the custom of Christianity to appropriate to its own use existing forms, when it found any which suited its spirit and essence,”—such, e. g., as those of the Jewish synagogue ;* and he sees no objection to continuing the process under the guidance of mere human wisdom. Nay, he distinctly affirms that " Christianity may enter into all human institutions that contain nothing that is sinful by its very nature;" and this, as the context explains, in the sense of appropriating them to its own use, incorporating them into its own organization and polity.† Indeed, why may it not, if the form is morally indifferent-if nothing of an external kind is divinely appointed? This is his celebrated doctrine of "the historical development of the church," which, as every one will see, is, in church polity, as comprehensively convenient as Pope's doctrine in morals. "Whatever is, is RIGHT," is an end to all controversy, it must be confessed; but alas, alas! it is quite as fatal to all penitence and all reform. In the application of his doctrine he advances boldly until he reaches the Papacy; whereat he seems somewhat inconsistently to stagger. As thus :-Under the Harbinger, the church existed merely in an embryo state. During the personal ministry of our Lord, the germ assumed a determinate, though imperfect, form, and gave signs of incipient expansion. Beneath the quickening effusion of the Spirit, in the day of Pentecost, it burst upon the world an infant community, and commenced its regular growth. Thenceforward one feature after another of this spiritual society, this communion of saints and church of the living God, is brought to view in the inspired record of apostolic acts until the age of inspiration closes, and the canon of Holy Scripture is complete. Thus far we accompany our guide with the greatest delight-not that we look on his interpretations as free from all imperfection, but as contributing the aid of one more honest and truly philosophical mind to the elucidation of that Volume, to which we look as the only safe guide in religious opinion and practice. There then it stands, the apostolic church, in the clear light of God's own word, fully developed and just as it was left by those who shaped it by express authority from Christ, and under the guidance of his Spirit; a system exceedingly simple, and yet perfectly complete; self-consistent in all its parts; harmonious, free, and powerful in its action; admirably suited, as Neander himself cannot fail to observe, with delight, to the manifestation of the divine life in the church, and its diffusion through the world, and, as we shall take the liberty of adding, equally well adapted to all times and circumstances, because based on the most fundamental principles of the human mind, and expressive of the most essential nature of the gospel. But with Neander the work of development is but just begun. It is a significant circumstance, that in his History of the Christian Religion,' when passing over from the period of inspiration to the * Hist. Christ. Rel. p. 105: † Ibid. p. 117. to following age, he finds no line of demarcation sufficiently distinct and important to occasion even a division between two chapters of his work. The stream of outward events glides smoothly on; and for once the great historian of the inward glides, all unsuspicious, with it. Changes occurred under the eye of the apostles; and after the apostles are dead changes do not cease- -this is historically certain. Why should they? The law of the church is self-development according circumstances." Very soon, therefore, the influence of circumstances begins to be seen, at first but slightly and in an exceedingly innocent form, but afterwards, as men become wiser in this fascinating art of church-building, with more rapidity and boldness. Modifications soon cease to be slight-soon very plainly cease to be innocent. The prelatical bishop appears. The diocesan system developes itself, and expands into the metropolitan; until finally, somewhere we think within "the first centuries," the church of Christ has matured into— what? a full-grown Pope, sitting, as he assures us, in St. Peter's chair,-probably the only one alluded to in Scripture, that in which Peter sat and warmed himself, when he denied his Master with oaths, with his foot on the neck of Christian Europe! Surely, well may Neander exclaim, "this system" is beginning to "obtain somewhat too great a sway." Yet let him remember, it is the same system to which, in its inception, he gives his sanction and approval. It is the system of departing from the inspired model; and if it may begin, who is competent to say just how far it shall proceed? † Still the historical development goes on. The church's foot grows greater and heavier and Christian Europe groans and pleads, but groans and pleads in vain, until the agony of the pressure overcomes her fear of the oppressor. With one huge effort she overturns chair, church, pope, and all, and goes on her way rejoicing. But how is it with the church? Here is a new set of "circumstances," to be sure; and we may look for a new stage in her "historical development." When she went down amid the smoke and dust of the Reformation, it was in the form of hierarchy, or pope; she re-appears in the form of SECT, whose surname is Legion, and whose spirit—of a very equivocal paternity. In this shape "If shape it may be called, which shape has none Or substance may be called, which shadow seems, she continues until the present time. *Hist. Chr. Rel. p. 117. † "But here let every one behold the just and dreadful judgment of God meeting with the audacious pride of man, that durst offer to mend the ordinance of Heaven. God, out of the strife of men, brought forth by his Apostles to the Church that beneficent and ever distributing office of Deacons, the stewards and ministers of holy alms. Man, out of the pretended care of peace and unity, being caught in the snare of his impious boldness to correct the What now, we ask of our venerated mentor, are we to say of all these things? Why, he answers, hold fast to the "fundamental distinction between the old and the new economy. Neither Christ nor the apostles have given any unchangeable law on the subject. The coming together in his name alone renders the assembly well-pleasing in his sight, whatever be the different forms under which his people meet. All else is mutable. Forms may change with every change of circumstances."