vii-x; xiii, 10, 15, 16.) The term clergy, (kλñpoç,) which in ecclesiastical usage distinguishes the spiritual order from the laity, is applied by Peter (1 Pet. v, 3) to the congregations; so that every Christian society is regarded as set apart, like the Levites of the Old Testament, for the peculiar ownership of God.* Paul calls upon his readers, in virtue of their priestly character, to make supplication for himself and for all men, (2 Cor. i, 10, 11; 1 Tim. ii, 1;) after the pattern of Christ, the eternal High Priest, (Heb. vii, 25; compare Luke xxii, 32; John xvii, 9, 20.)

This universal priesthood will serve to explain the liberty of teaching and the share of the people in Church government, which present themselves to our notice in the apostolical age.

The general liberty of teaching was an anticipatory fulfilment of the prophecy, according to which in the time of the Messiah the Spirit should be poured out upon all flesh, even down to servants and maids, and all would be taught of God, (Joel iii, 1, seq.; Isaiah liv, 13; Jer. xxxi, 34; Acts ii, 17, 18; John vi, 45; compare 1 Thess. iv, 9; 1 John ii, 20, 21, 27.) According to this any one might come forward, speaking in an unknown tongue, praying, teaching or prophesying in the congregation, if only he possessed the requisite gift for it, without being an officer of the Church; for the gifts of the Spirit were by no means confined to official station. This liberty of teaching appears very plainly from the representation, which Paul gives us, of the meetings for public worship among the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xiv, 23-36.† Nay, from ver. 34, and 1 Cor. xi, 5, it is plain that even women, forgetting their natural position and mistaking the true idea of religious equality, (Gal. iii, 28,) prayed and prophesied in public. But here came in also the proper restriction. For in the first place Paul rebukes in general all abuse of the liberty of teaching, and reminds the Corinthians that God is a God of order and not of confusion: hence they should make use of their gifts,

* Others take r✩v kλýpwv, which at all events refers to the people, in the sense of the congregations committed by lot or election to the presbyters.

This was still understood by an ecclesiastical writer belonging to the close of the fourth century, the author of the Commentary on Paul's Epistles, which is found among the works of St. Ambrose, (probably the Roman deacon Hilary.) Thus he says on Eph. iv, 11: "In episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus sacerdos est, hoc est princeps est sacerdotum et propheta et evangelista caetera ad implenda officia ecclesiae in ministerio fidelium. Tamen postquam omnibus locis ecclesiae sunt constitutae et officia ordinata, aliter composita res est, quam coeperat. Primum enim omnes docebant et omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio.... Ut ergo cresceret plebs et multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est, et evangelizare et baptizare et Scripturas in ecclesia explanare, etc."

not all at once but one after another, with becoming regard always to the edification of the congregation, (1 Cor. xiv, 5, 12, 23–33.) James also chides the mania with which many in his Jewish-Christian congregations (where doing was so often lost sight of in talking) put themselves forward as teachers, out of pure vanity and without any inward call, adding his powerful admonition on the sins of the tongue, chap. iii, 1, seqq. The exercise of teaching thus was not to be restricted indeed to any office, but it must be joined still with the possession of the necessary gifts of the Spirit, and these were to be used with humble feeling and a sense of increased responsibility. In the next place, as regards the female sex, Paul goes still farther and directly requires that it shall take no part in the public services of the Church, 1 Cor. xiv, 33, 34; 1 Tim. ii, 12.* With this indeed 1 Cor. xi, 5 seems to stand in contradiction: "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head;" and to this passage accordingly the Montanists, Quakers, and other sects, have been accustomed to appeal in justification of their practice. But the apostle here simply quotes the fact, which no doubt had place, without approving or condemning it, reserving his censure for a subsequent connexion, (chapter xiv;) for in chapter xi, he is not treating at all of public worship, but only of the custom of covering the head, which some Christian females in Corinth affected to disregard, in opposition to the prevailing notions of decency, as though all outward difference between the sexes had been abolished by Christ. Nor will it answer, to make a distinction here between public teaching and public praying and prophesying; and to say that Paul's prohibition regards only the first function, (the proper didáσkɛiv, 1 Tim. ii, 12,) but not the last two, in which there is more of the inspiration of feeling. For to say nothing of his placing prophets above teachers, (Eph. iv, 11; 1 Cor. xii, 28,) his injunction is altogether general, 1 Cor. xiv, 34, that women must be silent (olyáτwoav) in the Church and not speak, (λaλɛīv,) and this whole chapter besides treats, not of didactic discourses, but directly of speaking with tongues and prophesying. Every public act of the sort implies, while it lasts, a superiority of the speaker over the hearers, and is contrary also to true feminine delicacy. Christianity has indeed improved vastly the condition of woman, and brings all heavenly blessings within her reach;† but all this without prejudice

