tolic church ?" Our author answers, "It was a regularly organi zed society." He tells us that the apostolic idea of the church was, "that it included all the actual and professed subjects of the king of heaven, whether on earth or in heaven." And he goes on to argue with much iteration, and with emphatic variety of typography, that "the church is one; but twofold in its nature;" first, there is the "church outward and visible," which is nothing else than "the church militant" on earth; and secondly, there is the "church invisible and spiritual," which is nothing else than "the church triumphant" in heaven. The first of these two is designed to prepare men for the second, of which it is a type. And these two are one. Of course, we shall not be expected to give in detail the argument by which the author attempts to make out these positions. For that we refer the reader to the book itself. It belongs to us rather to say, how far the argument commends itself to our judgment as conclusive. We say then, outright, that the author has not made out his positions; and that his argument on this main point-a point so fundamental to his whole book, and indeed to the entire high church theory of Christianity-is little else than a tissue of all sorts of sophistries. In particular, 1. He resolutely avoids the distinction which lies upon the surface of the Scriptures, between the literal use of the word 'church,' as denoting an actual assembly or meeting, and the figurative use of it, as denoting the universal commonwealth of God's people. It is hardly necessary to say that we are speaking of the word church' in the New Testament, or rather of that Greek word (exxinala) thus translated by order of King James I, in the common English version. All that Mr. Chapin finds occasion to tell us touching the New Testament usage of the word 'church,' is that, in the English translation, "it is used in place of the Greek Ecclesia, which denotes an assembly legally and properly convened, whether common or religious, signifying either the place where the assembly meets, or the persons assembled." And then, as if nothing more could be said on that point, he runs off into a cloud of learned dust, "Latin," "Greek," "Gothic," "old German,' ," "German," "Dutch," "Scottish," "Anglo-Saxon," " Anglo-Saxon," "Icelandic," "Swedish, ‚” “Russian,” “Bohemian,' "Lusitanian," 66 Dalmatian," "Polish," and "Portuguese." But in the face of all this learning, we must be allowed to say that, in the New Testament, the word (ɛxxola) taken by itself, never means the place of meeting as distinguished from the meeting itself. Nor does it denote an "assembly legally and properly convened," but only an assembly or meeting, without any reference to the regularity or irreg ularity of its coming together. Thus even that assembly which was most illegally and improperly convened in the theater at Ephesus, is called by Luke a church, (ɛxxhyoia,) though King James's translators have called it simply an assembly. (Acts xix, 40.) And from this one example, if there were no other, it is evident that the word 'church,' standing by itself, does not mean a "regularly organized society," nor indeed a society at all in our ordinary use of that word. The disciples at Jerusalem, from and after the day of Pentecost, at least till persecution grew active, were wont to meet daily at the regular hours of the temple worship, under the shelter of one of the magnificent colonnades of Herod's temple. (Acts ii, 46; iii, 1, 11; v, 12-14.) At the appointed hour, the twelve were to be found in the portico which was called Solomon's, and the multitude of their ness of him who filleth all in all," it is palpable that instead of speaking of some actual meeting or assembly, he is speaking figuratively. Nor is the exact association of thoughts which leads to the use of this figure, and determines its sig nificancy, difficult to be discovered. The ancient " commonwealth of Israel" was a kingdom. The great commonwealth of God's true Israel fellow disciples naturally flocked around them; while the greater multitudes who still rejected Jesus of Nazareth, as naturally withdrew from them, and stood in other parts of the great enclosure. This assembly in Solomon's portico, the Apostles and their followers denominated "the meeting," using, no doubt, as they could not but use, the identical Hebrew or Aramean word (p) which in the Old Tes--the spiritual fellowship of God's retament is translated "congregation." So when there began to be disciples in other parts of Palestine, they too had their "meetings," weekly, or more frequent; and the same Hebrew or Aramean word which was applied to the meeting at Jerusalem, could not but be applied to the meeting at Joppa, at Ceserea, and at Samaria. That word the Hellenist disciples translated by the Greek word now in question, which is one of the two words used interchangeably for that purpose by the Septuagint translators of the Old Testament. Church' (ɛxxλŋʊía) and 'synagogue' (ovvaywy) are originally, and in the Septuagint, two exactly synonymous translations of the same Hebrew word. As the word 'synagogue' seems to have become among the Hellenist Jews the more ordinary word to denote the places of their assemblies for prayer and the reading of the law, the other word was naturally appropriated to denote those new assemblies, the members of which were believers in Jesus. The word thus applied, was used in its literal meaning. 