occasioned; (3) the duty of opposing error and defending the truth; (4) the spirit and mode of conducting Controversies; and (5) the General Result.

1. Heterodox opinions grew up in the Apostolic age, and have been developing ever since.

We are apt to think that if we had infallible teachers, as well as an inspired book and the influence of the Holy Spirit, we should never run into error of any kind. What a delusion! The New Testament explodes the conceit. In the days of the apostles there were grave departures from orthodoxy in doctrine, discipline, and worship.

In regard to doctrine, there were thus early the outcroppings of Ebionism—that is, a return to the beggarly elements of the effete Dispensation, as we see in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews. There was Docetism, as well as other forms of Gnostic heresy, of which John speaks in his Epistles. This he characterizes as Antichrist, because it denied that Christ had come in the flesh. The Docetists acquired the name of Phantastics, because they said that Jesus, who was born of the Virgin, and who died on the cross, was only a phantasm-not a real man, like one of us.

Then there were in the Corinthian Church, and in some other Churches, those who denied the resurrection of the body -asserting that there is no post-mortem state of existence, and that the resurrection is past already, being nothing but the regeneration of the soul, not the revivification of the body. 1 Cor. xv.; 2 Tim. ii. 16-18.

Then there were Ascetic notions, like those of the Pythagoreans, blended with Christian doctrines, which like parasites exhausted them of all their virtue and vitality. See the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and the Epistles to the Seven Apocalyptic Churches, in which Nicolaitans and other heretics are described, and denounced.

Irregularities in worship and looseness in discipline were developed in the Churches of Corinth, Rome, and Galatia, requiring apostolic censure.

In the post-apostolic age, Gnosticism was developed as a

hydra-headed monster, and some of its heads retain their vitality to the present day.

Then came Chiliasm-that too, preposterous as it is, still survives. Fanatics are still looking for Christ to descend corporeally, and reign a thousand years upon the earth!

Then in quick succession came Origenism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Macedonianism, Eutychianism, Nestorianism, and other heresies, which still have their infatuated advocatestheir name is Legion.

Then came the Greek and Roman Apostasies-the latter being developed into the Tridentine system-a fearful departure from the faith, "as the truth is in Jesus"-as well as from the simple worship and polity of the primitive Church.

Ecclesiastical History, the IIistory of Doctrines, Symbolical Books, and special treatises, must be consulted in order to acquire a knowledge of this subject. It may not be pleasant. reading; but those who are set for the suppression of error, and the maintenance of truth, must take up the cross, and study it.

2. Polemics shows us how Heterodoxy has been controverted in every age.

Here again the New Testament is our earliest and certain guide.

The apostles and their co-laborers did not content themselves with merely setting forth the truth-they defended it from the attacks of error. They did more than that: they used offensive as well as defensive weapons. They carried the war into Africa! They practiced no Fabian mode of warfare. Christianity was aggressive from the beginning.

It is easy to say, If I can fill the bushel with wheat, no one can fill it with chaff! But suppose while you are pouring in the wheat, the devil is pouring in the chaff-suppose the bushel is already full of chaff what then? We may know well enough what, if we only note the course of Christ and hisapostles, and their co-laborers.

Christ's ministry was almost one prolonged controversy. He disputed in the temple, in the synagogues, in the streets,. in the fields, in houses, by the lake, on the mountain-every

where. No error of doctrine, no superstition in worship, no laxness of morals, evaded his notice, or escaped his condemnation. He sought occasion for discussion-not angry and boisterous discussion-for he did not strive nor cry, neither was his voice heard in the street, in that sense. But knowing the evil of error, and the importance of truth, he was always opposing the former, and propounding and defending the latter.

