The appellatives "universal," "invisible," "true," and other like terms are used so presumptuously by the advocates of this theory as to lead one to be­lieve that they are actually contained in the Scriptures. However, a critical examination of the origin of these appellations reveals that they, as well as the universal church theory itself were post-apostolic in their formulation. Such phrases as the "universal church," "the rapture of the church" "mystical body of Christ," and others are commonly quoted as Scripture and the greater part of Christendom had not stopped to real­ize or discover that they are not part of God's special revelation.

      Apostolic usage. - The evidence is against any idea of a pre-apostolic or apostolic concept of an ecclesia other than a visible assembly. Even when the

---

[30]
word was used to designate ancient Israel it was used to characterize them only in an assembled capacity. It was never used to designate scattered or unassembled Israel.

     Adolf Harnack,¹ the great German historian and theologian, testifies against the idea of a universal invisible church idea in apostolic Christianity. He says:

     No one thought of the desperate idea of an invisible church; this notion would probably have brought about a lapse from pure Christianity far more rapidly than the idea of the Holy Catholic Church.²

     The first two centuries are almost devoid of any heresy concerning the nature of the church. Evi­dently its inherient local nature was not questioned or disputed.

     The works of the Fathers of the first two centuries that have come down to us contain no distinct treatise on the Church. The statements on the subject scattered through their writings, though by no means scanty, are for the most part of a purely

-------------------------
¹ Harnack is an acknowledged master among the historians of primitive Christianity and so his testi­mony in this connection carries great weight.
² Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma. Translated from the third German edition by Neil Buchanan (Williams & Norgate, 1896) II, p. 83.

---

[31]

practical or even devotional character. Rarely do the definitions of the church found in the pages of Ignatius or Irenaeus, Tertullian or Origen, make any approach to scientific precision.¹

     Ekklesia was a Greek word that would have been understood by all who used this universal language in the Apostle's day, as meaning a visible assembly - even after it had acquired a Christian significance. Christ­ianity did not change the meaning of this word but adopted it as a fit description of this divine institution.

     It has been further affirmed by Jesse Thomas that "Early Christian literature is equally innocent of any such application of the term."²

     Post-Apostolic Development — Only in post-apostolic³ times is there any record of the universal or invisible significance being attached to the word ekklesia. This is easy to understand because it is not
-------------------------
¹ John J. McElhinney, The Doctrine of the Church (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1871) p. 19.
² Thomas, op. cit., p. 151.
³ In this connection the term is not confined to a period of church history but applies to any sub­sequent period after the time of the original Apostles.

---

[32]
uncommon for a word, at different points in history, to acquire new meanings. To determine, though, what a writer is endeavouring to say, it is necessary to ascer­tain the meaning of his words, in the day he uses them.

     The expression of a "universal", or "Catholic" church was the first new idea to make its appearance after the New Testament age. According to the Dr. Fish, this term "first occurs in tbe year 169 A. D., in the Encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning the martyrdoms of the beloved pastor, the renouned Polycarp. . . ."¹

     By this time the New Testament canon had been completed. All of the books of the New Testament were written before 100 A. D. In order to establish his­torical grounds for the universal church, some archeological or etymological evidence will have to be produced to prove that this definition of ekklesia was not post-apostolic in orgin.

     Historically, the idea of the universal church was a gradual development. In the early period the
-------------------------
¹ Fish, op. cit. pp. 33, 34. (Cf, McElhinney, op. cit., p. 27.

---

[33]
churches existed and functioned independently of any formal organization into unitary groups. The work of the bishop was confined to a particular assembly but gradually the bishop became overseer over many churches — an abuse that was also post-apostolic.

     The notion of an ecumenical church had not ripened into a definite form until the calling of an ecumenical council under the world-ruler - Conatantine.¹ The decrees of this council "were endorsed by the imperial hand, and the church thus consolidated into a world organism."² A natural and later development was the "Holy Roman Empire," and in the end the "Holy Cath­olic Church" of the present day."³

     The term "invisible church" did not make its appearance until the time of the Refomation. When it did emerge, it appears as a counter-invention to the papist claims.

