A SONG AGAINST THE FRIARS. [MS. Trin. Coll. Cambridge, O. 2. 40, of the fifteenth century.] For many a mannes soule bringe ye ad pœnas infernorum. Freeres ye can weyl lye ad falandum gentem, And weyl can blere a mannus ye pecunias habentem. Yf thei may no more geytte, fruges petunt isti, For falnes walde thei not lette, qui non sunt de grege Christi. Odur thi wyff or thi doughtour hic vult violare, God gyffe syche a freer peyne in inferni portis ! Thei weyl asseylle boyth Jacke and Gylle, licet sint prædones; And parte off pennans take hem tylle, qui sunt latrones. Ther may no lorde of this cuntré sic ædificare, As may thes freeres, where thei be, qui vadunt mendicare. Therfore yll mowyth thei thee, falsi deceptores. Omnes dicant AMEN. THE PROBLEM OF CHRISTIAN UNION. BY REV. D. BURT, WINONA, MINN. A history of the efforts made since the settlement of our country to prevent the existence of religious sects, would furnish an instructive volume. Such a history would naturally divide itself into three periods—the intolerant age, the polemic age, and the age of compromise. At first, the Episcopalians held the ground at Jamestown, and the Congregationalists in "the Bay." Each hoped to remain the only religious denomination in its province, and each resorted to intoleration learned in the mother country. In 1643, the appearance of persons at Jamestown, holding religious views not in accordance with those of the Church of England, led the legislative body there to order, "That no person should preach or teach, except in conformity to that church." Two or three Presbyterian churches which had been organized in Virginia were dispersed, and when Mr. Davies entered the Province in 1748, the Episcopalians were the sole possessors of the field. His labors, and the emigration of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, ended the intolerant age in that region, and established a plurality of sects. In the Northern Colony, "The toleration in their midst of those entertaining different religious sentiments was deemed as the toleration of heresies in the church." Hence, the harsh treatment of the Baptists, and hence some of the afflictions of the Quakers. But the intolerant age soon passed away in New England, and, in 1760, she had as many as five religious sects. Next came the age in which these sects attempted to discuss each other out of existence. The first Episcopalian controversy in New England was in 1720. There was a Baptist controversy of an earlier date, the Arian and Arminian controversies, in which the New England Theology was brought out; and finally the Unitarian controversy. But polemics extinguished no sect, although useful in some other respects, as at the present day. The age of compromise between sects admitting each other to be evangelical had commenced at the beginning of the present century. There was the blending of Home Missionary Societies, the sending out of missionaries of different denominations by the American Board, and the plan of Union between Presbyterians and Congregationalists. A spirit of concession which seeks harmony without surrendering, in any respect, the substance of the gospel, must gratify every intelligent Christian. To harmonize the evangelical sects is certainly desirable and possible, and, we believe, it will be accomplished. But, shall we seek to blend them all? There are those who deem an affirmative answer to this question the true problem of Christian Union. It is the object of the present article to notice a recently proposed method of solving this problem so stated. It runs thus, "Let Congregationalism be freed from every thing which renders it merely a sect among other sects." Congregational 66 churches have assumed sectarian ground by adopting in the local church a strictly Calvinistic creed, and requiring assent to every part, as a condition of membership. This of course, excludes Arminians, however numerous in the community and pious in character.” "Let no man be excluded whose difference of opinion on minor points of doctrine and ceremony brings no just suspicion on his piety. This was the ground taken by our Pilgrim Fathers, by their early descendants in the churches and ministry of New England, and by their brethren in Great Britain." "That in like manner the Con gregational ministry be opened to all who present appropriate evidence of piety and of intellectual qualification to preach the gospel. If Calvinists and Arminians were in equally good standing in the Congregational ministry, the points at issue would become mere questions of personal opinion, like the differences of Old and New School Calvinism, and free discussion would, in a generation or two, assimilate the views, and result, as we believe, in a moderate Calvinism of the New England type." "The last suggestion is, that church forms and ceremonies be arranged so as not to violate the conscientious convictions of any member as to his individual duty, and so as to offer something positively pleasing to the varied tastes of worshipers. If we are to seek union with our Baptist brethren, the church must leave each person to decide for himself as to the mode and subjects of baptism. If we are to invite in our Scotch brethren who prefer to sing only a literal version of the Psalms and other portions of scripture, we must have scriptural chants as a part of our public service. If we would gain a portion of our Episcopal brethren who love uniformity