Page images
PDF
EPUB

form it, is either useless or improper. The non-existence of this church arises from the corruptions and prejudices of men ; but supposing it to exist, the system of Independency would entirely destroy its unity and consistence. Besides, as far as the truth is disseminated and embraced, it appears required by the authority or at least by the representations of scripture, that all who are united in religious principle should connect themselves under the same government, and form one great and general church. It is not enough to assert, as Glass has done, that all congregations are no more bound to be subject to one great and general government, than to meet in one great assembly to partake of the Lord's supper. The latter, from the nature of things, is impossible, but experience has demonstrated the possibility of the former. Though all the congregations in Holland, France, Switzerland, or Scotland, could not assemble in one place to eat the supper, we know that the churches, in each of these countries, have been administered by a common government, while these congregations individually have also been governed by their particular rulers. In like manner, though the whole nation of Israel could not meet together to eat the passover, they were governed by a common council of seventy elders, while, in their particular districts, they were also subject to inferior rulers.

It is difficult to say what might, or might not, be practicable, if the church were absolutely universal. As all the nations in the world constitute one great political government to which every individual nation is subject, it is by no means impossible but there might be a general ecclesiastical government, composed of the representatives of the churches in every country, to which each of these churches should be subject. Such a general political government does not indeed ostensibly exist, but it is always understood to exist virtually, and has ever been considered as the safeguard of those general rights and laws which are called the rights and laws of nature and nations. When the energies of this government are at any time exerted, it may be said to assume a visible form and it is this which constitutes and preserves the balance of power among nations. Why then might not a similar government exist in religion if the church were to become universal, to which the collected church in every particular country should be subordinate.

:

Nor does it follow, because it is difficult to conceive how such a government could exist even though there were a universal church, that, while it is not universal, the different congregations in a particular country, who are united in religious sentiment, ought not to be subject to one general government. Though all the nations, notwithstanding their subjection to a general virtual government, are not subject to it in a permanent ostensible form, would any one conclude from this, as Independents do respecting the church, that each nation should not possess within itself a certain fixed and general political government, or that there should be no rulers in any country superior to the magistrates of a particular town or burgh; that every such town should be a distinct and totally independent government; and that every individual, connected with this town, should be a virtual as well as a titular governor? What ought we to do then, but reject the Independent plan, which is so plainly subversive of the unity of the church, and conclude in general, that while every congregation should be governed by its distinct and separate rulers, there should be superior courts, to which all the congregations in the same connection are bound to be subject.

It may be said, indeed, that in political governments men are associated merely for the purpose of defence against foreign enemies. This, however, is but one end of their union; for the civil rights and privileges of every individual in the nation are also to be protected from being invaded. To accomplish this, they learn from experience that it would be dangerous in the extreme to commit to the rulers of every town or village a supreme and final juridical power, without the possibility of appeal to a higher court; and that consequently a gradation of courts is most expedient and neces

sary.

Still it will be affirmed, that though this arrangement is proper in political matters, it is not necessary or proper in the church of Christ, which is expressly declared to be a kingdom not of this world. It does not however follow from this particular expression, that there ought to be a total difference, in every instance, between the spiritual and the political kingdom. If it did, then, because order and government exist in politics, they ought not to exist in religion, but anarchy and disorder be allowed to prevail, a conclusion which few Independents would be disposed to

adopt. If then the kingdom of Christ, as it exists in the visible general church, does not necessarily differ, in every point, from political kingdoms, the question naturally occurs, Are these some of the instances in which this similarity may take place; that every member is not to be admitted to judge and vote on every proposal of the rulers in a particular church, as every man in a city is not permitted to judge and vote on every measure of the magistrate; and that it would be improper for every congregation to possess an independent ecclesiastical government, accountable to no higher court, as it would be improper and dangerous that every town should have a political government independent of any superior?

In determining this question, it seems fair and reasonable. to appeal not only to scripture but to experience. If then, on the authority of experience, it appears that men in every age have been so unqualified to decide on political questions, that it has been accounted at once dangerous and preposterous to submit every measure of the governors of a city to the decision of the citizens before it is adopted, it seems equally just to maintain that in a congregation, where the subjects of discussion are unquestionably more interesting, and where the members at large, are perhaps, as really unqualified to decide, it must be no less preposterous to subject every measure of government to the review of the people before it be put in execution. And if it has also been accounted prejudicial to the civil interests of men, to constitute every town in a kingdom an independent principality, uncontroulable by any higher juridical court, may we not legitimately infer that a similar independency, given to a particular congregation, would be equally prejudicial to the religious interests of men? Unless then it can be proved, that Christians at large are better fitted to be ecclesiastical governors than civil judges; or that a particular congregation is less liable to err than the governor or magistrates of a city; or that, though they may err as frequently, the consequences of their improper decisions, with regard to religion, are of less importance than those which arise from political errors; the reasoning seems fair and the conclusion unavoidable, even though we grant the favourite position of Independents, that the church, or kingdom of Christ, is not of this world.

