CHAPTER I. —THE CHURCH
Section 1.—Nature of the Church.

questions as to what the church is, —what is the proper defi­nition of it, and what are its qualities, prerogatives, marks, or distinguishing characters, —have given rise to a good deal of dis­cussion, and are invested with considerable importance. They enter very deeply and influentially into the controversy between the Church of Rome and the Protestant churches, as it has been commonly conducted. Papists are usually anxious, when engaged in controversy with Protestants, to give prominence to the general subject of the church, —and this for two reasons: first, because they think—and they are not wholly mistaken in the opinion—that they have something to say upon the general topic of the church as it is set before us in Scripture, which is somewhat more plau­sible than anything they find it practicable to adduce in regard to many of the particular doctrines controverted between them and Protestants, —and have found in experience the discussion of this topic more successful than any other in making converts to Popery; and secondly, because, were the views which they generally propound on the general subject of the church, and their appli­cation to the Church of Rome, established, this would supersede all further discussion of individual doctrines; for the practical re­sult of them is virtually to put the church in the room of God as the immediate revealer of all truth, as well as the dispenser of all grace, or at least to put the church in the room of His word as the only standard of faith, —and the conclusion, of course, is, that men should implicitly submit their understandings to whatever the church may promulgate to them.

The substance of the Romish doctrine upon this general sub­ject is, that Christ has established on earth the church as a dis­tinct society, which is not only to continue always indefectible or without ceasing to exist, but to stand out visibly and palpably ­distinguished from all other societies, civil or ecclesiastical, —that it is not liable to error, but will always continue to promulgate the truth, and the truth alone. When they have proved this, they then try to prove that this one church of Christ, always visible and infallible, must of necessity be in communion with the Church of Rome, the mother and mistress of all churches, and in subjec­tion to the Bishop of Rome, the vicar of Christ and the monarch of His church. Protestants admit that the church, as a distinct society instituted by Christ, considered generally or in its totality, is indefectible; —i.e., they believe that, in point of fact, it will never cease to exist, because Christ has explicitly promised this. They do not admit that there is anything in Scripture predicting, promising, or implying that it is to be always visible in the sense of the Romanists—i.e., that there must be at all times, in un­broken or continuous succession, an organized society publicly and palpably standing out to the eyes of men as the church of Christ; and they utterly deny that there is any good foundation for ascribing infallibility to the church in the Romish sense. They hold that there is no ground, either in scriptural statement or in historical fact, for asserting that there must always be, and has always been upon earth, a society, visible and easily recognizable, which has at all times held and proclaimed the truth of God without any mixture of error; while they further maintain that such a description does certainly not apply de facto to the Church of Rome, or to the church in connection with the Papal See.

It is very evident, from the nature of the case, that questions of this sort can be rightly decided only by an appeal to the sacred Scriptures, which both parties admit to be the word of God, and more particularly by investigating what the Scriptures sanction concerning the proper definition or description of the church, and concerning the privileges and prerogatives which Christ has con­ferred on, or promised to, it. These controversies, indeed, may be said to turn essentially upon this question, What definition or description of the church does the Scripture warrant or require us to give t It was upon this ground that the investigation of the proper definition or description of the church entered so largely into the controversies between the Reformers and the Church of Rome, and that in most of the confessions of the Re­formed churches we find a formal definition or description of the church as an important article of Scripture doctrine.

