presbyters, which finally resulted, in the century following, in the establishment of the episcopal prerogatives.

2. The formation of a sacerdotal caste among Christians. Without reference to the causes which occasioned the distinction between the clergy and the laity, this is worthy of notice as another important change in the constitution of the church, which gradually arose in connection with the rise of episcopal power. In opposition to the idea of a universal priesthood, the people now become a distinct and inferior order. They and the clergy begin to feel the force of conflicting interests and claims, the distinction widens fast, and influence, authority, and power centralize in the bishop, the head of the clerical order.

3. The clergy claim for themselves the prerogatives, relations, and authority of the Jewish priesthood. Such claims, advanced in the third century by Cyprian, were a great departure from the original spirit and model of the church derived from Christ and the apostles. It was falling back from the New to the Old Testament, and substituting the outward for the inward spirit. It presented the priesthood again as a mediating office between man and his God. It sought to invest the propitiating priest with awful sanctity, as the appointed medium by which grace is imparted to man. Hence the necessity of episcopal ordination, the apostolical succession, and the grace of the ordinances administered by consecrated hands. The clergy, by this assumption, were made independent of the people; their commission and office were from God; and, as a Mosaic priesthood, they soon began to claim an independent sovereignty over the laity. "God makes the priests," was the darling maxim of Cyprian, perpetually recurring in identical and in varied phraseology. No change, perhaps, in the whole history of the changing forms of church government can be specified more destructive to the primitive constitution of the church, or more disastrous to its spiritual interests. "This entire perversion of the original view of the Christian church," says Neander, "was itself the origin of the whole system of the Roman Catholic religion-the germ from which sprang the popery of the dark ages.

"1

4. The multiplicity of church offices. Few and simple were the offices instituted in the church by the apostles; but after the rise of episcopacy, ecclesiastical offices were multiplied with great rapidity. They arose, as may appear in the progress of this work, from different causes, and at different times; many were the necessary result of changes in the church and in society; but, generally,

they will be found to have, as their ultimate effect and end, the aggrandizement of the episcopate. They were an integral, if not an essential part of the ceremonial, the pomp and power of an outward religion, that carnal perversion of the true idea of the Christian church, and the legitimate consequence of beginning in the spirit and seeking to be made perfect in the flesh.

§ 8. DOCTRINAL PECULIARITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN SYSTEM.

UNDER this head, we propose merely to specify some of the leading characteristics of the Christian system as a new and distinct form of religion.

1. This system presents the only true form of a church. The Jews had no distinct organization which could, with propriety, be denominated a church. Much less is any association under other forms of religion entitled to this appellation.

2. The Christian church has always been distinguished for its veneration for the Holy Scriptures. The reading and exposition of these has, from the beginning, been an important part of Christian worship. All the instructions and exhortations of the preacher have been drawn from this source. The prayers, the psalmody, the catechisms and confessions of faith of the early Christians, together with their religious ordinances, were all based on the Scriptures.

3. The doctrines of the Trinity and of the Divinity of Christ are the distinguishing characteristics of the Christian system. The institutions and ordinances of the church itself are based especially on the first-mentioned doctrine; so that there is not an ancient symbol, or confession, or rule of faith, in which it is not either expressed or distinctly implied; nor an ordinance which is not commemorative of the belief in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This is implied in the consecration of churches to God. Even the names of God, Kúpios, Dominus, according to the Athanasian creed, expresses the idea of a triune God. Deus triunus, Pater Dominus, Filius Dominus, Spiritus Sanctus, Dominus; non tantum tres Domini, sed unus Dominus. The same sentiment is implied in the baptismal formulary; in the three elements of the eucharist― the bread, the wine, and the water; and in the three great festivals of the ancient church, which were instituted about the fourth century. The same is also implied in the form of the ancient Chris

tian's oath, which was usually taken in the name of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the divinity of Christ appears in the sacrament which commemorates his death, and in the religious services connected with this ordinance, as well as in the prayers, doxologies, psalms, and hymns which are addressed to him. The same sentiment is expressed in many of the emblems and symbols of the ancient church, and in their mystical names, such as indús, composed of the initials of the following Greek words: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Oεoù rios, Zwerp, Jesus Christ, the Saviour, the Son of God. The mystical word ABRAXAS is another instance of the same kind, each letter representing the initials of the following words: A Father, B Son, R1 Spirit, A None, i. e. one God, Χ Χριστός Christ, A "Ανθρωπος man, i. e. God-man, S Σωτήρ Saviour.1

Thus, the ancient Christians appear, in this mysterious word, at once to indicate and to disguise their views of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. The belief of the ancient church respecting the person and character of the Lord Jesus Christ has been set forth by Dorner, in his masterly work on this subject, in a light so clear, it would seem, as to end all controversy. Whatever may be the teaching of revelation, he has made it incontrovertibly evident that the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Christ was the prevailing and characteristic faith of the ancient church.2

4. It is peculiar to the Christian religion, that all the people take part in their religious services. The humblest worshipper, as well as the highest functionary, here enters the temple of his God, approaches the altar, and offers an acceptable sacrifice to our common God and Father.

