one church only could exist in one city, produced also diocesan episcopacy. But how lay presbyters came in, it will be soon enough to inquire, when they have found their way into the church. Come when they may, their introduction will be an innovation, equally unauthorized by the word of God, and at variance with the history of the church, during the three centuries which have already passed under our inspec

tion.

Eusebius relates, with much improbability, that "after the martyrdom of James, and the immediately consequent destruction of Jerusalem, it is reported, that the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still left alive, came together from every place, with the relations of the Lord, according to the flesh, of whom many then survived. That they all held a council, and with one consent judged Simeon, the son of Cleopas, of whom mention is made in the gospel, to be worthy of the throne, govor ašiov." The apostolic commission had no other limits, than the world; and the evangelists were also general officers, ordained to go from place to place, and country to country, to erect new churches, or set in order those which had been planted.

The government of particular societies was committed to presbyters, who were generally men of ordinary gifts and talents. In the distribution of the fields of labor among the apostles, James the Just, if he was an apostle, remained, because of the importance of the station whence the gospel had proceeded, and where its chief proofs still existed, among the Christians at Jerusalem, and in Judea, by a common consent. But in the age of Eusebius, the presiding presbyters, having monopolized the name bishop, and changed its meaning from the oversight of the church, to that of the original bishops themselves, claimed to be sole successors to the offices and honors of the apostles; or rather, according to the representation of Eusebius in

r Lib. iii. c. 11.

the case of James, the bishop's throne was an honor above that of the apostleship. To the first seat in the presbytery of the respective churches, the succession was not yet reduced to uniformity: in some it was according to seniority among the presbyters; in others the successor was elected by and out of the members of the bench, as at Alexandria in Egypt: in others, he was commissioned over their heads, without or even against the voice of the majority of the presbyters; as in the case of Cyprian at Carthage: and sometimes superstition, as in the choice of Fabianus, decided the question. But upon the death of James, the choice of a successor is reported to have been deemed sufficiently important to authorize a call of the surviving apostles from the different nations, wherever dispersed. Nevertheless the same thing might have been effected as well by an evangelist, or by the presbyters of that particular church, no imposition of hands being then necessary to constitute a ngosols, presiding presbyter. That the blood relatives of the Saviour should have been convened, as though by their relationship they had authority or grace which might aid the consecration, is just as credible as the rest of the story, which had rested upon mere report, if it had any existence for two centuries, and as such is given by the credulous historian.

The circular, by which the synod of Antioch promulgated their excommunication of Paul of Samosata, has been preserved by Eusebius. After specifying sixteen by name, it proceeds," and all the rest present, who live in the adjacent cities and countries, the bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, and the churches of God to our beloved brethren in the Lord greeting." An evil had arisen beyond the control of a single church its repression was important. The apostle and evangelists being long before removed by death, and the presiding presbyter having assumed powers

8 Lib. vi. c. 29.

t Lib. vii. c. 30.—Επισκοποι και πρεσβύτεροι και διακονοι, και αι εκκλέσιας του θεου, &c.

u

beyond the restraint of his co-presbyters, a necessity was created that the neighboring Christians, both clergy and people, should concur in correcting the evil. Had lay-presbyters existed, they must have been here included. If supposed either in the word presbyters or churches, the hypothesis must extend to every church; and a class of such officers existed in every Christian assembly, yet never discriminated in any enumeration, or by any occurrence, or circumstance, recorded by any writer, orthodox or heretical, during the first three hundred years of the church. The ruling presbyter, gosolws," we have had in full detail. He was the primus presbyter on every bench, equal in commission, but presiding in duty; his accumulated power and dignity, before the days of Eusebius, had come to be distinguished by the name bishop. The "helps and governments" have been erroneously represented as "those who rule well, but do not labor in word and doctrine." If these mute officers had been found in every church, we should have heard of them. The man who can suppose, that such an office could have existed in the societies in the days of the apostles, and no trace of it have remained afterwards; or that such officers could have been continued in the churches, but have escaped so much as a whisper in all the divisions and agitations, in all the lists of martyrs and councils, and every mention among the friends and enemies of the church, for three hundred years, has a mind capable of any extravagance of credulity. He can adopt an erroneous and imaginary meaning of Scripture, and afterwards adhere to it, not only without, but in opposition to, all evidence.

A charge, severe but probable, has been brought against Eusebius, of suppressing certain passages, particularly 1 John v. 7, from his edition of the New Testament. He was commanded by Constantine to cause

u 1 Tim. v. 17. Rom. xii. 7, 8.

1 Cor. xii. 28.

K

fifty copies of the Scriptures, legible and fit for use, to be written on prepared parchment, by skilful artists, and to send them to Constantinople by two public coaches, under the care of some deacon of his church.w These copies, having the influence of Constantine, must have been received by the churches, for whom they were provided by the emperor, with veneration. That in these copies Eusebius suppressed certain passages tending to establish the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, particularly 1 John v. 7, has been lately alleged, and too well supported. He excepted against the doctrine of those texts, in the council of Nice, but escaped censure by covering his regard for Arianism under the pretence of a fear of the heresy of Sabellius. In a letter to his charge, he defends his inconsistency, by softening the language of the creed he had reluctantly signed. The disposition of the man, his opposition to the doctrines, the emperor's coincidence with him in sentiments, the opportunity afforded him by Constantine, the complexion of the Greek copies generally, over which his edition must have had a decisive influence; and, on the contrary, the support which the text receives from Latin copies and writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Facundus, Vigilius, and others, all conspire with the certainty of his having omitted a portion of Mark's gospel, to attach the blame of the defective copies to his disingen

uousness.

w De vit, Constant. Lib. iv. c. 36.

SECTION XI.

The council at Jerusalem was extraordinary.—Councils may be traced to the commencement of the third century.—They were at first advisory, not appellative, much less legislative.—They strengthened clerical power.-The council of Carthage, A. D. 258.-The two councils of Antioch, A. D. 264, 270. The council of Eliberis, A. D. 305.—The council of Arles, A. D. 309.— The synod of Ancyra, A. D. 314.-The synod of Pontus, A. D. 314.The general council of Nice, A. D. 325.—The general council of Constantinople, A. D. 381.-The general council of Ephesus, A. D. 431.-The general council at Chalcedon, A. D. 451.-The second general council at Constantinople, A. D. 553.-The third general council at Constantinople, A. D. 680.-Another, A. D. 692.-The seventh Ecumenical council was at Constantinople, A. D. 754.-Another seventh at Nice, A. D. 787.-This was after the commencement of the empire of Charle magne, the erection of a monarchy in England, and the civil power of the pope.-None of these councils were founded upon the consent of the Christian church, or upon any spiritual authority; often established error, and create no obligation upon the Christian world.

THE records of the early synods and councils of the Christian church, so far as genuine, are credible evidence of facts, and competent, to some extent, to show the condition of the church at different periods. Ecclesiastical associations have never possessed the rightful power of legislation in the church of Christ; but as every man is bound to believe for himself, so every Christian denomination has a right to adopt their own form of church government, and every member equal liberty to dissent and withdraw. The voluntary conventions of synods and councils are justifiable, at least when merely deliberative. The conduct of Paul and Barnabas, in waving the rite of circumcision with respect to Gentile converts, having been censured at Antioch, by persons who had come from Jerusalem, was submitted unto, and confirmed by the opinions of Peter, James, and perhaps John, and