ficiency. All others, being so defective, should be abandoned for the perfect model-should be destroyed; and the new sect is presented as the one true Church for all.

It may be denied that hostility, as we have represented it, is implied in the very nature of the sect. It may be said that sects are not opposed to each other, but exist harmoniously, one being adapted to one class of human opinion and character, and others to other classes. But all this adaptation of circumstances to the varieties of human opinion and personal character may be found. in unity; so that for it sects are not necessary. And why must there be a new ministry, and new sacraments, and a new Church, and new terms of admission into it, and of communion with it? And why may not a man join one without being obliged to abandon the others? And why may he not be a member, in regular standing, of two or more sects at the same time, as he is of all separate local societies or churches of his own sect? Because sects have no reciprocal sympathies with each other, although Christians have. Because, although Christians desire to love each other, the sects, which hold them captive, are hostile.

This, as we have described it, is sectarism, and these its consequences. Yet we do really believe that the great majority of the Christian people of our land have never troubled themselves to analyze the matter, and have not realized the consequences implied in their sectarian divisions.

CHAPTER IV.

No necessity of divisions in our day-apology for the Continental Reformers-reply to several alleged advantages of divisions and objections to unity-the Word of God decisive-importance of considering the subject—a state of division a state of sin-indifference the cause of its continuance-Christians should be in earnest to do their duty.

THERE is no necessity, either of duty or of circumstances, in our age and in our country, for sectarian divisions. There is no reason why there should be more than one Comprehensive Church, at this time, in the United States.

We do not intend, in these pages, to dispute the point whether there ever has been a necessity for divisions in times past; although we are willing to state our opinion that, if the full scope of the duties of Christian forbearance and of faith in the providence and promises of God be considered, divisions can in no case be excused. But God forbid that we should blame the Continental Reformers! They were Christian heroes and had glorious hearts. They were men who felt that they had a great work to do; and they were willing, for its accomplishment, to "jeopard their lives unto the death." No wonder if, in their agonizing impatience for the triumph of truth and liberty, they did sometimes err. They were men who, like "the three mighty" of David, were willing to dare thick hosts alone, for the Cap

tain of their salvation; and if, in a single case, like those valiant ones, these purchased a blessing too dearly, we must remember for their justification that these also had heard the voice of their Captain, saying sorrowfully: "O that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem!"

But, granting for the occasion that in the Reformation there was a necessity, in the instances referred to, for a departure from the unity of the Church (and only on this plea of an absolute and unavoidable necessity did the Continental Reformers excuse their proceedings), we assert that, in our age and country, there is no sufficient cause nor apology for perpetuating the divisions which are rending the body of Christ. The Word of God commands unity, and there can be no possible good to counterbalance the evil of disobedience.

Not to enlarge, however, upon this supreme authority (one, be it remembered, of tremendous significance, and decisive upon the topic), it will be in order to allude to the position, that various good effects are incidentally accomplished by the diversities of sects. We can conceive of none which shall warrant the violation of the divine command.

Besides, there is abundant reason to believe that these incidental advantages of schism, which are so much boasted of, may after all be accomplished to a much greater extent in a state of unity.

Thus, for an illustration, the preservation of the integrity of the Scriptures, which, some think, is aided by the opposition and watchful jealousy of sects, might be equally secured by unity; for in a state of sectarian controversy there are multiplied temptations to pervert and

corrupt the Scriptures. The zealous sectarian, who should discover some ancient and rare manuscript, might destroy it or change it to suit his purpose-a circumstance which would not be so likely to happen in a state of unity. Indeed, Biblical scholars, who are familiar with the collation of the various readings of the New Testament manuscripts, know that the chief difficulties in settling the sacred text have been occasioned as often by the corruptions of sectaries as by the emendations of critics or the negligence of scribes.

Thus, to take another illustration, the zeal which is said to be the product of divisions is often perverted into extravagance and superstition, and still oftener overmatched by the coldness and skepticism which are another product of the same divisions; while the history of the first three centuries shows that the most active and heroic zeal is perfectly compatible with the unity of the Church.

Thus, too, the tyranny, which is said to be the effect of unity, is much more the effect of divisions. Over our whole country are the mournful proofs. The tendency of sects is to imprison men within the most straitened limits of the most straitened party; while the unity of a universal Church requires that it be based on certain grand and comprehensive principles, which shall include all varieties and classes of men, and, of course, allow necessarily great liberty of conscience and action.

We have not time to consider all the objections which have been made to ecclesiastical unity.* We

*We wish to remind the reader, as we pass along, that wherever we have spoken of a united Church, or of ecclesiastical unity, we use the

have touched upon the chief of them. We would, however, shut up all objections to it, and comprise all arguments for it within the broad statement of the Word of God, "There is one body."

If union be possible, nothing should be allowed to restrain us from its accomplishment; for one thing is certain that every Christian, while he is out of the unity of Christ's Church (wheresoever that unity be), is, it may be ignorantly, in a state of sin; he is violating a first principle and a first precept of the New Testament. It becomes, then, an interesting question-nay, it is a question of the most serious moral responsibility: How shall the unity of Christ's Church be restored? We ought not to rest until the question is satisfactorily answered. Alas! there is an amazing indifference upon the public mind as to this duty of unity—a duty as explicitly enjoined as that of personal holiness-a duty, indeed, whose fulfillment is one test of holiness, one mark of a true Christian character.

The chief cause of this indifference is in the fact that the subject is not enough discussed. The very guides the watchmen and examples of Christ's flock -have been themselves indifferent; they have had so much to do in discussing other questions-perhaps abstruse, and only in the philosophy of religion-that the great practical duty of uniting and "gathering into one fold Christ's sheep that are dispersed abroad, and His children who are in the midst of this naughty world," has been overlooked.

terms in contradistinction from a consolidated Church; we refer to a Church organized upon the primitive principles alluded to in our First Chapter. The principles upon which the Comprehensive Church must be organized will be stated more directly in our Sixth Chapter.