Same subject continued.

cerned. It was the church that received the glad news, and it was the church that sent forth Barnabas.

66

Notice again, the representation in the next paragraph of the "Draught." But to forward this work, *** Barnabas travels to Tarsus, and joins Saul, * * * and returning with him to Antioch, they continue a whole year together in that populous city, teaching much people."

Now, compare this passage with the text, of which it is a paraphrase: "And it came to pass, that a whole year they [Barnabas and Saul] assembled themselves with the church,* and taught much people," özλov ixavòv, a great multitude, 11:26. It is evident, from this passage, that large as was the multitude, the church at Antioch at this time was not so large but that it could assemble together with their teachers, for public worship.

Another observation of Slater respecting the "harvest of Christian converts those apostolical laborers made, assisted by all that fled thither from Jerusalem, besides by the men of Cyprus and Cyrene," etc. deserve remark. This observation, designed evidently to carry the impression that there must have been a sort of diocesan church at Antioch, even in the apostles' days, receives a satisfactory answer from two or three texts of Scripture. Not to urge Acts 13: 1-4, where we are very plainly taught, that the whole church of Antioch were assembled, and were concerned in the work of setting apart Barnabas and Saul, as missionaries to the heathen, we may refer to Acts 14: 25

*

συναχθῆναι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. Bloomfield would render it, “were associated in the congregation [as colleagues].” Kuinoel, however, sanctions our translation: "conveniebant cum coetu," says he-they assembled with the church. It is not, however, material to our purpose which interpretation we adopt.

Same subject continued.

-27; "And when they [Barnabas and Saul] had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia; and thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled"—that is, the work of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles; to which they had been set apart, as I suppose, by the church of Antioch. "And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them." *** Now, here we have "the church that was at Antioch,' 99.66 gathered together." It was not the elders of the church that were gathered together, but—the church. We are thus taught, that all the "harvest of Christian converts" which had then been reaped could be gathered into one place.

And even at a somewhat later period, after the division of the church about the question of circumcision, to which Slater refers as a further evidence that the converts at Antioch were too numerous to be included in a single Congregational church-even after this, we learn that the whole multitude could be gathered together. In the 15th chapter we read, that it pleased "the apostles and elders, with the whole church" at Jerusalem, "to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch," to carry the opinion of the Jerusalem church upon the agitated question : "So when they were dismissed [by the church at Jerusalem] they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together they delivered the epistle," etc. See 15: 22-30. By "the multitude," no one can doubt but that the whole body of believers is intended; for the same expression is used in the 12th verse of this chapter to denote the whole body of Christians at Jerusalem. Compare 4th, 6th, 12th, 22d and 23d verses.

Now I would "refer to the sober judgment of all" im

Episcopalian concessions.

partial men to say, whether the Scriptures must not be wrested from their natural and obvious meaning, in order to make the church at Antioch anything more than a Congregational church?—that is, a body of believers who could assemble together in one place for religious purposes? As to what is true of this church after the apostles' times, I have nothing now to say. Whether Antioch contained one or fifty congregations of Christians, at a later period, I am not concerned, just now, to know; but if any man will open the Acts of the Apostles, and read from the 11th to the 16th chapter, and find anything that savors of Diocesan Episcopacy, or anything that contradicts the idea that the church at Antioch, and the others there ́spoken of, were other than Congregational in their character, he must understand language very differently from what I am able to do.

So clear is the testimony of Scripture upon this point, that many Episcopal writers have been constrained to admit, that the apostolic churches were essentially Congregational in their organization and practice; and so continued, until their inspired teachers were removed. But these writers object to the inference, that all churches should be modeled after these primitive patterns: "For," says one of them, as soon as the death of the last of the apostles had deprived them (i. e. the primitive churches) of the more immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, and left them, under God's especial care and providence, to the uninspired direction of mere men; so soon every church, respecting which we possess any distinct information, adopted the Episcopal form of government." *

66

* See Waddington's History of the Church, (Harper's edition.) chap. 2. § 2.

-inference from these. All ecclesiastical power in the church.

Our inference from these admitted facts would be exactly the reverse of Mr. Waddington's. Why, we ask, did the apostles organize churches throughout the Roman Empire, upon a plan which they must have known (according to the supposition under consideration) would be adapted to the circumstances of the church for a very few years only? Could Paul have regarded himself as a wise master builder" when laying the foundation, and framing together a building which would require an entire remodeling, so soon as the grave should close upon himself and his inspired companions? - an event of which they lived in daily expectation. Can it be, that the apostolic organizations were no better than so many temporary sheds, constructed merely for the emergency of the times, and designed to be taken down, and replaced by the fair temple of Episcopacy, so soon as the church should become sufficiently numerous and rich?

If the Episcopal form of church government was adopted by the churches just so soon as they were left "to the uninspired direction of mere men," as Waddington asserts, it is, in our view, one of the strongest evidences, that diocesan Episcopacy is of man and not of God; and affords another illustration of the disposition of man to seek out "many inventions;" to be wise above what is written; and to forsake the simplicity of the gospel.

IV. It is a principle of Congregationalism, that every church is authorized to choose its own officers, discipline its own members, and transact all other appropriate business, independently of any other church, or ecclesiastical body, or person: Or, in other words-that all church power is vested in the hands of those who constitute the church.

This principle flows naturally and unavoidably from the

Scripture testimony-Elections by the church.

preceding. If a church be an authorized voluntary association, for specific and lawful purposes, then this association must have the right to choose such officers, make such regulations, and adopt such measures, as are essential to the ends for which it is formed. We find this principle fully recognized in the practice of the apostolic churches. For example: in Acts 1: 15-26, there is an account of the proceedings of the church at Jerusalem immediately after Christ's ascension; from which we learn, that, by the suggestion of Peter, the assembled disciples (the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty)" appointed two of their number, from whom to select, by lot, one to occupy the place of Judas. "They appointed two," says the evangelist, "Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." Now, if the brethren of the church at Jerusalem, in the presence and by the direction of the apostles themselves, were authorized to make such an election, are not those churches which are formed after the model of this primitive church, authorized to choose their own officers ?

In Acts 6:1-6, we have another instance in which this same model-church exercised the right of choosing ecclesiastical officers. It seems that complaints were made to the apostles that the charities of the church were not duly dispensed. Whereupon the apostles called "the multitude of the disciples unto them" (that is, the whole church) and directed them to "look out among them seven men," to attend to this business. "And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, etc." Now, why did not the apostles select these men? Why was the matter submitted to "the whole multitude of the disciples? For the very obvious