An eminent theologian once said that we were fairly in possession of all doctrinal truth, except that the doctrine of the Church was still not clearly understood. Without laying claim to knowing anything yet as we ought to know it, or boasting of our fuller knowledge of the great doctrines of the word of God, we may truly admit the second part of the statement:we do need a clearer, simpler apprehension of God's thought and revelation as to His Church, the Assembly of God.

It is not the purpose of this paper to enlarge upon the great foundation truths of the Assembly. Those for whom it is written realize in good measure its unique place in the counsels of God, in the Mystery, " which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph. 3 :5). This would carry us far beyond our present purpose-into the searching out the character, extent, organism, responsibilities and fixture of the Assembly. It is only one portion of this great truth at which we are to look:

The Relation Between the Local Assembly and the Church at Large.

As indicated in the title of our paper, there are three views as to this relationship, respectively accepted by many who otherwise hold much precious truth in common. Because of divergence of views upon this matter, there is necessarily divergence of practice, resulting almost necessarily in alienation and mutual division among the beloved people of God. If therefore we can take up each of these views, ascertain as exactly as we can its nature, and test, by the word of God, recognizing all that is of God in it, refusing all that is contrary to, or that fails to accept any feature of divine truth-if in addition to this we seek to gather any other truths from the word of God bearing upon this subject- may we not hope to arrive at some stable and broad foundation upon which we may with confidence invite all the saints of God to take their stand.

Let it not be thought that any claim is to be made of some new and wonderful discovery, any revolutionizing theory to disturb the beloved saints, or any pride of position to be fostered. I trust that this will become apparent as we proceed with our examination. May He who is the Head of His Church graciously lead us by His word and Spirit into His truth more and more fully.

The three general views of assembly relationship which are to be examined-with no desire to brand with any offensive epithet-we will speak of as:(1) Local Sufficiency; (2) Metropolitan Control; (3) Local Independency. The first and third of these need a further characterization to distinguish them, which will appear as we proceed.

I. Local Sufficiency.-This view of the local assembly claims that its actions are bound in heaven, and therefore bound upon the people of God everywhere; that as the Lord is in the midst of His assembly, whatever is done has His authority and must be bowed to; that there is no appeal from the decision of the assembly. While absolute infallibility is not claimed, absolute authority is; so that an assembly action, even if wrong, is to be obeyed.

The Scriptures used to support this view are in general such as the following :"Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven " (Matt. 18:18); "For where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst of them "(Matt. 18:20); " Receive ye the Holy Ghost:whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (Jno. 20:22, 23); "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us " (Acts 15:28); " In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan " (i Cor. 5 :4, 5); " To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also" (2 Cor. 2 :10); " The house of 'God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (i Tim. 3 :15). Other scriptures are doubtless made use of, but these will suffice to show the general thought.

Let us now ask what elements of truth are there in this view. It is manifest that just in so far as the scriptures just quoted do support the view, that view is correct. We may be sure at the outset that no error is attractive to the Spirit-taught soul. Therefore there is frequently, we may say always, some element of truth in every system of error. It is the truth which attracts the child of God.

The Church is the house of God, the depository of His truth:"The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are " (i Cor. 3 :17). The Lord's presence in the midst of His gathered saints is a reality. Their acts as so gathered are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and have all the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a great responsibility entrusted to the Church, and a correspondingly binding authority connected with its carrying out of those responsibilities. He who despises, despises not men, but God.

Have we not, then, reached a conclusion at the very outset of our examination ? Let us then seek to carry it out. But we add a word which modifies all that has been said. It is as so gathered that the saints have the Lord's authority and the Spirit's guidance. This is no mere formal, external gathering; it means a true subjection of heart and will to our Lord and His word; it means lowliness, and refusal of the flesh. To assume an authority without this is the very opposite of godliness.

The theory we are examining claims some inherent authority in the Church, apart from righteousness and subjection to the word of God. All authority rests upon God's word, which is the expression of His mind and will. No claims, however great, no numbers, no succession, no gifts-nothing can for one moment take the place of the word of God, which is righteousness. To attempt to link the Lord's holy name and authority with unrighteousness is iniquity. This is what marks Rome.

The primary attitude of the Church to Christ is obedience :"As the Church is subject unto Christ " (Eph. 5:24). How monstrous then is the thought of claiming His authority for disobedience. It claims infallible authority for the Church, for fallible man, and thus fosters pride and paves the way for all manner of tyranny and oppression. It puts a premium on carnality, and does away with the necessity on the part of every one to be exercised in the presence of God. Instead of this, the conscience is brought into the presence of man, and bondage instead of freedom is the result. No words can too strongly characterize the system of which we speak. Thank God that even where some elements of it may exist, there is a good measure of subjection to God and following His word, which partly neutralizes the effect of the principle. But if the principle is held, it will assert itself, and that of which we speak will be manifest.

