The
Presbyterian Standard
The Magazine of the James Begg Society
More Lectures and Discourses from past issues of the Presbyterian Standard are available online here.
M
ENTION is made of 'the Church in Jerusalem', 'the Church at Antioch',
'the Church of God which is at Corinth', 'the Church of Ephesus', 'the
Church in Smyrna','the Church in Pergamos', and in various other
places. Were these simply single congregations, or were there more than
one in the same locality? In several instances there appears to have
been a plurality of congregations under the common government of
associated elders, and under the title of the Church of that locality.
Let us see whether this view is confirmed by the circumstances in which
the first churches were placed. If so, the fourth application of the
term Church is, a plurality of congregations under one common
government.
The first organised was 'the Church which was at Jerusalem' (Acts 8:1),
and, doubtless, on the model there produced, other churches were
formed. In that Church there were a larger number of disciples and
teachers than can be conceived possible in one congregation.
Firstly, Take the statements as to disciples.
At the election of Matthias, there were one hundred and twenty names in
Jerusalem. Paul declares that the risen Redeemer was seen in Galilee of
about five hundred brethren, but these may have been gathered from
various parts of Palestine, therefore they may be left out of account.
On the day of Pentecost, there were added to the hundred and twenty
about 'three thousand souls', and daily the Lord added to the Church.
The apostles continuing to preach in the temple, 'many of them which
heard the word believed, and the number of the men was about five
thousand' (Acts 1:15; 2:41-47; 4:4). Let these numbers be put together,
and it will be found that there were, at the least, eight thousand one
hundred and twenty in Jerusalem. Or, let us suppose that the five
thousand include the former numbers yet we have various large numbers
to add. As 'many signs and wonders were wrought, believers were the
more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.' Again, 'the
Word of the Lord increased, and the number of disciples multiplied in
Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to
the faith' (Acts 5:12-14; 6:7). These multitudes, and disciples who
multiplied greatly, go to augment the five thousand. But deduct them if
need be, and still it must be asked, how five thousand people could be
profitably organised, and assemble together regularly, to participate
in divine ordinances, as one congregation, and in one place? This
supposition is further confuted, when it is stated, after the
dispersion by persecution, that there were still immense multitudes of
believers in Jerusalem: 'Thou seest, brother, how many thousands
(myriads) of Jews there are which believe' (Acts 21:20). The proper
reading is myriads, or ten thousands. There were many of these still in
that city; but let three, at least, be supposed: here are thirty
thousand believers. This statement indicates that the former numbers do
not include each other, but should be added together. Where and how the
former eight thousand, or these myriads, could unite together as one
congregation in divine worship, is something inexplicable. The temple
could not contain them. It was only used on the occasions referred to
by sufferance. Being under the control of the Jewish priests and
elders, the apostles were speedily laid hold of, and prevented
preaching there in the name of Jesus. Even at the first, they not only
'continued daily with one accord in the temple', they broke bread 'from
house to house', praising God, and having favour with all the people.
Until debarred, the temple was the resort for preaching to all who
assembled. But those who believed met house by house for acts of
worship, instruction, participation of sealing ordinances and
discipline. They had no buildings such as are now designated churches
or chapels. The large four-square Eastern houses, with their open
courts, galleries, and flat roofs, formed a fitting substitute. But
none of these could accommodate the thousands of worshippers embraced
in the Church at Jerusalem. Convenience of residence, vast numbers,
diversity of language, and close fellowship, rendered it imperative to
have separate assemblies or congregations. Companies of the called
breaking bread and praising God from house to house, explains the
difficulty otherwise insoluble. There were several Congregations in
this one Church. In other words, the churches at Jerusalem were under a
common government, and thus united, were termed 'the Church.'
Secondly, Preachers were numerous.
Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, were constantly
employed. If the seventy sent forth by Christ be included, there could
not be less than one hundred. But getting them aside as being probably
in the country, the others cannot possibly be supposed to have been
engaged in ministering to one congregation. That they were all fully
employed is evident from the appointment of the seven deacons. This was
in order that the ministers might give themselves continually to
spiritual and public exercises. It is not improbable that some of the
great company of the priests who believed might also be so engaged.
That all were perpetually occupied with one congregation is
inexplicable. Their number strengthens the conclusion arrived at.
Several companies met house by house for the service of God, having a
full supply of ministers. Still they were one Church, having a common
government.
