Church

VIEW:45 DATA:01-04-2020

CHURCH.—1. The word ecclesia, which in its Christian application is usually tr. [Note: translate or translation.] ‘church,’ was applied in ordinary Greek usage to the duly constituted gathering of the citizens in a self-governing city, and it is so used of the Ephesian assembly in Act_19:39. It was adopted in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] to tr. [Note: translate or translation.] a Heb. word, qâhâl, signifying the nation of Israel as assembled before God or considered in a religious aspect (Jdg_21:8, 1Ch_29:1, Deu_31:30 etc.). In this sense it is found twice in the NT (Act_7:38 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘church,’ Heb_2:12 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘congregation’). The term is practically equivalent to the familiar ‘synagogue’ which, however, was more frequently used to translate another Heb. word, ‘çdhâh. This will probably explain our Lord’s words in Mat_18:17. For ‘synagogue’ was the name regularly applied after the Babylonian exile to local congregations of Jews formally gathered for common worship, and from them subsequently transferred to similar congregations of Hebrew Christians (Jam_2:2). ‘Tell it to the ecclesia’ can hardly refer directly to communities of Jesus’ disciples, as these did not exist in the time of the Galilæan ministry, but rather to the Jewish congregation, or its representative court, in the place to which the disputants might belong. The renewal of the promise concerning binding and loosing in Jam_2:18 (cf. Mat_16:19) makes against this interpretation. And the assurance of Christ’s presence in Mat_16:20 can have reference only to gatherings of disciples. But it may well be that we have these sayings brought together by Matthew in view of the Christian significance of ecclesia. There is no evidence that ecclesia, like ‘synagogue,’ was transferred from the congregation of Israel to the religious assemblies which were its local embodiment. But, though not the technical term, there would be no difficulty in applying it, without fear of misunderstanding, to the synagogue. And this would be the more natural because the term is usually applied to Israel in its historical rather than in its ideal aspect (see Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 12).
2. Ecclesia is used constantly with its Christian meaning in the Pauline Epistles. Its earliest use chronologically is probably in 1Th_1:1. But the growth of its use is hest studied by beginning with Acts. Here the term first occurs in Act_5:11, applied to the Christians of Jerusalem in their corporate capacity. In Act_1:15 St. Peter is represented as standing up ‘in the midst of the brethren.’ Thus from the first Christians are a brotherhood or family, not a promiscuous gathering. That this family is considered capable of an ordered extension is evident (a) from the steps immediately taken to fill a vacant post of authority (Act_1:25), and (b) from the way in which converts on receiving baptism are spoken of as added to a fellowship (Act_2:47 AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘added to the church,’ but see RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) which continues in the Apostles’ teaching, and the bond of a common table and united prayer (Act_2:42; Act_2:46). This community is now called ‘the assemblage of them that believed’ (Act_4:32), the word used, as compared with its employment elsewhere, suggesting not a throng or crowd but the whole body of the disciples. In Exo_12:6 we have the phrase ‘the whole assembly of the congregation (Gr. synagôgç) of Israel.’ When, therefore, it became necessary to find a collective name for ‘the believers,’ ecclesia, the alternative to ‘synagogue,’ was not unnaturally chosen. For the disciples meeting in Jerusalem were, as a matter of fact, the true Israel (Gal_6:16), the little flock to whom was to be given the Messianic Kingdom (Luk_12:32). Moreover, they were a Christian synagogue, and, but for the risk of confusion, might have been so called. The name, therefore, as applied to the primitive community of Jesus, is on the one hand universal and ideal, on the other local and particular. In either case the associations are Jewish, and by these the subsequent history of the name is determined.
3. As Christianity spread, the local units of the brotherhood came to he called ecclesiæ (Act_9:31; Act_13:1; Act_14:23; Act_15:41; Act_20:17 etc.), the original community being now distinguished as ‘the ecclesia in Jerusalem’ (Act_8:1). Thus we reach the familiar use of the Pauline Epistles, e.g. the ecclesia of the Thessalonians (1Th_1:1), of Laodicea (Col_4:16), of Corinth (1Co_1:2); cf. 1Pe_5:13, Rev_2:1 etc. They are summed up in the expression ‘all the ecclesiœ of Christ’ (Rom_16:16). This language has doubtless given rise to the modern conception of ‘the churches’; but it must be observed that the Pauline idea is territorial, the only apparent departure from this usage being the application of the name to sections of a local ecclesia, which seem in some instances to have met for additional worship in the houses of prominent disciples (Rom_16:5, 1Co_16:19 etc.). The existence of independent congregations of Christians within a single area, like the Hellenistic and Hebrew synagogues (see Act_6:1; Act_6:9), does not appear to be contemplated in the NT.
4. The conception of a Catholic Church in the sense of a constitutional federation of local Christian organizations in a universal community is post-Apostolic. The phrase is first found in Ignatius (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 115; see Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers, Pt. 2. ii. p. 310). But in the 1st cent. the Church of Jerusalem, as the seat of Apostolic authority (Act_8:1; Act_8:14), still exercises an influence upon the other communities, which continues during the period of translation to the world-wide society. At Jerusalem Saul receives the right hand of fellowship and recognition from the pillar Apostles (Gal_2:9). Thence Apostles go forth to confirm and consolidate the work of evangelists (Act_8:14). Thither missionaries return with reports of newly-founded Gentile societies and contributions for the poor saints (Act_15:2; Act_24:17, 1Co_16:1-3). It is this community that promulgates decisions on problems created by the extension of Christianity (Act_15:22-29). Till after the destruction of the city in a.d. 71 this Church continued, under the presidency of James the Lord’s brother (Gal_2:12, Act_12:17; Act_15:13; Act_21:18), and then of other members of the Christian ‘royal family’ (Eusebius, HE iii. 11, 19, 20), to be the typical society of Jesus’ disciples.
5. But already in the NT that ideal element, which distinguished the primitive fellowship as the Kingdom of Messiah, is beginning to express itself in a conception of the ecclesia which, while it never loses touch with the actual concrete society or societies of Christians, has nevertheless no constitutional value. It is scarcely possible to suppose that the adoption of the name ecclesia for the Christian society was altogether unrelated to the celebrated use of the word by the Lord Himself in His conversation with the disciples at Cæsarea Philippi (Mat_16:13-20 ||). Two suggestions with regard to this passage may be dismissed. The first is that it was interpolated to support the growth of ecclesiastical authority in the 2nd cent.; this rests solely on an assumption that begs the question. The second is that ecclesia has been substituted for ‘kingdom’ in our Lord’s utterance through subsequent identification of ideas. But the occasion was one that Christ evidently intended to signalize by a unique deliverance, the full significance of which would not become apparent till interpreted by later experience (cf. Mat_10:38, Joh_6:53). The metaphor of building as applied to the nation of Israel is found in the OT (Jer_33:7; cf. Amo_9:11, Psa_102:16). There is therefore little doubt that Jesus meant His disciples to understand the establishment of Messiah’s Kingdom; and that the use of the less common word ecclesia, far from being unintentional, is designed to connect with the new and enlarged Israel only the spiritual associations of Jehovah’s congregation, and to discourage the temporal aspirations which they were only too ready to derive from the promised Kingdom.
6. The Kingdom of God, or of Heaven, is a prominent conception in the Synoptic Gospels. It is rather the Kingdom than the King that Christ Himself proclaims (Mar_1:14-15, cf. Mat_4:17). The idea, partially understood by His contemporaries, was broadened and spiritualized by Jesus. It had been outlined by prophets and apocalyptic writers. It was to realize the hopes of that congregation of Israel which had been purchased and redeemed of old (Psa_74:2), and of which the Davidic monarchy had been the pledge (Mic_4:8, Isa_55:3 etc.). Typical passages are Dan_2:44; Dan_7:14. This was the Kingdom which the crowd hailed at the Triumphal Entry (Mat_21:9 ||). Christ begins from the point of Jewish expectation, but the Kingdom which He proclaims, though not less actual, surpasses any previous conception in the minds of His followers. It is already present (Luk_11:20; Luk_17:21 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ) in His own Person and work. It is revealed as a historical institution in the parables of the Tares (Mat_13:24 ff.) and the Drag-net (Mat_13:47 ff.). Other parables present it as an ideal which no historical institution can satisfy, e.g. Treasure hid in a field (Mat_13:44), a merchantman seeking goodly Pearls (Mat_13:45), a grain of Mustard Seed (Mat_13:21; Mat_13:32). We cannot solve the problem involved in Christ’s various presentations of the Kingdom by saying that He uses the word in different senses. He is dealing with a reality too vast to be submitted to the human understanding otherwise than in aspects and partial views which no powers of combination will enable us adequately to adjust. The twofold conception of the Kingdom as at once a reality and an ideal is finally brought home by those utterances of Jesus which refer its realization to the end of the age. Daniel’s prophecy is to be realized only when the Son of Man shall come in His Kingdom (Mat_24:3; Mat_24:15, Mat_25:31, Mat_26:64). It is then that the blessed are to inherit what nevertheless was prepared for them from the beginning of time (Mat_25:34). And all views of the Kingdom which would limit it to an externally organized community are proved to be insufficient by a declaration like that of Luk_17:20-21. But even when contemplated ideally, the Messianic Kingdom possesses those attributes of order and authority which are inseparable from a society (Mat_19:28).
It is hardly to be doubted, therefore, that the name ecclesia, as given to the primitive community of Christians at Jerusalem, even if suggested rather by the synagogue than by our Lord’s declaration to St. Peter, could not be used without identifying that society with the Kingdom of God, so far as this was capable of realization in an institution, and endowing it with those ideal qualities which belong thereto. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples at Pentecost, fulfilling as it did the expectation of a baptism of fire that was to accompany the establishment of the Kingdom (Act_1:5; Act_2:3-4, Mat_3:11), connects the Church with the Kingdom, and the scattering of its members after Stephen’s death (Act_8:1) would begin to familiarize the disciples with the idea of the unity in Christ unbroken by local separation (cf. Act_8:1 and Act_9:31).
7. But it is only in the theology of St. Paul that we find the Kingdom of the Gospels interpreted in terms of the actual experience of the Christian ecclesia. The extension of the fellowship beyond the limits of a single city has shown that the ideal Church cannot be identified simpliciter with any Christian community, while the idealization of the federated ecclesiœ, natural enough in a later age, is, in the absence of a wider ecclesiastical organization, not yet possible. It is still further from the truth to assert that St. Paul had the conception of an invisible Church, of which the local communities were at best typical. ‘We have no evidence that St. Paul regarded membership of the universal ecclesia as invisible’ (Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 169). The method by which the Apostle reached his doctrine of the Church is best illustrated by his charge to the elders at Miletus to feed the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers (Act_20:28). Here the local Ephesian Church represents practically God’s Church purchased with His precious blood (Act_20:28), a real community of which visibility is an essential characteristic, but which by the nature of the case is incapable of a complete manifestation in history. The passage combines in a remarkable degree the three elements in the Divine Society, namely, the redeemed congregation of Israel (Psa_74:2), the Kingdom or ecclesia of Messiah (Mat_16:18), and the body established upon the Atonement (Col_1:20-22, Eph_2:13). All three notes are present in the teaching of the Epistles concerning the ecclesia. It is the historical fact of the inclusion of the Gentiles (Eph_2:18) that is the starting-point. Those nations which under the old covenant were alien from the people of God (Eph_2:12) are now included in the vast citizenship or polity (Eph_2:13 ff.) which membership in a local ecclesia involves. The Church has existed from all eternity as an idea in the mind of God (Eph_3:3-11), the heritage prepared for Christ (Eph_1:10-11). It is the people of possession (Eph_1:14, cf. 1Pe_2:9, Tit_2:14), identified with the commonwealth of Israel (Eph_2:12), and as such the immediate object of redemption (Eph_5:25); but through the reconciliation of the Cross extended (Eph_2:14), and, as it were, reincorporated on a wider basis (Eph_2:15), as the sphere of universal forgiveness (Eph_2:16), the home of the Spirit (Eph_2:18), and the one body of Christ (Eph_4:12 etc.), in which all have access to the Father (Eph_2:18). The interlaced figures of growth and building (Eph_4:12; Eph_4:16), under which it is presented, witness to its organic and therefore not exclusively spiritual character. Baptism, administered by the local ecclesiœ and resulting in rights and duties in respect of them, is yet primarily the method of entrance to the ideal community (Rom_6:3-4, 1Co_12:13, Gal_3:27-28, Eph_4:5), to which also belong those offices and functions which, whether universal like the Apostolate (1Co_12:27-28) or particular like the presbyterate (Act_20:17; Act_20:28; cf. 1Co_12:8-11, Eph_4:11), are exercised only in relation to the local societies. It is the Church of God that suffers persecution in the persons of those who are of ‘the Way’ (1Co_15:9, Act_8:3; Act_9:1); is profaned by misuse of sacred ordinances at Corinth (1Co_11:22); becomes at Ephesus the pillar and ground of the truth (1Ti_3:16).
That St. Paul, in speaking of the Church now in the local now in the universal sense, is not dealing with ideas connected only by analogy, is proved by the ease with which he passes from the one to the other use (Col_4:15-16; cf. Col_1:18; cf. Col_1:24 and Eph. passim). The Church is essentially visible, the shrine of God (1Co_3:16-17), the body of Christ (Eph_1:23 etc.); schism and party-strife involving a breach in the unity of the Spirit (Eph_4:3). Under another figure the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph_5:25 ff.), His complement or fulness (Eph_1:23), deriving its life from Him as He does from the Father (Eph_1:22, 1Co_11:3).
8. Thus the Biblical view of the Church differs alike from the materialized conception of Augustine, which identifies it with the constitutionally incorporated and œcumenical society of the Roman Empire, with its canon law and hierarchical jurisdiction, and from that Kingdom of Christ which Luther, as interpreted by Ritschl, regarded as ‘the inward spiritual union of believers with Christ’ (Justification and Reconciliation, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] p. 287). The principle of the Church’s life is inward, so that ‘the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ’ remains the object of Christian hope (Eph_4:13). But its manifestation is outward, and includes those ministries which, though marred, as history shows, by human failure and sin, are set in the Church for the building up of the body (Eph_4:11-12). Just as members of the legal Israel are recognized by our Lord as sons of the Kingdom (Mat_8:12), so the baptized are the called, the saints, the members of the body. There is no warrant in the NT for that sharp separation between membership in the legal worshipping Church and the Kingdom of God which is characteristic of Ritschlianism.
