other age since, has been empowered to make. With all due allowance for the històrian's sectarian connexions, we quote his historical declaration as a true assertion of the ecclesiastical pre. rogative, with which these bodies thought themselves invested.

He proceeds: "The original of those assemblies is as ancient as the church of the three first centuries. The Apostles gave a pattern of them in the council at Jerusalem, to deliberate whether the ceremonies of the law were to be observed. That usage was afterwards followed in the church, when any differences arose, or when it was necessary to make any regulations."-In' tracing back these councils to the first three centuries for their origin, this historian agrees in his testimony with Mosheim. In referring to the council at Jerusalem as the pattern to which they were conformed, we beg leave to say, that we have the scriptural document in our own hands, and chuse to judge for ourselves;-the council at Jerusalem never exercised such control over the human conscience, as we shall show in its own place. But if he intends to say that there were other councils, before the moral desolations of the second century were spread out to view, he is not only contradicted by Mosheim, but he is inconsistent with himself, as will be evident from his own words, before we have finished with our quotation.

"Those assemblies," he continues, "were more rare in the three first centuries, and not so famous as in the following ages; as well be.

cause the persecutions of the pagan emperors hindred the bishops from assembling freely and publicly, as because the traditions of the Apostles being yet new, it was not necessary to assemble councils in order to own the truth, and condemn error. "Tis for this reason, we don't read in any authors of credit, that councils were held to condemn most of the first heretics whom I have been speaking of. The errors of those heretics created horror in all christians; they looked upon the authors of them, and those who maintained them, as people excommunicated and, separated from the church, without their being expressly condemned in synods. In fine, every bishop instructed his own people in the faith of the church, and refuted errors by the authority of scripture, and tradition." If there had been any thing like these authoritative rules, these superadded tests of orthodoxy, surely this author must have noticed them. They would have answered his purpose full as well as, if not better than, the traditions of the Apostles to which he refers. The fact is, that there were no such Creeds in existence; and yet there was as much need for them then, as there has been since, or can be now. Their bishops had no opportunity to assemble and make them, even if they had thought of them. They had enough to do in contending for the common faith, which they could all learn from the scriptures; and fearful persecution formed the test of their sincerity: so much so, that Tertullian remarked, that the blood of the martyrs was the seed which pro

E

duced an abundant harvest of new christians. And there was no very great difficulty in detecting and excluding heretics: these were censured and avoided by common consent, under the operation of that inherent power, which religious society has, like all other societies, to regulate itself according to its own constituent principles. Every bishop could then instruct his own people according to his own ability, and take the scriptures for his guide, unfettered by the decrees of councils, or the laboured systems of philosophic divines.

Our historian goes farther: "The first councils mentioned in ecclesiastical history, were those that were held towards the end of the second century, upon occasion of the dispute among the churches about Easter. The church of Rome, according to its ancient usage, never celebrated that day but upon a Sunday, the day of our Saviour's resurrection, and waited till the first Sunday after the fourteenth day of the moon of March. On the contrary, the churches of Asia and some others celebrated it, as the Jews did, on the fourteenth day of the moon of March, whatever day of the week it fell upon. St Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, came to Rome, under the pontificate of Anicetus, they conferred together upon that difference, and not being able to persuade one another to quit their custom, they parted good friends, reckoning that so small a difference ought not to break the peace of the churches. But under the pontificate of pope Victor that dispute grew warm; for that

When

pope having wrote to the bishops of Asia, to conform themselves to the usage of the church of Rome, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, assembled the bishops of Asia, and wrote a letter to Pope Victor, wherein he strenuously maintained the usage of his church, and the other churches of the east. Victor likewise assembled a council at Rome, wherein it was resolved to separate from communion, Polycrates, and the other bishops of Asia, that would not follow the usage of the church of Rome, in the celebration of Easter. Victor sent them the synodical letter of that council, by which he declared them excommunicated. There was also a council held at Palestine, in which presided Theophilus, bishop of Cesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. The bishops of Pontus, over which presided Palmas, wrote likewise a synodical letter upon the same subject; and St. Irenæus directed a letter to Victor in the name of the churches of France, wherein he remonstrates, that although in those churches they celebrated Easter on Sunday, as at Rome, yet he could not approve his excommunicating whole churches for keeping up a custom which they had received from their ancestors: and acquainted him, that it was not only about Easter, but likewise about fasts, and several other practices that the churches differed in their customs. "Tis probable that Victor yielded to the reasons of St. Irenæus; for, although the Asiatics did not quit their usage, yet we do not find that the peace

was broke betwixt them and the bishops of Rome."

We have then once more traced back these ecclesiastical councils to the second century, and have found their origin there. Their business again appears to be, to exercise authority over human consciences, which was never delegated to them; and to excommunicate from spiritual privileges those who would not submit to their canons. Though still, there is no evidence of their attempting at so early a period to form a Creed, or a general system of the doctrines of the gospel, and thus fully to take into their hands the entire conscience of the christian church. That was an ecclesiastical measure too presumptuous for the first councils to have conceived. It would have been hazardous for them to have attempted so much, when what they did attempt, was so manfully resisted. Had they stretched their prerogative so far, there would have been a protest so vigorous and universal, that, we were going to say,—and would say, did not the history of the church since the reformation forbid us-we should never have heard of an authoritative rule of faith and manners, of human invention, in the church of God.

We have not given any unfair turn to this historian's testimony, when we have recorded it as most decisively in our favour. For he had a fine opportunity of proclaiming the existence of these Creeds, if he could have found them, when closing his account of the lives and actions of the Apostles. And he does then most distinctly allude