sections of the country. With me this has ever been a darling theme. My first essays, both as a preacher and writer, were much in this spirit, and directed to this end. But it was some time before we could clearly see the ground on which all true Christians could form one visible and harmonious union, and cordially co-operate in a common salvation. It is indeed profitable to think, to talk, to write on the subject of union; because we shall at least understand more clearly the evils of division, the causes of them, the cure of them, and the sovereign antidotes against them; and besides it will bring us to exchange a little more of the civilities and courtesies of the Christian profession, and perhaps tend a little to the cultivation of that Christian and catholic spirit that must precede the union of Christians.

Meantime, we shall still contribute our mite to this cause, and occasionally submit a reflection or a project to those who make this exclusively the object and end of their labors. And as in the meantime we have only room for a single suggestion on the subject, we shall only preface it by an important fact, viz.—the union of sects would not be the union of Chistians; neither, perhaps, would the union of Christians be a union of sects. However, an effort to unite the sects might tend very directly and powerfully to unite the Christians. I will, therefore, on this hypothesis propose,-1st. That a congress of all Protestant parties (and if any one choose to add the Greek and Roman sects, I will vote for it) be convened in some central place, and that this congress be composed of delegates appointed by all parties in the ratio of their entire population.

In the second place, when convened according to appointment, the rule of union shall be, that, whatever in faith, in piety, and morality is catholic, or universally admitted by all parties, shall be adopted as the basis of union; and whatever is not by all parties admitted as of divine authority, shall be rejected as schismatical and human.

In the third place, all the parties shall, by their delegates, solemnly pledge themselves to submit to all things that are purely catholic, or universally accredited by all parties; and to abandon whatever tenets, forms, or usages they may have which are not admitted as of divine authority by all Christendom.

We

I, for one, will vote for this. Will any one second it? And let him that is of contrary opinion give one good reason against it. do not ask for two, as we have room only for one at a time. I have many other projects to offer; but one at a time is enough. I therefore very respectfully offer it for examination and discussion to all lovers of Christian union throughout the land.

A. C.

CHRISTIANS AMONG THE SECTS-No. IV. CHRISTIANOS had hoped to be permitted to give his views upon positive ordinances unmolested: he had supposed that the feverish excitement occasioned by brother Campbell's answer to the "Lunenburg sister" some two years ago, had been wholly allayed. But "vain are the hopes of man." Christianos had scarcely commenced his course, until he found himself assailed. If he were disposed for war, he too would unsheath his sword; and, placing himself against "the everlasting hills," would exclaim in the language of the Highland Chieftain King—

"Come one!, come all! These rocks shall fly
From their firin base, as soon as "

But Christianos has no mind for controversy. He well knows that the moment a man assumes the attitude of a controversialist, he disqualifies himself for giving a candid examination to the reasoning of his opponent. Hence the most irresistible arguments produce no other effect upon the opposing party than to arouse every energy for self-defence: for as one has said, "In the heat of controversy men would not know truth if it met them full in the face." Perhaps I have taken too grave a view of the strictures of our beloved father Henley; for indeed he has approached Christianos not indeed with a drawn sword, but in a most condescending manner, with the request to be admitted in our travelling conveyance as "a fellow-passenger in quest of the same object." Christianos has no control over the vehicle, any farther than his individual seat is concerned; also, being no way churlish, he has no objection to have the coach well filled. One thing, however, by way of anticipating, Christianos is exceedingly taciturn; and if he should appear to be unsociable, he wishes to assure his fellow-travellers that it is not because he feels incommoded by their presence or their conversation; but because he is greatly given to abstraction. Christianos would make one request of his "companions in travel," viz. that they will not break the train of his reflections by talking too loud. He will take some notes by the way, and give them to the public, with some general remarks upon the whole tour, when we shall have reached our goal.

The hints so kindly given by our father Henley to guide us in our inquiries as to the 'when, where, and to whom spoken,' I shall as kindly receive, and not the less so because unnecessary. I had long ago discovered that the neglect of this was the source of endless confusion and mistake.

I shall be careful to quote with reference to the connexion, and also to quote truly. But one of my quotations is already challenged. To be sure I did not quote the common version of John vii. 17.; but Dr. George Campbell's version, “If any man is minded to do his will," &c. is sustained by all the authorities in our land. I have now lying before me three standard Greek Lexicons, which all concur in the following definition of thelo, the root of the word in question: "To will, wish, desire, to choose, prefer, take pleasure or delight in." Dr. Campbell's translation of this sentence is more perspicuous than the common version, but is by no means elegant. It would be better rendered, 'If any

man is disposed to do his will,' &c or, 'If any man desires,' &c. But

let this pass.

I can but notice the use that is made of the concessions of a Methodist. He admits that there are Methodists who are not Christians, and Christians who are not Methodists. But do you hence infer that there are no Christians among the Methodists? If this be not the point of father Henley's "demonstration," I do not understand him: for he asks "Why, then, should any man contend for Christians among the sects"? We will look at this. Let me ask father Henley, Are all the citizens of these United States genuine republicans? He will answer, No. Well, are there not republicans in countries not belonging to this Union? He will answer, Yes. But will a by-stander exclaim, 'Ergo, there are no republicans in this Union'? The admission would prove, what is obviously true, viz.-that our institutions are not parely, and wholly, and exclusively republican. The admission of the Methodist proves no more concerning their system. If Christianos were a passionate man, he would spurn with ineffable contempt that narrow-minded bigotry which would shut the gates of mercy against every one but "my party." The pure benevolence, the diffusive charity of the gospel bursts such narrow confines-it overleaps such petty boundaries. "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold," said our Divine Lord to the proud Jews, who thought themselves the only objects of Divine complacency. How extended and sublime that benevolence which proclaims in the language of the Prophet Malachi, "For, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts." How did our Lord rebuke the narrow-mindedness of his beloved Apostle John, who said to him, "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not; for he that is not against us is on our part."