9. The Church in its corporate capacity is the primary object of redemption. This truth, besides being definitely asserted (Eph_5:25; Eph_5:27, Act_20:28, Tit_2:14), is involved in the conception of Christ as the second Adam (Rom_5:12-21, 1Co_15:20-22), the federal head of a redeemed race; underlies the institutions of Baptism and the Eucharist; and is expressed in the Apostolic teaching concerning the two Sacraments (see above, also 1Co_10:16-18; 1Co_11:20-34). The Church is thus not a voluntary association of justified persons for purposes of mutual edification and common worship, but the body in which the individual believer normally realizes his redemption. Christ’s love for the Church, for which He gave Himself (Eph_5:25), constituting a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of possession (1Pe_2:5; 1Pe_2:9) through His blood (Eph_2:13), completes the parallel, or rather marks the identity, with the historical Israel. Membership in Abraham’s covenanted race, of which circumcision was the sign (Gen_17:8), brought the Israelite into relation with Jehovah. The sacrifices covered the whole ‘church in the wilderness’ (Act_7:38), and each worshipper approached God in virtue of his inclusion in the holy people. No foreigner might eat of the Passover (Exo_12:45). The propitiatory ritual of the Day of Atonement was expressly designed for the consecration of the whole nation (Lev_16:1-34). So the sacrifice of the Cross is our Passover (1Co_5:7). The worship of the Christian congregation is the Paschal feast (1Co_5:8, cf. Heb_13:10-16). In Christ those who are now fellow-citizens have a common access to the Father (Eph_2:18, Heb_10:22). Through the Mediator of a new covenant (Heb_12:24) those that are consecrated (Heb_10:14; Heb_10:22) are come to the Church of the first-born (Heb_12:23), which includes the spirits of the perfected saints (ib.) in the fellowship of God’s household (Eph_2:19, Heb_10:21). See also following article.
J. G. Simpson.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

From the Greek kuriakee, "house of the Lord," a word which passed to the Gothic tongue; the Goths being the first of the northern hordes converted to Christianity, adopted the word from the Greek Christians of Constantinople, and so it came to us Anglo-Saxons (Trench, Study of Words). But Lipsius, from circus, from whence kirk, a circle, because the oldest temples, as the Druid ones, were circular in form. Ekkleesia in the New Testament never means the building or house of assembly, because church buildings were built long AFTER the apostolic age. It means an organized body, whose unity does not depend on its being met together in one place; not an assemblage of atoms, but members in their several places united to the One Head, Christ, and forming one organic living whole (1 Corinthians 12). The bride of Christ (Eph_5:25-32; Eph_1:22), the body of which He is the Head.
The household of Christ and of God (Mat_10:25; Eph_2:19). The temple of the Holy Spirit, made up of living stones (Eph_2:22; 1Co_3:16; 1Pe_2:5). Ekkleesia is used of one or more particular Christian associations, even one small enough to worship together in one house (Rom_16:5). Also of "the whole church" (Rom_16:23; 1Co_12:28). Ekkleesia occurs twice only in Matthew (Mat_16:18; Mat_18:17), elsewhere called "the kingdom of the heavens" by Matthew, "the kingdom of God" by Mark, Luke and John. Also called Christ's "flock," never to be plucked out of His hand (Joh_10:28), "branches" in Him "the true Vine." Founded on the Rock, "the Christ the Son of the living God," the only Foundation (Mat_16:16; Mat_16:18; 1Co_3:11).
Constituted as Christ's mystical body on Pentecost; thenceforth expanding in the successive stages traced in ACTS . Described in a beautiful summary (Act_2:41; Act_2:47). (On its apostasy (See BABYLON.) Professing Christendom numbers now probably 80 million of Greek churches, 90 million of Teutonic or Protestant churches, and 170 million of Roman Catholic churches. The Church of England's definition of the church is truly scriptural (Article xix): "a congregation of faithful men in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." The church that shall reign with Christ is made up of those written in heaven, in the Lamb's book of life, the spirits of just, men made perfect (Heb_12:22-23; Rev_21:27).
The faultless perfection and the glorious promises in Scripture assigned to the church (election, adoption, spiritual priesthood, sure guidance by the Spirit into all truth, eternal salvation) belong not to all of the visible church, but to those alone of it who are in living union with Christ (Eph_5:23-27; Heb_12:22-23). The claim for the visible church of what belongs to the invisible, in spite of Christ's warning parable of the tares and wheat (Mat_13:24-30; Mat_13:36-43), has led to some of Rome's deadliest errors. On the other hand, the attempt to sever the tares from the wheat prematurely has led to many schisms, which have invariably failed in the attempt and only generated fresh separations. We must wait until Christ's manifestation for the manifestation of the sons of God (Rom_8:19; Col_3:4).
The true universal church is restricted to "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1Co_1:2). They are visible in so far as their light of good works so shines before men that their Father in heaven is glorified (Mat_5:16). They are invisible insofar that it is God alone who can infallibly see who among professors are animated by a living, loving faith, and who are not. A visible community, consisting of various members and aggregations of members, was founded by Christ Himself, as needed for the extension and continuation of Christianity to all lands and all ages. The ministry of the word and the two sacraments, baptism, and the supper of the Lord, (both in part derived from existing Jewish rites, Mat_26:26-28; 1Co_5:7-8).
Baptism, the Lord's Supper were appointed as the church's distinctive ordinances (Mat_28:19-20, Greek text): "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and (only on condition of your doing so) I am with you always," etc. (See BAPTISM; LORD'S SUPPER.) The professing church that neglects the precept forfeits the promise, which is fatal to Rome's claims. No detailed church government is explicitly commanded by Jesus in the New Testament. The Old Testament ministry of high priest, priests, and Levites necessarily ended with the destruction of the one and only temple appointed by God. That the Christian ministry is not sacerdotal, as the Old Testament ministry, is proved by the title hiereus, the Greek of the Latin sacerdos, never once being used of Christian ministers.
When used at all as to the Christian church it is used of the whole body of Christians; since not merely ministers, as the Aaronic priests, but all equally, have near access to the heavenly holy place, through the torn veil of Christ's flesh (Heb_10:19-22; Heb_13:15-16; 1Pe_2:19; Rev_1:6). All alike offer "spiritual sacrifices." For a minister to pretend to offer a literal sacrifice in the Lord's supper, or to have the sacerdotal priesthood (which pertains to Christ alone), would be the sin which Moses charged on Korah: "Seemeth it but a small thing unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation to bring you near to Himself, ... to stand before the congregation to minister to them; and seek ye the priesthood also?" The temple then not being the model to the Christian church, the synagogue alone remained to be copied.
In the absence of the temple during the captivity the people assembled together on sabbaths and other days to be instructed by the prophet (Eze_14:1; Eze_20:1; Eze_33:31). In Neh_8:1-8 a specimen is given of such a service, which the synagogues afterward continued, and which consisted in Scripture reading, with explanation, prayers, and thanksgivings. The synagogue officers consisted of a "ruler of the synagogue," the "legate of the church" (sheliach tsibbur), corresponding to the angel of the church (Revelation 1-3), a college of elders or presbyters, and subordinate ministers (chazzan), answering to our deacons, to take care of the sacred books. Episcopacy was adopted in apostolic times as the most expedient government, most resembling Jewish usages, and so causing the least stumbling-block to Jewish prejudices (Act_4:8; Act_24:1).
James, the brother of our Lord, after the martyrdom of James, the son of Zebedee and the flight of Peter (Act_12:17), alone remained behind in Jerusalem, the recognized head there. His Jewish tendencies made him the least unpopular to the Jews, and so adapted him for the presidency there without the title (Act_15:13-19; Act_21:18; Gal_2:2; Gal_2:9; Gal_2:12). This was the first specimen of apostolic local episcopacy without the name. The presbyters of the synagogue were called also (See BISHOPS, or overseers. "Those now called 'bishops' were originally 'apostles.' But those who ruled the church after the apostles' death had not the testimony of miracles, and were in many respects inferior, therefore they thought it unbecoming to assume the name of apostles; but dividing the names, they left to 'presbyters' that name, and themselves were called 'bishops'" (Ambrose, in Bingham Ecclesiastes Ant., 2:11; and Amularius, De Officiis, 2:13.)
The steps were apostle; then vicar apostolic or apostolic delegate, as Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete, temporarily (1Ti_1:3; 2Ti_4:21; Tit_3:12; Tit_1:5), then angel, then bishop in the present sense. Episcopacy gives more of centralized unity, but when made an absolute law it tends to spiritual despotism. The visible church, while avoiding needless alterations, has power under God to modify her polity as shall tend most to edification (Mat_18:18; 1Co_12:28-30; 1Co_14:26; Eph_4:11-16). The Holy Spirit first unites souls individually to the Father in Christ, then with one another as "the communion of saints." Then followed the government and ministry, which are not specified in detail until the pastoral epistles, namely, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, the latest epistles.
To be "in Christ" (John 15) presupposes repentance and faith, of which the sacraments are the seal. The church order is not imposed as a rigid unchangeable system from without, but is left to develop itself from within outwardly, according as the indwelling Spirit of life may suggest. The church is "holy" in respect to those alone of it who are sanctified, and "one" only in respect to those who "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph_4:3-6; Eph_4:15-16), "growing up ... into the Head, Christ, in all things." The latest honorable and only Christian use of "synagogue" (KJV "assembly") occurs in James (Jas_2:2), the apostle who maintained to the latest the bonds between the Jewish synagogue and the Christian church.
Soon the continued resistance of the truth by the Jews led Christians to leave the term to them exclusively (Rev_2:9). Synagogue expresses a congregation not necessarily bound together; church, a people mutually bound together, even when not assembled, a body called out (ekkleesia, from ekkalein) from the world in spirit, though not in locality (Joh_17:11; Joh_17:15). The Hebrew qahal, like, church," denotes a number of people united by definite laws and bonds, whether collected together or not; but 'eedah is an assembly independent of any bond of union, like "synagogue."
Christian church buildings were built like synagogues, with the holy table placed where the chest containing the law had been. The desk and pulpit were the chief furniture in both, but no altar. When the ruler of the synagogue became a Christian, he naturally was made bishop, as tradition records that Crispus became at Corinth (
Act_18:8). Common to both church and synagogue were the discipline (Mat_18:17), excommunication (1Co_5:4), and the collection of alms (1Co_16:2).
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Church.
1. The derivation of the word is generally said to be from the Greek kuriakon, "belonging to the Lord". But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably connected with kirk, the Latin circus, circulus, the Greek kuklos, (kuklos), because the congregations were gathered in circles.
2. Ecclesia, the Greek word for church, originally meant an assembly called out by the magistrate, or by legitimate authority. It was, in this last sense, that the word was adapted and applied by the writers of the New Testament to the Christian congregation.
In the one Gospel of St. Matthew, the church is spoken of no less than thirty-six times as "the kingdom." Other descriptions or titles are hardly found in the evangelists.
It is Christ's household, Mat_10:25,
the salt and light of the world, Mat_5:13; Mat_5:15,
Christ's flock, Mat_26:31; Joh_10:15,
its members are the branches growing on Christ the Vine, John 15;
but the general description of it, not metaphorical but direct, is that it is a kingdom. Mat_16:19.
From the Gospel then, we learn that Christ was about to establish his heavenly kingdom on earth, which was to be the substitute for the Jewish Church and kingdom, now doomed to destruction Mat_21:43.
The Day of Pentecost is the birthday of the Christian church. Before, they had been individual followers Jesus; now they became his mystical body, animated by his spirit. On the evening of the Day of Pentecost, the 3140 members of which the Church consisted were ?
(1) Apostles;
(2) previous Disciples;
(3) Converts.
In Act_2:41, we have indirectly exhibited the essential conditions of church communion. They are
(1) Baptism, baptism implying on the part of the recipient repentance and faith;
(2) Apostolic Doctrine;
(3) Fellowship with the Apostles;
(4) The Lord's Supper;
(5) Public Worship.
The real Church consists of all who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ as his disciples, and are one in love, in character, in hope, in Christ as the head of all, though as the body of Christ it consists of many parts.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

The Greek word εκκλησια, so rendered, denotes an assembly met about business, whether spiritual or temporal, Act_19:32; Act_19:39. It is understood also of the collective body of Christians, or all those over the face of the earth who profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge him to be the Saviour of mankind; this is called the visible church. But, by the word church, we are more strictly to understand the whole body of God's true people, in every period of time: this is the invisible or spiritual church. The people of God on earth are called the church militant, and those in heaven the church triumphant. It has been remarked by Dr. John Owen, that sin having entered into the world, God was pleased to found his church (the catholic or universal church) in the promise of the Messiah given to Adam; that this promise contained in it something of the nature of a covenant, including the grace which God designed to show to sinners in the Messiah, and the obedience which he required from them; and that consequently, from its first promulgation, that promise became the sole foundation of the church and of the whole worship of God therein. Prior to the days of Abraham, this church, though scattered up and down the world, and subject to many changes in its worship through the addition of new revelations, was still but one and the same, because founded in the same covenant, and interested thereby in all the benefits or privileges that God had granted, or would at any time grant. In process of time, God was pleased to restrict his church, as far as visible acknowledgment went, in a great measure, to the seed of Abraham. With the latter he renewed his covenant, requiring that he should walk before him and be upright. He also constituted him the father of the faithful, or of all them that believe, and the “heir of the world.” So that since the days of Abraham, the church has, in every age, been founded upon the covenant made with that patriarch, and on the work of redemption which was to be performed according to that covenant. Now wheresoever this covenant made with Abraham is, and with whomsoever it is established, with them is the church of God, and to them all the promises and privileges of the church really belong. Hence we may learn that at the coming of the Messiah, there was not one church taken away and another set up in its room; but the church continued the same, in those that were the children of Abraham, according to the faith. It is common with divines to speak of the Jewish and the Christian churches, as though they were two distinct and totally different things; but that is not a correct view of the matter. The Christian church is not another church, but the very same that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and interested in the same covenant. Great alterations indeed were made in the outward state and condition of the church, by the coming of the Messiah. The carnal privilege of the Jews, in their separation from other nations to give birth to the Messiah, then failed, and with that also their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham. The ordinances of worship suited to that state of things then expired, and came to an end. New ordinances of worship were appointed, suitable to the new light and grace which were then bestowed upon the church. The Gentiles came into the faith of Abraham along with the Jews, being made joint partakers with them in his blessing. But none of these things, nor the whole collectively, did make such an alteration in the church, but that it was still one and the same. The olive tree was still the same, only some branches were broken off, and others grafted into it. The Jews fell, and the Gentiles came in their room. And this may enable us to determine the difference between the Jews and Christians relative to the Old Testament promises. They are all made to the church. No individual has any interest in them except by virtue of his membership with the church. The church is, and always was, one and the same. The Jewish plea, is, that the church is with them, because they are the children of Abraham according to the flesh. Christians reply, that their privilege on that ground was of another nature, and ended with the coming of the Messiah: that the church of God, unto whom all the promises belong, are only those who are heirs of the faith of Abraham, believing as he did, and are consequently interested in his covenant. These are Zion, Jerusalem, Israel, Jacob, the temple, or church of God.
2. By a particular church we understand an assembly of Christians united together, and meeting in one place, for the solemn worship of God. To this agrees the definition given by the compilers of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England: “A congregation of faithful men, in which the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinances, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same,” Act_9:31; Act_20:17; Gal_1:2; Gal_1:22; 1Co_14:34; Col_4:15. The word is now also used to denote any particular denomination of Christians, distinguished by particular doctrines, ceremonies, &c, as the Romish church, the Greek church, the English church, &c.