* This is his language. In other words, so far as modes of organization, discipline, and worship are concerned, all are right, because none can be wrong-always saving and excepting that monstrous Pope-church, wherein it must be confessed "the system obtained too great sway," and also excepting any form which claims to be of divine appointment and perpetual obligation, for that is incompatible with the "fundamental distinction." We have left ourselves but little space to reply, but our answer is a short one. It is this. THE AUTHORS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH POLITY WERE INSPIRED MEN. They, and THEY ONLY, acted in this matter with the authority of Christ, and the wisdom of the Holy Ghost. It follows, 1. That the primitive church polity must be wiser and better than any we can substitute in its place. Neander expressly admits that "they gave this particular organization to the church under the guidance of the Spirit of God;" and that therefore it must have been the "best adapted to the circumstances and relations of the church at that time." And under what guidance shall we of the present times attempt to improve it? Mark his answer. "That same Spirit which is imparted to us, through the intervention of the apostles, will at all times, and under all possible relations, direct to the most appropriate and most efficient form of government, if in humility and sincerity we surrender ourselves up to its teaching and guidance !" We need not argue this point. We simply ask the followers of Neander in this thing-those in our own churches-on which horn of the dilemma do you propose to hang? In organizing the church of Christ, was the inspiration of the apostles of no higher order than ours, or may we attain a kind and degree not inferior to theirs? 2. That the primitive church polity, and that only, has the sanction of divine authority. Here again we are sustained by Neander's own testimony. "In making these appointments, they acted as they did in everything else, only as the organs of Christ. Paul, therefore, very justly ascribes to Christ himself what was done by his apostles, in this instance as his agents."§ Can anything be more decisive of the will of Christ, brought forth to himself upon the Church that irreconcileable schism of perdition and apostasy, the Roman Antichrist; for that the exaltation of the Pope rose out of the reason of Prelaty, it cannot be denied.”— Milton's Reason of Ch. Government, p. 37, 8vo, edit. 1834. * Intro. Prim. Church, pp. 14-16. Intro. Prim. Church. p. 16. § Ibid, p. 15. question at issue? For, surely, the apostolical authority has not also descended to subsequent times. Even piety, in its loftiest attainments, cannot claim to be invested with prerogatives like theirs. It becomes, therefore, a very curious question, how a pious Protestant, in this nineteenth century, can reconcile such an acknowledgement of the apostle's authority with the entire subversion and removal of their institutions. Neander's mode is twofold, as follows: First, negatively. "The apostles themselves have given no law, requiring that any such form of government should be perpetual.' To which it is a sufficient answer, that they have given no permission to introduce any other. But we go further. Is not the apostolic authority, in its very nature, not only perpetual and universal, but exclusive? How runs the commission? "All power," saith our Lord, "is given unto ME in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you and lo, I am with YOU alway, even unto the end of the world." To whom else has he ever used such language, or they in his name? To no man. If therefore the apostles, when they established the order of God's house, and taught his people how to behave themselves therein, felt called upon to show "proofs of Christ speaking in them," let him that demands or defends a departure from their institutions show similar credentials. If divine authority is required to establish, divine authority is required to alter or annul. "There is no prohibition," "It is not written, Ye shall not," is surely insufficient. Two negatives in such a matter are not equal to an affirmative. In the second place, positively. "The apostles stand as the medium of communication between Christ and the whole Christian church, to transmit his word and his Spirit through all ages. In this respect the church must ever continue to acknowledge her dependance upon them, and to own their rightful authority. Their authority and power can be delegated to none other. But the service which the apostles themselves sought to confer, was to transmit to men the word and Spirit of the Lord, and by this means to establish independent communities. These communities, when once established, they refused to hold in a state of slavish dependance upon themselves. Their object was, in the Spirit of the Lord, to make the churches free and independent of their guidance. To the churches their language was, 'Ye beloved, ye are made free; be ye the servants of no man.' churches were taught to govern themselves."-Intro. to Coleman's Prim. Church, page 19. The We accept this statement of facts as substantially correct. But is this an argument to justify all forms of church organization which have "arisen at any time out of a series of events" (in which series of events, be it remembered, a deliberate act of the popular will has never been an item), and four-fifths of which say to the people, “Ye beloved, ye are made not free; ye cannot, shall not, govern your selves?" On the one hand, the churches have not adopted these unscriptural constitutions, but, as Mosheim, with great simplicity, intimates, their "chief rulers, both in church and state, have imposed them." Who clothed them with authority? On the other hand, had they adopted them, which is hardly a supposable case, they would therein have acted in direct violation of that apostolic injunction which Neander quotes. For, suppose it had been the design of the apostles, as the organs of Christ, to establish his church for ever on an independent and popular basis, and to enjoin her, with apostolic authority, never to abandon that basis, never to relinquish the sacred privilege nor hope to escape the solemn responsibility of self-government; never, in short, to submit to a monarchical or oligarchical form of church domination,-what other course could they have taken than just the one described-first, to organize such communities as they did organize, and then to say, "Ye are made FREE, be ye servants to no man ?" We feel, therefore, that this attempt to invalidate the authority of the apostles, in respect to the organization of the church, is a failure; and confidently reject the theory of "historical development" which rests upon it. We reject, too, the idea that lies at the bottom of all this dangerous speculation-that in Christianity the outward form is nothing while we adhere with tenacity to the great New Testament truth, that the form without the essence, like the body without the spirit, is dead and worthless. Nay, we aver that, as respects the manifestation of Christianity to the world, the form is EVERYTHING— not merely a form, but just that specific form which is adapted to give an unimpeded and unimpaired expression of its essential spirit. On this principle, it lies on the face of the sacred record, the apostles of our Lord proceeded. Their institutions are demonstrably constructed just so as most effectually to answer that purpose; and if they were not, if we could not perceive their appropriateness and excellence, we should be none the less bound to receive them in submission to the authority which established them. III.-MY BIRD. BY FANNY FORESTER. Ere last year's moon had left the sky, Her tiny wings upon my breast. From morn till evening's purple tinge, |