read them, "the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him; the eyes of our understanding being enlightened, that we may know what is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be HEAD over all things to THE CHURCH, WHICH IS HIS BODY, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all." 1

1 Eph. i, 10-23.

CHAPTER II.

THE CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST-ITS CATHOLICITY.

The Church not always used in the same Sense-The Election-Rom. ix.-Mr. Faber's View of the Primitive Doctrine of Election Examined-Eph. i. 3-5 -Dr. Graves on Predestination-Our Lord's Language-St. Paul to the Thessalonians-Bishop Jewell on ditto-Dogmatic Theology of the Church of England on this Point-The Purpose of God perfect-The Performance Progressive and still Unfinished-The Constituent Parts of the Church of God in Christ-Its true Catholicity-The Head-The Members-One Body.

IT cannot be denied by any unprejudiced reader of holy Scripture that the expression "Church" is used in a variety of senses in the sacred volume. In the part of the subject now to come under immediate consideration, I of course use the word only in one of those scriptural senses. If, therefore, some other sense of the word should suggest itself to the mind of any reader, I have to request the exercise of a little patience. If any man think that surely the Church is used in Scripture in a very different sense from that in which I shall now use it, let him think again, that as it is used in a different sense, so also it is used in this sense; let him remember that the Truth himself when urged by the saying, "It is written," answered, "It is written again" (St. Matt. iv. 6, 7); and let not his convictions concerning one scriptural meaning of the word interfere with his candid acquiescence in another meaning equally scriptural,1

1 Dr. Barrow, in his Discourse on the Unity of the Church, enumerates tl、 meanings of the word under the following five heads:

"1. Sometimes any assembly or company of Christians is called a Church;

We shall advance in due time to the uses of the word as it is applied to various communities among men, each of them composing a church, and all of them together comprising the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth. But at present we are to contemplate the Church of God, not as dwelling upon earth in any of the successive generations of mankind, but as when mention is made of the Church in such a house; (whence Tertullian saith, 'Where there are three, even laics, there is a Church.') (Tert. de Exh. Cast. cap. 7.)

"2. Sometimes a particular society of Christians, living in spiritual communion, and under discipline, as when the Church at such a town; the churches of such a province; the churches; all the churches are mentioned : according to which notions St. Cyprian saith that there is a Church where there is a 'people united to a priest, and a flock adhering to their shepherd; ' (Cypr. Ep. 69 ;) and so Ignatius saith, 'That without the orders of the clergy a Church is not called.' (Ignat. ad Tral.)

"3. A large collection of divers particular societies combined together in order, under direction and influence of a common government, or of persons acting in the public behalf, is termed a Church; as the Church of Antioch, of Corinth, of Jerusalem, etc., each of which at first probably might consist of divers congregations, having dependence of less towns annexed to them; all being united under the care of the bishops and presbytery of those places; but, however, soon after the apostles' times it is certain that such collections were, and were named churches.

"4. The society of those who at present, or in course of time, profess the faith and gospel of Christ, and undertake the evangelical covenant, in distinction to all other religions, particularly that of the Jews, which is called the synagogue.

"5. The whole body of God's people that ever hath been, or ever shall be, from the beginning of the world to the consummation thereof, who having (formally or virtually) believed in Christ, and sincerely obeyed God's laws, shall finally, by the meritorious performances and sufferings of Christ, be saved, is called the Church.

"Of these acceptions the two latter do only come under present consideration, it being plain that St. Paul doth not speak of any one particular or present society; but of all, at all times, who have relation to the same Lord, faith, hope, sacraments, etc.

"Wherefore, to determine the case between these two, we must observe that to the latter of these (that is, to the catholic society of true believers and faithful servants of Christ, diffused through all ages, dispersed through all countries, whereof part doth sojourn on earth, part doth reside in heaven, part is not yet extant; but all whereof is described in the register of divine pre-ordination, and shall be re-collected at the resurrection of the just; that, I say, to this Church) especially all the glorious titles and excellent privileges attributed to the Church in holy Scripture do agree."

as composing the body of Christ in its completeness from the first to the last, "according to the eternal purpose of God, which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph. iii. 11).

