128

THE STATE FREE FROM THE CHURCH.

the organization of a State, can have no place in the perfect kingdom of Christ.' Then, to unite the body of Christ,' as Paul calls the Church, to the State, as an integral part thereof, is to convert these communities into monstrosities, for each is a unit of itself, having its own generic character, and it cannot brook an arbitrary unity with a foreign body. Bellarmine may reckon temporal power, pomp and glory amongst the evidences of the true Church, but Christ and his Apostles did not; and wherever the Churches have been forced into alliance with the State, the union has been the cause of departure from the faith, in the Churches themselves. Always, the State has either dragged the Church down to its own level, or the Church has insisted on governing the State, as in the Middle Ages. This struggle for freedom between Christ's kingdom and the civil power has gone on through eighteen centuries. Reason, endurance and truth require the contest to continue, till the ideal of Christ in government is wrought out, and the double usurpation is banished from the earth, namely: The interference of the Church in temporals, and of the State in spirituals. The State has introduced sacerdotalism into the Church as a political policy, and the Church has introduced ritualistic sacramentarianism into the State for the ends of temporal aggrandizement, in the place of saving grace and holy living. Thus, out of a Christian democracy this union evolves first an aristocracy, and then a hierarchy, for the enforcement of a sacramental salvation by the secular power. The true Gospel has always flourished the most where men have been the freest; where no artificial lines have been drawn between man and man, class and class; and where no fetter of party, State, or race has been applied, but where all have stood on a religious equality.

Now, Jesus left his simple-hearted Churches in that purely organic state which his Apostles had given them. Their faith was to center in him and his benevolent purposes, without reliance on national revenues or political weapons. Eloquence and art, philosophy and legislation, were in battle array against them; yet they must plant his banner in all lands by invading their cherished interests and destroying their established practices, their only weapon being Love. This was to make arid deserts blossom like the rose. No tear, thereafter, should fall unseen by the eye of love, and no sigh expire but on its ear. An ideal cross, borrowed from the sign of felony, was to be their insignia, a meritorious doctrinal cross, outlined against the blackness of darkness itself. By this sign they were to conquer obstinacy and unbelief, as it would supersede all old modes of thought, bring in a new morality, create new intellect and goodness, and revolutionize society. The cross was to be the new scepter over human spirits, and the Crucified should say: 'Behold, I make all things new!'

CHAPTER X.

THE OFFICERS AND ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

T

HE first office to be considered is that of the DEACON. This word is the English of the Greek diaconos, and means a servant; literally, to pursue after, to hasten by speed in service. The cardinals are regarded as the servants, or deacons of the Pope, a fact which accounts for their strange costume, worn in imitation of the ancient errand-man. His hat has a broad brim to shade the eyes from the sun, with long strings to tie under the chin in windy weather; and the end of his cloak is tucked under his girdle so that the limbs may be free for speed. The outside pressure of persecution at Jerusalem, and the burden of deep poverty, called for great sagacity and fidelity in the Christian leaders. Both Christ and his Apostles were poor, so that his servants had been trained to mutual dependence, and the use of a common treasury during his ministry had thrown a new light upon poverty, and given a new religion to the poor. Thus, when thousands of the same class came into the infant Church, their dependence seemed crippling. At this time the whole empire was poor, and the endurance of Christianity was thoroughly tried. The financial world had become exhausted, by disruption and war, luxury and waste, and society was demoralized by the neglect of agriculture in large tracts of country. A few were wealthy, but taxation was oppressive and the poor were very All great cities were deeply in debt, having borrowed large sums of money to build those massive structures whose ruins are now the wonder of the world. On these loans they paid exorbitant interest, which left them bankrupt and filled the land with paupers. Rome itself had 44,000 wretched lodging-houses and other apartments where squalor abounded, to 1,780 decent habitations; and Cicero, who died B. C. 43, reports that city in his time as having only 2,000 proprietors out of 1,200,000 inhabitants.1

poor.

