at the mouth of his prophet,' for, surely, the Lord hath said no such thing.

Some who have written, and many more who talk and preach upon this subject, seem to think, that if a man neither believes nor does any thing which must necessarily exclude him from the kingdom of heaven, it is no great matter what his religious doctrines and practices are. This is a serious and dangerous mistake. Such an opinion could result from only a limited, and not a general and enlarged view of the character and interests of Christianity. "Am I Christ's, or am I not," is indeed the first, great, personal inquiry, which it behoves every one to make, and to answer. But such is the nature of the divine economy, that a man may hold some great errors of doctrine, and still be saved, though it be yet so as by fire. These errors may nevertheless prove a great hindrance to his own growth in grace, and be highly injurious to the spiritual interests of others. If extensively taught, and fully carried out, they may greatly corrupt and injure the church, perhaps prove the means of its downfall. Indeed, such is the dangerous and corrupting influence of error upon the church, that it is not for us to deny that there may be those now in heaven, some of whose doctrines and practices have, after their death, been the cause of heresy and schism among Christians; thus obstructing the progress of truth, and perhaps helping to people the abodes of despair. Both Scripture and experience seem to warrant the belief in such a doctrine; and it is hoped the reader will not lose sight of it, as it is under a deep sense of its truth and importance that some of the succeeding remarks are dictated.

There is no doubt but devoted, pious, and enlightened Christians generally desire to have only one church, and that, the true one. They desire it, because they believe that the world can never be evangelized, and Christ's kingdom be perfected on the earth, while contention and sectarianism remain and reign in the church. Some, whose motives are more questionable, also plead for a universal church, wishing to destroy all other sects and parties, that they may answer some private ends, or realize some favorite plan. Indeed, the advocates of union differ so widely in their views, motives, and plans, that it may be well to classify them.

One class comprises those who only theorize on the subject. They mourn over the evils of sectarianism; it is the grief of their souls, that Christians will not walk together in brotherly love. They do nothing themselves to hasten the happy period of a universal, catholic church. They have no great enjoyment in the society of Christians now; but fancy they should be in Paradise indeed, if all Christians could only be brought to unite in worship and in doctrine. They have no doubt but all the disciples of the Lord will yet be brought to feel as they now do, and to dwell together in heavenly unity. Yet their endless repetition of certain terms and phrases, and their very sighs, indeed, savor so strongly of cant, as almost to make one weary of the theme. But they are never weary of it. They have, however, no practical plan; have no locality for their Eutopia, and do not really know what they desire. They are generally men of low doctrines and great zeal; who believe so little themselves, and have such universal charity, such wonderful love for all, as to imagine that all can walk in the same path to heaven, and still be strolling along in divers directions, if only their general bearing be somewhat heavenward. They make the heavenly way so broad, as to include almost all minor and private paths. Their own religion consisting chiefly in feeling, they cannot conceive that principles and doctrines are of any particular moment to others. Thus they sigh, and dream, and talk, and, in vague expectation, long to behold what they will never see.

There is another class, who are quite as anxious for a single church, and their plans are more definite. They very well know what they desire. By union, they mean, that all other Christians, being in error, should accede to their party; that the rest of Christendom should come over to them, and unite on their platform. They have no idea of a chemical union, to amalgamate two churches or creeds, to form a third, having some properties of both, but differing from either. They wish to be the universal solvent, and so destroy all others; or to be the centre of attraction, around which all shall range themselves, obedient to the attractive power. It is amusing to hear such polemics reason very gravely, not on grounds of scriptural right and obligation of others to accede to them, but on the practicability of all other sects uniting with themselves,

VOL. VII.-NO. XXVII.

44

-if, first of all, they will give up those things wherein they now differ from them! They are themselves to remain just where they now are; not imagining it possible, that they should be amiss in faith or practice. It is sometimes almost provoking to see such plans proposed, with all apparent sincerity; with as much gravity and seriousness, as if a new discovery had been made of a very fortunate and adequate remedy for healing all dissensions and schisms in the church of Christ. Now, we think it not unreasonable on the part of the rest of Christendom, if they require those who propose such a plan, to prove first their own infallibility; and then, if they can only make all others willing to submit to their dictation and leadership, there will be nothing to prevent the consummation of all they desire. But, until they succeed in accomplishing this, we must be content to remain as we are. We sincerely hope they will not attempt to carry out their plan, by resorting to the old arguments of the Papists, racks and flames. Nothing better, perhaps, can be expected of the Oxford tractarians of Great Britain, than that they should attempt, when strong enough, to make the church one, in the same way their great prototype, the Roman hierarchy, has so often tried. But, notwithstanding the occasional appearance, in certain so-called Protestant periodicals among us, of something like great swelling words of vanity, the number of unionists of this stamp cannot be very great in this land, nor their designs specially dangerous, nor their influence very formidable.

