So far, therefore, from being stung by the Romish taunt that Protestantism includes many sects, our feeling is one of devout thankfulness to the God of all grace for the clearer light with which He has been pleased to favour ourselves. Whatever may be the advantages of ecclesiastical uniformity, we are not prepared to purchase them at the sacriface of liberty of conscience. Nor are we inclined to think that the Denominationalism which prevails amongst the Protestant community is so great an evil as is often hastily assumed. We doubt if it be an evil at all. We are disposed to agree with the Rev. Newman Hall, who, in speaking not long ago of the various Churches, said, "It is a grave question whether these varieties are to be lamented......It seems to me that the variety of administration is an element of beauty and of strength, if only we were wise enough to recognize the general characteristics of Christliness in all......Each section of the Church may have some section of the truth specially to minister." There is a large number of Christians, however, who hold a diametrically opposite opinion. The Rev. W. H. Fremantle, for instance, in a letter to "The Times,"* affirms that "so-called truth which divides men into sects is necessarily untruth." This is certainly a strong assertion. Is it true? The doctrine of the Trinity in unity is one of those "so-called" truths which divide men into sects; the Deity of Christ is another. Are these "necessarily untruths?" On the same principle the writer, if consistent, would reject every doctrine of the Bible; indeed the Bible would cease to be the rule either of his faith or practice. It appears to us, on the contrary, that this variety is a necessity of our present imperfect condition. It is not difficult to see how the outward unity of Romanism has been attained. Where the dicta of a Church which claims to be infallible are substituted for the Word of God, an arrest is put upon independent inquiry, and private opinion is silenced. On the other hand, where the Holy Scriptures are placed in the hands of every individual, with full permission to search them for himself, the result-the inevitable result, it would seem-is a conscientious difference of opinion upon some point or points, according to the peculiar cast of mind or the special circumstances of the student. Truth is one; but truth is also many-sided ; and until all men can view it from the same stand-point, or until all shall possess a perfectly clear and unbiassed judgment, unity of belief, we have reason to conclude, will continue unattainable. Diversity of opinion is the result of enlightened investigation: it necessarily follows that to put an end to this diversity is to put an end to the progress of inquiry. We should like to ask those who clamour for "comprehension" if they have fairly weighed this fact. Do they know what spirit they are of, and what it is they desire, when they agitate for “ one grand National Church," so comprehensive as to embrace all existing Churches?

Let us first inquire, Is such a Church possible? We believe that it is possible, in two modes: either as a Church denuded of Christianity; or as a Church in which truth and error are hopelessly commingled. That is to say, either each sect must agree to abandon its distinctive tenets; or

* May 25th, 1871.

all must retain full liberty to hold and teach them. In the former case the aim would be of a negative kind-not to offend any one: in the latter it would be positive-to please every one. The first mode is so decidedly objectionable in its tendency as to insure rejection by every Evangelical denomination: unity of theological belief, however desirable, we hold to be practically impossible. There are, doubtless, theological views upon which all sects agree. But to suppose, because they hold one or one hundred views in common, that they can therefore agree to sink the one or one hundred differences which distinguish them, is to betray extraordinary ignorance of human nature and an unworthy estimate of man's strength of principle. Take an illustration: WesleyanMethodists believe in the salvability of all men; so do the Unitarians; but it is surely too much to expect that because the two are agreed upon this one point, they should consent to ignore the directly contrary opinions which they respectively hold as to the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet without this it is certain that the same fold could not enclose them both. The fact is, there are some points upon which all think alike; and there are others--those which constitute the very essence of their several communions, and are their raison d'être—upon which there will probably be diversity of opinion to the end of time. It is impossible to destroy this diversity so long as we teach doctrinal theology, and so long as that theology is derived from the Bible. Close the Bible, and transfer all authority to the Church, and unity of creed becomes possible—not otherwise.

