These churches are spoken of, in some instances, as constituting one general body. "God hath set some in the church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers," &c. That thou mightest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God." Gaius, mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you." 65 These and similar expressions, in which the whole Christian community is represented as constituting one general church, are not to be understood as contradicting the passages previously quoted in proof of the separate existence of churches, but as importing the connexion which subsists, and ought to subsist, between them. So closely were the primitive churches united in faith, in affection, and in order, that they might properly be represented as forming but one church. They constituted but one great family of churches, as the members of a particular church constituted one of individual believers. 66 It is evidence of the union existing among the apostolical churches, that they were established in the same order, and formed according to the same general rule. “ Joying," says the Apostle to the Colossians, beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ." "Let us walk by the same rule; let us mind the same thing." The Apostle speaks in another place of the customs of the churches. "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God." And in another place he says, "So ordain I in all the churches"-implying that to all the churches, the same general rules were prescribed. But why this uniformity of organization in the primitive churches, if communion and fellowship were not intended to be practised? On supposition that each was to be in all respects a distinct and unconnected community, the mode of organization might have been various, according to the caprice or the convenience of individuals. --- The degree and manner of communion in these churches may be gathered from various circumstances recorded in the New Testament. They obviously were to each other objects of mutual concern, interest, and prayer.-They had communion, also, in the worship and ordinances of the Gospel. As their teachers journeyed from place to place, it is not to be doubted that they had an interchange of pastoral labours. The members, too, when absent from their own churches, were freely admitted to communion in the assemblies of their brethren. 66 The primitive churches sent Christian salutations, and letters of instruction, warning, and reproof one to another. To the Romans Paul says, The churches of Christ salute you." To the Corinthians he also says, "The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. All the brethren greet you." The epistle to the Galatian churches was sent in the name, not only of Paul, but of all the brethren who were with him at Rome. The primitive churches administered relief one to another in distress. No reader of Paul's epistles can have forgotten how deeply he was engaged, at different times, in taking up collections among the Gentile churches, that he might send relief to the poor and persecuted saints at Jerusalem. Indeed, he seems to have given order in the churches generally, that something should be laid by, every Lord's day, to be devoted to charitable purposes. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. The primitive churches sent mes sengers or delegates one to another, as they had occasion. Thus, the church at Antioch sent delegates to the church at Jerusalem, that they might confer with brethren there on the question of circumcising the Gentile converts. And when this question was decided, the church at Jerusalem sent back delegates to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, that they might carry and confirm the decision. Acts xv. 2. 25. Paul speaks also of "the messengers of the churches," who were deputed to transmit their contributions to Jerusalem. 2 Cor. viii. 23. It appears from the apostolical writings, that letters of recommendation were frequently sent from one church to another. When Apollos was minded to go from Ephesus into Achaia, "the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him." Acts xviii. 27. Paul gave Phebe, a servant, (diakovov) of the church at Cenchrea, a recommendation to the church at Rome, exhorting the brethren to receive her in the Lord as becometh saints." Rom. xvi. 1. Addressing the Corinthians, he says, We do not need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you. Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men.” 2 Cor. iii. 1. It is evident, from the form of expression here used, that letters of recommendation were common in those times. See also 1 Cor. xvi. 3; and Col. iv. 10. It may be gathered, from the writings of the Apostles, that the members of particular churches assisted in ordaining elders over other churches, and gave to them the right-hand of fellowship. Thus Paul and Barnabas, who were members of the church at Antioch, ordained elders in every church which they had planted among the Gentiles. Acts xiv. 23. Titus was left in Crete, that he might "ordain elders in every city." Tit. i. 5. We know not of what particular church Titus was a member. He certainly could have belonged to but one church; whereas he assisted in ordaining elders over many. To Paul and Barnabas also, members and messengers of the church at Antioch, "James, Cephas, and John,” who belonged to the original church at Jerusalem, gave the righthands of fellowship." Gal. ii. 9. 