3. On the subject of the church, opinions as opposite or varying as possible have been held, from that of the Papists, who contend for its visible unity throughout the world under a visible head, down to that of the Independents, who consider the universal church as composed of congregational churches, each perfect in itself, and entirely independent of every other. The first opinion is manifestly contradicted by the language of the Apostles, who, while they teach that there is but one church, composed of believers throughout the world, think it not at all inconsistent with this to speak of “the churches of Judea,” “of Achaia,” “the seven churches of Asia,” “the church at Ephesus,” &c. Among themselves the Apostles had no common head; but planted churches and gave directions for their government, in most cases without any apparent correspondence with each other. The Popish doctrine is certainly not found in their writings; and so far were they from making provision for the government of this one supposed church, by the appointment of one visible and exclusive head, that they provide for the future government of the respective churches raised up by them in a totally different manner, that is, by the ordination of ministers for each church, who are indifferently called bishops, and presbyters, and pastors. The only unity of which they speak is the unity of the whole church in Christ, the invisible head, by faith; and the unity produced by “fervent love toward each other.” Nor has the Popish doctrine of the visible unity of the church any countenance from early antiquity. The best ecclesiastical historians have showed, that, through the greater part of the second century, the Christian churches were independent of each other. “Each Christian assembly,” says Mosheim, “was a little state governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least, approved, by the society. But in process of time, all the churches of a province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like confederate states, assembled at certain times in order to deliberate about the common interests of the whole.” So far indeed this union of churches appears to have been a wise and useful arrangement, although afterward it was carried to an injurious extreme, until finally it gave birth to the assumptions of the bishop of Rome, as universal bishop; a claim, however, which, when most successful, was but partially submitted to, the eastern churches having, for the most part, always maintained their independence. To very large association of churches of any kind existed till toward the close of the second century, which sufficiently refutes the papal argument from antiquity. The independence of the early Christian churches does not, however, appear to have resembled that of the churches which, in modern times, are called Independent. During the lives of the Apostles and Evangelists they were certainly subject to their counsel and control, which proves that the independency of separate societies was not the first form of the church. It may, indeed, be allowed, that some of the smaller and more insulated churches might, after the death of the Apostles and Evangelists, retain this form for some considerable time; but the larger churches, in the chief cities, and those planted in populous neighbourhoods, had many presbyters, and, as the members multiplied, they had several separate assemblies or congregations, yet all under the same common government. And when churches were raised up in the neighbourhood of cities, the appointment of chorepiscopi, or country bishops, and of visiting presbyters, both acting under the presbytery of the city, with the bishop at its head, is sufficiently in proof, that the ancient churches, especially the larger and more prosperous of them, existed in that form which, in modern times, we should call a religious connection, subject to a common government. This appears to have arisen out of the very circumstance of the increase of the church, through the zeal of the first Christians; and it was doubtless much more in the spirit of the very first discipline exercised by the Apostles and Evangelists, (when none of the churches were independent, but remained under the government of those who had been chiefly instrumental in raising them up,) to place themselves under a common inspection, and to unite the weak with the strong, and the newly converted with those who were “in Christ before them.” There was also in this, greater security afforded both for the continuance of wholesome doctrine, and of godly discipline.
4. Church members are those who compose or belong to the visible church. As to the real church, the true members of it are such as come out from the world, 2Co_6:17; who are born again, 1Pe_1:23; or made new creatures, 2Co_5:17; whose faith works by love to God and all mankind, Gal_5:6; Jam_2:14; Jam_2:26; who walk in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless. None but such are members of the true church; nor should any be admitted into any particular church without some evidence of their earnestly seeking this state of salvation.
5. Church fellowship is the communion that the members enjoy one with another. The ends of church fellowship are, the maintenance and exhibition of a system of sound doctrine; the support of the ordinances of evangelical worship in their purity and simplicity; the impartial exercise of church government and discipline; the promotion of holiness in all manner of conversation. The more particular duties are, earnest study to keep peace and unity; bearing of one another's burdens, Gal_6:1-2; earnest endeavours to prevent each other's stumbling, 1Co_10:23-33; Heb_10:24-27; Rom_14:13; steadfast continuance in the faith and worship of the Gospel, Act_2:42; praying for and sympathizing with each other, 1Sa_12:23; Eph_6:18. The advantages are, peculiar incitement to holiness; the right to some promises applicable to none but those who attend the ordinances of God. and hold communion with the saints, Psa_92:13; Psa_132:13; Psa_132:16; Psa_36:8; Jer_31:12; the being placed under the watchful eye of pastors, Heb_13:7; that they may restore each other if they fall, Gal_6:1; and the more effectually promote the cause of true religion.
6. As to church order and discipline, without entering into the discussion of the many questions which have been raised on this subject, and argued in so many distinct treatises, it may be sufficient generally to observe, that the church of Christ being a visible and permanent society, bound to observe certain rites, and to obey, certain rules, the existence of government in it is necessarily supposed. All religious rites suppose order, all order direction and control, and these a directive and controlling power. Again: all laws are nugatory without enforcement, in the present mixed and imperfect state of society; and all enforcement supposes an executive. If baptism be the door of admission into the church, some must judge of the fitness of candidates, and administrators of the rite must be appointed; if the Lord's Supper must be partaken of, the times and the mode are to be determined, the qualifications of communicants judged of, and the administration placed in suitable hands; if worship must be social and public, here again there must be an appointment of times, an order, and an administration; if the word of God is to be read and preached, then readers and preachers are necessary; if the continuance of any one in the fellowship of Christians be conditional upon good conduct, so that the purity and credit of the church may be guarded, then the power of enforcing discipline must be lodged some where. Thus government flows necessarily from the very nature of the institution of the Christian church; and since this institution has the authority of Christ and his Apostles, it is not to be supposed, that its government was left unprovided for; and if they have in fact made such a provision, it is no more a matter of mere option with Christians whether they will be subject to government in the church, than it is optional with them to confess Christ by becoming its members. The nature of this government, and the persons to whom it is committed, are both points which we must briefly examine by the light of the Holy Scriptures. As to the first, it is wholly spiritual:— “My kingdom,” says our Lord, “is not of this world.” The church is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love, for the personal edification of its members in holiness, and for the religious benefit of the world. The nature of its government is thus determined; it is concerned only with spiritual objects. It cannot employ force to compel men into its pale; for the only door of the church is faith, to which there can be no compulsion;— “he that believeth and is baptized” becomes a member. It cannot inflict pains and penalties upon the disobedient and refractory, like civil governments; for the only punitive discipline authorized in the New Testament, is comprised in “admonition,” “reproof,” “sharp rebukes,” and, finally, “excision from the society.” The last will be better understood, if we consider the special relations in which true Christians stand to each other, and the duties resulting from them. They are members of one body, and are therefore bound to tenderness and sympathy; they are the conjoint instructers of others, and are therefore to strive to be of “one judgment;” they are brethren, and they are to love one another as such, that is, with an affection more special than that general good will which they are commanded to bear to all mankind; they are therefore to seek the intimacy of friendly society among themselves, and, except in the ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they are bound to keep themselves separate from the world; they are enjoined to do good unto all men, but “especially to them that are of the household of faith;” and they are forbidden “to eat” at the Lord's table with immoral persons, that is, with those who, although they continue their Christian profession, dishonour it by their practice. With these relations of Christians to each other and to the world, and their correspondent duties, before our minds, we may easily interpret the nature of that extreme discipline which is vested in the church. “Persons who will not hear the church” are to be held “as Heathen men and publicans,” as those who are not members of it; that is, they are to be separated from it, and regarded as of “the world,” quite out of the range of the above mentioned relations of Christians to each other, and their correspondent duties; but still, like “Heathen men and publicans” they are to be the objects of pity, and general benevolence. Nor is this extreme discipline to be hastily inflicted before “a first and second admonition,” nor before those who are “spiritual” have attempted “to restore a brother overtaken by a fault;” and when the “wicked person” is “put away,” still the door is to be kept open for his reception again upon repentance. The true excommunication of the Christian church is therefore a merciful and considerate separation of an incorrigible offender from the body of Christians, without any infliction of civil pains or penalties. “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye have received from us,” 2Th_3:6. “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump,” 1Co_5:7. “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, no not to eat,” 1Co_5:11. This then is the moral discipline which is imperative upon the church of Christ, and its government is criminally defective whenever it is not enforced. On the other hand, the disabilities and penalties which established churches in different places have connected with these sentences of excommunication, have no countenance at all in Scripture, and are wholly inconsistent with the spiritual character and ends of the Christian association.
7. As to the persons to whom the government of the church is committed, it is necessary to consider the composition, so to speak, of the primitive church, as stated in the New Testament. A full enunciation of these offices we find in Eph_4:11 : “And he gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Of these, the office of Apostle is allowed by all to have been confined to those immediately commissioned by Christ to witness the fact of his miracles, and of his resurrection from the dead, and to reveal the complete system of Christian doctrine and duty; confirming their extraordinary mission by miracles wrought by themselves. If by “prophets” we are to understand persons who foretold future events, then the office was from its very nature extraordinary, and the gift of prophecy has passed away with the other miraculous endowments of the first age of Christianity. If, with others, we understand that these prophets were extraordinary teachers raised up until the churches were settled under permanent qualified instructers; still the office was temporary. The “Evangelists” are generally understood to be assistants of the Apostles, who acted under their especial authority and direction. Of this number were Timothy and Titus; and as the Apostle Paul directed them to ordain bishops or presbyters in the several churches, but gave them no authority to ordain successors to themselves in their particular office as Evangelists, it is clear that the Evangelists must also be reckoned among the number of extraordinary and temporary ministers suited to the first age of Christianity. Whether by “pastors and teachers” two offices be meant, or one, has been disputed. The change in the mode of expression seems to favour the latter view, and so the text is interpreted by St. Jerom, and St. Augustine; but the point is of little consequence. A pastor was a teacher, although every teacher might not be a pastor; but in many cases his office might be one of subordinate instruction, whether as an expounder of doctrine, a catechist, or even a more private instructer of those who as yet were unacquainted with the first principles of the Gospel of Christ. The term pastor implies the duties both of instruction and of government, of feeding and of ruling the flock of Christ; and, as the presbyters or bishops were ordained in the several churches, both by the Apostles and Evangelists, and rules are left by St. Paul as to their appointment, there can be no doubt but that these are the “pastors” spoken of in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and that they were designed to be the permanent ministers of the church; and that with them both the government of the church and the performance of its leading religious services were deposited. Deacons had the charge of the gifts and offerings for charitable purposes, although, it appears from Justin Martyr, not in every instance; for he speaks of the weekly oblations as being deposited with the chief minister, and distributed by him. These pastors appear to have been indifferently called BISHOPS and PRESBYTERS, and with them the regulation of the churches was, doubtless, deposited; not without checks and guards, the principal of which, however, was, in the primitive church, and continues to be in all modern churches which have no support from the magistracy, or are made independent of the people by endowments, the voluntariness of the association. A perfect religious liberty is always supposed by the Apostles to exist among Christians; no compulsion of the civil power is any where assumed by them as the basis of their advices or directions; no binding of the members to one church, without liberty to join another, by any ties but those involved in moral considerations, of sufficient weight, however, to prevent the evils of faction and schism. It was this which created a natural and competent check upon the ministers of the church; for being only sustained by the opinion of the churches, they could not but have respect to it; and it was this which gave to the sound part of a fallen church the advantage of renouncing, upon sufficient and well-weighed grounds, their communion with it, and of kindling up the light of a pure ministry and a holy discipline, by forming a separate association, bearing its testimony against errors in doctrine, and failures in practice. Nor is it to be conceived, that, had this simple principle of perfect religious liberty been left unviolated through subsequent ages, the church could ever have become so corrupt, or with such difficulty and slowness have been recovered from its fall. This ancient Christian liberty has happily been restored in a few parts of Christendom. See EPISCOPACY and See PRESBYTERIANISM.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

After the repeated failures that characterized the early days of human history, God declared his purpose to choose for himself a people through whom he would work a plan of salvation for people everywhere. He began by choosing one man, Abraham, and promising to make from him a nation that would belong to God and be his channel of blessing to the world. The people of this nation, Israel, were therefore both the physical descendants of Abraham and the chosen people of God (Gen_12:1-3; Exo_6:7-8; Exo_19:5-6; Psa_105:6; Joh_8:33; Joh_8:37; Act_13:26).
This did not mean, however, that all those born into the Israelite race were, because of their nationality, forgiven their sins and blessed with God’s eternal salvation. The history of Israel shows that from the beginning most of the people were ungodly and unrepentant. Certainly there were those who, like Abraham, trusted God and desired to follow him obediently, but they were always only a minority within the nation (Isa_1:4; Isa_1:11-20; Amo_5:14-15; Rom_11:2-7; 1Co_10:1-5; Heb_3:16). These were God’s true people, the true Israel, the true children of Abraham (Rom_2:28-29; Rom_4:9-12; Rom_9:6-8).
From this faithful minority (or remnant) there came one person, Jesus the Messiah, who was the one particular descendant of Abraham to whom all God’s promises to Abraham pointed. God’s ideals for Israel and his promised blessings for the human race were fulfilled in Jesus (Gal_3:14; Gal_3:16). Jesus then took the few remaining faithful Israelites of his day and made them the nucleus of the new people of God, the Christian church (Mat_16:18).
The church, then, was both old and new. It was old in that it was a continuation of that body of believers who in every age had remained faithful to God. It was new in that it would not formally come into existence till after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension (Mat_16:18; Mat_16:21; Act_1:4-5; Tit_2:14; 1Pe_2:9). It was ‘born’ a few days after Jesus’ ascension, on the day of Pentecost (Act_2:1-4), and will reach its glorious destiny at Jesus’ return (Php_3:20-21; Heb_12:22-24; Rev_19:7-9).
God’s new community
The word which Jesus used and which has been translated ‘church’ meant originally a collection of people – a meeting, gathering or community. It was the word used for the Old Testament community of Israel, and was particularly suitable for the new community, the Christian church, that came into being on the day of Pentecost (Exo_12:3; Exo_12:6; Exo_35:1; Exo_35:4; Deu_9:10; Deu_23:3; Mat_16:18; Mat_18:17; Act_5:11; Act_7:38; Act_8:1; Act_11:26).
On that day Jesus, having returned to his heavenly Father, sent the Holy Spirit to indwell his disciples as he had promised (Luk_24:49; Joh_7:39; Joh_14:16-17; Joh_14:26; Joh_16:7). This was the baptism with the Holy Spirit of which Jesus had spoken and through which all who were already believers were bound together to form one united body, the church (Act_1:4-5; Act_2:33; see BAPTISM WITH THE SPIRIT).
From that time on, all who repent and believe the gospel are, through that same baptism with the Spirit, immediately made part of that one body and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Act_2:38; Act_2:47; 1Co_12:13). This applies equally to all people, irrespective of sex, age, status or race, for all are one in Christ Jesus (Act_2:17-18; Act_2:39). The new people of God consists of Abraham’s spiritual descendants, those who have been saved through faith in Christ, regardless of their nationality or social standing (Gal_3:14; Gal_3:28-29).