Next to Rome and Alexandria, Antioch was the greatest city of the then
known world. Here the gospel took root and spread. From this city
Christians and Christianity went forth to subdue the nations of the
earth. Persecuted believers came hither from Jerusalem, who 'spake unto
the Grecians, and preached the Lord Jesus', 'and the hand of the Lord
was with them, and a great number believed.' When Barnabas was sent
thither, 'much people were added to the Lord.' Thereafter, he and Saul
'a whole year assembled themselves with the Church, and taught much
people.' And 'the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch'
(Acts 11:20-26). These expressions – a great number, and much
people – twice repeated, point out a very numerous body of
Christians. Besides men of Cyprus and Cyrene, Barnabas and Saul,
prophets and other teachers, were all labouring there, and with marked
results of their several and united labours. The term 'Christian',
there first bestowed, implies that believers abounded. From that great
work of God, the presence of so many eminent servants, and that amongst
a numerous body of Christians, the inference seems fairly warrantable
that there must have been more than one congregation at Antioch. Still,
they were one Church. When the famine, predicted by prophets, came, the
relief sent to the suffering brethren in Judea went from a united body.
Though not to the same extent, the same elements are here as in
Jerusalem. These lead to the same conclusion. The Church at Antioch
must have had a plurality of congregations. These constituted one
Church and therefore were under a common government.
When the Apostle Paul was repressing the disorders that had broken out
in the Church at Corinth, he deals with the abuse of female preachers,
and adducing the practice of all the Churches of the saints, he
commands, 'Let your women keep silence in the churches.' As in the
whole of Christendom, so let silence be enforced on your women in all
the churches in Corinth. These churches were not widely scattered, for
these ladies were evidently at home. Further direction is given them
rather to be disciples than teachers: 'If they will learn anything, let
them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak
in the church.' Silence is to be enforced in the 'churches', which is
the 'Church' (1 Cor. 14:33-35).
Writing from Corinth to Rome, and in the commendation of Phebe
incidentally showing how devout women may serve Christ and His Church,
succouring very many – Paul speaks of 'the Church which is at
Cenchrea' (Rom. 16:1). Corinth was situated on a narrow isthmus having
two ports. Cenchrea was the sea-port that lay towards Asia. It was
usually embraced in the city of Corinth.
As at Jerusalem and Antioch, Corinth had a numerous body of believers,
and a large supply of officers, richly furnished with spiritual
endowments. For a year and six months, Paul, Silas, and Timothy,
laboured there. After 'many of the Corinthians, hearing believed, and
were baptised', the Holy Spirit assured the apostle, 'Be not afraid,
…for I am with thee; …I have much people in this city'
(Acts 18:8-11). The supposition, 'If therefore the whole Church be come
together' (1 Cor. 14:23), cannot be held to assert that there was only
one congregation. The same expression might be employed regarding an
assembly convened in any of our capitals, from all parts whither the
Church has spread. Such general terms might be employed, although
portions or representatives of the Church alone could be present.
Were there no express statements on which to found, those that declare
that much people were added to the many who had believed, with the
large number of teachers, would strengthen the probability, as in the
case of Antioch. Here, however, the plurality of congregations in this
one Church cannot be questioned. Not only was there a Church in that
seaport of Corinth, and one in the city proper, but that one is
expressly divided by the pen of inspiration into a plurality. And yet
that plurality was governed by one united body of elders, and was
addressed as 'the Church of God which is at Corinth.'
Internal evidence proves that the first Epistle to the Corinthians came
from Ephesus. Paul there writes, 'I will tarry at Ephesus till
Pentecost' (1 Cor. 16:8). The appendages to the Epistles were the
production of a later and corrupt age, and are consequently
untrustworthy. That epistle was not written at Philippi but at Ephesus.
From thence Paul sends the salutations of Ephesian Christians to those
of Corinth. In this connection he states, 'The Churches of Asia salute
you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the Church
that is in their house' (1 Cor. 16:19). The reason of this strong
salutation is found in the fact that Aquila and Priscilla had recently
come with Paul from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18:18,19). Their
occupation was tentmaking. They required large apartments for their
business, and these, wherever they sojourned, were opened as a regular
place of meeting for Christians. In their house a company of believers
met together as an organised company in the name and service of the
Lord. The salutation from the Church that was in their house at
Ephesus,was evidently from a regular society assembling there. It was
not from a religious family, which in New Testament usage is ever
termed 'a household.' It could not be from stray individuals, who came
once and perhaps never again. If so, the Corinthians could not tell
from whom the salutation came. This, then, was one congregation,
however small, in the house of these tentmakers.
But that could not be the entire Church of Ephesus, which was one of
the most flourishing of apostolic times. To Ephesus, one of the chief
centres of Eastern heathenism, came the Apostle Paul on his second
missionary tour. On his third journey he remained three months,
disputing and persuading concerning the kingdom of God. After the
separation of the unbelieving Jews, he disputed daily in the school of
one Tyrannus. Thus 'by the space of three years' Paul 'ceased not to
warn every one night and day with tears; teaching not only publicly,
but from house to house.' Ephesus was highly favoured: in addition to
those already mentioned, Apollos, Timothy, Tychicus, and some twelve
other gifted men, there sowed the good seed of the kingdom. It is also
supposed that Ephesus was the chief residence of the Apostle John in
his latter days. The seed thus sown found in Ephesus a kindly soil.
Notwithstanding the most determined opposition, its roots struck deep.
