any plan by which it is proposed to establish union among his followers, We know of no elaborate discussion of Christian union in which the posltion is taken and defended, that the only consistent, safe, and practical ground of such union is the prompt recognition of the authority of Jesus, except in the brief but exhaustive discussion, by Dr. Armitage, in the tract entitled, "Christian Union, Real and Unreal." His analysis of the current conception of our Pedobaptist brethren we accept. "It consists," says he, "1, very largely in a warm-hearted, loving feeling toward each other as regenerated men, and, 2, in the communion of all sects at the Lord's table, as one consolidated mass of believers." After discussing these two points, and showing by reasoning condensed and conclusive that Christian union is not to be attained by the recognition of the former or the practice of the latter, he adds:

I take it, then, that the only way in which we Christians can be united is to agree that we will mutually obey whatever is positively enjoined in the New Testament, and insist upon nothing beyond that. Let each man appeal to the Bible only, and he will need to ask for no concessions from his brethren. Opinion will then give place to Christian faith, convenience and preference and expediency to divine authority.

In other words, if evangelical Christians propose a union, it must be based on the fullest recognition of the fundamental principle, "the Bible alone the religion of Protestants," because in it Jesus has embodied his will, and therefore our duty is immediate submission to its requisitions. This is simple, plain, and practical. The Bible is certainly explicit respecting the constitution and ordinances of the Christian church. It contains the revealed will of God.

Here a question presents itself, which requires notice. It is this: Why cannot all Christians unite on this platform of submission to the authority of Jesus? Is it because his Word is a sort of Delphic Oracle? Is is so difficult of interpretation? May we not safely rely upon it, and, by prayerfully seeking the Spirit's guidance, ascertain his will as revealed? If this be not so, then we must concede the Bible a failure for the purpose it was intended. God's will cannot be learned from it. If this be so, we must needs have an infallible. interpreter, who shall decide how we are to understand the Word of God, instructing us what to believe and to do, and what to reject and avoid. Hence, direct and immediate submission to Jesus Christ is impossible, and must become indirect and mediate. Now this is the position of Rome exactly. The right of private judgment is denied. The Bible is withheld from the laity, and the church-regarded as a

U

universal visible corporation-is made the interpreter of Scripture, the arbiter of controversy. What she decrees is believed, what she anathematizes is heretical; while by means of her so-called sacraments she dispenses salvation from "the wrath to come." It is this assumption, and the determination to prosecute it consistently and logically, that Protestants unite in resisting, more than any other.

But do Protestants consistently adhere to the opposite principle? Have they never followed, in part, the footsteps of "the mother of harlots and of abominations," and interposed their creeds and the enactments of their councils and assemblies between the authority of Christ and the believer? Do we hear nothing from them respecting the authority of the church? Have they not their creeds, their standards of belief, from which appeal to the Word of God is treason? Are not these standards supposed to be the summary of all theological truth? That nothing can be added to them, and that to question or to deviate from them is to be chargeable with schism or heresy? The answer is obvious: The Word of God is not allowed to speak for itself fully. Let the best apology be made for the Westminster Confession, or the Heidelberg Catechism, or the Augsberg Confession, or the Thirty-nine Articles, or any other symbol of the faith of any body of Christians, and let the idea of authority, that of necessity must always be associated with a creed, be modified as greatly as is possible; yet the fact remains, that between the Bible and a creed accepted as authority there must be conflict. This is the mistake, and a fruitful cause of trouble and division in evangelical Christendom to-day. We do not mean here to denounce all creeds. We are not raising the question of either their truth or falsity. The charge we make is this: They are regarded as authorities, made such by the bodies holding and teaching them; and hence, so far as they are allowed to come between the believer and Jesus, they interfere with his direct, immediate authority. For this reason we hold it to be impossible for any creed to be framed on which all evangelical Christians can unite. I know it is thought such a creed may be framed. Dr. Schmucker states the principle on which it may be constructed, and favors us with one of his own devising. But no such creed can be framed. We must go directly to the Bible. Adhering to "the law and the testimony," we must obey Jesus, as he has made known his will in his Word.

3. The agreement of the visible church in her organization, and ordinances with the two positions just stated, is an essential ground of Christian union.-If the phrase "Christian union" has any intelligible meaning, it must allude to visible union. It must refer to a

