One holds that all who are regenerated and justified, will finally be sanctified and glorified the other, that some of these fall away and are lost; and so on to the end of the chapter of contradictions. Free discussion will assimilate these views when agitation permanently unites oil and water. We have only to refer to such discussions as that of Jonathan Edwards and Samuel West to learn that the conflict is irrepressible. Views entirely subversive of each other cannot be assimilated. There can be no cross between animals not of the same genus. The idea is absurd that Calvinism plus Arminianism would be “a moderate Calvinism of the New England type." It seems to imply that our Calvinism is not as moderate as it should be. We shall believe, however, that the idea of assimilation was not suggested by such a feeling.

To those who are truly Arminian, Calvinism seems a stern and horrible system, unjust to man and dishonorable to God, and they want no compromise with it. The feelings of such were, no doubt, well expressed by a Presiding elder in this region who, in specifying some false systems of faith that can never reform the world, gave the following-Infidelity, Universalism, Spiritualism, Mormonism, and Calvinism. Yet, with true Arminian logic, in the same discourse, Scotland and the Sandwich Islands were mentioned as specimens of what the gospel can do for the world-one highly Calvinistic, and the other made what it is by Calvinistic missions.

To the true Calvinist, Arminianism appears devoid of plan, and, in its logic of cause and effect, like an oriental emblem of the universe consisting of a huge serpent whose head grasps and upholds his tail, whose tail suspends his body, whose body supports his head, whose head, tail, and body together bear up the world, and all rests upon-nothing. Christian union cannot require an attempt to amalgamate these two systems. Such union may, however, exist between the advocates of

each. It is attained when the Arminian can say to the Calvinist, although I think you walk in a blue light, on an iron-bound way, yet, if I can see that you love Christ, I will treat you as a Christian brother; attained when the Calvinist can say to the Arminian, although I think you walk in a way with no dogical bottom, yet if I can see that your eye is on Christ, I will treat you as one of his; attained when both can say, while we hold our own opinions, let us pray and work in harmony for the salvation of the world.

To notice some dangerous features of the new plan:

1. It would render it impossible for our churches to retain Calvinistic creeds, although not used as tests of membership.

The new plan admits that there was "the adoption of a full Calvinistic and Pedobaptist creed by the early churches, in many instances, (it might have said, virtually in all instances,) as a simple testimony to the world," but not as a test of membership. The new plan proposes to allow this use of creeds. But it says, let Arminians be admitted to the Congregational ministry. Should a church settle such a minister, he could not assent to its creed; it would be the testimony to the world of a faith which he would disown. Let Arminian ministers increase, and they might deem it proper to publish to the world a creed that would be a correct expression of their faith. Of whose faith would a Calvinistic creed be a testimony, when neither the church nor its minister should assent to it? In another part of the plan it is said, that the minister should be required to assent only to the low and general creed used in receiving members. Beyond this he is to be responsible to no man for his belief. This certainly leaves him a wide field. Were this principle established, we should be ready for the late decision of the "Court of Arches,” that a minister may hold any views he pleases, if he does not preach them. Was not the permission granted the clergy of the Established Church to give either a

Calvinistic or an Arminian interpretation to its articles, one of the steps toward this conclusion? Let the members received into a church for a score of years, especially in the West, where the membership of a church is often entirely changed in half that time, not be taught that they are expected to attain a belief in a full Calvinistic creed, as would be the case with an Arminian minister, and a Calvinistic symbol would cease to be a testimony to the world of its faith. The new plan is, therefore, virtually a proposition to our churches to receive Arminian ministers, and let such confessions of faith as the Cambridge Platform become obsolete. Another danger attending the new plan

is:

2. It would restrict ministers to the preaching of only such doctrines as might be deemed necessary to salvation, or introduce a medley of doctrines not unlike its proposed eclectic mode of worship.