But no province of the Empire was so impoverished as Palestine. It had always been an agricultural country, without manufactures or commerce. Now, its most enterprising people were scattered over the world for the purposes of trade, it had passed through a long succession of wars and reverses, and the extor

tionate tribute which Rome had wrung out of its fibers had reduced it to abject poverty. The site of its capital was chosen for its strong natural fortifications, but when it proved vulnerable it was left as the central sanctuary and seat of theology, without wealth to give it attraction, for more than once it was helped by outside charity. Still, to all foreign Jews it was the monument of holy memories, and the

10

object of life-long hope. The visits of the wealthy at the feasts furnished it with some supplies, but all Jews returned to its holy places and privileges for the solace of their souls, when deep poverty overtook them, especially widows and orphans who had laid the bones of their dead in strange soil. The chief joy' of these was to gather together what little they had, and hasten to die within the shadow of its hallowed walls, even if they slept in the place to bury strangers in.' Yet these classes were not always welcome; even the doctors of the law, who treated all women lightly, refused religious teaching to women. This state of things accounts for the great poverty which Christianity found in Jerusalem, and gives new weight to Christ's saying: 'The poor ye have always with you.' Sometimes pagan rulers and corporations were moved with pity to the extremely poor; but here is a new thing in the earth, in the form of a new religion which made benevolence its ideal. Its Founder had been born in a stable, had spent his life in deep poverty, had been buried in another man's tomb; and now he had made men members one of another, had created a new virtue in the heart toward the weak, and had elevated men to thrift by sympathy. The poor, therefore, embraced the Gospel as a fresh source of strength; it made them rich in bread as well as in faith, and consumed the partition-walls between the poor and rich in the flames of brotherly love. Instead of demanding hecatombs of beasts at the hands of widow and orphan, it tendered them 'one sacrifice for sin,' offered forever, and made the outcast and famishing its altar of sacrifice. Such love led those who had worldly goods to give to the poor, and bound the members of the new faith in a oneness which made all things common. Yet they neither abandoned the rights of ownership in private property, as Peter's questions to Ananias show, nor adopted a communist life, such as would pauperize the members of the Church.

A mere glance reveals the difficulty of the twelve in dealing with this state of affairs; they spread a free table daily for such as needed the bounty of the Church, for as yet they had no division of labor with others, and out of this common meal served to the multitude the deacon's office arose. The Church at Jerusalem was composed entirely of Jews and proselytes from paganism to the Jewish faith, some natives, some foreign born. Those born in Palestine spoke the Aramaic and read the Scriptures in the Hebrew; hence they were called Hebrews. Those born in other lands read and spoke the Greek or Hellenic (from Hellas, in Thessaly, the cradle of the Greeks), and were called Hellenists. These were held in disrepute by the native Jews, and were treated as inferiors because they mixed with the Gentiles. They had seen more of the world than the Hebrews, were less hampered by the rigid and official orthodoxy of Jerusalem, and were more cosmopolitan and less aristocratic in their feelings toward others. These phases of human nature brought jealousies into the fraternity, and as the Hellenist widows were the most numerous, they necessarily called for a larger share of the bounty. So the more strict brethren took it into their heads that their poor were 'overlooked,'

DEACONS; THEIR QUALIFICATIONS.

131

and with the true instinct of modern Baptist grumblers, they began to fill the Church with complaints that the distribution of bread was not even and fair. The adjustment of this business so diverted the attention of the Apostles and consumed their time, that they asked the Church to select seven men from their own ranks, who should 'help,' 'wait' and 'serve,' at the provision-tables, and they would confirm the popular choice. They also laid down clearly the qualifications for the work. They must be of good report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom;' discreet, having the confidence of the people; being marked for consecration, integrity, sound judgment, and impartiality; all this, although their duties were purely material, or, as Jerome expresses it, they were attendants on tables and widows.' 'The seven' were selected, but we are not to infer that they were all Hellenists because they bore Greek names, as the Jews commonly took such names, which renders it likely that im partiality ruled, and that they were taken equally from both factions, with one 'proselyte' to keep the balance even. Poor human nature always tells the same story.

