εἰς κοινωνιαν αυτους μη προσδέξεσθε· πολλα γαρ κατα συναρ •παγην γινεται.* At the synod of Carthage, held A. D. 348 or 349, it was resolved that no one shall receive a minister without letters from his bishop."† If furnished with suitable testimonials a minister in one part of the church was acknowledged as such in every other, and if present at public worship was ordinarily invited to take part in conducting the services. The tendency which such free sacramental intercommunion as opportunity offers with all over the whole earth who present credible evidence of genuine discipleship, cannot readily be calculated. The views and principles and feelings which it presupposes, constitute important elements of the millennial union of the future church. God grant their speedy dissemination over the church universal! The fifth means by which unity was promoted and preserved among the primitive Christians, was occasional epistolary communication. Of this fact we have abundant proof in the epistles of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and Barnabas, who are termed apostolic fathers, because they lived partly in the apostolic age. Some of these epistles are doubtless spurious and all corrupted, yet enough remains to answer the purpose for which we adduce them to show that they were letters written to different churches to promote doctrinal and ecclesiastical union among them. The age immediately subsequent to the apostles furnishes numerous instances of such epistolary communion of the churches. From Eusebius we learn that Dionysius of Corinth about the year A. D. 160, sent abroad numerous epistles of this kind. And first (says Eusebius*) we must speak "Let no one receive strange (foreign) bishops or presbyters or deacons without letters of recommendation; and the letters that are brought must be examined. If they prove to be pious preachers (preachers of piety) let them be received: but if they do not; their immediate necessities should be supplied, but they must not be received into communion. For many instances of fraud have occurred in this matter." Koepler's Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, Vol. IV. p. 240. +Fuch's Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen, Vol. III. p. 35. * Eusebius, IV. ch. 23. Καὶ πρῶτον γε περὶ Διονυσίου φατέον· ὅτι τε τῆς ἐν Κορίνθῳ παροικίας τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐγκεχείριστο θρόνον, καὶ ὡς τῆς ἐνθέου φιλοπονίας οὐ μόνον τοῖς ὑπ ̓ αὐτὸν, ἀλλ ̓ ἤδη καὶ τοῖς of Dionysius, who was appointed over the church at Corinth, and imparted freely not only to his own people, but to others abroad also, the blessings of his divine labors. But he was most useful to all in the general epistles which he addressed to the churches. One of them is addressed to the Lacedaemonians, and contains instructions in the true religion, and inculcates peace and unity: one also to the Athenians, exciting them to the faith and the life prescribed by the gospel, from which he shows that they had swerved, so that they had nearly fallen from the truth since the martyrdom of Publius, their leader (bishop) which happened in the persecutions of those times. The necessity of such letters as means of christian instruction, is at present superseded by the universal dissemination of the holy Scriptures; yet as bonds of christian union, they may still be occasionally resorted to with the happiest results, especially between Christians of distant countries as a substitute for personal intercourse. We cannot but commend the epistle of the venerable Dr. Planck of Germany, to the General Synod of the Lutheran Church in this country, as also the epistles of the Congregational and Presbyterian churches of the United States. to the Christians of the same denomination in Europe. Still, all these epistles bear on their front the badge of schism; for they were addressed by particular sects of Christians, not to Christians of another country generally, but only to Christians of the same sect. They are epistles from followers of Paul and Apollos in one land, to disciples of the same leaders in another. So completely has sectarianism separated the several denominations, that by many it is regarded as immodest to address any others than those of our own sect. Instead of that community of interest between all the members of Christ's body, which the apostle inculcates, "so that all the members should have the same care one for another, and whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it;"* sectarianism has taught each ἐπι τῆς ἀλλοδαπῆς ἀφθόνως ἐκοινώνει χρησιμωτατον ἅπασιν ἑαυτὸν καθίστας, ἐν οἷς ὑπετυποῦτο καθολικαῖς πρὸς τὰς ἐκκλησίας ἐπιστολαῖς· ὧν ἐστιν, ἡ μὲν πρὸς Δακεδαιμονίους, ὀρθοδοξίας κατηχήτικη, εἰρήνης τε καὶ ἑνωσέως ὑποθετική· ἡ δὲ πρὸς Αθηναίους, διεγέρτικη πιστεως καὶ τῆς κατὰτὸ εὐαγγελίον πολιτείας· ἧς ὀλιγωρησάντας ἐλεγχεῖ, ὡς ἀν μικ ροῦ δεῖν ἀποστάντας τοῦ λόγου, ἐξ οἱπὲρ τὸν προεστῶτα αὐτῶν Πού πλιον μαρτυρῆσαι κατὰ τοὺς τότε συνεβῆ διωγμούς. member of the body to stand aloof from the others, has taught them by no means to "have the same care one for another!!" The last bond of primitive union was the occasional consultation of different churches by representatives convened in a council or synod. This means of prolonging unity among Christians was for several reasons not very frequently resorted to in the apostolic age. The continual journies of the apostles tended in a measure to answer the same purpose. How often councils for mutual consultation were held, prior to that at Rome, mentioned by Eusebius, we know not; but the principle being sanctioned by the apostolic example, Acts xv., the church should apply it just as extensively as is found to promote the spirit of union, brotherly love and order among Christians. As however neither Christ nor his apostles have appointed such bodies as courts of judicature or appeal; it is probable, that whatever business of this kind is referred to the more extensive judicatories, their decisions should be regarded mainly as advisory, and should have no other