To just the extent in which the work of human renovation by faith in Christ, advances, in the sects and in the world, will the way be prepared for the church of the future. But the piety of that day must be of a higher order than is common among us, characterized by larger views of truth and by a quick discernment and cordial recognition of the linea ments of the divine image in whom soever they may appear. That true liberality of mind which receives cordially "him that is weak in the - faith," because he is in the faith, not withstanding his errors and imperfections, must reign in all the sects before the universal visible church can enter into the world. But in the meantime every new convert to this truly Christian Catholicism will, as a drop in the ocean, supply a part of the grand result.

We concur also in our Author's views of the Christian mintstry as we understand them.

"I think," he says, "that in the Future Church the distinction between clergy and laity will altogether cease, for this distinction does not belong to Christianity, but was imported into it from Judaisin. In the early Church all were clergy and alt laity, all priests and all people. By one spirit all had been baptized into one body, and no clerical order is intimated. The Church had its officers as any association must, but these officers did not form a class or clerisy. The ClergyChurch must be changed into the Church of the People, before the members can feel their individual responsibility for the total action of the body. The ministry, worship, and preaching will remain, but the Church will not be built on the ministry but the ministry on the Church."

This is very true, and very important to the establishment of the church universal upon the basis of liberty, equality and fraternity.

It was manifestly the intention of Christ that his Gospel should be spread over the world by "the foolishness of preaching." At first every disciple was a preacher. Many who had no office in the church, were endowed with the spirit of prophecy, or inspired with a preter

natural ability to instruct and exhort their fellow worshipers. Apostles and Evangelists, or traveling preachers, were divinely commissioned, or chosen by others, to preach the gospel to the unevangelized. It was deemed a matter of importance in the local churches, that the elders, or executive officers, should also be distinguished by their ability to teach the people. This was rather a desira. ble than an indispensable qualification for their office, because the functions of ruling and teaching when discharged with ability by the same person, had on that account more weight and efficacy.

In the course of time the offices of teaching and ruling became indissolubly connected. The age of miraculous gifts passed away, and the necessity arose of a ministry officially devoted to the work of preaching the word. The mental discipline of education, and a careful study of the Scriptures, were now required to supply the place of inspiration; and as the preacher could no longer rely on a direct afflatus of the Spirit, he could adequately inculcate the will of God, only by giving himself wholly to the work. The Christian ministry is, therefore, a body of men set apart to the work of preaching the Gospel, in accordance with the same law of want and necessity which gave existence to the deaconship, for a time to the office of deaconness, and to every other part of the church's organization. Our Author therefore well says, that "the ministry, worship and preaching will remain" in the church of the future. But as in primitive times, "the church will not be built on the ministry, but the ministry on the church." The ministry will exist for the church; not the church for the ministry. The church will have ministers because she needs them for her own growth in knowledge and holiness, and for the work of evangelizing the world. Christian ministers will as pastors:

have official authority, as did the elders of the primitive church; and as preachers, they will have great personal influence, corresponding with the purity of their lives, and the ability and faithfulness of their public instructions. But they will not be lords over God's heritage. They will neither have the power nor the disposition to legislate for the church. They will have the spirit which animated the Apostles when they called for the election of officers to take charge of the charities of the church, so that they might give themselves wholly to the preaching of the word. They will see, as in civil affairs the nations seem likely to learn after the sad experience of centuries of mis-government, that the peace and pros perity of the people demand that they should be governed agreeably to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

We may pass over the division of the discourse which relates to the church as it is, with the single remark, that we believe the Author has conceded too much to the prejudices of the "religious men" who "think that churches are of no use; that they rather hinder than help the cause of humanity." He admits that there is too much foundation for this charge, and accounts for it by saying that "the church, in past times, has thought its especial business to be to promote piety, not to promote humanity." We should say, that both the piety and humanity of the church have hitherto been too defective and too feeble to produce the proper effects of Christianity. It is not a want of just views of the nature of religion, as consisting in the love of man as well as of God, but the feebleness of love itself, to which these sad practical delinquences are to be ascribed. So far as our observation has extended we have found piety and humanity, the love of God and man, united, far more frequently than separate.