66 But there is also a figurative use of the word in the New Testament, equally obvious to the reader of the original text. When Christ says, Upon this rock”—the rock of Peter's confession of faith-"I will build my congregation," (Matt. xvi, 18,) he uses the word (Exxλnola) not literally but figuratively. So when Paul says that Christ" is exalted to be head over all things to the congregation, which is his body, the full deemed people-is therefore styled a kingdom, the kingdom of Christ, of God, of heaven. In like manner, the ancient commonwealth of Israel was denominated "the congregation." While that commonwealth sojourned in the desert, where it received the law and all its national institutions, it was literally a "congregation;" and therefore it received that name. And afterwards, three times in every year, when all the nation presented itself before God at Jerusalem, it was literally a "general assembly and congregation," (naryvos nat (πανήγυρις και exxλyota, Heb. xii, 23,) and thus the name retained its primitive signifi cancy. In conformity with this mode of speaking, the spiritual Israel, the great and eternal common. wealth of those who worship the Father in spirit and in truth, under the kingly power and priestly intercession of the Son of God, is called "the congregation," the "general assembly and congregation of the first born, enrolled in heaven." Our first objection, then, both to Mr. Chapin's statement of "what was the apostolic church," and to his argument in support of that statement, is, that he entirely avoids this obvious distinction between the lite ral and the figurative use of the word 'church' in the apostolic writings. 2. But this is only the beginning. He mystifies the distinction which common sense makes between the visible church and the invisible. Take the word 'church' in the large and figurative use, of which we have just spoken, as signifying the kingdom of Christ on earth-the great communion of the redeemed and holy; and in one view the church is invisible, while in another view it may be said to be visible. It "cometh not with observation." It" is within," not an outward kingdom. It is not meat and drink," -not ordinances and institutions"but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." It includes all those, and only those, whose character in the sight of God comes within the conditions of salvation through Jesus Christ. It is "the fullness of him who filleth all in all." It is the commonwealth of those "who are enrolled in heaven." It is the dominion of truth and love, the reigning of God in the hearts of men. Its actual extent and boundaries-its actual existence and progress "within" each chosen soulare seen by no other eye than his who looketh on the heart. This is the true "congregation of the first born," the spiritual body of which an invisible Christ is the head. This is the "holy universal church," out of which there is no salvation. On this idea of an invisible church of God, a spiritual Israel unseen by the outward eye, Paul's reasoning in the epistle to the Romans, continually turns. They are not all Israel who are of Israel." (Rom. ix, 6.) In the days of Elijah, the true Israel, the invisible commonwealth of God, were those "seven thousand men," unknown to the desponding prophet, and unknown to each other, "who had not bowed the knee to Baal." (xi, 4.) "He is not a Jew [one of God's peculiar and covenant people] who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision [in the sense of obtaining a participation in the spiritual promises made to Abraham] which is outward and in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in 66 the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." (ii, 28, 29.) It is This invisible kingdom of God on earth-which is simply God's living and spiritual temple, "as God hath said I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" -is in another view visible. visible in the means by which it is set up and extended. Wherever the inspired oracles hold forth their light; wherever the living servant of Christ bids men repent and believe, and says to them "the kingdom of God is come nigh to you ;" wherever there is the visible worship of the true God, who is a spirit,-there the kingdom of Christ is visible, at least in its first rudiments. The kingdom of God is visible in the professed and recog nized repentance, faith, and love, and in the manifested holiness of those who have felt its power. It is visible in the institutions of spiritual worship-not in forms alone, for these may be in their highest perfection where no kingdom of God is visible; but in forms animated and glowing with manifested life. It is visible in all the outward results of the doctrine which is according to godliness-in the peace and happiness that fill a Christian land-in the calm and holy beauty of a Sabbath morn, smiling upon city, hamlet, and field-in the modest spire that rises from among the embowering elms of a village green in the sepulchral stone that tells of consolation, and of victory over death. The visible members of Christ's "holy and universal congre gation," are all those who give evidence of a renewed heart-all who in any way make it manifest that they love God, that they walk after the Spirit, or that they hunger and thirst after righteousness. church does not exclude on the one hand the groping papist, blinded and burthened in his servitude to That forms, if he gives evidence of a heart in which God reigns; nor on the other hand does it reject the erratic Quaker, who knows no bap tism with water, if amid all his errors it appears that he "holds the head," and has experienced a baptism of the Spirit. This distinction between the visible kingdom of God on earth, and the invisible, is fundamental to a spiritual understanding of the Scriptures. But our author's statements and arguments respecting the apostolic church, mystify and even annihilate this distinction. According to him, the invisible church is nothing else than the church triumphant in heaven; the only church on earth is a church outward and visible; and through this outward and visible church below, men must pass into that invisible church above. Such is his theory-such the "high church" theory of Christianity. This theory has been well named churchianity. It is antagonistic to the gospel of peace, the law of liberty. It contains the seminal principle of a complete system of superstition and spiritual despotism; and that system is the gospel of Oxford and of Rome. 3. It is little more than a matter of course to add, that our author violently misconstrues and misap plies the Scriptures. This he could