Christian
Fellowship
By John Angell James, 1822
ON THE NATURE OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH
It is obviously incumbent on the members of any
community, whether civil or sacred, to acquaint themselves with its
constitution and design; without this, they can neither adequately enjoy the
privileges, nor properly discharge the duties, which their membership brings
with it. Such people are held more by feeling than by principle; a tenure
quite insufficient, as a bond of religious connection.
It is admitted that as in the human frame, so in the
system of divine truth, there are parts of greater and less importance—and
the man who would put the principles of church government upon a level with
the doctrine of the atonement, and represent a belief in the former as no
less essential to salvation than a reliance upon the latter, betrays a
lamentable ignorance of both.
Still, however, although the hand is of less consequence
to vitality than the head or the heart, is it of no value? Will any one be
reckless of his members, because he can lose them and yet live? So because
church government is of less importance to spiritual and eternal life than
faith in Christ, will any one abandon it as a vain and profitless subject?
Whatever God has made the subject of revealed truth, should be guarded, on
that account, from being considered as too frivolous to deserve our
attention.
The government of the church ought never to be viewed
apart from its moral and spiritual improvement, any more than the laws of a
country should be considered as something distinct from the means of its
civil order, comfort, and strength. It is impossible for us to imagine
otherwise, than that Christ, the head of the church, arranged its government
with a direct reference to its purity and peace, and that the system he has
laid down is the best calculated to promote these ends. Hence, then, it is
obviously our duty to inquire what that system is, not merely for its own
sake—but for the sake of the interests of evangelical piety.
The error of viewing the subject of church government as
a mere abstract question, is very common, and has tended more than anything
else, with many people, to lead them to regard it with indifference and
neglect. The acknowledgment of no other rule of faith and practice than the
word of God, must tend to exalt the only infallible standard of truth, and
the only divine means of sanctity—the refusal to own any other head of the
church than Christ, must bring the soul into more direct submission to
him—the scheme of founding a right to spiritual privileges exclusively on
the scriptural marks of religious character, and not upon legislative
enactments, or national dissent, must have a tendency to produce
examination, and prevent delusion—and indeed the habit of viewing the whole
business of religion as a matter of conscience, and not of custom, to be
settled between God and a man's own soul, must ensure for it a degree of
attention more solemn and more effectual than can be expected, if it be
allowed, in any degree, to rank with the affairs which are regulated by
civil legislation.
It will probably be contended by some, in apology for
their neglect, that the New Testament has laid down no specific form of
church government, and that where we are left without a guide, it is useless
to inquire if we are following his directions. If by this it be meant to
say, that the Lord Jesus Christ has left its no apostolic precept or
example, which is either directory for our practice, or obligatory upon our
conscience, in the formation of Christian societies, nothing can be more
erroneous. It might be presumed, that a matter of such moment would not be
left so unsettled, and we have only to look into the Word of God, to see how
groundless is the assertion. It is true that we shall search the New
Testament in vain for either precedent or practice, which will support all
the usages of our churches, any otherwise than as these usages are
deduced from the spirit and bearing of general Scriptural principles.
These alone are laid down by the apostles—but still with sufficient
precision to enable us to determine whether the Episcopal, the Presbyterian,
or Independent form of church government, be most consonant with the mind
and will of Christ.
What is a Christian church?
The word church signifies an assembly. In the New
Testament it invariably applies to people, not to places. It means not the
building in which the assembly is convened—but the assembly itself. It has
an enlarged, and also a more confined signification in the Word of God. In
some places it is employed to comprehend the aggregate of believers of every
age and nation; hence we read of the "general assembly and church of the
first born," and of the church which "Christ loved and purchased with his
blood." In its more confined acceptance, it means a congregation of
professing Christians, meeting for worship in one place; hence we read
of the church at Corinth, of the Thessalonians, of Ephesus, etc. These are
the only two senses in which the word is ever employed by the sacred
writers; consequently all provincial and national churches, or, in other
words, to call the people of a province or nation a church of Christ, is a
most gross perversion of the term, and rendering the kingdom of Jesus more a
matter of geography than of piety. The sacred writers, when speaking of the
Christians of a whole province, never employ the term in the singular
number; but, with great precision of language, speak of the churches
of Galatia, Syria, Macedonia, Asia, etc.
