Outlines of Ecclesiastical History

by B. H. Roberts

30. Why was it done? (Note 8.)

31. What reason is given for suppressing half the sacrament?

SECTION IV.

1. Early Church Organization Not Perpetuated.—We have already stated in Part I of this work that the church organization established by Messiah—consisting of apostles, prophets, seventies, bishops, etc.—was designed to be perpetual. It is a singular fact, however, that aside from filling up the vacancy in the quorum of the twelve—occasioned by the fall of Judas Iscariot—there is no account in any of the writings of the apostles or fathers of the first centuries—on the eastern hemisphere^[[43]]—of any attempt to perpetuate the quorum of the twelve by filling up the vacancies occasioned by the death of the original apostles. The same may also be said of the quorum of the seventies.

2. The reason for this will doubtless be found in the fact that in the very days of the apostles the great apostasy which was to end eventually in the subversion of the Christian religion, had begun. (See note 2, end of section.) And since "the mystery of iniquity" had already begun its work in the days of the apostles, and men were rapidly proving themselves unworthy of the church of Christ, the Lord did not permit his servants to perpetuate these quorums of the higher Priesthood.

3. Establishment of the Church by the Apostles.—Whenever in their travels the apostles converted any considerable number of persons, in a city or district, they organized them into a church, or, speaking more precisely, into a branch of the great universal church of Christ, and appointed either a bishop or an elder to preside over them. As long as the apostles lived they were regarded as the presiding authority of the universal church, and were looked to for counsel and instruction in all difficult matters that arose concerning doctrine or discipline. Their decisions were accepted as final, and well might it be so, since these men were guided in their counsels by revelation^[[44]] as well as by the wisdom which their large experience in company with Jesus Christ had given them.

4. But when the apostles died, and no one succeeded to their authority, the branches of the church were left separate and independent organizations, united, it is true, in faith and charity, but the visible, general presidency recognized in the apostles and cheerfully submitted to by all sections of the church, ceased when the apostles passed away, and each branch was left an independent organization of itself.^[[45]] There is no evidence that there was such a thing as subordination among the churches when so left, or rank among the bishops. Each church was a sort of independent commonwealth, of which the bishop was president and a vassal to no other bishop.^[[46]]

5. Manner of Electing Bishops.—The manner in which bishops were first elected was for the apostles to nominate them, and then for the whole church over which they were to preside to sustain them by their vote. After the apostles had passed away then "other men of repute" made the nominations and the people sustained them as at first.^[[47]] The duties and powers of the bishops in the first and in the greater part of the second century were limited to conducting the public worship, administering the ordinances of the gospel, settling difficulties which arose between brethren, attending in person the sick and the poor. They also were made the custodians and managers of the public fund. In all these duties they were assisted by the elders [presbyters] and the deacons of the church. Yet neither the bishops nor the elders, nor both of them together, seem to have had power to ordain or determine anything without the approbation and consent of the members of the church. The principle of common consent was closely adhered to in the primitive church. (See note 3, end of section.)

6. Equality Among Bishops Changed.—This equality of rank among the bishops, together with the simple form of church government, described above, was soon changed. The bishops who lived in cities either by their own labors or those of the elders associated with them, raised up new churches in the adjacent villages and hamlets. The bishops of these rural districts being nominated and ordained by the bishops presiding in the city, very naturally, perhaps, felt themselves under the protection and dependent upon the city bishops. This idea continued to grow until these "bishops of the suburbs and the fields," were looked upon as a distinct order of officers, possessing a dignity and authority above the elders, and yet subordinate to the bishops of the cities, who soon came to be designated as archbishops.