were subject. Jerusalem is said to have had two of these smaller sanhedrims, as it was found that the multitudes of cases arising among so vast a population were more than sufficient to occupy the time of any one judicatory. Appeals lay from all these tribunals to the Great Sanhedrim, or "Council," so frequently mentioned in the New Testament. This court consisted of seventy or seventy-two members, made up, perhaps, in equal portions, of chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people. The chief priests were probably twenty-four in number-each of the twenty-four courses, into which the sacerdotal order was divided, thus furnishing one representative. The scribes were the men of learning, like Gamaliel, § who had devoted themselves to the study of the Jewish law, and who possessed recondite, as well as extensive information. The elders were laymen of reputed wisdom and experience, who, in practical matters, might be expected to give sound advice. It was not strange that the Jews had so profound. a regard for their Great Sanhedrim. In the days of our Lord and His apostles it had, indeed, miserably degenerated; but, at an earlier period, its members must have been eminently entitled to respect, as in point of intelligence, prudence, piety, and patriotism, they held the very highest place among their countrymen.

The details of the ecclesiastical polity of the ancient Israelites are now involved in much obscurity; but the preceding statements may be received as a pretty accurate description of its chief outlines. Our Lord himself, in the sermon on the mount, is understood to refer to the great council and its subordinate judicatories; and in the Old

* Luke xxii. 66; Acts v. 21, vi. 15. See also Prideaux, part ii. book vii., and Lightfoot's "Works," ix. 342.

+ Matt. xvi. 21, xxvi. 59; Mark xv. 1. See also Lightfoot's "Works," iv. 223. 1 Chron. xxiv. 4, 7-18. § Acts v. 34. As they represented the people, and were probably twenty-four in number, there may be a reference to them in Rev. iv. 4. T Matt. v. 22.

Testament appeals from inferior tribunals to the autho-
rities in the holy city are explicitly enjoined.* All the
synagogues, not only in Palestine but in foreign countries,
obeyed the orders of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem ;† and it
constituted a court of review to which all other ecclesi-
astical arbiters yielded submission.

In the government of the Apostolic Church we may trace
a resemblance to these arrangements. Every Christian con-
gregation, like every synagogue, had its elders; and every
city had its presbytery, consisting of the spiritual rulers of
the district. In the introductory chapters of the book of the
Acts we discover the germ of this ecclesiastical constitution;
for we there find the apostles ministering to thousands of
converts, and, as the presbytery of Jerusalem, ordaining
deacons, exercising discipline, and sending out missionaries.
The prophets and teachers of Antioch obviously performed
the same functions; § Titus was instructed to have elders
established, or a presbytery constituted, in every city of
Crete ; || and Timothy was ordained by such a judicatory.¶
For the first thirty years after the death of our Lord a large
proportion of the ministers of the gospel were Jews by
birth, and as they were in the habit of going up to Jeru-
salem to celebrate the great festivals, they appear to have
taken advantage of the opportunity, and to have held meet-
ings in the holy city for consultation respecting the affairs
of the Christian commonwealth. Prudence and convenience
conspired to dictate this course, as they could then reckon
upon finding there a considerable number of able and ex-
perienced elders, and as their presence in the Jewish metro-
polis on such occasions was fitted to awaken no suspicion.**

* Deut. xvii. 8-10; 2 Chron. xix. 8-11; Ps. cxxii. 5.

+ Acts ix. 1, 2, 14.

‡ Acts ii. 14, 41, 42, iv. 4, 32, 33, 35, v. 14, 42, vi. 6, 7, viii. 14.

§ Acts xiii. 1, 3.

|| Titus i. 5.

¶ 1 Tim. iv. 14.

** In the same way the Puritans, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, fre-
quently held meetings in London during the sittings of Parliament. See
Collier, vii. 33, 64.