By his act of uniting in one body people who were once in conflict with each other, God has carried out part of a wider plan he has for his creation. That plan is for the ultimate removal of all conflict and all evil from the universe, and the establishment of perfect peace and unity through Jesus Christ (Eph_1:9-10; Eph_2:13-16; Eph_3:8-11).
The body of Christ
Christ and the church, being inseparably united, make up one complete whole, just as the head and the body together make up one complete person. Through his resurrection and ascension, Jesus Christ became head over the church and the source of its life and growth (Eph_1:20-23; Eph_4:15-16; Col_1:18; Col_2:19; Col_3:1-4).
As the head has absolute control over the body, so Christ has supreme authority over the church (Eph_1:22-23). On the other hand, as the body shares in the life of the head, so the church shares in the life of the risen Christ. It is united with him in his victory over death and all the evil spiritual forces of the universe (Mat_16:18; Eph_1:21; Eph_2:5-7; Eph_3:10; Eph_3:21; Col_2:13-15).
If the picture of the body emphasizes the life, unity and growth that Christ gives to the church, the picture of marriage emphasizes the love that Christ has for the church. That love was so great that, to gain the church as his bride, Christ laid down his life in sacrifice (Eph_5:25; cf. Act_20:28). Both pictures illustrate Christ’s headship of the church (Eph_1:22-23; Eph_5:23), and both make it clear that God can accept the church as holy and faultless only because it shares the life and righteousness of Christ (Eph_5:26-27; Col_1:22).
This view of the church in all its perfection as the body of Christ is one that only God sees. The view that people in general see is one of imperfection, because the church exists in a world where everything is spoiled by human sin and failure (cf. 1Co_1:2 with 1Co_3:1-3; cf. Eph_1:1-4 with Eph_4:25-32). God sees the church as the total number of all believers in all nations in all eras – a vast, ongoing, international community commonly referred to as the church universal. But people see it only in the form of those believers who are living in a particular place at a particular time.
Within what people in general see as the church there are genuine believers and those who have no true faith in Christ at all. Often it is difficult to tell the difference between the two, and the only certain division will take place at the final judgment. Only God knows which people are really his (Mat_13:47-50; Mat_25:31-46; 1Co_4:3-5; 1Co_10:1-11; 2Co_13:5; 2Ti_2:19).
The local church
While the Bible sometimes speaks of the church as a timeless and universal community, more commonly it speaks of it as a group of Christians meeting together in a particular locality. This community is the church in that locality. It is the local expression, a sort of miniature, of the timeless universal church (Act_13:1; Act_15:41; Act_20:17; 1Co_1:2).
Each local church, though in fellowship with other local churches (Act_11:27-30; 1Co_16:1-4; Col_4:15-16), is responsible directly to the head, Jesus Christ, in all things. The New Testament gives no guidelines for a central organization or head church to control all others. It lays down no set of laws either to hold the churches together in one body or to hold all the believers in one church together. Unity comes through a oneness of faith in the Spirit (Eph_4:4-6).
It is therefore better to think of the church not as an organization or institution, but as a family. Christ is the head, and all the believers are brothers and sisters (Gal_6:10; Eph_2:19; Rom_15:30; Rom_16:1; Rom_16:23). The strength of the church comes not from some organizational system, but from the spiritual life that each believer has and that all believers share in common (Act_14:23; Php_1:7; Php_2:1-2; 1Jn_1:3; see FELLOWSHIP).
According to Christ’s command and the early church’s example, those who repent and believe the gospel should be baptized (Mat_28:19-20; Act_2:38; Act_2:41; Act_10:48; see BAPTISM). By their faith they become members of Christ’s body, the church, and they show the truth of this union by joining with the Christians in their locality. In other words, having become part of the timeless universal church, they now become part of the local church (Act_2:41; Act_2:47).
The Bible gives no instructions concerning where the church in any one locality should meet. (Churches in New Testament times seem to have met in private homes or any ready-made places they could find; see Act_12:12; Act_19:9; Act_20:7-8; Rom_16:5; Rom_16:14-15; Col_4:15.) The meetings of the church are to be orderly and, what is more important, spiritually helpful (1Co_14:12; 1Co_14:26; 1Co_14:40). Christians must be built up through being taught the Scriptures and through having fellowship by worshipping, praying, singing praises and celebrating the Lord’s Supper together (Act_2:42; Act_20:7; Act_20:27; 1Co_10:16-17; 1Co_11:23-33; 1Co_14:15; see LORD’S SUPPER; WORSHIP).
Christians must not look upon the church as a sort of private fellowship that exists solely for their own benefit. From the church they must go out to spread the gospel to others, baptizing those who believe, bringing them into the church, teaching them the Christian truths and making them true disciples of Jesus Christ (Mat_28:19-20; Act_1:7-8; Act_8:4; Rom_10:14-17).
In addition, the church should be concerned with helping those who are the victims of sickness, hunger, conflict, injustice and other misfortunes (Mat_25:34-40; Rom_12:8; Rom_12:13; Gal_6:10; Jam_1:27). As with preaching the gospel, this ministry concerns both the church’s own locality and distant regions (Mat_28:19-20; Act_1:8; Act_2:45; Act_11:27-30; Act_13:2-4; Rom_15:25-26; see MISSION).
Leadership in the churches
Although the Bible gives clear guidelines concerning the responsibilities of the local church, it gives few organizational details. Christians grow in maturity as they exercise their judgment and carry out their responsibilities (Rom_12:6-8).
This does not mean that people may do as they like. The Spirit of the living Christ dwells within the church (1Co_3:16), and he has appointed leaders in the church to guide and feed it (Act_20:28). Their task is to work out how to apply the Bible’s timeless principles to the circumstances of their era and culture (1Co_14:26; 1Co_14:40; 1Th_5:12-13; 1Ti_3:15; 1Ti_4:13-15; 2Ti_2:7).
Those leaders who are chiefly responsible for the church’s well-being are commonly called elders. Deacons are those who assist the elders by relieving them of some of the more routine affairs (Php_1:1; 1Ti_3:1; 1Ti_3:8; see ELDER; DEACON). People who fill these leadership positions may be gifted in various ways. God has given certain sorts of people to the church to help build it up – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph_4:11) – and such people can be expected to be in positions of leadership in the church.
Apostles and prophets appear to have been given to the church mainly to instruct and direct it during the period of its infancy (Eph_2:20; see APOSTLE; PROPHET). Evangelists are people with special ability in making known the gospel and establishing churches in places where previously there were none (Act_14:1; Act_14:21; Act_14:23; Act_21:8; 2Ti_4:5; see EVANGELIST). Pastors and teachers care for the church as a shepherd cares for his flock, feeding it with spiritual food and protecting it from spiritual dangers (Joh_21:15-17; Act_20:28; 1Ti_5:17; 1Pe_5:2; see PASTOR; TEACHER).
The Bible does not divide people too sharply into one or other of these categories, as there is clearly some overlapping within the functions. Also some people may combine within them several of these gifts; e.g. Paul (Rom_15:20; 1Ti_1:1; 1Ti_2:7), James (Gal_1:19; Gal_2:9-10), Timothy (1Ti_4:13-16; 2Ti_4:5), Barnabas (Act_11:22-26; Act_14:14), Silas (Act_15:32; Act_17:10-14) and others.
Responsibilities of church members
There is no suggestion in the Bible that people with these gifts are the only ones who do spiritual work in the church. On the contrary, the purpose of their work is to equip others to work. They build up the Christians and so prepare them for fuller Christian service (Eph_4:11-13). The gifted ones teach others who, in turn, pass on the teaching to others (2Ti_2:2).
Every member of the church has some gift that the Holy Spirit has given for the service of God (1Co_12:11; 1Co_12:18). Just as the human body is made up of many parts, all with different functions, so is the church which is Christ’s body. Yet with the variety there is equality. The church, unlike ancient Israel, has no exclusive class of religious officials who have spiritual privileges that ordinary people do not have (Rom_12:4-8; 1Co_12:12; 1Co_12:27; Eph_2:18-20). There are many gifts, but Christians must use these gifts in dependence upon the Spirit’s power and in accordance with the Spirit’s teaching (1Co_12:4-11; 1Co_13:1-2; 1Co_14:37).
If a local church is to operate properly, each person in that church must find out which gifts the Holy Spirit has given him or her and then develop them (Rom_12:6-8; 1Ti_4:14-16). When people act with such honesty and responsibility, they will not fall to the temptations of pride on one hand or jealousy on the other. Instead, through the care of the members one for another, the church will be built up (1Co_12:14-30; see GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT).
Right attitudes and conduct
Another picture of the church is that of a building (1Co_3:9-10); specifically, a temple in which God dwells (1Pe_2:5). Apostles and prophets form the foundation, other believers form the main building, and all is built around and built into Christ. This emphasizes again the cooperation and harmony that there should be among all within the church (Eph_2:20-22). It also emphasizes that the church must be holy, for it is God’s dwelling place (1Co_3:16-17; 2Co_6:16-17).
Since God’s church is holy, it must deal with those who are guilty of serious errors in wrong teaching or wrong behaviour (1Co_5:1-2; 1Co_6:1-5; Tit_1:10-13; Tit_3:10). Wrongdoers must at least be warned or rebuked (2Th_3:14-15; 1Ti_1:3-7; 1Ti_5:19-20), both for their own benefit and for the benefit of others in the church who may be affected by their wrongdoing (1Co_5:6-7; 2Ti_2:14-18; Heb_12:15; 3Jn_1:9-10). Whatever action the church takes against wrongdoers should be with a view to restoring them to healthy spiritual life. It should not drive them further away from God and his people (2Co_2:5-11; Gal_6:1).
Some, however, may be so hardened in their sinful ways that they refuse to acknowledge their wrongdoing, and the church may have to expel them from its fellowship. But there is still the hope that because of such severe punishment, the wrongdoers may see the seriousness of their errors and turn from them (Mat_18:15-17; 1Co_5:1-5; 1Co_5:11-13; 1Ti_1:19-20).
The imperfections in the church can at times discourage people from full involvement in the church’s life. Some may even be tempted to try to live as Christians while keeping themselves apart from the church. But a person cannot reject the church and still live the Christian life properly. The church is not a club that a few like-minded people have formed, but a community that God himself has formed (Mat_16:18; Eph_3:9-11; Col_3:15). It is the body of Christ, and all Christians are part of it. They must therefore learn to function as part of the body if they are to function properly as Christians. Participation in the life of the church is necessary for Christian growth and maturity (Eph_4:12-13).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

chûrch:
I. Pre-Christian History of the Term
II. Its Adoption by Jesus
III. Its Use in the New Testament
1. In the Gospels
2. In Acts
3. In the Pauline Epistles
IV. The Notes of the Church
1. Faith
2. Fellowship
3. Unity
4. Consecration
5. Power
V. Organization of the Church
1. The General and Prophetic Ministry
2. The Local and Practical Ministry
Literature
The word ?church,? which is derived from κυριακός, kuriakós, ?of or belonging to the Lord,? represents in the English Versions of the Bible of the New Testament the Greek word ἐκκλησία, ekklēsı́a; Latin, ecclesia. It is with the signification of this word ekklēsia as it meets us in the New Testament, and with the nature of the society which the word is there used to describe, that the present article is concerned.
I. Pre-Christian History of the Term
Although ekklēsia soon became a distinctively Christian word, it has its own pre-Christian history; and to those, whether Jews or Greeks, who first heard it applied to the Christian society it would come with suggestions of familiar things. Throughout the Greek world and right down to New Testament times (compare Act_19:39), ekklēsia was the designation of the regular assembly of the whole body of citizens in a free city-state, ?called out? (Greek ek, ?out,? and kaleı́n, ?to call?) by the herald for the discussion and decision of public business. The Septuagint translators, again, had used the word to render the Hebrew ḳāhāl, which in the Old Testament denotes the ?congregation? or community of Israel, especially in its religious aspect as the people of God. In this Old Testament sense we find ekklēsia employed by Stephen in the Book of Acts, where he describes Moses as ?he that was in the church (the Revised Version, margin ?congregation?) in the wilderness? (Act_7:38). The word Thus came into Christian history with associations alike for the Greek and the Jew. To the Greek it would suggest a self-governing democratic society; to the Jew a theocratic society whose members were the subjects of the Heavenly King. The pre-Christian history of the word had a direct bearing upon its Christian meaning, for the ekklēsia of the New Testament is a ?theocratic democracy? (Lindsay, Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, 4), a society of those who are free, but are always conscious that their freedom springs from obedience to their King.
II. Its Adoption by Jesus
According to Mat_16:18 the name ekklēsia was first applied to the Christian society by Jesus Himself, the occasion being that of His benediction of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. The authenticity of the utterance has been called in question by certain critics, but on grounds that have no textual support and are made up of quite arbitrary presuppositions as to the composition of the First Gospel. It is true that Jesus had hitherto described the society He came to found as the ?kingdom of God? or the ?kingdom of heaven,? a designation which had its roots in Old Testament teaching and which the Messianic expectations of Israel had already made familiar. But now when it was clear that He was to be rejected by the Jewish people (compare Mat_16:21), and that His society must move on independent lines of its own, it was natural that He should employ a new name for this new body which He was about to create, and Thus should say to Peter, on the ground of the apostle's believing confession, ?Upon this rock I will build my church.? The adoption of this name, however, did not imply any abandonment of the ideas suggested by the conception of the kingdom. In this very passage (Mat_16:19) ?the kingdom of heaven? is employed in a manner which, if it does not make the two expressions church and kingdom perfectly synonymous, at least compels us to regard them as closely correlative and as capable of translation into each other's terms. And the comparative disuse by the apostolic writers of the name ?kingdom,? together with their emphasis on the church, so far from showing that Christ's disciples had failed to understand His doctrine of the kingdom, and had substituted for it the more formal notion of the church, only shows that they had followed their Master's guidance in substituting for a name and a conception that were peculiarly Jewish, another name whose associations would enable them to commend their message more readily to the world at large.
III. Its Use in the New Testament
1. In the Gospels
Apart from the passage just referred to, the word ekklēsia occurs in the Gospels on one other occasion only (Mat_18:17). Here, moreover, it may be questioned whether Our Lord is referring to the Christian church, or to Jewish congregations commonly known as synagogues (see the Revised Version, margin) The latter view is more in keeping with the situation, but the promise immediately given to the disciples of a power to bind and loose (Mat_18:18) and the assurance ?Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them? (Mat_18:20) are evidently meant for the people of Christ. If, as is probable, the ekklesia of Mat_18:17 is the Christian ekklesia of which Christ had already spoken to Peter, the words show that He conceived of the church as a society possessing powers of self-government, in which questions of discipline were to be decided by the collective judgment of the members.
2. In Acts
In Acts the ekklēsia has come to be the regular designation for the society of Christian believers, but is employed in two distinct senses. First in a local sense, to denote the body of Christians in a particular place or district, as in Jerusalem (Act_5:11; Act_8:1), in Antioch (Act_13:1; Act_15:22), in Caesarea (Act_18:22) - a usage which reappears in the Apocalypse in the letters to the Seven Churches. Then in a wider and what may be called a universal sense, to denote the sum total of existing local churches (Act_9:31 the Revised Version (British and American)), which are Thus regarded as forming one body.