Let us examine the other mode,-that which allows the utmost variety-incongruity-of theological belief and teaching. This seems to be Mr. Fremantle's beau ideal: He advocates "a large community grounded on a general Christian profession; but giving as wide a scope as possible to differences of opinion." It is very easy to talk about “ a general Christian profession;" and, of course, there is a great sound of "charity" about it; but what is a "general" profession? Can it be defined? What does the individual who makes it profess? Until we get full and precise answers to these questions, it is mere waste of time to discuss this proposed condition of admission to Christian communion. There are certain theorists who advocate a union which shall tolerate every diversity, nay, opposition of teaching. They would have us, today, sit composedly under a discourse which limits the benefits of the Atonement to an elected few, and, to-morrow, hear with equal composure that salvation is attainable by all men. We have no reason to charge these advocates of theological chaos with inconsistency as to their own practice. Some of them, indeed, profoundly impressed with the supposed irreconcilability of election and free grace, feel a real pleasure in being told in the same discourse that they neither can nor ought to do anything to be saved, and that if they do not do something they will be damned. But we apprehend that there are few who have acquired this taste for contradiction, or indeed who can regard it with any feeling short of abhorrence. The day may come when Christians generally will be able to tolerate this confusion and inconsistency in theology, just as the day may come when men will return to molluscs: in neither case, however, we venture to think, is the result imminent.

Having endeavoured to show that this ideal Church is only possible in one or the other of two modes, both of which are impracticable, let us now inquire if such a Church is desirable. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that it were feasible to merge all our sects into a great National Church erected upon the basis indicated, the question remains, Would such a union promote the interests of religion? We firmly believe that it would not. Whatever semblance of Christian charity might at first distinguish this "Catholic" Church, at last,—and that at no distant date,-uniformity would become the synonym of infidelity, concord but another term for spiritual death. Let us not deceive ourselves, nor suffer ourselves to be deceived by the dreams of visionaries and enthusiasts. One imposing National Church, requiring as the sole condition of admission "a general Christian profession" may look very well in theory; but in fact it would be found to be a conglomeration of incongruous elements, in which discipline would be an absolute impossibility. From the pulpits of this ideal Church could be taught only the barest generalities, the mere skeleton of Christian doctrine. Every thing that is peculiar to any one sect would have to be carefully excluded: the consequence would be, that, eventually, the reading of the Scriptures without note or comment would constitute the sum total of public teaching! Preaching would become a thing of the past, or at least would embrace only comparatively unimportant truths. The Arminian must be careful to avoid his distinctive dogmas, and the Calvinist must suppress his Calvinism. The Trinitarian must respect the opinion of his Unitarian brother, and the latter must in no point offend the former. Hence, such doctrines as the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, Original Sin, the Witness of the Spirit, etc., would have to be completely kept out of sight! That is to say, the whole sinew and strength of Christianity would be taken away, and nothing remain but a feeble and flaccid form of morality; the foundation would be removed, and the crumbling walls alone be left.

Hence we do not hesitate to affirm of the "prevalent idea" that "strict principle is better served by a number of narrow communities, each holding strongly to its own ideas, than by a large community grounded on a general Christian profession, but giving as wide a scope as possible to differences of opinion," that, with the omission of the ambiguous word "narrow," it is precisely our own. It may be quite true that "living together in love and unity and mutual forbearance" is "the first duty of Christians," but it is surely not the only duty,— at least St. Jude did not think so: he exhorted those to whom his Epistle was addressed to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints." And it is a self-evident, though a frequently-forgotten, truth that before we can settle how we are to live, we must settle what we are to believe. However, it ought not to be necessary to remind a Christian divine of the nineteenth century of the inseparable connection which exists between right thinking and right practice.

Instead of this "large community" tending to conserve and promote the Christian religion, it would inevitably tend to destroy it. And yet this is the delusion which is fondly cherished by many at the present day; this is the Utopia for which not a few "liberal" Christians sigh!

"There is a better feeling," says the writer already referred to, “gradually winning its way, that all our sects and parties are unChristian; and we are beginning to be ashamed of them." If this be so, it is surely time that others exert themselves to avert the evil. And, unhappily, we are compelled to admit its existence; it has, in fact, made rapid advances of late. We can only express our grief that a minister of the Gospel should be so short-sighted as to designate it a "better" feeling. We regard it as one of the worst signs of the times, as one of the most formidable of existing elements of danger to our holy religion. Does not this "feeling" originate in ignorance and spiritual pride? St. Peter in his day had cause to complain of men who "wrested the Scriptures to their own destruction:" unhappily, the race does not appear to be extinct. From an utter misconception of the Apostolic teaching in 1 Cor. i. 11-13, and iii. 3-7, where St. Paul rebukes party-spirit, these men infer that the mere use of human names, although necessary for purposes of distinction, is essentially anti-Christian:-here is the ignorance. Every true believer is a king and a priest unto God. (Rev. i. 6.) Hence they conclude that, "one believer being as good as another," all being "brethren," therefore all have a right to teach, and the ministerial order is anti-Christian :—here is the spiritual pride. From these two kindred roots have sprung the sect for they are such, though they repudiate the term-who hold that "all our sects and parties are un-Christian;" and whose mission in the world,-or rather among the Churches, for they prefer preying upon the safely-gathered to seeking the outcast and sinner, is to sow the seeds of religious strife and dissension.

