It may be added that the doctrine of the Apostolic Church is eminently practical. The great object of the mission of Jesus was to "save His people from their sins;" [198:4] and the tendency of all the teachings of the New Testament is to promote sanctification. But the holiness of the gospel is not a shy asceticism which sits in a cloister in moody melancholy, so that its light never shines before men; but a generous consecration of the heart to God, which leads us to confess Christ in the presence of gainsayers, and which prompts us to delight in works of benevolence. The true Christian should be happy as well as holy; for the knowledge of the highest truth is connected with the purest enjoyment. This "wisdom is better than rubies, and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it." [199:1] The Apostle Paul, when a prisoner at Rome, had comforts to which Nero was an utter stranger. Even then he could say—"I have learned in whatsoever state I am therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound; everywhere and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." [199:2] When all around the believer may be dark and discouraging, there may be sunshine in his soul. There are no joys comparable to the joys of a Christian. They are the gifts of the Spirit of God, and the first-fruits of eternal blessedness; they are serene and heavenly, solid and satisfying.



CHAPTER III.

THE HERESIES OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE.

The Greek word translated heresy [200:1] in our authorised version of the New Testament, did not primarily convey an unfavourable idea. It simply denoted a choice or preference. It was often employed to indicate the adoption of a particular class of philosophical sentiments; and thus it came to signify a sect or denomination. Hence we find ancient writers speaking of the heresy of the Stoics, the heresy of the Epicureans, and the heresy of the Academics. The Jews who used the Greek language did not consider that the word necessarily reflected on the party it was intended to describe; and Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, accordingly discourses of the three heresies of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. [200:2] The Apostle Paul, when speaking of his own history prior to his conversion, says, that "after the strictest heresy" of his religion he lived a Pharisee. [200:3] We learn, too, from the book of the Acts, that the early Christians were known as "the heresy of the Nazarenes." [200:4] But very soon the word began to be employed to denote something which the gospel could not sanction; and accordingly, in the Epistle to the Galatians, heresies are enumerated among the works of the flesh. [200:5] It is not difficult to explain why Christian writers at an early date were led to attach such a meaning to a term which had hitherto been understood to imply nothing reprehensible. The New Testament teaches us to regard an erroneous theology as sinful, and traces every deviation from "the one faith" of the gospel to the corruption of a darkened intellect. [201:1] It declares—"He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God; and this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." [201:2] Thus it was that the most ancient ecclesiastical authors described all classes of unbelievers, sceptics, and innovators, under the general name of heretics. Persons who in matters of religion made a false choice, of whatever kind, were viewed as "vainly puffed up by a fleshly mind," or as under the influence of some species of mental depravity.

It thus appears that heresy, in the first century, denoted every deviation from the Christian faith. Pagans and Jews, as well as professors of apocryphal forms of the gospel, were called heretics. [201:3] But in the New Testament our attention is directed chiefly to errorists who in some way disturbed the Church, and adulterated the doctrine taught by our Lord and His apostles. Paul refers to such characters when he says—"A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject;" [201:4] and Peter also alludes to them when he speaks of false teachers who were to appear and "privily bring in damnable heresies." [201:5]

The earliest corrupters of the gospel were unquestionably those who endeavoured to impose the observance of the Mosaic law on the converted Gentiles. Their proceedings were condemned in the Council of Jerusalem, mentioned in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; and Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, subsequently exposed their infatuation. But evangelical truth had, perhaps, more to fear from dilution with the speculations of the Jewish and pagan literati. [202:1] The apostle had this evil in view when he said to the Colossians— "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." [202:2] He likewise emphatically attested the danger to be apprehended from it when he addressed to his own son in the faith the impassioned admonition—"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." [202:3]

There is no reason to doubt that the "science" or "philosophy" of which Paul was so anxious that the disciples should beware, was the same which was afterwards so well known by the designation of Gnosticism. The second century was the period of its most vigorous development, and it then, for a time, almost engrossed the attention of the Church; but it was already beginning to exert a pernicious influence, and it is therefore noticed by the vigilant apostle. Whilst it acknowledged, to a certain extent, the authority of the Christian revelation, it also borrowed largely from Platonism; and, in a spirit of accommodation to the system of the Athenian sage, it rejected some of the leading doctrines of the gospel. Plato never seems to have entertained the sublime conception of the creation of all things out of nothing by the word of the Most High. He held that matter is essentially evil, and that it existed from eternity. [202:4] The false teachers who disturbed the Church in the apostolic age adopted both these views; and the errors which they propagated and of which the New Testament takes notice, flowed from their unsound philosophy by direct and necessary consequence. As a right understanding of certain passages of Scripture depends on an acquaintance with their system, it may here be expedient to advert somewhat more particularly to a few of its peculiar features.

The Gnostics alleged that the present world owes neither its origin nor its arrangement to the Supreme God. They maintained that its constituent parts have been always in existence; and that, as the great Father of Lights would have been contaminated by contact with corrupt matter, the visible frame of things was fashioned, without His knowledge, by an inferior Intelligence. These principles obviously derogated from the glory of Jehovah. By ascribing to matter an independent and eternal existence, they impugned the doctrine of God's Omnipotent Sovereignty; and by representing it as regulated without His sanction by a spiritual agent of a lower rank, they denied His Universal Providence. The apostle, therefore, felt it necessary to enter his protest against all such cosmogonies. He declared that Jehovah alone, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, existed from eternity; and that all things spiritual and material arose out of nothing in obedience to the word of the second person of the Godhead. "By Him," says he, "were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." [203:1]

The philosophical system of the Gnostics also led them to adopt false views respecting the body of Christ. As, according to their theory, the Messiah appeared to deliver men from the bondage of evil matter, they could not consistently acknowledge that He himself inhabited an earthly tabernacle. They refused to admit that our Lord was born of a human parent; and, as they asserted that He had a body only in appearance, or that His visible form as man was in reality a phantom, they were at length known by the title of Docetae. [204:1] The Apostle John repeatedly attests the folly and the danger of such speculations. "The Word," says he, "was made flesh and dwelt among us. [204:2] ... Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. [204:3] ... That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life ... declare we unto you. [204:4] ... Many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." [204:5]

Reasoning from the principle that evil is inherent in matter, the Gnostics believed the union of the soul and the body to be a calamity. According to their views the spiritual being can never attain the perfection of which he is susceptible so long as he remains connected with his present corporeal organization. Hence they rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. When Paul asks the Corinthians—"How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" [204:6]—he alludes to the Gnostic denial of this article of the Christian theology. He also refers to the same circumstance when he denounces the "profane and vain babblings" of those who "concerning the truth" had erred, "saying that the resurrection is past already." [204:7] These heretics, it would appear, maintained that an introduction to their Gnosis, or knowledge, was the only genuine deliverance from the dominion of death; and argued accordingly that, in the case of those who had been initiated into the mysteries of their system, the resurrection was "past already."

