Acts, viii, .5). A still further expansion resulted from the revelation
directing St. Peter to admit to baptism Cornelius, a devout Gentile, i. e. one associated to the Jewish religion but not circumcised. From this time for- ward circumcision and the observance of the Law were not a condition requisite for incorporation into the Church. But the final step of admitting those (entiles who had known no previous connexion with the religion of Israel, and whose life had been spent in paganism, was not taken till more than fifteen years after Christ's Ascension; it did not occur, it would seem, before the day described in Acts xiii, 46, when, at Antioeh in Pisidia. Paul and Barnabas announced that sine.' the Jews accounted themselves unworthy
1 life they would " turn to the I lentiles". In the Apostolic teaching the term Church, from the very first, takes the place of the expression King- \. t -. v, 11 . Where others than the Jews were concerned, the greater suitability of the former name is evident: for Kingdom of God had special reference to Jewish beliefs. But the change of title only emphasizes the social unity of the mem- bers. They are the new congregation of Israel — the
theocratic polity: they are the people (Xais) of God
\v. 14: Rom., ix, 25; II Cor., vi, 16; I Peter,
ii, 9 s.p: Heli, viii. 10; Apoc. xviii, 4 : x.xi, 3). By
their admission to the < !hurch, the < lentiles have been
in and form part of God's fruitful olive-tree,
while apostate Israel has been broken off (Rom., xi, 24 . .-st. Paul, writ; 'entile converts at
Corinth, terms the ancient Hebrew Church "our
fathers i I Cor., x, 1). Indeed from time to time the previous phraseology is employed, and the Gospel message is termed the preaching of the Kingdom of God (Acts. xx. 25; xxviii, 31).
Within the Chut ties exercised that
regulative power with which Christ had endowed them. It was no chaotic mob, but a true society possessed of a corporate life, and organized in various
orders. The evidence shows the twelve to have
possessed (a) a power of jurisdiction, in virtue of
which they wielded a legislative and judicial au-
thority, and (b) a magisterial office to teach the
Divine revelation entrusted to them. Thus (a)
we find St. Paul authoritatively prescribing for the
order and discipline of the churches. He does not
advise; he directs (I Cor., xi, 34; xxvi, 1; Titus, i,
5). He pronounces judicial sentence (I Cor., v. 5;
II Cor., ii, 10), and his sentences, like those of other
Apostles, receive at times the solemn sanction of
miraculous punishment (I Tim., i, 20; Acts, v, 1-10).
In like manner he bills his delegate Timothy hear
the causes even of priests, and rebuke, in the sight of
all. those who sin (I Tim., v, 19 sq.). (b) With no
less definiteness does he assert that the Apostolate
carries with it a doctrinal authority, which all are
bound to recognize. God has sent them, he affirms,
to claim "the obedience of faith" (Rom., i, 5; xv, 18).
Further, his solemnly-expressed desire, that even if
an angel from heaven were to preach another doe-
trine to the Galatians than that which he had deliv-
ered to them, he should be anathema (Gal., i, S), in-
volves a claim to infallibility in the teaching of
revealed truth.
While the whole Apostolic College enjoyed this power in the Church, St. Peter always appears in that position of primacy which Christ assigned to him. It is Peter who receives into the Church the first converts, alike from Judaism and from heathen- ism (Acts, ii, 41; x, 5 sq.), who works the first miracle Acts, iii, 1 sqq.), who inflicts the first ecclesiastical penalty (Acts, v, 1 sqq.). It is Peter who casts out of the Church the first heretic, Simon Magus (Acts, viii, 21), who makes the first Apostolic visita- tion of the churches (Acts, ix, 32), and who pro- nounces the first dogmatic decision (Acts, xv, 7). (See Sehanz, III, p. 460.) So indisputable was his position that when St. Paul was about to undertake the work of preaching to the heathen the Gospel which Christ had revealed to him, lie regarded it as necessary to obtain recognition from Peter (Gal., i. 18). More than this was not needful: for the appro- bation of Peter was definitive.
IV. Organization by the Apostles. — Few sub- jects have been so much debated during the past half-century as the organization of the primitive Church. The present article cannot deal with the whole of this wide subject. Its .scope is limited to a single point. An endeavour will be made to esti- mate the existing information regarding the Apos- tolic Age itself. Further light is thrown on the matter by a consideration of the organization that is found to have existed in the period immediately subsequent to the death of the last Apostle. (See Bishop.) The independent evidence derived from the consideration of each of these periods will, in the opinion of the present writer, be found, when fairly weighed, to yield similar results. Thus the con- clusions here advanced, over and above their in- trinsic value, derive support from the independent witness of another series of authorities tending in all essentials to confirm their accuracy. The question at issue is, whether the Apostles did. or did not, establish in the Christian communities a hierarchical organization. All Catholic scholars, together with some few Protestants, hold that they did so. The opposite view is maintained by the rationalist critics, together with the greater number of Protes- tants.
In considering the evidence of the \Y\v Testament on the subject, it appears at once that there is a marked difference between the stale of things re- VI all 1 in the later \eu Testament writings, and that which appears in those of an earlier date. In the earlier writings we find but little mention of an offi- cial organization. Such official positions as may
