THE

PRESBYTERIAN

QUARTERLY REVIEW.

JUNE, 1857.

No. XXI.

ARTICLE I.

EXCLUSIVISM.-PART II.*

THE Roman Catholics have attempted to unite all Christians under one great head, making subjection to the Papacy a test of union with the Church, yet admitting within that one organization all the diversities of opinion which are to be found in the Protestant world. The Episcopalians profess to believe that "schism"-meaning by that, separation from their Church-is the chief of all sins-forgetting that their own denomination is based on a great schism from the Papacy, through which they professedly derive all their power of ordination, and all the evidence that they are in the apostolic line. Infidels and skeptics, covetous of an opportunity of attacking the Church, and willing to make capital for themselves out of the divisions of

*Note by the Author of this Article.-But one of the Editors of this journal is responsible for the sentiments contained in this Article. The other Editors consent to its publication as containing suggestions that may be worthy of reflection, and that may lead to a more thorough and able discussion of the subject.

VOL. VI.-1

Protestants, have made the separation into sects an argument that a religion that develops itself in such modes of division, and under such forms of contention, cannot be from God. Those who seek an excuse for not making any profession of religion, often take refuge in the fact that divisions exist in the Church, and allege that until Christians shall themselves agree as to what is to be believed, they cannot with propriety be urged or expected to connect themselves with a Church in which there is no union and no common faith or charity.

It is important, then, to inquire what is the true ground to be taken on this subject; and to ask whether the division into denominations is at variance essentially with the true spirit of Christianity, and is inconsistent with the proper notion of the unity of the Church. On this point, and in reply to the questions just proposed, we submit the following remarks :—

1. While the essential doctrines of Christianity are plain, and are easily defined, those on which the various Christian denominations differ, pertain to the loftiest subjects which can come before the human mind. They belong to a philosophy on which there has as yet been no unity of opinion among men, and not a few of them seem to lie beyond the range of the human intellect in any of its developments in this world. There has been as yet, for example, no way discovered of explaining the consistency between the freedom of the will and the doctrine of divine decrees; and men, as they make one or the other of these doctrines the stand-point in their observation, will form different theories about the nature of religion, and just in that proportion there will be a tendency to the formation of different organizations in the Church; and yet there is in this fact no insuperable reason why both should not maintain the essential truths in regard to the plan of salvation and the duty of men. On these high subjects, where perhaps even angels may differ, where Milton makes his fallen angels enter into a profound and yet unsatisfactory discussion-finding no end

In wandering mazes lost

it is not to be expected that men, with their limited views, should come to a perfect understanding, or should be able to relieve these doctrines of all perplexity; and it may be better

it is better that those who entertain different views on these subjects should be organized into different denominations, than to attempt to compress them into one. The interests of religion -the true interests of charity, confidence, and love,-will be better promoted by such a separation than by a forced and unnatural union; a separation that shall in fact produce more real union than could exist if they were forced into a single organization.

2. Men look at objects from different points of view. In contemplating a landscape, though the same objects-houses, trees, hills and streams-are observed, yet the whole scenethe picture-takes its character, as is well known, from the point of view; the "stand-point" of the observer. Even though the same objects come under the eye, yet the whole is so changed by the different combinations; the different lights and shadows; the different apparent position of the objects; that unless our own position in looking at a painting be the same as that of the artist, we seem to be looking at different things, and the whole may be as much varied as though we were looking at a wholly different scene. The same thing occurs in moral objects. One man from his stand-point looks only at God. He makes the Creator's throne the central point in his observation, and he brings prominently and almost exclusively into . view the divine nature, plans, purposes, agency--and he becomes a Calvinist. Another, in his contemplation, looks more directly on man; on his moral agency; his free will; his responsibility; and, fearful that all will be resolved into fatalism, he becomes an Arminian. With one, the divine honor, the divine purposes, the divine glory, becomes the direct and main object of contemplation; with the other, the doctrine of free agency and responsibility fills the whole field of vision. Both are honest; both hold parts of the great system of truth, and both may be good men, yet here, in their theological views, they part asunder, and a foundation is laid for a difference of denomination.

3. There is a diversity in the mental constitution of men ; in their modes of thinking; in their habits of reasoning; in their power of observation; in the congeniality of their mental structure with certain forms of belief. Whatever John Wesley might have been under any circumstances, it is certain that Jonathan

His mind

Edwards could have been nothing but a Calvinist. was so constituted that when he looked at God and his government, he at once saw the Calvinistic system to be true. And there are many such minds. In their regeneration they are born Calvinists-and they can never be any thing else. They make God the centre of the whole system of truth; they look upon him as a Being of eternal purposes and plans; and all their "experience" in their conversion is such, that all the hope which they cherish is traced to the eternal purposes and the sovereign mercy of God. To their apprehension nothing is more certain than that if God had not interposed in their case; if he had not formed an eternal plan embracing their salvation, they would have perished forever. Such men can never have a conception of God except as acting according to an eternal plan; and such men will be Calvinists, and their theology will be as fixed as the everlasting hills. Whatever may be true of Jesuits, in their power of adapting themselves to new forms of belief, Jansenists are susceptible of no such moulding by outward circumstances; and they will be found true to the principles which they embrace when they first look at the subject of religion, and in accordance with which they were born into the kingdom of God.

There will be, therefore, as long as the world stands, a class of men of whom Pascal, Calvin, John Knox, and Jonathan Edwards, were the types. They will be inflexible in their faith -perhaps stern, fixed, rigid in their character-and no power of earth or hell will be able to turn them from their opinions. They might have been infidels; but even their infidelity would have assumed a Calvinistic form, for it would somehow have been based on the doctrine of eternal purposes-of a fixed and settled order of things. There has been always, also, a large class of men of whom Arminius was the type. These latter would have found their prototypes among the Epicureans, as the other class would have found theirs among the followers of Zeno; in men of modern times, the types of such men were found among the Jesuits in the Roman communion, and the Wesleys among Protestants. By their habit of mind; by their modes of looking at objects; by all their "experience," they become Arminians-and nothing can change them.