The ancient Christian writers concur in stating that Simon, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, [205:1] and commonly called Simon Magus, was the father of the sects of the Gnostics. [205:2] He was a Samaritan by birth, and after the rebuke he received from Peter, [205:3] he is reported to have withdrawn from the Church, and to have concocted a theology of his own, into which he imported some elements borrowed from Christianity. At a subsequent period he travelled to Rome, where he attracted attention by the novelty of his creed, and the boldness of his pretensions. We are told that, prior to his baptism by Philip, he "had used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one;" [205:4] and subsequently he seems to have pursued a similar career. According to a very early authority, nearly all the inhabitants of his native country, and a few persons in other districts, worshipped him as the first or supreme God. [205:5] There is, probably, some exaggeration in this statement; but there seems no reason to doubt that he laid claim to extraordinary powers, maintaining that the same spirit which had been imparted to Jesus, had descended on himself. He is also said to have denied that our Lord had a real body. Some, who did not enrol themselves under his standard, soon partially adopted his principles; and there is cause to think that Hymenaeus, Philetus, Alexander, Phygellus, and Hermogenes, mentioned in the New Testament, [205:6] were all more or less tinctured with the spirit of Gnosticism. Other heresiarchs, not named in the sacred record, are known to have flourished towards the close of the first century. Of these the most famous were Carpocrates, Cerinthus, and Ebion. [206:1] There is a tradition that John, "the beloved disciple," came in contact with Cerinthus, when going into a bath at Ephesus, and retired abruptly from the place, that he might not compromise himself by remaining in the same building with such an enemy of the Christian revelation. [206:2] It is also stated that the same apostle's testimony to the dignity of the Word, in the beginning of his Gospel, was designed as an antidote to the errors of this heresiarch. [206:3]

When the gospel exerts its proper influence on the character it produces an enlightened, genial, and consistent piety; but a false faith is apt to lead, in practice, to one of two extremes, either the asceticism of the Essene, or the sensualism of the Sadducee. Gnosticism developed itself in both these directions. Some of its advocates maintained that, as matter is essentially evil, the corrupt propensities of the body should be kept in constant subjection by a life of rigorous mortification; others held that, as the principle of evil is inherent in the corporeal frame, the malady is beyond the reach of cure, and that, therefore, the animal nature should be permitted freely to indulge its peculiar appetites. To the latter party, as some think, belonged the Nicolaitanes noticed by John in the Apocalypse. [206:4] They are said to have derived their name from Nicolas, one of the seven deacons ordained by the apostles; [206:5] and to have been a class of Gnostics noted for their licentiousness. The origin of the designation may, perhaps, admit of some dispute; but it is certain that those to whom it was applied were alike lax in principle and dissolute in practice, for the Spirit of God has declared His abhorrence as well of the "doctrine," as of "the deeds of the Nicolaitanes." [207:1]

Though the Jews, at the time of the appearance of our Lord, were so much divided in sentiment, and though the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, had each their theological peculiarities, their sectarianism did not involve any complete severance or separation. Notwithstanding their differences of creed, the Pharisees and Sadducees sat together in the Sanhedrim, [207:2] and worshipped together in the temple. All the seed of Abraham constituted one Church, and congregated in the same sacred courts to celebrate the great festivals. In the Christian Church, in the days of the apostles, there was something approaching to the same outward unity. Though, for instance, there were so many parties among the Corinthians—though one said, I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos, and another I am of Cephas, and another I am of Christ—all assembled in the same place to join in the same worship, and to partake of the same Eucharist. Those who withdrew from the disciples with whom they had been previously associated, appear generally to have relinquished altogether the profession of Christianity. [207:3] Some, at least, of the Gnostics acted very differently. When danger appeared they were inclined to temporize, and to discontinue their attendance on the worship of the Church; but they were desirous to remain still nominally connected with the great body of believers. [207:4] Any form of alliance with such dangerous errorists was, however, considered a cause of scandal; and the inspired teachers of the gospel insisted on their exclusion from ecclesiastical fellowship. Hence Paul declares that he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander "unto Satan" that they might learn "not to blaspheme;" [208:1] and John upbraids the Church in Pergamos because it retained in its communion "them that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes." [208:2] During the first century the Gnostics seem to have been unable to create anything like a schism among those who had embraced Christianity. Whilst the apostles lived the "science falsely so called" could not pretend to a divine sanction; and though here and there they displayed considerable activity in the dissemination of their principles, they were sternly and effectually discountenanced. It is accordingly stated by one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers that, in the time of Simeon of Jerusalem, who finished his career in the beginning of the second century, "they called the Church as yet a virgin, inasmuch as it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses." [208:3] Other writers concur in bearing testimony to the fact that, whilst the apostles were on earth, false teachers failed "to divide the unity" of the Christian commonwealth, "by the introduction of corrupt doctrines." [208:4]

The gospel affords scope for the healthful and vigorous exercise of the human understanding, and it is itself the highest and the purest wisdom. It likewise supplies a test for ascertaining the state of the heart. Those who receive it with faith unfeigned will delight to meditate on its wonderful discoveries; but those who are unrenewed in the spirit of their minds will render to it only a doubtful submission, and will pervert its plainest announcements. The apostle therefore says—"There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." [208:5] The heretic is made manifest alike by his deviations from the doctrines and the precepts of revelation. His creed does not exhibit the consistency of truth, and his life fails to display the beauty of holiness. Bible Christianity is neither superstitious nor sceptical, neither austere nor sensual. "The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy." [209:1]



SECTION III.

THE WORSHIP AND CONSTITUTION OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.



CHAPTER I.

THE LORD'S DAY—THE WORSHIP OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH—ITS SYMBOLIC ORDINANCES AND ITS DISCIPLINE.

To the primitive disciples the day on which our Lord rose from the grave was a crisis of intense excitement. The crucifixion had cast a dismal cloud over their prospects; for, immediately before, when He entered Jerusalem amidst the hosannahs of the multitude, they had probably anticipated that He was about to assert His sovereignty as the Messiah: yet, when His body was committed to the tomb, they did not at once sink into despair; and, though filled with anxiety, they ventured to indulge a hope that the third day after His demise would be signalised by some new revelation. [210:1] The report of those who were early at the sepulchre at first inspired the residue of the disciples with wonder and perplexity; [210:2] but, as the proofs of His resurrection multiplied, they became confident and joyful. Ever afterwards the first day of the week was observed by them as the season of holy convocation. [211:1] Those members of the Apostolic Church who had been originally Jews, continued for some time to meet together also on the Saturday; but, what was called "The Lord's Day," [211:2] was regarded by all as sacred to Christ.

It has often been asserted that, during His own ministry, our Saviour encouraged His disciples to violate the Sabbath, and thus prepared the way for its abolition. But this theory is as destitute of foundation as it is dangerous to morality. Even the ceremonial law continued to be binding until Jesus expired upon the cross; and meanwhile He no doubt felt it to be His duty to attend to every jot and tittle of its appointments. [211:3] Thus, it became Him "to fulfil all righteousness." [211:4] He is at pains to shew that the acts of which the Pharisees complained as breaches of the Sabbath could be vindicated by Old Testament authority; [211:5] and that these formalists "condemned the guiltless," [211:6] when they denounced the disciples as doing that which was unlawful. Jesus never transgressed either the letter or the spirit of any commandment pertaining to the holy rest; but superstition had added to the written law a multitude of minute observances; and every Israelite was at perfect liberty to neglect any or all of these frivolous regulations.

The Great Teacher never intimated that the Sabbath was a ceremonial ordinance which was to cease with the Mosaic ritual. It was instituted when our first parents were in Paradise; [211:7] and the precept enjoining its remembrance, being a portion of the Decalogue, [212:1] is of perpetual obligation. Hence, instead of regarding it as a merely Jewish institution, Christ declares that it "was made for MAN," [212:2] or, in other words, that it was designed for the benefit of the whole human family. Instead of anticipating its extinction along with the ceremonial law, He speaks of its existence after the downfal of Jerusalem. When He announces the calamities connected with the ruin of the holy city, He instructs His followers to pray that the urgency of the catastrophe may not deprive them of the comfort of the ordinances of the sacred rest. "Pray ye," said he, "that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath-day." [212:3] And the prophet Isaiah, when describing the ingathering of the Gentiles and the glory of the Church in the times of the gospel, mentions the keeping of the Sabbath as characteristic of the children of God. "The sons of the stranger," says he, "that join themselves to the Lord to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant—even them I will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar: [212:4] for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." [212:5]

But when Jesus declared that "the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath," [212:6] He unquestionably asserted His right to alter the circumstantials of its observance. He accordingly abolished its ceremonial worship, gave it a new name, and changed the day of its celebration. He signalised the first day of the week by then appearing once and again to His disciples after His resurrection, [212:7] and by that Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit [213:1] which marks the commencement of a new era in the history of redemption. As the Lord's day was consecrated to the Lord's service, [213:2] the disciples did not now neglect the assembling of themselves together; [213:3] and the apostle commanded them at this holy season to set apart a portion of their gains for religious purposes. [213:4] It was most fitting that the first day of the week should be thus distinguished under the new economy; for the deliverance of the Church is a more illustrious achievement than the formation of the world; [213:5] and as the primeval Sabbath commemorated the rest of the Creator, the Christian Sabbath reminds us of the completion of the work of the Redeemer. "There remaineth, therefore, the keeping of a Sabbath [213:6] to the people of God, for he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." [213:7]