In the strictures before me there is a grave charge brought against the views I have set forth from the scriptures. Father Henley says in his second essay, "This mental religion, that is minded to,' but does not do, has filled the world with a multitude of disobedient, prayerless, Christless professors." I deny, in the most unqualified terms, that the views set forth by Christianos ever made one such character: but I could easily fill a folio volume with proof that the opposite views have made millions of millions of such characters!! I appeal to the annals of the world, sacred and profane, civil and ecclesiastical, Jewish and Christian, to say if it has not been trusting in the externals of religion that has wrought, in all ages, ruin and desolation!!

This could never have been, but for an entire mistake as to the nature of positive ordinances in general. I here assert (what I presume will not be disputed by any one; but if it should, I will fully prove it in due time,) that no action performed by man can have any necessary and inherent character or properties. The best actions may be done from the vilest motives; and the worst actions may be done, and no guilt incurred. Ignorance of this has led people on the one hand to place all their hopes of salvation in outward forms; and on the other hand, to reject outward forms altogether. The memorials of a Saviour's body

and blood are adored as a Divinity, and rejected as senseless things. If the externals of religion were set forth in their true light, we should have no Quakers in the world. It was the perversion of these institutions that originated that sect. Those who have sought to make these institutions imposing, have clothed them in mystery. Even our own brethren, who have made themselves proverbial by insisting so much on the rational simplicity of the Christian system, have fallen into this error. A late writer in the "Christian Preacher," in a discourse on this subject, says, "They" (that is, positive ordinances) "have always been the most unlikely means for attaining the proposed end." I am not certain that I have precisely his words, as I quote from memory; but I know I have the idea. I am surprised that a writer of so much intelligence should have suffered so unguarded an expression to pass from him to the public. Was it not when speaking to the Jews upon positive ordinances, that Jehovah said, "Come, let us reason together"? Indeed, if there is a subject in the whole Book which can be shown to the understanding of a child, it is that positive ordinances are founded in the fitness of things. They are any thing but the arbitrary, unreasonable things they are usually set forth to be; as I hope to show before I dismiss the subject. But while I am showing this, I shall also show that they are means, and not ends; that they are to be valued only for their moral and devotional tendencies. They are perfectly adapted to us in our weak and fallen condition. In these institutions "our sense assists our faith." The mistake with multitudes is, that we are serving God in attending to these institutions. We are rather serving ourselves. They are given "for our sakes." "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," is of universal application to these institutions. Indeed, I am of opinion that the word "obedience" is no where used in the Book to signify submission to positive institutions exclusively. On the other hand, they are often contradistinguished from each other: "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams," was the address of the Prophet to Israel's rebellious king. "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land," said the Most High to apostate Israel; when, at the same time they were so zealous in the observance of positive institutions that they were stall-feeding the victims for the altar, because they thought beasts from the field, as Moses commanded, were not a sufficient commutation for their offences. And under the same circumstances the Lord, by the Prophet Jeremiah, says to them, "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them, in the day that I brought you out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you."

These scriptures show demonstrably that submission to positive ordinances, unless it tend to moral purity and devotion of heart, is not regarded by the Lord of hosts as obedience at all. The state of the heart, or the affections, is the "all in all" in the sight of our Creator. Neither the Jewish Sabbath, nor the whole burnt offerings-the sacrifice and incense of the law, nor the institutions of the gospel baptism,

the Lord's supper, the Lord's day, and prayer, have any value in them. selves considered. There are two considerations which impart value to positive institutions:-1st. If duly understood and attended, they indicate that state of mind which makes us acceptable to the Lord; and are, to us, a ground of assurance, that we could not otherwise have, that we possess that state of mind. 2d. When duly understood, they produce moral and devotional effects upon the heart and life, which nothing else could do. But the same mistake is made by thousands on this subject as to spiritual life and enjoyment, that Socrates affirms is made with regard to animal life and enjoyment. He says, "We ought to eat that we may live; and not live, as many do, for the sake of eating and drinking." But of this again.

CHRISTIANOS.

THE DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE INTENTION OF THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION.

ESSAY III.

In the close of our second essay upon this all-important subject we have considered it as manifestly proved, "that the constraining influence of the love of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, as exhibited in the divine testimony, is the very principle of that holiness without which none can please and enjoy the LORD; nor live entirely devoted to him."

We now proceed to show that this genuine holiness, this entire selfdevotion, is not only the native and necessary offspring of the love of God, as expressly commanded: (see Luke x. 27. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind:") but that it is also most expressly and unequivocally enjoined; and that both negatively and positively: see Luke xiv. 26, 27, 33; Rom. xiv. 7, 8; 1 Cor. x. 31; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Col. iii. 17. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters; yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."-"Whoever he be of you, that forsakes not all that he has, cannot be my disciple."-"None of us lives to himself, and no [Christian] man dies to himself. For whether we live, we live to the Lord; and whether we die, we die to the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's."-"Whether, therefore, you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."-"I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy; for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you a chaste virgin to Christ." 66 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." Now what demands and injunctions can be more comprehensive-more decisively exclusive in their requirements of an entire devotedness, than these contained in the above citations?

1

Moreover, it is also evident that this entire self-devotion naturally and necessarily flows from the New Covenant relation in which wẻ