The Church on earth, as instituted by God, displayed the unity of the Church as the body of Christ. But when the truth became widely diffused, how was this unity to be maintained? Was it then to become a mere imaginary unity, so far at least as outward manifestation was concerned, or was it to be preserved by a system of organized government? Let us see what light the Word throws on this subject.
I. In each city the believers formed one Church. Thus there was “the Church of God which is at Corinth,” and the “Church of the Thessalonians,” each a single assembly of all the believers in its own city, a sample, so to speak, of the oneness of Christ in that place, and responsible for maintaining that oneness visibly to the world. The promise of Christ's presence held good in each of these local gatherings. If but two or three believers were assembled in His name, He was in their midst. If the city were large, and the believers numerous, there might be several places of meeting, but those assembling at these different places would all constitute one Church. The numerous places would no more infringe the Scripture principle of the oneness of the local assembly than the various local assemblies in different cities infringed the principle of the oneness of the body.
The local assembly, then, in each city was one. We read of the “Churches of Galatia,” for Galatia was a province with several cities; but we never read of the Churches at Ephesus or at Philadelphia, for in each of these cities, the believers formed only one Church. If in any city they had split into sects, meeting on different principles, what would have been the local testimony to the oneness of Christ? None; but on the contrary, a false testimony—a testimony to a divided Christ. In that city the Church, as Christ's body, would have had no representative. There would have been no assembly meeting in His name. Had He been the one center, all would have met together. Instead of Him, then, as the focus, each sect must have had its own ground of separate gathering, which prevented it meeting with the rest. None of these assemblies, therefore, could have claimed the promise of His presence in its midst. No doubt, God in His grace might have blessed individual souls in spite of the disorder. But let us put far from us the unworthy thought that God's grace justifies a departure from His Word.
Was, then, each local assembly independent of the rest, or was there any organization to maintain the oneness of action and discipline? As regards binding and loosing, that is, receiving into fellowship and exercising discipline, each assembly acted in its own sphere. Thus when some one was guilty of immorality at Corinth, the apostle directs, “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ), to deliver such an one unto Satan” (1 Cor. 5:4, 54In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:4‑5)). The assembly was to act, and it acted “with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,” in whose name it was gathered, and whose presence gave it this authority. Had it been a mere voluntary association of believers, agreeing together in certain principles of Church government or doctrine, and separated from others by this barrier, it could not have exercised this power, for it could not have had Christ's presence. Such an assembly would have had no more scriptural authority to bind and loose than a number of members of Parliament voluntarily gathered in a public meeting have to exact laws.
But though each assembly meeting in Christ's name had authority to bind and loose, this had a much wider effect than putting out, or receiving into, that particular gathering. As each assembly was only the localized expression of the whole body, so its action was only the localized expression of the action of the whole body. Scripture never speaks of a person as a member of a Church. Though he was received by a local assembly, he was received, not as a member of that assembly, but as a member of the body of Christ. So, if one were put away, it was from participation in the privileges, not of a particular gathering, but of the Church of God. It was Christ's own administrative act, as present in the assembly, and no assembly could have received with Christ's sanction one whom Christ had put away. Thus, though outwardly the act only of a local assembly, it was really Christ's acting in the assembly, and became, therefore, the judgment of the whole Church. All were responsible for it, and this responsibility did not cease, if in any case the local assembly failed to act. If a local assembly would not put away one who, according to Christ's mind, ought to be put away, it would not only fail in subjection, but would share the offender's guilt. The little leaven, not having been purged out, would have leavened the whole local assembly, and if it spread, the whole Church would be corrupted. Other assemblies, therefore, must not only refuse the person who ought to have been put away, but must refuse those who, by neglecting to put him away, resisted Christ's authority and shared the offender's guilt. To urge love as a reason for not doing this, would be a mistake. Christian love has Christ for its first object, and can sanction nothing which dishonors Him or disowns His authority.