66 It further appears, from the writings of the Apostles, that the first Christian churches were accustomed to seek and to take advice one of another; and that the members of different churches sometimes met together in council, to consider questions of difficulty and to give advice. We have an instance of all this recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts. A very serious question arose at Antioch, a question in which all the churches were interested, touching the propriety of circumcising the Gentile converts. Being unable to determine the point satisfactorily among themselves, the brethren at Antioch prudently resolved to send to Jerusalem for advice. When the delegates from Antioch arrived at Jerusalem, "they were received of the church," and "the Apostles and elders came together to consider of the matter." After much discussion, a decision was formed, and delegates were sent back to carry and confirm it. And although this decision was disregarded by some of the turbulent judaizing teachers, and the evil was not entirely cured; still it was in a great measure checked. The hands of Paul and Barnabas were strengthened, and the advice from Jerusalem was received by the Gentile churches with unmingled joy. The remarks here made may serve to illustrate the kind of communion existing in the churches under the ministry of the Apostles. Though they were separate organizations, as I have shown, yet they were connected by mutual reponsibilities, and bound together by innumerable ties. They did not, indeed, assume authority over one another; but they were in the constant habit of spiritual communion, in almost every way possible. They lived together as sister churches, and strove together for the faith and the diffusion of the Gospel. This communion of the churches, established by the Apostles, was continued under the ministry of their immediate successors. Before the close of the first century, Clement of Rome addressed an epistle to the church at Corinth. It appears from this epistle, that, on occasion of some dissensions among the Corinthians, they deputed a messenger to their brethren at Rome to ask advice. The epistle, in answer, commences as follows::-"The church of God which is at Rome, to the church of God which is at Corinth, elect, sanctified by the will of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord." In the course of the epistle, instruction, warning, reproof and counsel are faithfully administered. Messengers were sent to carry this communication to the Corinthian brethren, and to aid in healing the divisions which had arisen among them. Ignatius was converted under the ministry of the Apostles, and by them ordained over the church at Antioch. In the persecutions under Trajan, he was seized, carried a prisoner to Rome, and thrown to be devoured by wild beasts. On his way from Antioch to Rome, he addressed epis. tles to the churches of the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, the Romans, the Philadelphians, and the Smyrneans. Polycarp, another of the Christian fathers who was instructed by the Apostles, and by them set over the church in Smyrna, addressed a letter to the church at Philippi. In these instances, we see the Pastors of particular churches addressing other churches, and administering instruction, exhortation, and reproof, as the occasion required. After the martyrdom of Polycarp the church in Smyrna addressed a circular epistle to all the churches, containing a circumstantial account of that event. In the next century, "when the church at Antioch was troubled with the heresies of their Pastor, Paulus Samosatenus, the neighbouring pastors came unto the church, and joined their concurrence in his deposition," 66 "It is certain," says Dr. Increase Mather, that in the next ages to the Apostles, a Pastor was not settled in any church, without the concurrence of others. When the church had elected a Pastor, they presented him to the neighbour pastors for their approbation, nor could he be legally confirmed without it. Eusebius tells us that when Alexander was chosen Pastor of the church at Jerusalem by the brethren of that place, he had the common consent of the circumjacent pastors. Lib. v. c. 11. And thus, as Cyprian informs us, it was practised in all the churches throughout Africa. He speaks particularly concerning Sabinus, who was elected Pastor of Eremita in Spain, how that neighbour ministers concurred in his ordination, after the fraternity had elected him." In the facts here stated, we may see the fellowship existing be tween the churches, in the ages nmediately succeeding the Apostles. We still find individual churches, each having its own officers and its particular organization, but all united in the bonds of a most intimate and holy fellowship. Advice is mutually sought, given, and taken, and a mutual watch and care are exercised. Shortly after the period above referred to, the liberties of individual churches were invaded, and bishops in the larger cities began to assume a degree of authority over their brethren. This evil continued and increased, till, in a few centuries, the bishop of Rome claimed to be universal bishop, and to have dominion over the world. The very existence of individual churches was denied, and an attempt was made to unite all Christendom in one great, political, ecclesiastical body. At the reformation from Popery, the rights of individual churches, which had long been