Yet those chosen to this service are not called deacons,' but simply the 6 seven," to distinguish them from the twelve.' We meet this word first in the New Testament in the Epistle to the Philippians, and some think that the office was borrowed from the almoners of the synagogue. Dr. Lightfoot, the present Bishop of Durham, pronounces it a baseless though a very common assumption, that the Christian diaconate was copied from the arrangements of the synagogue.' The duties of the Levite in the temple, and the office of the Chusan in the synagogne, were of an entirely different character from those of the deacon. The Levite took care of the temple sacrifices, removed the blood, offal and ashes of the altar, served as door-keeper at the gates, and aided in the chorus of the psalmody. The duties of the Chusan were of the same order, so far as care for the synagogue went, and aid in the services allowed. But the only work of the deacon was to serve at the table in the daily meal and relieve the poor, a labor which called for another class of qualifications from those of these Jewish officers. In that dishonest and licentious age such a delicate trust as that held by the deacon required. rare spirituality and spotless character, keen insight of human nature, large patience and singular tact in dealing with the suffering, as well as a broad and intelligent sympathy. In a word, his sacred duties called for the Holy Spirit and wisdom,' special graces which neither Levite nor Chusan needed for their work.

The fact is most marked that those officers at a heathen feast, whose duty it was to serve the portions of food which were eaten, were called the 'deacons. One officer slew the victims; another offered them in sacrifice or cooked them; then this third officer served the flesh to the devotees. This fact is very suggestive, as showing the unpretentiousness of the office and title, and may account for the sacerdotal air which superstition has thrown around the diaconate in some communions.

This

election created a new office in the Church, but not a new order in the

132

DEACONS NOT MINISTERS.

ministry, as that term is now technically used. Alford warns his readers (on Acts vi) 'Not to imagine that we have here the institution of an ecclesiastical order so named '-deacons. In modern parlance they were 'laymen' before their election, and they remained so after. The reason given for the creation of their office was, that the Apostles might be relieved from those duties which interfered with their full 'ministry of the Word.' One set of ministers was not created to help another to do the same work, but duties that were not ministerial or pastoral were separated from those that were, and given into other hands. So that the deaconship was not probationary to the eldership, nor have we any evidence that in the first century any deacon became an elder. Neither did their office prevent their doing other Christian work, for we find Philip the first witness for Christ in Samaria. But he did not publish the good news by virtue of his office as a deacon, any more than Stephen was martyred as a deacon. Bishop Taylor has abundantly shown, in his 'Liberty of Prophesying,' that in the Apostolic Churches each believer of the brotherhood had the right to proclaim the Gospel as well as the pastors. The work of spreading it by preaching was left to each one as a question of capacity and not of office. Even the private worshipers amongst the Jews had the right of public speaking in the synagogue, as we see by the freedom of our Lord and his Apostles there, for they were not officers in that assembly. So it was in the Christian congregations; and, of course, the office of a deacon did not deprive him of the right to teach in common with his brethren. Luke tells us that the persecution at Jerusalem scattered the Church there 'except the Apostles,' and that the 'scattered,' the whole lay membership of that Church, preached the Word. So the deaconship did not shut up a deacon to the service of tables only; he might do missionary work, by right of his personal regeneration, and attend to his office, also. Did the Apostle Paul act improperly when he carried the collection of the Grecian Churches to Jerusalem, because he was not officially a deacon? a deacon? Thus a deacon might engage in other religious labor besides that imposed by his office.

The instructions given to the deacon in the Epistles, show the functions of his office to have been the same in the latter period of the Apostolic Age that they were when the office was created; and it nowhere appears that they exercised the pastoral or ministerial office. Even in matters relating to the relief of the poor they were not supreme. When Paul and Barnabas brought relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem, they delivered the gift to the elders' and not to the deacons : and no deacons assisted in the call, deliberations, or decisions of the advisory Council at Jerusalem. Paul's associations there were all with the elders and not the deacons of the Church, showing that the deacons held no rank in the pastoral office. Thirty years after their office was formed, he instructs them, and enjoins precisely those qualifications for filling it, which were needed in one whose business it was to go from house to house dispensing alms, and none other. In his Epistle to the Corinthians, A. D. 57, he calls them 'helps;' in that to the Romans, the minis