for one is your master even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your father who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant; and whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased, while he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." These divine maxims, which are in perfect unison with the whole tenor of the New Testament, were entirely disregarded by the ecclesiastics who undertook to new-model the constitution of the Christian church, under the auspices of Constantine, and whom, as a matter of courtesy, they condescended to make its earthly head.'

Treating of this period, the fourth century, Mr. J. thus

continues:

The Scriptures were now no longer the standard of the Christian faith. What was orthodox and what heterodox were, from henceforward, to be determined by the decisions of fathers and councils; and religion propagated, not by the apostolic methods of persuasion accompanied with the meekness and gentleness of Christ, but by imperial edicts and decrees; nor were gainsayers to be brought to conviction by the simple weapons of reason and Scripture, but persecuted and destroyed. It cannot surprise us, if after this we find a continual fuctuation of the public faith, just as the prevailing party obtained the imperial authority to support them; or that we should meet with little else in ecclesiastical history than violence and cruelties committed by men who had wholly departed from the simplicity of the Christian doctrine and profession; men enslaved to avarice and ambition; and carried away with views of temporal grandeur, high preferments, and large revenues.'

In this part of his work, Mr. Jones also takes occasion to advert to the origin of the Novatians :

It may,' he says, 'be proper to remark, that long before the times of which we now treat, some Christians had seen it their duty to withdraw from the communion of the church of Rome. The first instance of this we find on record is the case of Novatian, who in the year 251 was ordained the pastor of a church in the city of Rome, which maintained no fellowship with the Catholic church. It is unquestionably a very difficult matter at this very remote period to ascertain the real grounds of difference between Novatian and his opponents. Those who are in any tolerable degree conversant with theological controversy, will scarcely need to be apprised how much caution is neces sary to guard against being misled by the false representations which different parties give of each other's principles and conduct. Novatian is said to have refused to receive into the communion of the church any of those persons who, in the time of persecution, had been induced, through fear of sufferings or death, to apostatize from their profession, and offer sacrifices to the heathen deities; a principle which he founded upon a mistaken view of Heb. vi. 4—6.’

As from this early epoch in the history of Christianity, the auther considers that the nominal church altogether departed from

the spirit and manners of its founder, and that ever since the true church was to be found among the separatists, at the head of whom he places the Novatians, we are induced to transcribe the following passage from the Ecclesiastical Researches of the late Mr. Robert Robinson, which Mr. Jones quotes, because it contains an epitome of Mr. J.'s sentiments on the present subject, and will enable the reader to perceive the views with which his work has been penned. Mr. Robinson says of No

vatian:

"He was an elder in the church of Rome, a man of extensive learning, holding the same doctrine as the church did, and published several treatises in defence of what he believed. His address was eloquent and insinuating, and his morals irreproachable. He saw with extreme pain the intolerable depravity of the church. Christians within the space of a very few years were caressed by one emperor, and persecuted by another. In seasons of prosperity many persons rushed into the church for base purposes. In times of adversity, they denied the faith, and reverted again to idolatry. When the squall was over, away they came again to the church, with all their vices, to deprave others by their examples. The bishops, fond of proselytes, encouraged all this; and transferred the attention of Christians from the old confederacy for virtue, to vain shows at Easter, and other Jewish ceremonies adulterated too with paganism. On the death of Bishop Fabian, Cornelius, a brother elder, and a violent partizan for taking in the multitude, was put in nomination. Novatian opposed him; but as Cornelius carried his election, and he saw no prospect of reformation, but on the contrary a tide of immorality pouring into the church, he withdrew, and a great many with him. Cornelius, irritated by Cyprian, who was just in the same condition, through the remonstrance of virtuons men at Carthage, and who was exasperated beyond measure with one of his own elders, named Novatus, who had quitted Carthage, and gone to Rome to espouse the cause of Novatian, called a council, and got a sentence of excommunication passed against Novatian. In the end Novatian formed a church, and was elected bishop. Great numbers followed his example, and all over the empire Puritan churches were constituted, and flourished through the succeeding two hundred years. Afterwards, when penal laws obliged them to lurk in corners, and worship God in private, they were distinguished by a variety of names, and a succession of them continued till the Reformation."

To this Mr. Jones adds:

• The doctrinal sentiments of the Novatians appear to have been very scriptural, and the discipline of their churches rigid. They were the first class of Christians who obtained the name of (Cathari) Puritans, an appellation which doth not appear to have been chosen by themselves, but applied to them by their adversaries; from which we may reasonably conclude that their manners were simple and irreproachable. They are said to have disapproved of second marriages,

marriages, regarding them as sinful; but in this they erred in com mon with Tertullian and many other eminent persons. A third charge against them was, that they did not pay due reverence to the martyrs, nor allow that there was any virtue in their reliques! — A plain proof of their good sense.'

We are informed by Mosheim, that the schism which thus originated at Rome, soon extended to other places. "It was followed by many," says he, "and their societies flourished, until the fifth century, in the greatest part of those provinces which bad received the gospel." One cannot but lament the scantiness of our information concerning this class of Christians, who appear to have had the truth among them, and to have walked in obedience to the commands of God.'

Another feature of these early times, which the author considers as supporting his views, is contained in the subsequent passage:

The senate of Constantinople deputed an orator, of the name of Themistius, to express their loyal devotion to the new emperor. His oration is preserved, and merits particular attention, for the discovery which it inadvertently makes of the state of the established Catholic church at that period. "In the recent changes," says he, "both religions have been alternately disgraced, by the seeming acquisition of worthless proselytes, of those votaries of the reigning purple, who could pass, without a reason and without a blush, from the church to the temple, and from the altars of Jupiter to the sacred table of the Christians." Could a volume give us a more striking picture of the wretched state to which the Christian profession was reduced in so short a time as half a century after its establishment?'

