Page images
PDF
EPUB

the people, and what was the effect? "Many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand."* The historian speaks of men-zwv avdpwr,—and as this word denotes males, as distinguished from females, it may be fairly inferred that many women, although not mentioned, were converted at the same time, so that the whole number was probably much greater than five thousand. But whether we suppose females, as well as males, to have believed on this occasion or not, it is perfectly plain that the five thousand were additional to the three thousand who were formerly mentioned. One or two commentators, of great name, having unluckily adopted the notion that the three thousand are included in the five, Independents have eagerly laid hold of it to help them out of a difficulty. But I would ask, whether this idea would present itself to any person, whose mind was not prepossessed with a particular system; and whether it would not naturally occur to such a person, that Luke, who had stated the effect of the first sermon of Peter, here states the effect of the second, without referring to any thing which is past. Were another historian to tell us that, on a certain day, three thousand men joined an army, and that some days after, it was joined by five thousand, there is not a reader in the world who would suppose that he included the first number in the second. It is impossible to conceive any reason why a reader of the Acts should form a different opinion with respect to these two distinct numbers of converts. Thus we have eight thousand disciples in Jerusalem, besides those who were believers before the day of Pentecost, and those who, without being specified, were daily added to the church. It has been said with respect to those converts, and particularly such of them as embraced the Gospel on the day of Pentecost, that they were strangers, whose usual residence was in the countries enumerated, but who had come to Jerusalem to worship at the feast. It would be too much to deny that any of them were strangers; but there would be a manifest absurdity in supposing them to have been all of this description; for, was it ever heard that an extraordinary event brought together only the sojourners in a city? Does not every rational ground of calculation suggest the idea that sojourners were only a minority, and that the assembly consisted chiefly of the inhabitants of Jerusalem? It has been remarked that they are called "dwellers in Jerusalem,"† and that the word xatoixew, which the sacred historian uses, signifies to have a permanent abode in a place. When a temporary residence is expressed, the verb яapox is employed, which imports simply to sojourn, or to be in a place for a short time. Many of the converts, on the day of Pentecost, had lived in foreign countries; but they had now removed to Jerusalem, from secular or religious motives, or perhaps, as has been supposed, in expectation of the Messiah, whose advent was looked for about this period. At any rate, although they were present in Jerusalem only for a time, there is no reason to think that the assembly on Pentecost was composed wholly of them; and if it should be admitted, that, of the three thousand, one thousand, or even five hundred, were foreigners, we should make an ample allowance.

To the eight thousand who, at the lowest computation, already belonged to the church of Jerusalem, we must add many more; for we read that "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women;" that "the number of the disciples was multiplied;" and again, that "the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." These passages import a very abundant increase, and justify us in understanding the following words, not of the disciples in Judea, or among the Jewish nation at large, but of those in Jerusalem alone: "Thou seest, brother, how many thou† Acts ii. 5. Acts v. 14. vi. 1, 7.

• Acts iv. 4.

sands of Jews there are which believe;"* in the original, яosα μvpiades—how many myriads, or tens of thousands.

Independents are compelled by their system to reduce to the lowest possible number the disciples in a particular city. It is necessary for them to prove, not that the success of the gospel was great, but that it was small. They surely cannot feel any complacency in thus weakening the argument in favour of Christianity, from its rapid and extensive success; but we may justly sus pect the cause which is forced to resort to such an expedient for support. It is certain that the argument completely fails in the case of Jerusalem, in which there was only one church, but the members amounted to thousands and myriads.

It is objected by Independents, that "all that believed were together, and had all things common." It has been answered, that although the disciples, whose number was at this time about three thousand, had met together in one place, it will not follow that they could do so when they had increased to ten or twenty thousand; and yet even then they were only one church. It has been remarked too, that although the phrase i to avto, translated together, may signify in one place, yet this is not necessarily its meaning, and that it occurs where it can import only unity of purpose: "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together—ext To avro-against the Lord, and against his Christ." These words are applied to the conspiracy of Pilate, the Sanhedrim, and Herod, against our Saviour; but we know that, although they concurred in one design, they did not assemble in the same place.