To show more clearly the importance of settling from Scrip­ture what is the proper definition or description of the church, I may refer to one leading department of the argument carried on between the Reformers and the Romanists. The Romanists were accustomed to employ the following argument: —Where there is not a valid ministry, there is no true church. Protestants have not a valid ministry, and therefore they are not a true church. The Reformers’ answer was in substance this: —Wherever there is a true church, there is or may be a valid ministry. Protes­tants are a true church, or a true branch of the church, and therefore they have or may have—i.e., are entitled, or have a right, to a valid ministry. Now, it is quite manifest that the whole of this argumentation upon both sides depends essentially upon the question, What is a true church Q or, in other words, what is the scriptural view of the real nature, the essential qua­lities, and necessary or invariable properties of the church of Christ? and more especially, is the possession of a valid ministry essential to it in all possible circumstances; and if so, what con­stitutes a valid ministry ? Papists, accordingly, usually try to introduce into the definition of the church elements which, if admitted or proved from Scripture, would formally or virtually settle the controversy, and decide in favor of their views. In the common Popish catechisms, the church is defined to be the congregation of all the faithful professing the same faith, partak­ing in the same sacraments, governed by lawful pastors under one visible head, the vicar of Christ. Cardinal Bellarmine, the great champion of Popery, expresses it thus: “Coetus hominum ejus­dem Christianae fidei professione, et eorundem Sacramentorum communione colligatus, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac praecipue unius Christi in terris Vicarii Romani Pontificis;” and he immediately adds, very truly and very simply, “Ex qua defini­tione facile colligi potest, qui homines ad Ecclesiam pertineant, qui vero ad eam non. pertineant.”[1] This definition, if admitted, certainly settles conclusively some important questions. But Protestants do not accept it: they demand, as they are entitled to do, scriptural proof for all the different elements introduced into the definition; and they are very sure that for some of them no such proof can be adduced. This, of course, throws us back upon the question, What view of the church is really given us in Scripture? what ideas does Scripture authorize and require us to introduce into our definition or description of it?

We find in Scripture that the word ekklhsia, commonly trans­lated church, is applied sometimes to an assembly or collected number of men of any sort; as, for instance, when it is used in describing the tumultuous assembly in the theatre of Ephesus.[2] It is commonly employed, however, in a more limited’ or specific sense, as descriptive of a society or collected number of men standing in a certain peculiar relation to Jesus Christ; and even in this more limited sense, we find it used in several different applications. When we read in Scripture that the church is Christ’s body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all; that He loved the church, and gave Himself for it, that He might present it to Himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; when we read of the general assembly and church of the first—born whose names are written in heaven, —we cannot doubt that here the word church is employed as descriptive (to use the language of our Confession) “of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the Head thereof;” and further, that in the passages referred to, none but those who have been chosen by God to salva­tion through Christ, and also are all in consequence saved, are regarded as comprehended in the church. There is, then, a church spoken of in Scripture which consists of the whole body of the elect, the believing, the saved, —of those who are chosen through Christ to faith and salvation, and who in due time attain to them, and of none others. Moreover, if this be the true meaning of the word in the passages referred to, it is evident from the nature of the case, and from the general scope and object of the passages, that whatever other meanings the word may bear, this, if indeed a real meaning of the word, must be its leading, guiding meaning, that which must to some extent regulate and modify the rest.

Now, the church in this sense has been usually spoken of by Protestant divines as invisible; and the idea which they intend to convey by so designating it, is the very obvious and just one, that as those who are elected to life cannot with certainty be known or recognized individually by men even after they have been brought by God’s grace to believe and to enter upon the way of salvation, the company or society so constituted cannot, as to its particular component members, be accurately and certainly dis­cerned. The reason which led Protestants to give prominence to this idea of the invisible church as now explained, was, that the Church of Home maintains visibility, as including external organi­zation, to be an essential property of the Church, and founds important conclusions upon this position. If visibility be an essential property of the church, then it would seem to follow that a public and unbroken succession of a continuous society from the time of the apostles must have existed upon earth, and been dis­tinctly traceable as the true church of Christ; and on this position they have always labored to rest much in establishing the claims of the Church of Home. Besides, it is chiefly by means of the statements made in Scripture which Protestants think applicable only to the whole number of the elect viewed as one body, or the invisible church, that Papists expect to be able to establish their peculiar views of the dignity, authority, and infallibility of the church as visible. Protestants, finding in the passages of Scripture formerly referred to, clear proof that the word church is used as a general term to describe the whole number of those who are elected and ultimately saved, viewed collectively, conclude that the Scripture does set before us an invisible church; and hence infer that visibility, in the sense in which it has been explained, and in which alone it is available for Popish purposes in this argument, is not an essential quality of the church of Christ in at least one of the leading aspects in which the church is pre­sented to us in the Bible.