We may thus see that the transaction mentioned in the 15th chapter of the Acts admits of a simple and satisfactory explanation. When the question respecting the circumcision of the Gentile converts began to be discussed at Antioch, there were individuals in that city quite as well qualified as any in Jerusalem to pronounce upon its merits; for the Church there enjoyed the ministry of prophets; and Paul, its most distinguished teacher, was "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." But the parties proceeded in the matter in much the same way as Israelites were accustomed to act under similar circumstances. Had a controversy relative to any Mosaic ceremony divided the Jewish population of Antioch, they would have appealed for a decision to their Great Sanhedrim; and now, when this dispute distracted the Christians of the capital of Syria, they had recourse to another tribunal at Jerusalem which they considered competent to pronounce a deliverance.* This tribunal consisted virtually of the rulers of the universal Church; for the apostles, who had a commission to all the world, and elders from almost every place where a Christian congregation existed, were in the habit of repairing to the capital of Palestine. In one respect this judicatory differed from the Jewish council, for it was not limited to seventy members. In accordance with the free spirit of the gospel dispensation, it appears to have consisted of as many ecclesiastical rulers as could conveniently attend its meetings. But the times were somewhat perilous; and it is probable that the ministers of the early Christian Church did not deem it expedient to congregate in very large

numbers.

A single Scripture precedent for the regulation of the Church is as decisive as a multitude; and though the New Testament distinctly records only one instance in which a

For a more particular account of the constitution of the meeting mentioned in the 15th chapter of the Acts, see Period I. sec. i. chap. v. p. 82.

question of difficulty was referred by a lower to a higher ecclesiastical tribunal, this case sufficiently illustrates the character of the primitive polity. A very substantial reason can be given why Scripture takes so little notice of the meetings of Christian judicatories. The different portions of the New Testament were put into circulation as soon as written; and though it was most important that the heathen should be made acquainted with the doctrines of the Church, it was not by any means expedient that their attention should be particularly directed to the machinery by which it was regulated. An accurate knowledge of its constitution would only have exposed it more fearfully to the attacks of persecuting Emperors. Every effort would have been made to discover the times and places of the meetings of pastors and teachers, and to inflict a deadly wound on the Church by the destruction of its office-bearers. Hence, in general, its courts appear to have assembled in profound secrecy; and thus it is that, for the first three centuries, so little is known of the proceedings of these conventions.

It is to be observed that, in the first century, when the rulers of the Church met for consultation, they all sat in the same assembly. When the ecclesiastical constitution was fairly settled, even the Twelve were disposed to waive their personal claims to precedence, and to assume the status of ordinary ministers. We find accordingly that there were then no higher and lower houses of convocation; for "the apostles and elders came together."* Some, who suppose that James was the first bishop of the holy city, imagine that in his manner of giving the advice adopted at the Synod of Jerusalem, they can detect marks of his prelatic influence. But the sacred narrative, when candidly

Acts xv. 6.

+ Acts xv. 19. "James, according to the somewhat pompous rendering in our English version, says-' Wherefore my sentence is'-in the original—dıò éyò Kpivo-a common formula by which the members of the Greek assemblies introduced the expression of their individual opinion, as appears from its

interpreted, merely shews that he acted on the occasion as a judicious counsellor. He was, assuredly, not entitled to dictate to Paul or Peter. The reasoning of those who maintain that, as a matter of right, he expected the meeting to yield to the weight of his official authority, would go to prove, not that he was bishop of the Jewish capital, but that he was the prince of the apostles.

The New Testament history speaks frequently of James, and extends over the whole period of his public career; but it never once hints that he was bishop of Jerusalem. He himself has left behind him an epistle addressed "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," in which he makes no allusion to his possession of any such office. Paul, who was well acquainted with him, and who often visited the mother Church during the time of his alleged episcopate, is equally silent upon the subject. But it is easy to understand how the story originated. The command of our Lord to the apostles, "Go ye unto all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," did not imply that their countrymen at home were not to enjoy a portion of their ministrations; and it was probably considered expedient that one of their number should reside in the Jewish capital. This field of exertion seems to have been assigned to James. His colleagues meanwhile travelled to distant countries to disseminate the truth; and as he was the only individual of the apostolic company who could ordinarily be consulted in the holy city, he soon became the ruling spirit among the Christians of that crowded metropolis. In all cases of importance and of difficulty his advice would be sought and appreciated; and his age, experience, and rank as one of the Twelve, would suggest the propriety of his appointment as president of any ecclesiastical meeting he would

repeated occurrence in Thucydides, with which may be compared the corresponding Latin phrase (sic censeo) of frequent use in Cicero's orations."Alexander on the Acts, ii. p. 83. *Mark xvi. 15.