organization becomes necessary in any association whose members are numerous, and spread over a large extent of country. This is no less the case in church than in state. But the most natural ground of division among those professedly belonging to the same great family, and aiming at the same ends, is geographical proximity; as is seen in the division of our common country into States and these again into counties, and as existed in the christian church in the apostolic age. But when the division is made according to a principle totally different from this, when it is actually made on the ground of difference between certain portions of this common family; it constantly holds up to view not only the existence of some difference, but also the fact, that this difference is so important, as to require those entertaining it to separate from one another. Now as of two conflicting opinions only one can be true; it also implies, that each party regards the other as in important error, and that itself professes superior purity. This is virtually judging our brother, and perpetuating the recollection of our judgment by founding on it a peculiarity in the structure of our ecclesiastical organization. This circumstance is obviously calculated to beget unfriendly feelings, and to cherish bigotry; and its effect will be proportioned to the density and exclusiveness of the organization based on it. In the primitive church, when no different denominations of Christians existed, but all professors of Christianity, of contiguous residence, whether they entirely agreed in opinion or not, belonged to the same church; the bigotry and pride of the human heart found food only in the separate interests of neighboring churches occupying different ground. But to this is now unhappily added the conflict of interests resulting from the occupancy of the same ground by two churches, as also the conflicting interests of separate extended ecclesiastical organizations, aiming to occupy the same location.

3. The third source of sectarian strife, may be found in the use of transfundamental creeds.* We have already seen that creeds properly constructed are useful in the church. We believe it may easily be established, that either in written or oral form they are essential. They existed in the primitive church in the latter form, and were productive of good and only good. They were soon reduced to writing in the so-called Apostles'

* By transfundamental creeds we would designate those creeds which embody not only the undisputed doctrines of Christianity, but also the sectarian peculiarities of some particular denomination.

creed, and served as a bond of union during the first four centuries of the church, among all who held the fundamentals of truth. But at that time creeds were confined to fundamentals. Neither the Apostles' nor the Nicene creed amounts to more than a single octavo page; and to the whole of the former and most of the latter all the different orthodox churches of the present day could subscribe. That the brevity of these creeds did not arise from the absence of diversity of views is certain. It has been proved in a former part of this Appeal, that there did exist differences of opinion, even in the apostolic age, on some points, regarded by us as highly important. To that evidence, fully satisfactory because derived from God's infallible word, we would here subjoin a highly important passage from Origen, to prove that such diversities of opinion continued to characterize the church from that day till the middle of the third century, at which time he wrote. The apostolic fathers also, would afford us important testimony on this point. Their writings have, indeed, reached us in a corrupted state; yet enough remains fully to answer our purpose; for the differences which they endeavor to allay must have existed. We shall, however, confine ourselves to the passage from Origen, which we believe has not before been presented to the American public. Origen, let it be borne in mind, was the most learned christian writer who had appeared from the time of the apostles. He was born but eighty-five years after St. John's death, and therefore may have seen persons who lived in the apostolic age. The infidel Celsus had asserted, that in the beginning, when Christians were few in number, there was unanimity on all points, but that in his day, the latter part of the second century (A. D. 176), they differed on many subjects. The following is Origen's reply: "But he (Celsus) also asserts, that they (the primitive Christians) all agreed in their opinions; not observing that from the beginning there were different opinions among believers (Christians) as to the selection of the books to be regarded as divine. Moreover, whilst the apostles were yet preaching, and those who were eye-witnesses were teaching the things which they had learned of Jesus, there was not a little dispute among the Jewish believers, concerning those gentiles who embraced the christian doctrines, whether it was their duty to observe the Jewish rites; or whether the burden of clean and unclean meats night not be removed, as unnecessary, from those among the gentiles who abandon the customs of their faVOL. XI. No. 30.

47

thers and believe in Jesus. And in the epistles of Paul we perceive that in the time of those who had seen Jesus, some were found who called in question the resurrection, and disputed whether it had not already taken place; and also concerning the day of the Lord, whether it was just at hand or not; and that (admonition) to avoid profane, vain babblings and the oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing, have made shipwreck concerning the faith; hence it is manifest that from the very beginning certain differences of opinion occurred, at a time when (as Celsus supposes) the number of the believers was yet small. Then, when discoursing about the differences of opinion amongst Christians, he upbraids us, saying that when the Christians became numerous and were scattered abroad, they were repeatedly split up and cut into parties, each wishing to maintain their own position, and then (he adds)-dividing again, and quarrelling among themselves: until, so to speak, they agreed in only one thing, that is, in name, if even for shame's sake they still have this left in common; but that in all other things they differ. To this we reply, that there never has been a subject, whose principles are of any moment and of importance in life, concerning which different opinions have not existed. Thus, because medicine is useful and necessary to the human family, there are many disputed points in it, relating to the different modes of curing the diseased. Hence different parties (schools or systems) in medicine are confessedly formed among the Greeks, and I believe also among such of the barbarous nations as avail themselves of the healing art. And again, because philosophy professes to teach the truth and instructs us in a knowledge of the things which exist, and how we ought to live, and aims at showing what will be advantageous to our race, it has many topics of dispute. Hence in philosophy also, there are very many parties (systems, schools,) some more and others less distinguished."*