force than results from the evidence alleged in support of the opinion given. The danger of such General Synods, Assemblies, or Conventions, arises not so much from the number of churches represented in them, as from the great number of the delegates, from the degree of power conferred on them by the elementary members of Christ's body, the individual churches; and from the amount of actual business which is transferred from the churches in their elementary capacity, to these judicatories. If the delegation be small, so that the whole body will not be unwieldly; if the business transacted be not such as properly belongs to the individual churches; if it relate only to the general interests of the church; and if the powers of the body be only advisory; this principle of mutual consultation might to a certain extent be safely employed. In view of these facts and principles, the writer regarded with high approbation the proposition for a re-organization of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church by making it an Advisory Council. That measure, which was proposed in the Biblical Repertory of 1832, was by uncontradicted fame attributed to the Rev. Dr. Alexander, and contains a distinguished specimen of practical wisdom, and enlarged views of the principles of our holy religion, in their application to ecclesiastical jurisprudence. On precisely the same general principles, the General Synod of the Lutheran Church in this country was founded seventeen years ago, and of its salutary and safe practical operation, scarcely a dissenting voice is heard among the enlightened friends of evangelical piety among us. We have thus endeavored faithfully to exhibit the features which constituted the unity of the primitive church. Let us now pursue the subject further, deduce the principles furnished by these facts, and finally develope a plan to restore the unity of the body of Christ on the same apostolic principles, which constituted it in the primitive ages; a consummation which ought to be devoutly wished for by every disciple of that Saviour who so earnestly prayed for the union of his followers; an object so dear to the heart of the nobleminded Calvin, that to accomplish it he says: "As to myself, were I likely to be of any service, I would not hesitate, were it necessary, for such a purpose, to cross ten seas" (Quantum ad me attinet, siquis mei usus fore videbitur, ne decem quidem maria, si opus sit, ob eam rem trajicere pigeat. Calvin's Epist. p. 61). ARTICLE VII. THE HEBREW TENSES. Translation of Ewald's Syntax, in the second (abridged) edition of his Hebrew Grammar, so far as it respects the use of the Tenses in Hebrew, with remarks on the same, by M. Stuart, of the Theol. Seminary, Andover. [THE apparently unlimited metes and bounds of the Hebrew tenses, as employed in the Old Testament Scriptures, have given rise to many curious, and to some not uninteresting theories, in relation to this subject. Long has this usage been the stumbling-block of grammarians, and particularly of those who were inclined to maintain, that every thing in language is managed with the most perfect regularity and uniformity. That the Future tense in Hebrew should ever be employed as the common historic Aorist in narrations of events that occurred in past time, while the Praeterite has far more than an equal share in designating things yet to come, is a phenomenon which at least is singular in many respects, and which would (as it has actually done) naturally give rise to many and diverse theories and conjectures. It is not my present purpose to enter into the history or the examination of these at large. It would require somewhat of a volume for either; and my apprehension is, that such a volume would not find a very numerous class of readers; certainly not in our country. Most of the theories which have been broached, have indeed been ephemeral. They have appeared and disappeared with the authors of their existence. And one good reason for this has been, that most of the authors of such theories have been men of very limited acquisitions in the Hebrew language, and therefore could not have much weight in the scale of Hebrew literature, nor extend their influence very far. At present, however, we find the matter in circumstances which are quite different. Ewald is unquestionably among the first Hebrew scholars now upon the stage of action. He has great talents for linguistic acquisition; nor is he by any means wanting in the power of philosophical speculation on the nature and attributes of language. That he is free from all embarassments on the ground of precedents, is sufficiently manifest, in every step of his progress, to please the most independent class of critics, who hold least of all to authority in these matters. In my own view, this independency is excessive in Ewald. It seems to me to have become even a morbid feeling, and to have urged him on to make the differences between himself and other grammarians as numerous and as large as possible. On no subject, perhaps, has he gained more reputation for himself, than in the department of Hebrew Syntax. It has become fashionable among one class of Hebrew critics in Germany, to appeal almost exclusively to Ewald as authority; and seldom do they mention other grammarians, unless it be in the way of a sneer, or in order to show some kind of contempt for them. One would think, from the tenor of what is said by them in relation to this subject, that all other Hebrew philologists now on the stage had already outlived their fame and their usefulness. Having recently been engaged in publishing a new edition of my Hebrew Grammar, I went through a review of the Syntax in as thorough a manner as the haste with which it was printed permitted me to do. One duty which I prescribed to myself was, to read and compare Ewald's Syntax; specially that of the abridged edition of his Grammar, which contains a more orderly digest than the first edition, and thoughts more matured. In making this comparison I was much struck with that part of |