We are told that the forms and ceremonies of the generalized church should be so arranged as "not to violate the conscientious convictions of any member, and so as to offer something positively pleasing to the varied tastes of worshipers." To accomplish this, the mode of worship would have to embrace the stiffness of the straitest sect of Presbyterians, the simplicity of Congregationalism, and the noise of Methodism. It must have extemporaneous prayers, and written prayers, and prayers in concert. The scriptures must be sung in the literal version of Rouse, and chanted, and read. The sermon must be partly written, and partly extemporaneous. The preacher must both stand and kneel in prayer; and over all there must be "the ancient scholastic gown." Nothing less than this would please the varied tastes of those now belonging to the Christian sects-and this is the principle;

Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum Desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne, Spectatum admissi risum teneatis, amici? "1 If this eclecticism in forms were accompanied with a style of preaching on the same principle, and why should it not be? the preacher should say, "My hearers: It is in the terms of union that you shall all be pleased, and I will therefore proceed to deliver unto each the doctrine that he deemeth sound. My Baptist brethren; it is proper that you be immersed, but not your children. My Presbyterian brethren; it is proper that you and your children be sprinkled. My Methodist brethren; know ye that some fall from grace after regeneration, and are lost. My Congregational brethren; ye do well to believe that the righteous shall hold on his way. And finally, take notice, ye Churchmen, that modern preachers are of the Apostolic Succession, as this ancient scholastic gown plainly showeth." But such a medley of contradictions, although in perfect harmony with the eclectic mode of worship, is seen to be impossible. The only course a preacher under such circumstances could. pursue, would be, to ignore all distinctive doctrines. He could never transcend the common creed of fundamantal orthodoxy. He could not venture beyond the doctrines in which all were agreed, without violating the conditions of union. The lowest types of piety would be all that his ministry could develop. The pulpit would lose its power, and the respect of the public—it would deserve to lose it.

But further, were the ministry thus restricted, it would endanger even the fundamental truths of the Christian system; for,

3. This is precisely the ground chosen by errorists, from which to assail evangelical doctrines.

1 If a painter should wish to join a horse's neck to a human head, and spread a variety of feathers over

to the humorous picture of Horace :—

"Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam Jungere si velit et varias inducere plumas

everywhither, so that what is a beautiful woman in the upper part terminates unsightly in an ugly fish below; could you, my friend, refrain from laughter admitted to such a sight?

Recall the manner in which the churches of New England were corrupted by Unitarianism. The notion was advocated, that if men were only liberal to their neighbors, "they might be Calvinists or Arminians, or almost anything, without forfeiting their places, or materially affect ing their reputation." "Confessions of faith, too, began at this time (about 1740) to be opposed." It was said, "If we differ from you at all, it is only in some slight speculative points, about which diversity of opinion is worthy of no consideration." The original practice of examining carefully all candidates for the ministry was opposed; and all this was done to prepare the way for the introduction of an insidious error. The friends of this error knew that if they could render creeds unpopular, create indifference to the strong doctrines of the gospel, and invest "Liberalism" with the robes of charity, their work was more than half done. And so it was. When such men as Thomas Shepard passed away, and a class of men took their places who were willing to dilute Calvinism, the apostasy began. A few years of silence on the doctrine of the Trinity, left it to sink out of the faith of the churches. So it will be with almost any doctrine. Let it cease to be positively enforced from the pulpit, and it drops, in time, out of the Christian creed. To ignore Calvinism in our churches is, therefore, to let it cease to be the faith of our churches. There is certainly a striking similarity in the ideas of this new plan of union to those of men who opposed evangelical truth in the age to which I refer. Let there be no strict doctrinal examination of candidates for the ministry. The differences between the sects are mere questions of opinion. Arminianism is as good as Calvinism; or, at least, a good thing with which to moderate Calvinism. Ministers are afraid of being called heterodox, and of losing their means of support. They need more courage, freedom, and local independence.

1 Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. ii., 127, 184.

These are the same thoughts by which our churches have once been diverted from that vigilance necessary to the maintenance of doctrinal purity. Of course they are not designed for this purpose by the proposer of the new plan of union, but for all that they might effect it, and we should carefully distinguish between laxness and liberality.

This discussion leads to the conclusion: 1. That it is not sectarianism to hold in our creeds and to preach the Pauline doctrines of the gospel.

The plan reviewed asserts that, "Congregational churches have assumed sectarian grounds by adopting in the local church a strictly Calvinistic creed"; yet it does not deny the truth of Calvinism. But if we are made a sect by holding religious truth to which others called Christians will not assent, we are not responsible for it. Truths as necessary to a true development of Christian character as the Pauline doctrines, must be held fast. We are not at liberty to introduce the puny race of members that would exist in our churches, should we cease to hold these doctrines in the local church, and to preach them there. If they should be held and preached in the local church, it is proper that they should be in its creed, if the creed is used in the reception of members, as has already been indicated -none being received who is settled in views directly subversive of its doctrines, but all who give evidence of piety, however weak in doctrinal knowledge. Adopting this course, it is positively necessary that the Pauline doctrines be fully and frequently preached.

