Christians about creed, church order, or ritual; and some have rejected them all. For instance, the Friends; and will any one deny that the Friends are Christians? And yet they have had neither creed nor priesthood nor sacrament. And that which has not been, in the nature of things cannot be. In matters of mere opinion, difference is inevitable, union is impossible. Men's minds never can agree. But with the heart it is not so. Its judgments are far clearer, and scarcely admit of any material difference. The beauty of the life of Christ, the love of God and of men, penitence, humility, patience, self-denial, justice, truthtelling, forgiveness of injuries-all these things are very plain. In regard to these there has been union among Christians. Is not this the union, then, for which Christ prayed?

Consider, further, how he describes the union he prayed for. "As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us." Can any one doubt that this is a union in love? It were irreverent to ask, if this is an agreement in speculative views. No; it is a union in love. We cannot, we dare not think it any other.

For ourselves we are prepared, and we feel obliged, to go the whole length of this conclusion. However a man may speculate about Christian doctrines, if, honoring, studying and imitating Jesus Christ, he is filled with his mind; if the gentleness, the patience and love of Christ shine in his life; if Christ is thus "formed in him, the hope of glory," we must say that he is a Christian in spirit. We will not go behind this imitation of Jesus, to ask whether his reasonings about Christ or Christianity be correct.

Not,' it may be asked, if he seem to you to reject the peculiar faith, the entire speculative basis of Christianity? No, not if he seems to us to reject all this. The head may err, may swerve from speculative Christianity, while the heart does not swerve from vital Christianity.

But here is a distinction which we must endeavor more fully to unfold. Is there any inconsistency, any self-contradiction, in our saying, that a man's speculative Christianity may be wrong, and his vital Christianity right? May not the heart be right, while the head is wrong? We are not of those who think that error is a small evil; but is it a fatal evil? Suppose that Trinitarianism or Unitarianism,

1846.]

Difference of Interpretation.

59

Calvinism or Arminianism, the supernatural or the mythic theory, be the only true speculative version of Christianity; does it follow that he who does not see this, is a bad man, and must "without doubt," as the Athanasian creed says, "perish everlastingly?"

We pray the reader to look into this question carefully and candidly. Here are found prevailing in the Christian world various explanations of Christianity. Suppose that you had never heard anything about these creeds and church constitutions, and they were now laid before you side by side for the first time. Could you, guided by reason alone, put your finger upon any one of them and say, 'this alone is connected with goodness of heart, with the Christian affections, with the love and imitation of Christ?' Can you see any such exclusive connexion? If you can, you must point it out; you must show the necessary logical bond between the one and the other. But this we are persuaded you can never do. Goodness has its root in the heart, not in a creed. Holiness springs and lives in a heart breathed on by the spirit of God. You will remind us, perhaps, that our Saviour says, "sanctify them by thy truth;" but what truth is that? "Thy word is truth." Not, as such, the truth of any human creed; but the moral, spiritual, everlasting truth of the Bible. But again, what is the fact? Are there not good Christian men in all churches, under all creeds? Where is the Christian Communion, that will dare to assert that it embraces all the good men in the world? Even the Catholic Church does not assert that; teaching as it does, that only wilful error in those who depart from it, is fatal. And concerning the Pagan Cornelius, Peter said, "of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him." Shall the measure of charity extended to Heathen nations, be denied to Christian sects? But once more; what is to become of the mass of mankind, of multitudes crushed by toil, buried in ignorance, not able even to read, if it is necessary for them to fix upon the right explanation? Nay, what are we to think of the peril that hangs over intelligent and studious men? For ourselves we do advisedly say, if a book like the New Testament were put into our hands, and we were told

that there was only one right construction of it, and that we must fix upon that construction in order to be saved, we would never open that book! We would never take that tremendous risk. We would fly to the tender mercies of Heathenism for safety; to the broad charter of Peter's creed in the case of Cornelius.

We must maintain, then, that Christian virtue, Christian union, is compatible with every variety of honest construction of the New Testament.

