Page images
PDF
EPUB

POINTS TO BE PROVED.

19

Apostolic Church. Out of respect, therefore, to the feelings of those who entertain this opinion, we shall confine our examination entirely to such points as may be made out by Scripture, citing the Fathers merely in confirmation of these, and as proof of what was the Constitution of the Church, in the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles. And for the same reason, we shall confine ourselves to the time when, it is acknowledged by all, that the Church remained uncorrupt; that is, to the two first centuries. The full object of our inquiry is, (1,) to ascertain, What is the Scriptural account of the Apostolic Church? and, (2,) What is the historical account of the primitive Church, to the end of the second century?

Before we proceed to examine the evidence in the case, we must acquaint ourselves with three things: (1,) The things to be proved; (2) The manner of proving them; and, (3,) The testimony by which they are to be proved. But in every subject which men discuss, or examine, there must be certain things which are assumed, or agreed upon, by all parties. These, like the axioms in mathematics, are the starting points of the argument. Their necessity is self-evident; for if men do not agree upon certain first principles, they cannot reason together at all.

One of the points thus assumed, or agreed upon in this matter, and which the common sense of every person must approve, is, that the Apostolic history, as contained in the Acts of the Apostles, was written to acquaint us with the fact, that the Gospel was preached, and Churches were formed; but not to detail the peculiarities of their organization;-that the Apostolic Epistles were written to confirm the Churches in the faith; but not to give them a platform of Church organization and order. Hence, we are obliged to infer, as we know the fact to be, that the New Testament gives, in no one place, a detailed account of the organization and order of the Apostolic Church. This point being assumed, it is necessary to

assume another, before we can proceed at all in the argument; and that is, that the Apostolic Churches, when fully established, had a uniform system of organization; and that the Apostles, in their writings, allude to, and speak of that form, with sufficient distinctness, to enable us to determine what it

was.

It will be seen from this, that the scriptural evidence on this subject, is, mainly, of that indirect kind, which will render some portions of this examination rather difficult. The precise nature of it may be best illustrated by an example. We will suppose a man, born and educated in one of the South Sea islands, who has grown up without any communication with, or knowledge of, any civilized nation. Put into the hands of such a man, the military correspondence of General Washington, during the American Revolution, and require him, from that alone, to determine the organization of the American army; and you would certainly impose upon him a task of no small magnitude. It is true, he would find letters to and from the officers of the army, with numerous accounts of acts performed by various persons; but nowhere would he find an enumeration of the various ranks and grades of officers; nowhere a distinct account of the power and duty incident to each; and for a very satisfactory reason, that both the writers of the letters, and the persons to whom they were written, were perfectly familiar with every rank and grade, with all the power and duty of every office and officer in the army, of which they were speaking.

But the foregoing supposition does not present a parallel case to the one we are to consider, inasmuch as the subject of the supposed letters is the same with the question to be determined. But suppose further, that instead of the military correspondence, this man should receive only the letters written by Washington to such familiar friends, during the same period, as had left the army, and were residing in a remote

[blocks in formation]

part of the country, accompanied by a few proclamations, issued by the General to the army. The task of determining the constitution of the army, would now be doubly difficult; and yet, such a man, under such circumstances, would be situated very much as we are, when attempting to determine the entire Constitution of the Apostolic Church, from Scripture alone. This will be evident upon slight reflection, for it will not be believed for a moment, that General Washington, when writing to men who had been soldiers or officers under him, and who were as familiar with the organization of the army as himself, would enter into a detail of facts, with which he knew them to be perfectly conversant; nor is there any greater reason for believing, that the Apostles would give a detailed account of the organization and order of the Churches they had established, when writing to the members of those very Churches. The nature of the evidence in the two cases is, therefore, similar; and what would be proof of the Constitution of the American army, to a South Sea islander, situated as we have supposed, must be proof to us of the Constitution of the Apostolic Church.

Hence the necessity of ascertaining, with as much certainty as possible, the precise nature of the evidence to be considered, that we may be able to confine our attention wholly to questions of history. For this purpose, we shall reduce these fundamental principles to the shape of propositions, that we may be able to refer to them without difficulty.

PROPOSITIONS.-1. It is agreed, then, that the Churches planted by the Apostles, when fully established, had a uniform system of organization.

2. That, whatever this form was, it must have been tangible and visible; known to all the members of the Churches; and, therefore, could not be mistaken or forgotten.

3. For this reason, the Apostles did not address epistles to the Churches in relation to ecclesiastical organization; that

being a subject about which there was no possibility of mistake. But they did address Epistles to the various Churches on matters of faith and doctrine, which not being thus visible and tangible, but depending on recollection and memory for their transmission, were liable to be forgotten or misremembered.

4. These Epistles contain allusions to that organization, sufficiently distinct to enable us to determine what it was. 5. That form only can plead the authority of Apostolic sanction, to which these allusions are all applicable.

CHAPTER II.

RULES OF EVIDENCE.

THE truth of the propositions contained in the foregoing Chapter, will not be doubted or denied, by those who give their assent to the correctness of the view we have taken of the subject, and the nature of the evidence by which it is to be determined. Indeed, it is only by supposing them true, that the subject can be discussed at all; since, if the organization of the Apostolic Churches was not uniform, all inquiry concerning it is useless; for unless they were uniform, we can not quote an Epistle to one Church, to prove what was the organization of another. Hence, unless we allow this uniformity, the Epistle to the Corinthians would be no evidence of what was the organization of the Church at Ephesus. And so of the rest. And further; if the Apostolic writings do not allude to that organization, with sufficient distinctness to enable us to determine what it was, all attempts to ascertain the fact from Scripture, are utterly visionary.

Having ascertained those general principles, upon which

NATURE OF EVIDENCE.

23

all are agreed, and which must, therefore, form the basis of all argument on this subject, we must also establish some rules of evidence, or principles of interpretation, which will enable us to give to each circumstance the precise force it deserves.

We can not, perhaps, better illustrate the necessity and nature of these rules, than by resuming our former supposition. We may then imagine the South Sea islander, reading the familiar correspondence of Washington, and there finding accounts of a Major General commanding two or more Brigadier Generals; a Brigadier General commanding two or more Colonels; a Colonel commanding two or more Captains, and so down to privates. The most natural, and the only logical inference he could draw from these accounts, would be, that an officer commanding two or more other officers, was of a higher rank or grade than those over whom he had command; and therefore, that a Major General ranked higher than a Brigadier General, a Brigadier General higher than a Colonel, and so on. By a careful collation and comparison of all the passages in which the various officers were spoken of, or alluded to, he might be able to determine the rank, grade, and duty of every officer in the army.

But the man would need some rules for weighing the evidence contained in those letters, that he might decide correctly as to what was proof of a fact in reference to the organization of the army. Having satisfied himself, that the person who wrote the letters, and the persons to whom they were written, were well acquainted with its organization, and that the writer was an honest man, he would at once conclude, that it was impossible for him to state facts, or allude to things which did not exist; and therefore, that the bare mention of an office, officer, custom, or regulation, as existing in the army, and forming a part of it, was conclusive evidence of its existence. He would also find things of this kind directly

« PreviousContinue »