As many of the converts from Judaism urged the circumcision of their Gentile brethren, they were likewise disposed to insist on their observance of the Hebrew festivals. The apostles, at least for a considerable time, did not deem it expedient positively to forbid the keeping of such days; but they required that, in matters of this nature, every one should be left to his own discretion. "One man," says Paul, "esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." [213:8] It is obvious that the Lord's day is not included in this compromise; for from the morning of the resurrection there appears to have been no dispute as to its claims, and its very title attests the general recognition of its authority. The apostle can refer only to days which were typical and ceremonial. Hence he says elsewhere—"Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days—which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." [214:1]

Though the New Testament furnishes no full and circumstantial description of the worship of the Christian Church, it makes such incidental allusions to its various parts, as enable us to form a pretty accurate idea of its general character. Like the worship of the synagogue [214:2] it consisted of prayer, singing, reading the Scriptures, and expounding or preaching. Those who joined the Church, for several years after it was first organized, were almost exclusively converts from Judaism, and when they embraced the Christian faith, they retained the order of religious service to which they had been hitherto accustomed; but by the recognition of Jesus Christ as the Messiah of whom the law and the prophets testified, their old forms were inspired with new life and significance. At first the heathen did not challenge the distinction between the worship of the synagogue and the Church; and thus it was, as has already been intimated, that for a considerable portion of the first century, the Christians and the Jews were frequently confounded.

It has often been asserted, that the Jews had a liturgy when our Lord ministered in their synagogues; but the proof adduced in support of this statement is far from satisfactory; and their prayers which are still extant, and which are said to have been then in use, must obviously have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem. [215:1] It is, however, certain that the Christians in the apostolic age were not restricted to any particular forms of devotion. The liturgies ascribed to Mark, James, and others, are unquestionably the fabrications of later times; [215:2] and had any of the inspired teachers of the gospel composed a book of common prayer, it would, of course, have been received into the canon of the New Testament. Our Lord taught His disciples to pray, and supplied them with a model to guide them in their devotional exercises; [215:3] but there is no evidence whatever that, in their stated services, they constantly employed the language of that beautiful and comprehensive formulary. The very idea of a liturgy was altogether alien to the spirit of the primitive believers. They were commanded to give thanks "in everything," [215:4] to pray "always with all prayer and supplication in the spirit," [215:5] and to watch thereunto "with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;" [215:6] and had they been limited to a form, they would have found it impossible to comply with these admonitions. Their prayers were dictated by the occasion, and varied according to passing circumstances. Some of them which have been recorded, [215:7] had a special reference to the occurrences of the day, and could not have well admitted of repetition. In the apostolic age, when the Spirit was poured out in such rich effusion on the Church, the gift, as well as the grace, of prayer was imparted abundantly, so that a liturgy would have been deemed superfluous, if not directly calculated to freeze the genial current of devotion.

Singing, in which none but Levites were permitted to unite, [216:1] and which was accompanied by instrumental music, constituted a prominent part of the temple service. The singers occupied an elevated platform adjoining the court of the priests; [216:2] and it is somewhat doubtful whether, in that position, they were distinctly heard by the majority of the worshippers within the sacred precincts. [216:3] As the sacrifices, offerings, and other observances of the temple, as well as the priests, the vestments, and even the building itself, had an emblematic meaning, [216:4] it would appear that the singing, intermingled with the music of various instruments of sound, was also typical and ceremonial. It seems to have indicated that the tongue of man cannot sufficiently express the praise of the King Eternal, and that all things, animate and inanimate, owe Him a revenue of glory. The worship of the synagogue was more simple. Its officers had, indeed, trumpets and cornets, with which they published their sentences of excommunication, and announced the new year, the fasts, and the Sabbath; [216:5] but they did not introduce instrumental music into their congregational services. The early Christians followed the example of the synagogue; and when they celebrated the praises of God "in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs," [216:6] their melody was "the fruit of the lips." [216:7] For many centuries after this period, the use of instrumental music was unknown in the Church. [217:1]

The Jews divided the Pentateuch and the writings of the Prophets into sections, one of which was read every Sabbath in the synagogue; [217:2] and thus, in the place set apart to the service of the God of Israel, His own will was constantly proclaimed. The Christians bestowed equal honour on the holy oracles; for in their solemn assemblies, the reading of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament formed a part of their stated worship. [217:3] At the close of this exercise, one or more of the elders edified the congregation, either by giving a general exposition of the passage read, or by insisting particularly on some point of doctrine or duty which it obviously inculcated. If a prophet was present, he, too, had now an opportunity of addressing the auditory. [217:4]

As apostolic Christianity aimed to impart light to the understanding, its worship was uniformly conducted in the language of the people. It, indeed, attested its divine origin by miracles, and it accordingly enabled some to speak in tongues in which they had never been instructed; but it permitted such individuals to exercise their gifts in the church only when interpreters were present to translate their communications. [217:5] Whilst the gift of tongues, possessed by so many of the primitive disciples, must have attracted the attention of the Gentile as well as of the Jewish literati, it must also have made a powerful impression on the popular mind, more especially in large cities; for in such places there were always foreigners to whom these strange utterances would be perfectly intelligible, and for whom a discourse delivered in the speech of their native country would have peculiar charms. But in the worship of the primitive Christians there was no attempt, in the way of embellishment or decoration, to captivate the senses. The Church had no gorgeous temples, no fragrant incense, [218:1] no splendid vestments. For probably the whole of the first century, she celebrated her religious ordinances in private houses, [218:2] and her ministers officiated in their ordinary costume. John, the forerunner of our Saviour, "had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins;" [218:3] but perhaps few of the early Christian preachers were arrayed in such coarse canonicals.

The Founder of the Christian religion instituted only two symbolic ordinances—Baptism and the Lord's Supper. [218:4] It is universally admitted that, in the apostolic age, baptism was dispensed to all who embraced the gospel; but it has been much disputed whether it was also administered to the infant children of the converts. The testimony of Scripture on the subject is not very explicit; for, as the ordinance was in common use amongst the Jews, [218:5] a minute description of its mode and subjects was, perhaps, deemed unnecessary by the apostles and evangelists. When an adult heathen was received into the Church of Israel, it is well known that the little children of the proselyte were admitted along with him; [219:1] and as the Christian Scriptures no where forbid the dispensation of the rite to infants, it may be presumed that the same practice was observed by the primitive ministers of the gospel. This inference is emphatically corroborated by the fact that, of the comparatively small number of passages in the New Testament which treat of its administration, no less than five refer to the baptism of whole households. [219:2] It is also worthy of remark that these five cases are not mentioned as rare or peculiar, but as ordinary specimens of the method of apostolic procedure. It is not, indeed, absolutely certain that there was an infant in any of these five households; but it is, unquestionably, much more probable that they contained a fair proportion of little children, than that every individual in each of them had arrived at years of maturity, and that all these adults, without exception, at once participated in the faith of the head of the family, and became candidates for baptism.