It is with great seeming complacency that Mr. Jones introduces to his readers the charges which his contemporaries urged against Ærius; and here he finds a champion who promulgated his own favourite opinions as early as the fifth century:

Erius,' he relates, was an elder of the church of Sebastia in Pontus; and, as Epiphanius, who undertook to confute him and all other heretics, informs us, obstinately defended four great errors. These were, 1. That bishops were not distinguished from presbyters or elders, by any Divine right, for that, according to the New Testament, their offices and authority were absolutely the same. 2. That it was wrong to offer up any prayers for the dead, which it seems was become customary in those days. 3. That there was no authority in the word of God for the celebration of Easter, as a religious solemnity; and, 4. That fasts ought not to be prefixed to the annual return of days, as the time of Lent and the week preceding Easter. Such seems to have been the heresy of Arius, and his writings in defence of which, we are told, met with the most cordial reception from his cotemporaries-"We know with the utmost certainty," says Mosheim, that it was highly agreeable to many good Chris 7 tians,

tians, who were no longer able to bear the tyranny and arrogance of the bishops of this century."

Having before thrown out hints respecting his particular opinions, Mr. Jones now steps forwards, and unequivocally proclaims them in the subsequent passage:

The distinction between bishop and presbyter or elder, which Erius so strenuously opposed, seems to have prevailed early in the Christian church, yet it is demonstrably without the shadow of foundation in the New Testament. "That the terms, bishop and elder are sometimes used promiscuously in the New Testament," says Dr. Campbell," there is no critic of any name who now pretends to dispute. The passage, Acts, xx. 17., &c. is well known. Paul from Miletus sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church, saying, "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the church over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (literally Exo, bishops). Similar to this is a passage in Titus, chap. i. 5., "For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (gulp) in every city." Ver. 7. "For a bishop (EOO) must be blameless." In like manner the apostle Peter, 1 Epist. v. 1., "The elders (wgBulpes) which are among you, I exhort, &c. Ver. 2., "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, (males) discharging the office of bishops." So much for the heresy of Erius as it respected the denial of any distinction between the office of bishop and presbyter. On the other three particulars of his heresy, it is, at this time of day, quite unnecessary for me to bestow a word in the way of apology.'

The scriptural grounds for the equality of the two clerical orders have seldom been more forcibly stated in so small a compass; and surely here the Romanist and the jure divino Episcopalian must be perplexed.

The author pays a just tribute to Vigilantius; who, at the beginning of the fifth century, made a zealous stand against the corruptions of the times, and who, on that account, was treated very roughly by St. Jerome. A specimen of the holy father's refutation of the supposed errors of his antagonist, which is given by Mr. Jones, shews that his logic was not superior to his temper, and that his reasoning manifested as little of solidity as his spirit possessed of Christianity. - This Vigilantius was a learned and eminent presbyter of the Christian church, who wrote a book against the institution of monks, the celibacy of the clergy, praying for the dead, invoking the martyrs, adoring their reliques, celebrating their vigils, and lighting up candles to them, after the manner of the Pagans. The work is unhappily lost.

In order to preserve the continuity of the apostolic succession, the Paulicians are admitted within the pale of the

O 3

author's

author's true church. It might be said that bias here carries him to an unjustifiable length; and the charge could not easily be repelled, did he not himself apprize his readers that his hypothesis rests not only in a considerable degree on conjecture, but is also opposed by the accounts of this sect which antiquity has handed down to us. It is true that Mr. Gibbon states that Peter Siculus, from whom we have the fullest report of them, writes concerning them" with prejudice and passion;" - and we must admit that the ill treatment and persecution, which they suffered from the church of that day, raise a strong presumption in their favour: because, whether the "church is or is not at this time to be denominated Antichristian, it cannot be doubted that, from a period not much later than that which Mr. Jones fixes, it had abandoned the spirit and violated the maxims of its founder. By their adversaries, these sectaries were charged with denying the divinity of the Old Testament: but Mr. Jones is of opinion, that they only disputed the construction assigned by the Catholics to that part of Divine writ, by which they sanctioned their usurpations of temporal authority; and that on this account the latter charged them with rejecting its Divine origin. If, however, we allow the claim of the Paulicians to the character which the author ascribes to them, and in a matter of so much importance can rest satisfied with conjectures and presumptions, his hypothesis will still remain defective. Even on his own statement, it seems to betray a glaring inconsistency, which nothing but the spirit of system could prevent him from perceiving. According to him, the ostensible church ceased to be the true church as early as the third century; and the schismatic Novatians, and not the selfnamed orthodox, perpetuated the succession of the apostles. On the extirpation of the Paulicians, which was the atchievement of an orthodox empress, the notorious Theodora, (who, we are told, had a hundred thousand persons put to death for being of this persuasion,) the author finds the true church removed from Syria to the vicinity of the Alps, to Turin, and to the vallies of Piedmont. In his judgment, Claude of Turin is in this age the sole apostle of truth, and becomes the founder of a succession of true believers, the Waldenses; who make a distinguished figure in ecclesiastical history, and who are worthy of all the encomiums which Mr. J. and other Protestant writers bestow on them. Mr. Jones follows the late Mr. Robinson in his account of Claude, and adopts all his conjectures: but, even if we give credit to their representations, an inconsistency still appears in the hypothesis which we think is fatal to it. Claude, if he preached the

doctrines