This, then, is one important topic of discussion, —Does the Scripture speak of a church consisting only of those who are predestinated to life and ultimately saved, and therefore invisible, in the sense formerly explained; or does it not? Protestants affirm this, Papists deny it. The passages formerly referred to prove this, and the attempts of Bellarmine and of other Popish writers to explain them away are utterly unsuccessful. These men prove indeed that there is a church spoken of in Scripture that is visible, or stands out palpably to the observation of men; but Protestants do not dispute that the Scripture sets before us a visible as well as an invisible church: not meaning, as Papists commonly allege, to represent these as two distinct or separate subjects, two different churches properly so called; but as two different phases or aspects of what is in substance one and the same.

To illustrate this, let us briefly advert to the scriptural evi­dence of the existence of a catholic or general visible church, and the mode in which the idea arose and was developed. We read frequently in Scripture of the church of a particular place speci­fied, and also of the churches of a particular district named. These churches must have been visible societies, having some outward marks of distinction by which they and their members might be recognized. When it is said,[3] “The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved,” this plainly implies that there was antecedently existing a visible society to which these additions were made. The kingdom of God or of Christ is some­times spoken of in Scripture as being virtually identical with the church; and it is set before us by such descriptions and similitudes as plainly imply that, in point of fact, it did contain persons of a different character from those whom the Lord added to the church on the occasion described in the passage quoted from the Acts. But there is no difficulty in reconciling these two things. The ekklhsia, both etymologically and really, is just the assembly or congregation of the klhtoi, those who are called out of the world. Christ calls men to come out of the world, to believe in Him, to submit to His authority, and to unite together in an organized society of which He is the head, and which is to be governed exclu­sively by His laws. We have plain indications in Scripture of a distinction between the outward and the inward call, or the effec­tual and the ineffectual call; in other words, we have good grounds in Scripture to believe that cases did, in point of fact, occur even in apostolic times, in which men professed to obey Christ’s call by outwardly joining the society of the klhtoi while they had not really by faith received Him as their Saviour, or in heart sub­mitted to His authority. It was Christ’s intention and require­ment, that those who were effectually called and enabled by grace to receive Him personally and individually as their Saviour and their Master, should not only individually profess their faith in Him, and their subjection to His authority, but should also unite together in the discharge of certain outward duties which He enjoined, and in the enjoyment of certain privileges which He conferred; and it was not His intention to employ arty supernatural means of accurately discriminating upon earth between those who made this profession in sincerity and truth, and those who, in making it, were deceiving themselves or others by a profession which did not correspond with the real state of their hearts and characters.

There thus arose, through the preaching of the gospel, and the labors of the apostles, a body or company of men visibly distin­guished from the mass of men around them, by their professing, individually and collectively, faith in Christ, and subjection to Him; and though it very soon appeared that, in point of fact, some had been admitted outwardly into this society who were not the genuine followers of Christ, yet it followed naturally, and almost necessarily, that the same names and designations which were pro­perly and strictly applicable only to the true klhtoi, were applied to the company or society of those who professed to have obeyed the gospel call, and were, in consequence, visibly and outwardly associated with the followers of Christ. Thence arose the reality and the conception of the visible, as distinguished from the in­visible church; of the professed followers of Christ, viewed col­lectively, and characterized by certain outward marks cognizable by men, as distinguished from the true followers of Christ, who were all chosen by God before the foundation of the world, who are all in due time united to Him by faith as members of His body, and who are at length admitted to share in His glory; and this idea of the visible, as distinguished from the invisible church, though not a different church from it, is most explicitly brought out in Scripture when it speaks of the church, or the churches, of particular cities or districts. But as the idea of catholicity or universality is most obviously and most properly applicable to the invisible church, as comprehending all the individuals of the human race, in every age and country, who have been chosen of God to salvation through Jesus Christ; so the same general idea may, without impropriety, be applied to the visible church, when now, under the gospel, it is not confined to one nation, as before, under the law, —the catholic or universal visible church thus con­sisting, as our Confession of Faith says, “ of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children.” Romanists commonly allege, as we have hinted, that this assertion of a visible and an invisible church is making two churches, whereas the Scriptures ascribe unity to the church, or speak of the church as one. But this allegation rests upon a mis­statement of the case. They are not properly two churches, but one church, contemplated in two different aspects—an internal, and an external. They do not occupy different spheres, but the same sphere. The visible church includes or contains the invi­sible, though, in its present imperfect condition, it has also mixed up with it some inferior elements, —some chaff, which will one day be separated from the wheat.