3. In the Pauline Epistles
In the Pauline Epistles both of these usages are frequent. Thus the apostle writes of ?the church of the Thessalonians? (1Th_1:1), ?the church of God which is at Corinth? (1Co_1:2; 2Co_1:1). Indeed he localizes and particularizes the word yet further by applying it to a single Christian household or to little groups of believers who were accustomed to assemble in private houses for worship and fellowship (Rom_16:5; 1Co_16:19; Col_4:15; Phm_1:2) - an employment of the word which recalls the saying of Jesus in Mat_18:20. The universal use, again, may be illustrated by the contrast he draws between Jews and Greeks on the one hand and the church of God on the other (1Co_10:32), and by the declaration that God has set in the church apostles, prophets, and teachers (1Co_12:28).
But Paul in his later epistles has another use of ekklēsia peculiar to himself, which may be described as the ideal use. The church, now, is the body of which Christ is the head (Eph_1:22 f; Col_1:18, Col_1:24). It is the medium through which God's manifold wisdom and eternal purpose are to be made known not only to all men, but to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph_3:9-11). It is the bride of whom He is the heavenly Bridegroom, the bride for whom in His love He gave Himself up, that He might cleanse and sanctify her and might present her to Himself a glorious church, a church without blemish, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph_5:25). This church clearly is not the actual church as we know it on earth, with its divisions, its blemishes, its shortcomings in faith and love and obedience. It is the holy and catholic church that is to be when the Bridegroom has completed the process of lustration, having fully ?cleansed it by the washing of water with the word.? It is the ideal which the actual church must keep before it and strive after, the ideal up to which it shall finally be guided by that Divine in-working power which is able to conform the body to the head, to make the bride worthy of the Bridegroom, so that God may receive in the church the glory that is His (Eph_3:21).
IV. The Notes of the Church
1. Faith
Although a systematic doctrine of the church is neither to be found nor to be looked for in the New Testament, certain characteristic notes or features of the Christian society are brought before us from which we can form some conception as to its nature. The fundamental note is faith. It was to Peter confessing his faith in Christ that the promise came, ?Upon this rock I will build my church? (Mat_16:18). Until Jesus found a man full of faith He could not begin to build His church; and unless Peter had been the prototype of others whose faith was like his own, the walls of the church would never have risen into the air. Primarily the church is a society not of thinkers or workers or even of worshippers, but of believers. Hence, we find that ?believers? or ?they that believed? is constantly used as a synonym for the members of the Christian society (e.g. Act_2:44; Act_4:32; Act_5:14; 1Ti_4:12). Hence, too, the rite of baptism, which from the first was the condition of entrance into the apostolic church and the seal of membership in it, was recognized as pre?minently the sacrament of faith and of confession (Act_2:41; Act_8:12, Act_8:36; Rom_6:4; 1Co_12:13). This church-founding and church-building faith, of which baptism was the seal, was much more than an act of intellectual assent. It was a personal laying hold of the personal Saviour, the bond of a vital union between Christ and the believer which resulted in nothing less than a new creation (Rom_6:4; Rom_8:1, Rom_8:2; 2Co_5:17).
2. Fellowship
If faith in Christ is the fundamental note of the Christian society, the next is fellowship among the members. This follows from the very nature of faith as just described; for if each believer is vitally joined to Christ, all believers must stand in a living relation to one another. In Paul's favorite figure, Christians are members one of another because they are members in particular of the body of Christ (Rom_12:5; 1Co_12:27). That the Christian society was recognized from the first as a fellowship appears from the name ?the brethren,? which is so commonly applied to those who belong to it. In Acts the name is of very frequent occurrence (Act_9:30, etc.), and it is employed by Paul in the epistles of every period of his career (1Th_4:10, etc.). Similar testimony lies in the fact that ?the koinōnia? (English Versions ?fellowship?) takes its place in the earliest meetings of the church side by side with the apostles' teaching and the breaking of bread and prayers (Act_2:42). See COMMUNION. The koinōnia at first carried with it a community of goods (Act_2:44; Act_4:32), but afterward found expression in the fellowship of ministration (2Co_8:4) and in such acts of Christian charity as are inspired by Christian faith (Heb_13:16). In the Lord's Supper, the other sacrament of the primitive church, the fellowship of Christians received its most striking and most sacred expression. For if baptism was especially the sacrament of faith, the Supper was distinctively the sacrament of love and fellowship - a communion or common participation in Christ's death and its fruits which carried with it a communion of hearts and spirits between the participants themselves.
3. Unity
Although local congregations sprang up wherever the gospel was preached, and each of these enjoyed an independent life of its own, the unity of the church was clearly recognized from the first. The intercourse between Jerusalem and Antioch (Act_11:22; Act_15:2), the conference held in the former city (Act_15:6), the right hand of fellowship given by the elder apostles to Paul and Barnabas (Gal_2:9), the untiring efforts made by Paul himself to forge strong links of love and mutual service between Gentile and Jewish Christians (2 Cor 8) - all these things serve to show how fully it was realized that though there were many churches, there was but one church. This truth comes to its complete expression in the epistles of Paul's imprisonment, with their vision of the church as a body of which Christ is the head, a body animated by one spirit, and having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph_4:4; Col_1:18; Col_3:11). And this unity, it is to be noticed, is conceived of as a visible unity. Jesus Himself evidently conceived it so when He prayed for His disciples that they all might be one, so that the world might believe (Joh_17:21). And the unity of which Paul writes and for which he strove is a unity that finds visible expression. Not, it is true, in any uniformity of outward polity, but through the manifestation of a common faith in acts of mutual love (Eph_4:3, Eph_4:13; 2Co_9:1-15).
4. Consecration
Another dominant note of the New Testament church lay in the consecration of its members. ?Saints? is one of the most frequently recurring designations for them that we find. As Thus employed, the word has in the first place an objective meaning; the sainthood of the Christian society consisted in its separation from the world by God's electing grace; in this respect it has succeeded to the prerogatives of Israel under the old covenant. The members of the church, as Peter said, are ?an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession? (1Pe_2:9). But side by side with this sense of an outward and priestly consecration, the flame ?saints? carried within it the thought of an ethical holiness - a holiness consisting, not merely in a status determined by relation to Christ, but in an actual and practical saintliness, a consecration to God that finds expression in character and conduct. No doubt the members of the church are called saints even when the living evidences of sainthood are sadly lacking. Writing to the Corinthian church in which he found so much to blame, Paul addresses its members by this title (1Co_1:2; compare 1Co_6:11). But he does so for other than formal reasons - not only because consecration to God is their outward calling and status as believers; but also because he is assured that a work of real sanctification is going on, and must continue to go on, in their bodies and their spirits which are His. For those who are in Christ are a new creation (2Co_5:17), and those to whom has come the separating and consecrating call (2Co_6:17) must cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2Co_7:1). Paul looks upon the members of the church, just as he looks upon the church itself, with a prophetic eye; he sees them not as they are, but as they are to be. And in his view it is ?by the washing of water with the word,? in other words by the progressive sanctification of its members, that the church itself is to be sanctified and cleansed, until Christ can present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph_5:26, Eph_5:27).
5. Power
Yet another note of the church was spiritual power. When the name ekklēsia was given by Jesus to the society He came to found, His promise to Peter included the bestowal of the gift of power (Mat_16:18, Mat_16:19). The apostle was to receive the ?power of the keys,? i.e. he was to exercise the privilege of opening the doors of the kingdom of heaven to the Jew (Act_2:41) and to the Gentile (Act_10:34-38; Act_15:7). He was further to have the power of binding and loosing, i.e. of forbidding and permitting; in other words he was to possess the functions of a legislator within the spiritual sphere of the church. The legislative powers then bestowed upon Peter personally as the reward of his believing confession were afterward conferred upon the disciples generally (Mat_18:18; compare Mat_18:1 and also Mat_18:19, Mat_18:20), and at the conference in Jerusalem were exercised by the church as a whole (Act_15:4, Act_15:22). The power to open the gates of the kingdom of heaven was expanded into the great missionary commission, ?Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations? (Mat_28:19) - a commission that was understood by the apostolic church to be addressed not to the eleven apostles only, but to all Christ's followers without distinction (Act_8:4, etc.). To the Christian society there Thus belonged the double power of legislating for its own members and of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers. But these double functions of teaching and government were clearly recognized as delegated gifts. The church taught the nations because Christ had bid her go and do it. She laid down laws for her own members because He had conferred upon her authority to bind and to loose. But in every exercise of her authority she relied upon Him from whom she derived it. She believed that Christ was with her alway, even unto the end of the world (Mat_28:20), and that the power with which she was endued was power from on high (Luk_24:49).
V. Organization of the Church
It seems evident from the New Testament that Jesus gave His disciples no formal prescriptions for the organization of the church. In the first days after Pentecost they had no thought of separating themselves from the religious life of Israel, and would not realize the need of any distinct organization of their own. The temple-worship was still adhered to (Act_2:46; Act_3:1), though it was supplemented by apostolic teaching, by prayer and fellowship, and by the breaking of bread (Act_2:42, Act_2:46). Organization was a thing of gradual growth suggested by emerging needs, and the differentiation of function among those who were drawn into the service of the church was due to the difference in the gifts bestowed by God upon the church members (1Co_12:28). At first the Twelve themselves, as the immediate companions of Jesus throughout His ministry and the prime witnesses of the Christian facts and especially of the resurrection (compare Act_1:21, Act_1:22), were the natural leaders and teachers of the community. Apart from this, the earliest evidence of anything like organization is found in the distinction drawn by the Twelve themselves between the ministry of the word and the ministry of tables (Act_6:2, Act_6:4) - a distinction which was fully recognized by Paul (Rom_12:6, Rom_12:8; 1Co_1:17; 1Co_9:14; 1Co_12:28), though he enlarged the latter type of ministry so as to include much more than the care of the poor. The two kinds of ministry, as they meet us at the first, may broadly be distinguished as the general and prophetic on the one hand, the local and practical on the other.
1. The General and Prophetic Ministry
From Act_6:1 we see that the Twelve recognized that they were Divinely called as apostles to proclaim the gospel; and Paul repeatedly makes the same claim for himself (1Co_1:17; 1Co_9:16; 2Co_3:6; 2Co_4:1; Col_1:23). But apostle ship was by no means confined to the Twelve (Act_14:14; Rom_16:7; compare Didache 11 4ff); and an itinerant ministry of the word was exercised in differing ways by prophets, evangelists, and teachers, as well as by apostles (1Co_12:28, 1Co_12:29; Eph_4:11). The fact that Paul himself is variously described as an apostle, a prophet, a teacher (Act_13:1; Act_14:14; 1Ti_2:7; 2Ti_1:11) appears to show that the prophetic ministry was not a ministry of stated office, but one of special gifts and functions. The apostle carried the good tidings of salvation to the ignorant and unbelieving (Gal_2:7, Gal_2:8), the prophet (in the more specific sense of the word) was a messenger to the church (1Co_14:4, 1Co_14:22); and while the teacher explained and applied truth that was already possessed (Heb_5:12), the prophet was recognized by those who had spiritual discernment (1Co_2:15; 1Co_14:29; 1Jo_4:1) as the Divinely employed medium of fresh revelations (1Co_14:25, 1Co_14:30, 1Co_14:31; Eph_3:5; compare Didache 4 1).
2. The Local and Practical Ministry
The earliest examples of this are the Seven of Jerusalem who were entrusted with the care of the ?daily ministration? (Act_6:1). With the growth of the church, however, other needs arose, and the local ministry is seen developing in two distinct directions. First there is the presbyter or elder, otherwise known as the bishop or overseer, whose duties, while still local, are chiefly of a spiritual kind (Act_20:17, Act_20:28, Act_20:35; 1Ti_3:2, 1Ti_3:5; Jam_5:14; 1Pe_5:2). See BISHOP. Next there are the deacon and the deaconess (Phi_1:1; 1Ti_3:8-13), whose work appears to have lain largely in house to house visitation and a practical ministry to the poor and needy (1Ti_5:8-11). The necessities of government, of discipline, and of regular and stated instruction had Thus brought it to pass that within New Testament times some of the functions of the general ministry of apostles and prophets were discharged by a local ministry. The general ministry, however, was still recognized to be the higher of the two. Paul addresses the presbyter-bishops of Ephesus in a tone of lofty spiritual authority (Act_20:17 :ff). And according to the Didache, a true prophet when he visits a church is to take precedence over the resident bishops and deacons (Didache 10 7; 13 3). See CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
Literature
Hort, The Christian Ecclesia; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Cents., lects I-V; Hatch, Bampton Lectures; Gwatkin, Early Church History to ad 313; K?stlin, article ?Kirche? in See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche; Armitage Robinson, article ?Church? in Encyclopedia Biblica; Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, 513-34; Dargan, Ecclesiology; Denney, Studies in Theology, Ch viii.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

The original Greek word which is thus rendered, in its larger signification denotes a number of persons called together for any purpose, an assembly of any kind, civil or religious. As, however, it is usually applied in the New Testament to religious assemblages, it is very properly translated by 'assembly' in the few instances in which it occurs in the civil sense (Act_19:32; Act_19:39; Act_19:41). It is, however, well to note that the word rendered 'assembly' in these verses is the same which is rendered 'church' everywhere else.
In a few places the word occurs in the Jewish sense, of a congregation, an assembly of the people for worship, either in a synagogue (Mat_18:17) or generally of the Jews regarded as a religious body (Act_7:38; Heb_2:12).
But the word most frequently occurs in the Christian sense of an assemblage (of Christians) generally (1Co_11:18). Hence it denotes a church, the Christian church; in which, however, we distinguish certain shades of meaning, viz.?
A particular church, a church in a certain place, as in Jerusalem (Act_8:1; Act_11:22, etc.), in Antioch (Act_11:26; Act_13:1, etc.), in Corinth (1Co_1:2; 2Co_1:1), etc. etc.
Churches of (Gentile) Christians, without distinguishing place (Rom_16:4).
An assembly of Christians which meets anywhere, as in the house of any one (Rom_16:5; 1Co_16:19; Phm_1:2).
The Church universal?the whole body of Christian believers (Mat_16:18; 1Co_12:28; Gal_1:13; Eph_1:22; Eph_3:10; Heb_12:23, etc.).
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Some types of the Church:

Body, Joh_15:5 (a)
Branches, Eph_1:23 (a)
Bride, Rev_21:9 (a)
Building, Eph_2:21 (a)
Candlestick, Rev_1:20 (a)
Eve, Gen_3:20 (c)
Family, Eph_3:15 (a)
Household, Eph_2:19 (b)
Jewels, Mal_3:17 (b)
Light, Eph_5:8 (a)
Loaf, 1Co_10:17 (margin) (a)
Lump, 1Co_5:7 (a)
Olive tree, Rom_11:17 (a)
Queen, Psa_45:9 (b)
Rib, Gen_2:21 (c)
Seed, Mat_13:38 (a)
Sheep, Joh_10:11 (a)
Stones, 1Pe_2:5 (a)
Temple, Eph_2:21 (a)
Virgin, 2Co_11:2 (a)
Wife, Rev_21:9 (b)
Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types
press 1957.