of service and impressive rites, we must adopt a part of their ceremonial; such as a brief litany and the recitation of the Lord's prayer, and allow the minister who wishes it, to wear in the pulpit the ancient scholastic gown. Let us so order our Church polity as to leave the Christians of a community no just occasion for organizing any other than a Congregational Church."1 This, in brief, is the new plan for Christian union, or rather agglomeration, which Western Congregationalists are especially exhorted to adopt. It is believed however, that few, if any, of our ministers in the West will heed the exhortation. It is thought that our ministers in the North West, at least, will concur in the following reasons for not attempting the proposed experiment. Lest it should be said that our refusal 1 See this Quarterly, vol. v., pp. 25-32. to accept the offered solution is the only thing that renders it impossible, we shall endeavor to show, that it is rendered impracticable by obstacles over which we have no control, that it involves several unproved, if not false assumptions, that it would endanger evangelical truth, and that it is not sectarianism to hold in our creeds and to preach the Pauline doctrines of the gospel. The plan under review is impracticable: 1. Because it includes no measures for union on the question of Church polity. This is the main question on which a large section of the Presbyterian Church differs from us. If we cannot win those in this section to our Church polity while our doctrines are like theirs, how can we do it after widening our doctrinal views beyond the range of theirs? The admission of Arminians into our churches would not aid us in attempts to convert Episcopalians to our views of Church polity, for, it is said, they are at liberty to give an Arminian interpretation to their present Articles of Faith; nor the Methodists, for they are already Arminians. In both cases, the occasion of existence as a sect would not be removed by opening our churches to Arminians, for that occasion is an attachment to Episcopacy; with Presbyterians it is an attachment to the aristocratic form of Church government. It is strange that a proposition for union so liberal as to waive all our distinctive theological doctrines, should offer no compromise on the question of Church polity, but should affirm that the liberalized churches which are to leave the Christians of a community no just occasion for organizing any other, must be Congregational in government. Perhaps the numerous instances in which Congregationalism was absorbed while the plan of Union between it and the aristocratic form of Church government existed in New York and Ohio, should teach us that it must be itself or nothing. But still the question remains, if the new scheme insist upon it, will the other sects abandon their forms of Church polity for this, before the gospel shall have supplanted the passion for monarchies and aristocracies? At present, the idea is about as modest as would be a proposition to England and France to become democracies. The plan under consideration is imprac ticable: 2. Because denominations which, it is said, have adopted its main feature, are not securing the contemplated blending. of sects. It is said, "Other denominations have long practiced on this principle, or at least openly recognized it." Four different sects are specified as requiring of candidates for admission only a belief in the fundamental truths of the gospel, with credible evidence of piety. If this course is to blend the sects, why has it not united these four churches? The polity of the M. E. Church does not radically differ from that of the Episcopalian. Why have not the other churches specified drawn to themselves Christians from all the other sects? Must the polity of the Church that is to absorb the sects not only have these liberal terms of membership, but also be Congregational in polity? We already have, in some communities, Methodist churches that are Congregational in government. These churches certainly meet the main conditions of the new plan; but are they accomplishing what it proposes? If not, what should we gain by offering to receive ❝ all who desire to flee from the wrath to come," and who will assent to a summary of the fundamental truths of the gospel? The fact is, men think less of the door of a Church than of its pulpit. It is not wise to sacrifice ourselves to an idea. It is doubtful whether the soul of our divinity would march on, if we should bury its body in the grave of compromise. The new scheme of Union involves the following unproved if not false assumptions. 