Here, then, we have the testimony alike of the most distin

* Origenes contra Celsum, pp. 120, 121. edit. Hoeschelii.—It is evident from the context, and certain from history, that Origen when speaking of numerous differences among the Christians of his day, uses the word aigrote to signify diversities of opinion, or systems of opinions and parties maintaining them, without any separate ecclesiastical organization based on them, and without interruption of sacramental and ministerial ecclesiastical intercommunion of the parties. We have accordingly thus rendered it in the version in the text.

guished infidel and Christian of the second and third century, to the existence of differences of opinion (not separate ecclesiastical organizations) in the christian church; yet at that time the only creed which it was deemed proper to use, was that termed the Apostles' creed. In short, there is no doubt, that the different so called orthodox Protestant churches, are in reality as much united in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity as the church in the earlier centuries was. But modern creeds instead of giving prominence to this unity, and preserving it by adding a few sentences to these venerable ancient confessions, in order to exclude the fundamental errors which have sprung up since the fourth century, are swelled some to fifty and some to a hundred times their size!! Thus they necessarily introduce so many minor points of doctrine and opinion, that few of the members of the churches professing them do in reality believe all their contents! When the minor points of difference are embodied in a creed, they become the stereotyped characteristics of a new sect, and enlist in their defence many of the unsanctified principles of our nature. They become wedges of dissension to split in pieces the body of Christ, they form permanent barriers of division and bulwarks of schism in his church.

4. The fourth cause of alienation among Christians is the sectarian training of the rising generation. No principle is more fully established in the philosophy of mind, no fact more uniformly attested by the experience of ages, than that the impressions of early life are most lasting, that the prejudices of childhood and youth pursue us through every subsequent period of life. And whoever faithfully traces to its source the sectarian alienation of Christians will, we think, be constrained to attribute much of it to early sectarian training.

How often do not many parents in the presence of their children, exhibit their prejudices against other religious denominations? How much more frequently do they exalt their own denomination above all others, either directly or by comparative allusions? Are there not some parents, and alas that it should be so! some pastors too, who strive more by direct effort to instil a disregard for others and a preference for their own sect into the minds of children, long before they are competent to comprehend or estimate the grounds of the supposed preference? What else is this than an effort to sow the seeds of sheer prejudice in the tender minds of children? It is right that the prepossessions and antipathies of youth should be not indeed excited,

but properly directed; yet, for the bleeding Saviour's sake, let the former be enlisted in the favor of Christianity, not of sectarianism, and the latter be directed against the enemies of the cross, and not against those whom we profess to acknowledge as its friends!

5. The next source of alienation among Christians, is what may be termed sectarian idolatry or man-worship, inordinate veneration for distinguished theologians, such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley and others. What candid man, possessing any extensive acquaintance with the literature of past ages, can deny that the deference awarded to the opinions and practice of these men, is altogether inordinate, entirely beyond what is due to the merits of other men, and far above the measure of their actual superiority. Protestants justly censure the Romish church for reposing such confidence in the authority of the ancient Fathers, that is, of distinguished theologians of the first four or five centuries of the christian church. Yet it may be doubted whether some Protestants have not inadvertently conceded to some of these modern Fathers an influence somewhat similar, possibly in a few cases even equal in degree. The names of these good and great yet fallible men, have become identified with certain distinguishing non-fundamental doctrines which they held, and by which they were distinguished from others. Their authority and influence, acquired by their zeal and success in behalf of the common Christianity, are thus often used as a shield of protection for these minor peculiarities. The very designation of these peculiarities by personal names, calls into play sectarian associations, and sinister feelings, and is a kind of covert appeal to the authority of these Fathers.

Moreover each sect is prone to cultivate almost exclusively the literature of its own denomination. Enter the theological schools or the private libraries of ministers, and you will find that generally Lutherans and Calvinists and Episcopalians and Baptists and Methodists, devote most of their time to the study of authors of their own denominations, and this peculiarity may also be distinctly traced in the libraries of many lay Christians. Many of these distinguished servants of God would have grieved to think of the sectarian use, which posterity has made of their names and literary labors. Listen to the language of Luther, whose name and works were for two centuries especially thus employed in Germany for purposes of strife: "I had cherished