in which glorious regeneration they themselves, when enlightened by The Spirit, were made the willing, and joyful instruments. They thus saw before them the work to effect which they were called to the Ministry of the Word, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven upon them; and the work too, which we bless God they completed! Then was the Prophetic Harps unstrung, and the distant notes of coming dainties replaced by the mirth and joyful music that accompanied the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The guests went into the Marriage, even while those that had been bidden refused to enter; the Bride had then made hersel ready; the friends of the Bridegroom had served at the ceremony; and it is our privilege and blessing to be the children of this Holy Union.-Born not of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, to the incorruptible inheritance which, unlike the literal and carnal Canaan, shall never fade away. Trusting these observations may be satisfactory to your Correspondent and your readers, I am, Dear, Sir, Advocate. ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, To the Editor of the Christian numbers necessary to constitute a Christian Assembly. Unfortunately Epaphroditus leaves us completely in the dark on the subject. Only one thing is clear, that such an honourable distinction does not according to this writer's ideas belong to the "two or three," since they are denounced under the same category with national and provincial Churches, though it must be confessed standing in very insignificant contrast. I shall be glad of an explanation of a statement made by Epaphroditus in some notes of a discourse "On Christ as the Foundation of the Church," which appeared in this month's Magazine. The erroneous assertion to which I refer is with regard to his definition of the word Church. After exposing some fallacies on the subject he proceeds to notice what he terms an error no less destructive to the distinguishing character of Christ's Kingdom," that of making "two or three occasionally meeting together for prayer or reading the Scriptures to be a Christian Church, and so observe the Lord's Supper as well as every other social ordinance." on seeing this idea still further characterised as a "whim" and vagary" our curiosity is fairly excited to find out the talismanic jectures upon a matter which ought to be so plain and simple; for if "two or three cannot constitute a Church we might double or treble the number, and still be without the pale of the Christian fold. In the absence however of any proof from the writer, of the correctness of his statement, I shall treat it as an assertion and endeavour to try how much it is worth by the standard of the New Testament. It is admitted that a Church means an Assembly, this of course according to the popular acceptation of the term would imply a number, much beyond that referred to. But if by an Assembly we are to understand a meeting of individuals plurality I apprehend is all that is strictly conveyed in the term, the fewness or largeness of the numbers does not make it less, or more an Assembly. In the New Testament we are not told in a formal manner how many or how few are necessary to the existence of a Church, yet we have quite sufficient to guide us in the matter, and to set at rest every question of this kind. Thus though we have the Church at Jerusalem numbering in the first instance at least one hundred and twenty, we have the case of the Brethren who assembled at the house of Lydia, at Phillippi, and the church who met in the house of Priscilla and Aquilla, in both cases implying a very limited number. But to place the matter beyond all doubt, the Saviour declares Matthew 17-20, that "where two or three are gathered together (avrnyμevo) in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Here then we have "two or three" met together in the name of Christ spoken of as constituting an assembly. And not only so but an assembly more highly honoured " to than that first temple which was filled with the glory of God. Here "the messenger of the Covenant graciously appears, and as the Disciples when journeying Emmaus enjoyed the personal converse and presence of Christ, so these two or three waiting followers will be blessed with his spiritual presence, seen not, it is true, with the eye of sense, but the vision of faith. I am aware however, Epaphroditus may object to this construction of the passage, and probably he will say that the church spoken of in the 17th verse of the same chapter and the two or three in the 20th verse are evidently distinct, therefore he may say the two or three are not a Church. It is no doubt true that the word Church as used in the above passage will bear a more extended application, or at least embrace more than the numbers referred to, since they are required to establish any charge before the Church. Still the question might occur, what becomes of those who remain in a more isolated position, are they therefore because precluded from the society of a more numerous body of Christians without the Christian pale, are they not though meeting together in Christ's name a Church? This question I apprehend is satisfactorily answered by the Redeemer himself in the 19th verse, where he declares that if "two of his Disciples shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them," assigning as a reason in the passage already quoted that he is in the midst, or present with his followers met together in his name, however limited may be their numbers. Should Epaphroditus however, object that the word ournyμevol does not convey the idea of a church I may be allowed to ask him in what respects it does not! And would refer him as a proof that it does to James ii. 2, where we find the same word used as a noun (ovvaywyn) for the word Church or Assembly, and I need not remind him that εκκλησια is translated in precisely the same way in other passages. In what, then, we may ask Epaphroditus, was the disqualification of the "two or three" to be constituted a Christian Church consist? Is it the want of numbers! Christ has promised his presence with the smallest number. Is it the want of Elders? The quotations made by Epaphroditus prove the existence of Christian Churches in the times of the Apostles without Elders. Is it the want of ordinances? What ordinance cannot they observe? None at all events necessary! None in which Christ does not make himself known to his people. Looking strictly at the meaning of the word Church, viz.:-assembly and bearing in mind the Saviour's declaration already referred to we are saved from those useless speculations which Epaphroditus's assertion fairly involves. The gifts which may be " wanting" in a Christian Church are one thing, the existence of the Church itself is another, and could we suppose the followers of Christ to become almost extinct in the world and reduced so low as only to comprehend the most limited number, still Christ would have a Church against which the gates of hell should not prevail, and the handful of corn on the mountain top should bear a rich and abundant harvest. The existence of Christ's Kingdom never did and never will depend upon mere numbers, mere gifts, or official services. They are useful in their place but no more. The same principle which would lead us to place mere numbers or official characters between the Church and Christian Ordinances lays a fair foundation for the establishment of a system of Priest-craft on the one hand, or paralyses all exertion on the other. A gorgeous temple, a priestly ritual, and costly sacrifices were necessary under the old economy, but under that benign dispensation which now exists, we have a more full revelation of the divine character-The Christian Temple is above-The Sanctuary is heavenly-The holy of holies the presence of God, before whom Jesus our High Priest now appears. "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth," and wherever that worship is rendered whether by many or few, the worshippers are accepted, and their prayers and praises ascend perfumed with that fragrant incense offered before the throne of God by Jesus the great Apostle and High Priest of our profession. August 22nd, 1851. EPAPHRAS. "It is always presumed that whatever appears in the Christian Advocate is open to animadversion, and to fair and honest criticism."