But really the great question is this: Does the Scripture in­deed speak of a church—a church catholic or universal—consist­ing of all those, but of those only, who are elected to life, and ultimately saved, and therefore invisible in the sense above ex­plained? If it does, as is surely evident enough, then this plainly must be the proper, principal sense of the word—the leading idea attached to it—that to which any other notion, to which, from necessity or convenience, the word may have been applied, must be regarded as subordinate. And if this is once proved, then it follows that visibility, including regular external organization, can­not be held to be a necessary or essential property of the church of Christ; and consequently there is no necessity of applying what is said in Scripture about certain of the prerogatives and privileges of the church to any visible society, or to any portion of any visible society. The course, then, of the argumentative discussion upon these points may be summed up in this way: —Romanists say the church is indefectible, or will never cease to exist. Pro­testants admit this; and hence Bellarmine says,[4] “notandum est multos ex nostris tempus terere, dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse deficere: nam Calvinus, et eæteri hæretici id concedunt sed dicunt, intelligi debere de Ecclesia invisibili.” It is true that, as Bellarmine says, Calvin and other heretics concede this, but say that it is to be understood of the invisible church; —i.e., they contend that the only sense in which the indefectibility of the church can be proved from Scripture is this, that from the time when Christ ascended to the right hand of His Father, there have always been, and until He come again there will always be, upon earth, some persons who have been chosen to sal­vation, and who, during their earthly career, are prepared for it. More than this may have, in point of fact, been realized in pro­vidence, with respect to the standing and manifestation of the church on earth in every age; but Protestants contend that nothing more than this can be proved to be implied in the state­ments and promises of Scripture upon this subject, i.e., that for aught that can be proved, all the statements of Scripture may be true, and all its predictions and promises may have been fulfilled, though nothing more than this had been realized.

The Romanists go on to assert that this indefectible church is visible, and, while it exists, must possess visibility. Protestants, while conceding the existence of visible churches, not composed exclusively of elect or believing persons, and even of « a catholic visible church, consisting. of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children,” deny that there is anything in Scripture which guarantees the constant existence at all times, or in any one particular country, of an or­ganized ecclesiastical society standing out visibly and palpably to the eyes of men as the true church of Christ; and, on the contrary, they think that there are pretty plain intimations in Scripture, that in some periods the true church under the New Testament, as happened with the church under the law—when there were still, though the prophet could not discern them, seven thousand men in secret, who had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal—might be reduced so low as not to possess anything that could with pro­priety be called visibility. The Romanists further assert that the church, i.e., the indefectible visible church—for they now assume it to be indefectible, and always visible in their sense—is infallible, —i.e., that she always holds and proclaims the truth of God with­out any mixture of error; and in endeavoring to establish this position, they rest mainly upon the statements and promises of Scripture, which plainly relate not to any one visible society, not to the catholic visible church, or to any one branch or section of it, but to the true people of God; while, even in reference to them, the statements and promises referred to do not assure to them perfect freedom from all error, or entire uniformity among themselves in all points of belief, but merely such a knowledge of God’s revealed will as may, even though in many of them mixed with some error, be sufficient to guide them to eternal life.

These general considerations, when followed out and applied, and viewed in connection with the scriptural statements which have been referred to, serve to unravel the web of error and plausible sophistry which the Church of Rome has woven around this sub­ject as a general topic of discussion; while it should be remem­bered, also, that even if we were to concede to them their general positions in their own sense about the indefectibility, visibility, and infallibility of the church, there would still be a gap to be filled up, or rather, an impassable gulf to be crossed, before these prin­ciples could be shown to apply to the Church of Rome, so as to establish her supremacy and infallibility, as if she were the only true church of Christ, or the mother and mistress of all churches.