not avoid doing, if he must needs make the Scriptures support such a theory. One or two examples of this shall suffice. To prove that "the apostolic church was a regularly organized society," his first point is, that in the language of the Scriptures the church "is one fold, having one shepherd;" and he cites John x, 16, of which text it is enough to say, that the only "organization," or unity of the "one fold," expressed or implied in those words of Christ, is that which connects it with the "one shepherd." The next citation is from John xvii, 21-23, the Vol. I. 51 66 sublime passage in which the Redeemer prays that his redeemed may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." What a perversion-we had almost said, what a profanation-of the tenderest, sublimest, holiest words ever uttered by the Son of God! As if that prayer of the interceding Immanuel, were a prayer that all his disciples might belong to one "outward," "visible," "regularly organized society!" Turn to the passage and read, “that they all may be ONE,"-how one? -one in outward organization as a body politic?-one in the observance of forms and disciplinary reg. ulations?-one in subjection and obedience to a human hierarchy ? How impertinent the intrusion of such notions upon the deep flow of thought and feeling which the devout reading of this prayer awakens in every spiritual mind! No! when the Redeemer prayed that his redeemed might all be one, his spirit was not thinking of "uniformity" or "organization," but of an inward, vital, spiritual unity;—" as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE IN US. The unity spoken of, is a unity in the Father and the Son. Let us read again. "The glory which thou gavest me, I have given them, that they may be one,"-how one ?— 66 even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." What unity is this? Unity of affection and of mind, unity of aim and purpose, unity of spirit and of life, unity in God and in Christ. So far as this unity exists, it will be, like light, and like life, self-manifested; and it will give the clearest of all testimonies to that power and love of a redeeming God, from which alone it can originate. Other examples of Mr. Chapin's mode of using the Scriptures are in our eye, but we must forbear to notice them particularly. We will only say in general, that if we may judge from the mode in which he applies those texts which speak of the spiritual union of renewed and holy souls, whether with each other or with their head, he has no idea of any union of believers with Christ or in Christ, distinct from an ecclesiastical union-a union in the church considered as an organiza tion. 4. Some notice must be taken of the kind of logic by which this church-theory is supported. Mr. Chapin's logic may be no worse than that of other advocates of the same system; for our part we do not see how the system could be maintained by any logic much more rational. Probably much that is quite as bad in the way of reasoning, may be found in writers of much greater celebrity. Our time, just now, will not permit us to verify our impressions, but, at a venture, we dare be bound to show, from the writings of the Oxford tractators themselves, specimens of logic no better than that of Mr. Chapin's, which happens to open upon us in this connection. 66 Having quoted many of the texts which speak of Christians as constituting one body," with "many members," and having "one head," even Christ, the author suddenly in terrupts the chain of his Scripture testimonies, and gives free scope to his reasoning powers. "The prac tice of the Apostles," in speaking of the church as a body, seems to him highly significant. And accordingly, upon this simple figure of speech, he proceeds to erect a sweeping argument, before which he evidently thinks no opposition can stand. "If the church be one body,' having 'one head,' 'with many members,' the members having various offices,' then it follows that it is a perfect body. And if a perfect body, it will be attended by the following particulars: "(1.) The head will be the eye, that is, the overseer of the body. This follows, both from the analogy of the Apostle's figure, and from the office and object of the eye. Hence the duty of overseeing can not be any where but in the head. "(2.) The head will be the ear of the body. And if the ear, then it will have the power of hearing, and consequently of judging all matters relative to the wants and duties of the body. 66 (3.) The head will be the mouth of the body. And if the mouth of the body the church-then it will have the pow er of speaking on behalf and in the name of the church. "From the foregoing it follows, that in every apostolic church there was a head, having the power of overseeing, hearing, judging, and speaking, for and in behalf of the church. No church, therefore, can be formed after the apostolic pattern, to which these allusions are not applicable, or which has not such a head, having these powers, and performing these duties." p. 32. The first step in this argument is, "If the church be one body," etc., then "it is a perfect body." But what is a perfect body? Surely, unless there is something in the conclusion which is not included in the premises, a "perfect body," as words are here used, is neither more nor less than "one body, having one head, with many members, the members having various offices." But when we look to the uses which the author makes of this conclusion, we see at once that by "a perfect body" he means a body be tween which and the human body there is a perfect analogy—or at least an analogy just as perfect as is necessary to answer his purpose. Accordingly, the next step of the arguinent is, "If the church is a perfect body, it will be attended by the following particulars." See the particulars as quoted above. The clearness and cogency of the conclusion, which constitutes this second step, demand some deliberate attention. The beauty of the reasoning here is twofold-not to say manifold. In the first place, who can help won |