1. It is not clear that adopting the proposed plan of Union would be merely "The setting aside of comparatively modern precedent for truly ancient principle." Can it be shown that the primitive churches, or the early churches of New England, received members who held Antipedobaptist, or Arminian views? The historical proof offered on the affirmative of this question is not conclusive. Cotton Mather says, "The churches of New England make only vital piety the terms of communion among them." Does not this mean between Church and Church, as seems to appear from the mention of five denominations, and from the fact that Baptists and Episcopalians were not members of Congregational churches in those times? Because the Cambridge Platform says, "The weakest measure of faith is to be accepted in those who desire to be admitted into the Church," does it follow that persons were ever received who positively disbelieved any of its Articles? Here is the fallacy of the new plan on this subject. It infers too much from its supposed precedents. They do not prove that any were received into the churches who said, I hold views contrary to the published doctrinal standards. The fact in the light of which we are to interpret what the Puritans say on this subject is this. They had suffered from intoleration. Attempts had been made by the Church of England to compel conformity on the part of Puritans there. They came to this country to escape such compulsion. Hence, when they say, "We measure no man's holiness by his opinions,” “It is a snare to prescribe the Confession of Faith as a pattern to others," ," "It is not lawful to impose a creed to the very letter," "We think it not our duty to submit to any such imposition," they had in mind the custom of compulsion in matters of religious faith, from which they had suffered so much. They merely meant to affirm that it is wrong to say to any man, you must believe this; that they should not compel an assent to creeds. The inference is illogical that persons were received into the churches who held views contrary to the standards of faith. But again; Arminianism had no avowed existence in New England previously to 1740.1 Hence no persons could have 1 Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. ii., 122. churches were very different from some modern churches that have no written creed, because they believe everything in general and nothing in particular. In the primitive churches, at first, written creeds were unnecessary, because the statements of Paul were received in the sense which he intended. The New Testament was all the creed the churches needed until men arose who gave it false interpretations. Then creeds were formed to ascertain how men explained the Scriptures, and not because they were not the ultimate rule of faith. Cyprian affirms that catechumens were required to give a firm assent to the articles of the Christian faith. Truly ancient precedent is that the primitive churches and those of the Puritans had summaries of faith, either some well known, public written creed, or one of their own forming, or, in a few instances, unwritten creeds retained in memory. These creeds were so definite as to exclude the prevalent errors of the time one important use of a creed-and to indicate to all the belief of the churches. Those received into the churches were not required to declare that they had entered into a full understanding and experience of these creeds. They were not imposed upon members, not made a measure of piety. It was only required that candidates for membership should say, I apprehend the truth of much that is set forth in this creed. I see nothing absurd in it. I hold no views which positively conflict with it. I have reason to presume that it is all true, and I hope, by growing in knowledge and grace, to comprehend and experience its deepest doctrines. If any of our churches have substituted an assent to a creed for religious experience, or excluded apparent Christians because they were not ready to say, I positively believe all that is in your creed, they should return to the old way. The plan before us has also a doctrinal assumption worthy of notice. 2. It is not clear that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is "like the differences of the Old and the New School Calvinism, and that free discussion would, in a generation or two, assimilate the views, and result in a moderate Calvinism of the New England type." The differences of the Old and New School Calvinism are on the same end of the theological scale. They are differences in degrees rather than in kind. The New School finds sin in the deepest underlying purpose of the heart-the Old School thinks it necessary to go deeper still, and find it in a nature antecedent to rational choice. The New School holds that in no way can man be made to appear more guilty than by affirming of him that he can, but will not-the Old School thinks best to affirm that natural ability is wanting. So of most distinctions between the Calvinistic schools. They are questions of more or less of what lies in the same direction. Andover may yet lead Princeton to understand what Princeton means to say, and Princeton may yet see that Andover says what Princeton meant to say. But Calvinism and Arminianism differ by contradiction. If one is true, the other cannot be. One is a system of certainties resulting from a divine plan formed in eternity-the other, a mass of events resulting from other causes than the purposes of God making them certain. One developes itself from God-the other from the human will. One deems the elect those whom God from eternity saw that he could save by the wisest system of means possible to him, and whom he therefore chose to save, and calls, not because they are already saints, but, to be saints— the other considers believers elected because they believe. One holds that the choices of the human will are, by the general divine plan, made certain to the mind of God while man has the power of a contrary choice- the other, that human choices are not the result of any such plan, but are as independent of God, in the sphere where the human will was made to act, as God is of the human will, as respects any divine agency making them certain. |