But now, from this liberality must there flow any bad consequence or any irrational conclusion? Does it follow, that we must resign our own opinion about Christianity, or undervalue it? Or that we must not argue or contend against opposing opinions? Or does it follow, that what we are now saying is inconsistent with what we have lately maintained, when we expressed our conviction that the rationalistic or mythic construction of Christianity, in our view, amounted to an entire speculative rejection of it? We think not. With our views we may and we must regard the, so called, orthodox version of Christianity as a speculative subversion of it. Its leading doctrines, the Trinity, native and total depravity, and vicarious atonement, we are obliged to consider not as Christian doctrines, but as anti-Christian. Thus we have lately said, — and it has been the subject of severe public comment, that we could better defend Deism than Calvinism. But the comment would have been spared, we think, if we had been understood. For, does it follow from all this, that we must pronounce Trinitarians or Calvinists, bad men, men devoid of the Christian spirit? Not at all. We may respect and love their Christian virtues, though we cannot think their creed to be the Christian creed. They are equally obliged by their position to regard our creed as wrong, and perhaps as utterly defective; but they are not therefore obliged to say, that we are utterly wanting in the Christian character. Thus, again, we regard, and we cannot help regarding rationalism, the denial of miracles and of everything supernatural in Christianity, as an entire speculative rejection of it. But we do not say that those who take this ground, are devoid of all Christian virtue. We can admit that they may be more faithful imitators of Christ than we are; and we can value, esteem and love them

1846.]

Union amidst Differences.

61

accordingly. Let us see men who fervently love one another, and tenderly pity and help their kind; let us see men filled with the love of Christ and breathing his spirit; and though they may have erred much concerning the Christ, we have such a view of his love and disinterestedness, that we believe he would love and bless them, though he reproved them. And we do not believe that we have risen to the heights of Christianity, till we see, that pure, simple, all-asborbing love is that to which God and angels and the universe give greeting and welcome. Alas! we are weak and erring and blind; but the heart may be true and right, amidst all our errors. And a painful thing it is, to see a man violently contending for a doctrine, be it this or that, while he is losing the end and spirit of all good and pure doctrine. Be our soul gathered—we are willing to take the risk-be our soul gathered with the good, the charitable and loving, rather than with the cold, confident and condemning!

But let us distinctly repeat and say, that while we hold to this grand point of union, we do not give up any of the rights or responsibilities of opinion. If we think that any man has swerved from the cardinal truths of Christianity, by believing either too much or too little, as honest men we must say so; as honest men we must treat him accordingly. We may not wish to exchange pulpits with him. We may stand upon such different ground that we cannot properly stand together. We may exceedingly reprobate what we conceive to be his errors, as he may what he conceives to be ours. But still let us love one another: that cannot harm us. And if we truly love one another, in a common reverence and love for the blessed Master, we believe we are united in the Christian bond. We believe there is that oneness between us for which Christ prayed.

Perhaps we should more fully express our thought, if we said that we should look upon such cases as exceptions. If a community were gathered which was imbued with the skepticism of Strauss, we should not look there for a prevalence of Christian order, purity and virtue. And we do not see how they would be possible, if that skepticism went to the length of rejecting the moral and pure ideal of the Christ; a length of which Strauss scarcely VOL XL. - 4TH S. VOL. V. NO. I.

6

falls short. We could not regard such as a community of Christian men. Still if, with whatever inconsistency, that order, purity and virtue were found in any soul, we should say that that soul had not broken from the bond of Christian union.

Let us take this matter for a moment out of the province of religion. In science, in philosophy, even in moral philosophy, do we ever think of judging men's character by their theories? But let us take an example. A dying parent says to his children, I hope and pray that you may always be united; by all the sacredness of my memory, I charge you to love one another.' In after-life, they dwell in the same neighborhood; they are often in each other's company; they converse much together. They differ necessarily about many things; about their farming, the politics of the country, the bringing up of their children; about the Temperance question perhaps, the Anti-slavery question, and many others. They do not regard these differences as unimportant; they even go so far, it may be, as to think that the prudence of life, the prosperity of business, the welfare of the country, is involved in them; but they all revere their father's memory, and they are all united in love. Is not their father's hope, and prayer, fulfilled? Is not this a good and happy union? Is it not the only union possible? Suppose, moreover, that their father had left them a will; and that they differed about the construction of the instrument. As human passions ordinarily display themselves, this difference would breed a violent quarrel. But suppose that the last clause in that will had been an earnest prayer, that they might be united in brotherly love; and that bowing before that last, solemn and touching petition, they had said, We will love one another, however we differ.' Would not that have been the fulfilment of the prayer? Would it not, we repeat, have been the only fulfilment possible?

But now to continue the comparison, and to introduce the only objection to our view of union that occurs to us, -'there are cases,' it may be said, 'where a certain construction of the will in question would evidently proceed from a bad, selfish, avaricious heart.' It is true. now we ask, can this be applied to the construction of Christianity? Bad passions may have influence in individ

And