“ mutual contentions against one another; and “ while they were only taken up with contentions, " threatenings, emulation, mutual hatred, and en

mity, every one eagerly pursued his ambition in a " tyrannical manner.”

After such descriptions as these, let us hear no more of the primitive church being so pure, and all her ministers so humble and disinterested, as to preclude the probability of any of them being actuated by ambition, or disposed to usurp unscriptural authority. All authentic history shows that such a conclusion is as false in fact, as it is inconsistent with the uniform character of human nature. Yes ; that mystery of iniquity which began to work under the ministry of our Saviour himself, and which retarded the growth of the church, while it was watered with the tears and the blood of the apostles, might be expected to prove, as it did, in a much greater degree, her bane, in after times. But, perhaps it will be said, that, although some of the clergy in the second and third centuries, were ambitious, and disposed to usurp unscriptural power; yet we cannot suppose that their claims would have been calmly yielded, and their usurpations submitted to without a struggle, by the other clergy, and by the body of the people. If, then, such claims were made, and such usurpations effected, why do we not find in the early history of the church, some account of changes so memorable, and of conflicts so dreadful, as must have attended their introduction?

In answer to this question, let it be remembered, that the nations over which the Christian religion was spread with so much rapidity during the first three centuries, were sunk in deplorable ignorance. Grossly illiterate, very few were able to read; and even to these few, manuscripts were of difficult access. At that period, popular eloquence was the great engine of persuasion; and where the character of the mind is not fixed by reading, and a consequent habit of attention and accurate thinking, it is impossible to say how deeply and suddenly it may be operated upon by such an engine. A people of this description, wholly unaccustomed to speculations on government ; universally subjected to despotic rule in the state ; having no just ideas of religious liberty ; altogether unfurnished with the means of communicating and uniting with each other, which the art of printing has since afforded; torn with dissensions among themselves, and liable to be turned about with every wind of doctrine ; such a people could offer little resistance to those who were ambitious of ecclesiastical power. A fairer opportunity for the few to take the advantage of the ignorance, the credulity, the divisions, and the weakness of the many, can scarcely be imagined. In truth, under these cir. cumstances, ecclesiastical usurpation is so far from being improbable; that, to suppose it not to have taken place, would be to suppose a continued miracle.

Nor is there more difficulty in supposing that these encroachments were submitted to by the

clergy, than by the people. Some yielded through fear of the bold and domineering spirits who contended for seats of honor; some with the hope of obtaining preferment themselves in their turn; and some from that lethargy and sloth which ever prevent a large portion of mankind from engaging in any thing which requires enterprise and exertion. To these circumstances it may be added, that, while some of the Presbyters, under the name of Bishops, assumed unscriptural authority over the rest of that order; the increasing power of the latter over the Deacons, and other subordinate grades of church officers, offered something like a recompense for their submission to those who claimed a power over themselves.

In addition to all these circumstances, it is to be recollected, that the encroachments and the change in question took place gradually. strides in the assumption of power are suddenly made, they seldom fail to rouse resentment, and excite opposition. But when made artfully, and by slow degrees, nothing is more common than to see them pass without opposition, and almost without notice. Instances of this kind among nations sunk in ignorance, and long accustomed to despotic government, are numberless; and they are by no means rare even among the more enlightened. The British nation, in the seventeenth century, saw a monarch restored with enthusiasm, and almost without opposition, to the throne, by those very persons, who, a few years before, had declared the bitterest hatred to royalty. At the beginning of the nineteenth

When great

century, one of the most enlightened nations of Europe, in a little more than twelve years after dethroning and decapitating a mild and gentle king, and after denouncing kingly government, with almost every possible expression of abhorrence, yielded, without a struggle, to the will of a despotic usurper. And, still more recently, we have seen a people enlightened and free, who had for more than two centuries maintained and boasted of their republican character, submit ignobly and at once, to the yoke of a monarch imposed on them by a powerful neighbour.

In short, the most limited knowledge of human nature, and of history, shows not only the possibility, but the actual and frequent occurrence of changes from free government to tyranny and despotism, in a much shorter period than a century; and all this in periods when information was more equally diffused, and the principles of social order much better understood, than in the second and third centuries of the Christian æra.

But we may go a step further.

It is not only manifest, that the state of the church and of the world, at the period in question, was such as to render the progress of doctrinal corruption, and of clerical domination probable ; but it is on all hands acknowledged, that such corruption and domination, did, in fact, take place. In support of this assertion, many instances might be produced ; but I shall content myself with a few of the most re. markable.

The administering the Lord's supper to infants, was a corruption which early arose in the church. It is certain that this corruption existed in the sea cond century. Cyprian, in the third century, speaks of it not as a new thing, but as an ordinary practice. Augustin, some time afterwards, calls it an Apostolicul tradition, represents it as a general custom, and expressly founds the propriety and necessity of it on Fohn vi. 53. And this practice prevailed so long, that Bishop Bossuet, in a treatise on the Communion, traces it down to the twelfth century. Now that this practice had no foundation either in scripture or apostolic example, is conceded by the whole Christian world. How, then, shall we account for its introduction and general adoption in the church? Can any one tell when it was introduced ? By whom? Whether it met with any opposition ? Whether among the faithful of that day, any church refused to adopt it? And why we are not able to find in all an. tiquity, an account of any disputes and struggles which took place on this subject? I will venture to say that no man can give any authentic and satisfactory information on any of these points. Of course, on the principle assumed by our Epis. copal brethren, we are compelled to conclude, that this practice was not an innovation, but derived from the apostles. This case is even stronger than that which it is brought to illustrate ; for as, on the one hand, there was less temptation, on the ordinary principles of human nature, to adopt this unscriptural abuse of the Eucharist, than to