It is objected again, that they are said "to have continued daily with one accord in the temple."§ As this immediately follows the other passage, the same answer may be returned, that, if three thousand might assemble in the temple, a meeting of all the disciples in it was impossible when the number had become much greater. Besides, as the meetings were daily, a little reflection will convince us that a multitude of people, chiefly in the lower ranks of life, could no more have found time every day to attend the ministrations of the Apostles than they could find it now; and, consequently, that the historian can only mean that the Apostles daily frequented the temple, and that the disciples met them there as they had opportunity. But there was no occasion always to repair to it for the purpose of hearing them, because the Apostles did not confine their labours to the temple, but "in every house ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ."||

An argument for one congregation in Jerusalem is founded on these words: "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together. And the multitude of them that believed, were of one heart and of one soul. But these two verses, although they stand in the order now quoted, have no connexion with each other; and it is altogether unfair to quote them as a proof that the multitude were assembled in the place which was shaken, as any person will see by reading the passage. The persons assembled in that place, are called the Apostles' own company; and probably were a select number of the disciples, met together to pray for the deliverance of Peter and John from the hands of their enemies.

The last argument is drawn from these words: "And they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch, and of the rest durst no man join himself to them; but the people magnified them."** But here the question occurs, Who were the persons that were assembled in this porch? It is said in the beginning of the verse, that "by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people;" and it is then added, that "they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch." The most natural idea is, that the per§ Ib. ii. 46.

Acts xxi. 20.

| Ib. v. 42.

+ Ib. ii. 44.

Ib. iv. 31, 32.

+ Ib. iv. 26.
** Ib. v. 12, 13,

sons referred to were the Apostles; and as no others are mentioned but the people, or the Jews, who resorted to the temple, it is a mere fancy to suppose that the church was assembled in it.

It has appeared that there is no reason to suppose that all the Jews from foreign countries who were converted at Pentecost were merely sojourners in Jerusalem, and that the historian makes use of a term which imports that they had taken up their abode in it. This is confirmed by an event which took place some time after, and is thus related: "In those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.' The Grecians, or Hellenists, as every person knows, were Jews, who, living without the bounds of Judea, and scattered over what was once the Macedonian empire, spoke the Greek language, and used the Greek translation of the Scriptures in their synagogues. Of these there were some in the Church of Jerusalem; and it is highly probable that there were also others, who, having come from different regions, understood neither Hebrew nor Greek, and were acquainted only with the language of the country in which they were born. Hence arises a new argument for a plurality of congregations in Jerusalem. Although all the members of the church might have been convened in one place, they could not all have joined in the service, because what was understood by one part of them, would have been unintelligible to the other. It would be absurd to imagine that different speakers addressed the audience at the same time, or that the same speaker delivered a discourse first in one language and then in another. There is no reason, except the interests of a party, for making any supposition but the natural one, that as the first disciples in Jerusalem-the place of resort to Jews from every region of the earth-spoke different languages, they were divided into different assemblies, in which every man heard in his own tongue the wonderful works of God. As some time elapsed after the day of Pentecost before the Apostles went forth to preach the Gospel to the nations of the world, unless there were in Jerusalem believers who spoke different languages, the gift of tongues which the Apostles had received would have been useless during this interval. We have seen that, from their number, the primitive disciples must have been divided into several congregations, and we now see that, if the number had been smaller, the formation of distinct societies was necessary for the purpose of edification. We have therefore one church, made up of several congregations, according to the Presbyterial plan, not a number of independent assemblies, possessing each the powers of a church in itself.

To strengthen our argument, let us observe that, in the Church of Jerusalem, many persons were employed in performing the ordinary ministrations. It is certain that all the Apostles continued in it for a considerable time after it was founded. It appears that with them were associated prophets, or inspired men, who foretold future events, or explained by supernatural assistance the predictions of the Old Testament; and we read of the elders or presbyters of that Church, or ordinary ministers of the word, as this title usually imports, and as Independents will grant; for they deny that there is any such office-bearer by divine appointment as a ruling, distinct from a preaching, elder. Now, I should wish to be informed by them, how all these persons were employed? What were twelve Apostles, several prophets, and a competent number of ministers, doing? Independents tell us that they had only one congregation: but if so, how could they find scope for the exercise of their gifts? The Christians in Jerusalem could not be always hearing sermons, because they had their worldly affairs to attend to; but unless the Apostles and their assistants, were engaged in preaching from morning to night, on every day of the

[blocks in formation]

week, the turn of each must have come at distant intervals, and during a considerable part of their time they must have been idle, in respect of this most important duty of their office. We find, however, that this was not the case. The Apostles were so much occupied with preaching, that they found it impossible to pay attention to the affairs of the poor; and hence, when com plaints arose that some were neglected, they instituted the order of deacons: "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables: wherefore, brethren, look ye out seven men whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word."* It is a downright absurdity to suppose that so many preachers could have been kept in constant employment by a single congregation; and every man who lays aside prejudice, and judges dispassionately, will be of this opinion. No rational account can be given of so many office-bearers, not sinecurists, but active labourers in the work of the gospel, remaining in Jerusalem, except by admitting that the disciples were divided into many congregations.