There was, then, in the apostolic Church, nothing like “independency.” This we see from the “letters of commendation” carried by believers who removed from one city to another. They were not letters of transfer or of dismissal, but letters certifying that the bearer was a brother or sister in the Lord. Thus, when Phebe left Cenchrea for Rome, Paul, in his letter, described her as “our sister,” and commended her to the saints in that city. She was not to be admitted into fellowship at Rome, nor to become a member of the Church at Rome, but being already in fellowship, and a member of the Church of God, the Roman brethren were so to receive her. (Rom. 16:11I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: (Romans 16:1).) But while there was no independency on the one hand, neither was unity maintained by organization on the other. In each assembly Christ's presence gave authority. He acted as Head, not of the local assembly, but of the whole body, and thus unity of discipline was preserved throughout the Churches. So long as His authority was owned, Divine order and unity must prevail. If they ceased, it could only be because His presence and authority were no more acknowledged.
Would man's organization mend this? Nay, it would make it a thousand-fold worse. It would be stepping from insubjection to exclusion, from failure to ruin. It would be saying, “Christ's presence cannot maintain unity, let us see whether we cannot find something better.” Will God own such a unity? Having made the headship of Christ the binding principle, will He recognize a unity where Christ's headship is set aside, and where the binding principle is man's organization? No; man's organization may form a splendid unity in the eyes of the world. But this is not the unity of the Spirit, it is not the body of Christ, it is not the Church of God. It is of the world, of the flesh; and though all believers were enrolled in it, and none others, it would still lack every feature of God's assembly. It would be but one more vain attempt of man — “Go to, let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad on the face of the whole earth.” Self, and not God, is the object, and splendid as the structure may be, here, as in the attempt of old, “the name of it is called Babel.” Yes; Babylon, this is the name which God's Word gives to the effort to frame a unity by man's organization, instead of adhering to the Divine unity of the Church of God. For that Church is not man's work. Man's will, man's wisdom, man's government, these are all usurpations of functions which, in the Church of God, belong only to the Holy Ghost and to Christ. Nothing is the body of Christ but that unity which the Spirit forms with Christ as the sole and acknowledged Head.
The Church, then, according to God's order, was one body. The believers in each city were the Church of the place, and when met together in Christ's name, could bind and loose, receive to fellowship or exercise discipline, in His power. In this they acted on behalf of the whole Church, whose oneness of mind was secured by Christ's presence in each assembly. Such was the visible Church as established by God, and in His estimate nothing is the Church, nothing is a Church, which does not answer to these conditions.
II. In local assemblies there were generally two kinds of officers—the deacons, and the bishops or elders. They are named by Paul, who writes to “all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:11Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (Philippians 1:1)). No other officers are named in connection with local assemblies. The “gifts” of an ascended Christ, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, are never spoken of as officers, or as connected with local gatherings.
A deacon means a servant, but there is nothing in the name to show the kind of service. In Acts 6:22Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. (Acts 6:2), we read that “the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” Here the serving of tables is contrasted with “the ministry of the word,” the same word, varied in form, being used in both cases. The seven men chosen are not called deacons in this place, but it is probable that such was the name given them; for they were appointed to “serve tables,” so that the title of servant or deacon might easily attach to them; moreover, they were connected with a local assembly, and no other local officer is spoken of at all resembling this, except the deacon; lastly, deacons seem to have been appointed in the same way as these seven.
The apostles said to the believers, “Look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom WE may appoint over this business.” The brethren chose such men, “whom they set before the apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them “(Acts 6:3-63Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:3‑6)). Here, then, though the brethren were asked to choose, the appointment was apostolic, by the laying on of hands. We have no other account of how deacons were appointed, but, in writing to Timothy, Paul says — “Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree” (1 Tim. 3:8-138Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 3:8‑13)). These qualifications, though amplified, agree with those named in Acts 6 In both cases they are such as would be sought in persons managing the pecuniary and temporal matters of the assembly. Such full instructions would hardly be given to Timothy, if the appointment were not to be made by himself. No such directions are given in the epistles addressed to Churches, and why should Timothy be told whom to appoint and the Churches not be told, except that the appointment rested with Timothy and not with the Churches? It would seem clear, therefore, that the deacons were instituted in office either by apostles, or by duly authorized apostolic delegates.
