Page images
PDF
EPUB

alluded to, when not expressly mentioned; and indirect allusions to what he would have reason to suppose formed a part of the same.

Hence, such a man would naturally classify his proof into express mention of facts in reference to the organization of the army, into direct and indirect allusions to them. The first of these would be conclusive evidence of the fact thus mentioned; the second, or direct allusions, would be, unless contradicted or explained, proof of the fact; and the third, or indirect allusions, would raise a presumption of the existence of the fact apparently alluded to, liable to be confirmed or contradicted. If, however, the fact apparently alluded to, actually existed in the army, it never could be contradicted by the correspondence of General Washington.

At first, too, it would be difficult for such a man to determine, whether a thing spoken of was part of the odinary discipline and practice of the army, or whether it was some peculiar and extraordinary service, performed by special command at that time. To do this, however, it would only be necessary for him to bear in mind, that as the persons to whom these letters were written, were at a distance from the army, and were only acquainted with its ordinary duties and discipline; it would be necessary for General Washington, when speaking of any thing extraordinary or unusual, to mention what it was, and to tell for what purpose it was ordered; or he would be unintelligible to his correspondent. If, therefore, he found a distinct statement of the performance of an act, unaccompanied by any intimation that it was something unusual, he would conclude that it was an ordinary practice, or a regulation of the army. Thus, suppose he should find Washington, in one of his letters, telling his friend, that he was "awoke that morning, by the beating of the revelly;" and in another place should say, he “awoke at daylight;" and that there should be no further allusion to

NATURE OF EVIDENCE.

25

the "revelly" in all the letters, our South Sea islander would necessarily infer, that it was a custom or regulation of the American army to beat the revelly at daylight. Again, suppose that, among the proclamations submitted to the examination of this man, he should find one addressed to a particular branch of the army, in which mention was made of their disorderly and mutinous conduct, concluding with a command, that all things should hereafter be done according to rule; the only inference would be, that certain rules existed, well known to the persons whom he addressed, the transgression of which had made them obnoxious to the charge of disorderly conduct.

All this is most emphatically true, in reference to the Epistles of St. Paul, from which we are obliged to gather nearly all the evidence on this subject. This has been so clearly and forcibly stated by Mr. Locke, in his Essay for the Understanding of St. Paul's Epistles, in reference to another point, that we can not better express our ideas, than by copying a passage from him.

"The nature of epistolary writings in general, disposes the writer to pass by the mentioning many things, as well known to him to whom his letter is addressed, which are necessary to be laid open to a stranger, to make him comprehend what is said; and it not seldom falls out, that a well-penned letter, which is very easy and intelligible to the receiver, is very obscure to a stranger, who hardly knows what to make of it. The matters St. Paul writ about, were certainly things well known to those he writ to, and which they had a peculiar concern in; which made them easily apprehend his meaning, and see the tendency or force of his discourse. But we, having now, at this distance of time, no information of the occasion of his writing, little or no knowledge of the temper and circumstances those were in he writ to, but what is to be gathered out of the Epistles themselves; it is not strange that

many things in them lie concealed to us, which, no doubt, they who were concerned in the letter, understood at first sight."

It can not be necessary for us to pursue the subject further; for

every reader will see the exact parallelism of the evidence to be relied on by the South Sea islander, in his attempts to discover the organization of the American army, from such materials, and that to be employed by us, in attempting to determine what is the Scriptural Draught of the Apostolic Church. The evidence is of the same general nature ; the circumstances under which it was written, in the main, analogous, and the difficulties to be encountered in the investigation, are exactly similar.

It will, however, be convenient for future reference, to reduce the substance of the foregoing illustration to the form of propositions, applicable to the question under consideration alone. We shall also add to them a few, which grow out of the nature of the subject, and which are so plain and obvious, as to require no argument in their support; and which every writer does, in effect, assume, in any similar inquiry. Those who wish to see this point in its strongest light, will do well to compare some work on Biblical Antiquities, with another on Greek or Roman Antiquities.

RULES OF EVIDENCE.-1. The references made in Scripture to the form of the organization of the Apostolic Church, are of three kinds; positive statements, direct allusions, and indirect allusions; each possessing a different degree of force.

2. A positive statement, in regard to any office, officer, or regulation in the Apostolic Church, as forming a part of it; is conclusive evidence of its existence.

3. A direct reference to any office, officer, or regulation in the Apostolic Church, as forming a part of it, is prima facie evidence, that is, full proof, unless contradicted or explained away, of its existence.

RULES OF EVIDENCE.

27

4. An indirect allusion to any office, officer, or regulation in the Apostolic Church, as forming a part of it, is presumptive evidence, but not of itself, proof of its existence.

5. Evidence of an inferior, may confirm, but can not contradict, that of a higher degree.

6. Several presumptions, arising from different sources, and tending to prove the same thing, are sufficient to establish the existence of a fact, unless contradicted by evidence of a higher degree.

7. No name designates an office in the Church, unless some particular power be assigned to, or some person to whom it is applied, exercised some power, or performed some duty in the Church, by virtue of it.

8. The nature of an office in the Apostolic Church, can not be learned from its name, but must be determined by the nature and extent of the power ascribed to the office; or exercised by the officer filling the office.

9. The grade or rank of an officer, is to be determined by the extent of power appertaining to the office, or exercised by the officer.

10. The application of several names to the same person, is not evidence that they all designate the same, or similar office.

One other subject deserves notice in this place; the relevancy of the testimony of primitive writers on this subjectthe reason and extent of it. This may be illustrated by an example. Polycarp of Smyrna, one of the writers we shall quote, was the disciple of St. John. He must have known, therefore, what was the order and faith of the Apostolic Churches. Irenæus of Gaul, who flourished from A. D. 175 to A. D. 200, was the disciple and pupil of Polycarp, and must have known, from Polycarp, what was the faith and order of the Church, in the time of the Apostles; and from personal observation, what was the faith and order of the Church, in his

own day. In regard to the latter-the order and organization of the Church-it was impossible he could be mistaken. It was a thing of public notoriety, tangible and visible to all, and about which, there could be no dispute. The testimony of Irenæus, therefore, as to the order of the Church in his own day, is conclusive evidence on that point; and that which he received from Polycarp, was conclusive on the same point, in his day. Ignatius, another writer whose writings will be employed as evidence, was also the disciple of St. John, and a fellow pupil with Polycarp. These, together with Clement of Rome, the fellow laborer with St. Paul, are among the principal authorities, to which we shall refer in our inquiry.

CHAPTER III.

MODE OF INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE.

We are now ready to proceed in our examination; which will be done by a most rigid application of the principles and rules of evidence already established. It must, however, have been obvious to the most casual reader of the New Testament, that there is in it, not only a dearth of facts, in reference to many things in the Constitution of the Apostolic Church; but also, that in some cases where reference seems to have been made to it, the language is such as to render it somewhat doubtful to what the Apostles intended to refer. In many of these instances, however, much of the ambiguity may be removed, by a more full and free translation of the original. But as this often involves some disputed point, it is difficult to give a version which shall satisfy all parties. Inasmuch, however, as we have consented, out of respect to the feelings of a portion of our brethren, to leave out of consider

« EelmineJätka »