To

visible representation or realization of an invisible, yet not the less real unity. Its object must be to set forth, as nearly as possible, the invisible unity of Christ's people in him, and their consequent union with each other as that union is realized by their regeneration, and desire in all things to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ. If this be not what is meant by Christian union, and if the attainment of this be not what its advocates contemplate, if their efforts have any intelligent foundation, we do not understand its meaning. attempt its formation while making provision for, indeed, holding the perpetuation of denominational distinction to be a necessity, is at once absurd and impossible, as we have already shown. We do not say there can be no union in any form, or of any kind, unless there be visible, organic union, for we believe there can be, and that there now is existing, much spiritual oneness among Christ's people. As water will, if opportunity be given, rise to the level of the source from whence it flows; or, as the laws of chemical affinity will cause certain substances and gases to flow into each other and unite, so we believe regenerated hearts are in sympathy, however separated by the partition walls of creed and sect, and that consequently they will flow together, and this will make them desire only the more ardently a more perfect union. If Christian union, as now agitated, meant nothing more than the cultivation of good feeling among us, and the mutual recognition of the graces of the spirit in all who are Christ's, there would evidently be an end to all investigation and discussion of this subject. But the agitation of the question does not stop here. Witness the changes that are rung on "close communion," "Baptist bigotry," Baptist narrowness and intolerance." Just as if all Christians were to sit down at the Lord's table, have "free sacramental and ministerial communion, and in no instance discipline a member in any denomination for holding or practicing what another denomination regarded as evangelical, held and practiced," we should have a perfect union. We think such a consummation would be conclusive proof of one thing only-our readiness to sacrifice loyalty to Christ's authority to expediency, and to make the cultivation of good feeling of more importance than fidelity to principle.

The fact is, the divisions existing at this time have their origin for the most part in questions of conscientious difference respecting the organization and ordinances of the visible church. We will not here attempt the definition of the points of difference at which the several bodies of evangelical Christians take their departure from each other. Neither will we define our views and the reasons therefore

respecting that theory of church-polity, and of the design and relation of the ordinances we regard as Scriptural. But we lay it down as a principle respecting the character of the visible church in its organization, constitution, and the ordinances in their symbolic signification, that it must, as nearly as is possible, realize in visible union, the invisible unity of Christ's people in him. For if Christ designed to represent himself on earth by a visible church, the membership of which was to be composed of those who, having heard the Word of his grace, believed on his name, then the very strong presumption is, to say the least, that the constitution and ordinances he would give his visible church, would be of such a nature as most nearly to realize this. The questions, therefore, relative to the organization and ordinances of the visible church are not unimportant or irrelevant inquiries. They are vital to the solution of the problem of Christian union. They must be settled, and their settlement must be on the basis of a regenerated church membership, and the sole authority of Christ in his church as he has embodied his will in the written Word, from which we must not depart, to which we are not at liberty to make additions, and from which we may take nothing. Union without this must ever be a misnomer. It will be at best nothing more than consenting to an armistice, that we may live in peace.

It is evident from the view we have endeavored to present that "open communion," of which we hear so much, is not Christian union. "Open communion" is a misnomer. What is it after all? Has it any existence? Is there such a thing? Shall we invite all to the Lord's table without any distinction, demanding no qualifications whatever? No one advocating "open communion" makes any such claim. All admit there must be a limitation. Who, then, is that man, or who are those men, who presume to open and shut at their pleasure? He is surely a bold man who dares to open what God has closed, or to close what God has opened. There must be limitations in the nature of the case. There must be restrictions. Who shall define and authorize them, God or man? Baptists say the former, and they resent as an insult to their honesty and intelligence the intimation that they fix arbitrarily the terms of communion. They recognize the determination of those terms, and of all things else pertaining to the constitution and government of the visible church as the prerogative of Christ, who is "Head over all things to the church." Their position is simple and easy to be understood. What they contend for is regeneration by the Holy Spirit, the baptism of the believer in submission to Christ's authority, and after his example, and membership and communion in his visible church.

Again, it is evident that "agreeing to differ" on the mode and subjects of baptism will not insure Christian union, for the questions underlying the whole subject are back of the ordinances. Neither will a mutual cessation of hostilities, on the ground that we are all liable to err and may all be mistaken, and hence that the truth on the questions in dispute is unattainable because wise and good men have differed, will not insure Christian union. For the truth is in the Bible, and however we may differ, or for whatever reasons, will yet be in its fulness and completeness recognized and obeyed by the Christian consciousness. Nor yet will the end be attained by the cultivation of brotherly feeling and cooperation in the many good works in which we can unite. This is indeed Christian union so far as it goes, but can never justify us in trampling on Christ's ordinances, or withdrawing our protest against their perversion, by which the way is prepared for the introduction of Formalism, Ritualism, and Rationalism, and all the progeny of evils and errors that follow. Refusing, therefore, assent to all compromises, and believing that the true course of investigation and reasoning on this subject, is from the invisible spiritual unity of Christ's people in him to their visible organic union among themselves, in which union the doctrine of a converted church membership and the immediate authority of Jesus will be fully recognized, we look forward to a union of all evangelical Christians, and hence the obliteration of all denominational distinctions. For "there is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph. iv. 4-6. This will yet be made manifest. Christ's prayer for the union of his people will be thus visibly answered. They will be one in faith, in ordinances, and in good works, the fruit of the spirit that will dwell in them. Visible union, as the expression of invisible unity, is one of the most precious legacies in the gift of the future for God's people. They will one day come to "the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God."

SALEM, MASS.

W. H. H. MARSH.