ation much important testimony on the subject, that might be drawn from the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries; for the same reason, and to avoid even the appearance of controversy, we will consent to take the interpretation of one of their own men, in every instance where a deviation from the common version is made. Or, in other words, in every instance in this examination, where we find occasion to propose a translation different from the standard version, we shall make use of the "Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Edward Robinson, D. D., late Professor Extraordinary of Sacred Literature, in the Theological Seminary at Andover, Mass. ;” a man whose acquaintance with the Greek, and with all that has been written in Germany, on the peculiar Greek of the New Testament, (aside from the inevitable influence of the prejudice of education and denominational partialities,) qualify him, in an eminent degree, to judge of the exact meaning of the language of the New Testament; and not only that, but we shall give it the precise meaning he has assigned it, in that particular place, unless special notice is given to the contrary. If any have a right to complain of this course, it is certainly not those whose notions on this subject are similar to Prof. Robinson's; and if such persons dislike the conclusions at which we thus arrive, it is surely no fault of ours.

As a general rule, however, Scripture must be its own interpreter; and no reference will be made to any existing form of Ecclesiastical organization, unless by way of illustration; and lest this should offend some, no mention will be made, except of that organization which corresponds with the conclusions drawn. Nor can any appeal to human opinions be allowed, except to determine the sense of words and phrases made use of by the writers of the New Testament. Nor shall we appeal to the Old Testament, as authority on this subject, except in those cases where the New contains some

reference or appeal to it; or where both treat in common of the same subject; as is the case in regard to the character of our Saviour, or where the writers of the New, have used words and phrases which have a determinate Ecclesiastical meaning in the Old Testament.

Bearing these things in mind, we shall now proceed to inquire,

1. What was the Apostolic Church?

2. Who composed it?

3. What were the powers and duties of its members?

4. What were its officers? and,

5. What were the qualifications required of, and the power and duty belonging to each?

CHAPTER IV.

THE CHURCH A REGULARLY ORGANIZED SOCIETY.

WE are now ready to inquire, What was the Apostolic Church?

We answer, that it was a regularly organized society. This plainly appears from the language applied to it in Scripture.

1. It is one fold, having one shepherd. This is expressly declared by the Great Head of the Church himself, (John x. 16:) "Other sheep I have, which are not of this [the Jewish] fold; them also I must bring, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." And in another place, (John xvii. 21—23,) Christ prayed that his disciples might be one, even as he and his Father were one." So Paul, in his Epistle to the saints at Rome, assures them, that though many, they "were one body in Christ," (Rom. xii. 5;) and he proclaims to the Ephesians, that Christ has broken down the wall of partition

ONE BODY-MANY MEMBERS

13-24.)

31

between Jew and Gentile, and "has made both one," (Eph. ii. 14;) or, as in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 13,) were "baptized into one body," i. e. "the Church." (Col. i. 18.) So also St. Paul assures the Church of the Romans, that they are a wild olivetree, grafted into the root of that true olive, which before had been the Jewish Church. (Rom, xi. 2. It is one body, having one head. In Ephesians, (i. 22,) Christ is said to be "head over all to the Church." In Colossians, (i. 18,) he is called "the head of the body- the Church," and in Romans, (xii. 4,) the Church itself is called "one body." So in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 13,) it is said that Jews and Gentiles are baptized into one body," that is, into the Church. (Col. i. 18.)

3. But still having many members. This is expressly asserted in Romans, (xii. 4,) "We are many members, IN ONE BODY;" and also in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 12,) "For the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body are one body." And again, (xii. 20,) they many members, but ONE BODY."

"Now are

4. The members having various offices. Thus St. Paul says to the Romans, "we have many members in the same body, but all members have not the same office." (Rom. xii. 4.) And in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 18,) he writes, "God hath set the members in the body, as it pleased him," every one to perform some distinct office, or appropriate duty. And reasoning in the same manner in reference to the Church, (comp. 1 Cor. i. 2; xii. 12, 27,) he calls the Church one body, in which "God hath set, first, Apostles; secondarily, Prophets; thirdly, Teachers; after that, miracles," &c. (v. 28, 29.) So in Ephesians, (iv. 11, 12,) he declares, that "he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ;" i. e. “the Church."

5. But having "one faith, one baptism, one Lord and Father of all." (Eph. iv. 5, 6.)

The common practice of the Apostles, of comparing the Church to THE BODY, is so full of meaning, that it deserves a careful consideration. If the Church be "one body," having "one head," ,"" with many members," the members having various offices," then it follows that it is a perfect body. And if a perfect body, it will be attended by the following particulars:

66

(1.) The head will be the eye, that is, the overseer of the body. This follows, both from the analogy of the Apostle's figure, and from the office and object of the eye. Hence the duty of overseeing can not be anywhere but in the head.

(2.) The head will be the ear of the body. And if the ear, then it will have the power of hearing, and consequently of judging all matters relative to the wants and duties of the body.

(3.) The head will be the mouth of the body. And if the mouth of the body-the Church-then it will have the power of speaking on behalf and in the name of the Church.

From the foregoing it follows, that in every Apostolic Church there was a head, having the power of overseeing, hearing, judging, and speaking, for and in behalf of the Church. No Church, therefore, can be formed after the Apostolic pattern, to which these allusions are not applicable, or which has not such a head, having these powers, and performing these duties.

(4.) It also follows, that if every Church must have such a head, then there can be no such thing as a head over these heads. Each head must be the highest authority, on earth, over the body. Hence, the doctrine taught by some, that CHRIST has one visible head on earth, over all Churches, is opposed to the opinion of St. Paul, and can not therefore be

true.

It may be asked, whether the Apostle's language necessarily supposes any head of the Church on earth? We think it

NATURE OF THE CHURCH.

33333

does, clearly so. Thus he says, (1 Cor. xii. 12,) "For [or according] as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; SO ALSO [i. e. in like manner] is CHRIST :" by which, as appears from the same chapter, is meant the body of Christ, (v. 27,) which in Colossians (i. 18) he calls "the Church." And again he says, "The eye can not say unto the head, I have no need of thee; nor again, the head unto the foot, I have no need of you." (xii. 15-17.) This language naturally, if not necessarily, implies, that the head was of the same nature as the eye, the ear, the foot, and the hand. Hence, although Christ is the Great Head of the Church, (Eph. i. 22; iv. 15; v. 23; Col. i. 18,) and "the Bishop of our souls," (1 Pet. ii. 25,) still he hath constituted Bishops to be visible heads of his visible Church, to act as his representatives and ministers here on earth.

The propriety and appropriateness, if not necessity, of this, will be seen more clearly by attending to the nature of the Church. It appears, then, on reading the New Testament, and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the Apostolic idea of the kingdom of heaven, or of the Church, was, that it included all the actual and professed subjects of the King of heaven, whether on earth or in heaven. And further, they seem to have regarded the visible things of the Church, in some sense at least, as types of the invisible; and not only as types, but also as means of producing the things of which they were types. This idea seems to have been copied from the Apostles by the primitive Christians, and to have formed. the basis of their systematic theology. Not that they ever embodied these ideas in so many words, but, that a perception of them, as existing in the mind, lay at the foundation of what they wrote upon the subject. From these general principles the following system was developed :

4