It is easy, and I regret to say it is common, with some prominent writers of our own times, to treat this branch of divine truth with little short of contempt; to affix, without proof, some comparatively modern name upon it as its originator, and thereupon to turn away from it in scorn, as from a Calvinistic or Lutheran invention, unworthy of their catholic consideration.1

I have said this is easy; and doubtless it is found much more convenient than a refutation of the doctrines of Calvin or Luther, not to mention St. Augustine, or a fair examination in their contexts of the broad and reiterated statements of the apostles and prophets. I observe that one of the immediate consequences of so foreclosing this branch of the subject is, that the writers who do so proceed to apply to other branches of truth those passages of Scripture which in their contexts do of right belong to this, thereby introducing confusion, and of course obscurity ; and they seem to feel themselves perfectly justified in so doing, if they can produce a few citations from some ancient writers, fallible like themselves, in which, without proof or context or argument, the scripture is so used.

But we must not allow this part of the subject to be foreclosed. It is vital. Had it not been spoken by the Lord

1 Bishop Horsley, in a charge delivered to the clergy of St. Asaph, August 1806, gives the following caution; it is far from obsolete :-" Take special care, before you aim your shafts at Calvinism, that you know what is Calvinism and what is not; that in the mass of doctrine which it has of late become the fashion to abuse under the name of Calvinism, you distinguish with certainty between that part which is nothing better than Calvinism, and that which belongs to our common Christianity, and the faith of the reformed churches."

And Archbishop Magee said to the assembled clergy of Raphoe, in 1821, "The true Christian teacher should not be deterred from setting forth the great fundamental doctrines which the Articles contain, by the imputation of particular names which ignorance may attach to these doctrines. . . . . Thus, for example, nothing is more common at the present day than to hear a person pronounced to be a Calvinist, because he holds the doctrine of original sin, or of justification by faith; whereas he might with equal justice be so denominated for holding the doctrines of the Trinity or the Atonement."

Jesus, and written by the apostles, "being witnessed by the law and the prophets," nothing would have been revealed deserving the emphatic name of Gospel,-glad tidings to guilty and helpless men; and had it not been revived after long neglect by the Reformers, (when the Bible became their study,) nothing would have been achieved deserving the name of reformation. It is strictly in character that those who reject this portion of divine truth should depreciate by every art in their power the character and works of the Reformers, and elevate the traditions of men into the chair of authoritative interpretation of Scripture, even where those traditions are plainly condemned by the sacred contexts, or by the articles of their own Church, derived from those contexts.

I am altogether prepared for the ready retort, "Plainly condemned in your opinion!" and for the plausible question, "Where is the modesty of setting your private judgment in opposition to the voice of the Church catholic?" My answer is, "I am guilty of no such presumption. The Church catholic has uttered no voice upon the subject. Individual writers in various ages of the Church's history have uttered their own convictions, and given their own opinions; they could do no more; and the modern writer who coincides in opinion with Chrysostom or Cyprian, exercises his private judgment as freely as another who coincides in opinion with Jerome or Augustine, or a third, who, perceiving that it is at least as difficult (and much less profitable) to interpret the fathers as it is to interpret the apostles, exclaims, "Unus Paulus præ mille Augustinis."

If it be alleged that the fathers are all plainly of one and the same opinion on the subject now to be considered, and that, therefore, their united voice should be received as a catholic judgment, the answer simply is, that the allegation is unfounded. The fathers differ as widely as their successors.1

In

I What the Bishop of Meaux said upon the subject of prophetic interpretation, may with equal truth be said concerning the doctrine of election. "Quand quelques docteurs, même Catholiques, font trop hardiment des traditions constantes et des articles de foi, des conjectures de quelques Pères; on peut, et