These observations serve to explain the meaning and appli­cation, and the scriptural ground of the doctrine of our Con­fession of Faith upon this subject, as expressed in the following words: —“This Catholic Church hath been sometimes more, some­times less, visible; and particular Churches which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the’ doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some of them have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.”[5]

From the primary etymological meaning of the word ekklhsia, viz., an assembly, it was quite natural that, even after it was applied to designate the whole body of true believers, or the whole body of professing Christians, it should still continue to be applied to any branch or section of this body or community; and of this we have repeated instances in Scripture, as when we read of the church which was at Jerusalem, the churches of Galatia, etc. It has been very confidently asserted, that there is no instance in Scripture of the word ekklhsia, in the singular number, being ever applied to any­thing intermediate between a single congregation meeting together for religious worship, and the whole community of believers or professing Christians, viewed collectively as a whole. This is a fa­vorite position of those who support what are called Independent or Congregational views of church government; and it has been conceded to them by some professed Presbyterians, such as Dr Campbell of Aberdeen, who had quite as much of the affectation as of the reality of honesty and candor. There can be no doubt that these are the two senses in which the word church is most com­monly used in Scripture. It is undeniable that the word ekklhsia is applied in Scripture to a single congregation meeting together for the worship of God; and that on many occasions, when the different congregations scattered over a district are spoken of, they are described not as the church, but the churches of that country.

But we are not prepared to admit that this usage is universal in Scripture, so as to form an adequate basis for laying down as a general principle the unwarrantableness of applying the designa­tion of a church to anything but a single congregation, or, what is virtually the same thing, the entire independency of each con­gregation, as having universally, in ordinary circumstances, entire sufficiency within itself for all the purposes of a church. It is laid down in our Form of Church Government, prepared by the Westminster Assembly, that “the Scripture doth hold forth that many particular congregations may be under one presby­terial government;” and I think this proposition is proved by the evidence and instances adduced in the cases of Jerusalem and Ephesus. Considering the numbers of converts in Jerusalem who professed their faith in Christ through the preaching of the apostles after the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we cannot suppose that they were all accustomed ordinarily to assemble together in one place for public worship—we cannot doubt that they commonly met in different places as distinct con­gregations. Mosheim,[6] who on some points has made considerable concessions to the Congregationalists, asserts this Presbyterian position very confidently, and indeed staked his whole reputation upon its truth in the following words: —“Aut nihil ego video, aut certurm hoc est, amplissimam illam, quam Apostoli Hierosolymis collegerant, Christianorum multitudinem in plures minores familias divisam fuisse, singulisque his familiis suos presbyteros, suos mini­stros, suos conventuum sacrorum locos fuisse.” Yet these distinct congregations are still spoken of repeatedly as the church which was at Jerusalem; and this church, consisting of several congre­gations, is represented as being under the superintendence of one united body of apostles, and presbyters, or elders. In like manner, we cannot doubt, from what we are told of Paul’s labors for three years in Ephesus, that there were several congregations in that city, while yet. they are described in the Apocalypse as the church in Ephesus, or the Ephesian church (for there are two readings, supported by about an equal amount of critical authority);[7] and they are represented by Paul, in his address contained in the 20th chapter of the Acts, as a flock under the superintendence of a united body of men, whom he describes as at once presbyters and bishops.

On these grounds, I think there is sufficient evidence in Scrip­ture, that the word church in the singular number is applied to something intermediate between a single congregation on the one hand, and the catholic or universal church on the other, —viz., to a number of congregations united together in external communion and government; and that, of course, such a union of congrega­tions is lawful and warrantable, and that to whatever extent such a union or combination may lawfully go, according as circumstances or providence may admit or require it, the designation of a church, and all the general principles and rules applicable to a church as such, may be warrantably applied to the union or combination.

ENDNOTES:

[1] De Ecclesia, Lib. III. cap. 2.

[2] Acts 19:32, 41.

[3] Acts 2:47.

[4] De Ecclesia, Lib. 111. cap. 13.

[5] Chap. 25, secs. 4 and 5.

[6] Commentarii, p. 116.

[7] The reading of the  textus receptus (Rev. 2:1) is taV EfesinhV ekklhsiaV, for which Griesbach substitutes, thV en Efisy ekklhsiaV; and is followed in this by Scholz, Lachmann, and Tishendorf. Tregelles alleges that, in Acts 9:31, we should read ekklhsia, and not wkklhsiai, and “the church throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria,” (Account of the printed text of the Greek New Testament, p. 260); and this reading is adopted by Tischendorf and Lachmann, in loc.