Only in this way can those who are received while weak in the faith be led into an experimental understanding of those doctrines. If we cannot avoid the charge of sectarianism unless we moderate our zeal for these doctrines, and even the doctrines themselves, whenever any who are called Christians dislike them, why should we not make similar concessions to others who think we do not believe truly? Have

those who in the judgment of charity are deemed Christians any more right than others to call us sectarians if we do not waive those doctrines because they dislike them, or modify them to please their varied tastes? And why should we call ourselves sectarians when others separate from us because we hold those truths which were the glory of the primitive churches and the consolation of the saints ages before Arminianism was born?

In fine we are to infer:

2. That the problem of Christian union cannot be solved on the assumption that but one Christian denomination would be better for the world in its present state than a plurality of such denominations.

It is true that there are evils connected with the existence of several Christian sects in a community; and so are there evils in a family of several children, which would not exist were there but one child in a family; yet it does not follow, in either case, that the thing which renders the evils possible or actual, is, on the whole, undesirable. Some things may be said in favor of a plurality of Christian denominations. With the Great Head of the Church there may be reasons for such a plurality. What if all our marine forces had been on board the Cumberland when she went down? Is it not well that other vessels exist on which they were distributed and thus saved? What if there had been but one religious denomination in our country for the last fifty years, and that had bowed the knee to the idol of Slavery? or but one Christian order in England, and that had been corrupted by Puseyism? As it now is, if the enemy assail and sink one sect, all evangelical truth does not go down with it. To avoid the evils of another world-wide dark age, like that which followed the corruption of Christianity, when it was embodied in but one order of churches, may it not be the divine plan that the Church on earth, shall now exist in different sections; so that, if one is corrupted, all will not be lost? May it not be that the tempera

ment and constitutional peculiarities of different classes of men are better met by several orders of churches than they could be by one?

A plurality of sects may also be useful in the influence which they exert over each other. Let any church see that the field is all its own, and it might not be as active and useful as when other denominations are in the same field. Then again, the simplicity and purity of one order may be the resultant of the formalism and the fanaticism of other sects. At least, the different Christian denominations are a fact, as the existence of different races in the human family is a fact, and no one sect seems likely to become a universal solvent of all others. There can be a brotherhood of man, notwithstanding the different races into which he is divided. So there can be a brotherhood of Christian sects. Malays can treat the European race benevolently without assimilation ; and we can fully illustrate the gospel in our treatment of the African race without infusing our blood into its blood. We may yet see that we have erred in our attempts to unite forms of Church polity radically different, and to assimilate creeds that will not be assimilated, and that the fundamental principle of Christian union is, concede to other Christian denominations all that you claim for your own, in respect of rights and treatment. If we affirm that we should be respected in maintaining what we believe to be important truth, let us respect other Christian orders doing the same thing by fair means. If all the written creeds in Christendom were abolished, that would not prevent Christians from forming different opinions. If all Christians could be gathered into one great, broad Church, it does not follow that there would be any more real union among them than now exists. To attempt to secure union by ignoring our differences of belief, or by affirming that they amount to nothing, is not consistent with the mental activity of the age. Men will thinkthey must think, and thinking will create

THE last issue of this Quarterly contained a good engraving of the new and elegant house of worship recently erected by the South Parish in Andover. In the present number, by way of variety, we give a correct view of the old, or third, meeting-house, built by the Parish in 1788. The frame was raised May 26th and 27th, and the house dedicated on Lord's day, Dec. 7, 1788; the Pastor, Rev. Jonathan French, preaching the sermon on the occasion from John x: 22, 23. Hon. Samuel Phillips, LL.D., was chairman of the building-committee, and

although he had but little leisure, bestowed much personal attention upon it during its erection. The building of

the church occasioned much alienation of feeling, and nearly resulted in a division of the Parish, but through the judicious management of Judge Phillips the project was successfully accomplished. The house was quite large, being 70 feet in length and 54 in width, with a porch in front and at each end. The pulpit was on the north side, and over it was suspended a plain sounding-board. "The inscription, Holiness becometh thine