Church
I. The word Church. —
1. The origin of the word is uncertain. In the Germanic and Slavonic languages it is found as follows: Anglo-Saxon, cyrica, circ, cyric; English, church; Scottish, kirk; German, kirche; Low-German, karke; Frisian, tzierke or tziurke; Danish, kyrke; Swedish, kyrka; Bohemian, cyrkew; Polish, cerkiew; Russian, zerkow. The following derivations have been assigned to the word: (1) Heb. קַרְיָה and קָרָא; (2) Teutonic, koren, karen; (3) Celtic, cyrch or cylch, cyrchu or cylchu; (4) Latin, curia; Greek, κυριακόν (the Lord's house, from κύριος, Lord). The preponderance of opinion is in favor of the last derivation (Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. § 1; Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 13; Pearson, On the Creed, Oxf. 1820, 1:504; and, the principal authority, Jacobson, Kirchenrechtliche Versuche, Konigsb. 1833, 8vo). On the other hand, Meyrick, in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (in, Appendix, p. ci), argues at length against this derivation chiefly on the ground (1) that the Greek missionaries, who are supposed to have carried the Word among the Northern tribes, used ἐκκλησία, not κυριακόν; and that Ulphilas uses aikklesjo (Rom_16:23 et al.); (2) that the Roman Church (and the Romanic languages after it) adopted the Greek word ἐκκλησία, not κυριακόν, from its Greek teachers. His conclusion, after dropping the first derivation, is that “it is difficult to say what is to be substituted. There was probably some word which, in the the old heathen places of religious assembly, and this word, having taken different forms in different dialects, was adopted by the Christian missionaries. It was probably connected with the Latin circus, circulus, and with the Greek κύκλος, possibly also with the Welsh cylch, cyl, cynchle, or caer. Lipsius, who was the first to reject the received tradition, was probably right in his suggestion, ‘Credo et a circo Kirck nostrum esse, quia veterum templa instar Circi rotunda' (Epist. ad Belgas, Cent. 3. Ep. 44).”
2. N.T. uses of the word Church. — The Greek word ἐκκλησία in the New Testament (Mat_16:18; Mat_18:17; 1Co_10:32; Eph_1:22), corresponding to the Hebrew קָהָל, עֵדָה, מַקְרָא, is from καλεῖν, to call (κλῆσις, a calling; κλητοί, called), and is rendered by our word church. The meaning of the word would thus seem to be, in the N.T., the whole company of God's elect, those whom he has called to be his people under the new dispensation, as he did the Israelites under the old. Such is the signification in one of the two instances in which Christ uses the word in the Gospels: “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Mat_16:18). The other (Mat_18:17) refers to the single congregation. Instead of ἐκκλησία, Christ generally used the terms “kingdom of God,” “kingdom of heaven,” or simply “kingdom,” or thy kingdom, or the Son of Man's kingdom (Joh_3:3; Mat_6:32; ib. 4:23, etc.; ib. 20:21; ib. 13:41; 16:28). The word “church” is first applied by St. Luke to the company of original disciples at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Act_2:47), and is afterwards applied (in the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse) to, 1. The whole Christian body or society, as the sanctified of God (Eph_5:27); 2. The whole number of those who profess the Christian religion under pastors, etc. (1Co_12:18); 3. Particular societies of Christians in particular cities or provinces, e.g. the church in Jerusalem (Act_8:1); 4. Religious assemblies of these societies and the places in which they met, e.g. (Rom_16:5), “Greet the church that is in their house;” etc. (1Co_11:18; 1Co_14:19; 1Co_14:28).
3. Common uses of the word Church. — The most common sense in which the word church is used is to denote the body of the acknowledged followers of Christ, or his visible body.
2. It is also used to denote the community of true believers, whether known to be such or not. between believers yet on earth, and still contending with opposition, and believers already glorified in heaven.
4. It is used to designate the house of Christian worship.
5. Any particular denomination of Christian people, as the Lutheran, or the Protestant Episcopal, or Methodist Episcopal Church.
6. A particular congregation of any one denomination of Christians.
7. The religious establishment of any particular nation or government, as the Church of England.
8. The sum of the various Christian denominations in a country, as the Church in America.
These are the ordinary uses of the word, and it is important, in order to a right understanding of its force in any case, to know in which of these senses it is employed. Much confusion might be avoided if disputants would always clearly state in, which of all these equally admissible senses they use the word.
II. Idea of the Church. — The Christian religion (subjectively considered) is a divine life wrought in the soul of the believer in Jesus by the Holy Ghost, whereby the man is united through Christ unto God, walks before him in holiness, and finally dies in his favor, and is received into his eternal glory. The personal relation lies wholly between the individual and God. But the instinct of this new life is to propagate itself by diffusion, and for this diffusion it must have organization. This organization is found in the Church, whose function it is to make universal the religion of the individual. Moreover, the individual believer, for the nourishment of his own spiritual life, seeks communion with other believers; and this communion is furnished by the Church. “The Christian Church is a religious-moral society, connected together by a common faith in Christ, and which seeks to represent in its united life the kingdom of God announced by Christ” (Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. vol. 1, § 1). Christianity contains, on the one hand, a divine philosophy, which we may call its religion, and a divine polity, which is its Church” (Arnold, Miscell. Works, N. Y. p. 11). The Church is the particular form or expression of the kingdom of God, the institution through whose agency this spiritual and eternal kingdom is to be made effective among men. But, although there are elements of truth in the statements already made, it is further true that. the Church, under the dispensation of the Spirit, is the necessary form or body of Christianity in the world.
Not that the Church is Christianity, any more than the body of man is his life. The object of Christianity is the redemption of mankind; and the Church is the divinely constituted means of the ordinary application of redemption to individuals of mankind. It is therefore something altogether more and higher than a mere form of society, or an organization springing, like any merely human society, from the common wants and sympathies of those who unite to form it. It is “the kingdom and the royal dwelling-place of Christ” upon the earth (Neander). It has, therefore, a life of its own, of which Christ is the source, independent of the ordinary life of the order of nature. Christ, indeed, is the central source of life for both kingdoms (the kingdom of nature, and the kingdom of grace), but the mode of his vivifying operation is very different in the one from what it is in the other. But the Romanist view (and so the Greek and High Anglican) assumes that the Church is a form of organic life imposed upon the Christian society in a sort of outward way. The Protestant doctrine, on the other hand, is, that the Church is the divinely inspired organic growth of the Christian life; not, therefore, a merely human society, but the society of the faithful, constituted by the Divine Spirit. The Romanist view makes the outward form of the Church essential, and regards the internal nature as derivative; the Protestant view regards the internal life as the essence, and the outward and visible form as derivative, but both as divinely inspired and constituted (Joh_10:16; Mat_16:18; Mat_18:15-18).
1. The Scripture Idea. — In the N.T. the Church denotes “that one mystical body of which Christ is the sole head, and in the unity of which all saints, whether in heaven, or on earth, or elsewhere, are necessarily included as constituent parts.” For this Church Christ gave himself (Eph_5:23). This Church, chosen in him before the foundation of the world (Eph_1:4; 1Pe_1:2), he nourisheth and cherisheth as his own flesh (Eph_5:29-30). The Church is called the House, the City, the Temple of God. To whom coming ye are built up a spiritual house, a holy temple (1Pe_2:4-5). This spiritual temple is composed of all God's people, and is his dwelling-place (1Co_3:17; 2Co_6:16; Rev_21:3; Rev_22:14-15). The Church is uniformly represented in the N.T. as the company of the saved; and they are spoken of as the body of Christ (1Co_12:27), as one body (Eph_3:6; Eph_4:4; 1Co_12:13; 1Co_12:20). Of this body Christ is the Savior (Eph_5:23). They are also his bride (Eph_5:31-32; Rev_21:9-10), and his fullness (Eph_1:23). They are termed also the light of the world (Mat_5:14), and the salt of the earth (Mat_5:13), as indicating the Church to be the true source of spiritual illumination and the instrument of salvation to the world. For the work which the Church is to accomplish for Christ by teaching, disciplining,. comforting, etc., it must necessarily be visible, though all its members may not always be known.
2. The Creeds and Dogmatic Definitions. — The Apostles' Creed says, I believe “in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints,” to which the Nicene Creed adds apostolicity. The Catechism in use in the Greek Church gives the following definition: “The Church is a divinely-instituted community of men, united by the orthodox faith, the law of God, the hierarchy, and the sacraments” (Full Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, Moscow, 1839). In speaking of the unity of the Church, Platon says: “From this unity of the Church all those have separated who either do not receive the divine word at all, or mix with it their own absurd opinions” (see Bibliotheca Sacra, 21:827). The Roman Catholic Church (Catechism of Trent) says, “The Church is one, because, as the apostle says, there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism;' but more especially because it has one invisible Ruler, Christ, and one visible, viz., the occupant for the time being of the chair of St. Peter at Rome”... “The Church is holy, first, because it is dedicated to God; secondly, because the Church, consisting of good and evil mixed together, is united to Christ, the source of all holiness; thirdly, because to the Church alone has been committed the administration of the sacraments, through which, as efficient instruments of divine grace, God makes us holy; so that whoever is truly sanctified must be found within the pale of the Church. The Church is catholic or universal because it is diffused throughout the world, embracing within its pale men of all nations and conditions, and also because it comprehends all who have believed from the beginning, and all who shall believe henceforward to the end of time. The Church is termed apostolic, both because it derives its doctrines from the apostles, whereby it is enabled to convict heretics of error, and because it is governed by an apostolic ministry, which is the organ of the Spirit of God” (Catechism, Conc. Trid. c. 10, § 1). Bellarmine defines the Church thus: “It is a society of men united by a profession of the same Christian faith, and a participation of the same sacraments, under the government of lawful pastors, and especially of the one vicar of Christ upon earth, the Roman pontiff.” The Lutheran Church defines the Church to be “a congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is purely preached and the sacraments are rightly administered” (Confession of Augsburg, sec. 7). “The sum of what we here profess to believe is therefore this: I believe that there is upon earth a certain community of saints, composed solely of holy persons, under one Head, collected together by the Spirit; of one faith and one mind, endowed with manifold gifts, but united in love, and without sects or divisions” (Luther's Larger Catechism).
The Reformed Confessions. — The Church of England: “A congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that are of necessity requisite to the same” (art. 19). — The same definition is given by the Methodist Episcopal Church. — “The Church is a community of believers or saints, gathered out of the world; whose distinction it is to know and to worship, through the Word and by the Spirit, the true God in Christ our Savior, and by faith to participate in all the blessings freely given to us through Christ. Those are all citizens of one polity, subjects of the same Lord under the same laws, and recipients of the same spiritual blessings” (Helvetic Confession, 1566). — “The Catholic Church is the community of all true believers, viz., those who hope in Christ alone for salvation, and are sanctified by his Spirit. It is not attached to any one place or limited to particular persons, the members of it being dispersed throughout the world” (Belg. Confession, sec. 27, 29). — The Scotch Confession (Conf. Scot. art. 16) defines the Church “to be a society of the elect of all ages and countries, both Jews and Gentiles; this is the catholic or universal Church. Those who are members of it worship God in Christ, and enjoy fellowship with him through the Spirit. This Church is invisible, known only to God, who alone knows who are his, and comprehends both the departed in the Lord and the elect upon earth.” — The Confession of Polish churches: “There are particular churches and the Church universal. The true universal Church is the community of all believers dispersed throughout the world, who are and who remain one catholic Church so long as they are united by subjection to one Head, Christ, by the indwelling of one spirit and the profession of the same faith; and this though they be not associated in one common external polity, but, as regards external fellowship and ecclesiastical regimen, be not in communion with each other.” — “A true particular Church is distinguished from a false one by the profession of the true faith, the unmutilated administrations of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline” (Declaratio Thoruniensis); — Dr. Gerhart, speaking for the German Reformed Church of America in its later form of thought, under the influence of the so-called Mercersburg theology, says: “The Christian Church is a divine-human constitution in time and space: divine as to its ultimate ground and interior life, and human as to its form; brought into existence by the miraculous working of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, who is sent by Christ as the bearer of his incarnate life and salvation, in order to continue and develop this life and salvation, according to the law of the Spirit, in its membership down to the end of time uninterruptedly. As such, it is not a collection of units, but an objective organism that has a principle, a unity, a law, organs, and resources of power and grace, which are in it and its own absolutely” (Bibliotheca Sacra, 1863, p. 53, 54. See also Dr. Nevin, in Mercersburg Review, vol. 9 [articles on “Hedge on Ephesians”]; vol. 10 [“Thoughts on the Church,” two articles]).
Such is the notion of the Church as presented in the great leading symbols of the principal churches and by their representative men. The subject is one beset with difficulties, because of the failure always to discriminate between the visible and invisible Church, and because every denomination, in order to render itself powerful and practical, must assume the form of a Church, and is consequently driven to define the Church to suit its own position and history. The distinction between the visible and invisible Church was recognized by Augustine; in his controversy with the Donatists, who held that to predicate catholicity of the Church it was necessary it should have subjective purity in its members, and that, so soon as it allowed corrupt and unworthy members, it ceases to be catholic, he maintained, “Many, by partaking of the sacrament, are with the Church, and yet are not in the Church.” Further: “Those who appear to be the Church, and to contradict Christ, therefore do not be long to that Church which is called the body of Christ” (see Neander, Christian Dogmas, 2, 395). That there is one visible Church all these Confessions concede; but whether or not there be a visible Church on earth entitled to be called the true Church, and the only true Church, is the question at issue between. Romanists and Protestants. Certainly, “if we judge of the various churches into which Christendom is divided by their conforming in all respects by the principles and requirements of the Gospels, we cannot allow that any one of them is the perfect representation of that ideal state at which they all aim; nor, on the other hand, can we entirely deny the name of a Christian Church to any one which professes to be built on the Gospel of Christ. They have all so much in common in this religious faith and life, and so much which distinguishes them from all other religious societies, as to justify us in considering them as one whole, and calling them, in a wide sense, The Christian Church? (Gieseler, Church History, vol. 1, § 1).
3. Notes, Faith, and Attributes of the Church. —
(1.) The notes of the Church are the signs by which the visible Church is distinguished, and differ according to the views which are held in the definition of the Church.
(a) The Roman Catechism states them to be unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity (Cat. Cone. Trid. p. 80, 81). Bellarmine assigns, in addition to these, antiquity, uninterrupted duration, amplitude, agreement in doctrine with the primitive Church, sanctity of doctrine, efficacy of the doctrine, the glory of miracles, the light of prophecy, the confession of adversaries, the unhappy end of the Church's enemies, and temporal felicity (Bellarmine's Notes of the Church examined and refuted by eminent English Divines, Lond. 1840). The “unhappy end of the Church's enemies” and “temporal prosperity” are rejected by Tournely, Bailly, and generally by modern Romish theologians (see Palmer, On the Church, 1:27).