Such was certainly the case with the bishops or elders. That bishops and elders were the same is clear from Paul's language to Titus, whom, he says, he left in Crete, to set things in order, and to “ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee; if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God” (Titus 1:5-75For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (Titus 1:5‑7)). So Peter exhorts the elders to “feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof” [literally, “bishoping them “], “not by constraint, but willingly” (1 Peter 5:22Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (1 Peter 5:2)). In like
manner we read that when Paul from Miletus “sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the Church,” he beseeches them — “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,”—or “bishops,” which is the same word in the original (Acts 20:17,2817And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. (Acts 20:17)
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)).
The elders and bishops, or overseers, then, were the same persons. There were, as the passages quoted in the last paragraph will show, several in each assembly, and their appointment is always either by apostles or apostolic delegates. When Paul and Barnabas, in their first journey, had reached Derbe, they returned through the various cities which they had before visited, comforting and exhorting the brethren, “and when they had ordained them elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed” (Acts 14:2323And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23)). This shows, not only that elders were appointed by the apostles, and that there were several of them in each assembly, but also that the assembly was not dependent upon them. The journey described occupied a considerable time, and during this time, till the apostle's return to each city, the Church of that city had no elders, notwithstanding the persecution it endured and the little knowledge it possessed.
Titus was left to appoint elders or bishops in the cities of Crete. Directions were given to Timothy, resembling those to Titus, as to the persons qualified for bishops. They were to be persons such as those named in writing to Titus, but, it is added, “apt to teach.” They were also to rule their own houses well, “for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God? “They were not to be novices, and were to be of “good report of them which are without” (1 Tim. 3:2-72A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:2‑7)). The appointment, therefore, was made by Paul and Barnabas in one case, and by Titus in another, while the directions given indicate that it must have been made by Timothy in the third. Nowhere is there any trace of assemblies choosing elders. Those assemblies which had none waited until they were duly appointed by apostolic authority.
The character and functions of these officers may be gathered from their names. The name “elder” implies age and gravity, and that of “bishop” or overseer indicates that they were to “take care of the Church of God,” exercising pastoral supervision over the younger and less established members. They were, therefore, to be “apt to teach,” not necessarily as public expounders of the truth, but “holding fast the faithful word,” that they might “be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:99Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (Titus 1:9)).
An elder or deacon might also be an evangelist or teacher, as Stephen and Philip, two of the first deacons, were. But their office and their gift were entirely distinct things. They were appointed to serve tables; they were not appointed, either by the apostles or by the assembly, to go forth as evangelists. The elder or deacon, never, by virtue of his office, exercised gift; nor did the evangelist or teacher ever, by virtue of his gift, hold office. An elder was, indeed, to be “apt to teach,” because it was by applying “the faithful word” to the conscience, that his pastoral oversight would chiefly be exercised. But it does not follow that he could teach in the assembly. Everybody knows grave and godly men, deeply taught in Scripture, and most apt, privately, in their application of it, but entirely without gift publicly to edify the Church. It is clear that in the apostle's day, some elders had gift, and some had not, for he says, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:1717Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. (1 Timothy 5:17)). Gift and office, then, are entirely distinct. There is no such thing as an office of teacher or preacher; no such thing as an elder or bishop officially teaching or preaching in the assembly; no such thing as an assembly choosing, or an apostle ordaining, any person to act as teacher or preacher, either in a particular gathering, or in the Church at large. All this is man's invention, and in direct opposition to God's order.
Who, then, it may be inquired, administered the sacraments? Nowhere, in Scripture, is there a hint that baptism or the Lord's Supper were “administered” by any officer whatever, or that their administration was connected with any gift. Paul says that he was sent “not to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” and. he only baptized two men and one household during his long residence in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14-1714I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Corinthians 1:14‑17)). Peter, when the Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles in Cornelius's house, “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:4848And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:48)). Nowhere is baptism administered in connection with gift or office. So, too, of the Lord's Supper. Of course some person must give thanks and break the bread, but where does Scripture describe these as official acts? Man's organizations have consigned the “administration of sacraments” to local officers, and have appointed officers to exercise gift. But God's Word sanctions neither of these practices. It carefully distinguishes between gift and office, and it does not invest either gifted. or official persons with any function like that which is now called the “administration of the sacraments.” If it be said that such regulations are necessary to order, I reply that the order thus obtained is man's order, and not God's, and that man's order is styled in the Word carnality and self-will. The first lesson of faith is to distrust our own hearts—to say, as to this matter, and all others, “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”
III. But if officers were not appointed to preach and teach, how was the Church to be edified? The nourishing of the body was the work of “the Head, from which all the body, by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Col. 2:1919And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. (Colossians 2:19)). What, then, are these joints and bands which minister nourishment and cause increase? In Eph. 4:8-138Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Ephesians 4:8‑13), we read that when Christ “ascended up on high, He led captivity captive,. and gave gifts unto men.... And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” These, then, are the joints and bands by which our ascended Head ministers nourishment to His body.