The third class are of the radical and censorious stamp. Believing the scriptural church to be extinct, they advise us to renounce all existing organizations, and to begin anew. They find so little of primitive Christianity among any of the existing sects, that they think it best to secede from all, and to found a church after the ancient pattern, set up to be a model of the apostolic type, and such as will, in their view, prove to be the true millennial church. Many such reformers have made their appearance within half a century, declaiming violently against all creeds and sects, though they generally prove themselves to be ecclesiastical Ishmaelites. They commence by tearing down every thing which others have built, to make room for their own structure. They are, however, almost always sadly disappointed in their attempts

to influence others to believe and act with them. In their first zeal, they think themselves morning stars to the sun of millennial glory, which they promise to lead up very speedily, to make glad the church and the world. But they find, erelong, that they have lived too soon, or that the world is not worthy of them. In the bitterness of their disappointment, they become more partizan and sectarian than those whom they revile; and so add one more to the number of those very evils which they sought to remove. They lead away the unwary and the zealot; lead away many well-meaning and warm-hearted souls; but their blind leaders, with those they lead, finally fall together into the ditch. Some, also, make their way through its mire, into the minor sects of errorists, liberals, and infidels, and so go to swell the ranks of the avowed or concealed enemies of the church, and bring suspicion and odium on the very name of unionists.

The motto of a fourth class is, union for the sake of union. They are willing to tolerate every thing which they are pleased to call non-essential, to compromise almost any thing in which denominations differ from each other, to obtain this. Now, such doctrines may be current and orthodox among politicians, but deserve no place in matters of religion. Those who adopt them, probably, make policy a cardinal doctrine of their belief, and understand the faith once delivered to the saints to be expediency. But there is no real expediency, because there is no consistent religious principle, in giving countenance to doctrines and practices which we are not persuaded are scriptural, but are adopted, or allowed, merely for the sake of an outward union. The ultimate result should be considered, as well as the immediate effect. The tendency of error always is to beget error; and, if countenanced and encouraged, to work deeper corruption in the church. We may esteem our brother as really a child of God, while he believes and practises some things which we think are unscriptural; we may love him; we ought to love him; but, by entering into church communion with him, and into immediate co-operation in spreading the gospel, while our doctrines are in many respects essentially diverse, we do him no real good, nor benefit ourselves, nor the cause we wish to serve. How can two walk together, except they be agreed?

Those churches which find themselves separated from other churches by only artificial barriers, which they, and not others, have reared, should make haste to break down the wall of division; let them own themselves wrong, and with those who are more scriptural than themselves, like kindred drops, mingle into one. But where is the scriptural authority for tolerating and encouraging, in the same church, all creeds and every kind of practice or mode of sacrament, which has ever been invented by those who bear the Christian name, or even by those whom, in charity, we believe to be Christians indeed, merely for the sake of a nominal union? After all the changes which are rung upon such terms as "non-essentials," "transfundamental creeds," "matters of opinion," "liberality," and "a truly catholic spirit," where is the divine permission to countenance and encourage religious. sentiments, doctrines and usages, which do not coincide with our own belief, and are admitted only for the sake of union? Certainly, it is not to be found in the last chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Ought not Christians, Christian unionists even, to have a conscience, as well as charity, and a desire for peace and unity? If it be right to practise accommodation in matters of conscience and convictions of right, where are the limits? If a church may open the way for accommodation like this, to suit the tastes and whims of all who call themselves Christians, where shall we stop? How long would it be before the pliant creed will be so accommodated and modified, that Beelzebub himself could sign it? What purity of doctrine could be maintained in the midst of such an amalgamation of sentiments, usages, and churches? What are the advocates for such a plan of union but spiritual tailors, making garments to order, and so adapted to the defects and awry shapes of all, as to fit nicely every form? In other words, if candidates wish to be sprinkled, suffused or immersed, they can be accommodated here;— ordination by the bishops, the elders, or the laity, to suit the consciences of all;-the doctrines of a Calvinistic creed, couched in Arminian phrase, and Arminian sentiments expressed very Calvinistically; so that all the members of the church can explain the doctrines of religion in their own way, and believe just what seems good in their own sight. The principles of a spiritual Babel, simplified and made easy!