XXI.

THE CHURCH.

NO NATIONAL, PROVINCIAL, OR DIOCESAN CHURCH RECOGNIZED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The Church invisible; partly on earth, partly in heaven. The Church on earth, composed of all Christ's people, in all communions; its members known only to God. The Church as composed of visible organizations. No National, Provincial, or Diocesan organization or authority, recognized in the New Testament. Slater's argument concerning the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem, answered by Scrip

ture.

THE New Testament uses the word "Church in several

senses:

1. AS COMPRISING ALL THE PEOPLE of God, IN ALL LANDS, OF ALL AGES, THOSE ON EARTH, AND THOSE IN HEAVEN. Thus: Eph. i. 22, 23, "And gave him to be head over all things TO THE CHURCH, which is his body; the fullness of him that filleth all in all." This is that Universal or Catholic Church, of which it is said, Eph. v. 25, 27, " As Christ loved the CHURCH, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." This is that Church, of which it is said, Col. i. 18, 20, " And he is the head of the BODY, THE CHURCH;" * * "and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him I say whether they be THINGS IN EARTH OR THINGS IN HEAVEN."

But this Catholic Church, of all times and nations, part of which is on earth and part in heaven, is no earthly organization. It is the Church invisible, whose members are found in all communions, and who are known only to God. Not every one in any earthly communion belongs to this invisible Church; no rites, no sacraments, no creeds, can distinguish them; they are not all Israel who are of Israel; but "the Lord knoweth them that are his."

This universal and invisible Church, being no earthly organization, has no earthly officers.

2. There is another sense in which the word Church designates CHRIST'S APPARENT AND PROFESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. Thus, when Paul persecuted the saints whether at Jerusalem or at Damascus, he said, "concerning zeal, persecuting the Church;" i. e. the visible, professed disciples of Jesus. It was in this sense that the Saviour used the word, when he said, "on this rock will I build my Church." This is that "Church" in which it is said that God hath set "first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, gov ernments, diversities of tongues." This is the Church which has received the covenants and the promises; and to which Jesus, when he ascended up on high, gave various officers "for the perfecting of the saints; for the work of the ministry; for the edifying of the body of Christ."

In this sense the Church is visible; embracing all Christ's apparent and professed disciples. It is universal. It is one. But it is not one as collected into one organized society. It has not, since the Apostles, any universal officers, holding authority over the universal body; and this none have pretended, save in an unmeaning and self-contradictory sense; except the adherents of the Pope.

The unity of this Church is not a unity of organization; nor unity in the degrees and numbers of officers; nor unity in forms of worship. It consists in having "one faith, one Lord, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all." Its members are one in their agreement in the same fundamental truths of Christianity; one in the same profession and visible ordinances; partakers of one spirit; and one in the same hope of heaven. The unity which it is essential for them to keep, is "the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace;" provision being expressly made for difference of opinion, and difference of practice in unessential things: those who observe days and eat meat, and those who do not, being expressly forbidden to judge one another; and that injunction ending in the sharp reprimand, "Who art thou, that judgest another man's servant?"

This universal Church is independent of modes of organization, and modes of worship; it being in these respects variable, and having actually varied from age to age. Its first visible form began with Abraham-when it had a sacrament, but no priesthood. It had neither presbyters nor bishops; but it was still the Church of the living God, the root into which other Churches are graffed; and how much soever these Churches may glory in their hierarchies, or how much soever they may

insist that there cannot be a Church without a Bishop, it may still be said to them, "Thou bearest not the root, but the root thee;" that root was long a "Church without a Bishop;" even all the time from Abraham to Moses.

When the Abrahamic Church had continued in this state four centuries and more, a ritual law and a sacrificing priesthood were added; both of which were typical and temporary; being added to remain only "till the promised seed should come."

When Christ, the substance of these types, came, the typesboth priests, rituals and sacrifices-were abolished. There is now no temple, altar, priest, or sacrifice. The dispensation of the Spirit began; the blessing of Abraham came upon the Gentiles. In all these changes of external form, the Church is one; its design, its covenant, its foundation being the same. The unity of the Church, then, can by no means consist in uniformity of organization, or of forms of worship.

3. AS VISIBLE ORGANIZATIONS, NO CHURCHES ARE RECOGNIZED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, EXCEPT SUCH AS ARE CONGREGATIONAL ;* there being no such thing as a National, Provincial, or Diocesan organized Christian Church even alluded to in the New Testament.

Let

Important conclusions follow this principle, if it be true. those whom it concerns look well to it. If there be no National, Provincial, or Diocesan Church organization in the New Testament, then there can be no offices or officers corresponding to such organizations; no Pope, no Patriarch, no Diocesan Bishop. These offices are of purely human device; there is no place or duty for them; no provision made for such officers in the Church of God.

It follows, moreover, that all canons, rituals, and Liturgies prescribed for the Churches of any nation, province, or so called diocese, are entirely without authority.

Let those who are concerned, therefore, look well to the principle.