     The refomers were justly charged by Bossuet with "the later invention of the notion of an 'invisible
-------------------------
¹ Cf. Thomas, op. cit., p. 166.
² Ibid., p. 166
³ Ibid.

---

[34]
catholic' church, as a device to preserve the idea of catholicity without its inevitable implication of external reality."¹

     Dr. Maiden attributes the full development of the theory to the period of the Reformation. He claims that "Following the Reformation period and born of the Reformation movement, there emerged a new theory of the church - the universal, invisible, spriitual theory."²

     Dr. E. J. Fish, a prominent Michigan Baptist of the last century, sumarized the emergence of this idea, thus:

     Martin Luther, denying that the Church of Rome, which had arrogated to itself the title Holy Catholic or Universal Church, was the true church, was asked: 'Where then is it?' He replied: 'It is invisible,' thus originating a designation of the church which was very extensively, I might almost say was univer­sally, ruled the Protestant Chriatian world until this day. The thought was not new, but the expression.³

     It is true that this idea was in the minds of significant medieval Christians, but never formally uttered, "The force of that stray spell, a name,
-------------------------
¹ Ibid., p. 176.
² Maiden, op. cit., p. 161.
³ Fish, op. cit., p. 40.

---

[35]
remained for Luther to impart."¹

     Thus we issue in an era of unprecedented complexity of church concepts. This new name was a convenient designation to justify predetermined con­clusions but the novelty only spelled more conflict, a conflict not only between the "local" and "external" universal but an added conflict between the "invisible universal."

     The Modern Emphasis. - The modern emphasis of the universal church theory is expressed in two excesses - the interdenominational and ecumencial movements.

     An invisible church, contradistinguished from the local church by the adjective "true" becomes a very important concept to all interdenominational activity. It has great utilitarian value, as its theme-song of a great invisible church composed of all Christians is regarded as the only important entity. It thus helps to break down all distinguishing historic principles and beliefs of the separate denominations and bring them together in a new organization, the basis of belief which is the lowest common denominator.
-------------------------
¹ Ibid., p. 41.

---

[36]
It is easy to see how such a theory or concept, is vital to the continued existence and prosperity of the new "interdenomination denomination."¹

     The ecumenical church advocates have just as enthusiastically adopted and vigorously propagated the universal, invisible concept but with the ulterior motive of establishing a world-wide church. The uni­versal church is admittedly the time-honored concept of ecumenicity. Man's Disorder and God's Design,² a volume prepared under the auspices of the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches, expresses repeatedly this concept as it is shared by many of its leaders.

     Re-Examination of the Apostles' Creed — Repeated reference is made by all advocates of this theory to the Apostles' Creed. In the minds of many people this is regarded as next to final in authority with Scrip­ture. A tradition, now wholly abandoned as an illusion, credits "each of the apostles with having contributed a clause to it."³
-------------------------
¹ Not a denomination in the sense of organized cooperation, but independent societies with mutual distinguishing beliefs; a label of a kind.
² Published by Harper & Brothers, New York.
³ Thomas, op. cit., p. 150.

---

[37]
     Dr. Jesse B. Thomas, erstwhile professor of Church History at Newton Theological Seminary, contends that "neither the creed itself nor the emphasized phrase Holy Catholic Church are traceable to the first century."¹

     Dr. Thomas's findings in respect to the creed help clarify its authority and show that it is far from a sufficient basis for establishing this proposed church concept. He says:

     The creed, in its present form, is affirmed by Harnack to be traceable no further back than to the middle of the fifth century. The 'complete form of the creed,' as Dr. Stimson admits, 'gained general currency in the west' only 'after the eighth century.' The version in use before that time (itself going back only to the third century) omits the word 'catholic' speaking only of the 'Holy Church.' That this was the earlier form is admtted by Romanists us well as Protestants hist­orians." ²

     It thus becomes obvious that a historical foundation for the universal church theory is lacking. Both the New Testament Scriptures and the earliest Christian documents fail to define the church as "universal" or "invisible."
-------------------------
¹ Thomas, op. cit., p. 151.
² Ibid.
==========

Part II, Chapter I
Return to Table of Contents

---

Baptist History Homepage