We conclude therefore that the principle of local authority and sufficiency, has elements in it which tend to promote haughtiness, intolerance, clericalism, and above all, to set aside the supremacy of Christ alone, and the sufficiency and binding authority of His word, and thus to have the conscience under the power of man rather than of God.

2. Metropolitan Control.-Few, if any, who know at all the truth of the one Body, would contend for absolute local supremacy. There has therefore arisen, in a gradual way, the practice of a kind of oversight by leading and gifted non-resident brethren, who in this way seek to guide, and in some measure review the actions of the local assemblies. No doubt this originated in a desire to secure uniformity of action, especially in crowded cities or thickly-settled sections. Beginning in a simple way, with the thought of fellowship, prayer and counsel, it gradually became part of a regular order. The doctrine of "the church in a city "was formulated, and quite a complete system of oversight was established. The doctrine in question is that there can be but one assembly in a city, although there may be many in a district or province. The local assembly therefore is not competent, according to this, to act without the concurrence of all the other assemblies in the same city. And this united action constitutes the Assembly's decision.

In a less definite way, brethren of weight and experience would naturally be consulted about matters in the vicinity where they might be, and gradually all, or many, local matters might be taken to a place where there were a goodly number of such brethren. It is easy to see how such a practice might result in what we have called metropolitan oversight.

Let us now see what scriptures were used to support this view. As to the general oversight of which we have spoken, all such scriptures as speak of the "multitude of counselors" are applicable- the unity of the body and of the Spirit (Eph. 4). Perhaps the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) might be considered as authorizing "elder brethren" to exercise a general supervision, while, as has been already said, the doctrine of "the Church in a city " has been formulated with great exactness and strictness. It has been claimed that we read of "the churches of Galatia " (Gal. i :2); of Judea, (i:22); of Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:i); of Asia (i Cor. 16:19), etc.-but never of the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, etc. (see salutations in the various epistles of Paul).

Space forbids us going at much length into this interesting subject, but we point to a few truths which lead us to guard against accepting in toto any view which establishes what this practically is-an oligarchy.

Most certainly we have not a word to say against the manifest fact that many of the scriptures used to impress us with the unity of the body of Christ, and the necessity of endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit, are most important in that connection. We also heartily accept the principle that age, experience and piety are most valuable and necessary for the help of all the assemblies of God. But when a formal doctrine is promulgated that in a city there is but one assembly (no matter how many meeting-places there may be), we question whether the scriptures used to establish this really do so.

A local assembly is, "Where two or three are gathered to My name." Such a company most certainly has all the functions necessary for carrying on all the activities, and meeting all the responsibilities of the assembly. There is no higher act than properly remembering the Lord in the breaking of bread. This presupposes the company has judged itself both individually and collectively. If any wickedness has been present, it must be put away; if any godly persons, scripturally entitled to reception, are present, they must be received. Any company therefore competent to break bread is competent to exercise all assembly functions.

It will be asked, What about the scriptures which speak of but one assembly in a city, and of many in a province ? We reply that there doubtless was but one assembly in a city, as they were not such immense places as we have now, and God's work had but just begun. Each assembly would at first include all the saints in the city; and even if later need called for two or more places of meeting, each of these, as representing all the Church of God, would be called the Assembly in that place. Indeed in Romans (chap. 16) there are indications of separate companies meeting at different points (see vers. 5, 10, 14, 15). There can be no spiritual significance in the bounds of a "city." A company near the outskirts may be far closer to another company a short distance beyond than to a meeting on the other side of the city. Of course, if for any reason counsel is needed, there should be the utmost simplicity and freedom in giving and receiving it. But at this we will look presently.

In this connection, we must also speak further of an assembly order which while not based on the doctrine of " a church in a city," is quite similar to it. This has been spoken of as a "committee of delegates," composed of older and experienced brethren in the general vicinity or elsewhere, who are called in to decide as to local matters. We can only repeat what has already been said, that the local assembly is a distinct unit, responsible for the administration of matters committed to its care.

Let us now ask in a little more detail what elements of truth there are in this theory of metropolitan oversight. First, in whatever measure it recognizes the unity of the Spirit in the whole Church of God, and seeks to carry out His leadings, it is right. The fellowship of the saints is not an "inside" and an "outside" fellowship, but one and the same throughout the whole body. In whatever measure also in which the gifts of pastor and teacher are seen to be for the whole assembly of God, and the counsel of men of experience is welcomed-in such directions this doctrine has elements of truth which none can ignore.

But, as a system of doctrine, there are marked unscriptural features which we cannot accept. It is practically a form of Presbyterian oversight, in which little or no room is left for the individual conscience, save of the leaders. With the best motives, this fails to exercise the whole assembly, and leads saints to look for some decision from without rather than to the Lord alone. The effect will eventually be seen in a general legislation, rather than the simplicity of each assembly acting in the fear of God and in the unity of the Spirit. Room is given for private influence rather than public exercise, and leaders have an undue prominence, which savors of clerisy.

(To be continued.) S. R.