In the New Testament faith is represented as the grand qualification for baptism; [219:3] but this principle obviously applies only to all who are capable of believing; for in the Word of God faith is also represented as necessary to salvation, [219:4] and yet it is generally conceded that little children may be saved. Under the Jewish dispensation infants were circumcised, and were thus recognised as interested in the divine favour, so that, if they be excluded from the rite of baptism, it follows that they occupy a worse position under a milder and more glorious economy. But the New Testament forbids us to adopt such an inference. It declares that infants should be "suffered to come" to the Saviour; [219:5] it indicates that baptism supplies the place of circumcision, for it connects the gospel institution with "the circumcision of Christ;" [220:1] it speaks of children as "saints" and as "in the Lord," [220:2] and, of course, as having received some visible token of Church membership; and it assures them that their sins are forgiven them "for His name's sake." [220:3] The New Testament does not record a single case in which the offspring of Christian parents were admitted to baptism on arriving at years of intelligence; but it tells of the apostles exhorting the men of Judea to repent and to submit to the ordinance, inasmuch as it was a privilege proffered to them and to their children. [220:4] Nay more, Paul plainly teaches that the seed of the righteous are entitled to the recognition of saintship; and that, even when only one of the parents is a Christian, the offspring do not on that account forfeit their ecclesiastical inheritance. "The unbelieving husband," says he, "is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." [220:5] This passage demonstrates that the Apostolic Church recognised the holiness of infants, or in other words, that it admitted them to baptism.

The Scriptures furnish no very specific instructions as to the mode of baptism; and it is probable that, in its administration, the primitive heralds of the gospel did not adhere to a system of rigid uniformity. [220:6] Some have asserted that the Greek word translated baptize, [220:7] in our authorised version, always signifies immerse, but it has been clearly shewn [221:1] that this statement is inaccurate, and that baptism does not necessarily imply dipping. In ancient times, and in the lands where the apostles laboured, bathing was perhaps as frequently performed by affusion as immersion; [221:2] and it may be that the apostles varied their method of baptizing according to circumstances. [221:3] The ordinance was intended to convey the idea of washing or purifying; and it is obvious that water may be applied, in many ways, as the means of ablution. In the sacred volume sprinkling is often spoken of as equivalent to washing. [221:4]

As baptism was designed to supersede the Jewish circumcision, the Lord's Supper was intended to occupy the place of the Jewish Passover. [221:5] The Paschal lamb could be sacrificed nowhere except in the temple of Jerusalem, and the Passover was kept only once a year; but the Eucharist could be dispensed wherever a Christian congregation was collected; and at this period it seems to have been observed every first day of the week, at least by the more zealous and devout worshippers. [221:6] The wine, as well as the other element, was given to all who joined in its celebration; and the title of the "Breaking of Bread," [221:7] one of the names by which the ordinance was originally distinguished, supplies evidence that the doctrine of transubstantiation was then utterly unknown. The word Sacrament, as applied to Baptism and the Holy Supper, was not in use in the days of the apostles, and the subsequent introduction of this nomenclature, [222:1] probably contributed to throw an air of mystery around these institutions. The primitive disciples considered the elements employed in them simply as signs and seals of spiritual blessings; and they had no more idea of regarding the bread in the Eucharist as the real body of our Saviour, than they had of believing that the water of baptism is the very blood in which He washed His people from their sins. They knew that they enjoyed the light of His countenance in prayer, in meditation, and in the hearing of His Word; and that He was not otherwise present in these symbolic ordinances.

Whilst, in the Lord's Supper, believers hold fellowship with Christ, they also maintain and exhibit their communion with each other. "We, being many," says Paul, "are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread." [222:2] Those who joined together in the observance of this holy institution were thereby pledged to mutual love; but every one who acted in such a way as to bring reproach upon the Christian name, was no longer admitted to the sacred table. Paul, doubtless, refers to exclusion from this ordinance, as well as from intimate civil intercourse, when he says to the Corinthians—"I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." [222:3]

In the synagogue all cases of discipline were decided by the bench of elders; [222:4] and it is plain, from the New Testament, that those who occupied a corresponding position in the Christian Church, also exercised similar authority. They are described as having the oversight of the flock, [222:5] as bearing rule, [223:1] as watching for souls, [223:2] and as taking care of the Church of God. [223:3] They are instructed how to deal with offenders, [223:4] and they are said to be entitled to obedience. [223:5] Such representations obviously imply that they were intrusted with the administration of ecclesiastical discipline.

This account of the functions of the spiritual rulers has been supposed by some to be inconsistent with several statements in the apostolic epistles. It has been alleged that, according to these letters, the administration of discipline was vested in the whole body of the people; and that originally the members of the Church, in their collective capacity, exercised the right of excommunication. The language of Paul, in reference to a case of scandal which had occurred among the Christians of Corinth, has been often quoted in proof of the democratic character of their ecclesiastical constitution. "It is reported commonly," says the apostle, "that there is fornication, among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife..... Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." [223:6] The admonition was obeyed, and the application of discipline seems to have produced a most salutary impression upon the mind of the offender. In his next letter the apostle accordingly alludes to this circumstance, and observes—"Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many." [223:7] These words have been frequently adduced to shew that the government of the Corinthian Church was administered by the whole body of the communicants.

The various statements of Scripture, if rightly understood, must exactly harmonize, and a closer investigation of the case of this transgressor is all that is required to prove that he was not tried and condemned by a tribunal composed of the whole mass of the members of the Church of Corinth. His true history reveals facts of a very different character. For reasons which it would, perhaps, be now in vain to hope fully to explore, he seems to have been a favourite among his fellow-disciples; many of them, prior to their conversion, had been grossly licentious; and, it may be, that they continued to regard certain lusts of the flesh with an eye of comparative indulgence. [224:1] Some of them probably considered the conduct of this offender as only a legitimate exercise of his Christian liberty; and they appear to have manifested a strong inclination to shield him from ecclesiastical censure. Paul, therefore, felt it necessary to address them in the language of indignant expostulation. "Ye are puffed up," says he, "and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.....Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." [224:2] At the same time, as an apostle bound to vindicate the reputation of the Church, and to enforce the rules of ecclesiastical discipline, he solemnly announces his determination to have the offender excommunicated. "I verily," says he, "as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 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 for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." [224:3] To deliver any one to Satan is to expel him from the Church, for whoever is not in the Church is in the world, and "the whole world lieth in the wicked one." [224:4] This discipline was designed to teach the fornicator to mortify his lusts, and it thus aimed at the promotion of his highest interests; or, as the apostle expresses it, he was to be excommunicated "for the destruction of the flesh, [225:1] that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." It is obvious that the Church of Corinth was now in a state of great disorder. A partisan spirit had crept in amongst its members; [225:2] and it seems probable that those elders [225:3] who were anxious to maintain wholesome discipline were opposed and overborne. The fornicator had in some way contrived to make himself so popular that an attempt at his expulsion would, it was feared, throw the whole society into hopeless confusion. Under these circumstances Paul felt it necessary to interpose, to assert his apostolic authority, and to insist upon the maintenance of ecclesiastical order. Instead, however, of consulting the people as to the course to be pursued, he peremptorily delivers his judgment, and requires them to hold a solemn assembly that they may listen to the public announcement [225:4] of a sentence of excommunication. He, of course, expected that their rulers would concur with him in this decision, and that one of them would officially publish it when they were "gathered together."

When the case is thus stated, it is easy to understand why the apostle required all the disciples to "put away" from among themselves "that wicked person." Had they continued to cherish the spirit which they had recently displayed, they might either have encouraged the fornicator to refuse submission to the sentence, or they might have rendered it comparatively powerless. He therefore reminds them that they too should seek to promote the purity of ecclesiastical fellowship; and that they were bound to cooperate in carrying out a righteous discipline. They were to cease to recognize this fallen disciple as a servant of Christ; they were to withdraw themselves from his society; they were to decline to meet him on the same terms, as heretofore, in social intercourse; and they were not even to eat in his company. Thus would the reputation of the Church be vindicated; for in this way it would be immediately known to all who were without that he was no longer considered a member of the brotherhood.