A church of Christ, then, in the latter and more usual
acceptance of the term, means "a number of professing Christians, united
to each other by their own voluntary consent, having their proper officers,
meeting in one place for the observance of religious ordinances, and who are
independent of all other control than the authority of Christ expressed in
his word." This company of professing Christians may be few or many in
number, rich or poor in their circumstances, and may meet either in a shoddy
or magnificent building--or in no building at all. These things are purely
secondary; for, provided they answer to the above definition, they are
still, to all intent and purpose, a church of Christ.
I. The members of the church should be such as make a
credible profession of their faith in Christ ;
or, in other words, such as appear to be regenerated by the Spirit of
God, to have believed in the Lord Jesus for salvation, and to have submitted
themselves in their conduct to the authority of his word. To these the Head
of the church has limited the privileges of his kingdom; they alone can
enjoy its blessings, and perform its duties; and to such the Epistles are
uniformly addressed, Romans 1:7. 1 Cor. 1:2. etc. If these passages are
read, it will be found that the members of the first churches are not merely
admonished to be saints—but are addressed as such; which is a circumstance
of great weight in determining the question about the proper subjects of
fellowship.
But who is to judge in this case? I answer, the church;
for although no instance can be brought from the New Testament, in which any
one of the primitive churches can be proved to have exercised this power,
yet, as it is a voluntary society, founded on the principle of mutual
affection, it seems reasonable that the church should judge of the existence
of those qualifications which are necessary to the enjoyment of communion.
The very act of obtruding upon them anyone without their own consent,
whether by a minister or by elders, is destructive of one purpose of
Christian association—that is, the fellowship of the brethren. Nor is
the power of searching the heart requisite for those who exercise the right
of admitting others, since we are to judge of each other by outward conduct.
II. This company of professing Christians must meet in
one place for the observance of religious institutes.
A society that cannot associate, an assembly that cannot assemble, are total
contradictions. When, therefore, a church becomes too large to communicate
at one table, and divides, to eat the Lord's supper, in two distinct places
of worship, each having its own pastor, there are two churches, and no
longer one only.
III. These people must be formed into a society upon the
principle of mutual voluntary consent. They
are not to be associated by act of civil government, by ecclesiastical
decree, by ministerial authority, or by any other power than that of their
own unconstrained choice. They are to give themselves first to the Lord, and
then to each other. No authority whatever, of an earthly nature, is to
constrain them to unite themselves in fellowship, nor to select for them any
particular company of believers with whom they shall associate. All is to be
the result of their own selection. Parochial limits, ecclesiastical
divisions of country, together with all the commands of ministerial
authority, have nothing to do in regulating the fellowship of the saints.
The civil power, when employed to direct the affairs of the church of
Christ, is manifestly out of place. It is as much at a man's own option, so
far as human authority is concerned, to say with whom he will associate in
matters of religion, as it is to decide who shall be his fellows in
philosophical or literary pursuits.
IV. A church of Christ has its scriptural officers.
Here two questions arise—
First, How many kinds of officers does the New Testament mention?
Secondly, How are they to be chosen?
As to the KINDS of office-bearers in the primitive
churches, there can be neither doubt nor difficulty with any one who will
impartially consult the Word of God. With all that simplicity which
characterizes the works of God, which neither disfigures his productions
with what is excessive, nor encumbers them with what is unnecessary, he has
instituted but two kinds of permanent officers in his church, bishops (or
elders) and deacons; the former to attend to its spiritual affairs, and the
latter to direct its temporal concerns. That there were but two, is evident,
because we have no information concerning the choice, qualifications, or
duties of any other.
The
BISHOPS of the primitive churches correspond
exactly to the pastors of modern ones. That bishop, elder, and pastor,
are only different terms for the same office, is evident from Acts
20:17, compared with the 28; Titus 1:5, 7, and 1st Peter 5:1, 2. They are
called BISHOPS, which signifies overseers, because they overlook the
spiritual concerns, and watch for the souls of their brethren, Acts 20:28,
1st Tim. 3:1. PASTORS or shepherds, because they feed the flock of God with
truth, Ephes. 4:11. RULERS, because they guide the church, Heb. 13:7.
ELDERS, because of their age, or of their possessing those qualities which
age supposes, Tit. 1:5. MINISTERS, because they are the servants of Christ
and the gospel. Ephes. 6:21.
The DEACON
is appointed to receive and distribute the funds of the church,
especially those which are raised for the relief of the poor. All other
kinds of officers than these two, are the inventions of men, and not the
appointment of Christ; and which, by intending to add splendor to the
kingdom of Jesus, have corrupted its simplicity, destroyed its spirituality,
and caused it to symbolize with the kingdoms of this world.
