Church And State Continued

by T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Category: Departure From The Faith | Aug 1972

In the two centuries between the death of the apostles and the accession of Constantine there had been significant changes in the character of the churches. W~ mention one particular development here because of its bearing on the Church/State relationship which began during the reign of the Emperor Constantine. This was in the matter of church government. There had been gradual but positive departure from apostolic procedure. The care of the apostolic churches was always in the hands of a plurality of elders, or, overseers. It is clear from the earliest Patristic writings that almost invariably government in the churches had passed into the hands of a single bishop ('bishop' is an Anglicized form of the Greek episcopos - overseer). This early departure from the apostolic pattern was to have disastrous consequences. The distinction between clergy and laity had begun. While it is true to say that these early monarchical bishops were "a far cry from the modern diocesan bishop of the Anglican or Roman Catholic pattern" (M. A. Smith), nevertheless, here is a classic example of the progress of error arising from a single deviation from Scripture authority. This was the beginning of the path which led to the establishment of a sacerdotal caste within 'the Church' claiming the sole authority to impart salvation through its sacraments. The shape of things to come was already discernible and became more pronounced as 'the Church' extended its power and prestige under the patronage of the State. E. H. Broadbent, commenting on the means used to resolve the doctrinal controversies of this period, says, "The means adopted to counter these attacks and to preserve unity of doctrine affected the Church even more than the heresies themselves, for it was largely due to them that the episcopal power and control grew up along with a clerical system which began so soon and so seriously to modify the character of the churches". There is a great deal of truth in that comment.

We have already remarked that in giving an outline of the development of Christendom in the early centuries A.D. we are not assuming that this is the complete picture. There were dissident minority bodies who strenuously opposed departure from the apostolic pattern of church constitution. Some account of these movements is given in The Pilgrim Church by E. H. Broadbent. This is a useful book to read alongside the mainline 'Church Histories'. It gives a balance to the picture, although his evaluation of events and the deductions he makes from them are open to question on some counts.

Similarly, among the leaders of Christendom there were those who stood firm on the fundamental truths of the gospel although they acquiesced in serious departure from the doctrine of the Lord in church constitution and practice. We referred earlier in this series of articles to the illustrious Athanasius and his battle with the heretic Anus. There were others of like stature, some known but many unknown, who contended for great truths of the Faith in those early centuries. Their record is with God. How it came about that they subscribed to error in other directions is one of the enigmas of 'Church' history. And the enigma is equally puzzling in present-day Christendom.

Why did Constantine reverse the policy of his predecessors and begin to support 'the Church' they had persecuted? The answer to this question is obscure. By all accounts he was a great soldier-statesman, but like some other great figures in history, ancient and modern, he has been idolized and scandalized in turn. The story of his alleged conversion to Christianity in 312 A.D. is well known. According to the commonly accepted version, it was while encamped near the Milvian Bridge, north of the River Tiber, that he saw a huge, flaming cross above the setting sun, and these words written across the sky: "In this sign thou shalt conquer". That night, according to the story, he had a dream in which he saw the Lord Himself, commanding him to fight the coming battle in His name. Constantine had a regimental standard emblazoned with a monogram which comprised the first two letters of Christ's name in Greek. In the historic battle of Milvian Bridge he utterly defeated the opposing army and drove the survivors into the Tiber. That is the story-we forbear comment. Our concern here is with the events which followed.

Almost overnight the incredible had come about-the Emperor had professed himself a Christian! In 313 A.D. Constantine promulgated the Edict of Milan which established religious toleration and restored to 'the Church' all the property, churches and burial grounds which had been confiscated by former emperors. Instead of being the faith of a persecuted minority Christianity now became the religion of the Imperial Court. Soon vast masses of people everywhere called themselves Christians and were incorporated into 'the Church' and yet remained pagans at heart. The Church and the State went hand-in-hand. Constantine himself took a hand in church affairs while retaining the old imperial dignity of chief priest of Pagan religion. The power of the State was now at the disposal of the leaders of 'the Church' and they used it ruthlessly to enforce their decisions. "When ... the Church ... was suddenly brought into partnership with the State, it became itself defiled and debased. Very soon the clergy were competing for lucrative positions and for power as shamelessly as the court officials, while, in congregations where a godless element predominated, the material advantages of a profession of Christianity changed the purity of the persecuted churches into worldliness. The Church was thus powerless to stem the downward course of the civilized world into corruption" (E. H. Broadbent).