* In the synagogue also women were not permitted to speak. Compare Wetstein on 1 Cor. xiv, 34, and Vitringa, Synag. p. 725.

† Gal. iii, 28: οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἰς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; whereas on the contrary even Aristotle says directly: χεῖρον ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, Magn. Ethic. I, 34.

still to the Divine order of nature, by which she is formed to be in subjection to man, (Gen. iii, 16; Eph. v, 22,) and for the sphere of private life. Here, in the quiet domestic circle, she has full room for the exercise of the fairest virtues; here too she is clothed with a certain right to rule; and here she is not only to pray diligently herself, but also to teach her children to pray and to lead them in early life to the Lord.*

With this liberty of teaching corresponded in a great measure the conduct of Church government. The presbyters were indeed the regular pastors and managers of congregational business, but in such way that the people took part with them directly and indirectly in the work, and so bore also their share of its responsibility. In the first place the officers, and also the delegates for particular services, (compare 2 Cor. viii, 18, 19; Acts xv, 3,) were taken from the midst of the congregation itself, by its own election or at least consent, as we have already shown in a previous section. And then again, after they were thus in office, they were not to lord it over God's heritage, but rather to be ensamples to the flock in the way of a holy life; and to serve it, taking the oversight thereof not with constraint and force, but on the ground of its own free compliance and with due respect everywhere for its rights, (compare 1 Pet. v, 1-5.) The apostles themselves proceeded in this way. Almost all their epistles, containing instructions, exhortations, and decisions in regard to the most weighty questions, are addressed not to the Church rulers merely but to the whole congregation. In cases of controversy it appears to have been customary, according to 1 Cor. vi, 5, to choose a session of arbitrators from the body of the people, (compare Matt. xviii, 15-18.) Paul indeed excommunicated the incestuous person at Corinth, but only as united in spirit with the Corinthian congregation, (συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος, 1 Cor. v, 4,) so that his act was at the same time theirs. Nay, even in controversies that concerned the whole Church, the apostles did not decide by their own right merely, but drew the congregations also at least frequently into consultation. A striking proof of this is furnished by the council at Jerusalem, called to settle the great question concerning the binding authority of the Mosaic law, and the terms on which the Gentiles were to be admitted to the privileges of the Gospel. Here the apostles, elders, and brethren, come

Probably the prophesying of the daughters of the evangelist Philip in Cess rea, (Acts xxi, 9,) occurred also in family worship; unless we assume that something took place here that Paul would not have approved (compare Neander 8. 257); for Luke simply narrates the fact, without pronouncing upon it any judgment.

together; the transactions go forward before the whole congregation; Peter urges his clear Divine vision in regard to Gentile baptism not as a command but only as a motive or reason, (Acts xv, 7, seqq.; compare xi, 2, seqq.;) the whole assembly joins in passing the final resolution; and the written decision of the council goes forth, not in the name of the apostles and presbyters only, but in the name of the brethren generally, and is addressed to the collective body of the Gentile Christians in Syria and Cilicia.t

This relation between the rulers and their congregations, to which the name democratic is sometimes applied, though not altogether aptly, stands closely connected with the extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost in the apostolic age, and was secured by this against the abuses which must necessarily attend such a form of government, where the mass of the people is under the dominion of ignorance and wild passion. We see mirrored in it to a certain extent the ideal state, which will come in when the prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh shall have its absolute fulfilment.

