inconsistent, as this. The phrase refers to the external unity of the Church, and thus the argument has great force: "There is one body, that is, one Church. Christ intends to have only one body, and his disciples must therefore keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and not divide or rend the body by dissensions, and thus thwart the purpose of Him who is the one Head over all things to the Church, which is His body." Thus this passage is unanswerable evidence that in the inspiration of St. Paul there is not, and ought not to be, but one outward visible Church.

Reminding the reader that the Sacred Scriptures recognize but one Comprehensive Church, and that what the inspired apostles and founders of the Church maintained as great principles of duty have lost none of their force by the lapse of time or by the prevalence of discords (for "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word," says the Lord, "shall not pass away"), we invite him still to accompany us in the further course of our reflections.

CHAPTER III.

Definition of Sectarism-what it is not-what it is essentially hostilenot realized.

THE Word of God declares that there is not, and ought not to be, but one Church. We propose to show that only one Church is necessary; and indeed, that more than this one, or rather that divisions of this one, prevent entirely the fulfillment of the objects of the Church. We propose then to show, what would otherwise have been appropriate in this place, the principles upon which the one outward and visible body of Christ -the one Comprehensive Church-must be organized.

In the mean time, we wish to illustrate in the present chapter that which is the opposite of the one Christian Church, to define what is meant by sectarism.

What is sectarism?

It is not diversity of religious opinions. This may co-exist with unity.

It is not diversity of religious customs. This may co-exist with unity.

It is not the association of "elective affinities "—i. e., the intimate communion of persons of similar habits and feelings and characters. This may co-exist with unity.

It is simply a departure from the unity of Christ's

one Church; a forming of a new fellowship of believers, separate from the united fellowship of the previously existing body of believers; the establishment of a new model of a Church.

No body of men can be called sectaries in any reprehensible sense, until they have proceeded beyond protestation, and even beyond non-communion, to the overt act of constructing a new Church. In this is the essence of sectarism—the rending or dividing of the "one body" of Christ, by the formation of another and (not only separate, but in its nature necessarily) opposing ecclesiastical organization.

Sectarism originates in a most gross and grievous misapplication and abuse of the Scriptural principle, and the natural desire of unity. It looks for absolute unity, in disregard of the causes which limit the operation of the social principle. It tends to continual separation, in order to secure the most exact assimilation. It looks for agreement in all things; and when carried out in theory, as it is carried out in fact, it would make each man the single representative of his own sect, whose unity would be a unit.

Contrariety or opposition, hostility, destructiveness toward others, are included in the very nature of sectarism, as may be easily proved. For there is but " one body." The sect is designed to be the model of this one body. The sect is the perfect model; for if any other had been perfect, there had been no occasion for it. All other churches are defective, unfit to accomplish the legitimate objects of the Church of Christ; so much so, that all the inconveniences and dangers of a universal change are to be encountered in order to supply the de

ficiency. All others, being so defective, should be abandoned for the perfect model-should be destroyed; and the new sect is presented as the one true Church for all.

It may be denied that hostility, as we have represented it, is implied in the very nature of the sect. It may be said that sects are not opposed to each other, but exist harmoniously, one being adapted to one class of human opinion and character, and others to other classes. But all this adaptation of circumstances to the varieties of human opinion and personal character may be found in unity; so that for it sects are not necessary. And why must there be a new ministry, and new sacraments, and a new Church, and new terms of admission into it, and of communion with it? And why may not a man join one without being obliged to abandon the others? And why may he not be a member, in regular standing, of two or more sects at the same time, as he is of all separate local societies or churches of his own sect? Because sects have no reciprocal sympathies with each other, although Christians have. Because, although Christians desire to love each other, the sects, which hold them captive, are hostile.

This, as we have described it, is sectarism, and these its consequences. Yet we do really believe that the great majority of the Christian people of our land have never troubled themselves to analyze the matter, and have not realized the consequences implied in their sectarian divisions.

CHAPTER IV.

No necessity of divisions in our day—apology for the Continental Reformers-reply to several alleged advantages of divisions and objections to unity-the Word of God decisive-importance of considering the subject a state of division a state of sin-indifference the cause of its continuance-Christians should be in earnest to do their duty.

THERE is no necessity, either of duty or of circumstances, in our age and in our country, for sectarian divisions. There is no reason why there should be more than one Comprehensive Church, at this time, in the United States.

We do not intend, in these pages, to dispute the point whether there ever has been a necessity for divisions in times past; although we are willing to state our opinion that, if the full scope of the duties of Christian forbearance and of faith in the providence and promises of God be considered, divisions can in no case be excused. But God forbid that we should blame the Continental Reformers! They were Christian heroes and had glorious hearts. They were men who felt that they had a great work to do; and they were willing, for its accomplishment, to "jeopard their lives unto the death." No wonder if, in their agonizing impatience for the triumph of truth and liberty, they did sometimes err. They were men who, like "the three mighty" of David, were willing to dare thick hosts alone, for the Cap