neutralize the truth by mixing it with previous errors. The Socinian of the present day acts from the same motive as the Gnostic of the primitive ages; both unite in degrading the Bible from being the ultimate rule of belief, and the first gives the supreme authority to his reason, which the other ascribed to his knowledge or his philosophy. But though error is as permanent as the state of the unrenewed mind, the forms in which error manifests itself are continually varying. Many of the ancient heresies are extinct, and all the rest, except one, are vanishing away/fThat heresy, which differs from all the rest, both in its extent and duration, was pointed out by the apostles as the great apos-/ tacy, which was to last for twelve hundred and sixty/ years, during the greater part of which time the true church was to flee to the wilderness, and to dwell apart from the concourse of men, far removed from general observation. The Gnostic errors are forgotten, the Sabellians have never been able to hold together, the Arians are insignificant and far Į in the wane, the subtile disputes of the east are trampled under foot by the contempt and oppres-/ sion of the Moslem; but Popery still triumphs and / enslaves some of the fairest portions of the earth, though a part of its battlements and dungeons fell✔ at the reformation.//

The early Christians were by no means aware of the extent of their danger when they enumerated

only the heresies and the heretics that were without the Church. The same errors were also spreading within. Those who were vehement and determined in their errors, naturally separated themselves from others, and distinguished themselves by a peculiar name; while the many, through whose minds the same erroneous notions of philosophy or superstition were vaguely floating, remained included in the bosom of the Church. As the multitude of believers increased, the number of crude and mistaken opinions they brought with them were multiplied also; and the study of the Scriptures, the only cure for these evils, was either neglected, or pursued upon visionary principles. While the doctors of the Church were refuting heretics, they were often cherishing in their own writing the seeds of future heresies; and the tone of feeling, and the mode of thinking among Christians was rapidly receding from the standard of Scripture and the oracles of truth.

II. While the primitive creed of Christians was receiving many additions from the accession of foreign opinions, the constitution of the primitive Church underwent a variety of changes also. In all institutions where men are concerned, there is an unceasing fluctuation. The same names and forms may be retained when the ancient spirit is departed. An influx of new members, and a tide of prosperity, of themselves produce an internal revolution in human governments, and the conquerors of other nations find themselves vanquished

and enslaved by the very victories they have obtained. The checks upon power, and the securities for liberty, which are sufficient in a scanty community, and in the midst of adverse circumstances, are found too feeble to oppose to the current and corruption of prosperity, and the enlarged influence which increasing success confers.

"The government of the Church," as Gibbon observes, "has often been the subject as well as prize of religious contention. The hostile disputants of Rome, of Paris, of Oxford, and of Geneva, have alike struggled to reduce the primitive and apostolic model to the respective standards of their own policy." But though every sectarian beholds the image of his own Church and denomination, in the slight notices which are transmitted to us of the Apostolical Churches, and though all are thus at variance with each other, still there is a considerable agreement amongst the writers who have regarded the subject without self-interest and party zeal, and with the tranquil indifference of mere historians. At the same time there is a manifest difference between the complete certainty with which the leading doctrines of Christianity can be ascertained, and the slight degree of probability with which we conjecture as to the mode in which the rites of Christianity were administered, or the degree of authority with which its office-bearers were invested.

The primitive Church was distinguished for its simplicity and its freedom; that simplicity is probably the cause of many of the disputes concerning its form. Had the structure of its constitution been more intricate, and more essential to be known, it would doubtless have been detailed to us with more precision and minuteness. As the Bible contains merely hints and indications concerning it, these notices are too slight to counteract the views which prejudice will ever shape in accordance to present interest. The Christian Church, as far as we can gather its genuine form from the Scriptures, appears somewhat different from that of any body of believers at present existing. It seems to have possessed a more catholic spirit, and to have had a less defined and rigid outline. The disciples of our Saviour were members of the Jewish Church at the time when Christ chose his twelve apostles to be the twelve foundation stones, he himself being the chief corner stone, of the new spiritual edifice. As the apostles corresponded to the princes of the twelve tribes, so the seventy disciples occupied the place of the Sanhedrim of the Jews. While Christianity was confined to the Jewish nation, there was but one Church or popular assembly that met together at Jerusalem; every believer was considered as a citizen of the spiritual Israel, and each had an equal vote, not only in the appointment of deacons, for the administration of

their temporal affairs, but also in the choice of the names which were to be presented before the Lord, in order that the sacred lot might determine who was to fill the vacancy of the apostleship occasioned by the apostacy of Judas. The subsequent appointment of the deacons also shows that the government of the Christian Church was not formed upon a previously defined model, but gradually adapted itself to the pressure of immediate circumstances, and could be enlarged as expediency required.

When the Gospel was carried to a distance from Judea, the believers could no longer assemble together as one body at Jerusalem. New assemblies, or Churches, were therefore formed in those cities where the Gospel had been preached, and where converts were numerous; and these Churches were not rigidly confined to the model of Jerusalem, where affairs were transacted by a form of government similar to that of the Jewish republic; but each Church, amongst the Gentiles, was constituted upon the simplest form of a free assembly, under the direction of elders popularly elected, and with the assistance of deacons.

It is one of the most difficult questions in history whether the terms bishops and presbyters are exactly synonymous, though an episcopalian finds no difficulty in deciding that bishops were distinct from the presbyters, nor does a presbyterian usually