There are it is true a few noisy reformers in New England, not connected with the visible church; hut in the late movements, as well as in all previous measures for meliorating the condition of man, the Christian ministry and Church have furnished nine-tenths of the effective influence. Who are the advocates of temperance, of peace, and of freedom, on whom reliance is chiefly to be placed for self-denying ef forts in their behalf? A few men of no religious faith, like Jefferson and Franklin, and some of our own day, are entitled to gratitude for their sacrifices for humanity. But what, we ask, would become of the cause of human improvement, if it were left, without the aid of the church, to the sole advocacy of those who denounce that body as the bul wark of war and slavery, and every other time-honored abuse? We think but one answer can be given to this question. Many members of the church have doubtless given too much occasion for the charge of inhumanity-but the world without is far more deserving of the charge. The church is a city set upon a hill; and all her defects are at once visible. Her professions make her inconsistences more glaring. But with all her faults, she is the only hope of the world.

We do not accord in every respect with our author's views of the church of the future. This church, he thinks, will admit of variety in its rites and forms; some parts of it observing the simplicity of the Quaker and others the most imposing rituals.

He thinks, however, that the distinction between clergy and laity will entirely cease, and that the clergy-church will be changed into the church of the people. He does not expect that the sects will all be merged in one; nor that they will unite on any narrow gronnd, or upon any compromise or concession of their particu lar ideas. He thinks, if we under

stand him, that all the sects of today will continue to exist, holding their peculiarities, but regarding each other as entitled to respect and brotherly affection, and forming together one church universal, bound by no other tie than a common faith in Christ, but living in actual fellowship in Christian privileges and cooperating in all benevolent enterprises. In accordance with these views, he expects to see the Orthodox, the Unitarians, and the Spiritualists, all in close fellowship, on the basis of a single article. "Faith in Christ," he says, "is the bond of union-the one article of the of the church's creed." No matter what else is professed; no matter how this is understood; whoever "accepts Christ as the Master, stands on the foundation, and is within the limits of the true church."

How far we dissent from these views, in which we concur in part, will appear upon a brief statement of our own views. We use the word church, to denote (1) the whole body of true Christians; (2) all who appear to be Christians; and (3) any body credibly professing faith in Christ, associated for the observance of Christian ordinances. In the first case it denotes the universal invisible church; in the second, the universal visible church-both of which are unorganized bodies-and in the third case, an organized society, the members of which are in express covenant with each other, on the basis of a common creed. We hold that the universal visible church embraces all who in any way make themselves known as the disciples of Christ, notwithstanding they may differ from each other in many important points, and may not be enrolled in any local church. He is a member of this church who makes himself appear to other Christians, to be a Christian. As such he is entitled to certain privileges; to be recognized by his brethren as a Christian, and

to be received to their communion at the table of Christ. Believing him to be a Christian, they have no right, on any pretence, to treat him as an infidel. It is only on the ground of such heterodoxy in faith, or of such unchristian conduct, as destroys their confidence in his piety, that they can lawfully debar him from the table of Christ. He is not entitled to be received, as our author may be understood to teach, merely because he professes faith in Christ, but, if at all, because he shows himself by some satisfactory marks, to be a true believer in Christ-a truly regenerate person-penitent and obedient. He may be lawfully rejected if he professes the highest style of orthodoxy, with no better evidence of Christian character. The only question is, Is he a true Christian.

The reader will now be able to comprehend our idea of the church of the future. It is the universal visible church-the unorganized aggregate of all open confessors of Christ, in mutual fellowship-tenderly respecting each others' differences-coöperating in every labor of humanity and love-and gradually assimilating more and more toward unity in faith and practice. The points in which they differ may continue, at least for a time, to arrange them in independent and dissimilar organizations, but these differences will no longer disturb their harmony, and the tendency will constantly be to throw what is trivial more and more into the shade, and to correct the serious errors of all parties.

It will be seen from these remarks that we reject the idea of a comprehensive church, having a creed made up of patches from the systems of all the different sects. The idea that each sect is a special providence, designed to supply some deficiency in the other sects, seems to us fanciful enough to challenge the easiest credulity-too fanciful to

be gravely put forth as a probability. It is true of sects, as it is of all things, that they exist by divine permission, for some sufficient reason; and the reason in a particular case may be the one alledged; but to affirm it as a general principle of the providential government of God, without the shadow of evidence, is preposterous. A becoming sense of our own liability to error, with a charitable respect for other Christians, will lead us to examine their opinions with candor, if possible to discover in them something in which we are deficient. This is the course which has been recommended in our pages, as fitted to enlarge the charity of all Christians, and ultimately to unite all in that universal, visible brotherhood of which we have spoken. But this has no resemblance to a church comprehensive enough to take in "all the tendencies which now appear embodied in the different sects." "In our opinion the church of the future will comprehend as many of all sects, and of no sect, as are visibly true believers in Christ; and will exclude

