SECTION IV.

Principles and plan of the work.

To assist the reader in his inquiries into the subject before us, it is proper that we should furnish him at this point with a brief view of the principles which are at the basis of our reasonings, and of the plan upon which the work is constructed. We would in the first place, therefore, enter our disclaimer against certain positions which some have incautiously deemed necessary to the harmony of God's children. As for instance, we think it dangerous to attempt this desirable object by instilling latitudinarian views and feelings in regard to any portion of that truth, to which God has affixed the seal of inspiration and miracles. For, though it be true that the tenacity in all parties of what they esteem truth is the chief obstacle to their amalgamation, still, to attempt an obviation of the difficulty by making it appear that there is nothing worthy of such tenacity, or that each party is bound to concede that all the others are right on condition of their returning the compliment, would be a fearful stride towards the profane indifference of sceptical philosophy. Moreover it would be a violation of those oft repeated apostolic injunctions to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.

The tenacity of the christian sects, in itself considered, we do not attempt to assail; but only the principles which guide them in selecting the objects of that tenacity. These principles, being in our view at variance with nature, or with those by which we direct our search in other departments, will account for all the most considerable differences of result at which we arrive in our religious investigations. And by guiding us to adverse points they enlist our zeal

and tenacity in conflicting schemes, kindle our sectarian vehemence, and produce our wars of mutual assault and defence. Though our tenacity would be right were truth its sole object,. yet, as in every division of the christian world it is directed to the support of a system of intermixed truth and error, a system therefore as remote from the Bible as it is from those of all the other divisions, it becomes the grand means of perpetuating our divided and distracted condition.

Aware however of the strength of this tenacity, which we should not dare obviate by instilling latitudinarian views, even if it could thus be done, our work proceeds on the assumption that all mere exhortations to union, as considered apart from an effort to unsettle, and direct to more worthy objects, the present sectarian prejudices, would be wholly useless and unavailing. As well might we divert the tempest from its course with a feather, as to soften into coalescence these conflicting and invincible prejudices by mere persuasives to harmony and brotherly accordance. All efforts and pleadings for union, therefore, from which these considerations are omitted, pass over the whole gist of the subject, and leave it as remote from the desired issue as before our labors commenced. Exhortations and tracts, full of pathetic persuasives to harmony in the family of God, might exceed the drops of the morning dew, and whisper softer and sweeter than an angel's notes in all the breezes of heaven, yet, so long as they had to encounter convictions of duty as deeply seated as those which bore the martyr to the stake, what can they accomplish? Could Paul have been persuaded by these means to a coalescence with the enemies of christianity? Or can those who feel like him, that they are set for the defence of important truth, be induced by them to harmonize with those portions of the spiritual family, who would effect its overthrow ? No, never, never.

We conceive also that the union of christians can never result from conventional arrangement. Even should the denominations be induced thus to unite in the same ecclesiastical organization, and yet the present principles of religious inquiry were left unbroken and undestroyed, it would, like healing a wound with the core still in the flesh, only provide to have the whole break out in new and more malignant forms than ever. Nor would the secession of a portion of each denomination to form a union party be attended with any better results. So long as the germs of the evil remain in our habits of thought and feeling, such a measure would have no other effect than to add another to the list of competitors for the popular favor. We have parties enough already, and the addition of new ones, like bringing a corps de reserve to the battle's point, never fails of incensing the deadly affray.

Owing also to our inability to fix the line between essential and non-essential, substantial and un-substantial christianity, or to the want of those clear and satisfactory views of the subject which others seem to have obtained, we have omitted this distinction as of little account in our plan for uniting christians. We apprehend that the work of distinguishing between that portion of the christian scheme which is essential, and that which is not so, would produce very dissimilar views, and thus would incense rather than extinguish the spirit of dissension. Certain positions would, in the view of some, fall on one side of this line, and in the view of others, they would fall on the other side of it, and endless war would arise about what is essential and non-essential.

Not only so, but this distinction itself will be found to involve results which no christian, it seems to us, can fully contemplate without alarm. Essential! to what? to the salvation of a soul? Is it the object to retain among the things which

are essential, only those parts of revealed truth. which must have access to a sinner's mind, in order to his regeneration? But who is able to determine how small an amount may contribute to this result? If we retain only so much as was in the mind of that person, to whose conversion the lowest possible degree of divine knowledge contributed, our essential or substantial christianity would, we imagine, be compressed into exceedingly narrow limits. How few and simple must have been the inspired truths which effected the conversion of the thief upon the cross, and the thousands of others, who, in the first age of christianity, believed and were baptised, upon hearing their first sermon from apostolic lips. But even admitting such to be our definition of essential truth, how indeterminate must be our conceptions, since it lies not within the province of any man to fix the lines of religious knowledge, below which a saving effect cannot be produced.

And equal uncertainty will attend our thinking, if we make it consist in those points which are common to the evangelical sects. To ascertain the points which they have in common at this moment, would be a most difficult task; and even if it were done, we should be left at any future period in great doubt concerning the changes which the fluctuations of opinion in those sects may have produced. Our standard of orthodoxy, being the points of doctrine and practice which are common to these sects, would be subject to all the mutations which are so characteristic of poor, erring, human nature. Such a definition of substantial christianity, would suspend the revelation of heaven and the last hope of man, upon the brittle thread of our own dark and misguided

reason.

If we mean, however, by substantial or essential christianity, not only that portion of inspired truth which is necessary to the conversion of a sinner, but

also, to perfect the work of his sanctification, then, we see not how we could exclude any part of that to which God has affixed the seal of inspiration. Is it not all essential to the perfecting of the saints, to the edifying of the body of Christ? Dare we omit any thing which God has not omitted? If our idea of essential or substantial, therefore, as applied to God's truth comes any thing short of the whole revealed subject-matter, it will have an effect to increase rather than diminish the obstacles to union among christians, and at the same time, will impose the hazardous task of determining what portion of that to which God has affixed his own infallible impress, we must retain, and what portion we may sacrifice. We confess our fear of going an inch in this direction.

But we imagine that the distinction of essential and non-essential, has been introduced into this subject, either with reference to the opinions of men, or to the different degrees of importance which attach to the different portions of inspired truth. Now, if it be applied in the former sense, then we say, that all merely human opinions, or all over and above the meaning conveyed by "the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth" as legitimately interpreted, are alike non-essential, while the whole of that meaning is essential. This is an easy distinction, so long as we make no reservations for merely human opinions, and no exclusions of the inspired subject matter. Or if we apply this distinction to the different degrees of importance in the truths dictated by the Spirit, then we have only to say that the terms which we employ to express our meaning are not well chosen. Because one inspired truth is less important than another, is it therefore unessential?

But we confess that it is easier to show what will not unite the spiritual family, than to obviate the barriers to this most desirable object. Nor do we conceive it possible, as before hinted, for the ingenuity of