Besides these gifts for edification, there were sign gifts, such as that of tongues, which was “for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not” (1 Cor. 14:2222Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (1 Corinthians 14:22)). They were early abused, and if perpetuated in a Church in ruins, their abuse might have led to fearful consequences. Having answered their immediate purpose, they were mercifully withdrawn, and no hint is given of their revival. The only signs and miracles spoken of in the future have a very different origin from those of the early Church.
The gifts for edification were apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Elsewhere it is said that “God path set some in the Church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers”; after which the sign gifts are named. (1 Cor. 12:2828And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:28).) The chief gift, then, was that of apostles. They were to testify of Christ's resurrection and to lay the foundation of the Church. The first we see in Peter's language, speaking of the appointment of a new apostle. He was to “be ordained,” he said, “to be a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:2222Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:22)). Paul, too, asks — “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 9:11Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? (1 Corinthians 9:1))? And afterward, speaking of the witnesses of His resurrection, lie says — “And last of all, He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time; for I am the least of the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:8,98And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15:8‑9)). The apostles, then, were to be eye-witnesses of Christ's resurrection, an important fact, inasmuch as it shows the office to be temporary in its character, and incapable of revival in after times. Besides being witnesses of Christ's resurrection, they were foundation gifts, the Church being “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone” (Eph. 2:2020And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Ephesians 2:20)). The mystery of the Church was revealed “unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:55Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; (Ephesians 3:5)), and they were thus made responsible for laying the foundation of this wondrous truth. Such were the two great functions of the apostles. When the testimony of those who had seen the risen Christ was finished, when the whole ground-plan of God's truth concerning the Church had been marked out, this gift had done its work, and no renewal of it is shadowed forth in God's Word. We do, indeed, hear of false apostles, for the Ephesian Church is commended because it had “tried them which say they are apostles, and are not,” and had “found them liars” (Rev. 2:22I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: (Revelation 2:2)). But there is nothing to indicate that true apostles would again exist. The nature of their functions forbad the thought.
Prophets, like apostles, were entrusted with the mystery, and laid the foundation, of the Church. Some, like Agabus, foretold future events, but this was not their chief characteristic. The most striking feature was the address to the conscience. “If all prophesy,” says the apostle, “and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest” (1 Cor. 14:24, 2524But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. (1 Corinthians 14:24‑25)). In an age when the Scriptures were not completed, moreover, special revelations, probably on other matters, but certainly connected with the “mystery,” were made to the prophets; for it is said — “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge; if anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace” (ver. 29, 30). Some of the prophetic gift in reaching the conscience may still survive, but when God's Word was closed, all that He meant prophetically to reveal was already brought out, and the foundation part of the prophetic gift necessarily disappeared.
But if the foundation gifts lasted only till the foundations were laid, the gifts of evangelists, pastors and teachers were of a more permanent character. The evangelist, or preacher of the gospel, has his sphere of labor in the world. Nevertheless, it is important to observe that he is a gift to the Church, and therefore he has, in proclaiming the gospel, a responsibility connected with the Church. He is not merely given to preach the gospel so that souls may be saved, but he is responsible for bringing the souls consciously and intelligently into their place in God's assembly. The pastor and teacher are different gifts, though they may be combined in the same person. The pastor's work is looking individually after the sheep; the teacher's is giving them public instruction.