all others of all sects. And the members of this church will not go to the sects for their creed, except as helps to the better understanding of the Bible, to which the final ap peal will always be made. In that day, the Orthodox, the Unitarians, and the Spiritualists, whom our au thor expects to see in one fold, will not, one and all, be likely to retain the same creeds which now distinguish them; and even if they continue as they are unchanged, those only who show themselves to be "living epis tles of Christ," will be recognized as belonging to the great household of faith, the universal visible church.

In thus intimating and perhaps showing a difference of opinion from our author, on some points, we are not sure that we fully under. stand him, or that he really expects or desires that Christians may be come so latitudinarian as to embrace an eclectic system of doctrines, drawn from all the sects of Christen. dom. We would rather believe that his meaning is more accordant with the views of the subject expressed by us in this article.

Ir may be said in reference to all important subjects, theoretical and practical, that the neglect or violation of a single fundamental principle, will lead to disastrous consequences. Let us suppose in morals for instance, that in all extreme cases, the difference between falsehood and veracity, may be safely disregarded, and we undermine at once all the foundations of social happiness. Or let us in religion be governed more by inward impulses than by the written word; or let us be guided by the traditions of men or by the prevailing customs of society, to the neglect of a surer standard of duty, and we shall not fail

to be led into serious practical.

errors.

What if in the mechanic arts, we were to set aside the principle of the lever or the screw in our calcu lations? What would become of the whole system of modern as tronomy, if we were to disregard the attraction of gravity? What if in literature we were to observe no distinction between history and romance? or in oratory, were to suppose no difference between dra matic personation and the life-giv ing appeals of forensic or pulpit eloquence? Any one mistake of the kind would serve to vitiate all our teachings in regard to the sub

ject to which it should relate, and involve us in the mazes of practical

error.

The discovery of such a mistake in reference to the subject of religious song, will enable us to understand more clearly what is required of us in regard to church music; and characterize with some certain ty, the leading influences which are brought to bear upon this part of our public worship.

Whoever attentively compares the scriptural teachings in regard to the subject of praise, with what he usually notices in our religious assemblies, will not fail to be struck with the impropriety of the style. Praise, as it appears in the Scriptures, is a hallowed and delightful employment. It is the work of saints below, and the joy of angels and glorified spirits above. But praise in our religious assemblies is often a matter of frigid indifference on the one hand; and of unprofitable sentimentality on the other. The reading of a hymn from the pulpit secures devout attention; but when afterwards the same hymn is sung, the music either disturbs our meditations by its rudeness or inappropriateness, or it attracts towards itself a large measure of that attention which is due to the subject. How seldom do we realize in our experience, anything like that degree of devotional interest which the Scriptures warrant us in anticipating?

For this there must be some specific cause. What is it? We shall be referred perhaps to the low state of religion in the churches; to that low standard of piety which prevails among us. But if this were the true solution of the difficulty, might we not expect to witness a corresponding defect in public prayer? Praise and prayer, the Holy Scriptures teach us to regard as equally solemn and spiritual; but while the former has sadly degenerated-degenerated, we might alVOL. VI.

54

66

Let all the powers within me join In work and worship so divine," do we really imagine ourselves to be speaking truth in devout sincerity as we do in prayer?

It has sometimes been urged, that a young and rising nation will not be given to musical pursuits like nations which are older. It should be remembered, however, that music in every other department of the art among us, is found to do its appropriate office. The music of the field, the parlor, the concert room, and the oratorio, is continually rising in interest and improving in quality. Even in the church we witness in many places, much artistical improvement, while in regard to spirituality, the delusion continues, and perhaps increases.

But, again, we are often told that there is much want of knowledge and discrimination-that ministers and leading members of the church treat the subject with neglect-that singers are of all people in the world, the most refractory and unmanageable. These things, however, are but the result of some specific cause-not that cause itself. The question returns: Why this deficiency in knowledge and discrimi nation, and this indifference to a subject of such moment? and why this contentious and unruly spirit in those who conduct the exercises of praise in Christian assemblies? The present age is not deficient in intellect, susceptibility, or practical dis