2. Aspects of the Church
Rev A W MacColl
The Church in its twofold character as visible and invisible. We come now to consider the Church in its twofold character as visible and invisible. These terms do not imply that there are two different Churches “but rather the same Church under two different characters” (p 31). The invisible Church consists of the whole number of the elect; whereas the visible Church consists of all those who profess the faith of Christ, together with their children. There is a real distinction between them, but also a real connection (p 36).
Two important points must be borne in mind here: firstly, “the Church invisible stands, with respect to its members, in an inward and spiritual
1The first section, last month, of this Theological Conference paper was an introduction to the subject. All references in the text are to James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Banner of Truth reprint, 2015.
relationship to Christ, whereas the Church visible stands to Him in an outward relation only” (p 33). Bannerman goes on, “Admit that some external framework of privileges and ordinances has been erected by Christ around His own elect people in this world, and you are led directly to the idea of a visible society, distinguished from the invisible by the outward form which it bears, and the outward relation in which it stands to Christ” (p 32).
Secondly, “the Church invisible is made up of true believers, and of none else; whereas the Church visible is composed of those who outwardly profess their faith in Christ, and may include not only true believers, but also hypocrites” (p 34). Visible Church membership brings real responsibilities and real privileges though it comes short of the inward, saving relationship which characterises members of the invisible Church. The visible Church will ever be mixed in this world – like the field with tares and wheat. Only at the end of the world will the invisible Church stand disclosed as a communion of the elect only (p 36).
The distinction between the visible Church and the invisible Church is very important if we would arrive at a correct understanding of the scriptural teaching regarding the Church. Great errors and confusion have arisen because of confounding the Bible’s statements on the Church by applying what refers to the visible Church to the invisible Church and vice versa. Bannerman quotes the German ecclesiastical historian Neander, to the effect that the fundamental error of both Cyprian and the Novatians, of Augustine as well as the Donatists, was confounding the notions of the invisible and the visible Church (p 43).
The Church in its twofold character as catholic and local. Both the invisible and the visible aspects of the Church share in the characteristics of being catholic and, at the same time, local. Catholic, of course, means “not confined to any place or people” (p 46). It stands in contrast to the Old Testament Church in this respect, which was largely confined to the land and people of Israel. The universality of the invisible Church is through the universality of the one Spirit, embracing all true disciples of Christ everywhere. The New Testament Church is limited to no one country and has the great commission to make disciples of all nations. The unity of the invisible Church is the fact that the invisible Church consists of a binding into one of all to whom the Spirit has been given (p 47). It is local in that it exists everywhere true disciples are found.
Now the visible Church is also catholic or universal. Whereas the bond of union in the invisible Church is the fellowship of the one Spirit embracing all, in the visible Church “the bond of union among its members is a common public profession, and an outward federal relationship to Christ” (p 48). Dif-
ferences in the visible Church because of distance, language, administration, ceremonies and worship “is a separation accidental and not essential, and cannot affect the fact of that higher unity that belongs to them as knit together in one profession of faith in Christ, and included together in the bond of an external covenant” (p 49).
Some important points arise from this. First of all, members and office-bearers of separate Churches are members and office-bearers in the universal Church of Christ on earth. Those who are familiar with James Durham’s commentary on Revelation may recall the emphasis that Durham lays upon this point in his essay on the relation of ministers to particular congregations.
Secondly, it follows that schism or causeless separation in the Church is a great evil. Christ intended the visible Church to be catholic and one; and indeed it would be one were it not for sinful infirmities of its members. Separation, nevertheless, may be a duty, and those who are thus compelled actually maintain, and do not infringe, the unity of the Church. To cause schism is to set ourselves against the will and desire of Christ.
Furthermore, we must bear in mind that the principles of unity in the invisible Church and visible Church are different; one is higher and spiritual while the other is external and formal. The Church of Rome, however, confuses the two and claims all for herself. Again, the visible Church can only approximately aim at the unity of the invisible Church as the ideal.
Christ promised that His Church will never cease to exist, despite every assault of the kingdom of darkness (Mt 16:18). This perpetuity of the Church belongs to the Church universally and not to any local part of it; the Church may be less or more visible at some times and in some places than at others.
Likewise, Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13-14) would preserve the truth in the Church is a general one and does not belong exclusively to any particular branch of the Church. This indefectibility of the Church from error applies to the Church universally and not to any local part of it. It is “one of the lying cheats practised by the Church of Antichrist, first to transmute the promise of indefectibility into that of infallibility, and then to appropriate it to itself” (p 57).
In its relation to the world around it, the Church is to be Christ’s witness and not Christ’s substitute or vicar as we find in the Roman Catholic view. Bannerman quotes one Romanist theologian, Möhler, who goes as far as to assert that the Church is a “permanent incarnation” of the Son of God. Picking up from this dreadful error, Bannerman warns us that the Church is not to be regarded as a substitute for the Spirit of God, but rather it is ordained by God to be the “instrument of the Spirit”, the outward means
whereby supernatural grace is channelled in a spiritual manner to believers. The Roman doctrine of ex opere operato,2 he believes, is fruitful of some of Rome’s deadliest errors and makes the ordinances of Christ to become mere charms (pp 90-96).
We should briefly note that Bannerman held a distinct view on the actual marks of the Church. In contrast with the Reformers, such as Calvin and Knox, who held that the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments and the exercise of discipline were the three marks of a true Church, Bannerman contends that the only true mark of the Church is its bearing witness to the Truth. In contrast to the Roman Catholic view of the marks, he writes, “The Church was established for the sake of the truth and not the truth for the sake of the Church” (p 64). All the other marks or notes of the Church flow from the profession of the truth. As an individual Christian is fundamentally distinguished by his profession of Christ, so likewise is the Church as a body. He holds this view because he maintains that a true Church may be found where defective administration of the sacraments and inadequate discipline exist. He prefers to think of these as indications of the well-being of the Church, rather than of its essential existence.