A large and flourishing Church was there established. The success was
so great that Demetrius declared to his fellow-workmen, 'Not only this
our craft is in danger, but also that the temple of the great goddess
Diana should be despised; 'then, the whole city was filled with
confusion.' And no wonder; for 'this Paul persuaded and turned away
much people, saying, that they be no gods which are made with hands'
(Acts 19:7,26-29). These statements evince – First, That the
silver shrinemakers were filled with reasonable alarm, in which the
population sympathised. Their idolatry was in danger of being
overthrown. And, secondly, That such a numerous body of believers could
not fully carry out the purposes of a Church of Christ, unless
organised in separate companies.
Then, it must be noted again, that in his address to the elders of the
Ephesian Church at Miletus, Paul exhorted them 'to take heed to all the
flock, and to feed the Church of God.' These elders were recognised as
possessing a joint-oversight in or over the whole Church. No other
overseers or bishops are recognised or charged as divinely authorised
to govern the Ephesian Church but these elders. How far the Ephesian
Church extended is another question. The epistle of Paul, though
addressed primarily 'to the Church in Ephesus', contains so little that
is peculiar to that Church, and so much that is common to all the
Gentile Churches, that it is generally believed to have had a much
wider range. If so, then the Ephesian Church comprehended more than the
residents in the city, and of necessity there must have been several
congregations as the combined 'flock over the which the Holy Ghost' had
constituted that body of elders the governors. But leaving this
question out of sight, there remains, as in former instances
Firstly, The high probability that the Ephesian Church consisted of a
plurality of congregations, from the large number of its members and
teachers. And, secondly, The fact that one flourishing Church was
recognised as 'the Church in Ephesus', while there was another Church
in a house. Manifestly here a plurality of congregations constituted
one Church under one administration.
One passage brings the whole matter as to this place into a focus.
Writing to the Colossians, Paul exhorts, 'Salute the brethren which are
in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the Church which is in his house. And
when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the
Church of the Laodiceans' (Col. 4:15,16). Three parties are here
saluted – (1.) The Laodicean brethren; (2.) Nymphas; (3.) The
Church in the house of Nymphas. The close connection of the passage
shows that this Church in the house existed in Laodicea. Thus, One
church or congregation, the brethren in Laodicea, is distinguished from
another in the dwelling of Nymphas; and then both together are spoken
of as 'the Church of the Laodiceans', in which the Epistle to the
Colossians is expressly ordered to be read. A plurality of
congregations constituted that Laodicean Church.
Aquila and Priscilla had gone to Rome. There, as at Ephesus, they
opened their dwelling for the assemblies of the company of the
faithful. Possibly in these times of difficulty and danger, these
zealous and loving ones went thither for that very end. Paul wrote of
them, 'to all that be in Rome', the 'beloved of God.' In his epistle,
he sends greeting to Aquila and Priscilla, declaring that they were his
'helpers in Christ Jesus, who have for my life laid down their own
necks, unto whom not only I give thanks, but all the Churches of the
Gentiles.' Then comes the greeting to 'the Church that is in their
house' (Rom. 16:3-6). But that could be only a portion of the early
Church of Rome' whose 'faith was spoken of throughout the whole world.'
In addition to that assembly of Christians in that dwelling, Paul sends
special salutations to some twenty-four believers of note at Rome. He
further salutes two households, 'brethren which are with' (five
persons), 'and all the saints which are with' (other five) (Rom. 16.)
These salutations evidently are for the members of the larger Church at
Rome. Whether these brethren which were with Asyncritus, etc., and all
the saints which were with Philologus, etc., were two distinct
congregations, as is probable, the Church at Rome was at least composed
of two congregations – that in the dwelling of the tentmakers,
and that to which these other parties were attached. If they had
comprised but one fellowship, there would have been no necessity for
saluting them with such distinctions. The small congregation is
carefully distinguished from all the persons addressed. Thus, in Rome
also, particular Churches were included in the government of one united
Church.
There is, then, evidence that in various localities there were small stated assemblies of Christians in private dwellings, which were regarded as regular churches or congregations, and that these were regarded as portions of the larger body. The whole are addressed as 'the Church' of that one locality, and particular directions are given to each, implying the common associated government of the eldership or presbytery. This evidence is not only highly probable, as in the case of Antioch, rising up almost to perfect certainty, as in Jerusalem, but the fact is plainly stated. In the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Laodicea, and Rome, that plurality under one government is clearly and fully presented. These four instances remove any doubt as to the two former, and present the principle applicable to all the apostolic Churches, and the precedent on which all other Churches are to be organised and modelled. Apart from some such arrangement, it is impossible to escape from a feeling that these large bodies of professing Christians must have been masses of confusion and perplexity. Let us receive these plain statements of Scripture, and this feeling is completely removed. Every Church, however large in each locality, is now beheld illustrating the truth that 'God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace', and that this is specially manifest 'in all the Churches of the saints.'