On the mode of electing them to their office the
Scripture is sufficiently explicit, to justify the practice of those
denominations who appeal to the voices of the people. If the Acts of the
Apostles be studied with care, a book which seems given us more for the
regulation of ecclesiastical practices, than the revelation of theological
opinions, we shall find that nothing was done in the primitive churches
without the cooperation of the members; no, not even when the
apostles themselves were present. Even the election of a new apostle was
made by the brethren, and not by the ministers exclusively. Acts 1:21, 26.
The deacons were chosen by the same people. Acts 6. The decrees of the
council at Jerusalem were passed also by them, and went forth with their
name. Acts 15:23. From hence we infer, that although no case occurs in the
inspired history, where it is mentioned that a church elected its pastor,
yet it so entirely accords with the practice of the church in other
respects, that an exception in this particular would have been a singular
anomaly, which nothing could justify but the plainest and most express
provision.
The decisions of reason harmonize, on this
subject, with the testimony of revelation; for if we have an undoubted right
to choose our own lawyer, or physician, how much more so, to elect the man
to whom we shall entrust the care of our soul! If we should feel it hard to
be obliged to take the medicines of the parish doctor, whether we liked them
or not, how much more oppressive is it, that we should be obliged to hear
the opinions of the parish minister, who may have been appointed by the
patron for other qualifications than those of a spiritual nature, and whose
sentiments may be as much opposed to the doctrines of the gospel, as his
conduct is to its holiness! What! are we to be obliged to look up to such a
man as our spiritual instructor, because some profligate, who has control of
the office, chooses to introduce him to the vacant pulpit?
V. A Christian church, with its office-bearers, is
complete within itself , for the
observance of divine ordinances, and the exercise of discipline; and is
subject to no authority or tribunal on earth. This is the Congregational or
Independent form of church government, and it is thus denominated, to
distinguish it from the Episcopal, or the government of a bishop, and from
the Presbyterian, or the government of the churches by the authority of
their assembled pastors and elders. No trace of any foreign control over a
church of Christ, can be found in the New Testament, except such as the
representatives of Jesus Christ.
VI. Such a church is bound, by the authority of Christ,
in their associated capacity, to observe all the institutes ,
to obey all the commands, and to cherish all the dispositions, which relate
to their social union, in the time, order, and manner in which they are
enjoined by Christ Jesus. They are to assemble in public on the first day of
the week for prayer, praise, hearing the Scriptures read and expounded,
celebrating the Lord's supper, and exercising mutual affection. They are
also bound by divine authority to maintain the purity of the church, by
receiving only such as give evidence of true faith, and by excluding from
their communion all those whose life is opposed to the doctrine which is
according to godliness. They are to live in the exercise of mutual
submission and brotherly love, and ever to consider themselves responsible
to the tribunal of Christ, for their conduct in their church capacity.
Such is a very concise view of the nature of a Christian
church.
Hence what might be termed the GENERAL
principles of the New Testament on this topic, are the all-sufficiency
and exclusive authority of the Scriptures as a rule of faith and practice in
matters of religion—the consequent denial of the right of legislatures and
ecclesiastical conventions to impose any rites, ceremonies, observances, or
interpretations of the Word of God, upon our belief and practice—the
unlimited and inalienable right of every man to expound the Word of God for
himself, and to worship his Maker in that place and manner which he deems to
be most accordant with the directions of the Bible—the utter impropriety of
any alliance or incorporation of the church of Christ with the governments
of the kingdoms of this world—the duty of every Christian to oppose the
authority which would attempt to fetter his conscience with obligations to
religious observances not enjoined by Christ. These are general principles,
which should lead the thinking Christian to separate from all national
establishments of religion whatever.
It is not enough to plead the authority of 'example', or
of mere 'feeling', as a reason for any religious service. These are
insufficient pilots on the troubled ocean of theological opinion, where
opposing currents, stormy winds, and concealed rocks, endanger the safety of
the voyager to eternity. Our compass is the word of God; 'reason' must be
the steersman at the helms to guide the vessel by the direction of the
needle, and that mariner is accountable for the consequences, who is too
ignorant or too indolent to examine his course.