The Corinthians were awakened to a sense of duty by this apostolic letter, and acted up to its instructions. The result was most satisfactory. When the offender, saw that he was cut off from the Church, and that its members avoided his society, he was completely humbled. The sentence of the apostle, or the eldership, if opposed or neglected by the people, might have produced little impression; but "the punishment which was inflicted of many"—the immediate and entire abandonment of all connexion with him by the disciples at Corinth—overwhelmed him with shame and terror. He felt as a man smitten by the judgment of God; he renounced his sin; and he exhibited the most unequivocal tokens of genuine contrition. In due time he was restored to Church fellowship; and the apostle then exhorted his brethren to readmit him to intercourse, and to treat him with kindness and confidence. "Ye ought," says he, "rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such an one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." [227:1]

This case of the Corinthian fornicator has been recorded for the admonition and guidance of believers in all generations. It teaches that every member of a Christian Church is bound to use his best endeavours to promote a pure communion; and that he is not guiltless if, prompted by mistaken charity or considerations of selfishness, he is not prepared to co-operate in the exclusion of false brethren. Many an immoral minister has maintained his position, and has thus continued to bring discredit on the gospel, simply because those who had witnessed his misconduct were induced to suppress their testimony; and many a church court has been prevented from enforcing discipline by the clamours or intimidation of an ignorant and excited congregation. The command—"Put away from among yourselves that wicked person," is addressed to the people, as well as to the ministry; and all Christ's disciples should feel that, in vindicating the honour of His name, they have a common interest, and share a common responsibility. Every one cannot be a member of a church court; but every one can aid in the preservation of church discipline. He may supply information, or give evidence, or encourage a healthy tone of public sentiment, or assist, by petition or remonstrance, in quickening the zeal of lukewarm judicatories. And discipline is never so influential as when it is known to be sustained by the approving verdict of a pious and intelligent community. The punishment "inflicted of many"—the withdrawal of the confidence and countenance of a whole church—is a most impressive admonition to a proud sinner.

In the apostolic age the sentence of excommunication had a very different significance from that which was attached to it at a subsequent period. Our Lord pointed out its import with equal precision and brevity when he said—"If thy brother....neglect to hear the church, [228:1] let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." [228:2] The Israelites could have no religious fellowship with heathens, or the worshippers of false gods; and they could have no personal respect for publicans, or Roman tax-gatherers, who were regarded as odious representatives of the oppressors of their country. To be "unto them as an heathen" was to be excluded from the privileges of their church; and to be "unto them as a publican" was to be shut out from their society in the way of domestic intercourse. When the apostle says—"Now we command you, brethren, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the ordinance [228:3] which he received of us," [228:4] he doubtless designed to intimate that those who were excommunicated should be admitted neither to the intimacy of private friendship nor to the sealing ordinances of the gospel. But it did not follow that the disciples were to treat such persons with insolence or inhumanity. They were not at liberty to act thus towards heathens and publicans; for they were to love even their enemies, and they were to imitate the example of their Father in heaven who "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." [228:5] It is obvious from the address of the apostle to the Thessalonians that the members of the Church were not forbidden to speak to those who were separated from communion; and that they were not required to refuse them the ordinary charities of life. They were simply to avoid such an intercourse as implied a community of faith, of feeling, and of interest. "If any man," says he, "obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." [229:1]

How different was this discipline from that which was established, several centuries afterwards, in the Latin Church! The spirit and usages of paganism then supplanted the regulations of the New Testament, and the excommunication of Christianity was converted into the excommunication of Druidism. [229:2] Our Lord taught that "whoever would not hear the church" should be treated as a heathen man and a publican; but the time came when he who forfeited his status as a member of the Christian commonwealth was denounced as a monster or a fiend. Paul declared that the person excommunicated, instead of being counted as an enemy, should be admonished as a brother; but the Latin Church, in a long list of horrid imprecations, [229:3] invoked a curse upon every member of the body of the offender, and commanded every one to refuse to him the civility of the coldest salutation! The early Church acted as a faithful monitor, anxious to reclaim the sinner from the error of his ways: the Latin Church, like a tyrant, refuses to the transgressor even that which is his due, and seeks either to reduce him to slavery, or to drive him to despair.



CHAPTER II.

THE EXTRAORDINARY TEACHERS OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH; AND ITS ORDINARY OFFICE-BEARERS, THEIR APPOINTMENT, AND ORDINATION.

Paul declares that Christ "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." [230:1] In another place the same writer, when speaking of those occupying positions of prominence in the ecclesiastical community, makes a somewhat similar enumeration. "God," says he, "hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles; then, gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." [230:2]

These two passages, presenting something like catalogues of the most prominent characters connected with the Apostolic Church, throw light upon each other. They mention the ordinary, as well as the extraordinary, ecclesiastical functionaries. Under the class of ordinary office-bearers must be placed those described as "pastors and teachers," "helps," and "governments." The evangelists, such as Timothy, [230:3] Titus, and Philip, [230:4] seem to have had a special commission to assist in organizing the infant Church; [230:5] and, as they were furnished with supernatural endowments, [231:1] they may be considered extraordinary functionaries. The apostles themselves clearly belong to the same denomination. They all possessed the gift of inspiration [231:2] they all received their authority immediately from Christ; [231:3] they all "went in and out with Him" during His personal ministry; and, as they all saw Him after He rose from the dead, they could all attest His resurrection. [231:4] It is plain, too, that the ministrations of "the prophets," as well as of those who wrought "miracles," who possessed "gifts of healings," and who had "diversities of tongues," must also be designated extraordinary.

It is probable that by the "helps," of whom Paul here speaks, he understands the deacons, [231:5] who were originally appointed to relieve the apostles of a portion of labour which they felt to be inconvenient and burdensome. [231:6] The duties of the deacons were not strictly of a spiritual character; these ministers held only a subordinate station among the office-bearers of the Church; and, even in dealing with its temporalities, they acted under the advice and direction of those who were properly entrusted with its government. Hence, perhaps, they were called "helps" or attendants. [231:7]

When these helps and the extraordinary functionaries are left out of the apostolic catalogues, it is rather singular that, in the passage addressed to the Ephesians, we have nothing remaining but "PASTORS AND TEACHERS;" and, in that to the Corinthians, nothing but "TEACHERS" AND "GOVERNMENTS." There are good grounds for believing that these two residuary elements are identical,—the "pastors," mentioned before[232:1] the teachers in one text, being equivalent to the "governments" mentioned after them in the other.[232:2] Nor is it strange that those entrusted with the ecclesiastical government should be styled pastors or shepherds; for they are the guardians and rulers of "the flock of God." [232:3] Thus, it appears that the ordinary office-bearers of the Apostolic Church were pastors, teachers, and helps; or, teachers, rulers, and deacons.

In the apostolic age we read likewise of elders and bishops; and in the New Testament these names are often used interchangeably.[232:4] The elders or bishops, were the same as the pastors and teachers; for they had the charge of the instruction and government of the Church.[232:5] Hence elders are required to act as faithful pastors under Christ, the Chief Shepherd.[232:6] It appears, too, that whilst some of the elders were only pastors, or rulers, others were also teachers. The apostle says accordingly—"Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the word and doctrine".[232:7] We may thus see that the teachers, governments, and helps, mentioned by Paul when writing to the Corinthians, are the same as the "bishops and deacons" of whom he speaks elsewhere. [233:1]