For the purpose of this study there is no necessity to question the motives of the Emper6r in his new policy towards 'the Church', but we can remain in no doubt as to the far-reaching consequences of it. 313 A.D. began a new era in 'Church' history, and the story of that century has left its mark on Christendom right down to the present day. Separation from the world, so clearly enunciated in the teaching of our Lord and His apostles, had now been abandoned. It was during this period that the Church of Rome established itself as the primary church of Christendom and the foundations of the Papacy were laid.

Following the death of the Emperor Constantine Imperial Rome went into decline and the end of the fourth century saw the dissolution of the normal civil power. In 410 A.D. Rome fell, but it remained the ecclesiastical capital of western Christendom. "It has been said with some cynicism but with some truth that the Roman Church was the ghost of the Roman Empire sitting on the grave thereof; and indeed much of the prestige of the old civil power passed, at its defeat, to the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Western Church throughout what are usually called the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages" (J. G. Davies).

In concluding this brief sketch of the development of error in church constitution and practice in the early centuries A.D. we suggest certain lessons to be learned from it.

As we stressed earlier, the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith are securely based on the Holy Scriptures. The Faith was once for all delivered unto the saints. No 'Church' was ever authorized to amend it. The principles of gathering for God's people in this age are an integral part of that Faith, and were communicated to us through the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Church (the Body of Christ) and the churches of God (in local testimony) needs to be "rightly divided". Failure to do this is writ largely in the 'Church' history of the period we have been reviewing.

The Church which is Christ's Body (Eph. 1:22,23) does not consist of a group of people together on earth. Scripture and history alike expose the fallacy of the claim of any body of persons to be 'the Church' in this sense. What our Lord described as "My Church" (Matt. 16:18) is composed of all born again persons from Pentecost to the rapture. No action of any 'Church' secures entrance into the Body of Christ. This is the prerogative of our Lord Himself. It occurs when a sinner responds to God's call in the gospel, whereupon he is baptized in one Spirit into one Body (1 Cor. 12:13).

As we indicated last month the term "church of God" is used to describe a company of baptized disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ brought together in a given locality (e.g. 1 Cor 1:1; 1 Thess. 2:14). Such churches are conditional in character and their continuance or otherwise depends on their spiritual condition (Rev. 2:5; 3:16). By confusing this use of the word "church" with that referred to in the previous paragraph-the Church which is Christ's Body-the early Fathers, and many Christian apologists down the ages, misrepresent New Testament teaching in this vital area of truth. The momentous decision to join hands with the State jettisoned the clear teaching of our Lord and His apostles that to be the medium of spiritual blessing to mankind the people of God must remain separate from the world. The Fathers decided that more could be accomplished for mankind by admitting the masses into 'the Church' and starting their slow education from within. The result was that from the fourth century onwards thousands of unsaved persons were received into 'the Church' while many born again believers remained aloof from it. Was this 'Church' the Body of Christ? The claim is monstrous, whether made by "the primitive Church of the Fathers" or its modern counterparts. This heresy, that the visible institutional 'Church' is the Body of Christ, is a basic error of Christendom. Its consequences in Christendom during the Dark and Middle Ages will be reviewed in succeeding articles in this series, if the Lord will.

"The relation of the State to the Church had changed from hostility to partnership, and ultimately to something near domination, of the Church by the State (in the East), and of the State by the Church (in the West)" (J. G. Davies). It remains to be said that the building of the true Church - the Body of Christ - consisting of all those saved by divine grace through faith, irrespective of their ecclesiastical connections, continued unabated during the period under review. "I will build My Church" stands as a great divine purpose of this age. No power of earth or hell can prevail against it.

T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Aug 1972
Departure From The Faith