We read of "The Church at Jerusalem;" "the Church at Antioch;" "the Church at Corinth ;" at Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Philadelphia, Sardis, Pergamos, and Laodicea. We read of the Church at Cenchrea, distinct from the Church at Corinth, though Cenchrea was the port of that city; of the " Church in thy house;" the "Church which is in Nymphas' house." Nowhere do we read of the Church of a Nation, a Province, or of a Diocese comprising several congregations. No such organization is mentioned, referred to, or implied in any part of the New Testament. On the

*The word is not used here in the technical sense; i e. as distinguishing Congregational from Presbyterian. The Presbyterian scheme, as well as the Congre gational, recognizes no National, Provincial, or Diocesan officers, corresponding to a National, Provincial or Diocesan organization.

contrary, when a province, or district of country is mentioned, we read of the Churches of that province or district; we read of "the Churches of Galatia," "the Churches of Judea," "the Churches of Asia," "the Churches of Macedonia." Had there been a Provincial or Diocesan organization, it must have been mentioned.

The only Church organization recognized in the New Testament is that of local societies or congregations of believers, joined together under Christ's rules, having their own officers, and meeting for social worship, for the observance of Christian sacraments, and for the exercise of discipline over their own members.*

The design of a Church organization renders a larger Church organization needless. If Christ's rules are a safe and sufficient guide, then any congregation of his people, anywhere, have all that they need for the ends of worship, instruction, and the observance of Christ's ordinances; for their mutual watchfulness, encouragement, consolation, and edification. Nothing forbids contiguous Churches to associate for mutual advice and advantage; but to no higher authority are they necessarily bound; since for a Diocesan, Provincial, National, or Catholic organization with inherent power to rule over his Churches, the Lord Jesus Christ has made no provision. Nay, he has forbidden submission to such power. "The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them; but it shall not be so among you."

The plea for the exercise of such authority over the Churches; for the imposition of canons, ceremonies, and liturgies, is, the preservation of unity; the prevention of schism; or the attainment of uniformity. But turn over every page of history, from the time when Victor of Rome excommunicated one half of the Christian world-trace the exercise of such "dominion” where it leads you; and you must follow it through fields of slaughter; through the dungeons of the Inquisitions; through the jails and prisons of England;-the only result has been to create oppression, persecution, corruptions, schisms, distractions without end. When shall it be that all Christ's people shall vindicate their Christian liberties?

Having gone so far, we might rest here; there is no authority for a National, Provincial, or Diocesan Church in the Word of God. We are not bound to inquire any further. Were it God's design that we should bear allegiance to such authority, it would have been mentioned or implied, or alluded to, in his Holy Word, Since it is not mentioned there, those who demand of us submis

The reference to the Apostles, and elders, and brethren, at Jerusalem, made by the Church at Antioch, concerning the matter of circumcision, was no exception to this; it was simply a question of advice, made by one Church to another.

sion to such authority, come without warrant. Prove to us that such organizations and authorities existed in the very next age (which cannot be proved)-that is no warrant; it imposes no obligation. The Lord meant to have an end of law-making for his Church, when he made an end of it in his Word.

But though we are not bound to inquire any further, it may be well just to look at the nature of the claims for a further authority.

After searching very extensively in the standard writings of Prelacy, I have found no attempt at proof of a Diocesan organization from the New Testament, save some very shrewd conjectures as to what might have been the case in certain instances. It is conjectured that some Churches, as those of Antioch and Jerusalem, might have been so numerous as to require several distinct congregations organized as Churches, which were again combined in one Church, thus making a diocese. On the ground of this conjecture, it is confidently asserted that it must have been so; and thereupon Prelacy sweeps over the whole ground, and declares that churches everywhere are bound to submit to Diocesan authority. But suppose we admit this conjecture to be correct, that the Church at Jerusalem and that at Antioch at length became Diocesan. It applies only to one or two large cities;while all the rest of Christendom is left destitute of dioceses; there being no recognition of any other such organization, and no necessity or ground for supposing from the New Testa ment that there were any such. The proper inference is that both modes have an example in Apostolical times; and that neither is of any exclusive authority.

If, however, we find that the conjecture is incorrect, and that so far as the New Testament goes, these great Churches continued still to meet together, then the last pretence of an organized Diocesan Church in the days of the Apostles, vanishes away.

The Prelatical argument is, that the Church of Antioch and Jerusalem must have been too numerous to meet together; and that, therefore, each must have been composed of several churches united in a Diocese. No direct evidence is adduced; the argument is wholly conjectural or inferential.

And first with regard to Jerusalem. It is urged that three thousand were converted on the day of Pentecost; that subsequently there were added to the Church daily. Again, that the number of the men who believed, was about five thousand; and how could so numerous a Church continue to meet together? If we shall show, that to the last New Testament record in the case, they did "come together," we need not trouble ourselves about the difficulties. That proof I reserve, till we have considered the case of Antioch. At present I remark, in passing, that