In primitive times there were, generally, a plurality of elders, as well as a plurality of deacons, in every church or congregation; [233:2] and each functionary was expected to apply himself to that particular department of his office which he could manage most efficiently. Some elders possessed a peculiar talent for expounding the gospel in the way of preaching, or, as it was occasionally called, prophesying; [233:3] others excelled in delivering hortatory addresses to the people; others displayed great tact and sagacity in conducting ecclesiastical business, or in dealing personally with offenders, or with penitents; whilst others again were singularly successful in imparting private instruction to catechumens. Some deacons were frequently commissioned to administer to the wants of the sick; and others, who were remarkable for their shrewdness and discrimination, were employed to distribute alms to the indigent. In one of his epistles Paul pointedly refers to the multiform duties of these ecclesiastical office-bearers-"Having then," says he," gifts, differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry (of the deacon), let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." [233:4] It has been supposed by some that all the primitive elders, or bishops, were preachers; but the records of apostolic times warrant no such conclusion. These elders were appointed simply to "take care of the Church of God;" [233:5] and it was not necessary that each individual should perform all the functions of the pastoral office. Even at the present day a single preacher is generally sufficient to minister to a single congregation. When Paul requires that the elders who rule well, though they may not "labour in the word and doctrine," shall be counted worthy of double honour, [234:1] is language distinctly indicates that there were then persons designated elders who did not preach, and who, notwithstanding, were entitled to respect as exemplary and efficient functionaries. It is remarkable that when the apostle enumerates the qualifications of a bishop, or elder, [234:2] he scarcely refers to oratorical endowments. He states that the ruler of the Church should be grave, sober, prudent, and benevolent; but, as to his ability to propagate his principles, he employs only one word—rendered in our version "apt to teach." [234:3] This does not imply that he must be qualified to preach, for teaching and preaching are repeatedly distinguished in the New Testament; [234:4] neither does it signify that he must become a professional tutor, for, as has already been intimated, all elders are not expected to labour in the word and doctrine; it merely denotes that he should be able and willing, as often as an opportunity occurred, to communicate a knowledge of divine truth. All believers are required to "exhort one another daily," [235:1] "teaching and admonishing one another," [235:2] being "ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them;" [235:3] and those who "watch for souls" should be specially zealous in performing these duties of their Christian vocation. The word which has been supposed to indicate that every elder should be a public instructor occurs in only one other instance in the New Testament; and in that case it is used in a connexion which serves to illustrate its meaning. Paul there states that whilst such as minister to the Lord should avoid a controversial spirit, they should at the same time be willing to supply explanations to objectors, and to furnish them with information. "The servant of the Lord," says he, "must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." [235:4] Here the aptness to teach refers apparently to a talent for winning over gainsayers by means of instruction communicated in private conversation. [235:5]

But still preaching is the grand ordinance of God, as well for the edification of saints as for the conversion of sinners; and it was, therefore, necessary that at least some of the session or eldership connected with each flock should be competent to conduct the congregational worship. As spiritual gifts were more abundant in the apostolic times than afterwards, it is probable that at first several of the elders [236:1] were found ready to take part in its celebration. By degrees, however, nearly the whole service devolved on one individual; and this preaching elder was very properly treated with peculiar deference. [236:2] He was accordingly soon recognized as the stated president of the presbytery, or eldership.

It thus appears that the preaching elder held the most honourable position amongst the ordinary functionaries of the Apostolic Church. Whilst his office required the highest order of gifts and accomplishments, and exacted the largest amount of mental and even physical exertion, the prosperity of the whole ecclesiastical community depended mainly on his acceptance and efficiency. The people are accordingly frequently reminded that they are bound to respect and sustain their spiritual instructors. "Let him that is taught in the word," says Paul, "communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things." [236:3] "The Scripture saith—Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and, The labourer is worthy of his reward." [236:4] "So hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." [236:5]

The apostles held a position which no ministers after them could occupy, for they were sip pointed by our Lord himself to organize the Church. As they were to carry out instructions which they had received from His own lips, and as they were armed with the power of working miracles, [236:6] they possessed an extraordinary share of personal authority. Aware that their circumstances were peculiar, and that their services would be available until the end of time, [236:7] they left the ecclesiastical government, as they passed away one after another, to the care of the elders who had meanwhile shared in its administration. [237:1] As soon as the Church began to assume a settled form, they mingled with these elders on terms of equality; and, as at the Council of Jerusalem, [237:2] sat with them in the same deliberative assemblies. When Paul addressed the elders of Ephesus for the last time, and took his solemn farewell of them, [237:3] he commended the Church to their charge, and emphatically pressed upon them the importance of fidelity and vigilance. [237:4] In his Second Epistle to Timothy, written in the prospect of his martyrdom, he makes no allusion to the expediency of selecting another individual to fill his place. The apostles had fully executed their commission when, as wise master-builders, they laid the foundation of the Church and fairly exhibited the divine model of the glorious structure; and as no other parties could produce the same credentials, no others could pretend to the same authority. But even the apostles repeatedly testified that they regarded the preaching of the Word as the highest department of their office. It was, not as church rulers, but as church teachers, that they were specially distinguished. "We will give ourselves," said they, "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word." [237:5] "Christ sent me," said Paul, "not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." [238:1] "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ." [238:2]

But though, according to the New Testament, the business of ruling originally formed only a subordinate part of the duty of the church teacher, some have maintained that ecclesiastical government pertains to a higher function than ecclesiastical instruction; and that the apostles instituted a class of spiritual overseers to whose jurisdiction all other preachers are amenable. They imagine that, in the Pastoral Epistles, they find proofs of the existence of such functionaries; [238:3] and they contend that Timothy and Titus were diocesan bishops, respectively of Ephesus and Crete. But the arguments by which they endeavour to sustain these views are quite inconclusive. Paul says to Timothy—"I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine;" [239:1] and it has hence been inferred that the evangelist was the only minister in the capital of the Proconsular Asia who was sufficiently authorized to oppose heresiarchs. It happens, however, that in this epistle the writer says also to his correspondent—"Charge them that are rich in this world that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches;" [239:2] so that, according to the same method of interpretation, it would follow that Timothy was the only preacher in the place who was at liberty to admonish the opulent. When Paul subsequently stood face to face with the elders of Ephesus [239:3] he told them that it was their common duty to discountenance and resist false teachers; [239:4] and he had therefore now no idea of entrusting that responsibility to any solitary individual. The reason why the service was pressed specially on Timothy is sufficiently apparent. He had been trained up by Paul himself; he was a young minister remarkable for intelligence, ability, and circumspection; and he was accordingly deemed eminently qualified to deal with the errorists. Hence at this juncture his presence at Ephesus was considered of importance; and the apostle besought him to remain there whilst he himself was absent on another mission.

The argument founded on the instructions addressed to Titus is equally unsatisfactory. Paul says to him—"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain [240:1] elders in every city as I had appointed thee;" [240:2] and from these words the inference has been drawn that to Titus alone was committed the ecclesiastical oversight of all the churches of the island. But the words of the apostle warrant no such sweeping conclusion. Apollos, [240:3] and probably other ministers equal in authority to the evangelist, were now in Crete, and were, no doubt, ready to co-operate with him in the business of church organization. Titus, besides, had no right to act without the concurrence of the people; for, in all cases, even when the apostles were officiating, the church members were consulted in ecclesiastical appointments. [240:4] It is probable that the evangelist had much administrative ability, and this seems to have been the great reason why he was left behind Paul in Crete. The apostle expected that, with his peculiar energy and tact, he would stimulate the zeal of the people, as well as of the other preachers; and thus complete, as speedily as possible, the needful ecclesiastical arrangements.

When Paul once said to the high priest of Israel—"Sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law" [240:5]—he had no intention of declaring that the dignitary he addressed was the only member of the Jewish council who had the right of adjudication. [240:6] The court consisted of at least seventy individuals, every one of whom had a vote as effective as that of the personage with whom he thus remonstrated. It is said that the high priest at this period was not even the president of the Sanhedrim. [241:1] Paul was perfectly aware of the constitution of the tribunal to which Ananias belonged; and he merely meant to remind his oppressor that the circumstances in which he was placed added greatly to the iniquity of his present procedure. Though only one of the members of a large judicatory he was not the less accountable. Thus too, when Jesus said to Paul himself—"I send thee" to the Gentiles, "to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" [241:2]—it was certainly not understood that the apostle was to be the only labourer in the wide field of heathendom. The address simply intimated that he was individually commissioned to undertake the service. And though there were other ministers at Ephesus and Crete, Paul reminds Timothy and Titus that he had left them there to perform specific duties, and thus urges upon them the consideration of their personal responsibility. Though surrounded by so many apostles and evangelists, he tells us that there rested on himself daily "the care of all the churches;" [241:3] for he believed that the whole commonwealth of the saints had a claim on his prayers, his sympathy, and his services; and he desired to cherish in the hearts of his young brethren the same feeling of individual obligation. Hence, in these Pastoral Epistles, he gives his correspondents minute instructions respecting all the departments of the ministerial office, and reminds them how much depends on their personal faithfulness. Hence he here points out to them how they are to deport themselves in public and in private; [241:4] as preachers of the Word, and as members of church judicatories; [241:5] towards the rich and the poor, masters and slaves, young men and widows. [242:1] But there is not a single advice addressed to Timothy and Titus in any of these three epistles which may not be appropriately given to any ordinary minister of the gospel, or which necessarily implies that either of these evangelists exercised exclusive ecclesiastical authority in Ephesus or Crete. [242:2]