I know it has been affirmed by Glass, that when the professing church of Christ is represented in scripture as one, a

particular congregation only is intended, and that the unity even of the church universal may be ascribed to this congregation, because it is an image of the whole catholic church. In proof of this he tells us, that "the apostle Paul, in some "passages, accommodates his doctrine of the unity of the "holy catholic church, the mystical body of Christ, unto a "visible church, a congregation of saints, wherein that ca"tholic body is shewed forth; and exhorts the members, "in their several stations, to walk according to it, and shew "it forth: Eph. ii. 22. Rom. xii. 6.-10. Eph. iv. 1, 2, 3, 1 Cor. xii. 27.*" In some even of these passages, however, it seems plain that it is the universal visible church, and not merely a particular congregation, to which unity is attributed. Thus, in Rom. xii. 6, &c. the apostle not only. speaks in general terms of the offices in the church, but includes himself, though he had never yet been at Rome, and was not a member of the particular church there. Besides, even Glass allows, that, in ver. 4, 5, he speaks of the universal church; consequently, since it is his design, ver. 3, to inculcate the exercise of humility on all Christians, and especially the office-bearers of the church (and to enforce it, he introduces a striking and beautiful allusion to the relation in which all believers stand to each other as members of the general or universal church,) is it not evident that his inference, in ver. 6, relates to the universal church alone, which he there represents as one. That it was this church alone which he intended in 1 Cor. xii, is proved from what is stated in the 28th verse. It was certainly not merely in a single congregation at Corinth, but in the universal professing visible church, that " God had set some, first, apostles;

[ocr errors]

secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers," &c. That it is the same universal church, of the unity of which he speaks, Eph. iv. 1, 2, 3, is no less clear from the following context. In short, allowing that, in some occasional passages, particular churches, as that of Ephesus, (Eph. ii. 22), are represented to us as constituting one church, it will not prove that, in other passages, the universal professing church is not as expressly pointed out as constituting also one church. That it is so described, we have already attempted in some measure to demonstrate, and, were it necessary, it might be established from other passages also. At present we shall

Glass's Works, vol. i. p. 279.

only farther remark, that in this light it seems to be very pointedly exhibited in the account of the millennial church': Rev. xxi. This church certainly cannot mean the invisible church, for we are informed, ver. 24, that the kings of the earth shall bring their glory and honour into it; and in ver. 26, that they should bring into it also the glory and honour of the nations. And that it cannot signify a single congregation is no less plain, for nations are represented, ver. 24, as walking in the light of it, and kings of different countries as members of it, which certainly will not apply to any single congregation. It can only then be the universal visible church; yet it is described as constituting one great and beautiful whole, for it is pointed out to us under the emblem of a city, and a person. It is evident then, that even allowing that unity is sometimes ascribed to a particular congregation in the sacred volume, it is no less certainly attributed to the universal church. And if the unity of a particular congregation would be destroyed by completely separating the members from each other, and rendering them independent of the authority of the whole, the unity of the universal church must be no less destroyed by separating every par ticular congregation which composes this church, and making it independent of the controul of the rest, in any case of error, in point of government.

To conclude, is it objected, that though unity belongs to the universal church as well as to a particular congregation, yet it is the latter which is always meant when unity is ascribed to the visible professing church; and that this may well be affirmed even of a particular congregation, because it is an image of the universal church of Christ, so that, upon perceiving it, we perceive a representation of this whole catholic society? It is replied, that since every individual saint, or believer, is represented in scripture as made at last, by the grace of God, a perfect man, and is an image of the whole mystical body of Christ, upon the same principle it might be affirmed, that when Christ's mystical body also is denominated by Paul, (Eph. iv. 13), a perfect man, it is only a single Christian which is there intended by him. And since every particular believer, when sanctified by the grace of God, becomes to him a spiritual temple, and is a delightful image of the whole universal church, which is distinguished also by that name, upon the same principle it might be argued, that when the universal church, as in

« PreviousContinue »