(b) The Church of England has no authoritative declaration beyond its sixth article – the preaching of the pure word of God and the due administration of the sacraments, etc.; but the proper administration of the sacraments by ministers regularly authorized has led to a difference of opinion in determining these notes, which has become a wide divergency, the one side adhering to a free interpretation, in common with all Protestants, and the other approaching to the stricter Roman Catholic view. The strict, so-called, churchly interpretation begins with the inclusion of apostolicity (Palmer), and extends to truth of doctrine, use of means (as well as sacraments) instituted by Christ, antiquity without change of doctrine, lawful succession without change of doctrine, and universality in the successive sense, i.e. the prevalence of the Church successively in all nations (Dr. Field). This tendency towards Romanizing views has culminated in what is, for convenience, termed the High-Church, or Sacramentarian party, some of whom openly advocate a union of the Church of England with the Church of Rome and the Greek Church, in order to realize their note of the visible unity of the Church. “It is worthy of remark,” says Litton, “that every theory of the Church, whether it profess to be Romanist or not, which teaches that the true being thereof lies in its visible characteristic, adopts instinctively the Romish notes, and rejects the Protestant.”
(c) The distinctively ‘Protestant notes” — the preaching of the pure word of God and the right administration of the sacraments — are applicable not to the mystical body of Christ, but to the visible Church, or, rather, to churches or congregations of believers. “The Protestant says, in general, the church (or a part of it) is there where the Word and the sacraments are; and the society in which the one is preached and the other administered is a legitimate part of the visible Catholic Church” (Litton, On the Church, Phila. p. 254). “Some formularies, e.g. the Scotch Conf. (art. 18) add the exercise of discipline” (ibid.); and this it does very properly, for if purity of doctrine and life is to be maintained, it must always be a mark of a true Church that there be discipline. But inasmuch as it is impossible to discern always who are inwardly pure, and also perfectly to enforce discipline, the visible Church will always be liable to the intrusion of the wicked, and hence cannot claim to be identical with the mystical body of Christ in any one place, but may claim to be a part of it, so far as in its doctrine and life it conforms to the requirements of the Gospel. “As notes” (the sacraments and the ministry of the Word), “therefore, serve to assure us of the existence of that mystical body which in itself is an object not of sense, but of faith; by which the charge brought of old against Protestant doctrine — that its invisible Church is a fiction of the imagination — is abundantly refuted” (Litton, p. 257).
(2.) Faith. — The faith of the Church is given, in authoritative, though not in dogmatical form, in the Word of God. “‘The Church, as the body of believers in Christ, existed before the New Testament was written. It was to the Church that the Word was addressed. It is by the Church that the authenticity of the Word has been witnessed from the beginning. But the Word was given to the Church as its test and standard of faith. The ‘faith' was in the Church before the Word was written; but the Word was given to be the norm of faith, by which the Church might and should, in all ages, test the faith, or any proposed modifications or developments of the faith.”
The Church's faith, as drawn from, and resting on, the Word of God, is expressed in her creeds or confessions. At successive periods, as the exigencies of the times have required, or have seemed to require, its leading minds have convened, sometimes by civil, sometimes by ecclesiastical authority, at other times by both, in general councils, when, by consent, the doctrines of the Church have been thrown into the form of confessions or symbols. In these symbols, the floating, undefined, but current beliefs of the general Church have crystallized, and thus have been transmitted to us. The first is the Apostles' Creed. This is universally accepted in the Church, and is of highest authority. Though the most ancient of all the formularies of belief, there is no evidence that the apostles composed it as it now reads; the best explanation is that it grew into shape from the common and general confession of faith in the primitive Church until it very early assumed the form it now has. It is the germ of all subsequent creed development. The next is the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan symbol, commonly called the Nicene Creed, which was the work of two oecumenical councils in 325 and 381. This has always been of great weight, as chiefly settling the doctrine of the Trinity, and expresses the general view of the Church to this day. The Chalcedon symbol followed in 451; and then the Athanasian Creed, called after Athanasius, though it is doubtful if he was the author. There were no other confessions until the Reformation, since which we have the Lutheran symbols (7); the Reformed (18); the papal (Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini. 1545; Professio fidei Tridentina of Pope Pius IV, etc.); confessions of the Greek Church; Arminian and Socinian confessions; but none of these are of universal authority, as are the original four of the early Church.
(3.) The attributes of the Church are unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. These also are explained differently, according to the theory of the Church maintained. Protestants generally find these attributes only in the invisible Church. There is evidently a unity of faith (Eph_4:13), a unity of love (1Co_13:13), one spirit (Eph_4:4), one hope (ibid. 12), one body (Rom_12:5), one head (Eph_4:15), and one object of worship (Eph_4:6). That this unity is under one common earthly head is held by Roman Catholics, but denied by Protestants. By these a spiritual unity is affirmed to exist, even where there is not uniformity of Church polity, nor entire agreement of doctrine, nor, indeed, any internal bond save that of the “communion of saints.” Holiness is ascribed to the Church as expressing the moral purity of its members; they are addressed in the N.T. as “saints,” sanctified,” by reason of their union with Christ as their living head, and the possession of the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier (1Co_1:2; 1Co_6:19). Because this holiness is a personal work in the hearts of believers as such, it can be predicated strictly only of the invisible Church, but it ought to be manifested in the individual and corporate life of the Church, in order that she may fulfill its original constitution.
Catholicity: was first applied to the Christian Church to designate not only its universality as embracing all true believers, but also the oneness of those believers as excluding all heretics. In modern times it is used to mean the universally diffused nature of the Church by its presence, without respect to local or national boundaries. The Romanist claims that all, and those only, who are united to the pontiff at Rome belong to the Catholic Church; while Protestants admit it to be the whole body of Christians, in whatever visible communion they may be: hence composed of all the churches of all nations (Mar_15:15; Act_10:34-35), the same in all time (Mat_28:20), and possessed, by reason of the presence of its great head, of the means of saving grace (ibid.; Eph_1:22). Apostolicity is not insisted upon by Protestants; when used, however, by them, it means the possession by the Church of true apostolic doctrine, spirit, and life; while by Roman Catholics it means having a ministry regularly and visibly succeeding to the apostles.
The attributes (unity, holiness, catholicity, perpetuity) are unquestionably essential to the true Church, and are ascribed to her in the New Testament. But neither the N.T. nor the Apostles' Creed define the Church as a visible organization, but as the “communion of saints.” This Church has always existed; but no visible corporation or society on earth has ever been endowed with the attributes above named. See this argument well stated in the Princeton Review (Oct. 1853); compare Barrow, Sermon on the Unity of the Church, 3. 311 (N.Y. 1845).
III. History of the Doctrine of the Church. — The apostles and their immediate successors were too much engrossed with the work of spreading the Gospel to pause to prescribe the nature of an institution which was sure to grow into shape as the necessities of the case required. The apostles themselves were too earnestly employed in fulfilling the command of Christ to disciple all nations, and hose directly following them partook too largely of their spirit, and understood too fully their mind, to be turned aside by the necessity of explaining what they knew to be a fact. Hence “no exact definitions of the Church are found previous to the time of Cyprian” (Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, 1:193). The definitions of the latter (Cyprian) make an epoch in the history of this doctrine. The first difficulty arose as to the unity of the Church, in confounding the inward with the outward. “Irenaeus shows the first germs of this perversion; it was matured b)y Cyprian” (Neander, Christian Dogmas, vol. 1, p. 220). “Thus the Jewish stand-point (a theocracy), which at first had been overcome, made its way into the Church in another form” (ibid.).
Irenaeus says the Church alone contains all the riches of truth; Clement describes the Church as a mother, both as a mother and virgin, as the body of the Lord; Origen, though usually mild towards heretics, knows of no salvation out of the Church; Tertullian claimed that whoever separated from the connection with the outward communion, which was of apostolic origin, and had at its head the sedes apostolicae, in so doing renounced Christ, though after joining the Montanists he essentially changed his opinion. It is of no avail, says Cyprian, what a man teaches; it is enough that he teaches out of the Church; where the bishop is, there is the church, etc. The roots of the extreme church doctrine are to be traced thus early. A reaction, however, soon took place, growing out of a more scientific discernment of the spiritual idea of the Church. Clement calls the Church a community of men led by the divine Logos, an invincible city upon earth, which no force can subdue, where the will of God is done as it is in heaven. Others combated the outward unity of the Church as unscriptural. Montanism insisted that the unity is inward; it regarded the internal fact of possessing the Spirit as the fundamental thing — not the ordinary influence of of the spirit in sanctification, but his extraordinary power in giving new revelations, which were the sources of authority and unity in the Church. A farther reaction of separatism against the Catholic idea took place in Novatian and his followers. They insisted that the Catholic Church is essentially holy in all its members, and hence must exclude from its communion all unworthy members, and never readmit them, otherwise it would lose its catholicity. They consequently withdrew, and claimed to be the Catholic Church. “The false idealism of the Gnostics, and the subjective, heretical, and schismatical tendencies of separate sects, especially of the Montanists and the followers of Novatian (the primitive Puritans), form a striking contrast with this false external unity of the Catholic Church”, SEE HAGENBACH AND NEANDER.
“Two causes contributed (in the second period of the Church history) to determine about the Church: 1. The external triumph of the Church itself in its victory over Paganism, and its rising power under the protection of the state. 2. The victory of Augustinism over the doctrines of the Pelagians, Manichaeans, and Donatists, which in different ways threatened to destroy ecclesiastical unity. In opposition to the Donatists, Augustine asserted that the Church consists of the sum total of all who are baptized, and that the (ideal) sanctity of the Church is not impaired by the impure elements externally connected with it. The bishops of Rome impressed upon this catholicism the stamp of the papal hierarchyby claiming for themselves the primacy of Peter. But, whatever variant opinions were held respecting the seat and nature of the true Church, the proposition that there is no salvation out of the Church was firmly adhered to, and carried out in all its consequences” (Hagenbach, vol. 1, p. 352). It is ,vorthy of note that at this period Jovinian taught that the Church is founded on Faith, Hope, and Love. In this Church there is nothing impure; every one is naught of God.; no one can break into it by violence or steal into it by artifice.” “As Jovinian taught the Pauline doctrine of faith, so he did the Pauline idea of the invisible Church, while Augustine obstructed his similar fundamental idea by a mixture of the Catholic idea of the Church.” “Here again we have a sign of the Protestant element in Augustine” (his comment on the “Thou art Peter”), “that all religious consciousness is immediately to be traced up to Christ, and that with him the community originates which is called the Church” (Neander, Christian Dogmas, vol. 2, p. 397, 398).
Until the 14th century the Roman hierarchy had comparatively no opposition in carrying out supremacy in the West to its fullest extent; at this time a freer spirit began to show itself. Even on the Catholic stand- point a difference was stirred respecting the relation of the changeable and unchangeable in the development of the Church; on the position of the papacy in respect of the Church; whether the pope was to be regarded as its representative or sovereign head; whether the general councils or the pope stood highest. The University of Paris, with chancellor Gerson at its head, led on this controversy. SEE GERSON. “The mystical idea of the Church and the notion of a universal priesthood, which was intimately connected with it, was propounded, with more or less accuracy of definition, by Hugo of St.Victor, as well as by the forerunners of the Reformation, Wycliffe, Matthias of Janow, Huss, John of Wesel,Wessel, and Savonarola” (Hagenbach). These tendencies were fully developed in the Reformation and in its results. The Western religious world became divided in the statement of the Church dogma, as it looked at the question of salvation. The Protestant, regarding the doctrine of justification by faith as fundamental, said the Church is approached through it; the Romanist, still adhering to the Church as the fountain of spiritual life, affirmed that justification is obtained through the Church. Protestants assert that the Church consists in the invisible fellowship of all those who are united by the bonds of true faith, which ideal union is but imperfectly represented by the visible Church, in which the true Gospel is taught and the sacraments are rightly administered; the Roman Catholics, that the Church is a visible society of all baptized persons who adopt a certain external creed, have the same sacraments, and acknowledge the pope as their common head.
The recent controversies concerning the idea and nature of the Church all revolve about the one point, viz., whether the Church of which Christ is the “Head” is, or is not, a visible corporation here on earth, entitled to the promises, privileges, and authority which the Scriptures assign to the spiritual Church. Protestants generally deny; the Romanists, the HighAnglicans, and a few writers in other branches of the Protestant Church, affirm. The so-called New-Lutheran divines of Germany have developed a theory of the Church in which the Protestant idea gives way to the hierarchical; in which the sacraments are not merely notes of the true Church, but the real guards of its continued life. The profound and mysterious synthesis of the divine and human is found in faith, according to the old Protestant system; according to the new, it is found in the sacraments (compare Schwartz, Zur Geschichte d. neuesten Theologie, bk. 3. ch. 3). Rothe has developed, with his usual vigor, a theory of the Church akin to that of Arnold, viz., that the Church is indispensable to the moral education of humanity; but that, as humanity improves, the necessity for the Church diminishes; and, finally, the state will become religious (a real theocracy), and the Church will become absorbed in the state.
IV. Constitution of the Church. — Christ did not so much create a Church during his sojourn on earth as implant principles which would be subsequently developed into a Church. Whilst he was yet with his disciples, they needed no other bond to hold them together than his person. The founder of the new manifestation of the kingdom of God seemed not to design to collect about him numerous adherents, but to implant deeply into the minds of a few the higher animating spirit of this kingdom, which through their lives should work out into a complete and effective organization. He found those whom he called for this work Jews; he associated with and instructed them after the customs of Judaism. He distinctly told them, however, that they, in their persons, faith, life, and teaching, were to constitute the beginning and the agency of a new order of things.
They were commanded to go forth after his death and disciple all nations, and to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and thus bring all people into the kingdom of God. It is thus clear that the religion of Christ was designed by him to supersede all others, not only by its spirit and essence, but also in the particular method or form of its manifestation. He made provision for this result by constituting apostles, who should authoritatively command and teach, should open and shut the kingdom of heaven, bind and loose on earth, and so render visible and powerful his Word among men. Before entering upon their mission, they were to tarry in Jerusalem until endued with power from on high (Luke), which power they were assured would come not many days after the ascension of their Lord.
That they already recognized themselves as chosen for a high especial work is evident by their filling up the vacancy in their number caused by the apostasy and death of Judas Iscariot with the selection of another, Matthias, to fill his place (Act_1:15; Act_1:26). Thus complete, they continued to wait and pray for the space of seven days. When the day of Pentecost had fully come, “while the apostles and disciples, a hundred and twenty in number, were assembled in or near the Temple for the morning devotions of the festal day, and were waiting in prayer for the fulfillment of the promise, the exalted Savior poured down from his heavenly throne the fullness of the Holy Ghost upon them, and founded his Church upon earth” (Schaff, Church History, vol. 1, p. 59). The day of Pentecost may be regarded as the birthday of the Christian Church. Then it was formed; thence its gradual development proceeded. There is a diversity of opinion as to the internal polity it assumed, as might be expected; but it must be conceded by all that the apostles would have “sufficient guidance” as to the manner in which it was to be organized. This guidance does not imply that its particular form must have been given to them by Christ, but only such direction as would lead them to pursue the wisest methods. Consequently they began by preaching; and, as converts were made, by baptizing them, and then taking them into a closer fellowship for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, spiritual instruction, and worship (Acts 3:42, etc.).