The legend that Timothy and Titus were the bishops respectively of Ephesus and Crete appears to have been invented about the beginning of the fourth century, and at a time when the original constitution of the Church had been completely, though silently, revolutionized. [242:3] It is obvious that, when the Pastoral Epistles were written, these ministers were not permanently located in the places with which their names have been thus associated. [242:4] The apostle John resided principally at Ephesus during the last thirty years of the first century; [242:5] so that, according to this tale, the beloved disciple must have been nearly all this time under the ecclesiastical supervision of Timothy! The story otherwise exhibits internal marks of absurdity and fabrication. It would lead us to infer that Paul must have distributed most unequally the burden of official labour; for whilst Timothy is said to have presided over the Christians of a single city, Titus is represented as invested with the care of a whole island celebrated in ancient times for its hundred cities. [243:1] It is well known that long after this period, and when the distinction between the president of the presbytery and his elders was fully established, a bishop had the charge of only one church, so that the account of the episcopate of Titus over all Crete must be rejected as a monstrous fiction.

On the occasion of an ambitious request from James and John, our Lord expounded to His apostles one of the great principles of His ecclesiastical polity. "Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them—Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you, but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister, and whosoever of you will be chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." [243:2] The teaching elder holds the most honourable position in the Church, simply because his office is the most laborious, the most responsible, and the most useful. And no minister of the Word is warranted to exercise lordship over his brethren, for all are equally the servants of the same Divine Master. He is the greatest who is most willing to humble himself, to spend, and to be spent, that Christ may be exalted. Even the Son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister; it was His meat and His drink to do the will of His Father in heaven; He was ready to give instruction to many or to few; at the sea or by the wayside; in the house, the synagogue, or the corn-field; on the mountain or in the desert; when sitting in the company of publicans, or when He had not where to lay His head. He who exhibits most of the spirit and character of the Great Teacher is the most illustrious of Christ's ministers.

The primitive Church was pre-eminently a free society; and, with a view to united action, its members were taught to consult together respecting all matters of common interest. Whilst the elders were required to beware of attempting to domineer over each other, they were also warned against deporting themselves as "lords over God's heritage." [244:1] All were instructed to be courteous, forbearing, and conciliatory; and each individual was made to understand that he possessed some importance. Though the apostles, as inspired rulers of the Christian commonwealth, might have done many things on their own authority, yet, even in concerns comparatively trivial, as well as in affairs of the greatest consequence, they were guided by the wishes of the people. When an apostle was to be chosen in the place of Judas, the multitude were consulted. [244:2] When deputies were required to accompany Paul in a journey to be undertaken for the public service, the apostle did not himself select his fellow-travellers, but the churches concerned, proceeded, by a regular vote, to make the appointment. [244:3] When deacons A or elders were to be nominated, the choice rested with the congregation. [244:4] The records of the apostolic age do not mention any ordinary church functionary who was not called to his office by popular suffrage. [244:5]

But though, in apostolic times, the communicants were thus freely entrusted with the elective franchise, the constitution of the primitive Church was not purely democratic; for while its office-bearers were elected for life, and whilst its elders or bishops formed a species of spiritual aristocracy, the powers of the people and the rulers were so balanced as to check each other's aberrations, and to promote the healthful action of all parts of the ecclesiastical body. When a deacon or a bishop was elected, he was not permitted, without farther ceremony, to enter upon the duties of his vocation. He was bound to submit himself to the presbytery, that they might ratify the choice by ordination; and this court, by refusing the imposition of hands, could protect the Church against the intrusion of incompetent or unworthy candidates. [245:1]

Among the Jews every ordained elder was considered qualified to join in the ordination of others. [245:2] The same principle was acknowledged in the early Christian Church; and when any functionary was elected, he was introduced to his office by the presbytery of the city or district with which he was connected. There is no instance in the apostolic age in which ordination was conferred by a single individual, Paul and Barnabas were separated to the work to which the Lord had called them by the ministers of Antioch; [245:3] the first elders of the Christian Churches of Asia Minor were set apart by Paul and Barnabas; [245:4] Timothy was invested with ecclesiastical authority by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery;" [245:5] and even the seven deacons were ordained by the twelve apostles acting, for the time, as the presbytery of Jerusalem. [245:6]

Towards the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans, [245:7] Paul mentions Phoebe, "a servant [245:8] of the Church which is at Cenchrea;" and from this passage some have inferred that the apostles instituted an order of deaconesses. It is scarcely safe to build such an hypothesis on the foundation of a solitary text of doubtful significance. It may be that Phoebe was one of the poor widows supported by the Church; [246:1] and that, as such, she was employed by the elders in various little services of a confidential or benevolent character. It is probable that, at one period, she had been in more comfortable circumstances, and that she had then distinguished herself by her humane and obliging disposition; for Paul refers apparently to this portion of her history when he says, "she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also." [246:2]

In the primitive age all the members of the same Church were closely associated. As brethren and sisters in the faith, they took a deep interest in each other's prosperity; and they regarded the afflictions of any single disciple as a calamity which had befallen the whole society. Each individual was expected in some way to contribute to the well-being of all. Even humble Phoebe could be the bearer of an apostolic letter to the Romans; and, on her return to Cenchrea, could exert a healthful influence among the younger portion of the female disciples, by her advice, her example, and her prayers. The industrious scribe could benefit the brotherhood by writing out copies of the gospels or epistles; and the pleasant singer, as he joined in the holy psalm, could thrill the hearts of the faithful by his notes of grave sweet melody. By establishing a plurality of both elders and deacons in every worshipping society, the apostles provided more efficiently, as well for its temporal, as for its spiritual interests; and the most useful members of the congregation were thus put into positions in which their various graces and endowments were better exhibited and exercised. One deacon attested his fitness for his office by his delicate attentions to the sick; another, by his considerate kindness to the poor; and another, by his judicious treatment of the indolent, the insincere, and the improvident. One elder excelled as an awakening preacher; another, as a sound expositor; and another, as a sagacious counsellor: whilst another still, who never ventured to address the congregation, and whose voice was seldom heard at the meetings of the eldership, could go to the house of mourning, or the chamber of disease, and there pour forth the fulness of his heart in most appropriate and impressive supplications. Every one was taught to appreciate the talents of his neighbour, and to feel that he was, to some extent, dependent on others for his own edification. The preaching elder could not say to the ruling elders, "I have no need of you;" neither could the elders say to the deacons, "We have no need of you." When the sweet singer was absent, every one admitted that the congregational music was less interesting; when the skilful penman removed to another district, the Church soon began to complain of a scarcity of copies of the sacred manuscripts; and even when the pious widow died in a good old age, the blank was visible, and the loss of a faithful servant of the Church was acknowledged and deplored. "As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it." [247:1]



CHAPTER III.

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

The Israelites were emphatically "a peculiar people." Though amounting, in the days of our Lord, to several millions of individuals, they were all the lineal descendants of Abraham; and though two thousand years had passed away since the time of their great progenitor; they had not meanwhile intermingled, to any considerable extent, with the rest of the human family. The bulk of the nation still occupied the land which had been granted by promise to the "father of the faithful;" the same farms had been held by the same families from age to age; and probably some of the proprietors could boast that their ancestors, fifteen hundred years before, had taken possession of the very fields which they now cultivated. They had all one form of worship, one high priest, and one place of sacrifice. At stated seasons every year all the males of a certain age were required to meet together at Jerusalem; and thus a full representation of the whole race was frequently collected in one great congregation.