It should be clearly seen that these are gifts, not offices; for the whole Church, not for local assemblies. They were bestowed on the Church by an ascended Christ, were responsible to Him for exercising their gift where and as He directed, and either apostolic investiture or choice by an assembly, instead of lending them a legal sanction, would have been a direct infringement of Christ's authority. It is disorder to tie gift to office; it is greater disorder to limit the sphere of its exercise by human regulations; but it is more than disorder, it is dishonor to Christ Himself, to insist on man's countersign before recognizing the validity of His dispositions.
Again, the evangelist, pastor, and teacher are three different gifts. Two may be often, three occasionally, united in one person, but still they are different, and nothing can be more opposed to God's institution than appointing a person who, and who alone, shall be expected to exercise these three rarely combined gifts in some particular place. Indeed, it would be difficult to find one single direction of Scripture which is not completely set aside by the so-called Christian ministry, as now seen in all the sects of the professing Church, from the Roman Catholics to the congregational dissenters. No doubt this is more the result of traditional teaching than of conscious disobedience; no doubt, too, there are thousands of true servants of Christ in these various systems. But this does not lessen the divergence of these systems from God's Word, nor diminish the obligation of those before whom the truth is presented to come out of them.
There might, of course, be cases where the only person with any gift was compelled by circumstances to reside in a particular neighborhood, and in such cases the teaching or preaching might be solely in his hands. But this would no more make him the official minister, in the modern sense of the word, than the fact that there was only one tradesman of any sort in a town would make him the official purveyor of his wares to the inhabitants. Teaching and preaching were not things connected with the assembly, nor do we read of the Church gathering together for these purposes. Doubtless, if a teacher came to a city the brethren would seek to hear him, but he would not exercise his gift in responsibility to the assembly, nor would the meeting of those gathered to hear him be a meeting of the assembly.
IV. For the object of the gathering of the assembly was worship. There might be meetings of brethren for consultation, meetings of believers for prayer, for reading the Scriptures, for hearing gifted teachers and evangelists, but the meeting of the assembly was that held on the first day of the week for remembering the Lord and showing His death. At this meeting the Church acted, “with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,” whether to bind or to loose, but its main object was “the breaking of bread.” In instituting the “Lord’s Supper,” Jesus had broken bread, and this act, recorded in each of the narratives, gave its name to the feast. It is said of the believers immediately after Pentecost, that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer” (Acts 2:4242And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)). At Troas we read that “upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them (Acts 20:77And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)). Paul had been six days at Troas before this, and had doubtless taught and preached, but this is the only meeting of the Church recorded. The language shows that it was not an accident (Paul happening to be there on “com-mullion Sunday “), but that it was the custom to meet together on the first day of the week, for the breaking of bread. So Paul, writing about the collection for poor saints, says — “Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him” (1 Cor. 16:22Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (1 Corinthians 16:2).) At Corinth, where the Lord's Supper had been converted into a social meal, at which disorder, and even drunkenness, prevailed, the apostle corrects the abuse; and gives directions how the feast should be observed. But throughout he speaks of the meeting for the breaking of bread as the coming “together of the Church,” and assumes that “when ye come together into one place,” the object was to celebrate the Lord's Supper.
This is no inference from a single passage. We learn the same thing from the language of the apostle in another place. He says, “In the Church (or assembly) I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (1 Cor. 14:1919Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. (1 Corinthians 14:19)). What does he mean by saying “in the Church?” The context shows that he means the meeting for the breaking of bread, for he asks—referring to the speaking with tongues — “When Thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen,' at Thy giving of thanks.” Now blessing and giving of thanks are the two things which characterize the Lord's Supper. He also describes the meeting in the same words used in chapter xi. as “the whole Church” coming “together into one place.”
The meeting of the Church was, then, for “breaking bread.” The value which Christ set on it is shown, not only from the time and manner of its institution as recorded in the Gospels, but from the special revelation concerning it given afterward to Paul, who says, “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you” (1 Cor. 11:2323For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: (1 Corinthians 11:23)). It was a feast of thanksgiving; a feast calling Christ Himself to mind — “this do in remembrance of ME”; a feast showing His death till His return. It was not a meeting to learn or to pray, but to thank, to praise God for His unspeakable gift, and to worship in the sense of His favor and blessing. The worshippers met, not to receive, but to give, to rejoice before the Lord, and to bless Him in the holy confidence and delight of those whom He had filled to the full with His salvation. They realized Christ's presence, not merely in authority, but in fellowship, as the One who had said, “I will declare Thy name unto My brethren, in the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto Thee” (Heb. 2:1212Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. (Hebrews 2:12)). Like every other assembly act, it set forth the oneness of Christ's body — “for we, being many, are one bread (or loaf), and one body, for we are all partakers of that one loaf” (1 Cor. 10:1717For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (1 Corinthians 10:17)).
