by the apostles, as representatives and vicegerents of Christ; still less by the apostle Peter alone as his vicegerent; but it was governed by itself, by the entire membership, deliberating, debating and deciding, on public measures. This appears from the following indubitable evidences:

1. The appointment of the apostle Matthias. Acts 1: 1526. This measure is proposed by Peter in a meeting of the disciples, the membership, of about one hundred and twenty. And they appointed (two, probably those two having an equal number of votes), and decided between them by casting lots. The lot fell on Matthias, and he συγκατεψηφισθη, was voted among the twelve apostles.

This assembly represented the whole Christian church at the time, and probably had members from every part of the land of Israel. It was a meeting of disciples, not of ministers only.

2. The appointment of deacons. - Acts 6: 1-6. A trouble having arisen from irregularity in the distribution of church charities to the poor, in the church at Jerusalem, the twelve called the multitude of the disciples together, and proposed to them the appointment of seven deacons. The proposition pleased the whole multitude, and they chose them accordingly, and set them before the apostles, and the apostles ordained them.

Here, for the first time, we find the clergy and laity acting separately and conjointly in a church matter.

The apostles propose a measure, the brethren approve it; elect deacons, and set them before the apostles; and, finally, the apostles ordain and install them in their offices. The right to ordain, on the part of the ministry, implies a right to withhold ordination from improper candidates. Such a right involves a limitation of the power of the brethren, so as to require the concurrence of the preëxisting ministry in the appointment of ministers; but it does not justify ministerial absolutism.

3. The trial of Peter for preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, and admitting them to the church. - Acts 11: 1-18.

When the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard

that the Gentiles had received the word of God, and when Peter had returned to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went in to men who were uncircumcised, and you eat with them. Peter explained the matter, and when they heard these things they were silent, and glorified God; saying, Truly, then, hath God granted to the Gentiles repentance to life, This trial and the exposition by Peter appears to have been in a general meeting of the brethren at Jerusalem, and is a virtual concession to them of a right to know the reasons of his procedure, and competency to judge of the validity of those reasons. This was in a. D. 41.

4. The settlement of the controversy respecting circumcision in A. D. 52.

This controversy arose at Antioch, when certain men from Judea taught that circumcision was obligatory on Christians, and that there could be no salvation without it. This was a new doctrine in the Gentile churches, and excited great dissension. Paul and Barnabas opposed it, but were unable to satisfy the church. Whereupon it was agreed that they and others should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and presbyters, concerning this question. The persons who made this agreement were evidently the church at Antioch, and other Christians in that region. This appears both from the context and from v. 23, where the letter of the council at Jerusalem is addressed to the brethren who are of the Gentiles.

On the arrival of these delegates at Jerusalem, they were received by the church, by the apostles and the presbyters; and the apostles and presbyters came together to consider the matter. The question is debated long and earnestly. At length Peter gives his opinion against circumcision; then Barnabas and Paul give their opinions, all the multitude of the disciples paying particular attention to these powerful preachers. After that, James, who seems to have presided in the council, gives his opinion, in agreement with the opinions of Peter, Barnabas and Paul; and advised a decision of the council to that effect.

Then it pleased the apostles and presbyters, with the whole church, to send two commissioners to Antioch, with Barnabas and Paul, communicating their decision, which was adverse to circumcision; and they wrote a circular letter after this manner: "The apostles, presbyters and brethren, send greeting to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard that certain persons who went out from us have troubled you with words, perverting your minds, saying that ye must be circumcised and keep the law, whom we commanded not; it seemed good to us, being assembled and of one mind in regard to it, to send delegates to you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have exposed their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, who will tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, from strangled meat, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye will do well. Farewell."

Here observe that this great question is not settled by the apostles, nor by the apostles and presbyters, but by the apostles, presbyters, and brethren. Of the brethren large numbers were present. v. 12. Observe, too, that the decision was unanimo

v. 25.

Now, what was this council at Jerusalem? It was not a general Presbyterian assembly, consisting of ministers and ruling presbyters; it was not an Episcopal general convention, consisting of bishops and presbyters, or of bishops, presbyters and delegates from parishes, voting in separate houses. It was a Congregational church meeting of the church in Jerusalem. Nor is this all. It was a Congregational church meeting, held as a court of reference on a question that had come up from the church at Antioch for advice, and that one of the great questions of the day.

The apostles did not decide this question by authority. They argued it, and the council decided it. The action is that of the

apostles, presbyters, and the whole church. v. 22. The decision was of the highest importance. It related to a question of ecclesiastical law. If any question might have been taken from the church and given to the ministry, or from the ordinary ministers and referred to the apostles, this surely is one. no; it must be decided by the church, the brotherhood.

But

5. The membership in the church judged concerning the qualifications of candidates for membership, and received or rejected applicants. This appears from Rom. 14: 1.—“ Him that is weak in the faith receive (to the church), but not to doubtful disputa-. tions." This is a direction not to Roman presbyters, but to the Roman po saints, the entire church. — Rom. 1: 7.

6. The membership excommunicated offenders. 1 Cor. 5: 7. - Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new mass as ye are unleavened. V. 9, 11, 13.-Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. This is not to the presbyters, but to the church at Corinth. 1 Cor. 1: 2.

7. The membership were required to admonish and restore offenders.

Gal. 6: 1.—“ Brethren, if a man be overtaken in any fault, do ye who are spiritual restore such a one, in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

We have one example of a council of presbyters without the membership, in Acts 21: 18-30." And the day following, Paul went with us to James, and all the presbyters were present. And when he had saluted them, he related particularly what things God had performed among the Gentiles, by his ministry. And when they heard, they glorified God. And they said to him, Thou seest, brother, how many ten thousands of Jews have believed, and they are all zealots of the law," &c.

This is simply an association of presbyters, with James as moderator of the meeting, called for the purpose of receiving Paul, hearing from him an account of his labors, and advising him with respect to the dangers with which he was surrounded, and the most likely method of avoiding them.

CHAPTER III.

PECULIARITIES OF PRIMITIVE CHURCH ORDER.

Ir does not appear that the constitutions of the first churches were written out. No record is made of any of them in the New Testament, and no vestige of any is preserved in the archives of antiquity.

The documents known in ecclesiastical history as the apostolic canons and constitutions were ascribed to Clement, a bishop of Rome, near the close of the first century. But they are the productions of a later writer, who probably lived in the third century; and appear to have been somewhat altered, probably in the fourth century. They belong to the class of pious frauds, which were quite numerous in the early ages, and cannot be admitted as valid evidences of apostolic principles and usages.

It does not appear that Christ dictated any general summary confession of faith, to be used by his churches, in the admission of members; nor do the apostles appear to have composed any. None is preserved, and probably none was written. Candidates appear to have made an extempore confession before the church to the satisfaction of the membership, and that in answer to questions. 1 Pet. 3: 21.- As to which the antitype now saves us, not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the answer to God of a good conscience."

Without any elaborate written confessions, believers professed their perfect faith in Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Saviour of men; in the holy Scriptures as the word of God; in the Holy Spirit as the sanctifier and the spirit of truth; and in the Scripture doctrines of holiness in this life, and of a future state. All this, and much more, was comprehended in faith in Christ. To believe in Christ was to believe in the whole