same promises. It is superfluous to prove that it is a fellowship of the most affectionate feeling, and that such a communion, arising from obedience to the truth as it is in Jesus, must be unity, and unity in its completion.

III. Now it remains to be observed, that however little it may be comprehended by Christians in general, the Scriptures certainly contemplate a union of true believers in society. Evidences of this fact are contained in several passages of Scripture, which mention the unity in express terms. (Rom. xii. 5: 1 Cor. xii. 13: Eph. iv. 4: Col. iii. 15.) Christians are included, according to these authorities, in one body. The doctrine is very instructively implied in Phil. i. 27. But other texts are more explicit, in either enlarging on the idea of unity, or arguing on its assumption. Of the former kind are the following, taken from 1 Cor. xii. 12, 27: Eph. iv. 16. It will be immediately perceived, that in these places Christians, as members of a church, are compared to the limbs as members of a body. "As the body is one," says St. Paul to the Corinthians, "and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body; so also is Christ. by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles; for the body is not one member, but many; and ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." In his Epistle to the Ephesians, after specifying the uses of the ministry, and its subserviency to the growth of christian unity; "From Christ," he adds, "the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effeo

For

tual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." The same unity is very spiritually inculcated under an allusion to the bread partaken of at the Lord's supper. "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? for we, being many, are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Cor. x. 17.) This communion is indeed an emblem of unity in both society and love.

A farther proof of the same unity is deducible from the practice of excommunication. Supposing, what is generally admitted, that the primitive churches had apostolic authority for excluding its reprobate members from the ceremonies of worship and communion, by way of punishment, it immediately follows, as a necessary consequence, that there could exist no separate society of Christians in which those men could be received, according to the divine intention, and enjoy the privileges of the christian church. For if it were so, the apostolic authority for the church to punish by excommunication were nugatory. The simple fact of punishing a man, by inspired mandate, with excommunication, implies that there was no separate institution where he could be admitted in the character of a christian worshipper. The church, in short, was one society.

The revelation of the divine displeasure against divisions among Christians, is a branch of the same argument. It is hardly possible to name a single error which is more strongly reprobated in the word of God, than separation into parties or sects. The principle of separation among Christians is far from

On

encouraged by that general assertion of Christ, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (Matt. xii. 25.) It was in consideration of the factious spirit and conduct of the Corinthians that St. Paul addresses to them this earnest exhortation: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor. i. 10, 12, 13.) the same account he adds, (1 Cor. iii. 1, 3, 4,) that he "could not speak unto them as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, for ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? for while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal?" This is awful language. And besides these admonitions, the passage in Gal. v. 19—21, possesses this character in so high a degree, that it behoves all denominations of Christians to see well that they do not fall under its condemnation. Among the works of the flesh, of which it is written, "they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God," stands in our English translation "seditions ;" in the place of this word "seditions" should be substituted “divisions,” meaning divisions among Christians into parties. (See Note A.) Thus divisions of this nature are one species of those works of the flesh which

D

they who commit shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Now I intend not in this stage of our inquiry to determine the locality of this one body. Without limiting it to any individual society, I shall offer a few arguments, by no means the strongest that could be adduced, but nevertheless such as I deem sufficient for the present, to prove that the unity contemplated is not confined to single congregations, but is designed to embrace the entire christian world. It is possible that some of the texts which we have quoted may in their primary signification respect an assembly of worshippers in one place of audience. I will even suppose, for the sake of argument, that, according to the opinion of the Congregationalists, there are but two meanings of the word church in Scripture—that it signifies either an individual congregation, or believers in the aggregate dispersed throughout the universe. I will further suppose for a moment, on the same condition, that any one of the denominations of Christians is that which is most strictly scriptural in its form of ecclesiastical institution. The Independents will be forward to assert their own scripturality. The Baptists and Methodists and others will of course be equally disposed to claim the same honour for them.. selves. Whatever ought to be the constitution of the christian church, I will endeavour to make it appear that the unity in point of society should be universal.

This I think can be done very briefly. There is not an independent who will dispute that the Scriptures intend at least congregational unity; that all

individuals in a church considered as a congregation, are, if they are true Christians, members of Christ as well as members in particular of that one body; that they ought all, as servants of Christ, to partake of the same bread, observe the same christian worship, and be united as brethren in christian fellowship : they are all of them, in short, members of one society. It is needless in this place to attempt to describe more particularly the spiritual or scriptural connexion between them. We assume that there are social ties which bind them together, agreeable to the divine will; but we leave them undefined. We suppose them united according to Scripture, as far as Scripture has prescribed the mode of union. We impute to them the essential properties, whatever they may be, of corporate unity; and it is equally certain, that every true Christian living is regarded in Scripture as a member of Christ. Now then it appears to be an immediate and self-evident consequence from these premises, that every individual and true Christian whatever, has spiritually and virtually a right to be a member of that congregation. We know the physical impossibilities to all believers scattered throughout the world worshipping together. We are not speaking of its actual practicability for the world, but only of the abstract right. There ought not to be any spiritual impediment to community. The congregations of worshippers ought to be so united within themselves, that any follower of Christ might, as opportunity offered, or as circumstances required, see the way open in his conscience to their worship and communion; might join them as a member of their body because he