The last argument for the existence of more congregations than one in Jerusalem, is founded on the want of a place in which all the disciples could assemble. To this argument Independents have a ready answer, that they could be contained in the temple, and that it appears that the Apostles preached in it daily. It is easy for some men to get rid of a difficulty by a few general assertions, especially when they are talking of something very remote, into all the particulars of which we cannot enter; but capacious as the temple was, it is not certain that ten or twelve thousand could have frequently gone into it, without incommoding the multitudes of unconverted Jews who went up to it to worship. It is not certain that the priests and rulers would have permitted acknowledged assemblies of the disciples, whom they accounted heretics and apostates, to be held within its precincts. The contrary is, I think, highly probable; and we may be sure that an attempt to commemorate the death of Christ, by the celebration of the Eucharist, would have been immediately resisted. The Apostles, indeed, preached daily in the temple; not, however, to the whole church of Jerusalem, but to the Jews whom they accidently found in it; and this is evident from the words of the sacred historian, who says, that they preached "daily in the temple, and in every house;"† that is, while they preached to the Jews, in the temple, they preached in private houses to the Christians, and consequently, had many congregations. These observations are obvious to the plainest understanding; and nothing but the blinding Dower of prejudice can prevent any man from perceiving their truth,

[blocks in formation]

LECTURE XCIX.

ON THE CHURCH.

Independent and Presbyterian Forms of Church Government Examined.—Proof that the Power of the Church Rulers does not flow from the People.-Opinions of Dr. Owen.Argument against Independency from the Council of Jerusalem-Superiority of the Presbyterian Plan.

In the preceding lecture, I entered upon the consideration of the two forms of ecclesiastical government, which alone seem to receive any countenance from Scripture, Presbytery and Independency; and proposed to discuss them together, because the establishment of the one necessarily involves the overthrow of the other.

We have examined the first principle of Independency, from which it derives its name, that each congregation of Christians is a complete church, possessing in itself all the powers and privileges which Jesus Christ has conferred upon the church, and unconnected with all other churches in the world, except by a common profession of the faith. We have seen that this principle does not apply to the Church of Jerusalem, which has appeared, from several arguments, to have consisted of more congregations than one. We might draw the same conclusion with respect to some other churches mentioned in the New Testament; but your attention has been confined to that of Jerusalem, because its history is more fully detailed.

The obvious inference from the fact, that in Jerusalem there were several congregations, which are nevertheless represented as one church, is, that those congregations were incorporated, or so united by some common tie, as to compose only one body. Now, this could be no other than the same government, to which these congregations were subject; as the inhabitants of different cities and provinces constitute one nation, not simply by living in the same country, but by obeying the same laws, and acknowledging the authority of the same civil rulers. Independents could not, consistently with their principles, have spoken of the Church of Jerusalem, but must have adopted a different phraseology, if they had composed the narrative in the Acts, and have said, the churches of Jerusalem. It follows, therefore, that there was a presbytery in Jerusalem, composed of the Apostles and elders, who came together, as we see from the fifteenth chapter, to manage the affairs of all the congregations in the city, and to whose decrees they were bound to submit. This is the most rational account of the matter; and it is so natural, that it follows from the particulars mentioned in the history, without any effort; whereas Independents are compelled to have recourse to a variety of awkward expedients, to make out their favourite point, that there was only one congregation; and in particular, to reduce the believers in that city to the lowest possible number. And thus, what is gained to their cause, is lost to Christianity; which, if they are right in their calculations with respect to Jerusalem and other cities, had very little success in the primitive ages, and could boast of only handfuls of converts in the most populous places.

I now proceed to consider the second principle of Independency, which is, That all power is vested in the church collective, or in the body of the faithful; that to them the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; and that those who exercise any authority in the church, in the character of rulers, derive it from the people. In opposition to this principle, Presbyterians maintain, That the power of governing the church belongs exclusively to certain

« PreviousContinue »