Away with that morbid insensibility which exclaims, "It
is of no consequence to what church or denomination a man belongs, provided
he be a Christian." Such a spirit is a conspiracy against the throne of
truth, and is the first step towards a complete abandonment of the
importance of right sentiments. Admitting that error is to be measured by a
graduated scale, who will undertake to fix upon the point where harmless
mistakes end--and mischievous ones begin? Everything relating to religion is
of consequence. In the temple of truth, not only the foundation is to be
valued and defended—but every point and every pinnacle.
It does not necessarily follow that an inquiry into the
grounds of our conduct should embitter our temper. The mist of angry passion
obscures the splendor of truth, as much as fogs do the effulgence of the
solar orb. Let us contend earnestly for right principles—but let it be in
the exercise of right feelings. Let us hold the truth in love. Then do our
sentiments appear to greatest advantage, and look like gems set in gold,
when they are supported by a spirit of Christian charity.
"O divine love! the sweet harmony of souls! the music of
angels! the joy of God's own heart; the very darling of his bosom! the
source of true happiness! the pure quintessence of heaven! that which
reconciles the jarring principles of the world, and makes them all chime
together! that which melts men's hearts into one another! See how Paul
describes it, and it cannot choose but enamor your affections towards
it—"Love envies not, it is not puffed up, it does not behave itself
unseemly, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil,
rejoices not in iniquity; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all
things, endures all things." I may add, love is the best natured thing, the
best complexioned thing in the world. Let us express this sweet harmonious
affection in these jarring times; that so, if it be possible, we may tune
the world into better music. Especially in matters of religion, let us
strive with all meekness to instruct and convince one another. Let us
endeavor to promote the gospel of peace, the dove-like gospel, with a
dove-like spirit. This was the way by which the gospel at first was
propagated in the world.
"Christ did not cry nor lift up his voice in the streets;
a bruised reed he did not break, and the smoking flax he did not quench; and
yet he brought forth judgment unto victory. He whispered the gospel to us
from mount Zion, in a still voice; and yet the sound thereof went out
quickly throughout all the earth. The gospel at first came down upon the
world gently and softly, like the dew on Gideon's fleece; and yet it quickly
penetrated through it; and, doubtless, this is still the most effectual way
to promote it farther. Sweetness and kindness will more command men's minds,
than angry passion, sourness, and severity; as the soft pillow sooner breaks
the flint than the hardest marble. Let us "follow truth in love;" and of the
two, indeed, be contented rather to miss of the conveying a speculative
truth, than to part with love. When we would convince men of any error by
the strength of truth, let us withal pour the sweet balm of love upon their
heads. Truth and love are two of the most powerful things in the world;
and when they both go together, they cannot easily be withstood. The golden
beams of truth, and the silken cords of love, twisted together, will draw
men on with a sweet power, whether they will or not.
"Let us take heed we do not sometimes call that zeal for
God and his gospel, which is nothing else but our own tempestuous and stormy
passion. True zeal is a sweet, heavenly, and gentle flame, which makes us
active for God—but always within the sphere of love. It never calls for fire
from heaven to consume those who differ a little from us in their
apprehensions. It is like that kind of lightning, (which the philosophers
speak of,) that melts the sword within—but singes not the scabbard—it
strives to save the soul—but hurts not the body. True zeal is a loving
thing, and makes us always active to edification, and not to destruction. If
we keep the fire of zeal within the chimney, in its own proper place, it
never does any hurt; it only warms, quickens, and enlivens us; but if once
we let it break out, and catch hold of the thatch of our flesh, and kindle
our corrupt nature, and set the house of our body on fire, it is no longer
zeal, it is no heavenly fire, it is a most destructive and devouring thing.
True zeal is a soft and gentle flame, that will not scorch one's
hand; it is no predatory or voracious thing. Carnal and fleshly zeal is like
the spirit of gunpowder set on fire, that tears and blows up all that stands
before it. True zeal is like the vital heat in us, that we live upon, which
we never feel to be angry or troublesome; but though it gently feed upon the
radical oil within us, that sweet balsam of our natural moisture, yet it
lives lovingly with it, and maintains that by which it is fed—but that other
furious and distempered zeal, is nothing else but a fever in the soul.
"To conclude, we may learn what kind of zeal it is, that
we should make use of in promoting the gospel, by an emblem of God's own,
given us in the Scripture, those fiery tongues, that upon the day of
Pentecost sat upon the Apostles—which sure were harmless flames, for we
cannot read that they did any hurt, or that they did so much as singe an
hair of their heads." Cudworth's Sermon before the House of Commons, 1647.
|