by fuch exprefs declarations as we have noticed, but also in all the epiftles, in every one of which we see the very fame conftitution and ordinances. Can we fuppofe that their practice actually varied, and yet that not a hint of this is to be found in any of the epiftles which relate fo much to the fubject? Timothy and Titus were employed by Paul to regulate the churches which he had planted. He informs Timothy that his purpose in writing to him was to teach him how to behave in the house of God, 1 Tim. iii. 15. Among other things in these epistles, we have the apostle's inftructions respecting various parts of the internal government of the churches, and these all convey the idea of complete uniformity. Thefe faithful minifters were employed by Paul to fet in order churches in countries far diftant from each other, and furely we must have had fome hint on the subject, if they might lawfully deviate from the ufual order in confequence of local circumstances.

But in confidering the obligation under which we are laid to follow the approved practice of the apoftolic churches, we may be allowed to advert to the fentiments generally held amongst professed Chriftians. If any of the religious rites of any party be called in queftion, do they not uniformly endeavour to establish thefe by appealing to the practice of the primitive Christians? Indeed so far has this been carried, that the practice of the three first centuries after Chrift has also been

decease of the apoftles. Let any one turn to Lord King's Inquiry, or read Mosheim's Larger Account of the First Century *, and he will fee that diverfity of climate, character, and political circumftances, made no difference whatever in church-order. Deviations from the original conftitution foon afterwards indeed began to take place, but for a confiderable time the refemblance in the order of all the churches was apparent. The Romans were under the neceffity of varying the form of civil government in their colonies or provinces, according to the circumftances of the countries compofing their vaft empire; but whereever the gospel was preached, the fame ordinances were delivered to all the churches, and they became followers of the churches which in Judea were in Chrift Jefus, not only in fuffering the fame perfecutions, but in observing the same inftitutions and regulations.

The apoftles interfered not with civil laws, but they taught all Chriftians to renounce their former religious customs, and to be governed entirely by Jefus Chrift. His laws are equally fuited to every climate, and every country, and therefore, in every fituation, they were to be adopted by his followers, who were thus to be diftinguished from all other people.

The uniformity of the practices of the apostles established in the churches, is not only manifeft

*J. L. Mofhemii Inft. Hiftor. Chrift. Majores Sæcul. Primum.

by fuch exprefs declarations as we have noticed, but also in all the epiftles, in every one of which we see the very fame constitution and ordinances. Can we fuppofe that their practice actually varied, and yet that not a hint of this is to be found in any of the epiftles which relate fo much to the fubject? Timothy and Titus were employed by Paul to regulate the churches which he had planted. He informs Timothy that his purpose in writing to him was to teach him how to behave in the house of God, 1 Tim. iii. 15. Among other things in these epiftles, we have the apostle's inftructions respecting various parts of the internal government of the churches, and these all convey the idea of complete uniformity. Thefe faithful minifters were employed by Paul to fet in order churches in countries far diftant from each other, and furely we must have had fome hint on the fubject, if they might lawfully deviate from the ufual order in confequence of local circumftances.

But in confidering the obligation under which we are laid to follow the approved practice of the apoftolic churches, we may be allowed to advert to the sentiments generally held amongst professed Chriftians. If any of the religious rites of any party be called in queftion, do they not uniformly endeavour to establish thefe by appealing to the practice of the primitive Chriftians? Indeed fo far has this been carried, that the practice of the three first centuries after Chrift has also been

abuses. It goes upon the fuppofition, that during that time the churches retained their original purity; but furely we may learn from the corruptions in the churches, even in the days of the apostles, that this was most improbable. We are even expressly warned upon this fubject, by being informed that the mystery of iniquity was at work in their time. Probably the prac tices of the three first centuries is appealed to in place of the apoftolic, from supposing that the latter is of itself infufficient; but this is by no means the cafe. If we carefully obferve the exprefs precepts delivered in the New Teftament, the practices of the churches mentioned with approbation, and what is faid respecting the abuses which fo early crept in, through flight of men and cunning craftinefs, whereby they lay in wait to deceive, we fhall find a complete fyftem, calculated to answer every purpofe which Jefus had in view in the inftitution of churches.

We have no reason, then, to suppose with some, that the Scriptures are deficient in fpecific directions on the subject, and that much is left to our own difcretion. This opinion originated in men miftaking the nature of a Chriftian church. Inftead of viewing it as a body of Christians knit together in love to Chrift and to one another, affociating for mutual edification and comfort, it has been reprefented as a complex machine, involving various objects both temporal and spi

the fhort and fimple rules delivered in the New Testament are indeed completely inadequate; but in place of confidering these rules as too general, and requiring additions of our devifing, it would argue more humility, and a greater sense of our own ignorance, to fuppofe that a body which could not be governed by the laws recorded in Scripture, must be fomewhat different from an apoftolic church. In one fenfe we may admit that the Scriptures contain only general rules. This is the cafe with all laws whatsoever, and equally applies to the moral precepts as to the pofitive inftitutions of the word of God.

A remark by a late writer upon this fubject is well worthy of confideration: It is faid, that there are many general rules given to the apoftolic churches, for the actual and orderly obfervance of which, it is neceflary that various fubordinate circumftances fhould be fettled which are left undetermined in Scripture; and that the determination of fuch circumftances in any church, according to the dictates of human prudence and expediency, is not to be cenfured as a departure from the laws of Christ, or an unwarrantable addition to them. In reply (adds he) to this I would obferve, that none can confiftently urge i who do not aim at walking according to these general rules delivered by the apostles, or who continue in any church where they are fet afide, and where any regulations inconfiftent with their observance are adopted. Now it is certain, that

it