The written law of Moses was the sacred bond which united so closely the Church of Israel. The ritual observances of the Hebrews, which had all a typical meaning, are described by the inspired lawgiver with singular minuteness; and any deviation from them was forbidden, not only because it involved an impeachment either of the authority or the wisdom of Jehovah, but also because it was calculated to mar their significance. Under the Mosaic economy the posterity of Abraham were taught to regard each other as members of the same family, interested, as joint heirs, in the blessings promised to their distinguished ancestor. The Israelites were knit together by innumerable ties, as well secular as religious; and when they appeared in one multitudinous assemblage on occasions of peculiar solemnity, [249:1] they presented a specimen of ecclesiastical unity such as the world has never since contemplated.

Some, however, have contended that the Christian community was originally constructed upon very different principles. According to them the word church [249:2] in the New Testament is always used in one of two senses—either as denoting a single worshipping society, or the whole commonwealth of the faithful; and from this they infer that, in primitive times, every Christian congregation was independent of every other. But such allegations, which are exceedingly improbable in themselves, are found, when carefully investigated, to be totally destitute of foundation. The Church of Jerusalem, [249:3] with the tens of thousands of individuals belonging to it, [249:4] must have consisted of several congregations; [249:5] the Church of Antioch, to which so many prophets and teachers ministered, [249:6] was probably in a similar position; and the Church of Palestine [249:7] obviously comprehended a large number of associated churches. When our Saviour prayed that all His people "may be one," [250:1] He evidently indicated that the unity of the Church, so strikingly exhibited in the nation of Israel, should still be studied and maintained; and when Paul describes the household of faith, he speaks of it, not as a loose mass of independent congregations, but as a "body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth." [250:2] The apostle here refers to the vital union of believers by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost; but he apparently alludes also to those "bands" of outward ordinances, and "joints" [250:3] of visible confederation, by which their communion is upheld; for, were the Church split up into an indefinite number of insulated congregations, even the unity of the spirit could neither be distinctly ascertained nor properly cultivated. When oiled by the spirit of Divine love, the machinery of the Church moves with admirable harmony, and accomplishes the most astonishing results; but, when pervaded by another spirit, it is strained and dislocated, and in danger of dashing itself to pieces.

Those who hold that every congregation, however small, is a complete church in itself, are quite unable to explain why the system of ecclesiastical organization should be thus circumscribed. The New Testament inculcates the unity of all the faithful, as well as the unity of particular societies; and the same principle of Christian brotherhood which prompts a number of individuals to meet together for religious fellowship, should also lead a number of congregations in the same locality to fraternize. The twelve may be regarded as the representatives of the doctrine of ecclesiastical confederation; for though they were commanded to go into all the world and to preach the gospel to every creature, yet, as long as circumstances permitted, they continued to co-operate. "When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John;" [251:1] and, at a subsequent period, they concurred in sending "forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch." [251:2] These facts distinctly prove that they had a common interest in everything pertaining to the well-being of the whole Christian commonwealth; and that, like Paul, they were entrusted with "the care of all the churches." Nor did the early Christian congregations act independently. They believed that union is strength, and they were "knit together" in ecclesiastical relationship. Hence, we read of the brother who was "chosen of the churches" [251:3] to travel with the Apostle Paul. It is now impossible to determine in what way this choice was made—whether at a general meeting of deputies from different congregations, or by a separate vote in each particular society—but, in whatever way the election was accomplished, the appointment of one representative for several churches was itself a recognition of their ecclesiastical unity.

We have seen that the worship of the Church was much the same as the worship of the synagogue, [251:4] and it would seem that its polity also was borrowed from the institutions of the chosen people. [251:5] Every Jewish congregation was governed by a bench of elders; and in every city there was a smaller sanhedrim, or presbytery, consisting of twenty-three members, [251:6] to which the neighbouring synagogues were subject. Jerusalem is said to have had two of these smaller sanhedrims, as it was found that the multitudes of cases arising among so vast a population were more than sufficient to occupy the time of any one judicatory. Appeals lay from all these tribunals to the Great Sanhedrim, or "Council," so frequently mentioned in the New Testament. [252:1] This court consisted of seventy or seventy-two members, made up, perhaps, in equal portions, of chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people, [252:2] The chief priests were probably twenty-four in number—each of the twenty-four courses, into which the sacerdotal order was divided, [252:3] thus furnishing one representative. The scribes were the men of learning, like Gamaliel, [252:4] who had devoted themselves to the study of the Jewish law, and who possessed recondite, as well as extensive information. The elders were laymen of reputed wisdom and experience, who, in practical matters, might be expected to give sound advice. [252:5] It was not strange that the Jews had so profound a regard for their Great Sanhedrim. In the days of our Lord and His apostles it had, indeed, miserably degenerated; but, at an earlier period, its members must have been eminently entitled to respect, as in point of intelligence, prudence, piety, and patriotism, they held the very highest place among their countrymen.

The details of the ecclesiastical polity of the ancient Israelites are now involved in much obscurity; but the preceding statements may be received as a pretty accurate description of its chief outlines. Our Lord himself, in the sermon on the mount, is understood to refer to the great council and its subordinate judicatories; [252:6] and in the Old Testament appeals from inferior tribunals to the authorities in the holy city are explicitly enjoined. [253:1] All the synagogues, not only in Palestine but in foreign countries, obeyed the orders of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem; [253:2] and it constituted a court of review to which all other ecclesiastical arbiters yielded submission.

In the government of the Apostolic Church we may trace a resemblance to these arrangements. Every Christian congregation, like every synagogue, had its elders; and every city had its presbytery, consisting of the spiritual rulers of the district. In the introductory chapters of the book of the Acts we discover the germ of this ecclesiastical constitution; for we there find the apostles ministering to thousands of converts, and, as the presbytery of Jerusalem, ordaining deacons, exercising discipline, and sending out missionaries. [253:3] The prophets and teachers of Antioch obviously performed the same functions; [253:4] Titus was instructed to have elders established, or a presbytery constituted, in every city of Crete; [253:5] and Timothy was ordained by such a judicatory. [253:6] For the first thirty years after the death of our Lord a large proportion of the ministers of the gospel were Jews by birth, and as they were in the habit of going up to Jerusalem to celebrate the great festivals, they appear to have taken advantage of the opportunity, and to have held meetings in the holy city for consultation respecting the affairs of the Christian commonwealth. Prudence and convenience conspired to dictate this course, as they could then reckon upon finding there a considerable number of able and experienced elders, and as their presence in the Jewish metropolis on such occasions was fitted to awaken no suspicion. [253:7]

We may thus see that the transaction mentioned in the 15th chapter of the Acts admits of a simple and satisfactory explanation. When the question respecting the circumcision of the Gentile converts began to be discussed at Antioch, there were individuals in that city quite as well qualified as any in Jerusalem to pronounce upon its merits; for the Church there enjoyed the ministry of prophets; and Paul, its most distinguished teacher, was "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." But the parties proceeded in the matter in much the same way as Israelites were accustomed to act under similar circumstances. Had a controversy relative to any Mosaic ceremony divided the Jewish population of Antioch, they would have appealed for a decision to their Great Sanhedrim; and now, when this dispute distracted the Christians of the capital of Syria, they had recourse to another tribunal at Jerusalem which they considered competent to pronounce a deliverance. [254:1] This tribunal consisted virtually of the rulers of the universal Church; for the apostles, who had a commission to all the world, and elders from almost every place where a Christian congregation existed, were in the habit of repairing to the capital of Palestine. In one respect this judicatory differed from the Jewish council, for it was not limited to seventy members. In accordance with the free spirit of the gospel dispensation, it appears to have consisted of as many ecclesiastical rulers as could conveniently attend its meetings. But the times were somewhat perilous; and it is probable that the ministers of the early Christian Church did not deem it expedient to congregate in very large numbers.