forgotten, were not immediately discovered and restored. In England, when the authority of the Pope was renounced, the monarch was acknowledged as the head of the church, and all the churches in the land were by law united in one body. By the progress of light, and the diffusion and study of the Holy Scriptures, the impropriety and error of this state of things were ere long discovered. But in the first attempt to correct the evil, and restore the rights of individual churches, the matter was carried, as might have been expected, to the other extreme. independency. The churches formed and dissolved themselves. They made and unmade, ordained, dismissed and deposed their religious teachers. In short, the churches of this denomination acknowledged no mutual connection, dependance or responsibility. The minister of one church was no minister to another. He could not preach, administer ordinances, or peform any ministerial act, out of his own body. The famous John Robinson, of Leyden, a part of whose church migrated to America and commenced the settlement at Plymouth, was originally a Brownist. But perceiving the defects of this system-how that in his zeal for the independency and rights of individual churches, its founder had severed the scriptual bond which ought to unite all the churches, Robinson undertook and accomplished a reformation, particularly in his own church. He cast off the name of Brownist, and with it most of the offensive points in the theory of Brown, and established the Congregational system of church government, much as it exists in England, and in this country, at the present day. In the year 1643, the Congregationalists of England published a declaration of their sentiments, in which they say that they do not "claim an entire independency with regard to other churches; for they agree that, in all cases of offence, the offending church is to submit to an open examination by other neighbouring churches, and if it persists in its error or miscarNear the close of the sixteenth riage, they are then to renounce century, Robert Brown laid the all Christian communion with it, foundation for a new religious comtill it repents." "It is a maxim munity, the members of which, to be abhorred," say they, from the name of their leader, a singular and particular society were denominated Brownists. of men professing the name of They held to a strict and absolute Christ should arrogate to them "that p. 217. In further evidence of the views of the early Congregationalists of England, I quote the following from the "Irenicum," a work published by the celebrated Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs but a little while before his death: "Those in the Congregational way acknowledge, "1. That they are bound in conscience to give account of their ways to churches about them, or to any other who shall require it. "2. They acknowledge that Synods of other Ministers and Elders about them are an ordinance of Jesus Christ for the helping the Church against errors, schisms, and scandals. from the "3. That these Synods may, power they have from Christ, admonish men and churches in his name, when they see evils continuing in, or growing upon the Church, and their admonitions carry with them the authority of Jesus Christ. Christ, nor to have communion with any other in the ordinances of Christ. "I do not in these deliver only my own judgment, but by what I know of the judgment of all those brethren with whom I have occasion to converse; yea, it has been their judgment and mine for divers years, even then when we never thought to have enjoyed our own land again.” The views of Congregationalists in England have doubtless undergone some change, during the last hundred and fifty years; but it is evident, from recent publications, the Congregational Magazine, the History of Dissenters, &c., that they still retain all the important features of their original system. They still hold to the existence of distinct and independent powers; individual churches, possessing and also to the communion of churches, in most or all of those ways pointed out by their fathers. The Congregationalists of New England have ever harmonized, in most particulars, with those of the parent country. Our fathers were strenuous advocates, not only for the rights of individual churches, but also for the communion of churches. The following regulation in regard to the gathering of churches became a law in Massachusetts in the year 1641. “The general court doth not, nor will hereafter, approve of companies of men, as shall join in any pretended way of church fellowship, unless they shall acquaint any such the elders of the neighbour churches where they intend to "4. As there shall be cause, they may join, and have their approbation declare men or churches to be subverters of the faith, or otherwise, according to the nature of their offence, to shame them before all the churches about them. "5. They may, by a solemn act in the name of Jesus Christ, refuse any further communion with them till they repert. "6. They may declare also in the name of Christ, that those erring people or churches are not to be received into fellowship with any of the churches of therein." In the Cambridge Platform, adopted in the year 1648, the separate existence and rights of the churches on the one hand, and their mutual relations and responsibilities on the other, are well defined. The name, Independent, is discarded. It is expressly said |