Provincial churches unknown to the Apostles.

are designated by the names of the several places in which they were formed; as 'the church at Antioch," "the church at Corinth," "the church at Ephesus," etc. If each of these companies of Christians had not been regarded as constituting an entire and complete church, they certainly would not have been thus designated. Instead of such phraseology, we should have read of that portion of the church of Christ which resided at Ephesus, Corinth, or Antioch; and not, of the church of Ephesus,

etc.

The language of the sacred writers does not allow us to believe that the Christians of the same province, even, were embraced in a single church; for they speak of " the churches of Macedonia," and "the churches of Asia,”not of the church of Asia, or Macedonia. But why so? Evidently because there was more than one voluntary association of believers in each of these provinces. Any one who will examine the New Testament upon this point, will find abundant evidence that this distinction between a church and churches is carefully made by the inspired writers. Hence we infer, that every company of believers who associate and covenant together for church purposes, are, to all intents and purposes, a church of Christ; and if so, should embrace no more members than can conveniently meet for the transaction of church business and the celebration of religious ordinances.

Acting upon this principle, we find that the apostle organized a church at Corinth, and another at Cenchrea, (see Rom. 16: 1) the port of Corinth; which, being but nine miles distant, was usually considered as the suburbs of the city itself. From the language of the apostle, it is evident that the associated believers at Cenchrea were as

Milner's objection

truly and completely a church as their more numerous brethren in the parent city: "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea."

The obvious reason why the Christians in these two places were not united together in one church was, that in the organization of churches, the apostle proceeded on the principle that a church should consist of only so many as can conveniently assemble together for public worship, the celebration of religious ordinances, and the transaction of church business; and as these brethren were nine miles apart-though resident in the same city—and were sufficiently numerous in each place to constitute a distinct church, he organized them separately. If then we would follow apostolic example, we must give our churches a congregational* organization: that is, we must regard every duly organized congregation of professed believers as a complete and entire church.

It is objected to these views, that the size of some of the primitive churches forbid us to believe that they were congregationally organized. Milner says: "It is absurd to suppose that the great church at Ephesus, in the decline of St. John's life, should be only a single congregation; and, most probably, the same is true of all the rest." Church Hist. Vol. I. p. 476.

66

He then goes on to estimate the Christians of Ephesus, at many thousands," and the church at Jerusalem, at the same. Hence he draws the inference, that their members could not all have met together for church purposes; and therefore, could not have been congregationally organized.

* I use the word in a general sense here.

answered.

An obvious remark upon this statement, is, that we are not furnished by the Scriptures with sufficient data from which to form any satisfactory conclusions, respecting the exact number of the church at Ephesus or Jerusalem. We know, it is true, that 3000 were added to the church at Jerusalem, as the result of the preaching of Peter and the other apostles on the day of Pentecost: but, it must be remembered, that many of these were Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, etc. (Acts 2: 9-11), who had assembled at Jerusalem to keep the feast of Pentecost; and who soon left the city for their distant homes. Subsequently, additions were made to this church, from time to time," of such as should be saved;" but, how many of them were stated residents in the city, or, how ample were their accommodations for church purposes, we are not informed.

Of Ephesus, we only know that Paul labored there "in season and out of season," "by the space of three years;" and that "mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." But Paul, doubtless, would have considered the encouragement to remain in this city ample, had he seen a few hundreds turning to the Lord, instead of "many thousands;" and Luke would have been justified in declaring that "mightily grew the word of God," had only some hundreds of souls, been converted in that profligate city. It should be borne in mind also, that Ephesus was a great mart for the country round about it; and a famous resort for the idolaters of Asia Minor; because here was that wonder of the world, the temple of Diana, the goddess of the Ephesians. For this reason, if for no other, the apostle might have thought it proper to devote special attention

Slater's representation

to this city; since, by being there, he could, in effect, preach the gospel throughout all Asia, as Luke tells us he did. See Acts 19: 10.

Slater, in his "Original Draught of the Primitive Church"- -a standard work among Episcopalians in this country and in England-labors hard to rebut the idea that the church at Antioch was a Congregational church. For this purpose, he refers repeatedly to the 11th chapter of Acts. He quotes, however, only a few words from the sacred text under each specification: had he given the entire passage, he would have overturned his whole argument, so far as the Scripture testimony goes. To avoid the possibility of misrepresenting him, I will quote the passage entire.

"Antioch was early blessed with the glad tidings of the gospel; the blood of the first martyr became the seeds of a Christian church there, as the fathers took a pleasure to speak; for many Christians, dispersed upon that occasion, resorted thither; and the first account we have of their labors is, that the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned unto the Lord, Acts 11: 19. ver. 21-27. Tidings of this came to the Church of Jerusalem, where the whole college of apostles were in readiness to consult for them. They send Barnabas, a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith, to improve this happy opportunity, and the success answered their expectation; for by his powerful exhortations, much people, says the holy text, was added to the Lord. But to forward this work of the Lord still more, Barnabas travels to Tarsus, and joins Saul, the great apostle of the Gentiles now, and returning with him to Antioch, they continue a whole year together in that populous city, teaching much people. What a harvest of Christian converts those apostolical laborers made in that compass of time, assisted by all that fled thither from Jerusalem besides, by the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, fellow-laborers with them (Acts 11: 20), to convert the Greeks as well as Jews to the faith; and by

shown to be incorrect.

the several inspired prophets, so peculiarly noted to be amongst them (Acts 11:27, and 13: I), I refer to the sober judgment of all who know the fruits of many single sermons preached by an apostle, at the first promulgation of the Gospel. Two things are sure, 1st, That the reputation and honor of the converts there was such, that they laid aside the derided name of Nazarenes or Galilæans now, and openly assumed the name of their Lord and Master (Acts 11: 26), and were first called Christians there. 2ndly, That there were two distinct sects or parties of them (Acts 15: 1, 2); Judaizing Christians, zealous of the Law; and Gentile converts as earnestly insisting on their freedom and exemption from it: Each party so considerable, as to call for an apostolical council to decide the controversy between them."*

Upon this passage it may be remarked, That it presents to the reader a very inaccurate, not to say distorted view of the whole matter. I will make some specifications in proof of this. In reference to the conversion of the Antiochians, Mr. Slater says: "Tidings of this came to the church of Jerusalem, where the whole college of apostles were in readiness to consult for them. They send Barnabas, a good man, etc. *** to improve this happy opportunity.'

66

Was it by design, or accidental, that we are thus left to understand that the apostles sent Barnabas to Antioch? However this may be, certain it is, that the sacred text gives no countenance to such a representation. It reads thus: Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of THE CHURCH which was in Jerusalem: and THEY sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch, Acts 11: 22; not one syllable is said of "the whole college of apostles;" but the whole matter is spoken of as one in which " THE CHURCH which was in Jerusalem" was con

* pp. 70–72, American edition,