OF THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT.

39

by the latter in the invisible. In other words, he uses language in the same sense in which St. Paul used it, when he said to the Galatians, "ye received me as an angel of GOD,—even as JESUS CHRIST." (Gal. iv. 14.) So also he speaks of the "Bishops as presiding in the place of GoD," that is, holding the headship of the Church on earth, as the Father holds the headship of the Church in heaven; and is "the Bishop of us all." And so in many other places, to which we shall have occasion to allude in other parts of the work.

From these considerations, (to which many more might be added,) it follows conclusively, that the Church on earth, which is an image of the Church above, must have such a visible head, as shall constitute it a perfect visible body. And it also follows, that as there is no head over any other heads, in that spiritual and invisible Church, so there can be no such thing as a head over other heads, in the Church on earth. Each Church, within a particular portion of country, forms a complete and distinct Church, independent of every other Church; but it is still a representation, or image of the one Church in heaven. Consequently, every complete and perfect Church on earth, is "an image of the heavenly," so that the various Churches in the several countries, are so many copies of the same heavenly pattern: and hence all must be essentially the same;-must be constituted in a similar manner, and be independent of every other. Yet, as being parts of the same great body, they must be in communion with each other, and are bound mutually to assist and support each other.

There is, also, another analogy, which must not be forgotten.

(5.) There must be a spirit in this body. CHRIST. He is the life-blood of the Church.

And that spirit is

To carry out

the figure, his blood circulates in the veins of the Church, giving spiritual life to all who come there to seek it. Take away this spirit and the body ceases to be a living body, and becomes a corpse. It retains the form of a body, but it has lost the principle of vitality, and will soon become corrupt.

(6.) Another conclusion authorized by this comparison, is, that all Churches should agree in their general organization. Particular circumstances will modify the complexion and countenance of the body; and peculiar circumstances will modify, if we may so say, the complexion of the Church. But the same organization must remain. The same essentials must be there.

(7.) Another very obvious inference from the foregoing, is, that there should be but one Church within a given space. It is an axiom in the physical world, that no two bodies can occupy the same place, at the same time. So also it must be with the Church, if that be a perfect body. Hence, the notion that it is better for religion that there should be a variety of Churches in the same place, can not be a sound one.

(8.) We may also learn from this figure of the Apostle, to what extent the body may be mutilated, without causing its complete destruction. It may suffer the amputation of a hand or foot, or possibly of both hands and feet; and though it would thus be rendered inefficient and defenseless, it might still continue to exist as a body. But deprive it of its head,

and you take away that which is essential to its existence,

and without which it must soon fall to pieces and go to decay.

Thus much the language of the Apostle clearly authorizes us to infer. It is, indeed, a positive statement of facts, which inevitably leads to this conclusion; and as he has nowhere limited the application of the figure, we may not take it upon ourselves to do so. But if any are unwilling to rely on this as proof, they can not object to its introduction, as assisting to develop the Apostolic idea of the Church.

CATHOLIC OR UNIVERSAL.

41

6. Again, The head is called a king. Gen. xiv. 18; Ezek. Xxxvii. 24, 25; Hos. iii. 5; Matt. xxi. 5; John i. 49; xii. 13-15, and elsewhere often.

That the

7. And the Church itself is called a kingdom. phrase, "the kingdom of heaven," and the phrase, "the kingdom of God," often denote the Church of "the living God," has already been shown, so that we shall only enumerate some of the passages referred to by Prof. Robinson, (p. 130,) where it is so used. Matt. vi. 10; xii. 28; xiii. 24, 31, 33, 41, 47; xvi. 28; Mark iv. 30; xi. 10; Luke xiii. 18, 20; Acts xix. 8, etc.

These terms all necessarily imply, that the Apostolic Church was a regularly organized Society, with officers and laws. They are, indeed, direct statements of facts, incompatible with any supposition, but that of a regular uniform system of organization; and this inference is nowhere contradicted in Scripture. We may therefore set it down as an incontrovertible fact, that THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH WAS A REGULARLY ORGANIZED SOCIETY. For this reason we conclude, that the Church in all ages, should be a regularly organized society, and as such, must be endowed with perpetual duration.

But though in a general sense, the Church was one, Universal, or Catholic, yet in a limited sense of the word, there were many Churches; as the Church of Jerusalem, of Rome, of Ephesus, of Colosse, of Thessalonica, of Crete, of Smyrna, and the like. And that each Church was complete and perfect in itself, is clearly deducible from the language of the Apostle, since he speaks of these several Churches as distinct, and at the same time as complete. But it is to be observed, that he never speaks of more than one Church in the same place. Hence we must conclude, that every Church was so complete and perfect in itself, that it would remain a complete and perfect Church, though every other Church in the world had been destroyed. Consequently, the head of a

Church, within any given territory, was not only ruler over those within his territory, but was also so head of the Church, that in case the head of the Churches in all other districts should be taken away, he would be the visible head over all the Church on earth.

CHAPTER V.

WHO COMPOSED THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH-BAPTISM.

HAVING determined what the Church is, we are now ready to inquire, who compose it? To this question, but one answer has ever been given, viz., those who have received Christian baptism, and have not been rightfully excommunicated. Though men have differed widely in regard to the mode of Christian baptism, they have ever held this to be the only rite of initiation into the Christian Church; and the perfect unanimity on this point, would excuse us from offering any proof of it, were we not inquiring as to the SCRIPTURAL DRAUGHT of the Apostolic Church. We proceed, therefore, to show, that this unanimous opinion of all sects and parties, is a scriptural doctrine.

In proof of this, there are several distinct arguments; but one of them must be entirely satisfactory. Christ instituted but two ordinances-baptism and the Lord's supper; and that baptism was the rite of initiation, appears expressly from the language made use of by Paul in his Epistles: "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism," (Eph. iv. 5,) by which we are all baptized into one body," (1 Cor. xii. 13,) which "body is THE CHURCH," (Col. i. 18.)

66

But though men agree as to the nature and design of baptism, they differ widely as to what constitutes baptism; and,

MEANING IN DICTIONARIES.

43

also, as to who are proper subjects of baptism. And as these are very important inquiries, laying at the foundation of the Church, they must be examined with great care and attention. We shall first consider the mode of baptism; and then inquire, who are proper subjects of it? In pursuing this inquiry, there are four kinds of evidence to be considered.

1. The meaning given to the language used, in the dictionaries.

2. Its usage (1) in the New Testament, and (2) in the Old Testament.

3. The allusions made to the mode of performing the rite, in the New Testament.

tism.

4. The account given of it by the Primitive Christians. The words used in the New Testament on this subject, are BAPTIZO, to baptize; and the derivative, BAPTISMOS, bapOur first inquiry, therefore, is, what is the meaning of the word baptizo? We may remark, however, that baptizo itself, is a derivative from bapto; and that both are so frequently referred to, that we must inquire into the meaning of both.

1. What is the meaning given to BAPTO and BAPTIZO, in the dictionaries? In answer to this inquiry, we may remark, that the dictionaries give various meanings, and hence as it is agreed on all hands, that the native Greeks are the best authority for the meaning of their own language, we shall refer the question to them. We give, therefore, the definitions of these words, only from native Greek Lexicographers.

The oldest Native Greek Lexicographer is HESYCHIUS, who lived in the fourth century of the Christian era. He gives only the root bapto; and the only meaning he gives the word is antleo, "to draw, or pump water." Next in order comes SUIDAS, a native Greek, who wrote in the tenth century. He gives only the derivative, baptizo, and defines it by pluno, "to wash." Passing over the intermediate Greek