As they were Jews, it was likely they would adopt the methods of worship, government, etc., to which they were accustomed. Archbishop Whately says (Kingdom of Christ delineated, p. 88): “It appears highly probable, I might say morally certain, that the synagogue was brought — the whole or chief part of it — to embrace the Gospel. The apostles did not, then, so much form a Christian Church (or congregation, ecclesia) as make an existing congregation Christian by introducing the Christian sacraments and worship, and establishing whatever regulations were necessary for the newly-adopted faith, leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of government unchanged; the rulers of synagogues, elders, and other officers, whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, or both, being already provided in the existing institutions.” Vitringa (see his De Synagoga Vetere), Neander, Litton, and many others, agree in this opinion, that the synagogues were the pattern which the apostles proposed to themselves, though it is by no means certain that they adopted any model.
1. All that can be done in the determination of the polity of the apostolic Church is to trace the practice of the apostles as recorded in their acts and writings. This polity is not presented as legislative enactments, but simply as facts, showing how the apostles acted in given cases. In the first account we find the Church composed of the apostles and other disciples, and then of the apostles and “the multitude of them that believed.” Hence it appears that the Church was at first composed entirely of members standing on an equality with one another, and that the apostles alone held a higher rank, and exercised a directing influence over the whole, which arose from the original position in which Christ had placed them in relation to other believers (Neander, Planting and Training, p. 32). The apostles, as necessity required, created other offices, the first of which we have mention is that of deacon (διακονία) (Act_6:1), followed soon after by that of elder (πρεσβύτερος) (Act_11:30). The time of the creation of the office of elder or presbyter is not given, from which it is not clear whether it arose before or after the diaconate. The first reference to elders assumes their existence. The office of elder and that of bishop are generally conceded to be identical. The apostles, deacons, and elders, with the whole body of believers in every place, constituted the membership and government of the Church. SEE BISHOP.
The deacons were overseers of the poor, and probably conducted religious worship and administered the sacraments (Act_8:38). The clerical function of the deacon is disputed (see American Presb. and Theol. Review, vol. 5, p. 134). The elders were appointed not only to teach and administer the sacraments, but also to govern the Church or churches in the absence of the apostles (Act_20:28, etc.). The ministry, however, was not confined to these orders; it was rather a gift which any one possessing could exercise under due regulations. By reference to 1Co_12:4-12, also 28, it will be seen that “apostles,” “prophets,” “helps,” and “governments,” all pertain to the ministry; also in the corresponding passage, Eph_4:11-12, the ministerial office is ascribed to the direct agency of the Holy Ghost: “He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” “These passages establish nothing respecting the ministerial offices of the apostolic age; what they do teach us is that the spiritual endowments necessary for the office of an apostle, a pastor, a teacher, or a governor of the Church, whether these functions were united in the same person or not, flow directly from Christ, and are a part of the standing spiritual constitution of the Church” (Litton, p. 374). The manifold gifts of the Spirit were termed generically charismata (χαρίσματα), and were either a natural endowment, sanctified and applied under the influence of the Holy Spirit to the edifying of the Church, or a supernatural gift of a miraculous character, in the exercise of which the divine agent was more conspicuous than the human. Another division is into those which displayed themselves in word, and those which had a more particular reference to action (Litton; Neander, Planting and Training; Olshausen, Hooker, etc.). These gifts, it appears, were not confined to any particular class, but were bestowed as the Spirit saw fit to distribute them. SEE GIFTS, SPIRITUAL.
The priestly function pertained to the ministerial office only in the sense that all believers were priests, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God by Christ (1Pe_2:4-5, etc.); and in no sense was there a sanctity attaching to the minister which did not attach to the ordinary believer, except, perhaps, to the apostles, whose office was not to be permanent in the Church. No human mediation is represented in the New Test. as necessary to the soul seeking the forgiveness of sins and the fruits of the Spirit except such as may assist knowledge and faith, but never as indispensable. Christ and his salvation are equally accessible to minister and people, and on the same terms.
The discipline of the apostolic Church comprehended four particulars in its exercise:
1. Nothing scandalous or offensive unto any, especially unto the Church of God, could be allowed (1Co_10:32);
2. All things were to be done with seemliness and in order (1Co_14:40);
3. All unto edification (1Co_14:26);
4. All unto the glory of God (1Co_10:31). The sphere of its government was strictly spiritual. The apostles honored the civil authority as a divine institution, and enjoined obedience in the days of Claudius and Nero, as did our Savior in all temporal matters render obedience to Herod, and command that “the things which belong to Caesar should be rendered to Caesar.” But in the spiritual calling the rule was “to obey God rather than man,” and for this principle they were ready to die.
Since the apostolic times the Constitution of the Christian Church has undergone various modifications. The first of these changes is the distinction between bishop and elder. It is maintained by extreme advocates of Episcopacy that St. Paul, in empowering Timothy at Corinth, and Titus in Crete, in the capacity of presbyters, to ordain elders in every city, and to exercise jurisdiction over officers of that class, as well as those who held the office of deacon, appointed them thus to be permanent, and so created the office known in after times as the local bishop. The moderate Episcopalians and the Presbyterians hold that the mission of Titus and Timothy was peculiar, contemplating a special work, and that the mission ceased with its accomplishment.
On the whole, on this case, as well as on that of St. James at Jerusalem, and the angels of the apocalyptic churches, Litton says, “Respecting the origin of the episcopal order, Scripture leaves us very much in the dark. No order of ministers other than these three — apostles, presbyters, and deaconsare mentioned in the New Testament as forming part of the then existing polity of the Church; for every attempt to establish a distinction between the presbyter and the bishop of Scripture will prove fruitless, so abundant is the evidence which proves they were but different appellations of one and the same office (p. 412).” As to the rise of episcopacy, it is said “to these successors of the apostolic delegates” (such as Timothy) “came to be appropriated the title of bishop, which was originally applied to presbyters. At the commencement of the second century and thenceforward, bishops, presbyters, and deacons are the officers of the Church wherever the Church existed. Ignatius's epistles (in their unadulterated form), and the other records which are preserved to us, are on this point decisive...
They (the bishops) retained in their own hands authority over presbyters and the functions of ordination, but with respect to each other they were equals” (Smith's Dict. of Bible, art. CHURCH). Dr. Hitchcock (Am. Presbyt. and Theol. Rev. vol. 5, no. 17) affirms, “Thus throughout do we find in Clement the original New Testament polity (identity of presbyters and bishops) as yet unchanged” (p. 137). “In short, the Ignatian Episcopacy, instead of having the appearance of a settled polity, handed down from the apostles, has the appearance of being a new and growing institution, unlike what went before, as well as what was coming after it” (ibid. p. 146). “The wavering terminology of Irenaeus is indicative not of apostolic tradition, but of later genesis and growth, and that growth not yet completed” (ibid. 147). “No hesitation in Tertullian in accepting the Episcopal regimen. Evidently this had become the settled polity. The maturity of the system is indicated by entire steadiness in the use of terms” (ibid. 148). “In Cyprian of Carthage, between 248-258, we find the system fully matured. Now these are tokens of growth, and are inconsistent with the idea of apostolic tradition” (ibid. 153). There is but little doubt the bishops at first succeeded to office by seniority, and afterwards, as the difficulties of the office increased, A.D. 200, they became elective (Hilary). As the Church multiplied and expanded, the older churches and the most numerous became relatively more important and influential, and their bishops more powerful; hence we find the episcopacy undergoing marked changes: 1. The bishoprics at Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Corinth are termed by pre-eminence sedes apostolicae, without, however, the concession of superior authority; 2. Consequent upon provincial synods the metropolitan dignity arose; also, 3. The patriarchal; and 4, finally, the papacy. Cyprian allowed that “precedency should be given to Peter, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.'“ “The same propension to monarchical unity, which created out of the episcopate a center, first for each congregation, then for each diocese, pressed on towards a visible center for the whole Church. Primacy and episcopacy grew together” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, p. 427).
The high antiquity of the Roman Church; the missionary labors at Rome of Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles; the political pre-eminence of the metropolis of the world; the executive wisdom and orthodox instinct of the Roman Church, and other secondary causes, favored the ascendency of the Roman see (ibid.). The early fathers, as Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, etc., concede precedence to the Church at Rome, but only in honor, not in jurisdiction. After the conversion of Constantine, and the removal of the Roman capital to Byzantium (afterwards called Constantinople), the see of the new capital boldly disputed the supremacy with the see of Rome, from which time, as new agitations arose in the Church, and the empire gradually fell to decay, the two great divisions into the Eastern or Greek, and Western or Roman Catholic took place, and became the settled forms and sources of ecclesiastical dominion. Additional and inferior orders of the ministry rapidly multiplied in the Church. These were, archdeacons, deaconesses, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, lectors or readers, ostiarii or door-keepers, psalmists or singers, copiatae or fossarii, catechists, defensores or syndics; oeconomi or stewards, besides others (Bingham's Antiquities of Christ. Ch. vol. 1, p. 126). There were four several ways of designating persons to the ministry in the apostolic and primitive Church: 1. By casting lot; 2. By choice of the first-fruits of the Gentiles; 3. By particular direction of the Holy Ghost; 4. By common suffrage and election. Ordination was first by the laying on of the hands of the apostles or elders, and afterwards of a bishop or bishops (see ibid.).
As to the powers of the clergy in the government of the Church, two principal, distinct, and opposite theories obtain. The Roman Catholic is, that “the government of the Church is a hierarchy, or the relation of the clerical body. to the Christian people is that of a secular magistracy to its subjects, and Christian ministers are mediators between God and man-that is, are priests in the proper sense of the word” (Litton. p. 395). “The hierarchism of Rome is the natural and inevitable consequence of the doctrine that the clergy are κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν, the Church” (ibid. 397). Bellarmine sums up the Romish doctrine thus: “It has always been believed in the Catholic Church that the bishops in their diocese, and the Roman pontiff in the whole Church, are real ecclesiastical princes; competent by their own authority, and without the consent of the people or the advice of presbyters, to enact laws binding upon the conscience, to judge in causes ecclesiastical like other judges, and, if need be, to inflict punishment” (Bellarm. De Romans Pont. b. 4, c. 15).
The Protestant theory is that all believers are a spiritual priesthood, and, as such, constitute the Church, and that the whole Church, thus composed of believers differing in gifts according to the operation of the Spirit, is the fountain of authority in the administration of government. “In short, no principle of ecclesiastical polity is more clearly deducible from Scripture than that the sovereignty of a church resides not in the people apart from their pastors. This, however, being admitted, the converse also remains true, that the sovereignty of a church is not in the pastors exclusively of the people” (Litton, p. 399). Dr. Schaff says, in reference to the first council of Jerusalem, “though not a binding precedent, (it) is a significant example, giving the apostolic sanction to the synodical form of church government, in which all classes of the Christian community are represented in the management of public affairs and in settling controversies respecting faith and practice” (Ch. Hist. vol. 1, p. 136). By many Protestants this view of the council is questioned, and the right of laymen to an equal participation in church government, from this and other apostolic examples, denied; so that, to this day, the relative powers of ministry and laity, in the administration of ecclesiastical government, remain undefined among some of the great Protestant churches.
Membership of the Church. — “Church members are those who compose or belong to the visible church. As to the real church, the true members of it are such as come out from the world, 2Co_6:17; who are born again, 1Pe_1:23; or made new creatures, 2Co_5:17; whose faith works by love to God and all mankind, Gal_5:6; Jam_2:14; Jam_2:26; who walk in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless. None but such are members of the true church; nor should any be admitted into any particular church without evidence of their earnestly seeking this state of salvation.
Fellowship. — “Church fellowship is the communion that the members enjoy one with another. The ends of church fellowship are, the maintenance and exhibition of a system of sound doctrine; the support of the ordinances of evangelical worship in their purity and simplicity; the impartial exercise of church government and discipline; the promotion of holiness in all manner of conversation. The more particular duties are, earnest study to keep peace and unity; bearing of one another's burdens, Gal_6:1-2; earnest endeavors to prevent each other's stumbling, 1Co_10:23-33; Heb_10:24-27; Rom_14:13; steadfast continuance in the faith and worship of the Gospel, Act_2:42; praying for and sympathizing with each other, 1Sa_12:23; Eph_6:18. The advantages are, peculiar incitement to holiness; the right to some promises applicable to none but those who attend the ordinances of God, and hold communion with the saints, Psa_92:13; Psa_132:13; Psa_132:16; Psa_36:8; Jer_31:12; the being placed under the watchful eye of pastors, Heb_13:7; that they may restore each other if they fall, Gal_6:1; and the more effectually promote the cause of true religion” (Watson, s.v.).
Literature. — Besides the works already cited, see Hooker, Eccles. Polity, 1:346; 2:226, 345; 3:442 (Oxford, 1793, 3 vols. 8vo); Calvin, Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 1; Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, art. 9; Cranmer, Works; Burnet, On the 39 Articles, art. 19; Browne, On the 39 Articles, art. 19; Palmer, Treatise of the Church (Anglican: N. Y. 1851, 2 vols. 8vo); Litton, The Church of Christ (Protestant view: London, 1851, 8vo; Philadelphia, revised ed. 1863, 8vo); Stone, The Church Universal (Protestant: N. Y. 1846; new ed. 1867); Watson, Theological Institutes, pt. 4, ch. 1; Schaff, Apostolical Church, ch. 2; Rothe, Die Anfdnge d. christlichen Kirche (vol. 1:1837). In the Romanist view, Perrone, Prcelectiones Theologicae, 1:181 sq.; Mohler, Symbolism, p. 330 (N. Y. 1844, 8vo). Against the Romanist view, Cramp, Text-book of Popery, p. 42; Elliott, Delineations of Romanism, bk. 3. ch. 1; Jackson and Sanderson, On the Church, edited by Goode (Philadelphia, 1844,18mo); Whately, Kingdom of Christ (N. Y. 1843, 12mo). On the doctrine of the Church in the creeds of the churches, Guericke, Allgemeine christliche Symbolik (3d ed. Lpzg. 1861, § 71; partly translated from 1st ed. in evangelical Review, 1853, art. 2); Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, 2, § 459-490; Winer, Comnpar. Darstellung, 19. See also Coleman, Ancient Christianity, ch. 6; N. Brit. Review, Feb. 1853, art. 5; Lond. Quart. Rev. (Methodist), June, 1854; April, 1855; Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 1, ch. 1. For the Congregational view, Ripley, Church Polity (Boston, 1867, 18mo); B. Cooper, Free Church of Ancient Christendom (Lond. n. d., 18mo); Dexter, On Congregationalism, ch. 2 (Boston, 1865, 8vo).

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores