Dear Brother, As you desire to have in a plain and printed form for yourself and others what, in common with those we have regarded as most truly taught of God, I gather to be His revealed mind on this question, here it is.
This principle flows from the great and precious truth that we are called of God to walk on the ground of the “one body” of Christ. If we do not p walk, we cannot certainly be zealous to keep “the unity of the Spirit.”
If, as is often the case, the saints who in faith take this only divine stand, as gathered to Christ's name, are only one company in a place, all is clear. No one among us questions their title or their competency any more than their responsibility. If they were but two or three, the privilege abides. They are not the assembly and do not pretend to be, in the present ruin of the church, where so many members of Christ are scattered everywhere in the religious societies, established or not, great or small. But they are bound, none the less, to walk together on that principle according to the Lord in the blessed Spirit who abides forever, encouraged and sustained by that gracious resource for the evil day, the assurance of the Lord's presence to validate their acts as truly as when the church stood as yet unbroken. Matt. 18:18-2018Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:18‑20). They might have to wait on Him as in weakness, and surely in humility and patience, and love, but in the confiding expectation of His guidance by His word and Spirit. Impossible that the Lord could fail those who are thus gathered in dependence and faith. If will or haste work in leaders or led, there is no guarantee that mistake or even unrighteousness may not soon ensue to the sorrow and shame of all that love Him, and to the dishonor of His own name.
The question of unity is necessarily raised, not merely in a general way by the fact that Scripture recognizes but “one body,” the church, all over the world, but in a practical way by its never speaking of assemblies, or churches, in a city or town. Of churches in a country or province we do read, but of “the church” in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus or any other. Even dissensions or schisms within are strongly denounced; still more solemnly “heresies” or sects as Scripture calls parties without. Unity must be kept, and is of the highest price, provided it be not carnal or worldly but “of the Spirit.” It is bound up with Christ's name and glory, not to speak of its rich blessing spiritually for the mind and heart and conscience too of the saints who so walk.
Now the circumstances of the earliest saints thus called put unity to the test in a very manifest way. For by the unexampled power of the Holy Ghost thousands were brought to Christ's name in a day, and in such a sort as to mark them out for the Lord beyond ordinary times. They could not, from the nature of the case, possess public buildings, even if they desired such means of congregating largely; indeed as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, rather, for distribution to such as had need. If they continued as yet in the temple, as being not quite delivered from their old associations, they broke bread at home—not “from house to house” as the Authorized Version says, so liable to give the notion of slipshod disorder. Rooms were available, often “upper rooms,” of no inconsiderable size. But though they thus met, Jews now Christian from every nation under heaven, and doubtless they met in many different houses, the uniform language of the Holy Ghost is “the church” or assembly, never the assemblies. Indeed “the whole multitude” of the believers are expressly shown in chap. vi. to have found means of common action, though we are told ere this that the number of the—men &tact-60 came to be about five thousand. Is it too much to suppose that the believing women may have even then made it double?
I grant that the appointment of “the seven” was not an ordinary matter; and more extraordinary was the occasion which brought “all the multitude” together in Acts 15. I cite them as undeniable disclosures of that common action, by whatever means secured, of “the assembly” in a city, even when many thousands were concerned, is the sanctioned practice of Scripture from the beginning.
Now if there be any duty which attaches to the assembly more inalienably than another, it is the reception, as we call it, and the exclusion, according to the word, of those who bore the Lord's name. Is it by an assembly, or is it on the principle of “the” assembly? I speak not of a place where all the gathered saints are actually under one roof, but of a city or town where they are numerous enough, as in Jerusalem, to break bread in ever so many different houses. Scripture never recognizes church action save in unity. 1 Cor. 5 is not for Corinth only, but for “all that call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, both theirs and ours.”
I own and insist in the fullest way on local responsibility where the case occurs and is known, but not to the practical denial of unity in the town or city. Action to be of God must be really, and not in mere form, unless we allow local infallibility, of all the saints gathered on divine ground. If all this take part, it would be unrighteous to share the responsibility of action without an opportunity of conscientious acquiescence or the consequent liberty to inquire or even remonstrate in a godly way.
But the isolated action of some saints or “an” assembly without the rest in one city or place, is practical independency, and wholly opposed to both spirit and letter of God's word. In a province the assemblies here or there act each; and all saints prima facie accept the action of each. But there is from the nature of the case, according to the Word, no common action. They are not “the assembly in Galatia,” but the assemblies of that country. It is never so in a town or city, where, if a local company have the responsibility of the case and of proposing the Scriptural act, all the saints have the privilege and duty of joint action. Otherwise it is no longer the assembly in Jerusalem or in London, but a human sort of congregational union after the act, which is in this matter a denial of unity.
I say no more now than that I am as ever,
Yours affectionately in Christ, W. K.
To R. A. S.