-Editor-July, page 159. MR. EDITOR:-In your March number, I asked for a plain paraphrase of James ii. 14 to the end, and also an explanation of Matt. v. 40? The object I then professed to be seeking, was the instruction of the ignorant on these points. One class of persons whom I wish your Magazine to be the means of enlightening, are those teachers, (many of whom have great influence among christians,) who say, "It is plain from the Scripture, that a man may have a dead faith, or a belief in God similar to the faith of devils, and yet never possess vital religion." "Men may have a belief of the truth which is not of the fruit of the Spirit, and by this natural truth they may believe that Jesus is the Son of God."-Remarks on James ii., and the people who receive these statements for truth. The other class of persons are such as are at times heard to say, "I would not like to put him in the Court, I never did put any one there," and so allow themselves to be defrauded by those, who can but wont pay. Their scruples arising out of either false or true views of Matt. v. 40. These are not mere Juniors, or persons very ignorant of Scripture truth; for a Scotch Baptist Elder, of Chester, named Richardson, (if I have the whole story correct,) once refused to give evidence against one who was caught in the act of robbing him. And your August number states, that the late A. Carson would not prosecute persons who had laid a plot for "burning his habitation. Your correspondents Rho and Philalethes have attempted to supply what I asked for, and I thank them. They have added to my difficulties, by making it necessary for me to occupy the very unenviable position of a critic. I take it reluctantly, (and merely because nobody else does,) yet not without hope that both of them will see that it is only an act of kindness to winnow away each others chaff; if in our manner of doing it, we imitate him whose fan is in his hand, yet the "smoking flax shall he not quench." Like most expositors of James 2, Rho has altered the query, “Can faith save him?" to "Can such faith as that save him? Now this alteration appears to me to make the reference to Abraham quite useless. If James did not refer to Abraham, to prove that no sort of faith can save in the sense in which the word save is used in ver. 14. I would ask, why is the reference made at all? It could not be to shew that a spurious faith cannot save, because Abraham's was not a spurious faith. Further on, Rho says, "Perhaps thou believest that there is one God." "Demons believe this." The recorded confession of demons proves that they believed much more than in the existence of one God. "We know thee (Jesus) who thou art, the holy one of God"-Mark i, 24. James did not admit that the man believed at all. "Tis undeniable that he said, Thou believest that there is one God"; but this is no admission any more than "Thou knowest that I reap where I have not sown," was an admission of the truth of the slothful servant's charge, see Matt, 25, 26. This appears to me to be James's argument, If thou dost believe that there is one God, what does it profit THEE here? thy faith cannot shew that thou art saved, for even Abraham, that giant believer, and the father of the faithful, was justified by works when the angel said, "now I know that thou fearest God." If Abraham's great faith could not justify or save, (manifestively) how can thy faith, of which thou boasteth, so do it. I may be asked here, why the faith of demons was introduced, if it was not, as Rho has intimated, to shew James's hearer, that his faith must go beyond theirs? I cannot tell, unless it was for this purpose, -to stop his boasting about his faith, instead of the object of faith. "Let him that glorieth, glory in the Lord." I may be asked, also, what "faith without works" means? These are the very questions I wanted answers to. Well-I think James means to say, Faith is only an internal exercise, therefore as regards the manifestation of character, it is dead by itself; dead only in this respect. I shall be glad to hear the opinion of my fellow-passengers. (The Advocate has been compared to a stage coach.)—Can Macrobius help us here? I turn now to Philalethes, and ask, Why have you represented me as a dreamer about the extent of the law? Why have you compared my question to this:-"To what extent ought I to shew mercy to the poor? (A very different one indeed.) And why have you asserted, (your concluding remark implies it,) that I know nothing of the grand object, meaning, and accomplishment of the perfect law? If you do not either establish these things, or acknowledge that you have first misunderstood and then misrepresented me, will not more timid ones, (the little ones) be deterred, by a fear of a reply from Philalethes, from sending their sometimes very important queries, and so much of the usefulness of the Advocate be lost? I would ask you also what "but the beam in thine own eye" prevented you from detecting the impure lip, (as you call it your strictures on modern theology) in the July number. Beware, Philalethes, for the stand by spirit in a more hideous form than that which Isabella and the others so scared you with, is within your own doors. Do you say I exaggerate? Read your own article on the law of God. Begin with "Let not your correspondent imagine from these prefatory remarks, that my purpose is to tell him and his friends " &c., and read on to any thing less, HE will find but a vain attempt to warm himself at the sparks of the fire of HIS OWN kindling." Then read your concluding remark, "Your correspondent," &c. Mark the lofty tone that pervade these portions, and note the I's and h's. This done, read page 152 of the Advocate for July, 1850, noticing the italics, and I am satisfied that you will find additional proof of your words at the bottom of the page which I will quote. The proud heart of man can stoop to think of this, as being the position of his fellow, or even as having once been his own, but to say that it must continue so to his dying hour, is indeed a hard saying." You will see also that your own language is in agreement with, "Here am I, the speaker, possessing something of which you the render or hearer are utterly destitute. I stand here, (hy grace, I admit,) you stand there," page 151. July, 1850, instead of being regulated by your views of the law of God. With much of your article I agree. but it is no answer |