cause church government is of less moment 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.

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 us 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 a priori, 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 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 persons, not to places. It means not the building in which the as

In

sembly is convened, but the assembly itself. It has an enlarged and also a more confined signification in he 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."* its more confined acceptation, it means a congregation of professing Christians, meeting for worship in one place; hence we read of the church at Rome, Colosse, Philippi, &c. 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 religion. 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, &e.

A church of Christ, then, in the latter or more usual acceptation 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,

* Acts xx. 28

and may meet either in a mean or magnificent building, or in no building at all. These things are purely adventitious; 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 i. 7. Cor. i. 2. &c. 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 upon the proper subjects of fellowship. But who is to judge in this case? It is generally thought 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 any one without their own consent, whether by a minister or by elders, is destructive of one purpose of christian association,-i. e. 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 perfect solecisms. 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, there are two churches, and no longer one only.

III. These persons 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, or the power of the magistrate, when employed to regulate 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 in

those of philosophy, learning, or pecuniary help, to decide who shall be his fellows.

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 excrescent, nor incumbers them with what is unnecessary, he has instituted but two kinds of permanent officers in his church, bishops 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 xx. 17, compared with the 28; Titus i. 5, 7, and 1st Peter v. 1, 2. "They are called bishops, which signifies overseers, because they overlook the spiritual concerns and watch for the souls of their brethren," Acts xx. 28, 1st Tim. iii. 1. Pastors or shepherds, because they feed the flock of God with truth, Ephes. iv. 11. Rulers, because they guide the church," Heb. xiii. 7. "Elders, because of their age, or of their possessing those qualities which age sup. poses," Tit. i. 5. "Ministers, because they are the servants of Christ and the gospel," Ephes. vi. 21.