error; just as the possession of reason, which is essential to a man's
thinking at all, must, in every case, involve the risk of his thinking
wrong.

But we know something of a Church founded by an apostle, presided over
for a time by an apostle, which was full of schisms. This was the
Church of Corinth. (See First Epistle to the Corinthians, first three
chapters.)

These schisms were marked by differences of mind and judgment; and by
"envying, strife, and divisions." Its "Protestantism" may, no doubt,
have occasioned this.

But along with these divisions, and partly their cause, partly their
effect, there was not only a warm attachment to particular ministers,
but positive antagonism to others professing the same faith, and doing
the same work. From the sameness of human nature in every age, we can
quite understand how each party would defend their sectarianism. "We
are of Apollos," some might have thus said. "We do not admire Peter.
He is too much of a Jew for us; besides, he denied his Lord, and
dissembled along with Barnabas at Antioch. We prefer our own minister
even to Paul. He is a much more eloquent man; of a much more
commanding figure and appearance; and how profound he is in his
knowledge of the Scriptures!" "We are of Paul," others might have
cried; "for he was chosen specially by Christ; and he has been
honoured by Him more than all; and does not the Church of Corinth,
moreover, owe its very existence to his preaching and labours? It is
a shame to belong to any other!" "We cling to Peter," a third party
might have said; "he lived with Christ when He was on earth, saw His
miracles, heard His words, was treated after the resurrection with