5. It is the peculiar privilege of the Christian, that he may worship God, not at some appointed place, and at stated seasons, but at all times, and in every place. The reader is directed to an extended discussion on this subject in the index of authorities.3

CHAPTER VII.

NAMES AND CLASSES OF CHRISTIANS.

§ 1. OF THE APPELLATIONS AND NAMES ASSUMED BY CHRISTIANS.1

THE professors of the Christian religion were originally called saints, ayol. This is their usual appellation in the sacred Scriptures. They apply this term, not only to apostles and teachers, but generally, to the community of Christians. The term is derived from the Hebrew, D', by which the Jews were denominated as God's chosen people, in distinction from all idolatrous nations. But by the apostle Peter, the several prerogatives and titles of the people of God are ascribed also to all Christians. He denominates them a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people. (1 Pet. ii. 9, 10.) But he also teaches that this sanctity consists, not in mere outward forms of social worship, but in that piety which their holy calling requires them to cultivate. 1 Pet. i. 15; 2 Pet. iii. 11, comp. Eph. v. iii; Col. i. 12, iii. 12.

The name was, doubtless, adopted for the sake of convenience, and not as implying that all were the true worshippers of the holy Jesus. Even a Judas Iscariot was numbered with the apostles. But, to the highest honour of Christianity, it may be said that her followers, generally, were men of a pure spirit, and sanctified the Lord God in their hearts. Such is the uniform testimony of her early historians and apologists. And even her enemies acknowledged that the spotless character of her followers caused religion. to be universally respected, and led to its introduction into every country.

The equality of all Christians is clearly asserted in the Scripture. They are brethren, and, as such, have equal rights, iσovio. Comp. 2 Pet. i. 1. They are one heritage, 2 Pet. v. 3, and all members of the same head, Col. i. 18. Nay, Christ himself asserts the equality of all his disciples: Luke xxii. 25, 26. And yet a distinction is made between the master and his disciple-the teacher and the taught. The one are denominated the people, o 2aós; the flock, τὸ ποιμνίον; the body of believers, τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πιστῶν;

the church, nixx2noia; private persons, idiotai; and laymen, or men devoted to secular pursuits, Butixoi. The others are styled teachers, didάoxa201; leaders, youμɛvoi; shepherds, äiμένες; overseers, ἐπίσκοποι; elders, πρεσβύτεροι; rulers, προεστώτες, etc. Subordinate to these were the deacons, diάzovoi; the widows, xnpai, or deaconesses, diazovioσai; the attendants, ὑπηρέται; and the inferiors, νεώτεραι. So that even the New Testament indicates an ecclesiastical order which, at a later age, became much more prominent.

The names which Christians assumed for themselves, such as saints, ἅγιοι; believers, πιστεύσαντες, πιστοί ; elect, ἐκλεκτοι ; disciples, μαθηταί ; brethren, ἀδελφοί; people of God, λαὸς τοῦ Oɛou, and the like, were adopted from the Jews, and were expressive, severally, of some moral quality. But, in process of time, the common acceptation of these terms became so different from their original application, that they implied nothing more than the distinctive appellations of their community, composed both of Jews and Gentiles. What name they should assume became now a question on which they were greatly divided among themselves; and so much the more so, because they had, from the first, refused all sectarian names. They would call no man master; neither would they receive any title which should imply that their religion was of human origin. In this dilemma, a name was providentially conferred upon them which soon gained ascendency among friends and foes, and supplanted all others.

Of the origin of this name, we have a distinct account in the eleventh chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where we are informed that, while Paul and Barnabas were labouring together at Antioch, the disciples of our Lord first began to be called CHRISTIANS. The form of this word, Xpioviavoi, clearly proves it to be a Latin derivation from Xpiotós, Christ. Nor is there the remotest probability that either the Christians or the Jews would have invented this name. To the latter this term was peculiarly offensive: 1 Cor. i. 23. The followers of Christ they styled Galileans, (Acts ii. 7.,) or, the sect of the Nazarenes, (Acts xxiv. 5.) In the New Testament, the phrase occurs in only two other passages; and in these in such a connection as to indicate the foreign origin of the word. Acts xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 14, 16.

On the supposition that the pagan inhabitants of Antioch, in derision, first promulgated the name of Christians as a nickname, it is easy to see how it might soon come into general use among the