How closely the apostles imitated their Master! John, the Apostle of Love, was a "Hammer of Heretics." He seemed to have a chartered right to call them Antichrists and liars! He had an accurate knowledge of their heresies, and knew perfectly their ruinous tendency. Diotrephes was a factionist -John says, "Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his evil deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious. words" (3 John 9, 10). We may guess what the remembrance meant! It was John who recorded the Apocalyptic Epistles of Christ, in which he speaks of those who "say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan"-and how fearfully does he denounce the false doctrines, as well as evil deeds, of these primitive heretics! But neither John nor his Master had read Alexander Pope's pronunciamento:

For forms of government, let fools contest,
What'er is best administered, is best;
For modes of faith, let graceless zealots fight,
His can't be wrong whose life is in the right:

In faith and hope the world will disagree,

But all mankind's concern is charity:

All must be false, that thwarts this one great end;
And all of God that bless mankind, or mend.

Despite Mr. Pope's caveat, statesmen will contest for a constitutional form of government, rather than submit to a despotism. Theologians will fight, with the sword of the Spirit, for the orthodox "modes of faith," notwithstanding the sophism of the poet, which is as transparent as his phraseology is ambiguous. Others besides "graceless zealots" can contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." So at least thought Jude. So thought Peter when he denounced

66

the "damnable heresies" and "pernicious ways" of the "false teachers, by reason of whom the way of truth was evil spoken of." 2 Peter ii. 1, 2. So thought his "beloved brother Paul also," who "according to the wisdom given unto him," and the power with which he was endued, disputed daily with all who impugned the truth, exposing and denouncing error of every kind-in belief, worship, or morals. Nearly every Epistle is a controversy every discourse an elenchtic.

The Galatians and Corinthians tasted his rod! Heretics, of whom he writes to Timothy and Titus, received his reproofs, and warnings, and objurgations. He disputed in the synagogues, in the Areopagus, "in the school of one Tyrannus," in his own hired house, in the market, in the court-house, when "minded to go afoot" in his journeys, or by sea-anywhere, everywhere he was a life-long Apologist when with Jews and heathens-a sturdy Polemic when among false brethren and deluded disciples.

How the Apostle James dealt with heretics may be imagined by the denunciations of Antinomianism and other errors in his Epistle, as well as by the encouragement and incentive which he gave the "brethren" to convert any who erred from the truth.

It was natural that the successors of the apostles should imbibe their polemical spirit, and imitate their course of action. The Ante-Nicene Fathers grappled with every error as soon as it showed its head. Many heresies were doubtless strangled at their birth-some survived, but those who held them. were dealt with " as the law directs."

Irenæus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John-though bearing a peaceful name-was as much a polemic as he was an irenic; indeed, he could not be the latter without being the former. His work against heresies shows his zeal for the truth.

Every bishop, or pastor, was expected to show due diligence in detecting, exposing, and refuting error of every kind; and so far as we can gather from the meager records of those times, they were not derelict in the premises.

Ebionism, Gnosticism, in all its forms, Sabellianism, Ari

anism—all were ferreted out, and their factors were opposed with all the controversial ability which could be had in requisition.

As soon as possible a General Council was called-the First at Nice (A.D. 325), for the express purpose of suppressing heresy in doctrine, and irregularity in discipline and worship. The Nicene Creed, which is still a standard of orthodoxy, resulted from that Conference.

The Post-Nicene Fathers pursued the same course. The First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) developed the Nicene Creed into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which we still profess. Then followed the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), the Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553), the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 681). These Six Councils discussed, controverted, and denounced Sabellianism, Arianism, Semi-Arianism, Macedonianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism, Semi - Pclagianism, Donatism, and all other heresies which wandered from the orthodox standard.

The Doctors of the Church had great contentions with heretics; but unfortunately the truth was not then so sharply distinguished from error and carefully guarded as now-especially in reference to questions of Soteriology and Anthropology. Jerome, though counted orthodox, was as much in error as his antagonists, Rufinus and Vigilantius. Augustin strayed as far from the median line on the one side as Pelagius did on the other and so of their followers.

Their contentions were sometimes too sharp, and the truth was not unfrequently lost sight of in the smoke of battle; but even such disputations were not as bad as the deadness which prevailed in the Dark Ages, when corruption had every thing its own way.

The Mystics and Schoolmen, by their acute disputations and dialectic diversions, did something to preserve the vitality of the Church, and to keep the truth from utter stagnation in Medieval times; but it was a sad, dreary, "wilderness" pe