Praise, worship, thanksgiving, adoration—such were the features of this blessed institution. For this no gift was required. A gift of prayer, a gift of praise, these are man's thoughts, and, like all else that is of man, quite foreign to the thoughts of God. To quench the Spirit by committing the expression of praise and thanksgiving to some gifted or official person, or by appointing some president to regulate its expression in others, is among the most daring usurpations of the Holy Ghost's prerogatives that man's presumption has ever made. But though gift was not necessary, indeed had absolutely no place, in connection with the principal object of the meeting, its exercise under the Spirit's guidance was freely permitted. Thus, at the breaking of bread in Troas, “Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:77And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)). In writing to the Corinthians, he rebukes the way in which the liberty of the Spirit had been abused — “When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.” 'They were using these gifts for display, not for edification. The apostle, therefore, adds — “Let all things be done unto edifying” (1 Cor. 14:2626How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. (1 Corinthians 14:26)). He then directs how these gifts should be exercised,—unknown tongues were only to be used when there was an interpreter, prophets were to speak two or three, women were not to raise their voice in the assembly, and “all things” were to “be done decently and in order.”
But while Scripture here points out the marks of the Spirit's guidance as opposed to the intrusions of the flesh, there is no code laid down, no “order of service” prescribed, no officer appointed to “administer the Lord's Supper.” Surely if ever there was a suitable occasion for bringing in such institutions, the disorder prevailing at Corinth furnished it. Why, then, was it not done? The supreme action of the Spirit in the assembly was God's purpose, and from this purpose He is not diverted by man's disorder. To meet this He shows how the workings of the flesh and of the Spirit may be distinguished; but He does not fall back on man's organization, on a ministry which supersedes the Holy Ghost's sovereignty, or on an officialism which exalts man and sets aside Christ. As long as the Holy Ghost's sovereignty is owned, we have the authority of the Word for saying that there will be order — “for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:3333For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:33)). If then, there is any need felt for man's rules and regulations, it can only be because the Holy Ghost's sovereignty is no longer acknowledged. What sort of an order will it be which man establishes by the deposition of the Spirit? It will be the order of death, not of life—peace, truly, but, as far as the Spirit is concerned, the peace of the grave And now let us cast a momentary glance at the fabric whose details we have been tracing. The Church on earth, as it came from God's hand, was the model of His own Divine thoughts about it. It was the body of Christ, perfect in its oneness, and perfect, too, in its subjection to the Head. It was furnished with an infallible guide to the thoughts and order of God in the Holy Scriptures. It was united with Christ and formed into one body by the Holy Ghost, who dwelt in its midst, and directed its assemblies. Could anything more perfect, more Divine, be imagined? And how could this fabric be kept, in its outward form down here, what God meant it to be, “a holy temple,” “an habitation of God through the Spirit?” God's first earthly dwelling—place, a type of the Church, was made fit for His presence by simply following His own directions — “See, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.” Only by similar adherence to the heavenly pattern could the Church have been kept according to God's institution. Subjection to Christ, as exercising authority in the assembly, would have maintained unity of discipline. Subjection to the divinely-given Word, the heavenly pattern, would have maintained unity of doctrine. Subjection to the Holy Ghost, the Divine guide and director, would have maintained unity of order in the assemblies. What would Moses have said, if when looking at the work of Bezaleel and Aholiab, be had found it different from the pattern showed in the mount, and made to suit their own thoughts of what was right or convenient? Is it a less solemn thing for Christians to set aside the heavenly pattern contained in the Word, and to substitute a tabernacle according to their own devising? When Israel acted on its own thoughts, the results were the golden calf, the strange fire, the gainsaying of Korah. When it observed God's order, the results were His presence, His service, and His guidance. Which precedent has Christendom followed?