66

This "feeling," moreover, has been frequently, though unintentionally, fostered by the mistaken "liberalism" of the various Denominations themselves. Doubtless it is a good thing for ministers of differing views to so far forget their differences as to co-operate, upon all suitable occasions, for the extension of the Gospel. But, like all other good things, this liberality of sentiment can be abused. It has been abused; and the consequence is that there are thousands of so-called 'Christian brethren" unconnected with any Church, and who not only resolutely refuse to unite themselves with any, but whose utmost influence is unceasingly exerted both to draw away those who are already members of Christian communions, and to deter those who desire to become such. The principles which these anti-Denominationalists so diligently propagate are the "tares" with which "the enemy has of late been sowing "the field," and by means of which he is marring and minishing the crop. Seldom or never has the truth had to contend against so subtile and specious a foe. And, unhappily, the Churches are apparently anything but alive to the evil which is being wrought. Let us awake to the danger! It is high time. Let us trace the confessed stagnation of evangelical Churches to its true cause. Let us watch and weigh the tendency and results of our theatre-preaching and of our City-Missions, agencies good in themselves, yet capable of becoming, indirectly, the origin of mischief. Speaking of Christian work in Melbourne, a correspondent of one of the "religious" newspapers says: "It is significant of the times that the several Denominations are withdrawing from the unsectarian City

Mission, and are employing missionaries of their own." The fact is, laudable as are the efforts which have been put forth in connection with such movements, and blessed as have oft-times been the results, experience has shown that the total exclusion of the Denominational element has produced a feeling positively antagonistic to Denominationalism and its proper objects. Vast numbers who have been reached and saved by these agencies decline to connect themselves with any evangelical communion, preferring to be known simply as "Christians." Hence, having no organization, submitting to no discipline, mere religious nomads, they are a serious element of weakness to the Church of Christ. We need not feel surprise if the goodness of not a few should prove to be as the " morning cloud," and if their principles should prove feeble in the day of trial. Strength of principle and stability of character can scarcely be looked for in the adherents of a communistic Christianity. We should like to ask this class of Christians seriously to consider whether to refuse to connect themselves with any sect is not in effectwhatever may be their intention-to create another sect, and thus to increase the evil which they profess to desire to diminish. And let those who take an active part in religious revivals be fully assured that their converts are no real gain until they are safely lodged with some distinct branch or other of the Church universal.

This anti-Denominationalism is further fostered by means of the religious tracts which, by hundreds of thousands, are issued from certain quarters, and circulated gratuitously throughout the land. Perhaps few tracts are better known and more generally popular than the doggerel entitled, "No Sect in Heaven;" and yet we have little doubt that it has been productive of more mischief than any other religious publication of the same size. Of the things which give joy to our anticipations of heaven, few are more blessed than the thought that there all the diversities incident to our present imperfect condition will cease to exist; that the darkness inseparable from the finite and the earthly, will recede for ever before the radiant presence of the Infinite and the Divine. So far, then, we have no fault to find with "No Sect in Heaven." But, inasmuch as it subtilely and speciously represents good and pious men as hoping to enter heaven because of their peculiarities rather than through Him who alone is the Way, we altogether object both to its teaching and its spirit. To picture Charles Wesley, for instance, as essaying "the river" depending upon his "manuscripts," is to slander the memory of him who believed and sang and taught,

66

"Other refuge have I none,

Hangs my helpless soul on Thee."

When it is insinuated that Wesleyans trust in their hymns, Episcopalians in their robes," Baptists in their immersion, and so on, the error may seem too patent to require serious refutation; but meanwhile multitudes, misled by the statement, remain outside the pale of Churches to which they would find it to their benefit, and even safety, to be attached.

If, then, we would hold our own,-we Wesleyan-Methodists among others,—we must stand up, and resolutely roll back this wave of revolu