We must now go over the several offices of the apostolical Church more in detail, taking up first those that look towards the Church as a whole; since this idea is older than that of a single congregation, although both fall together as to extent originally in the motherChurch at Jerusalem. But, as space fails us, this discussion must be reserved for another article.

* Chapter xv, 22 : τότε ἔδοξε τοῖς αποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις σὺν ὅλῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ.

† Ver. 23: οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῖς . . . ἀδελφοῖς, etc. For example, by Rothe in his work before quoted, (p. 148 and frequently.) We disapprove of this title, because it is derived from a foreign sphere, that of politics, and may be easily misunderstood. In the Church strictly there is no kind of dominion, neither democracy, nor aristocracy, nor monarchy, but only service (diakovía). The very Saviour of sinners himself came into the world, not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many, Matt. xx, 28; Luke xxii, 27; John xiii. 14, 15, seq.; Phil. ii, 6-8. Rothe at the same time asserts this so-called democratic character in favour only of the congregational order, the government of congregations singly taken, and not in favour of the polity of the Church as a whole, which he styles rather (p. 310) autocratic, and which, in his view, even before the close of the apostolical age, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem and under the auspices mainly of St. John, became episcopal. As regards the first point, however, he goes evidently too far, when he says, (for instance, p. 153) of the congregational officers: " They were purely society functionaries, the mere magistracy of the people, whose authority flowed from no other source but the will of the congregation itself, to which they owed their election." Compare against this what we have already said on the divine origin of all Church-offices; in part also the tract of the Rev. Charles Rothe, (since gone over to the Irvingites,) entitled: "Die wahren Grundlagen der Christlichen Kirchenverfassung." 1844, s. 3-33.

ART. V.-PROGRESS OF LIBERAL PRINCIPLES.

LIBERAL principles lie at the foundation of man's real good. Without freedom of thought, belief, speech, and action, there can be little or no human improvement: hence the anxiety always felt by Christians and philanthropists for the progress of liberty. Often has it appeared that the power of tyranny was about to be broken, never more to have the ascendency, but almost as often have these encouraging prospects been blasted. Many-in contemplating the long-protracted bondage of the masses of mankind, in considering how often they fail in striking for their rights, and the little progress consequently made in human amelioration-have been led to conclude, that, on the whole, the cause of freedom gains no ground, and the world grows no better. We know that while there is progress in some things there is retrogression in others-that while mankind have improved in some periods or places, they have deteriorated in others; but a careful review in history will show, we think, that in the main liberal principles have ever been advancing, and the world steadily improving. Though the standard of freedom has been struck down in every nation of Europe, France excepted, (if, indeed, we may except that nation,) where it has been so hopefully unfurled within the last few years, yet the philanthropist has no cause for despair. History, as well as reason and revelation, teaches that right must eventually triumph. While the present holds up so gloomy a picture in respect to freedom and progress, let us examine the past, and see if we cannot find in its annals ground to hope for the future.

In times previous to the advent of the Saviour, hardly anything appears but wrongs, violence, and oppression. All is one dismal Sahara with but here and there an oasis. Egypt is thought to have enjoyed, to some extent, the blessings of liberty in some parts of her existence. But that Egypt ever had a government under which the people were free, or a government such as a limited monarchy is generally understood to be, does not appear from history. It is doubtful, indeed, whether the mass of the Egyptians, in any age, were qualified, in point of intelligence, for such a government. It appears from some things in Xenophon, that Persia, before it was united with the Median kingdom, had a government similar to a limited monarchy. But in reference to most Oriental nations of antiquity. we gather nothing from history but what leads us to suppose that they were incessantly subjected to tyranny. We find it different, however, when we turn our attention to the more Western nations.